From: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1930844420080221?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
A U.S. Navy warship could try to destroy a defunct spy satellite with a missile late on Wednesday despite earlier concerns about conditions in the Pacific Ocean, officials said.
A U.S. Navy warship could try to destroy a defunct spy satellite with a missile late on Wednesday despite earlier concerns about conditions in the Pacific Ocean, officials said.
A senior military official said early in the day the sea looked too choppy for a successful operation but several Pentagon officials later said the mission now seemed likely to go ahead.
The Pentagon said last week President George W. Bush had decided the Navy should fire a missile from a warship at the satellite because its fuel tank could leak deadly toxic gas if it enters the atmosphere and reaches Earth intact.
Officials had said they would start looking for opportunities to shoot down the satellite after the space shuttle Atlantis ended its latest mission. The shuttle touched down in Florida at 9:07 a.m. EST (1407 GMT) on Wednesday.
One Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the most likely time for the strike was 10:30 p.m. EST on Wednesday (0330 GMT on Thursday).
Another official, speaking on the same condition, also said the operation looked set to go ahead.
The satellite is a National Reconnaissance Office spacecraft launched in December 2006 that stopped communicating within a few hours of reaching orbit, the Pentagon has said.
Russia and China have both expressed concern about the operation. The Russian Defense Ministry said it could be used as a cover to test a new space weapon.
Washington has insisted the operation is intended only to prevent people from being harmed by the satellite's fuel tank, which contains the chemical hydrazine, if it falls to Earth intact.
"We've been very clear about why the president made this decision," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. "This is about reducing risk to human life on Earth."
The United States strongly criticized China for firing a ground-based missile into an obsolete Chinese weather satellite in January 2007. Neither Washington nor Moscow has conducted an anti-satellite operation since the 1980s.
Earlier on Wednesday, a senior U.S. military official said the window for a strike would last until around the end of this month, when the satellite enters the Earth's atmosphere.
"We'll make decisions each day as to whether we're going to proceed or not," said the official, briefing reporters at the Pentagon on condition of anonymity.
The Pentagon said last week President George W. Bush had decided the Navy should fire a missile from a warship at the satellite because its fuel tank could leak deadly toxic gas if it enters the atmosphere and reaches Earth intact.
Officials had said they would start looking for opportunities to shoot down the satellite after the space shuttle Atlantis ended its latest mission. The shuttle touched down in Florida at 9:07 a.m. EST (1407 GMT) on Wednesday.
One Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the most likely time for the strike was 10:30 p.m. EST on Wednesday (0330 GMT on Thursday).
Another official, speaking on the same condition, also said the operation looked set to go ahead.
The satellite is a National Reconnaissance Office spacecraft launched in December 2006 that stopped communicating within a few hours of reaching orbit, the Pentagon has said.
Russia and China have both expressed concern about the operation. The Russian Defense Ministry said it could be used as a cover to test a new space weapon.
Washington has insisted the operation is intended only to prevent people from being harmed by the satellite's fuel tank, which contains the chemical hydrazine, if it falls to Earth intact.
"We've been very clear about why the president made this decision," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. "This is about reducing risk to human life on Earth."
The United States strongly criticized China for firing a ground-based missile into an obsolete Chinese weather satellite in January 2007. Neither Washington nor Moscow has conducted an anti-satellite operation since the 1980s.
Earlier on Wednesday, a senior U.S. military official said the window for a strike would last until around the end of this month, when the satellite enters the Earth's atmosphere.
"We'll make decisions each day as to whether we're going to proceed or not," said the official, briefing reporters at the Pentagon on condition of anonymity.
Somehow this seems like a front - this can't be the first satellite that has had to re-enter with dangerous fuel/payload. I would think most of the satellites up there could be considered dangerous. Why is this one such a threat?? I just don't think so. Why would this unprotected object find safe passage through the atmosphere?? And even if so, a thousand gallons of anything would be so diluted by the time it found it's way to the surface that I somehow don't feel threatened in any way. I call B/S - especially with all of the media attention - why did they really pick up this story??
One (or both) of these two seem more likely to me:
"The United States strongly criticized China for firing a ground-based missile into an obsolete Chinese weather satellite in January 2007. Neither Washington nor Moscow has conducted an anti-satellite operation since the 1980s." so since they are capable, we have to show we are capable.
"Russia and China have both expressed concern about the operation. The Russian Defense Ministry said it could be used as a cover to test a new space weapon." ...and they're probably right.
Looks like they succeeded:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7254540.stm
I agree, shooting it down isn't really necessary. I would imagine it accomplished one or more of the following:
1) It's not a spy satellite but a space-based weapons platform. We don't want to risk there being big enough pieces leftover for some amateur to get a hold of a piece and realize it's not high-res imagery equipment but missile or laser guidance components.
2) It's a "Hey China, look, we can do it too."
3) It's a "Hey Russia, you've resumed patrol flights of strategic bombers. How very 1960ish of you. While you've been overhauling cold war relics we've been learning how to shoot down your satellites and ICBMs. Effectively nullifying your military."
Ronald Reagan first proposed the idea of "star wars" in 1983. The technology has had 25 years to develop. I'm sure it has been whether it was funded with under the table money, hidden in classified budget line items, or privately funded by civilian defense contractors who knew the US would eventually buy it.
It's nothing a Coronal Mass Ejection from the Sun when the Earth is in the right spot couldn't just as easily accomplish. One of those could fry every satellite in space. Hell, imagine if the Auroral Event of 1859 happened today.
Personally, I'm not sure I have a problem with the US government developing a system to nullify every Ballistic Missile on the planet. It's a defensive approach to National Security as opposed to an offensive approach. Shooting down satellites could certainly be used offensively, but at the same time there's a lot more nations entering the space age and not all of them are allies. Honestly, why did China do their test? The only satellites they could even be remotely interested in possibly shooting down are ours.
Then again, it is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money.
At least the explosion looked cool.