what are some of the theories on the scenario of this missle not hitting it's target.
do we then not only have a defunked sattelite but a deadly missle that also need's to be shot down? or is it the russians turn to try out their toy's next??
maybe a four legged cosmonaut kama kazi type pilot in sputnik #2 to knock it on out of the sky ...
let's hear some of your idea's before this tragedy takes place today.....

This morning on CNN they asked the same question and the missle has a self destruct mechanism if it misses the satelite.

Why then are they spending 40-60 million dollars on attempting to shoot it down ?

if they detonated a missle that missed wouldn't that create quite a bit of debry left to fall back to earth eventually??
and how about any residual missle fuel thet might fall back to earth, would that harm humans just like the sattelite fuel would??
if so why would we take the chance of harming humans twice if we are so worried about harming them once???????

I was wondering the same thing...I doubt any other country would attempt a shot at the satellite. As for the missle, if it misses, it's either going to burn up in the atmosphere on the way back down or the Navy's going to detonate it before it comes back to Earth. Either way, it should make for a pretty exciting fireworks display!

When they had the space shuttle up there why didnt they just pick it up or repair it.

They have the opportunity to fire up to 3 missiles from what I heard.
The rocket releases a non-explosive kinetic impactor that can be guided towards the hydrazine fuel tank.

If all goes well the satellite should shatter at a very low orbit and burn up as it enters the atmosphere.

Originally posted by Nailer
When they had the space shuttle up there why didnt they just pick it up or repair it.

It's not as simple as just driving your shuttle over to the satellite and picking it up. When the shuttle rendezvous with the ISS, for example, that is all carefully planned from before launch. They have to get on the same basic orbital path, the same inclination and altitude, then they make small adjustments to catch up to it in that orbit. It takes a lot of gas to significantly change the orbit of the shuttle, so they don't just crank it up and fly it around. It's all planned well in advance and it's just too risky to change the inclination, drop it down a hundred miles or so, and pick up a satellite on such short notice.

Of course they did know about this quite awhile in advance (the satellite failed shortly after launch in 2006 and they knew it was going to be coming down eventually), but as important as the risk of a hydrazine leak somewhere on earth sounds, it's not so critical that they would totally scrub a shuttle mission by altering it to pick up the satellite on the way back down. After all, there's a 2/3 chance that even if they did nothing, the satellite would fall harmlessly in an ocean. It's hardly worth disrupting NASA's already ailing ISS/Shuttle schedule.

If the missile misses, then China wins.

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
If the missile misses, then China wins.

This is why the USA is shooting at the sat anyways, right? To prove to the world it can, and that not only China can.

Or so the speculation is, it was hinted at on CNN.com

60million for a 2/3 chance of landing on land, not to mention the chance that it would just burn up entirely on entry in the first place. It does seem expensive. At least the military could admit they are using this as a training exercise, cause we all know they are.

we have a winner, i think that jeff hit the nail right on the head. if we miss with the missle than china wins and the begining of our next cold war will start off with us as the underdog, or so it seem's..