It still doesn't compare to the battle scenes in Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy.

Oh I know how this goes! "So the missle misses, hits some other international satellite causing world wide uproar (or worse yet comes down on some poor city somehow). The satellite still re-enters earths atmosphere, somehow survives (cause it was probably made in the 60s when things lasted) and goes 'First Episode of Dead Like Me' style on some small poor community."

 

Sounds like a plan.

 

-- Lory

So, the government is going to use a missile to shoot down a falling satellite even though that has apparently never been tried.  On top of that, satellites falling from orbit is a fairly common occurrence, which is relatively safe since most of the Earth is ocean anyway.  I would wager that this isn't a public safety issue, but rather them testing weapons for use in space, especially since the militarization of space has been an ongoing issue with this administration. 

Actually it is a threat and again the liberal mantra comes out.

The satellite has it's fuel and fuel tanks. This is maneuvering fuel, to allow it to move orbits. There are two tanks, it is the nasty shit that burns when it contacts fuel in the other tank, it doesn't take a spark. It is used because it makes the thrusters simple, two fuel lines, two valves that you can open and close, you spray in two fuels, they ignite and you get a kick.

If these can be breached in orbit there will be a big bang when they mix and there is nothing left...

So of course in your infinite wisdom you have determined that this has nothing to with the fact that China just launched a missile at a falling satellite.  Never mind that satellites fall on a fairly regular basis, or that we don't normally shoot them down, or that this is an administration that has repeatedly shown they could give a shit about preserving or saving human life.

In addition, satellites don't have vast reserves of fuel, that's the whole point of having a fucking orbit.  If the satellite was capable of changing course with a fuel reserve, there would be no need to shoot it down to prevent it leaving orbit, you could just correct course.  Also, if it's so volatile wouldn't it simply ignite and explode during reentry?

Allow me to ask something. Have you ever built something that went on a rocket that went into space? I have.... I built items that were on Mercury, Gemini and I did the ground models for Apollo - and about twenty others. I did work on the Raytheon IF's that were in the DEW line. I left that industry in late 1964.

You probably don't remember Skylab and a Russian satellite that came down on a decay orbit and spread debris. I think the Ruski one had radioactive shit on it, that fell in North Eastern Canada. Skylab spread debris all over the south pacific I think. There were pieces that came down that could have killed. We didn't have the ability to shoot either of them down.

Forget your hatred for Bush and Cheney and get some sense in thinking. I don't care if you like them, be objective.

Take a look at my notes in your post..

************************************************************************
So of course in your infinite wisdom you have determined that this has nothing to with the fact that China just launched a missile at a falling satellite.

>>>Thanks for the complement on the wisdom. I appreciate it. I actually don't rate myself that high but it is nice to see someone recognize it.

>>>Actually if you looked at my first item I considered that a possibility. I just didn't damn bush all to hell so it didn't fit your mantra. I think this is an opportunity to see if we can reach out and touch a satellite. I doubt the ChiComs actions had anything to do with it, I would bet we have had a "case" on this for 20 years, that is BC (Before Clinton) that if we got another defective satellite that was threatening to de-orbit or hit another bird we would try a shoot down. The opportunity presented itself, I doubt that the Chicoms drove this, you rate the backward republic of China too high. They are both the worse polluters in the world and have the fastest growing carbon footprint.


Never mind that satellites fall on a fairly regular basis, or that we don't normally shoot them down, or that this is an administration that has repeatedly shown they could give a shit about preserving or saving human life.
>>>Again the hate bush comes out and clouds your thought. Actually MOST satellites that come down are being controlled when they do. They use the last of the manuvering fuel to de-orbit to hit open ocean. This has been a pattern for 40 years and Bush hasn't changed it. Again, your reasoning is clouded by hatred.

In addition, satellites don't have vast reserves of fuel, that's the whole point of having a fucking orbit.
>>> I'm familiar with circular and elliptical orbits. Is this some other kind or is your vocabulary limited? Satellites stay in orbit because of centrifugal force, speed and gravity. But they slip orbit and move orbit by using fuel. Satellites that must move, generally military ones, do carry lots of fuel - when they expend it they can no longer slip. This satellite has ALL of its fuel it was sent up with, the ground control link isn't working and they can't control it. That is the problem. If they could have fired the mannuvering jets they could have done so. But they don't work.

Will it ignite and explode on re-entry? Maybe. Maybe not. There are also other heavy pieces of the bird that will survive re-entry. That means they will hit the ground.



If the satellite was capable of changing course with a fuel reserve, there would be no need to shoot it down to prevent it leaving orbit, you could just correct course. Also, if it's so volatile wouldn't it simply ignite and explode during reentry?

Look, I'm not like you, I don't think the world's problems are the result of one puppet, regardless of whether he has a D or R on his chest.  I think people who have strong party affiliations are almost always morons politically who have little or no grasp of what's going on with the candidates outside a couple of 30 second spots, and who certainly have no awareness of foreign affairs.

Oh, so you're suggesting that the satellite, most of which are very small in diameter, contained THOUSANDS of pounds of fuel to maneuver?  Because I believe that is fucking absurd.  That's what they claim of course, but if you look into it, no one really knows how much fuel is in there, or even really what kind.  This is all just hype and bullshit fed to a complacent public who will swallow anything.

But sure, if you want to believe the supergovernment is shooting junk out of space to save your ass, you can take that belief and feel it's comforting warmth as you row your gumdrop boat down the chocolate milk river in fucking candyland.  It was either a military test, or a show for china, and there was never any real danger of the satellite harming someone, which should be clear because one never HAS harmed anyone to my knowledge, including the uncontrolled descent of the 78 ton space station Skylab in 1978.  But sure, your little satellite is more lethal than 78 tons of debris.

You are way behind the times. The 1950's satellite was 20 inches in diameter. This one was the size of a BUS.... I doubt it was thousands of gallons, I am betting it was hundreds. Ten gallons of hydrazene going off within 50 feet of you will ruin your day, probably the rest of your life.

I also don't think the R or D means a lot - but right now the democrats seem to have been infecteed with stupidity and treason.

Yep, look back at my first post on this. That is much what I said....

What side are you even arguing, that falling satellites are a threat, or that this was just a show of power?  Because I'm saying it was a display, but you seem to be arguing both sides.

I think I said it is a threat, I also said it was a good opportunity to see if we can hit one. I don't put much into the show of power crap, it is better to hold the ability and hit something real.

Again you didn't read the full article. There are 3 ships, if the first misses....