1969912 0 #26 February 17, 2008 While it makes sense that a 1000 lb. tank of frozen UDMH or MMH could survive reentry, it's hard to believe that there isn't at least some political/military motivation behind the shoot-down plans considering the timing of the Chinese test. There should also be a tank full of frozen nitrogen tetroxide on the satellite that could survive reentry as well. N2O4 is pretty nasty stuff too. Too bad they won't be able to get decent video of the impact. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #27 February 17, 2008 If this action is executed -- & I see nothing to indicate that it will not -- ballistic missile *defense* will move one step closer to being an outright *offensive* weapon. China and Russia have long criticized our BMD program because of its *potential* dual-use qualities (i.e., inherent offensive anti-satellite capability). We appear to be making their point. The hydrazine rationale ‘smells’ … & not just like putrascine & cadaverine from a decaying red herring. While there are significant differences between this and the Chinese ASAT test last year, ie., debris, notification, stated purpose, does anyone else remember these headlines from last year? VOA news: “Experts: US Should Worry About Chinese Anti-Satellite Device” Fox News: “U.S., Japan Criticize China for Testing Anti-Satellite Missile” USA Today: “Pentagon: China's anti-satellite test poses threat” Things don’t happen in political vacuums: Currently the US (i.e., Ambassador Dennis Mahley as representatives of President Bush’s administration) is arguing for the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). We’ve wanted it for a while, and it is a policy w/which I heartily concur. Russia (tepidly supports FMCT), China (opposes FMCT), and others are pushing for revision or discussions on new Outer Space Treaty concurrently, which the US opposes. The Aegis missiles (3 are being readied according to DoD announcements) and associated costs are estimated to run $40-$60M. How about putting that $40-$60M into the chemical weapons destruction program which still has >15,000 metric tons of sarin (GB) & VX nerve agents and sulfur mustard to destroy. Those are a lot nastier than 454kg (or 0.454 metric tons) of hydrazine. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #28 February 17, 2008 QuoteIf this action is executed -- & I see nothing to indicate that it will not -- ballistic missile *defense* will move one step closer to being an outright *offensive* weapon. China and Russia have long criticized our BMD program because of its *potential* dual-use qualities (i.e., inherent offensive anti-satellite capability). We appear to be making their point. The hydrazine rationale ‘smells’ … & not just like putrascine & cadaverine from a decaying red herring. While there are significant differences between this and the Chinese ASAT test last year, ie., debris, notification, stated purpose, does anyone else remember these headlines from last year? VOA news: “Experts: US Should Worry About Chinese Anti-Satellite Device” Fox News: “U.S., Japan Criticize China for Testing Anti-Satellite Missile” USA Today: “Pentagon: China's anti-satellite test poses threat” Things don’t happen in political vacuums: Currently the US (i.e., Ambassador Dennis Mahley as representatives of President Bush’s administration) is arguing for the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). We’ve wanted it for a while, and it is a policy w/which I heartily concur. Russia (tepidly supports FMCT), China (opposes FMCT), and others are pushing for revision or discussions on new Outer Space Treaty concurrently, which the US opposes. The Aegis missiles (3 are being readied according to DoD announcements) and associated costs are estimated to run $40-$60M. How about putting that $40-$60M into the chemical weapons destruction program which still has >15,000 metric tons of sarin (GB) & VX nerve agents and sulfur mustard to destroy. Those are a lot nastier than 454kg (or 0.454 metric tons) of hydrazine. VR/Marg Remember, just like torture, imprisonment without trial, making nukes, and invading other nations, it's heinous, but all OK when done by the USA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #29 February 17, 2008 Quote The hydrazine rationale ‘smells’ … & not just like putrascine & cadaverine from a decaying red herring. I was eating when I read that. Thanks "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
