# USN cruiser to shoot down satellite



## CougarKing (14 Feb 2008)

...with SM-3s?  Whoa...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23166344/



> *Pentagon to shoot down broken spy satellite
> Plan is to fire missiles from U.S. Navy cruiser before it hits Earth*
> 
> MSNBC News Services
> ...


----------



## stegner (14 Feb 2008)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080214/pentagon_satellite_080214/20080214?hub=TopStories



> U.S. to aim missile at broken spy satellite
> 
> Updated Thu. Feb. 14 2008 3:32 PM ET
> 
> ...




A question- Does the Canadian Navy have these same standard missiles on its destroyers?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Feb 2008)

Why is it suddenly a mater of urgency to shoot down a malfunctioning spy satellite?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mystery-of-the-toxic-satellite-783390.html?service=Print



> *Mystery of the toxic satellite*
> 
> The US plans to shoot it down, but is it telling the truth about health risks?
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (18 Feb 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Why is it suddenly a mater of urgency to shoot down a malfunctioning spy satellite?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mystery-of-the-toxic-satellite-783390.html?service=Print



This is a big one and the US is afraid that some of it could end up in the wrong hands.  It's not a GPS satelite or anything as pedestrian as that.  Secrets, secrets, secrets...


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Feb 2008)

DUCK!!!


US declares 1400-mile Pacific sat-shoot exclusion zone

The US military has issued a warning notice barring flights above a large area of the northern Pacific for two and a half hours early on Thursday morning. The stricken spy satellite marked for destruction by US warships will pass over the taped-off area just at this time, indicating that the first shot will take place then.

The NOTAM (NOTice To AirMen) warning reads:

02/062 (A0038/08) - AIRSPACE CARF NR. 90 ON EVELYN STATIONARY RESERVATION WITHIN AN AREA BNDD BY 3145N 17012W 2824N 16642W 2352N 16317W 1909N 16129W 1241N 16129W 1239N 16532W 1842N 17057W 2031N 17230W 2703N 17206W SFC-UNL. 21 FEB 02:30 2008 UNTIL 21 FEB 05:00 2008. CREATED: 18 FEB 12:51 2008
A "CARF" (Central Altitude Reservation Function) designation indicates a NOTAM intended to keep commercial and private flights clear of military operations, and SFC-UNL means the height band of this warning zone reaches from the surface to "unlimited" altitude - in other words all the way into space. The UTC time referred to is the same as UK time, so the zone exists from 0230 to 0500 on Thursday morning for British readers.

As will be evident, the barred area is a cool 1,400 miles long and nearly 700 miles wide at the surface, giving the US Navy plenty of elbow room to fire their interceptor missiles up into the descending spacecraft's path.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/19/sat_shoot_notam_airspace_warning_declared/


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Feb 2008)

The weather isnt optimum so it may be delayed a day.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/19/sat_shoot_notam_airspace_warning_declared/

The US military has issued a warning notice barring flights above a large area of the northern Pacific for two and a half hours early on Thursday morning. The stricken spy satellite marked for destruction by US warships will pass over the taped-off area just at this time, indicating that the first shot will take place then.

The NOTAM (NOTice To AirMen) warning reads:
02/062 (A0038/08) - AIRSPACE CARF NR. 90 ON EVELYN STATIONARY RESERVATION WITHIN AN AREA BNDD BY 3145N 17012W 2824N 16642W 2352N 16317W 1909N 16129W 1241N 16129W 1239N 16532W 1842N 17057W 2031N 17230W 2703N 17206W SFC-UNL. 21 FEB 02:30 2008 UNTIL 21 FEB 05:00 2008. CREATED: 18 FEB 12:51 2008

A "CARF" (Central Altitude Reservation Function) designation indicates a NOTAM intended to keep commercial and private flights clear of military operations, and SFC-UNL means the height band of this warning zone reaches from the surface to "unlimited" altitude - in other words all the way into space. The UTC time referred to is the same as UK time, so the zone exists from 0230 to 0500 on Thursday morning for British readers.

The latitudes and longitudes can be plotted with the crippled spy sat's ground track overlaid, which has been done by satellite watcher Ted Molczan in handy pdf form here. Those running Google Earth can get a better look using this kmz file, compiled by Molczan's fellow sky-watcher Alan Clegg from the pdf.

As will be evident, the barred area is a cool 1,400 miles long and nearly 700 miles wide at the surface, giving the US Navy plenty of elbow room to fire their interceptor missiles up into the descending spacecraft's path.

Reports have it that three US Aegis air-defence warships, the cruiser Lake Erie and the destroyers Decatur and Russell, will be waiting for the satellite west of Hawaii. Each ship carries a specially modified Standard SM-3 interceptor, originally intended for defence against lower-flying ballistic missile warheads. The three interceptors are on separate ships in case of a technical issue with the Aegis radar and fire-control system.

As it passes over the firing area, the satellite will be approximately 3,000 miles and ten minutes out from the western coast of Canada, the next land it will pass over. The satellite has much more mass than the soaring "exo-atmospheric kill vehicle" it will smack into, so this gives some idea of the onward track the wreckage might follow in the event of a hit.

The Pentagon believes most of the resulting debris from a successful shot will burn up soon afterwards, and almost all should be gone within "two orbits". Boosters and other gubbins from the interceptors will presumably fall within the ocean NOTAM area.

The firing area seems to have been chosen so as to minimise the chances of debris falling anywhere other than in the ocean or North America, which could lend credence to the idea that the intercept is primarily aimed at safeguarding the satellite's technology


----------



## stegner (20 Feb 2008)

> This is a big one and the US is afraid that some of it could end up in the wrong hands.  It's not a GPS satelite or anything as pedestrian as that.  Secrets, secrets, secrets...



Maybe but I think this might be the larger concern:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080219/navy_satellite_080220/20080220?hub=TopStories



> RCMP says 25% risk U.S. satellite will hit Canada
> 
> Updated Wed. Feb. 20 2008 10:10 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Feb 2008)

Article Link

RCMP says 25% risk U.S. satellite will hit Canada
Updated Wed. Feb. 20 2008 10:35 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

RCMP officials believe there is a 25 per cent chance an out-of-control satellite will hit Canada and release toxic rocket fuel, unless the U.S. military can shoot it down, CTV News has learned. 

"Currently, there is a 25 per cent chance the satellite will impact on Canadians soil," says an internal RCMP memo. "If it does hit Canadian soil, the debris field 'could' be up to 600 miles radius. If it does not hit Canadian soil, we still may receive some debris." 

The bus-sized satellite -- known as US 193 -- became uncontrollable soon after its December 2006 launch, when its central computer failed and it lost power. It's estimated to be carrying up to 450 kilograms of hazardous fuel called hydrazine, encased in a titanium tank. 

"The tank is likely to survive the entry and break up upon impact, releasing the toxic hydrazine," the memo warns. 

The document also suggests the satellite would "make an uncontrolled re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere on or about March 6, 2008," but warned it was still too difficult to determine where exactly it might hit. 

"We will get only a rough satellite entry point. The impact area can only be determined approximately two hours prior to impact," says the document. 

A Pentagon official told CNN that a U.S. navy ship in the Pacific is taking aim at the satellite as it passes by 240 kilometres above the Earth.

Over the next 10 days, the USS Lake Erie will have a 10-second window each night to fire at the satellite with its two SM-3 missiles, destroying it with pure kinetic force rather than explosive power. 

The first opportunity was Wednesday at 10:30 p.m. ET, but the Pentagon said it was doubtful the cruiser would be able to fire because of turbulent waters.

"We don't anticipate the weather being good enough today," said the officer. 

However, he added that conditions could improve enough in the hours ahead to permit it to go forward. 

A final decision on whether to proceed will be made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. 

According to the RCMP document, U.S. officials notified the Canadian government on Feb. 14 that it had authorized the Pentagon to shoot down the satellite. 

The U.S. government has also said that, if necessary, it will work with Canada for "consequence management and payload recovery operations." 

Last year, China conducted an anti-satellite test by shooting one of its old weather satellites still in orbit. That left a lot of debris, which could continue to orbit earth for years to come. 

At the time, the U.S. condemned the Chinese action. 

With files from The Associated Pres


----------



## CrazyCanuck (20 Feb 2008)

And it's down...
Well at least according to CNN's website, they just took the shot and succeeded.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Feb 2008)

Article Link

U.S. military shoots out-of-control spy satellite
Updated Wed. Feb. 20 2008 10:52 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The U.S. military said late Wednesday it had successfully fired a missile at an out-of-control satellite, in a move to prevent a tank of hazardous fuel from hitting the Earth. 

RCMP officials believed there was a 25 per cent chance the satellite would strike Canada if the U.S. failed to shoot it down.

"Currently, there is a 25 per cent chance the satellite will impact on Canadians soil," says an internal RCMP memo. "If it does hit Canadian soil, the debris field 'could' be up to 600 miles radius. If it does not hit Canadian soil, we still may receive some debris." 

The bus-sized satellite -- known as US 193 -- became uncontrollable soon after its December 2006 launch, when its central computer failed and it lost power. It was estimated to be carrying up to 450 kilograms of hazardous fuel called hydrazine, encased in a titanium tank. 

"The tank is likely to survive the entry and break up upon impact, releasing the toxic hydrazine," the memo warns. 

A U.S. navy ship in the Pacific took aim at the satellite as it passed by 240 kilometres above the Earth. 

The USS Lake Erie only had a 10-second window to fire its two SM-3 missiles, destroying the satellite with pure kinetic force rather than explosive power. 

Officials said the cruiser managed to hit the satellite on its first attempt, at 10:30 p.m. ET, despite possibly being in turbulent waters. 

According to the RCMP document, U.S. officials notified the Canadian government on Feb. 14 that it had authorized the Pentagon to shoot down the satellite. 

The U.S. government had also said that, if necessary, it would work with Canada for "consequence management and payload recovery operations." 

Last year, China conducted an anti-satellite test by shooting one of its old weather satellites still in orbit. That left a lot of debris, which could continue to orbit earth for years to come. 

At the time, the U.S. condemned the Chinese action. 

With files from The Associated Press


----------



## CougarKing (21 Feb 2008)

Good job! Kudos to the crew of the cruiser USS _Lake Erie_!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (21 Feb 2008)

Article Link


U.S. missile hits dead satellite
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 | 11:31 PM ET 
CBC News 
The U.S. Navy shot down a defective spy satellite over the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday night, but it was too soon to say whether the tank of toxic fuel on board was destroyed.

The navy fired a missile at the satellite, striking it as it travelled 247 kilometres above the Pacific Ocean at a speed of 27,000 km/h, the U.S. Defence Department said in a news release.

A missile is launched from the USS Lake Erie in December.
(U.S. Navy/Associated Press) One of the main goals of the U.S. mission was to rupture the satellite's fuel tank, which contained 453 kilograms of hydrazine, a hazardous material that could pose a danger to humans. The navy wanted the fuel to escape the tank and dissipate before entering the earth's atmosphere.

"Confirmation that the fuel tank has been fragmented should be available within 24 hours," the Defence Department said in its release.

The SM-3 missile was launched from the USS Lake Erie, a warship that was designed to launch missiles at incoming enemy missiles.

Because the satellite was relatively close to the Earth's surface when it was hit, debris was expected to begin entering the Earth's atmosphere almost immediately, the Defence Department said. It did not say where the debris was expected to fall.

"Nearly all of the debris will burn up on re-entry within 24-48 hours, and the remaining debris should re-enter within 40 days," the department said.

The U.S. government has a hazardous material team, known by the code name Burnt Frost, that will fly to any site where dangerous or sensitive debris might land, even if it's outside the United States.

The operation was considered so extraordinary that Defence Secretary Robert Gates was to make the final decision to pull the trigger on the missile. A military commander would usually make such a decision.

With files from the Associated Press


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Feb 2008)

Good shooting lads!


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Feb 2008)

Video:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=71c_1203596547


----------



## Mike Baker (21 Feb 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Good job! Kudos to the crew of the cruiser USS _Lake Erie_!


+1.


----------



## georgeharper (21 Feb 2008)

Funny how when the Chinese shot down a satellite last year the Americans and Americas yes man in Canada Harper were outraged and demanded to be given all the info regarding space debris.
Now the Chinese are asking for all info into this outer space target practice (which is all it really was) and the Americans are telling the Chinese to go to hell.Its confidential info


----------



## Mike Baker (21 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Funny how when the Chinese shot down a satellite last year the Americans and Americas yes man in Canada Harper were outraged and demanded to be given all the info regarding space debris.
> Now the Chinese are asking for all info into this outer space target practice (which is all it really was) and the Americans are telling the Chinese to go to hell.Its confidential info


The Chinese shot down a weather satellite, whereas the U.S. shot down a spy satellite. Little bit of a difference :


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Funny how when the Chinese shot down a satellite last year the Americans and Americas yes man in Canada Harper were outraged and demanded to be given all the info regarding space debris.
> Now the Chinese are asking for all info into this outer space target practice (which is all it really was) and the Americans are telling the Chinese to go to hell.Its confidential info



Obviously it's another US conspiracy, part of their plan to dominate the world.  You'd better go off-line and hide in your bunker before Carnivore tracks you down and the black helicopters arrive in your yard.    :


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Feb 2008)

> and the Americans are telling the Chinese to go to hell.Its confidential info



What a freakin winner you are....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080221/D8UV0G480.html



> "China is continuously following closely the possible harm caused by the U.S. action to outer space security and relevant countries," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said at news conference in Beijing. "China requests the U.S. to fulfill its international obligations in real earnest and provide to the international community necessary information and relevant data in a timely and prompt way so that relevant countries can take precautions."
> 
> Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. would share information.
> 
> *"We provided a lot of information ... before it took place," Gates told reporters traveling with him Hawaii. But he also said that he's determined to be open about the U.S. operation and "we are prepared to share whatever appropriately we can.*"


----------



## GAP (21 Feb 2008)

Where do you guys find these flunkies.....real people don't really believe that shit do they?  :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Feb 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Where do you guys find these flunkies.....real people don't really believe that shit do they?  :



They find us unfortunately...although they tend not to last thank gawd.


----------



## Privateer (22 Feb 2008)

I recall reading articles from a while back about an effort by the USN to convince government that the land-based system of interceptor missiles (for strategic missile defence) was unnecessary, as the Navy could do the job.  Perhaps one factor in this OP was a desire to test that capability?


----------



## Flanker (23 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> This is a big one and the US is afraid that some of it could end up in the wrong hands.  It's not a GPS satelite or anything as pedestrian as that.  Secrets, secrets, secrets...



I doubt it.
Any spy satellite has built-in self-destruction mechanisms that are invoked automatically when the launch or mission goes wrong.
Pentagon has recently confirmed this.
The "toxic fuel" hypothesis is also ridiculous as its amount is really small and there have been tens and hudreds of incidents involving launchers and ships using this kind fuel in the past.

So, the only hypothesis left is that U.S. forces want to try its anti-satellite weapon.
It is possible that the "broken" satellite isn't broken at all. It was just a target from the beginning.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Feb 2008)

Flanker, since this satellitte malfunctioned on launch in that contact was lost with it, it would seem possible that the self-destruct mechanism did not work. This negates part, but not all, of your argument. However, a large bit of space junk loaded with highly classified 'stuff' and carrying toxic fuel may well have provided an opportunity for a cover story for an unplanned weapons test. There are too many unanswered questions to state yes or no with any degree of certainty. 

Watch and see what the tin foil hat brigade make of this.


----------



## Flanker (23 Feb 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Flanker, since this satellitte malfunctioned on launch in that contact was lost with it, it would seem possible that the self-destruct mechanism did not work. This negates part, but not all, of your argument.



Self-destruct systems are autonomous and extremely reliable and they don`t need power nor communications with soil to work properly.
Pentagon is sure about that.
The US government has also denied claims that the main aim of the operation was to destroy secret components on USA 193. 
Officials say classified parts would be burned up in the atmosphere and, in any case, that would not be a reason for shooting down the satellite.  
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7254540.stm

As for other flying debris that might serve as a target, you are right there are a lot of them. However, not all have the required orbits geometry, inclinations, sizes, IR visibility etc. 

Do you remember the Columbia shuttle? 
It had the same kind of fuel aboard while reentering.
Surprisingly, no concern was expressed.


----------



## Flip (23 Feb 2008)

> So, the only hypothesis left is that U.S. forces want to try its anti-satellite weapon.



So what? The Chinese recently shot down one of their satellites.
It's ok if the "bad guys" do it but it's not ok if Uncle Sam does it?


----------



## Flanker (23 Feb 2008)

Nothing. It is a game.
It is just funny to see how US accused China of space arm escalation etc.
Then, several weeks later, they do just exactly the same thing.


----------



## Mike Baker (23 Feb 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Then, *several weeks later*


You mean more like a year, and then some, right?


----------



## Flanker (23 Feb 2008)

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> You mean more like a year, and then some, right?


Exactly.


----------



## NCRCrow (23 Feb 2008)

Send up Clint Eastwood & Tommy Lee Jones like in the movie Space Cowboys to disable the satellite!

send the Algonquin in she could take her..Birds affirm..Birds away..!


----------



## CrazyCanuck (23 Feb 2008)

No matter what the motivation; it was still a good excuse to test their Missile Defence capabilities. Whether or not it was intentional or handed to them on a silver platter is besides the point.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Feb 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Nothing. It is a game.
> It is just funny to see how US accused China of space arm escalation etc.
> Then, several weeks later, they do just exactly the same thing.



I am so happy you like to see potential adversaries have the same capability that we have. Well done!



> Do you remember the Columbia shuttle?
> It had the same kind of fuel aboard while reentering.
> Surprisingly, no concern was expressed.



I think people were showing more compassion at the death of 7 astronauts.



> So, the only hypothesis left is that U.S. forces want to try its anti-satellite weapon.
> It is possible that the "broken" satellite isn't broken at all. It was just a target from the beginning.



You do know the primary role pf the SM3 Standard is _not_ an anti satelite missile but that of anti missile defence right?

Flanker here is just the site for you:
http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/index.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Feb 2008)

The shot did tend to prove that ABM works shutting up some of the critics and reassuring others.


----------



## Ender Wiggen (23 Feb 2008)

With regards to American Hypocrisy:
 The satellite the Chinese blew up was still in high orbit, meaning the resultant debris field is still a hazard to all other satellites in orbit. Whereas the American Satellite was in a decaying orbit, which means all debris created by the blast are not in a position to harm other traffic and will burn up relatively faster.


----------



## DBA (24 Feb 2008)

Also the Chinese did it without any warning and were not very forthcoming about details afterwords. The US informed the world well ahead of time and even released footage of the intercept.

While using some of the same Technology as NMD (National Missile Defence) the weapon used in the intercept is from a different system used for theatre defense and intercepts ballistic missiles during the terminal stage after they reenter the atmosphere. The NMD system intercepts in space well above the atmosphere.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2008)

The technology is now in general service on US ships as well as Japanese Self Defence Force ships. (Oddly, Senator Obama says he will cancell "unproven missile defense technology" if elected. I suppose he means new technologies other than land and sea based interceptor missiles  >)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_re_us/missile_defense_test



> *Military shoots down missile in test off Hawaii *
> By AUDREY McAVOY, Associated Press Writer
> Fri Jun 6, 4:19 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## stegner (10 Jun 2008)

I would say this is a proven missile defence technology no?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (10 Jun 2008)

True, but it's not surprising. US missile defence systems have been capable of this since the early 1960's.


----------



## stegner (10 Jun 2008)

Cool.  Does Canada have the capability to do this?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (10 Jun 2008)

No. I suppose it would be possible to refit a TRUMP to fire SM-3/PAC-3 but that would be pretty expensive and they'd need another ship to carry the targetting equipment. 

Maybe with DRP.


----------



## GAP (10 Jun 2008)

This whole scenario was difficult enough for the US to do, let alone Canada....


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2008)

If this goes through (and it seems it will), then the vast economies of scale will bring ABM defense into the mainstream. The most interesting development is the one liner of Israel asking for a land based version: if they can ask for it, then so can many others (Tiawan, Ukraine, Iraq, South Korea, Japan....). I suspect this is not the system being touted to the Eastern European nations right now, but it certainly would be an interesting complimentary system, and the ability to use Ageis cruisers to move ABMs to high threat areas only makes the attackers job more difficult:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200881623433.asp



> *Aegis Triumphant*
> by James Dunnigan
> August 16, 2008
> 
> ...



Although staggeringly expensive, maybe we should consider "joining the team".


----------



## stegner (18 Aug 2008)

> Although staggeringly expensive, maybe we should consider "joining the team".



Indeed.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Aug 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Although staggeringly expensive, maybe we should consider "joining the team".



Why ?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Why ?



Nations as varied as Iran, China, and North Korea have been developing or expanding ballistic missile technology which can be used to "deny entry" of forces into regions they contest. Canadian ships operate in the Arabian sea, within range of Iranian missiles (and perhaps Pakistani ones as well), so a certain amount of prudence is nesessary. As well, since we operate with US and multi national task forces, having that ability makes our ships that much more valuable to the TF.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Aug 2008)

Not an expert but I dont see the Aegis working with current Canadian warships without extensive modifications to the superstructure.If a new destroyer is being planned it would be easier to include the Aegis in the new design.I suppose you could fit the SM-3 but without access to Aegis its not going to do much good. Canadian ships are not going to be ballistic missile targets anyway. Perhaps purchasing the new THAAD might be more prudent,but with the current budget constraints the money would be best spent elsewhere.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/thaad/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/thaad/index.html


----------



## geo (19 Aug 2008)

Aegis as an afterthought is a bad idea.
Plan ahead, build it into the plans......

It's like someone deciding to hack off the roof of his car cause he suddenly wants a convertible... it changes everything & it usually won't work (very well)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Aug 2008)

Just as long know one suggests that mounting it on the JSS is feasible..... :


----------



## hugh19 (19 Aug 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Just as long know one suggests that mounting it on the JSS is feasible..... :




Sarcasm on....  But why not????? ......Sarcasm off


----------



## armyca08 (21 Aug 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> This is a big one and the US is afraid that some of it could end up in the wrong hands.  It's not a GPS satelite or anything as pedestrian as that.  Secrets, secrets, secrets...



What if obama wins, maybe bush isn't interested in Obama having a two year old spy satalite at his disposal.. maybe not. You'd think they'd be able to fix it or something. 

Maybe it is all a front and the cloaking system is set to engage after the missles are launched to add the ultimate red herring.


----------



## Jack O. (21 Aug 2008)

You are aware the missile was launched and the satellite was destroyed? As far as I know, no cloaking device activated, and I seriously doubt President Bush wanted the satellite downed to "Keep it from Obama".


----------



## armyca08 (21 Aug 2008)

Captain Taggart said:
			
		

> You are aware the missile was launched and the satellite was destroyed? As far as I know, no cloaking device activated, and I seriously doubt President Bush wanted the satellite downed to "Keep it from Obama".




Yah you are probably right. Perhaps it was put up as target practice to insure that Iran's new satalites can be shot down effectively?

Pretty straight forward otherwise. You'd think they'd make satalites to work, and like test them before launch. Also the capacity to imploy space robots to fix the things might be a good investment.. if they can shoot a missle up there they should be able to drop off a space robot designed to fix the thing.


With a budget of over 17 Billion you'd think NASA could pull it off.. I'd make space robots before even thinking of a manned mission to mars.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Aug 2008)

army08 said:
			
		

> *Yah you are probably right. Perhaps it was put up as target practice to insure that Iran's new satalites can be shot down effectively?*
> 
> Pretty straight forward otherwise. You'd think they'd make satalites to work, and like test them before launch. Also the capacity to imploy space robots to fix the things might be a good investment.. if they can shoot a missle up there they should be able to drop off a space robot designed to fix the thing.
> 
> ...



You did read the first page where it was a no longer functioning US spy satellite right?

have you ever seen the stresses any sort of rocket or missile undergoes during launch and flight?

At 17b NASA seems to have truble breaking even....what does that tell you?



> Maybe it is all a front and the cloaking system is set to engage after the missles are launched to add the ultimate red herring.


ummm ok....maybe you need stronger medication...


----------

