U.S. Air Force to shut down 'Space Fence' surveillance system

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
It seems that the cutbacks are always made on the most important expenditures, a system that is used extensively. If they cut the things that had no real purpose, than noone would get upset so they cut things that people think are necessary. I think this tactic should be made illegal, in all government agencies and bureaucracies.

I am sure they could cut some of the expensive military project funding instead of the military itself. Boeing and Lockhead along with other big defense contractors have congress in their pocket. I don't know if our government can cut the money to them, I would bet that these companies have some secret aircraft that 99 percent of the military do not know exist, with all the testing and maintenance done by their own special sectors. I think that the UFOs people see belong to these defense contractors.




posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


A rock moving much slower? You're kidding right? The average speed of an asteroid is 25 kilometers per second. Some have been tracked at 30 kps. That's an average of over 55,000 mph. Even if we hit it, the odds of nudging it out of orbit and making it miss us, unless it's really far away, are tiny.

A meteorite generally enters the atmosphere at 25,000+ mph (as fast as 160,000 mph). An ICBM has a reentry speed around 9,000 mph.
edit on 8/12/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


You'll know when I'm kidding. You won't have to ask.

Why didn't you just look it up?

en.wikipedia.org...

The average speed of your meteor is not even Mach 1.

That is why I know that the explosion of the meteor in Russia could have likely been a deliberate interception.




The Russian Iskander-M cruises at hypersonic speed of 2100–2600 m/s (Mach 6–7) at a height of 50 km.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


Meteorites have been tracked at well over orbital speeds. They don't slow down to under mach 1 until well into the atmosphere. At the point they'd have to hit it to keep it from damaging objects on the ground its still well over speeds that are "easy to hit".


Meteoroids enter the earth’s atmosphere at very high speeds, ranging from 11 km/sec to 72 km/sec (25,000 mph to 160,000 mph). However, similar to firing a bullet into water, the meteoroid will rapidly decelerate as it penetrates into increasingly denser portions of the atmosphere. This is especially true in the lower layers, since 90 % of the earth’s atmospheric mass lies below 12 km (7 miles / 39,000 ft) of height.

www.amsmeteors.org...

While they do slow to a few hundred miles per hour when they get into the lower atmosphere, at the point they really need to be hit, they're still moving well beyond hypersonic speeds.
edit on 8/12/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


Meteorites have been tracked at well over orbital speeds. They don't slow down to under mach 1 until well into the atmosphere. At the point they'd have to hit it to keep it from damaging objects on the ground its still well over speeds that are "easy to hit".


I don't think that is true at all. How could it be so much easier to hit something outside of the atmosphere, that is going faster when it's further out? That makes no sense. If you were talking an extremely large celestial body, then yes, it would be best to intercept it way ahead of time because it might only break apart into chunks that are still large and incoming... or perhaps it would be better to nudge the trajectory off course before it even got close.

The thing with that is money.... to put something outside the atmosphere to intercept mere meteors would kind of be silly... if you could hit them with a missile after they were well within a controllable range in the atmosphere.... then the broken pieces would be very small.

We're talking about the difference in firing a missile OR conducting a space endeavor to take care of a mere meteor. That would be a waste if you could hit it in mere seconds with a single hypersonic missile.

I'm no expert but I don't get the impression that you are one either if you didn't know there were missiles traveling faster than the meteor speed you posted... so I don't think you really qualify to say at this point that a hypersonic missile couldn't be fired fast enough after an incoming body hit the atmosphere when they can go cross country in seconds. Yes, it happens fast... but hypersonic speed allows a missile to be launched from a distance that could cover substantial ground in ONE second... almost too fast to see it. If you're locked on to the target in this case, a mere second or two is all you really need.... and with an incoming meteor, you have more than one second from entering the atmosphere till the time it hits the ground to say the least. There's more play room there with advanced technology than you are willing to accept.

If you do the math, the Russian meteor was traveling at approx 33000 mph according to some sources. The thresh hold of the atmosphere is roughly 350 miles up. Had the meteor been coming straight down which would be the quickest route to the ground (which it certainly was not) divide 33000 into minutes which leaves you with 550 mpm... which leaves the meteor with well over a half a minute to hit the ground.

Granted, it needs to be closer than right inside the atmosphere, but just looking at the numbers ought to tell you there is time. Halfway to the ground, even three quarters to the ground when it would be extremely visible to all... there would still be several seconds. You can even tell that in the videos of the meteor... it was visible to many for several seconds and within more than a thousand miles, one is really all you need if the missile fires correctly at the indicated point.

Simply put, the missiles moves MUCH faster and that's really all there is to it.

Yep.... I would really not be surprised if those interception videos were not hoaxes. Most of them claim that a UFO intercepted it but that would be silly for a UFO to crash into a meteor.
It is simply not impossible for it to have been a hypersonic missile. I mean the damn thing exploded like a nuke well after being inside the atmosphere. I think they shot it.

Now Russia has a contract with FEMA and they are shutting down part of the US surveillance system... and why wouldn't they if Russia is going to be the one shooting at them? What part of that system is Russia needed for concerning protection from incoming objects?... Personnel? Why would we need a contract with their country for personnel? What's proprietary to Russia is the equipment... equipment they are doubtfully just going to simply hand over especially if it's their latest missile.

Makes perfect sense actually.
edit on 13-8-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Even outside the atmosphere we are not approaching Mach 7 for meteor speeds no matter how you look at it.

The Russian meteor was not even seen hitting the ground. All they found were small pieces. from the time it became visible to the time it exploded still very high in the air... it hung several seconds.

If you have a MACH 7 missile and you CAN'T hit a target like that... my oh my at the money you wasted.

All this is totally conceivable and the actions of our government only back it up.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


You are so wrong that it's pathetic.

Mach 7 = 5328 mph.

Meteorite = 11 km/s = 25,000 mph.

Do you see it now? Or are you going to continue to insist that Mach 7 is some magic speed. If you can't see that speeds in space are so much faster then there's no point in even trying to continue a conversation.

The reason that it's easier to hit an asteroid is because it's travelling a pretty straight course unless it's affected by gravity. It's not going to maneuver like a missile can. It's also a hell of a lot bigger than a missile warhead.
edit on 8/13/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


Hmmmm... Obama can take a $100M vacation to Africa but we can't come up with $14M to monitor satellites and other extra-orbital traffic?

Someone remind me again why this loser hasn't been impeached yet!?



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The dates will be pushed out by a year or two
Trust me. Nothing happens as planned without several delays.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
The aliens may have finally agreed to ATC rules and they no longer need to keep watch?

The "portals"(entrances to Einstein Rosen bridges) connecting us to the galaxy are now known and charted....that's why space fence in the first place...they realized the UFOs were materialising regularly in the same vectors of near space....?
MMMMMMMMM maybe they rely on NASAs massive web of space related detection gear now?



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Space Fence can only see up to 15,000 miles. There are other systems that see farther and are more likely to catch anything earlier.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AthiestJesus
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I said meteor but , meh .

Ok , a satellite lands in your street and kills everyone ............. you`d want answers right ?


If it killed everyone on my street....then no, I'd be dead.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


You are so wrong that it's pathetic.

Mach 7 = 5328 mph.

Meteorite = 11 km/s = 25,000 mph.

Do you see it now? Or are you going to continue to insist that Mach 7 is some magic speed. If you can't see that speeds in space are so much faster then there's no point in even trying to continue a conversation.

The reason that it's easier to hit an asteroid is because it's travelling a pretty straight course unless it's affected by gravity. It's not going to maneuver like a missile can. It's also a hell of a lot bigger than a missile warhead.
edit on 8/13/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


The miscalculation between meters and miles is what I get for being distracted and not doing what I'm supposed to be doing, which is not arguing about missiles... but this subject is a concern of mine. Things still do not add up and I'll show you why. No, I never said MACH 7 was a magic number. I find it very bizarre you're attempting to bring magic into this. It's got nothing to do with magic or joking around and it would be nice if we could have a grown up debate to clarify the facts if we're going to have the debate at all.

Critical mach number is going to be higher for objects under certain circumstances, aerodynamics and mass would be a factor as in the case of missiles and jets... the critical mach number of the meteor would therefore be much lower although it would have more velocity due to mass which would be a factor in speed, and speed is not a constant in mach numbers, but yes, the meteor is traveling very fast...and then there are atmospheric conditions which are even more complicated and factor in....and like you mentioned, enhanced features that would give a missile and advantage over a rock.

I'm still not convinced it isn't possible and looking at it closer just brings me right back to that conclision. This information puts the airborne time of ICBMs doing mach 7 up to an hour for an extended range, which is pointless and absurd. The LGM-Minuteman III touts MACH 23!...which makes it very suspect of why they would even bother with this new iskander in the first place. The RS-24 is Mach 20+ and is an older Russian missile so why piss around with a Mach 7 iskander? The minuteman III was in service since 1970? Come on, at 15000 mph which is WELL into "HIGH-Hypersonic" speed... and getting very close to "re-entry" speed..and we've had that since 1970???

Granted, my calculations were wrong but this still doesn't change the fact that somebody has some incredibly fast missiles... and they have had incredibly fast missiles for a while now... So I'll keep my math abbreviations in check but my point still stands that I think it's totally conceivable to think that somebody has missiles capable of re-entry speeds. Why wouldn't they at this point if they've had close to that for 4 decades. It doesn't make sense. I'm now thinking the true error is in the specs for the tech that they have, which they would not release fully to the public or anybody else until it had become obsolete anyway. We all know this, so I think there is something wrong with the information and I still think something could have shot the meteor. The best time for this to happen would be moments after re entry as the temperature was dropping from the re entry friction... helping it break apart like a shattered glass.

I'm now even more curious about the iskander. Why is it special? When you look at missiles speeds, it's like a turtle... but that's besides the point of the subject. The point is that missiles are pretty fast. Faster than I think you are willing to accept.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
It seems that the cutbacks are always made on the most important expenditures, a system that is used extensively. If they cut the things that had no real purpose, than noone would get upset so they cut things that people think are necessary. I think this tactic should be made illegal, in all government agencies and bureaucracies.

I am sure they could cut some of the expensive military project funding instead of the military itself. Boeing and Lockhead along with other big defense contractors have congress in their pocket. I don't know if our government can cut the money to them, I would bet that these companies have some secret aircraft that 99 percent of the military do not know exist, with all the testing and maintenance done by their own special sectors. I think that the UFOs people see belong to these defense contractors.


The problem with cutting a contract is, it is a contract you still have to pay or they will sue you and you pay more.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


I didn't say that it was impossible, did I. But it's a much higher speed where it's critical to hit it, which means you have much less time for corrections than you do with an ICBM, or a Mach 7 anti-ship missile. If you have a rock travelling at 25,000+ mph you have to be almost perfect the first time, even though it's not moving side to side or up and down like you might see with an incoming ICBM. Whereas a Mach 23 missile gives you several minutes from launch to target (as many as 15-20+ minutes), a meteorite coming in at a higher speed is going to give you a minute or two, and if it's dense and has a large mass, you're going to require several missiles. But you can't tell that from radar returns a lot of the time, so you have to chose to try to wait until the first missile hits, or shoot most of them off and hope you get a bunch of hits and stop it. Quick, choose which it is, you've only got a few seconds to decide, while your anti-ICBM crew has time to track it, determine where it's going, and plot an intercept.

Remember, Space Fence doesn't even see out to geosynchronous orbit, so you've got almost no time to detect, track, and decide on that meteorite coming screaming in at you.

The Iskander is a TRBM, not an ICBM, so you can't compare it to a Minuteman, or even to Russian ICBMs.
edit on 8/13/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


Remember, Space Fence doesn't even see out to geosynchronous orbit, so you've got almost no time to detect, track, and decide on that meteorite coming screaming in at you.

The Iskander is a TRBM, not an ICBM, so you can't compare it to a Minuteman, or even to Russian ICBMs.


well, it certainly seemed that "impossible" was the direction you were taking this in.

A) If not, then you could have easily simplified your debate a few posts ago by pointing out the lower speeds of the iskander being the problematic area of my original statement.

OR

B) In your first reply to my argument that missiles could achieve meteor speeds (which admittedly is not as easily proven as I would like for it to be, but still possible when you explore the circumstances further, imo) your argument was more about the meteor speeds being higher than what is seen within the atmosphere, rather than going right for the calculation error... the former which is a non point if you are talking about hitting it with a maneuverable missile within the atmosphere.

What this tells me, a long with your other replies is that you are exploring these details congruently as I am. Please do not try to pretend that you aren't. I'm very certain that your initial reason for replying to my post was to dismiss the idea entirely.... rather than doing what you are doing now, which is comparing missiles. If you want to compare missiles that's fine, but I think it's clear we are learning this as we go... both of us.

As for the trajectory issue of the meteor... moving in a straight line at a calculated speed does not make it harder to hit... it makes it easier to hit, naturally. The idea that "You" have to be perfect the first time isn't exactly correct. "You" have to be using the right *equipment*, which in this case is a high speed missile that just needs to lock onto a dumb target that is capable of doing a lot of damage... as is suggested by your note of the mass of the rock- true, but before thinking you have to hit it with multiple missiles, why not just use a very destructive warhead? It seems what you are imagining is shooting from a jet... or something that takes personnel command and lighter weaponry. That is not the impression I have at all. There is no "Quick, choose which it is" scenario that I think applied in this circumstance... because it is not left up to personnel decision. It is automatically calculated by computers. An incoming rock gives any such devices quite a time frame to make such calculations... So it should really just be a one shot deal. Size, speed, location... hit it with the right missile and boom... there you go. It should go like clockwork and if it doesn't... yes, there may be a scramble taking place for plan B to stop it any way they can but ideally, this is not how you would approach a meteor... like tactical warfare. You would approach it calmly and methodically.

The missile doesn't have to be highly maneuverable or decoy capable or anything like that... so yes, there is no point in throwing the iskander into this equation...that's true, but it's tactical operations are what makes the iskander special as a side note. yes, I just learned this... not afraid to admit that.

Space Fence may not see out to geosynchronous orbit... Which would be a good reason that it's not a good choice for incoming rocks. That doesn't change the fact that they saw DA14 coming months before it ever came close and had already calculated trajectory which CANNOT be denied, calculating trajectory, size and speed.... which is exactly what you need to make that necessary methodical assessment. In the case of DA14... they very clearly had MONTHS to pick a weapon had the thing fell to Earth. DA14 was roughly 3-4 times bigger than the Russian meteor... and even though that would be harder to calculate, it would only be 3-4 times harder to calculate... all being relative to distance, so at at least one fourth of the distance, it should have been as clear to detect as DA14... which should have still meant weeks of knowing, assuming they even told us about DA14 when they first found out... and thats small potatoes in detail so I'm not even going to look it up. I know *I* knew about DA14 months before it got here... so yes, I CERTAINLY believe they knew about the Russian meteor shortly thereafter. No scrambling need even apply.

We could talk about space fence all day since that is the subject... or in this case, the reasons why it WOULDN'T be effectively used for such purposes. That's fine and is becoming even more apparent but the meteor struck in Russia, not the US so Space Fence shouldn't be in that equation really... as it doesn't apply and also because it is very clear that they have other ways of detecting meteors, obviously... or we never would have heard of DA14.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


And how many posts ago did you name it the Iskander? One? I don't have all the missile names memorized. You want to talk planes, then hell yes, I can probably name it from specs, missiles I don't follow as closely.

Now we get to the fun part of the exercise. What are you going to shoot the notional asteroid/meteorite with? An ICBM (or TRBM for that matter) aims at a fixed point, so the chances of hitting an asteroid are astronomical. The Ground Based Interceptor is already a joke against missiles, and is short ranged, so you're going to have to fire a lot of them to make sure you hit the target (it has a 50% success rate, and they haven't even gotten to the hard tests yet).

An Aegis BMD ship, with SM-3s or later, while a lot more successful against missiles in tests, isn't designed for an ICBM class target, which any incoming rock is going to be. It's designed for theater defense. So what weapon are you planning to use against it?



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Yeah. Well, sure. But stop and think.
Earthbound radar installations are inefficient, costly and frequently not able to be located in the most opportune places. In addition, they are limited (usually) by the curve of the earth so they need to be extended into those blind areas which really count, into a possible enemy territory.

The simple solution is to have radar units in earth orbit looking down. They can sweep more territory and even monitor surface traffic besides airborne and space objects. The logistics would not be a problem because the US has the triangles that can flit around like birds, even into space.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


And how many posts ago did you name it the Iskander? One? I don't have all the missile names memorized. You want to talk planes, then hell yes, I can probably name it from specs, missiles I don't follow as closely.

Now we get to the fun part of the exercise. What are you going to shoot the notional asteroid/meteorite with? An ICBM (or TRBM for that matter) aims at a fixed point, so the chances of hitting an asteroid are astronomical. The Ground Based Interceptor is already a joke against missiles, and is short ranged, so you're going to have to fire a lot of them to make sure you hit the target (it has a 50% success rate, and they haven't even gotten to the hard tests yet).

An Aegis BMD ship, with SM-3s or later, while a lot more successful against missiles in tests, isn't designed for an ICBM class target, which any incoming rock is going to be. It's designed for theater defense. So what weapon are you planning to use against it?


I'm not sure why you are asking me how many posts ago I called it the Iskander. That's what it's always been called, I'm not sure what the point of this question is because when I posted that, I thought it was a relatively fast missile, which it is not. I was merely using it as an example because so much recent effort has gone into it and I thought it was a fast missile, but it's certainly not... and I have been trying to clarify that it was a poor example of a fast missile and that other missiles are better examples that I should have used instead.

You could have also done the same, if you knew, but like I was saying you seem to finding these facts congruent to this conversation and instead of acknowledging that that there are High-hypersonic missiles that near re entry speeds, you seemed to be dismissing the concept altogether... and you said you weren't doing that. I disagree but oh well and my point still stands that it's obvious that neither one of us is an expert... so let's not waste time going over unhelpful aspects of the posts and continue just making our points of debate.

As for what missile to use, I'm not sure... that's a good question but perhaps there are more options than is apparent. I'm now reading that the Topol-M can achieve speeds above 16000 mph (faster than the minuteman) and this missile didn't come up in my initial search for the fastest missiles so who knows what options are out there... but speaking of the Topol-M it has target evasive maneuvering, which means it can avoid being hit but I have not yet read how well it does with moving targets HOWEVER, the RS-24 already mentioned "loosely based on the Topol" has HIGH Hypersonic speeds and MIRV features, from what I am reading... which makes it capable of carrying several warheads each capable of hitting one of a group of targets.

That's interesting. I was not aware of this technology. This totally solves your issue of trying to hit something with multiple warheads. Multiple targets can be sought with one missile. It goes Mach 20+

Now whether they have something faster, which would be needed to catch the meter from behind... is beyond me. Do we really know what they have? No... but what they do have seems to be pretty capable of doing a lot. Hell, NASA impacted a comet with a space probe. Comets are of course very high speed but I have no idea how fast tempel1 was going, but most comets are traveling very fast and have a great deal of velocity although I understand that in space, there would be factors affecting velocity although I'm not sure to what degree. My point is that they intercepted a moving comet in space. How? Calculation. That's the only way they could have done it.

This brings me back to the point that calculation is the critical key element. Even if your calculations are not 100% precise, there is no doubt in my mind that they could easily calculate general location well enough INCLUDING direction of entry path. So what I mean by this is why chase the meteor down from behind with a missile that goes faster. You would still need a fast missile but if you planned to intercept from the side of the general calculated trajectory it would not have to be near as fast as you might think... not near as fast as the meteor itself. This would also give you the opportunity to use a missile with precise target locking and automated seeking capabilities... which I would think that almost any highly maneuverable missile could be equipped with.

Still convinced it is totally possible.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


Uhm, because all you said is "Mach 7 missile" and I was supposed to know what you were talking about from that?

The Topol, and any variants are ICBMs. An ICBM goes to a fixed point to hit its target. It won't work against an asteroid or meteorite. There currently isn't a missile that will work. The fact that an ICBM is capable of maneuvering to avoid an interceptor doesn't prove that it can target an asteroid or other space object. You can't target deep space with an ICBM, it just wouldn't work. It has to be able to see where it is to be able to target, and eventually it would lose the ability to see where it was, and where it was going.

The probe that impacted the comet was dropped from a probe that was doing a close flyby of the comet.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


Uhm, because all you said is "Mach 7 missile" and I was supposed to know what you were talking about from that?

The Topol, and any variants are ICBMs. An ICBM goes to a fixed point to hit its target. It won't work against an asteroid or meteorite. There currently isn't a missile that will work. The fact that an ICBM is capable of maneuvering to avoid an interceptor doesn't prove that it can target an asteroid or other space object. You can't target deep space with an ICBM, it just wouldn't work. It has to be able to see where it is to be able to target, and eventually it would lose the ability to see where it was, and where it was going.

The probe that impacted the comet was dropped from a probe that was doing a close flyby of the comet.


You weren't necessarily supposed to know which Mach 7 missile I meant... and you're not expected to, but if you pretend to be a missile expert (ei, in claiming that no capable missile exists) there is no excuse for you to not be aware that there are missiles that go 7200+m/s, faster than Mach 7. So if you were not trying to debunk the entire concept of shooting down meteors, which you are again doing (when a couple of posts back you posted that you never said it was impossible) all you had to say is "You know, there are missiles way faster than Mach 7 so why even consider a Mach 7?"... but you didn't because you are (as I stated) also digging for this info as you go. Please stop pretending to be a missile expert because you are not a missile expert. You are finding this info on the fly just as I am and it is making this a very circular counterproductive argument. Remain closed minded on your own time because it is not my job to sit here and pry your mind open with the possibilities just because I am still open to them and just because you like to argue regardless of the point.

I didn't say an ICBM was used in deep space... I said a probe was. Don't try to make that sound simple like it was some kind of coincidence that the probe just happened to by flying by the comet.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point.

The fact that they were able to intercept tempel1 OUGHT to tell you that they have calculation of comets and asteroids down to a science. This has been one of my main points in this entire discussion. In the vast regions of space, how in the world do you think they got close enough to Tempel1 without calculation?

Do you think they just chanced it? Do you think they just sent it out there and maneuvered it and hoped for the best? I sure hope not since you really seem to fancy yourself as someone in the know.

They carefully chose the precise moment when to execute this endeavor.... which made their target to be intercepted at a particular point in time.... a what? A WHAT?

A FIXED POINT.

No, the comet was not a fixed point, but the precise moment of interception WAS.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Now, that is a probe in space. Hitting a meteor will involve different dynamics after it enters the atmosphere which will make the calculation less precise, but it is still able to be calculated, imo, to a very reasonable extent. I'm sure varying atmospheric conditions would be a factor too... and are calculable as well closer to the time of impact... all the while KNOWING when it was coming down. Therefore, there may be absolutely no need to use the most maneuverable missile, but at least maneuverable to some degree and multiple warheads solve issues you've mentioned as well. Also, if they know where it's coming down... why does it have to be long range? The reason long range comes into play is only because the fastest missiles seem to be long range missiles, but that doesn't mean there are no fast maneuverable missiles and you also have to consider that it's not just the missile itself but the guidance system. It's kind of pointless to argue this with you though because you don't seem to comprehend the concept of calculation. There are different ways to achieve missile guidance and often it's not just with the missile itself... but mostly about calculation and guidance with a variety of missiles.

You have wasted a lot of my time over nothing.

If they can use a probe to intercept a comet, then I'm pretty damn sure they can hit one with a missile. Why is this is just not common sense to you? My point from the very beginning has always been about this...

THEY KNEW IT WAS COMING.

How could they not? This means there was not all this target guessing that you are trying to insist upon.




top topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join