 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 03:56 PM by enddays
|
If this is a sooper dooper Sat filled with the latest ( reverse engineered ) tech, why is is malfunctioning ! I suppose that is why the Roswell crash
happened as well. Must have been a hungover Monday morning construction.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 04:45 PM by KaiBosh
|
There is a serious lack of knowledge in this thread regarding the technologies in use here. There isn't going to be any grand explosion, or a
nuclear catastrophe. Yes, the Hydrazine is nasty stuff, remember they preached about it when the shuttle broke up as well. If a piece of the sat
comes down intact enough that there is a spraying of liquid Hydrazine over the kool-aid station at the local kindergarden, yeah there would be a
problem.
Have they told us what exact orbit this bus is, anyway? There is one single stripe around the Earth where it could come down, and I am quite sure
that the chances of it happening over a populated area are one in ten thousand. They obviously have some idea of the decay and the point where it
nears disintegration in the atmosphere, that is where they will have their ships parked...
I think the key to this shoot-down is that they want to hit the sat at a trajectory that blows the debris down towards the Earth. We will find out in
a couple of weeks where exactly they plan to pull this off, if it was over open ocean I would think the missile would probably be used to explode
'near' the sat instead of blasting it into a million pieces.
It is obvious they don't want any wreckage to fall into enemy hands, and that includes most of the rest of the surface of the Earth at this point
does it not? They have always been fanatical about retrieval of technology, some fascinating history involving the planes scooping film canisters out
of the air with Russian subs waiting below and stuff.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 05:04 PM by Justinger1
|
I would imagine that any debris making it to the ground after a missile strike would be very small and unrecognizable. First imagine what the pieces
would look like after being hit by a missile here on earth. Pretty mangled, but some recognizable pieces sounds likely. Don't forget that the
supposed goal is to destroy this fuel hydrazine so that would increase the destructive power of the missile itself. Now take those chunks, and drop
them from orbit. They are gonna be pretty messed up. Like Bhadhidar said, plausible deniability. It might not be hard to deny that a mangled pebble
doesn't have anything to do with us lol. If this stuff falls in the ocean randomly, it's probably as good as gone.
KaiBosh, you are right that there wouldn't be a grand explosion if nuclear material was on board. It would be incriminating, however, if we did blow
it up and revealed nuclear material in the ensuing cloud that would likely be detectable. This would actually distract from the demonstration of
power. It would be like a muscle builder coming out and doing his finest pose when all of a sudden his speedo snaps and falls off. It kind of steals
the thunder (and would be a little disturbing).
You bring up a good point. What is it's trajectory? Probably the only change in orbit is it's altitude, right? So the likely areas for landfall
should be easy to forsee. Does anyone have this information? I would love to see it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 05:11 PM by Zaphod58
|
The problem is that the orbit is wildly erratic. I've watched it make three or four passes along the Eastern Seaboard, then over England, then the
next night it was over China and Russia, then over South Africa, coming up near Alaska and Canada, and down over the middle of the US... It's all
over the place because there's no way to keep it where they want it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 05:20 PM by TheAgentNineteen
|
There are two MAJOR reasons, and neither involve hazardous materials. First and foremost we cannot afford to have technology recovered and
reverse-engineered. This could prove a huge blunder and allow for any number of enemy states to develop similar technologies, and/or develop
countermeasures against ours.
Second, where will it hit? It could kill any number of innocent people. We are not about to let one of our creations just drop in uninvited over some
village or town full of non-combatants. That is not what we are about, and in allowing such an atrocity to take place, we would end up with the
mentality our government held 10+ years ago under the Clinton Administration.
Now as far as the crowd that believes we are simply doing this as a form of showing off our missile intercept systems, that is total garbage. Sure, it
might serve as such a demonstration, but I can guarantee you that we are not blowing up SATS for fun or simply for show. We have weaponry far ahead of
simple missile intercepts, and we are simply using a proven, reliable, non-Classified method of taking down a National Security Threat.
This is an AEGIS Guided Missile Cruiser firing the Intercept, so we will NOT miss the Target.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 05:44 PM by clay2 baraka
|
Originally posted by Justinger1
I would imagine that any debris making it to the ground after a missile strike would be very small and unrecognizable. First imagine what the pieces
would look like after being hit by a missile here on earth. Pretty mangled, but some recognizable pieces sounds likely. 
The black world has adopted a theory known as the "mosaic theory." It postulates that even the smallest bits of debris from a black project can be
analyzed by the enemy for use in reverse engineering the technology. Even forensic analysis of the unrecognizable debris can assist in determining
the payload, and use of the satellite.
Perhaps we are looking at more than just a spy satellite here? Perhaps a "hunter-killer" that violates arms control treaties?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 06:07 PM by downtown436
|
Here are my list of reasons that we are going to shoot it down.
1) It has a nuclear reactor on board.
2) It has Nuclear warheads on board.
3) It has some sort of space laser and or other starwars tech on board.
4) We want to demonstrate our missile capability to the world.
5) We don't want anyone else to know what was on board the sat.
6) We don't want a hydrazine tank landing on anything important (IRS buildings, Federal Reserve Banks, The White House, Dick Cheney, ect ect
ect.....)
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 06:22 PM by Havalon
|
With reference to the Hydrazine:
 There has not been a single human being who has been harmed by man-made objects falling from space," Michael Krepon of the Henry L Stimson
Centre, a military think-tank, told the Washington Post.
Other researchers point out that 42 objects fell to Earth last year, including one with a form of hydrazine on board and a dozen others containing
hydrazine residue. 
source: msn.nzherald.co.nz...
So in a nutshell it is:
a) a grandstand/Naval test fire, (Where is the ship located again?)
b) they don't want any remains left of high tech observation equipment,
c) it is something more nepherious than just an eye in the sky.
I do not buy into their official explanation, will we ever know for sure??
H
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 07:45 PM by favouriteslave
|
Now they are saying there may be beryllium on board. Anyone know why they would need beryllium on board. Answer may lie in what it's used for and
what other "element" its used with. These links may provide a better idea.
www.boston.com...
www.nci.org...
[edit on 17-2-2008 by favouriteslave]
[edit on 17-2-2008 by favouriteslave]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 08:39 PM by Tom_Proctor
|
Anybody want to bet it misses and hits Iran?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 09:00 PM by ViewFromTheStars
|
One thing I am curious about. I know an engineer in high places and he told me that he does not understand why they don't 'propel' this sat out
into space away from us and maybe direct it towards another planet to crash it there. I don't see why this would be a big deal, it would just
require a short and directed fire.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 09:01 PM by punkinworks
|
Originally posted by favouriteslave
Now they are saying there may be beryllium on board. Anyone know why they would need beryllium on board. Answer may lie in what it's used for and
what other "element" its used with. These links may provide a better idea.

Beryllium is used a great deal in aerospace construction. It is used for all sorts of structural elements. It is usually used as a multiple metal
matrix , alloyed with magnesium and aluminum powders and sintered into a semi-ceramic metal.
It is the lightest non-reactive metal, lighter than magnesium or aluminum.
It is also VERY TOXIC, in dust form, in very small amounts. Only a few micro-grams of dust are needed to breathed in for death to occour.
Sinced this is a spy satellite, its orbital track would have kept it over areas of interest, industrial and urban. Both the hydrazine, and the
beryllium would be of great concern if the vehicle were to be allowed to land intact.
And most modern spy satellites are very large and will not burn up completey. Given that the many of the systems on board such a vehicle, are highly
classified, its only natural that ANY government would not like its secrets to be revealed to any enemies.
It is a perfect situation to test the anti-missle system.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 09:04 PM by Zaphod58
|
reply to post by ViewFromTheStars
How? You have to have power and computer control to fire the engines. They have neither. The shuttle wouldn't even TRY to catch it to either bring
it back or slap an engine on it and send it out into deep space.
They say March 6th between 58.5 degrees North and 58.5 degrees South is when and where it'll come down if they miss.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 09:06 PM by aaaauroraaaaa
|
Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
One thing I am curious about. I know an engineer in high places and he told me that he does not understand why they don't 'propel' this sat out
into space away from us and maybe direct it towards another planet to crash it there. I don't see why this would be a big deal, it would just
require a short and directed fire.

Just like the if the computer in your car goes out, it doesn't go anywhere (provided it's not a flying car). Just like if the computer in the
satellite is out, it goes nowhere(unless gravity takes it down).
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 09:07 PM by GLDNGUN
|
Originally posted by dizziedame
IMO we are taking the spy satellite out because we don't want our enemy, who ever that is, to get their hands on our equipment and learn any secrets
we might have or our technology.
I would have more respect for our government if it were honest with it's citizens and didn't feel we were so stupid not to realize why the satellite
has to be destroyed.

I really don't care what the reason is, whether it's to keep our technology out of hostile hands, put on a display for the Ruskies and Chinese, test
our ABM capabilities, avoid civilian casualties, or some other reason. The US put it in orbit and they have every right to take it down in whatever
fashion they decide. I also don't need the US government to make a public announcement providing our enemies with vital information every time they
have a sensitive military operation to carry out.
And just imagine the outcry if the US didn't shoot it down and it did hit civilians. OMG, the Bush haters would have a field day with that one. I can
just hear it now..."Bush KNEW this COULD happen! Hey, he probably knew it WOULD happen! He just doesn't care! He was too busy making billions more
for his billionaire buddies!" yada, yada, yada...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 09:14 PM by ViewFromTheStars
|
Gotcha' Zaphod, was not really sure of any of the details yet. This may sound like a rediculous idea but since we already have missiles that should
be able to reach these defunct satelites, why not have a 'missile' that could slow down, grab onto a satelite and fire again? Just a thought...
albeit a goofy one.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 09:18 PM by favouriteslave
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ViewFromTheStars
How? You have to have power and computer control to fire the engines. They have neither. The shuttle wouldn't even TRY to catch it to either bring
it back or slap an engine on it and send it out into deep space.
They say March 6th between 58.5 degrees North and 58.5 degrees South is when and where it'll come down if they miss. 
Exactly what area is that. I looked at a map but still don't know if theyre talking Pac N. West or Canada/Greenland area.
[edit on 17-2-2008 by favouriteslave]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 09:20 PM by Zaphod58
|
It can be anywhere between those two lines on a map. Forty degrees North is right smack down the center of the US, so it could come down on us, or
Russia, or anywhere along that line. Or it could be farther North and come down in Canada, Greenland or any of those along that line. Or it could
come down as far south as South of Australia, or anywhere between there and the equator.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 09:22 PM by Zaphod58
|
reply to post by ViewFromTheStars
You'd need a missile the size of an ICBM to do it. The SM-3 barely has the power to reach 170 miles, which is why they're waiting for it to come
down to around 150 or so. It would have to be a multistage, very large missile to be able to even come close to doing something like that, and the
computing power required to calculate that is insane. It would probably take a super computer just to figure out how to do it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 09:23 PM by favouriteslave
|
Well being in CA I still think it wise that we have sufficient canned foods and water on hand just in case KWIM.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |