Build Your Own Arcade Controls Forum
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: DaOld Man on February 19, 2008, 07:46:52 pm
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1930844420080219
I see a conspiracy theory in the making...
"Government to test defense against coming asteroid!"
-
My guess is:
It is armed with nuclear missiles so they need to blow it up, before it blows up half a continent.
...Two days after, a large UFO was destroyed in space by a Russian 'weather satellite,' which happened to be equipped with a laser cannon and class IV nuclear missiles.
-
Well, they said the Satellite is loaded with toxic fuel. I wonder if that fuel is
radioactive?! As what else could power those things for so long?
It was surprising that they were telling people that it was coming down, and
only recently said they would shoot it down. Imagine a bus sized structure
falling at like 700mph into a crowded mall.
As for the missiles... well, I suppose its possible that this whole thing is a test
of a missile defense thing they have been working on. Russia has been going
ape about it - and many other are worried, cause if US has the advantage of
being able to down any missile... it opens possibility of hostile US invasion / takeover.
The idea of anti missile scheme seems like a very stupid idea. As if it does fail: Game Over.
Curious, if they do miss, and it does hit... where abouts will it hit, and how much
population will it take out with it?!
uggg
-
The US has shot down a satellite before using a Jet fighter and a special air to air missile. China also shot down an errant Satellite last year IIRC, and some speculate we are just doing this to "show we can too".
The fuel would be the equivalent of creating a bleach/ammonia cloud the size of 2 football fields. It would be bad to breath in, but isn't radioactive or anything.
-
Well, if they are not lying, this stuff is Really Nasty :(
Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. Symptoms of acute exposure to high levels of hydrazine in humans may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma, and it can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine.
They are not just shooting it down either. They have to impact it with a special 'new' missile that
does not explode. They want to Try to push it to fall into the Ocean.
Color me 'not optimistic' :P ...But surely hope Im mistaken.
edit:
More details...
The Sat is going to be traveling at like 17,000 MPH !!! And the missile only travels at
5000 mph. The Sat is supposed to run into the missile tip to try to rip it apart from
impact forces. Seems like we are in a live version of 'Spies Like Us'.
I guess they will have a few chances at it at least.. but still..
And they said that even "" IF "" they can hit it, pieces Will still be coming down.
FEMA has supposedly started to prepare certain groups with information... which is a strange
sign... cause usually, they are pretty slow to make any sort of actions.
Edit 2:
Man, I just thought of something. Imagine this 'Spy Satellite' doing tragic damages
to people in another country... The leaders and people may get Infuriated! The backlash
could be harsh...
-
Well, they said the Satellite is loaded with toxic fuel. I wonder if that fuel is
radioactive?! As what else could power those things for so long?
Those big wings on satellites are solar arrays. That's how they are powered for so long.
-
Well, they said the Satellite is loaded with toxic fuel. I wonder if that fuel is
radioactive?! As what else could power those things for so long?
Those big wings on satellites are solar arrays. That's how they are powered for so long.
Solar arrays power the electronics. They do not supply any propulsion. That is what the fuel is for.
-
Those big wings on satellites are solar arrays. That's how they are powered for so long.
It would be catastophically stupid design to have only one power supply on a satellite.
I'm not sure why they expect anyone to believe this is not a military practice run of one type or another.
-
Well, they said the Satellite is loaded with toxic fuel. I wonder if that fuel is
radioactive?! As what else could power those things for so long?
Those big wings on satellites are solar arrays. That's how they are powered for so long.
Solar arrays power the electronics. They do not supply any propulsion. That is what the fuel is for.
Obviously. The question was how are they powered so long. And the answer isn't toxic fuel.
-
Edit 2:
Man, I just thought of something. Imagine this 'Spy Satellite' doing tragic damages
to people in another country... The leaders and people may get Infuriated! The backlash
could be harsh...
This is why the USA has been telling world leaders across the globe for a pretty long while what their intentions are. This way they won't be shocked to see a missle flying from a US site over their country's territory and think that it's an actual attack. I'm actually MORE impressed that the USA actually went and warned other countries ahead of time. Hell, perhaps they were even trying to get another country to do the dirty work for them. ;D
-
The fuel will be long gone - evaporated or burned up - before any debris hits the earth.
Don't they protect the hydrazine tank pretty well though? I would assume they design it to survive an explosion during launch.
-
That's still nothing compared to the stress of entering the atmosphere at eleventy brazillion mph.
-
The chances of it landing within a mile of a single human being are nearly microscopic in the scope of the entire surface area of the earth.
It seems like a case of "anything you can do I can do better" and ensuring the technology contained on the satellite is destroyed.
-
When did that satellite go up there? Seems to me pretty much anything that's been up there a while wouldn't exactly be cutting edge technology anymore. Now, if they have encryption keys and the like on board, that would be a major issue. I can't believe they would have static encryption methods on any actual intelligence gathering hardware, though.
Seriously, what hardware could possibly be up there that hasn't been surpassed in the meantime?
-
When did that satellite go up there? Seems to me pretty much anything that's been up there a while wouldn't exactly be cutting edge technology anymore. Now, if they have encryption keys and the like on board, that would be a major issue. I can't believe they would have static encryption methods on any actual intelligence gathering hardware, though.
Seriously, what hardware could possibly be up there that hasn't been surpassed in the meantime?
It was put up like 2 years ago. It has been non-working from day one due to some malfunction.
-
The government is likely less concerned with it hitting someone and more concerned with someone getting a hold of it...
-
The government is likely less concerned with it hitting someone and more concerned with someone getting a hold of it...
Yeah I saw them claim that on FOX News too. Would the electronics survive this though?
-
As I said, it's real life Missile Command!!!!
Don't forget about the lunar eclipse tonight as well!
7pm pst
-
Would the electronics survive this though?
There is no way of knowing. That's why they won't take the chance.
-
As I said, it's real life Missile Command!!!!
Don't forget about the lunar eclipse tonight as well!
7pm pst
That was awesome! :cheers:
-
Not so awesome if they fail and it lands on your house. :(
What I find amazing... and very unusual... is that they do not intend to use
explosives to destroy it !?!?!?
They instead intend to put a blunt missile in front of its path somehow, and the
kinetic force is supposed to tear it up. But Why not cause a detonation? Or
why not try to push it further away from earth?
If they were smart, they would take a cue from missile command, and use massive
amount of super-explosives to vaporize that thing. However, that isnt the case... so
Yeah, it does sound Very fishy. Something like a military test...
Hmm, maybe the so called 'spy satellite' is actually a Spaced based Laser Weapon system...
and to test it, they shoot a few missiles at it.
They had been talking a lot about such a system in the not so distant past.
-
Hey coockoo for cocoa puffs, I was talking about the eclipse.
-
well then you shouldnt have quoted both :P
Anyways, heres a very insightful article on the issue:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/OPINION/Editorial/Wars_in_space/articleshow/1738286.cms
Close on the heels of the Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) test comes the news that the first test of the US airborne
laser, designed to shoot down missiles, is scheduled for 2009.
The US and the erstwhile Soviet Union had revealed their ability to attack satellites in space during the eighties. The US still maintains a counterspace techno-logy aircraft squadron to undertake defen-sive and offensive operations, like jamming enemy satellite communications.
China, too, had earlier used a ground-based laser to illuminate an American satellite, which heralds its working towards deploying laser weapons on earth to attack space-based assets in future.
War in space has moved from the pages of science fiction to the realm of impending reality. Space has already been militarised.
Communications and reconnaissance satellites have for long been used by armed forces to direct operations and acquire intelligence, highlighting the intrinsic dual-purpose nature of high technology.
The New York Times had recently estimated that some 845 active satellites were orbiting in space, more than half belonging to the US.
A war in space would cause incalculable damage to civil society; but three special dangers need highlighting.
First, it is impossible to distinguish between civilian and military satellites. As a result, all of them would be targeted in conflict.
Since satellites have several non-military uses like communications, scientific research, and entertainment, their damage or destruction would seriously disrupt civil society.
Second, satellites used for military or civil purposes tend to be integrated systems; hence destruction of any of its parts could dislocate the entire system, emphasising how easily satellite systems could be disrupted.
Third, the debris from China's ASAT test has scattered across the expanse of space and would remain as litter for decades.
High-tech systems like satellites being extremely vulnerable to damage, this litter could prejudice the future use of space by satellites.
Technological means are available to clean up this litter by nudging it into lower orbits to burn them out, or by using lasers to burn them up in their present orbits, but these measures are both challenging and costly.
The military implications of China's ASAT test have, quite expectedly, caused a knee-jerk reaction in defence establishments.
They now stress the need to develop countermeasures like equipping satellites with defensive systems, and
deploying similar ASAT capabilities to deter China from threatening national assets in space.
Several of these technological solutions are embedded in the missile defence programmes of the US. The US defence community anticipates that future programmes, impelled by the Chinese ASAT test, would yield billions of dollars for research and development of exotic counter-ASAT capabilities.
A linkage between war on earth and in space, however, portends the horrific dangers of conflict being ignited by
accident or misperception, since all weapon systems would need to be placed on hair-trigger alert.
For years, the negotiation of an international treaty to address the growing militarisation of space has been stalled
by the US. Indeed, a new space policy unveiled by the Bush administration in August 2006 states that it would unilate-rally "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities, hostile to the US national interests".
A confrontation with China seems inevitable in these circumstances. What can be done? An international convention must
be urgently negotiated embodying a positive assurance by signatories that satellites in space would not be attacked.
Their numbers and orbital paths should be dec-lared to an agency established under this convention. The United States, Russia and China, as the three recognised ASAT-capable powers, need to take the initiative to negotiate this
convention. The international community must participate in this process in its own self-interest.
The issue of littering and polluting space with satellite and related debris could lead to the denial of space for
future use.
A code of conduct is urgently required to ensure that more debris in space will not be created. Technological means to clean up space in a cost-effective manner also need exploration through a joint international effort.
-
Well, if they are not lying, this stuff is Really Nasty :(
Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerou
hydrazine is more or less like hydrogen peroxide. so yes, it is nasty but it doesnt seem likely to be such a huge threat. hydrazine is used in small reactive rockets for manuevering of the vehicle. hydrazine/ peroxide is pumped via one line into a chamber and another chemical (the germans used methanol or something in their me163 interceptors) is pumped in via another line. they react quite violently and produce lots of gas, which is how the thrust is created. something like hydrazine/ peroxide i would have thought would break down very quickly in nature since it is so reactive...
to me a bigger concern would be any radioactive material onboard. i was pretty sure large satellites have one of those small nuclear power cell thingos. they produce small amounts of electricity directly. power to weight, not very efficient. but they can do it for a very long time...
-
I remember when every time an F16 went down (and that happened a lot during the first years) there was always a lot of panic about the hydrazine tank. There must be something dangerous about it.
-
Apparently they took it out.
CNN: Navy missile strikes faltering spy satellite (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/21/satellite.shootdown/index.html)
-
I read that shooting down this satellite would cost $60 million. That was a pretty expensive exercise.
-
I read that shooting down this satellite would cost $60 million. That was a pretty expensive exercise.
To dispose of a spy satellite, only two years old, that was a total failure. Want to guess how much money that wasted? $60 mill is probably a drop in the bucket in comparison.
-
Here is an exclusive shot of the tech who fired the missile:
(http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=51525.0;attach=95651;image)
When asked how it felt to be successful, he said "BOOM!! Headshot baby!"
EDIT: Just in case there are some people on here scratching their head, search "FPS Doug" on youtube. ;)
-
Did he run over to it and hump its face afterwards?
-
We all have this man to thank.
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~swan/arcade/cae2000/paul_missile_command.jpg
Nice work soldier.
-
They instead intend to put a blunt missile in front of its path somehow, and the
kinetic force is supposed to tear it up. But Why not cause a detonation? Or
why not try to push it further away from earth?
Seriously? Go take a physics class.
Two (one massive, one not so massive) objects closing at +/- 22,000 MPH would impact with more energy than conventional explosives would supply.
-
Two (one massive, one not so massive) objects closing at +/- 22,000 MPH would impact with more energy than conventional explosives would supply.
Is there even enough oxygen up there to fuel an explosion?
-
What ever happened to project Icarus?
-
"hydrazine is more or less like hydrogen peroxide. "
Danny, your too funny. Why make stuff up when you dont know the exact details?
Why skip right over the exacting info I posted, and make BS up?
Todays times seems to be full of self proclaimed know it alls who dont know
squat, and make up their own false realities. This is why its so easy to sway people
with trickery. They are like mindless zombies, relying on self opinions and quick judgment
rather than actual logic and reasoning.
AFAIK, Hydrogen Peroxide doesnt cause pulmonary edema, seizures, and comas!
I repeat:
From Wikipedia:
exposure to high levels of hydrazine in humans may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma, and it can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine.
And YES, what I was TRYING to get across when I posted "If they Arnt Lying" is:
If they are not lying about the dangerous substances on the thing... such as it having Nuclear material
on it. Which in most likelihood it Does in fact have both. While a cloud of poison gas is very bad...
having Nuclear material rain down is much worse in the long term.
-
Two (one massive, one not so massive) objects closing at +/- 22,000 MPH would impact with more energy than conventional explosives would supply.
Is there even enough oxygen up there to fuel an explosion?
Conventional explosives combine both fuel and oxidizer. No outside O2 needed.
-
Hydrazine is similar to hydrogen peroxide only in how its used. H2O2 can be used as propellent by causing it to react with a catalyst like manganese - it flashes to steam, decomposes, and provides thrust in the form of the escaping gas. Very convenient.
Ditto for hydrazine - only the catalyst and power contained change.
Easy way of creating thrust without the need for burning (ok, its a fast decompose, but...) anything.
Oh, and hydrazine is incredibly common in the organic chemistry world. We wouldn't have spandex without it.
-
Oh, and hydrazine is incredibly common in the organic chemistry world. We wouldn't have spandex without it.
And we wouldn't have had the 80's without Spandex! ;D
-
AFAIK, Hydrogen Peroxide doesnt cause pulmonary edema, seizures, and comas!
I missed this one.
H2O2 is quite nasty when not diluted. The stuff you rinse your cuts with? Thats a 3% solution in water.
Try tossing some 70-80% (high school chem lab concentration) into a crucible with a catalyst and watch it explode in your face. Nasty stuff. The vapor has been known to spontaneously combust.
-
AFAIK, Hydrogen Peroxide doesnt cause pulmonary edema, seizures, and comas!
I missed this one.
H2O2 is quite nasty when not diluted. The stuff you rinse your cuts with? Thats a 3% solution in water.
Try tossing some 70-80% (high school chem lab concentration) into a crucible with a catalyst and watch it explode in your face. Nasty stuff. The vapor has been known to spontaneously combust.
DO NOT TELL THE RUSSIANS!
-
"hydrazine is more or less like hydrogen peroxide. "
Danny, your too funny
(http://www.tvguide.com/images/pgimg/yul-brynner1.jpg)
hehe. from the conspiracy theorist himself!
from wiki:
Related compounds
hydrogen peroxide
ammonia
monomethylhydrazine
dimethylhydrazine
phenylhydrazine
i guess what im saying is that just reading that list of hazards gives you no real feeling for how hazardous it is. for instance here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol) is an even longer list of hazardous effects of another compound.
i still say that radioactive materials on board would be greater cause for concern...
edit: oh, and at least i know what inertia is ;)
-
edit: oh, and at least i know what inertia is ;)
Wasn't that the cute sister of Rasputia?
-
edit: oh, and at least i know what inertia is ;)
Wasn't that the cute sister of Rasputia?
no silly. that was his BROTHER...
-
"hydrazine is more or less like hydrogen peroxide. "
Danny, your too funny
(http://www.tvguide.com/images/pgimg/yul-brynner1.jpg)
hehe. from the conspiracy theorist himself!
from wiki:
Related compounds
hydrogen peroxide
ammonia
monomethylhydrazine
dimethylhydrazine
phenylhydrazine
i guess what im saying is that just reading that list of hazards gives you no real feeling for how hazardous it is. for instance here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol) is an even longer list of hazardous effects of another compound.
i still say that radioactive materials on board would be greater cause for concern...
edit: oh, and at least i know what inertia is ;)
Well, if you read the MSDS sheets on common things like sugar, salt, water, etc., it will list some really nasty reactions and health problems. This is because they legally HAVE TO. It's like the inserts you see on common drugs like tylenol or pepto bismol. If there is ANY chance of something serious happening, it MUST be explained otherwise the sue-happy society we live in will make a fortune in pointless lawsuits. So many descriptions of chemical compounds are a bit exaggerated not because they are true, but because they are required to.
With regards to radioactive material, it is possible that the satellite has a plutonium battery in there only because it has such a very long useful life span. The thing is, those batteries contain so very little radioactive material because of the fact that they are faily efficient at creating the energy needed by the satellite. Most of the energy it needs comes from the solar panels satellites have. If the plutonium cell were to be vaporized in the freefall to earth, the equivalent would be like putting a mL of arsenic into the pacific ocean. The dilution renders it harmless. E.G. below normal background levels.
-
With regards to radioactive material, it is possible that the satellite has a plutonium battery in there only because it has such a very long useful life span. The thing is, those batteries contain so very little radioactive material because of the fact that they are faily efficient at creating the energy needed by the satellite. Most of the energy it needs comes from the solar panels satellites have. If the plutonium cell were to be vaporized in the freefall to earth, the equivalent would be like putting a mL of arsenic into the pacific ocean. The dilution renders it harmless. E.G. below normal background levels.
which is the same with the hydrazine. but in either case, if it stays in one piece thats supposedly where the danger is. if the hydrazine tank stays in one piece, how will anyone get poisoned? if it leaks, then it will react with most things it leaks on and break down into more benign components. i'm not saying thats a particulary safe scenario, but it's not as dangerous as they're making out (damn, maybe i'm a conspiracy theorist now?).
however, if the nuclear ful cell leaks it will stay radioactive. a much more dangerous situation in a way because it won't look dangerous. seeing a liquid leaking out of something which is spontaneously reacting with everything it touches would probably put most people on guard ;)
-
With regards to radioactive material, it is possible that the satellite has a plutonium battery in there only because it has such a very long useful life span. The thing is, those batteries contain so very little radioactive material because of the fact that they are faily efficient at creating the energy needed by the satellite. Most of the energy it needs comes from the solar panels satellites have. If the plutonium cell were to be vaporized in the freefall to earth, the equivalent would be like putting a mL of arsenic into the pacific ocean. The dilution renders it harmless. E.G. below normal background levels.
which is the same with the hydrazine. but in either case, if it stays in one piece thats supposedly where the danger is. if the hydrazine tank stays in one piece, how will anyone get poisoned? if it leaks, then it will react with most things it leaks on and break down into more benign components. i'm not saying thats a particulary safe scenario, but it's not as dangerous as they're making out (damn, maybe i'm a conspiracy theorist now?).
however, if the nuclear ful cell leaks it will stay radioactive. a much more dangerous situation in a way because it won't look dangerous. seeing a liquid leaking out of something which is spontaneously reacting with everything it touches would probably put most people on guard ;)
Hehe. Quite true. ;D