Millions and millions

[sr71plt]

Who's to say that the "right" conditions weren't only for the viewing public??? There was no need for visual conformation of the hit, except to show the masses (stupid and otherwise) that it could be done. As everything that depended on the missile hitting the satellite is radar and computer calculation and IR the weather when the missile was launched is irrelevant. Although a calm sea would be nice, it's probably not necessary.

laughs. I don't see what visual confirmation has to do with any of this. The seas can be so high in the northern Pacific (and, in fact, were as late as this Monday) that a sea launch can send a missile right into the side of the ship next to you--a long time before it locks into its trajectory instructions.

 

[sr71plt]

Profanity if fucking fantastic, specially on a pr0n site.

Is there an English translation available for this?

 

[gauchecritic]

Is there an English translation available for this?

D'you mean American translation?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

...
Additional factors:

1. The satellite was the size of a school bus and just falling into the atmosphere; an incoming offensive missile may be the size of a Buick and can be powered to a much faster speed than just falling and, now, can often be guided and, thus, maneuverable, and, also now, will probably be multiheaded, sending off a dozen war heads at an unknown time to become a dozen separate targets, not just one.

2. It's quite possible that the satellite was still transmitting its telemetry in U.S. code--straight back to U.S. intercept installations (although I've seen no indication whether or not it still was); a foreign offensive missile ain't goin be emitting telemetry in U.S. code to help us track and locate it.

So, as far as connecting this to good feelings about U.S. foreign offensive missile intercept ability, it's very nice our capability was at least good enough to hit this satellite (assuming we did), but that doesn't go all that far toward knocking out an incoming offense missile attack from North Korea. But the U.S. government sure hopes its citizens get that impression.

First of all anything that achieves orbit or exits the atmosphere of Earth will need to fall back into the atmosphere just right. To fast and you burn up, to slow and you bounce off back into space. Also the warheads would not MIRV until the capsule re-enters the atmosphere as they have no heat shielding. So as long as the ballistic missile was hit prior re-entry *boom* it's history.

As for transmitting in "US Code" who cares...if it's emitting a signal it can be tracked. So who's code it's transmitting doesn't matter.

Just saying.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

laughs. I don't see what visual confirmation has to do with any of this. The seas can be so high in the northern Pacific (and, in fact, were as late as this Monday) that a sea launch can send a missile right into the side of the ship next to you--a long time before it locks into its trajectory instructions.

True but who says it has to be launched from a ship?????? LMAO

 

[sr71plt]

True but who says it has to be launched from a ship?????? LMAO

Well, it was from a ship--and much of our missile defense is set up for sea launch (probably most of it). We don't have much in the way of land mobile units like the Russians and Chinese do (and fixed silos have been an obsolete defense concept for three decades). So, what's your point, I wonder?

 

[sr71plt]

Just saying.

Sorry, but "just saying" without current knowledge of relative capabilities/designs.

 

[starrkers]

So the US managed to blow up one of its own expensive gadgets with another expensive gadget...but the sun will still rise tomorrow.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Well, it was from a ship--and much of our missile defense is set up for sea launch (probably most of it). We don't have much in the way of land mobile units like the Russians and Chinese do (and fixed silos have been an obsolete defense concept for three decades). So, what's your point, I wonder?

What's your expertise?

Sorry, but "just saying" without current knowledge of relative capabilities/designs.

And you do???? Then maybe I should inform my superiors about a security breach.

In answer to my expertise...USAF (Ret) Oh and we do have land based missile systems and/or anti-missile-missile systems. I could tell you where they are but then I'd have to kill you.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So the US managed to blow up one of its own expensive gadgets with another expensive gadget...but the sun will still rise tomorrow.

Correct...at least in some parts of the world...(see SSS thread about going into the light)

 

[only_more_so]

Navy says missile smashed wayward satellite
Military tracking debris over Atlantic, Pacific; China expresses concern

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613/

Let me see. The Military spent $120,000,000 to put that thing up there. And, of course, it didn't work because, most likely, it's construction was subcontracted to either the Chinese or, even more likely - HALABURTON. Now they have spent another $40,000,000 to shoot the fucker down.

If my arithmatic works, that cost something like $0.50 for evey man woman and child in America. For...?

I feel so unimpressed.

The satellite was not built by the Chinese and Haliburton had nothing to do with it. Hell, the Chinese probably didn't supply a single part that went into it (the government is very particular with vendors for top secret programs).

The satellite failed because of solar flare activity that occured shortly after it launched. Guess what? Sometimes things don't work, shit happens. Sure this is more expensive shit, but it happens.

Shooting the satellite down accomplished quite a few things. First it kept the technology from falling into enemy hands, second it did prevent the satellite from coming down intact and killing people, third it showed the Chinese that we could bring down satellites.

 

[sr71plt]

What's your expertise?




And you do???? Then maybe I should inform my superiors about a security breach.

In answer to my expertise...USAF (Ret) Oh and we do have land based missile systems and/or anti-missile-missile systems. I could tell you where they are but then I'd have to kill you.

I didn't say land based. I said land MOBILE missile systems. And you are into the weeds here and looking for irrelevant nits to pick.

 

[starrkers]

Correct...at least in some parts of the world...(see SSS thread about going into the light)

The sun will still rise, just because there's an obstruction between the observer and the orb doesn't alter that fact, just makes it more depressingg

 

[DesertPirate]

One of the latest and greates spy satellites had a computer fuck up ad was in a decaying orbit. The bit about the fuel was a good cover for the fact that it would not completely burn up on re-entry and there was a chance that pieces could be recovered by the Chinese or Russians. Now it has been broken up into pieces small enough to burn up. It was in a very low orbit of 130 miles and much more like a missle that a functional satellite. That was an anti-missle weapon not an asat weapon.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I didn't say land based. I said land MOBILE missile systems. And you are into the weeds here and looking for irrelevant nits to pick.

And so are you. Nit picker.

Oh and we do have land MOBILE missile launch systems. Damn, now the NSA will be looking for me. Crap.

 

[only_more_so]

And so are you. Nit picker.

Oh and we do have land MOBILE missile launch systems. Damn, now the NSA will be looking for me. Crap.

Naw... They'll send the FBI who'll find kiddie porn on your computer. Shame on you!

 

[sr71plt]

And so are you. Nit picker.

Oh and we do have land MOBILE missile launch systems. Damn, now the NSA will be looking for me. Crap.

I said that most of our mobile systems were sea based--which was relevant to the point being discussed--and then you slid off from there. And we don't have mobile land systems anywhere close to the extent that either the Russians and Chinese always have had them.

And if you think the NSA has much to do with this, you must have been an auto mechanic in the USAF.

But let's stop beating this to death; it doesn't have much to do with the thread anymore.

 

[gauchecritic]

But let's stop beating this to death; it doesn't have much to do with the thread anymore.

That's the good thing about conversation, it moves around of its own free will. From quarks to space ships and from ignominy to infamy.

 

[sr71plt]

That's the good thing about conversation, it moves around of its own free will. From quarks to space ships and from ignominy to infamy.

Yeah, I sort of noticed your postings didn't follow the thread too well.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Why would anyone follow the topic of a thread beyond the second or third post? Is this a new rule or something?

 

[DesertPirate]

Why would anyone follow the topic of a thread beyond the second or third post? Is this a new rule or something?

I admit it is a novel idea

 

[Stella_Omega]

I admit it is a novel idea

It'll never catch on.

 

[NoJo]

It'll never catch on.

Mine's yellow, BTW

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I said that most of our mobile systems were sea based--which was relevant to the point being discussed--and then you slid off from there. And we don't have mobile land systems anywhere close to the extent that either the Russians and Chinese always have had them.

And if you think the NSA has much to do with this, you must have been an auto mechanic in the USAF.

But let's stop beating this to death; it doesn't have much to do with the thread anymore.

There you go again picking nits...

And all I said was "who said it had to be launched from a ship?".