The Satellite Was Hit

Originally posted by secret titan
reply to post by Elisha4Yah

 

The satellite was in a low enough orbit that it was going to come down. Gravity effects nearly all satellites, plus there are other factors such as atmospheric drag (causes satellite to slow down) and a few others.

Thank you for answering. Now my next question; how is it that it can remain 'up there' while it's functional, but falls when it dies? In other words, whatever is keeping it "alive" is stronger than the force or pull of the atmosphere??? It still sounds shady to me.

Because when it's "alive" it's contstantly making corrections to its orbit to compensate for the drag and other factors that he mentioned. When it's "dead" it's incapable of making those changes and doesn't know when it needs to make them.

reply to post by dgtempe


If you are talking about the missile having a self destruct function, then yes they do. Reason being if a missile goes off course for any reason then the missile can be destructed without causing unneeded destruction of a non-target or loss of innocent life.

I cannot see how people cannot get their heads around a satalite being shot down. It is probably easier to carry this out than hit a pin point target such as a milatary base in a built up area from half way around the world. The milatary use land to air missile to shoot down fighter planes traveling 1000+ mph at shorter distances leaving less time for self correction of the missile. Plus as it was their satalite the had the exact course of it to help them out.

Russian, I am sure if the satalite did have a functioning self destruct button it would have been used, Maybe it did but it could not be used due to the fact the craft was "dead", Or maybe it just didnt have one. I am sure they would have used it to save themselves all the embarassment after the pressure the US gave china for the same task that they needed to do.

I know this is ATS but sometimes things are as they seem and there they are not always cover-ups.

The problem with hydrazine is that it is toxic in small quantities and not about it being explosive. The hydrazine goes through a catalytic converter that generates heat and gas pressure for propulsion. It also can be used to generate power via a turbine generator.

The only concern would be if the fuel tank was able to survive reentry and rupture on impact in a populated area. Hydrazine can not be made nontoxic, however it can be diluted with bleach and water to a safer exposure level. Hope this helps some to understand why a shoot down would be in order along with a show of 'we can shoot down sats too'.

The emphasis has been on the need to destroy a hardened component aboard the satellite (the hydrazine tank) which would make an excellent data-simulation of whether an incoming ICBMs warhead, the critical target-point of a missile, could be destroyed, rather than just the missile body, leaving a batterered nuclear warhead able to hit its target and cause a 'dirty bomb' effect rather than the pre-programmed detonation...

Sooo,

Living on Canada's East Coast, do we have anything to fear?

If the tank was not ruptured and survives re-entry... should any precautions be taken or would that be irrelevant at this late in the game?

so debris was supposed to start coming down immediately? that may explain what i saw last night during the eclipse. i saw a "shooting star" come down between a mountain and the location where i live. absolutely facinating as i never have seen a shooting star below a mountaintop before. but it may also have been something entirely diffrent though.

*tin-foil hat firmly in place*

I'm curious.... maybe someone can help answer a few questions for me on this one.

If we had not destroyed the satellite, when would it have been scheduled for re-entry?

Could this particular satellite be seen by some means from the ground?

Wouldn't saying you hit the thing be perfect cover for minimizing those who might go looking for it once it came out of the sky?

Here's a link to the briefing and video of strike.

Link

Originally posted by RussianScientists


MacGyver wanta be..... did you actually see Neil step down off of the Lunar Lander? I don't think so...

Did you , Mr "Scientist wantabe" ?

I think a MacGyver wantabe, is a young kid, because adults are more grown up, how old are you really MacGyver?

Why are you continuing to insult this person based on what he chose as his name, Mr Scientist wantabe.

Then we will know if you were around to see the actual footage that was sent around the world for all to see at that time. Did you ever see the actual footage of it? I don't think so.... If you did actually see Neil opening the hatch and coming outside, and then going straight down the ladder from the Lunar Lander, then why was the film footage taken from about 20 feet away behind him, showing him and the Lunar Lander as he was descending the ladder. Or, are you saying Lunar Lander II got there in time to take the picture of him and Lunar Lander I; hahahahahaha.

Actually, the LEM had multiple cameras attached to poles outside of the ship. They were there to confirm the ships legs weren't sinking into the moons surface and to gather some great pictures of MANS FIRST TRIP TO ANOTHER CELESTIAL BODY. Maybe you think such an important event would have no cameras at all? The camera watching Armstrong descend the ladder was there so the guys at home could see if he was swallowed up into the moons quicksand as soon as he stepped onto it. Remember, we had very little information about the moon at this time and did not know what to expect.

Show me photots of his footprints on the Moon. Let me see the American flag on the moon.

Okay. Why?

Do you realize how large video cameras were back then? They were bulky and tubes; everybody remembers the tubes in those old cameras. I'm sure those old bulky video cameras back then could take the temperature extremes too; hahahahahahaha. Give me a break, wake up to reality.

If you want a great television quality broadcast you need those big cameras. To just gather an image or poorer quality, you didn't. Period. Do some simple research instead of making things up.

Vodka is great, you should try it.

That explains a LOT.

Let me know when you get some footage of the missile striking the satellite that isn't doctored, and didn't come from a source affilliated with your military.

You have already decided that any footage you see is "doctored", thus no footage would satisfy you , and this is an impossible request.

You know your military has a self destruct button on all of their top secret satellites; just like all other militaries that have such satellites. You know they don't want their technology to end up in the wrong peoples hands. A simple self destruct device is extremely cheap to attach, and never fails to do its duty; and I'm sure that it worked perfectly this time also.

You're wrong. It must be satisfying to make up information and present it as fact. The rockets that put the satellites into orbit have self destruct devices in them, not the actual payload. It makes NO sense to build a billion dollar satellite , then pack a bunch of C-4 into it right before it has the most violent trip of its life..... What if our enemies decided to send the signal to blow itself up? Self destruct signals are only sent when something is going very wrong so they really cant be encoded or encrypted.



[edit on 21-2-2008 by Lotiki]

Trying to debunk the moon landing on a discussion that has nothing to do with it is ridiculous in my opinion. I think this missle strike was a very successful operation by the United states Navy and they should be applauded.

Satellite explodes on tape

Satellite shoot-down successful
The U.S. Navy succeeded in its effort to shoot down an inoperable spy satellite before it crashed to Earth.
Video here
www.cnn.com...#/video/tech/2008/02/21/pentagon.sat.shoot7a.cnn

reply to post by RussianScientists



Mr. Putin, is that you?

Actually, I remember watching the moon landing from my classroom back then and, as a kid, I could have cared less if they were on the moon or not. It was exciting!

OK i'm officially confused. Some of our newspapers and some of my customers are saying that the satellite was never hit, because of rough seas.... can anyone clear that up?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again..


GET THAT HARD DRIVE!!

Originally posted by Chiiru
OK i'm officially confused. Some of our newspapers and some of my customers are saying that the satellite was never hit, because of rough seas.... can anyone clear that up?

Early on the Pentagon said there was a good possibility that the shoot wouldn't go last night, and they'd have to try again tonight because of high seas and bad weather. About an hour before hand they were cautiously optimistic because things were clearing up. Things calmed down enough for them to take the shot.

reply to post by darkspace


I heard on the radio that people in the Pacific Northwest may see stuff burning up as it falls, but I can't find anything on the web about it.

oops found something: "There is a possibility that if someone were to have clear skies in the Pacific Northwest or Canada, they might see some of the debris," said Geoff Chester, public affairs officer for the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.
www.msnbc.msn.com...


[edit on 21-2-2008 by starskipper]

reply to post by RussianScientists


So, the Chinese can hit a satellite more than 3 times farther away, but we cant'?

www.cnn.com...

reply to post by starskipper


well, since i am on the other side of the atlantic, it was probably something entirely diffrent that i saw come down. i have newer before seen a "shooting star" below a mountaintop, but it may well have been the angle that made it look like it came down below.

Hello all,

I'm back if anyone has any further questions about my viewing of the satellite getting taken out.

Oh, as an update, a friend of mine that lives about 30 miles south of me reported seeing a bright white flash streak across the sky at about the same time I was watching. I assume this to be the actual missile, although I find it strange that I didn't see it.