Comments on: SpySat stuff

By: JediBear

JediBear — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:05:02 +0000

hitting a scud and a sat are definately different problems. If you can put a sat up, you should be able to hit it.

By the same token, an incoming ballistic missile is yet another problem, but it’s good that the US Navy has demonstrated the ability to hit a satellite.

By: Shamus Writes » Link Roundup

Shamus Writes » Link Roundup — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:35:01 +0000

[...] SpySat stuff – Is it bad that I ignored all news about the US government shooting a missile at the spy satellite until Phil posted about it (as I knew he would)? Sorry, I just don’t trust the information given back on this sort of thing until I see it on the Bad Astronomy blog, and I have even less use for most of the unnecessary drama that surrounded this particular event. Why must the media blow stuff like this out of proportion? I appreciate Phil’s level-headed presentation of the facts. [...]

By: DanQuail

DanQuail — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:58:18 +0000

The problem with hitting a Scud, as compared with the satellite, is that the Scud is powered so that the trajectory is unknown and even more significant is that a kinetic impact at low altitude is not at a velocity sufficient to destroy it. Since the Scud guidance is so bad anyway, hitting it simply breaks it up and scatters debris over a wider area and can cause as much damage as if it were not hit.

By: epawtows

epawtows — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:46:32 +0000

StevoR,
There are treaties banning the deployment of nuclear weapons in space (or “weapons of mass destruction”, but the only sorts of those that make any sense in space are nuclear) but very little about conventional weapons.

Technically, conventional weapons have been sent into space ever since astronauts starting bringing survival kits with them (most contained a pistol). The Russians experimented with cannons on some of their early stations (the experiments were, for the most part, unsuccessful).

By: Thomas Siefert

Thomas Siefert — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:15:09 +0000

In Denmark we have a secret weapon against spy satellites: http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-10536941.html

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:44:52 +0000

Has anyone stepped through the intercept movie and described what’s happening? Or are there frames missing from the online video? I see dots, I see something appearing to split up and a blip go backward around intercept time — but it’s jumpy. I read this is a 3-stage missile, saw one staging I think in the launch video, but what’s puzzling is the sequence just before and at the intercept.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:34:51 +0000

Thanks JB