Pentagon to Shoot down Spy Sat

On Feb 23, 11:13 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
Don't forget the fact that the hydrazine has stored chemical energy in
it. So if it underwent combustion or explosion due to the impact it
could add velocity to fragments of its tank as they were driven away
from it; and they think it did burn on impact:http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-02-21-voa19.cfm

Any burning of the hydrazine happened on a time scale that was orders
of magnitude longer than the actual impact event. By the time the
hydrazine would have released any chemical energy, any fast fragments
would be too far away for the reaction to contribute to their
velocity.

No, no, no.
The hydrazine was frozen on impact, and would have had a shockwave of
around Mach 30 going through it due to the impact speed of the satellite
and KKV going through it.
That will indeed cause it to decompose almost instantly and release all
of of its chemical energy.
It ranks right up there with the old concept of "how much nitroglycerin
you need to detonate under a object to achieve escape velocity?"

While it is theoretically possible for *detonation* of the hydrazine
to contribute to accelerating fragments, pure hydrazine is not
detonable. I know this because I've tired:

http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp200...t.asp?PDFFile=...

I want to hear the details of how you slammed a Mach 30 concussion wave
into hydrazine sometime.
That's far higher velocity than the shockwave would propagate in
nitroglycerin at anything lower than the density one would find deep in
the atmosphere and pressures of Jupiter.

Pat

Obviously, you are 100% correct. That much bump in the night will
turn almost anything into explosive vapor/matter.
.. - Brad Guth

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

That's the explanation that makes the most sense to me, as the
interceptor doesn't require much in the way of horizontal velocity to
do it's job. Also keep in mind that these kinds of safe zones tend to
have a healthy error margin built into them, leading to the zone being
much larger than actually required.


Actually it wouldn't need any horizontal velocity; just shoot it
straight up and let the satellite run into it at over 17,000 mph.

sorry for the late reply, had to go out of town to a family funeral.

It'll need just a touch - both for range safety purposes (not dropping
spent stages on the launching ship) and to fine tune the intercept
point (which reduces the need for a precise launch time).

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

John wrote:

I recall at least one incident when the Poseidon SLBM was being
tested, that a then-Soviet trawler, got into a race with some USN
folks to recover pieces of a foam cap that apparently covered the
missile after the missile outer tube hatch was opened.

BTW - if anyone knows more about that . . . and perhaps could explain
how that foam worked, that would be great. My guess is that the tube
was pressurized with a quantity of high pressure air to equalize the
pressure on either side of the cap.

The insulating [foam] cap is attached to the top of the tube and
protects the missile from sea temperatures during normal cruising.
Sea temps can be anything from Very Cold (up North) to Pretty Warm
(down South) - not having some insulation make keeping the bird at a
stable temp pretty difficult.

Yes, the tube is pressurized prelaunch - and when the hatch opens the
foam closure keeps the missile dry until launch. When the missile
launches, the foam is explosively cut into segments and then simply
pushed aside by the departing missile.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Feb 21, 11:53*pm, David Lesher wrote:
Eric Chomko writes:
My point was we don't know much of anything beyond the press
statements. And they are always 100% factual. Remember the ones about the
missing NASA U-2 recon flight; the one piloted by Gary Powers?
You mean CIA.

You might want to read up on the incident; you're missing an important
aspect of it......[I did mean what I said...]

Are you claiming that NASA is in the spying business?


It's a black project, this was an enormously expensive FUBAR, and
it's not unreasonable to assume there's lots of CYA diversions, and
fingerpointing in all three dimensions.

But since its classified they have a very convenient excuse for
telling you, me and the press diddly-squat about the whole thing. NASA
can't do that as they don't do black projects.
So before you start feeling ovely sorry for the CIA and CYA consider
classification and how that effects negative PR.

The Agency has zero to do with this whole project. So I'm not sure what you
are talking about.

You mean that the NRO who owns the ill-fated satellite has nothing to
do with the CIA? So all that hoopala several years ago in the
Washington Post where the NRO was connected to the CIA was a bunch of
hooie? Including the part where the CIA got ticked off for nothing.
That part?!

You have a 301 area code, you trying to play coy with me?


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Feb 22, 12:04*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 21, 8:53 pm, David Lesher wrote:





Eric Chomko writes:
My point was we don't know much of anything beyond the press
statements. And they are always 100% factual. Remember the ones about the
missing NASA U-2 recon flight; the one piloted by Gary Powers?
You mean CIA.

You might want to read up on the incident; you're missing an important
aspect of it......[I did mean what I said...]

It's a black project, this was an enormously expensive FUBAR, and
it's not unreasonable to assume there's lots of CYA diversions, and
fingerpointing in all three dimensions.

But since its classified they have a very convenient excuse for
telling you, me and the press diddly-squat about the whole thing. NASA
can't do that as they don't do black projects.
So before you start feeling ovely sorry for the CIA and CYA consider
classification and how that effects negative PR.

The Agency has zero to do with this whole project. So I'm not sure what you
are talking about.

Why of course you silly folks don't know a gosh darn thing, for that
matter about much of anything, especially of anything that could
possibly rock a DoD/MI5/CIA boat. (perhaps Jews can't swim)
. - Brad Guth-

Brad the Spook, chimes in with the perfect response.

Eric Chomko wrote:
You mean that the NRO who owns the ill-fated satellite has nothing to
do with the CIA? So all that hoopala several years ago in the
Washington Post where the NRO was connected to the CIA was a bunch of
hooie? Including the part where the CIA got ticked off for nothing.
That part?!

I fear that I might be getting involved in a conspiracy thread, but let me try
injecting a fact:

www.nro.gov - About Us - Overview, Vision & Mission

A DoD agency, the NRO is staffed by DoD and CIA personnel. It is
funded through the National Reconnaissance Program, part of the
National Foreign Intelligence Program.

it would seem to me that "staffed by" would imply "connected" I hope the
NRO's own web site is authorative enough for the skeptics on this group

On Feb 28, 6:33*pm, Glen Overby wrote:
Eric Chomko *wrote:
You mean that the NRO who owns the ill-fated satellite has nothing to
do with the CIA? So all that hoopala several years ago in the
Washington Post where the NRO was connected to the CIA was a bunch of
hooie? Including the part where the CIA got ticked off for nothing.
That part?!

I fear that I might be getting involved in a conspiracy thread, but let me try
injecting a fact:

www.nro.gov- About Us - Overview, Vision & Mission

* * * * A DoD agency, the NRO is staffed by DoD and CIA personnel. It is
* * * * funded through the National Reconnaissance Program, part of the
* * * * National Foreign Intelligence Program.

Get a list of lobbyists and their backers to the NFIP and you'll learn
a whole lot about who really runs things in Washington.


it would seem to me that "staffed by" would imply "connected" I hope the
NRO's own web site is authorative enough for the skeptics on this group

DOD agency? Gee, just when you thought you could understand the DOD by
saying, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, the NRO comes
along. Is the NRO part of one of the above or are they added in at the
same level? Are they like the DIA in that regard, not really part of
any of the branches of the service but part of all of them, or are
they more Air Force?

On Feb 29, 8:17 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:33 pm, Glen Overby wrote:

Eric Chomko wrote:
You mean that the NRO who owns the ill-fated satellite has nothing to
do with the CIA? So all that hoopala several years ago in the
Washington Post where the NRO was connected to the CIA was a bunch of
hooie? Including the part where the CIA got ticked off for nothing.
That part?!

I fear that I might be getting involved in a conspiracy thread, but let me try
injecting a fact:

www.nro.gov- About Us - Overview, Vision & Mission

A DoD agency, the NRO is staffed by DoD and CIA personnel. It is
funded through the National Reconnaissance Program, part of the
National Foreign Intelligence Program.

Get a list of lobbyists and their backers to the NFIP and you'll learn
a whole lot about who really runs things in Washington.



it would seem to me that "staffed by" would imply "connected" I hope the
NRO's own web site is authorative enough for the skeptics on this group

DOD agency? Gee, just when you thought you could understand the DOD by
saying, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, the NRO comes
along. Is the NRO part of one of the above or are they added in at the
same level? Are they like the DIA in that regard, not really part of
any of the branches of the service but part of all of them, or are
they more Air Force?

The US has a couple of dozen of those cloak and dagger and/or war
perpetrating agencies, most of which do not share or otherwise
communicate with one another, some of which answer to no one (just
like in their Skull and Bones good old Third Reich days).
.. - Brad Guth