Could the editor on deck please remove the 's from in front of Bush in the title?

Why not shoot it down? It's a valid field test of anti-satellite military technology. I don't even see this as an issue...

It's along the same lines as trying to shoot a small incoming asteroid. It's preferable to have only one piece fall than several hundred.

Also there's the expense of a multi-million dollar missile to perform what many experts consider an unnecessary operation that can't be confirmed as a success.

If it's a confirmable hit, Bush paints himself as a biblical hero striking down the mighty foe.

If it's an unconfirmed hit, half Arab the world will call us a liar.

If its a confirmed miss, the U.S. will be branded a fool for trying to hit such a small target, and a bragging failure. There's also the chance that the missile could go haywire, miss its target and then fall on an ally's territory. (don't forget we're talking about a missile most likely built with the same unreliable technology as the satellite that got us into this mess in the first place.

Either way, it's not worth the millions and the risk to try to shoot down something the size of a school bus with little preparation.

again, most experts have said that it'd burn up in the admosphere and would pose very little danger to anyone.

In either case it's wasting millions on an operation that doesn't need doing

Of course that's only my opinion.

It is a bit strange. It seems like the sort of decision Bush wouldn't normally need to be involved in.

The official explanation about the hydrazine fuel tank being likely to survive re-entry isn't very convincing.

My guess is that someone said something in a briefing which came out the wrong way, and Bush got it into his head that this was some sort of major danger that he needed to take executive action on.

Now everyone's getting into a tizzy about it, not least because the planned impact location is in the North Pacific Ocean. All this publicity is probably to make damn sure the Russians and the Chinese don't freak out when they detect the missile launch.

It's still not a bad exercise for the navy to practice their gunnery, with no harm done. They plan to shoot it at a point in the trajectory where, if they hit it, the pieces won't hit anything or anyone, and if they miss, ditto.

As for the cost, so what? It's still good training, and training is expensive, no matter what it's for.

I think it's a great idea; hydrazine or no hydrazine.

They should do it more often (safely, of course).

I don't believe it has anything to do with concerns about safety or any sort of buffoonery on the part of the Bush administration. It clearly looks like a calculated decision.

Russia says that it's an escalation, or reinstituting, of the arms race. It does seem that way to me too.

This article illustrates how low the looney left had gotten...here are some other posts soon to come...

Snow Storms Hit The Midwest - Bush Suspected of Using Secret Ant-Global Warming Device

Satellite Nears Earth While Bush Passivley Watches -Dumbocrats Call for an Investigation


JOM - "The Dumbocrats - Home of the Loons and Raciists"

Clavos, do you think it's a good idea because your St. Bush is behind it, or do you really think it's a good idea?

Despite the wasted money for what most experts say is an unnecessary expense, not to mention the eventual worldwide derision if they miss.

Our space technology isn't exactly great, witness the faulty satellite that got us into this in the first place.

Are you willing to gamble the long odds that we'll actually hit the thing, much less avoid the rain of debris that'd follow?

The Navy appears to be planning to try to destroy it after it is already tumbling through the atmosphere.

Les, what if we shoot and miss and the damned missile lands in London or Paris, or Pittsburgh?

If we can't rely on a satellite to self destruct, which all military satellites are supposed to do, can we really rely on a missile to do the same thing?

JOM, that comment illustrates how low the looney right has gotten...here are some other posts soon to come...

Winter snows retreat from Midwest - Bush disputing Global Warming has caused irreversable damage to U.S. agriculture.

Rocket misses Satellite and falls to Earth in China While Bush Passivley Watches and reads another elementary school goat book -Republican'ts try to blame Communism and call for war with Hawaii

"The Republican'ts - Home of the Diests and scam artists"

According to Reuters the U.S. has begun reassuring concerned countries NOT that they won't miss, but that the U.S. will pay for any damages caused by the fallen satellite if it hits their territory.

Sounds real confident doesn't it?

Jet,

"...what if we shoot and miss and the damned missile lands in London or Paris, or Pittsburgh?"

As I said before, the U.S. government's motivation in this has nothing to do with caring if any people are killed or injured, or if there is any property damage.

The only thing that makes sense is that this is a military test. Some in this thread responded, in a matter of fact way, 'It's still not a bad exercise for the navy to practice their gunnery' see this as a useful military exercise. It is the most reasonable explanation.

"If we can't rely on a satellite to self destruct, which all military satellites are supposed to do, can we really rely on a missile to do the same thing?"

Just because this satellite failed, for whatever reason, a missile to destroy it wouldn't necessarily have to fail. I am not privy to what they believe the rocket, or other technology can do. There may be some signal emanating from the disabled satellite that could make intercept guidance much easier and more effective.

Les

So Les, are you saying that the odds of us missing this, are smaller than the risk of it burning up harmlessly in orbit?

Trying to shoot it down may do more damage than good.

By the way thanks for contributing to the discussion

Jet

Jet #8:

"Clavos, do you think it's a good idea because your St. Bush is behind it, or do you really think it's a good idea?"

I'm not a Bush supporter. I'm a conservative libertarian; he's neither. I think, as I said above, the practice for the Navy is a good idea.

"Despite the wasted money for what most experts say is an unnecessary expense, not to mention the eventual worldwide derision if they miss."

Again, as I said above, training, especially of the military is expensive; I don't have a problem with that.

"Are you willing to gamble the long odds that we'll actually hit the thing, much less avoid the rain of debris that'd follow?"

Opinions from the so-called "experts" on both sides are at odds: some say it's no big deal, others say we'll we'll miss and might endanger people in the process. I choose to believe the former.

So, once more, yes. I think it's a good idea.

Oh my this cannot be!!! A leading Dumbocrat supporting Bush!!

From yesterdays New York Times Story

A Congressional Democrat considered one of the party's experts on missile defense agreed that the United States had to take responsibility for any threat posed by the satellite.

Jet didnt you read the Huffington Post or this weeks Dumbocratic Talking Points email before writing this um...er..post?

JOM "The Dumbocrats - The Party of Fools"

Jet,

First point - the missle being used to hit this won't have the range to 'hit" London or Paris etc. We are not talking about an ABM but something much much smaller. Previous tests of anti-satellite missiles have occurred - both plane based weapons and others. We are talking about a relatively small warhead - the main damage is kinetic, not explosive.

If no one is particularly worried about the "schoolbus sized satellite" impacting with any substantive damage resulting, then the pieces of the satellite or any debris is not likely to cause issues either...barring any type of radioactive power source being sprayed all over the landscape.

Be that as it may, I agree the argument about the hydrazine is pretty much silly and, at best, seems like an excuse to justify the use of the satellite as a live-fire exercise.

The political fallout is another question. Demonstrating strong anti-satellite capabilities during a time when the Chinese are in the process of planning a significant expansion of their own space program might be seen as provacative - except for the fact that most nations have a pretty good idea of the US anti-satellite capabilities anyway, so it isn't really a surprise to anyone that matters.

I suspect it's just a lame excuse for a test, but I would not be surprised to see, over the next 20 years, an increased militarization of the space, as near-earth orbits become more and more crowded with new space-capable nations trying to stake some 'ground".

Deano, that seems to be a fair assessment of the situation, thanks for contributing to the conversation...

"I'm not a Bush supporter. I'm a conservative libertarian; he's neither."
- Clavos

Then why have you defended his desertion?

An article in Today's New York Times, Missile Defense Future May Turn on Success of Mission to Destroy Satellite pointed out the following:

"Should it succeed, the accomplishment would embolden those who champion even more spending on top of the $57.8 billion appropriated by Congress for missile defenses since the Bush administration's first budget in the 2002 fiscal year.

When NASA does'nt see the large "Dark Matter Objects" on a course towards Earth there scientists say, it's a near miss.Asteroids and comets come this close to Earth all the time.Well, if you check the recent trajectory of objects headed toward Earth, they are getting closer.So why complain if at least our government might have the sense and another reason for there satellites? As a democracy we must protect the world, for if we do not protect our neighbors,how can we protect ourselves?

G,

"As a democracy we must protect the world, for if we do not protect our neighbors, how can we protect ourselves?"

The U.S. only wants to protect its political and economic interests in the world. It is incredulous to believe that a country that is not only been willing, but in actuality, has killed millions of people to maintain its world order, that it would invest $57.8 billion to protect a few from a falling fuel tank.

We have at least one example of where the precision of a U.S. missile destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan. The U.S. claimed it was a chemical weapons factory. Sound familiar? The U.S. did not have any substantial proof that it was such. The Sudanese government demanded of the U.N. Security Council that the site be investigated. The U.S. blocked that investigation. The U.S. also refused to send a team, at the request of the Sudanese government to investigate the site. Sound like a typical Bush crime? Maybe, but this was 1998 and it was the Clinton administration. As I have said on other threads, it doesn't really matter who's in the White House or to which party they belong.

These technologies will not only do great harm, but worse still; it will help keep the criminals in power that continue to rape and pillage the world.

Whether intentional, or not, pointing to a possible good use, like shooting down asteroids, only gives cover for the real intent and purpose for this technology.

Les

Les, I'd argue that Bush's intent is to use up as much military equipment as possible so that he can give more no-bid contracts to Halliburton to replace it.

After all Chenney's probably convinced him that they're owed a huge quid pro quo.

I used to complain about the state of U.S. Military's weaponry and space equipment by pointing out the fact that it all has been built by "The lowest bidder."

Now the problem is even worse, it built by the No-ist" bidder.

Two points:

1. Halliburton does not now, and never has, built any kind of military equipment or weaponry.

2. The company recently divested itself of its KBR division, which did provide construction and other services to both civilian and military customers, in order to concentrate on its core expertise of oil field exploration and services.

Just because it divested itself of KBR recently, does not negate the fact that the U.S. has for the last 7 years put tens of billions of dollars into Haliburton's pocket for military equipment and services at premium prices.

"has for the last 7 years put tens of billions of dollars into Haliburton's pocket for military equipment..."

Two points:

1. See point #1 above: "Halliburton does not now, and never has, built any kind of military equipment or weaponry."

2. Halliburton's Iraq contracts (which began to expire in 2006; most are now expired), totaled approximately $13 billion, (not "tens of billions"), which is less than 3% of the total $450 billion spent on the Iraq war through 2007. The Halliburton contracts had margins of between 1.5 and 2%.

Oh, and the Iraq war is not 7 years old.

We invaded Iraq in March, 2003.

...what if we shoot and miss and the damned missile lands in London or Paris, or Pittsburgh?"

If the missile hits London Paris (or Rome or Berlin), I'd break open the cognac and celebrate. If it hit Pittsburgh, I'd feel bad.

Better it should miss and hit Riyadh....

Oh, I see. Clavos you're telling me that Haliburton or any of its many other companies had no government equipment contracts with the U.S. seven years ago?

What are you on their payroll?

No.

I own them...

Although Halliburton has acquired a number of smaller countries throughout its history (which dates back to the 1920s, when it was started by Mr. and Mrs. Halliburton), most have been absorbed into the company, not operated as separate entities. Since its divestiture of KBR, complete in January 2007, it does not own or operate any other companies.

They actually have been getting government contracts for a LOT longer than 7 years, Jet, and for many governments besides the rotten US government; currently they have a major contract with Brasil and also do work for Mexico and several Arab countries.

They put out the oil field fires in Kuwait in 1991, and they even had a small presence in Vietnam.

*Although Halliburton has acquired a number of smaller countries throughout its history*

lol

That should have been:

"Although Halliburton has acquired a number of smaller companies..., obviously.

OTOH, who knows? Maybe they have acquired the odd country or two here and there...

nice recovery

gotta be nimble with this crowd...

As Pablo might say, "Chuckle".

It wouldn't be anything unprecedented if they had. After all, the British and Dutch East India Companies between them pretty much ran the Indian Ocean basin for a while.

They may own several local counties in the U.S. too... or even a parrish in Louisiana?

It's a good test. Seriously, guys, it is. I expect what's going on, and what's reported, only bear the faintest resemblance to one another-reporters tend to be technological ignoramuses as notable im CNN reporters in 1990 telling the world how the CRG (COmmunications Relay Group, the antenna truck) detects and shoots down Scuds in the gulf war.

Why do I say it's a good test? simple: objects in space tend to operate without friction, and under only mild influence of gravity, making their movement very newtonian. Around 165 million years or so ago, according to the most commonly accepted scientific hypothesis, an object from space rearranged Earth's Ecology.

Under our current state of affairs both in terms of publically available tech info, and physical resources, if one of those is coming, we can do exactly not a damn thing. 'Armageddon' and 'Deep Impact' were FICTION.

What's this got to do with shooting down a sat?

Well, guys, it's like this: If one were developing a gun-system for coastal defense, one generally will build based on pre-existing technologies-in other words, if you can't hit the sattelite, you can't hit the Asteroid.

ASAT and BMD systems are the natural precursors for detecting (reliably) and doing-something-about inbound objects moving at high speed, before they convert millions of people to ash and render the entire global-warming debate (and every other partisan bickering in our modern society) a moot point.

Bolide impacts aren't a matter of 'if', they're a matter of 'When'. it may not be in your lifetime, or grandchildren's lifetime, but the longer it takes to develop your core technologies for deflecting/preventing them, the higher the odds that whatever issues you think are so important at this point in history are going to be less than pointless.

Tens of billions

"...In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contract, an omnibus contract that allows the Army to call on KBR for support in all of its field operations. When the Army needs a service performed, it issues a "task order," which lays out specific work requirements under the contract.

From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent (some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands). KBR beat out DynCorp and defense giant Raytheon for the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001, this one to run 10 years..."

Cannonshop, with the exception of Chenney's Haliburton, it was all built by the lowest bidder...

If the truth be told, I'd support the target practice as a good test of our technology, if only Bush would've kept his mouth shut and not said anything until AFTER we'd shot the damned thing down.

With the odds not in our favor, it's probable that we'll miss the damn thing or have to use tow or more extreeeeeeeeemly expensive rocket/missiles to shoot it down, causing us international embarrassment.

What is the difference between a military rocket and a military missile anyway?

...other than the spelling and the Scrabble score?

One of my favorite quotes from the movie "Contact" is "It's one of the basic rules of government spending Doctor; 'Why build one, when you can build two at twice the price?'!"

Love that movie.

And the book it was adapted from even more so.

G, #20: When NASA does'nt see the large "Dark Matter Objects" on a course towards Earth there scientists say, it's a near miss.Asteroids and comets come this close to Earth all the time.Well, if you check the recent trajectory of objects headed toward Earth, they are getting closer.

Point of order: near-miss objects aren't getting any closer or further away than they always have - we've just improved our ability to detect them.

Other than that - what Cannonshop said.

Although this little incident does make me wonder...

I'm not making any kind of value judgment or ideological statement here, but it does strike me as ironic that a government which is supposedly of the people, by the people, for the people expends so much effort in keeping secrets from the people.

:-)

Simple Doc, the more the Bush Administration hides the more power he thinks he has. Sooner or later he's going to find out that political power is like a handful of sand. The harder you clench your first, the more that slips through your fingers.

"Tens of billions"

Only 13 in Iraq, out of 450; less than 3%.

Also, you've said more than once that their contracts were all no-bid, and yet you yourself point out, in #38:

"KBR beat out DynCorp and defense giant Raytheon for the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001, this one to run 10 years..."

"Beat out" how? In chess? :>)

I was right you do work for Haliburton

No, but I am an owner, which is why I'm pretty familiar with the company; I always research and learn before I invest.

That explains a lot Clavos

Wow, the government is pre-making excuses incase of the probability they miss it. I think I predicted that. I also pointed out this expensive experiment wasn't necessary as the satellite is so small it almost has to burn up on re-entry.

It was good practice, and the significance of the outcome will not be lost on those who might have been contemplating lobbing a missile at us one day.

Props to the Navy missile crew.

How long will it take for Bush to apologize for the navy shooting at a school bus near Lake Erie?

Let me just tack on to the other intelligent observences here that the REASON the government is so relatively secretive about why they test weapons systems like this and why they might want to shoot this satellite down so much, is likely that they don't want to scare the hell out of the public with the fact that they think there might be a future need for a weapons system which can break up an incoming asteroid. Remember the bomb shelter craze in the 50s and 60s?

Dave

Dave, to my best knowledge breaking up a potentially dangerous asteroid is just a fantasy. Nobody has powerful enough weapons of sufficient range to do the job.

Chris, Dave,

It's not so much whether there are weapons of sufficient power and range to do the job (there are). It's that blowing up an asteroid wouldn't do a blind bit of good. Instead of having, say, a million-ton lump of rock hurtling towards Earth, you'd now have thousands of lumps - still with a collective mass of a million tons and still on a collision course.

There are ways to defend against an incoming asteroid - if the potential impact was detected/calculated early enough (we're talking years).

The cheapest and easiest way would be to point a low-powered satellite-based laser at it. Light exerts an infinitesimal but constant pressure which, sustained over time, would be enough to deflect the object into a non-Earth-intersecting orbit.

Another way would be to shoot a rocket up there and strap some boosters on the thing. This would have the same effect as the laser and would be somewhat quicker but way more expensive. (The money would, of course, be a moot point in such a situation...)

However, without years of advance warning, there's precious little we can do with our current technology. An asteroid that's a week out before we're even aware of it might as well already have hit us. Which is why investing in long-range asteroid detection and observation is of paramount importance.

Somebody's been watching their DVD of Armageddon too frequently....

Agreed, Deano.

Fortunately, it's this guy.

Doc, as I said, there is no weapon capable of rendering us safe from an asteroid, as blowing it into lots of little pieces wouldn't, as you indicated above.

And as there isn't a large enough warning window, no weapon can keep us safe.

We'll just have to hope that we can start off world colonisation before a big one comes our way...

We'll just have to hope that we can start off world colonisation before a big one comes our way...

Quoted for truth, and not just for that reason either.

From all the news reports I say, they only had a 10 second window in which to shoot at this thing and if they missed they had to wait til the next day, small assurances if it were an asteroid?

Nice comment 55 Doc, I've even seen were a solar sail could be attached and enough push from the solar winds could devert it, if the detected it soon enough.

Also theres dropping or spraying carbon powder on it enough to absorb enough solar energy to warm it into another orbit...