Pentagon to shoot down satellite -- safety measure or weapons test?

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Another reason to shoot it down is to make it so another country can’t use the technology.
[/QUOTE]

After falling through the atmosphere and crash-landing, would there be enough left of it to study?

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
After falling through the atmosphere and crash-landing, would there be enough left of it to study?
[/QUOTE]

At the press conference, they asked about the intelligence and technological ramifications concerning letting it “fall into someone else’s hands”. The spokesman denied it, but I think something could get gleaned. It’s practically brand new. That’s some modern technology in that thing. It’s not like it’s Mir falling to Earth or something.

[XT]

It’s both…but I think it’s more for keeping the technology out of the wrong hands with a sprinkling of safety measures than it is to shock and awe other countries. If they don’t realize by now that we COULD shoot down satellites if we chose to then they haven’t been paying attention. I seriously doubt there are many nations out there who think that China has more capability than the US does in space.

-XT

[masterofnone]

Wouldn’t the fuel burn up on re-entry?

[Santo_Rugger]

[QUOTE=Sailboat]
According to the US Government, it is.

The rationale being something like “satellite inspections and early warning are the best protection against accidental nuclear war; we want to avoid making satellites military targets and deter experimentation with ASAT systems in general.”

Sailboat
[/QUOTE]

Am I missing something, or is there no fundamental difference between what the Chinese did and “we” said was bad, and what “we” are doing? Seems a lot like “do as I say”, to me.

[XT]

AFAIK there was no danger of the Chinese satellite falling back to earth and posing a danger. Which meant that them blowing it apart with a rocket was simply a stunt to show they CAN do that.

-XT

[Sailboat]

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
Am I missing something, or is there no fundamental difference between what the Chinese did and “we” said was bad, and what “we” are doing? Seems a lot like “do as I say”, to me.
[/QUOTE]

Not a new thing. Look at our policy toward Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

[Sailboat]

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
Am I missing something, or is there no fundamental difference between what the Chinese did and “we” said was bad, and what “we” are doing? Seems a lot like “do as I say”, to me.
[/QUOTE]

Not a new thing. Look at our policy toward Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Sailboat

[mlees]

Hmm, I just had dejavu.

[elucidator]

Hmm, I just had dejavu.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

Not a new thing. Look at our policy toward Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

[XT]

AFAIK there was no danger of the Chinese satellite falling back to earth and posing a danger. Which meant that them blowing it apart with a rocket was simply a stunt to show they CAN do that.

-XT

-XT

-XT

-XT

…

[Tristan]

[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Not a new thing. Look at our policy toward Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Sailboat
[/QUOTE]

True, that’s exactly the same. We are often quoted in the newspapers as saying we want another foreign country wiped off the face of the map.

/hijack
Yeah, it’s probably both. But from what I’ve read, the intention is to hit it such that the breakup will almost all burn up on re-entry (unlike the Chinese test, which resulted in all that fabulous space junk).

[Troy_McClure_SF]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Hmm, I just had dejavu.
[/QUOTE]

You know what else we could shoot it down with…

[Squink]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
AFAIK there was no danger of the Chinese satellite falling back to earth and posing a danger. Which meant that them blowing it apart with a rocket was simply a stunt to show they CAN do that.
[/QUOTE]
A stunt? Seems more like a proof of concept test to me.
If what we’re doing isn’t a political stunt, it’s likely also a proof of concept test.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Squink]
A stunt? Seems more like a proof of concept test to me.
[/QUOTE]

Proof of concept=stunt IMHO. There was no need for the Chinese to blow apart their satellite except to A) demonstrate they could and B) test the technology.

Which is a stunt in my book.

[QUOTE=Squink]
If what we’re doing isn’t a political stunt, it’s likely also a proof of concept test.
[/QUOTE]

I’m pretty certain we already know we can do it. What we are doing is making sure it doesn’t fall on someone’s head (and more importantly doesn’t give someone our sooper sekrit squirrel technology).

-XT

[Squink]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I’m pretty certain we already know we can do it.
[/QUOTE]

The plan is to fire a modified SM-3 interceptor at the satellite, “just prior to it hitting the Earth’s atmosphere,” Cartwright said.

It’s not like modifying a missile to accomplish a new task is rocket science anymore, is it?

Maybe it’s only as hard installing and running Vista. Anyone can do that right the first time.

[XT]

Installing Vista (and getting it to work) is MUCH more of a challenge I’m thinking…

-XT

[Xema]

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
is there no fundamental difference between what the Chinese did and “we” said was bad, and what “we” are doing? Seems a lot like “do as I say”, to me.
[/QUOTE]

The Chinese satellite destruction left thousands of pieces of debris, which will remain in orbit for a long time. If current claims are correct, this event will not do that.

[Squink]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Installing Vista (and getting it to work) is MUCH more of a challenge I’m thinking…
[/QUOTE]
That satellite’s going to be colder than a just fired ballistic missile.
RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense:

The SM-3 evolves from the proven SM-2 Block IV design. SM-3 uses the same booster and dual thrust rocket motor as the Block IV missile for the first and second stages and the same steering control section and midcourse missile guidance for maneuvering in the atmosphere. To support the extended range of an exo-atmospheric intercept, additional missile thrust is provided in a new third stage for the SM-3 missile, containing a dual pulse rocket motor for the early exo-atmospheric phase of flight and a Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) Kinetic Warhead (KW) for the intercept phase. Upon second stage separation, the first pulse burn of the Third Stage Rocket Motor (TSRM) provides the axial thrust to maintain the missile’s trajectory into the exo-atmosphere. Upon entering the exo-atmosphere, the third stage coasts. The TSRM’s attitude control system maneuvers the third stage to eject the nosecone, exposing the KW’s Infrared (IR) seeker. If the third stage requires a course correction for an intercept, the rocket motor begins the second pulse burn. Upon completion of the second pulse burn, the IR seeker is calibrated and the KW ejects. The KW possesses its own attitude control system and guidance commands are acted upon by a solid divert propulsion system. The IR seeker acquires the target. Tracking information is continuously transmitted to the guidance assembly which controls the divert propulsion system.