Millions and millions

[Jenny_Jackson]

Navy says missile smashed wayward satellite
Military tracking debris over Atlantic, Pacific; China expresses concern

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613/

Let me see. The Military spent $120,000,000 to put that thing up there. And, of course, it didn't work because, most likely, it's construction was subcontracted to either the Chinese or, even more likely - HALABURTON. Now they have spent another $40,000,000 to shoot the fucker down.

If my arithmatic works, that cost something like $0.50 for evey man woman and child in America. For...?

I feel so unimpressed.

 

[gauchecritic]

On the other hand they've proved they don't need to spend billions on Star Wars and have told everyone else they can take their birds out any time they like.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

On the other hand they've proved they don't need to spend billions on Star Wars and have told everyone else they can take their birds out any time they like.

I suppose that means we, with 40 years head start and Trillions invested in our space program, can do the same thing the Chinese did two years ago (?)

 

[sr71plt]

Navy says missile smashed wayward satellite
Military tracking debris over Atlantic, Pacific; China expresses concern

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613/

Let me see. The Military spent $120,000,000 to put that thing up there. And, of course, it didn't work because, most likely, it's construction was subcontracted to either the Chinese or, even more likely - HALABURTON. Now they have spent another $40,000,000 to shoot the fucker down.

If my arithmatic works, that cost something like $0.50 for evey man woman and child in America. For...?

I feel so unimpressed.

It does rather beg the choices made on how to spend the public dollar. It reminds me of when I was working with satellite photography (and that's what this failed satellite was--a photo reconnaissance system). All that money spent in putting the satellites up there and taking film, but yet their recovery system was a low-flying plane that had to catch the ejected film packages in a basket. They lost nearly a third of the take. Smart front end; dumb back end. Lots of money in the drink much of the time.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

It's easy to feel cynical. Of course, there is a tiny, tiny tiny remote possibility that the hydrazine canister would survive re-entry just to pop open in some starving African village or even a densely populated urban center, but from what most "experts" say, it wouldn't ever make it that far. So why expend all that effort blow the damn thing up? Are they worried that some super-secret technology might fall into the wrong hands? Slight possibility, but I believe that the main reason is to prove to other world governments "we have the ability to shoot down your satelites". Of course, if they did a test to destroy a satelite in space to prove they could destroy a satelite in space then people would rightly take that as a sign of agression. What better cover up - and opportunity to broadcast it all over the news and to the embassies - than "oh, we did a direct hit with a missile on a small tank on the side of a satellite in orbit. You're safe now. Just let me show you a little video so you can be sure that we were really very accurate with that missile. You know - protecting you."

Best snow job in years, I'd say.

Well, that's what I heard anyway

 

[sr71plt]

On the other hand they've proved they don't need to spend billions on Star Wars and have told everyone else they can take their birds out any time they like.

Oh you think so? The weather conditions had to be "just so" to even attempt it--and they had a window of days to track and destroy. It's a little iffy to expect a ground-based enemy that can deliver a payload in a matter of hours rather than days to only fire one off when the weather conditions will be "just so" for you. And illustrating that by letting the news media talk conditions needed in detail was, typically, not too bright. The "any time they like" idea is mainly chaff to make you feel good--it doesn't fool any of our possible opponents.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, that's what I heard anyway

Well, as already noted, it was more like our usual mostly botched job of PR for our own folks.

It's not a bad idea to do the operation--it's a good test, and the preplanned tests actually cost more than this. The satellite that was coming down was already up there for a different purpose (costed to a different project) and was coming down anyway. So, its cost isn't really involved in this action; money already spent for some other purpose. In a regular test, you'd have to pay for the target sent up as well as the missile to shoot it down, so more expensive than this. On top of that, you'd have everything so controlled on the target sent up that it isn't as good a test of capabilities as having a target that isn't controlled--is moving on its own or under someone else's control.

The problem with this was in using it as a PR opportunity for the American public. (Those we worry about on the other side could detect it and get the point of it without our government saying a word about doing it, so the publicity wasn't for any possible enemy--it was for domestic consumption.) The government can't really control the U.S. media, so it put out the "see what a good thing your money is paying for" propaganda line and then the media chomped on it with their retired government consultants and trotted out how iffy it all was--the needing several days of window of success opportunity (which they wouldn't get with a missile launch from another country) and needing both a defense platform in an ideal place (not to be counted on in a real missile attack) and ideal weather conditions (certainly not to be counted on).

The up side is that most Americans probably won't think of what really happened--and was required for success--and will, in fact, feel warm and fuzzy about this.

 

[gauchecritic]

Capability is what counts, to others as well as to domestics.

They couldn't start a war against space terrorists so they did the next best thing. It can certainly be viewed as propaganda and wouldn't harm anything (more importantly anyone) to do it.

Another view is 'sales pitch'. "See what you could do if you buy our rockets?"

Just like the Falklands. (but people got killed in that one)

 

[rgraham666]

In America, there's enough graft for everybody.

 

[sr71plt]

Capability is what counts, to others as well as to domestics.

They couldn't start a war against space terrorists so they did the next best thing. It can certainly be viewed as propaganda and wouldn't harm anything (more importantly anyone) to do it.

Another view is 'sales pitch'. "See what you could do if you buy our rockets?"

Just like the Falklands. (but people got killed in that one)

I agree, capability is what counts. What you think was exhibited was not very assuring as far as capability is concerned. That it fooled you is probably why they keep doing it the way they do it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Slashdot has a nice little conversation going.

Someone points out that this wasn't an anti-satellite missile, it was an anti-missile missile.

Kadin has some very interesting analysis of how the impact worked, and compares it with the effects of a satellite that China shot at.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Ok, so this was really a demonstration for the world that we could actually do it. So, if they had missed? And their second and third shot had missed?

Do you really think GW cares if a titamium tank filled with a deadly poison falls on, say, Australia? I bloody doubt it. In his mind, that's just giving them "freedom"

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ok, so this was really a demonstration for the world that we could actually do it. So, if they had missed? And their second and third shot had missed?

Do you really think GW cares if a titamium tank filled with a deadly poison falls on, say, Australia? I bloody doubt it. In his mind, that's just giving them "freedom"

I think the previous success took five missiles(?) So there was some leeway there.

 

[Liar]

it's construction was subcontracted to either the Chinese or, even more likely - HALABURTON. Now they have spent another $40,000,000 to shoot the fucker down.

Boeing, according to some geek where I work. But I have no confirmation of that.

 

[gauchecritic]

That it fooled you is probably why they keep doing it the way they do it.

What? They didn't shoot it down?

What was exhibited was that they shot down a satellite. How they did it, how they could have done it better or how incompetent it was to those that know these things matters little to the unwashed public.

Like the fact that light is a wave and a particle, what the fuck difference does it make to me? It's still light and it's what illuminates my world.

Not very assuring. OK. I'm not assured., I'm impressed but not assured.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Assuming it was a tour de force simply means that I overestimated the reasoning behind the manoeuvre. Which implies that I also overestimated the intelligence of those with the power.

If it wasn't posturing then why do it in the first place if there were other methods available that didn't have to include puissance majeste overt?

Why am I fucking argueing in the first place? 'cos I'm a fucking shit-for-brains layman that believes everything they print in the Daily Mail.

For fuck's sake.

 

[Stella_Omega]

For fuck's sake.

You rang?

(what happened to that drinking game thread?)

 

[sr71plt]

What? They didn't shoot it down?

You seemed to have not noticed (or bothered to absorb) what I wrote about the conditions required to shoot it down--conditions that can't be counted on existing in defense mechanisms against missile attack from somewhere else on earth.

Star Wars was designed as a propaganda defense in the public mind. The governments involved weren't fooled by any of this being a credible deterent--at least until the Reagan administration came along and threw a lot of money at it--not to any extent that makes it a credible deterent to anyone who is a real threat. All it's done is given (some) Americans a false sense of security--at a big price tag.

You obviously have bought into the false sense of security on this particular test. Fine for you. That's what the government meant for you to do.

 

[sr71plt]

You rang?

(what happened to that drinking game thread?)

Shouldn't that be "harangue"?

Profanity always makes one's position so much more credible.

 

[Lalah]

I think what sr71plt is trying to say is that it was a bluff more than a real show of capabilities, and that some of the media called them on that bluff. Not that there's anything wrong with trying a bluff, and I couldn't tell you if it worked on the people it was intended to or not.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Who's to say that the "right" conditions weren't only for the viewing public??? There was no need for visual conformation of the hit, except to show the masses (stupid and otherwise) that it could be done. As everything that depended on the missile hitting the satellite is radar and computer calculation and IR the weather when the missile was launched is irrelevant. Although a calm sea would be nice, it's probably not necessary.

 

[Lalah]

Well I'm under the impression strong wind and rain would affect the calculations.

 

[gauchecritic]

You seemed to have not noticed (or bothered to absorb) what I wrote about the conditions required to shoot it down--conditions that can't be counted on existing in defense mechanisms against missile attack from somewhere else on earth.

Star Wars was designed as a propaganda defense in the public mind. The governments involved weren't fooled by any of this being a credible deterent--at least until the Reagan administration came along and threw a lot of money at it--not to any extent that makes it a credible deterent to anyone who is a real threat. All it's done is given (some) Americans a false sense of security--at a big price tag.

You obviously have bought into the false sense of security on this particular test. Fine for you. That's what the government meant for you to do.

But what you fail to take into account is the fact that I don't have any sense of security at all about anything. I don't actually care. Countries shooting at other countries makes no difference to the fact that I have to get out of bed on Monday morning and go to work and take care of elderly, confused and/or demented punters.

Your government spending untold billions of dollars on fireworks in a bogus attempt to bolster a 1984 society makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to my regular visits to the seaside.

Mr Bush being dangled from strings into having people live in fear of their lives from nebulous rebels thousands of miles away and taking away many of your civil rights in the process does not butter my toast in the morning.

It's their job to care about things like that. It's why you have democracy.

This may well be a little bit too subtle for you, being a world wide, big picture thinker but I've lately been doing research into the English Civil war.

Do you know what I found astonishing? On both sides of that war there wasn't a 'regular' army on either side (at least until Cromwell's New Model Army).

Those Lords and nobility that required soldiers of any description went around either pressing or impressing boys and men to fight. Do you know what these boys and men did when they got fed up with fighting. They fucked off home to take care of their livelihoods. Those men of Cornwall (iirc) didn't even go further than their homelands. If the threat they were fighting was gone beyond their borders they went back home again.

It wasn't politics or the divine right of Kings they were bothered about, it was that they had to get the corn in, or slaughter their cattle for market or milk the cows.

In the final analysis that's all that anybody cares about unless the bogeyman comes round and frightens them.

They were probably quite impressed that when they heard that the scots were taking the part of the parliamentarians and that they were thinking of attacking the Geordies who were virtually trapped in Hull with the somewhat modernised folk of West Yorkshire not caring either way because they weren't all farmers at that point. But unless the 'foe' actually came and tried pillaging in their town they just wanted to be left alone, to get on with their life because that's what mattered to them.

So my sense of security comes not from 'elected' officials having pissing contests, it comes from my monthly wage packet
My sense of security doesn't come from knowing that if China bomb the fuck out of you then you can bomb the fuck out of them better and bigger, it comes from my sons having more nous and guts than I ever had and putting on stand up reviews in local pubs.
My sense of security doesn't depend on how many billions of dollars are spent on methods of destruction, it comes from having a drink at my local knowing that when I get home my wife will be sat in bed reading and warming the sheets with her body heat.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Well I'm under the impression strong wind and rain would affect the calculations.

Probably not to difficult to adjust the trajectory once the missile is out of the weather.

 

[gauchecritic]

Shouldn't that be "harangue"?

Profanity always makes one's position so much more credible.

Profanity if fucking fantastic, specially on a pr0n site.

 

[sr71plt]

I think what sr71plt is trying to say is that it was a bluff more than a real show of capabilities, and that some of the media called them on that bluff. Not that there's anything wrong with trying a bluff, and I couldn't tell you if it worked on the people it was intended to or not.

Mostly, although I've also said our side needs practice even if the conditions aren't optimal and the satellite was falling anyway, so it's a cheaper practice target than having to put a target up there. This goes back to JJ's original posting.

It's, of course, a lot better that they hit the satellite (if they did--the pessimists would say it was all made up, and there's little evidence to the contrary yet) than if they hadn't, but there's a gigantic shortfall in painting this as evidence of a working Star Wars defense:

As I already mentioned:

1. They had a 9-day window to plan and execute an intercept on top of lots of time knowing it was up there and coming down--and where it was at any given moment; an incoming offensive missile from somewhere on earth has to be detected, located, and defended against (from decision to execution) in a matter of hours. How fast do you think your government reacts to crisis?

2. Given the time, we had a defense platform in place where it was needed in time; there's no such guarantee with a surprise-attack incoming offensive missile.

3. If the platform is shipborne (as this one was), weather/sea conditions have to be favorable at launch time; no enemy is going to wait for our weather/sea conditions to be favorable to launch an offensive missile attack.

Additional factors:

1. The satellite was the size of a school bus and just falling into the atmosphere; an incoming offensive missile may be the size of a Buick and can be powered to a much faster speed than just falling and, now, can often be guided and, thus, maneuverable, and, also now, will probably be multiheaded, sending off a dozen war heads at an unknown time to become a dozen separate targets, not just one.

2. It's quite possible that the satellite was still transmitting its telemetry in U.S. code--straight back to U.S. intercept installations (although I've seen no indication whether or not it still was); a foreign offensive missile ain't goin be emitting telemetry in U.S. code to help us track and locate it.

So, as far as connecting this to good feelings about U.S. foreign offensive missile intercept ability, it's very nice our capability was at least good enough to hit this satellite (assuming we did), but that doesn't go all that far toward knocking out an incoming offense missile attack from North Korea. But the U.S. government sure hopes its citizens get that impression.