• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Military going to shoot down broken space probe

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the decision to shoot it down is heavily influenced by the fact that it is a spy satellite.

Not even remotely accurate. It carries a dangerous quantity of hydrazine fuel which could harm people on the ground if it lands in their yard. It's purely a safety issue. I heard it on the radio too.

That's definitely the deciding factor, but given that the satellite is unresponsive, they probably can't erase any data that it might be carrying. Not to mention the classified tech on the satellite itself. From what I've heard, half of the satellite would survive. We're not talking small metal fragments.

The toxic fuel is a convenient coincidence. If the fuel were perfectly safe, they'd still shoot it down IMO.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I just don't believe it. I thought they were worried it could fall and hurt some Iraqi civilians.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
except if they miss - then it's egg on the face :Q
Yeah, that would be bad for the Navy, and the Chinese might get a boost of confidence out of it... for sure.

and BoomerD was being sarcastic - check your meter sometimes.
Actually, based on his post history here, I don't think he was being sracastic... but maybe my meter is broken... meh.

Yeah, check your batteries PH...it was mostly sarcastic-with a touch of irony thrown in...

Yes, I believe Bush is the only President we've ever had who not only could fuck up a wet-dream, but could fail to get laid in a room full of drunk, horny co-eds...

HOWEVER, while I suspect the idea of shooting down the satellite is a bad idea, hopefully, our military will manage to pull it off with more success than they have had in Afghanistan and Iraq...(both of those cluster-fucks are giving our military black eyes...not because the troops are incompetent, but because their leader is incompetent to the Nth degree...

We SHOULD have had Afghanistan taken care of within a couple of years tops...not under our thumb like the Soviets wanted, but the Taliban routed and a stable government in place...but oh no...Bushie LOVED being a WAR PRESIDENT...and since he apparently had planned on invading Iraq even before 9-11, he used his popularity and political impetus to lead us down the primrose path...
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
except if they miss - then it's egg on the face :Q
Yeah, that would be bad for the Navy, and the Chinese might get a boost of confidence out of it... for sure.

and BoomerD was being sarcastic - check your meter sometimes.
Actually, based on his post history here, I don't think he was being sracastic... but maybe my meter is broken... meh.

Yeah, check your batteries PH...it was mostly sarcastic-with a touch of irony thrown in...

Yes, I believe Bush is the only President we've ever had who not only could fuck up a wet-dream, but could fail to get laid in a room full of drunk, horny co-eds...

HOWEVER, while I suspect the idea of shooting down the satellite is a bad idea, hopefully, our military will manage to pull it off with more success than they have had in Afghanistan and Iraq...(both of those cluster-fucks are giving our military black eyes...not because the troops are incompetent, but because their leader is incompetent to the Nth degree...

We SHOULD have had Afghanistan taken care of within a couple of years tops...not under our thumb like the Soviets wanted, but the Taliban routed and a stable government in place...but oh no...Bushie LOVED being a WAR PRESIDENT...and since he apparently had planned on invading Iraq even before 9-11, he used his popularity and political impetus to lead us down the primrose path...
Please look up the words "ironic" and "sarcasm."

Just as I said before, your original post was neither of those.

You're simply on yet another stoned-out rant about Bush, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in a thread that has nothing to do with any of the above.

GG.
 
You do realize how big this thing is ?
Its not a normal sized satellite.
Its about the same size as a school bus.
You do not want that, with 1000lbs of hydrazine gas, coming down on a person or building.
The satellite also uses new technology that they don't want to be intact in any form.

Normally satellites that are dying are sent into an orbit further out, but this one is no longer responding to commands, so nothing they can do.

There are over 400 active satellites just from the USA alone.
Its getting very crowded up there .
 
Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Im going with Vic here, its a spy satellite it probably has pictures of Putin's bathroom and such. They let space junk fall to earth all the time, why does this one have to be blown up? The fuel thing is just a cover.

No, just his roof.

(joke shamelessly stolen from the Simpsons.. when it was good)
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
except if they miss - then it's egg on the face :Q
Yeah, that would be bad for the Navy, and the Chinese might get a boost of confidence out of it... for sure.

and BoomerD was being sarcastic - check your meter sometimes.
Actually, based on his post history here, I don't think he was being sracastic... but maybe my meter is broken... meh.

Yeah, check your batteries PH...it was mostly sarcastic-with a touch of irony thrown in...

Yes, I believe Bush is the only President we've ever had who not only could fuck up a wet-dream, but could fail to get laid in a room full of drunk, horny co-eds...

HOWEVER, while I suspect the idea of shooting down the satellite is a bad idea, hopefully, our military will manage to pull it off with more success than they have had in Afghanistan and Iraq...(both of those cluster-fucks are giving our military black eyes...not because the troops are incompetent, but because their leader is incompetent to the Nth degree...

We SHOULD have had Afghanistan taken care of within a couple of years tops...not under our thumb like the Soviets wanted, but the Taliban routed and a stable government in place...but oh no...Bushie LOVED being a WAR PRESIDENT...and since he apparently had planned on invading Iraq even before 9-11, he used his popularity and political impetus to lead us down the primrose path...
Please look up the words "ironic" and "sarcasm."

Just as I said before, your original post was neither of those.

You're simply on yet another stoned-out rant about Bush, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in a thread that has nothing to do with any of the above.

GG.

Here, let me help you with that:


sarcasm

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: \'sär-?ka-z?m\
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar?s- to cut
Date: 1550
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm


irony
4 entries found.

ironydramatic ironySocratic ironytragic irony



Main Entry: iro·ny
Pronunciation: \'i-r?-ne also 'i(-?)r-ne\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural iro·nies
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eironia, from eiron dissembler
Date: 1502
1: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning ?called also Socratic irony
2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity b: incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play ?called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

As for your personal attack...I suspect you've been "stoned" since I last was...I don't do any drugs (other than what my doctor forces on me) and I almost NEVER drink...
Oh wait...you think that since I have long hair and a beard...and hate GWB, I must be some filthy druggie/Hippie...to quote some of the folks over in Off Topic:
"the ironing is delicious."
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
except if they miss - then it's egg on the face :Q
Yeah, that would be bad for the Navy, and the Chinese might get a boost of confidence out of it... for sure.

and BoomerD was being sarcastic - check your meter sometimes.
Actually, based on his post history here, I don't think he was being sracastic... but maybe my meter is broken... meh.

Yeah, check your batteries PH...it was mostly sarcastic-with a touch of irony thrown in...

Yes, I believe Bush is the only President we've ever had who not only could fuck up a wet-dream, but could fail to get laid in a room full of drunk, horny co-eds...

HOWEVER, while I suspect the idea of shooting down the satellite is a bad idea, hopefully, our military will manage to pull it off with more success than they have had in Afghanistan and Iraq...(both of those cluster-fucks are giving our military black eyes...not because the troops are incompetent, but because their leader is incompetent to the Nth degree...

We SHOULD have had Afghanistan taken care of within a couple of years tops...not under our thumb like the Soviets wanted, but the Taliban routed and a stable government in place...but oh no...Bushie LOVED being a WAR PRESIDENT...and since he apparently had planned on invading Iraq even before 9-11, he used his popularity and political impetus to lead us down the primrose path...
Please look up the words "ironic" and "sarcasm."

Just as I said before, your original post was neither of those.

You're simply on yet another stoned-out rant about Bush, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in a thread that has nothing to do with any of the above.

GG.

Here, let me help you with that:


sarcasm

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: \'sär-?ka-z?m\
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar?s- to cut
Date: 1550
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm


irony
4 entries found.

ironydramatic ironySocratic ironytragic irony



Main Entry: iro·ny
Pronunciation: \'i-r?-ne also 'i(-?)r-ne\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural iro·nies
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eironia, from eiron dissembler
Date: 1502
1: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning ?called also Socratic irony
2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity b: incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play ?called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

As for your personal attack...I suspect you've been "stoned" since I last was...I don't do any drugs (other than what my doctor forces on me) and I almost NEVER drink...
Oh wait...you think that since I have long hair and a beard...and hate GWB, I must be some filthy druggie/Hippie...to quote some of the folks over in Off Topic:
"the ironing is delicious."

excellent.. we're making progress! Now that you know what each of those words means, all you have to do is go back to school and learn how to implement them properly.

Your first post was NOT "sarcastic" or "ironic." It was merely a weak attempt to tie this issue to your favorite rant subjects - Bush and Iraq.

That said, my drug reference was even more shallow than you assumed -- I based it stricty on your pot-smoking avatar. After all, it's the only "picture" we have of you...

duh.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
[That said, my drug reference was even more shallow than you assumed -- I based it stricty on your pot-smoking avatar. After all, it's the only "picture" we have of you...

duh.

Dude...SO not true...pics of the "real me" are posted in a couple of threads here...and they look even more hippie than my avatar!
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: palehorse74
[That said, my drug reference was even more shallow than you assumed -- I based it stricty on your pot-smoking avatar. After all, it's the only "picture" we have of you...

duh.

Dude...SO not true...pics of the "real me" are posted in a couple of threads here...and they look even more hippie than my avatar!

LOL... I must have missed those... do they depict a big fat J hanging out of the corner of your mouth as well?

wild!

Anyways, I'm sorry I called you a stoner based on your avatar. Next time I'll stick to "filthy illiterate hippie" instead... 😀
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: StepUp
What happens if someone intercepts that missile?

Don't most long range missiles launch decoys to counter stuff like that? Or is that exclusive to ICBMs?

Advanced MIRV'd ICBMs can use decoys.

I highly doubt anyone could intercept a SM-3 that they have no idea of where or when its going to launch from. I don't think anyone owns a weapon system that could actually accomplish it anyway.

Actually in order for a ICBM decoy to be effective the decoy has to have the same mass and shape of a live warhead. So basically it becomes you might as well just use another live warhead.

 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: palehorse74
[That said, my drug reference was even more shallow than you assumed -- I based it stricty on your pot-smoking avatar. After all, it's the only "picture" we have of you...

duh.

Dude...SO not true...pics of the "real me" are posted in a couple of threads here...and they look even more hippie than my avatar!

LOL... I must have missed those... do they depict a big fat J hanging out of the corner of your mouth as well?

wild!

Anyways, I'm sorry I called you a stoner based on your avatar. Next time I'll stick to "filthy illiterate hippie" instead... 😀

That's MUCH better...you caveman conservative elitist prick...😀
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: palehorse74
[That said, my drug reference was even more shallow than you assumed -- I based it stricty on your pot-smoking avatar. After all, it's the only "picture" we have of you...

duh.

Dude...SO not true...pics of the "real me" are posted in a couple of threads here...and they look even more hippie than my avatar!

LOL... I must have missed those... do they depict a big fat J hanging out of the corner of your mouth as well?

wild!

Anyways, I'm sorry I called you a stoner based on your avatar. Next time I'll stick to "filthy illiterate hippie" instead... 😀

That's MUCH better...you caveman conservative elitist prick...😀

LOL! Touche' !
 
Originally posted by: Brovane
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: StepUp
What happens if someone intercepts that missile?

Don't most long range missiles launch decoys to counter stuff like that? Or is that exclusive to ICBMs?

Advanced MIRV'd ICBMs can use decoys.

I highly doubt anyone could intercept a SM-3 that they have no idea of where or when its going to launch from. I don't think anyone owns a weapon system that could actually accomplish it anyway.

Actually in order for a ICBM decoy to be effective the decoy has to have the same mass and shape of a live warhead. So basically it becomes you might as well just use another live warhead.

I just said "can" since it is an option that had been explored and planned for in the later generation (especially Soviet) ICBM's. The effectiveness would also depend on the type of defense system you were talking about.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Brovane
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: StepUp
What happens if someone intercepts that missile?

Don't most long range missiles launch decoys to counter stuff like that? Or is that exclusive to ICBMs?

Advanced MIRV'd ICBMs can use decoys.

I highly doubt anyone could intercept a SM-3 that they have no idea of where or when its going to launch from. I don't think anyone owns a weapon system that could actually accomplish it anyway.

Actually in order for a ICBM decoy to be effective the decoy has to have the same mass and shape of a live warhead. So basically it becomes you might as well just use another live warhead.

I just said "can" since it is an option that had been explored and planned for in the later generation (especially Soviet) ICBM's. The effectiveness would also depend on the type of defense system you were talking about.


I was just pointing out one of the fallacy's of the Anti-ABM argument regarding use of decoys. In order to make a realistic decoy you might as well just use another warhead. Intercepting a missile is not that hard because soon after launch you can accurately predict were it will be during its entire flight path. ABM were first successfully tested in the 70's.
 
Originally posted by: Brovane
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: StepUp
What happens if someone intercepts that missile?

Don't most long range missiles launch decoys to counter stuff like that? Or is that exclusive to ICBMs?

Advanced MIRV'd ICBMs can use decoys.

I highly doubt anyone could intercept a SM-3 that they have no idea of where or when its going to launch from. I don't think anyone owns a weapon system that could actually accomplish it anyway.

Actually in order for a ICBM decoy to be effective the decoy has to have the same mass and shape of a live warhead. So basically it becomes you might as well just use another live warhead.

That's not accurate.

The place in which decoys are used is in the mid course guidance phase when the ICBM's warhead is in space. In space everything is effectively weightless and so balloons and other low cost, low weight materials can be used as extremely effective decoys that our systems cannot discern from the real warhead(s).

This is one of the many reasons for why our ballistic missile shield is worthless and stupid. The only phase in which they are easily intercepted is the phase in which it is super easy to make decoys, thus overwhelming our ability to respond.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: StepUp
What happens if someone intercepts that missile?

Don't most long range missiles launch decoys to counter stuff like that? Or is that exclusive to ICBMs?

Advanced MIRV'd ICBMs can use decoys.

I highly doubt anyone could intercept a SM-3 that they have no idea of where or when its going to launch from. I don't think anyone owns a weapon system that could actually accomplish it anyway.

Don't think anybody would care to intercept the SM-3 but the where and when shouldn't be too hard.

USS Lake Erie has been the ship carrying out the tests of the SM-3 against the ballistic missle targets launched from Kwajalein Island. Likely the Lake Erie will be tasked with this. Also the Lake Erie has been using the Pacific Missle Test Range based on Kauai Island, Hawaii for tracking and data. That would likely be part of the scenario also.

So I predict ......

SM-3 launched by the USS Lake Erie from somewhere near Kauai, probably South and West of Kauai because that would give the largest unihabited area for the debris to crash down. Probably in less than a week because as the space vehicle gets further down in the atmosphere the orbit becomes less predictable.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Brovane
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: StepUp
What happens if someone intercepts that missile?

Don't most long range missiles launch decoys to counter stuff like that? Or is that exclusive to ICBMs?

Advanced MIRV'd ICBMs can use decoys.

I highly doubt anyone could intercept a SM-3 that they have no idea of where or when its going to launch from. I don't think anyone owns a weapon system that could actually accomplish it anyway.

Actually in order for a ICBM decoy to be effective the decoy has to have the same mass and shape of a live warhead. So basically it becomes you might as well just use another live warhead.

That's not accurate.

The place in which decoys are used is in the mid course guidance phase when the ICBM's warhead is in space. In space everything is effectively weightless and so balloons and other low cost, low weight materials can be used as extremely effective decoys that our systems cannot discern from the real warhead(s).

This is one of the many reasons for why our ballistic missile shield is worthless and stupid. The only phase in which they are easily intercepted is the phase in which it is super easy to make decoys, thus overwhelming our ability to respond.

That is not accurate. Your balloons etc.are not going to present the same type of target as a MIRV bus or the warheads themselves. The MIRV bus is going to start dropping warheads within 700km of the intended target. So before a standing MIRV starts dropping warheads off its bus it is within range of long range ICBM systems. Also the MIRV bus is extremely limited in its maneuvering ability before it starts dropping off warheads one at time. The balloons or decoys dropped off during this phase will not maintain the same entry speed into the atmosphere. If you drop off say 10 decoys during the apex of a missile trajectory the ABM system will easily be able to determine that they are fake.

A dedicated ABM system is a layered defense consisting of both long range and short range defense missiles with multiple opportunities to engage a ICBM or ballistic missile system before the target is reached. That is also why other countries besides the US are working on ABM systems like India and Russia.
 
Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23166344

I think this is a fooking stupid idea. They obviously just want to play with their new toys and show the Chinese that we can shoot down spaceships too. But in the mean time they are going to further ruin low-earth orbit with debris.
Dumb, in my opinion.

compared to the debris thats already out there...lol
 
In its own way it's good practice in the event that an asteroid ever heads our way. 🙂

I'm surprised they're only trying one missile. Also, wasn't that Star Wars shield supposed to use lasers? Maybe they're upgrading it to Blu-Ray. 😀
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
In its own way it's good practice in the event that an asteroid ever heads our way. 🙂

I'm surprised they're only trying one missile. Also, wasn't that Star Wars shield supposed to use lasers? Maybe they're upgrading it to Blu-Ray. 😀

I believe they are taking 3 SM-3 missiles out on the Lake Erie.

....If at first you don't succeed......
 
I did notice that they are going to wait until the shuttle returns before they do this...

That may be one of the best decisions they've made in this debacle yet.
 
Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Im going with Vic here, its a spy satellite it probably has pictures of Putin's bathroom and such. They let space junk fall to earth all the time, why does this one have to be blown up? The fuel thing is just a cover.
I don't think its the pictures of Putin's bathroom that they're worried about.

😉
 
Back
Top