Searching \ for '[EE]:: USA 193 - coming to an Aegis Cruiser near y' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=usa+193+coming+aegis
Search entire site for: ': USA 193 - coming to an Aegis Cruiser near y'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: USA 193 - coming to an Aegis Cruiser near y'
2008\02\15@055512 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
The cynical may suggest that now we know why USA 193 never
deployed properly. But, maybe, it's just an excellent
opportunity for the US to prove to itself alone that it can
'take out' a satellite from a warship at sea. And maybe just
an attempt to ensure, as stated, that the onboard Hydrazione
doesn't end up where it oughtn't.



       Russell

__________________________________


Malfunctioning spy satellite USA 193 has been in the news
lately because of expectations that it will reenter Earth's
atmosphere in March and turn into a spectacular fireball.
Reentry has not yet begun, but sky watchers are already
noticing the satellite as it zips over Europe and the United
States shining as brightly as a first or second magnitude
star. Typical photos are shown on today's edition of
http://spaceweather.com.

In fact, USA 193 may never reenter--at least not in one
piece. Today, the Pentagon announced it will attempt to
blast the satellite with a missile before its orbit decays.
This would lessen the chances of dangerous satellite debris
and fuel reaching the ground while increasing the population
of space junk in low-Earth orbit.

Would you like to see USA 193 with your own eyes?  It is
about to make a series of evening appearances over many US
towns and cities, beginning this weekend and continuing
until the Pentagon intervenes. Flyby timetables may be found
at Heavens Above (http://heavens-above.com). You can also
receive telephone and email alerts when the satellite is
about to fly over your backyard by subscribing to
Spaceweather PHONE: http://spaceweatherphone.com .

2008\02\15@065404 by John Gardner

picon face
heavens-above.com/usa193.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET

On 2/15/08, Apptech <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\15@160213 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 15, 2008, at 2:54 AM, Apptech wrote:

> The cynical may suggest that now we know why USA 193 never
> deployed properly.

It never deployed properly?  I didn't see that part of the story.

> But, maybe, it's just an excellent opportunity for the US to prove  
> to itself alone that it can 'take out' a satellite from a warship  
> at sea.

To "itself alone"?  Not very likely!

> And maybe just an attempt to ensure, as stated, that the onboard  
> Hydrazione doesn't end up where it oughtn't.

I have a lot of trouble believing that anyone is actually worried  
about that.  Oh, it could be a sort of "look, even we republicans are  
worried about the environment; we'll gladly burn several thousand  
pounds of questionable propellants and explosives to ensure that 1000  
pounds of hydrazine that probably wouldn't come anywhere near the  
ground doesn't, cause you KNOW our missile is MUCH "hotter" than  
reentry would be."  Right.

One wonders if they're really anxious to destroy SOMETHING, or if  
they're just playing with their toys...

BillW

2008\02\15@161627 by David VanHorn

picon face
> One wonders if they're really anxious to destroy SOMETHING, or if
> they're just playing with their toys...


BING!


And making a mess in low orbit too.  :-P

2008\02\15@163101 by Jinx

face picon face
> One wonders if they're really anxious to destroy SOMETHING,
> or if  they're just playing with their toys...

It's a PR crock. I saw on the news the brass describing the effect
of that amount of hydrazine re-entering. It would cover an area the
size of two football fields, he said. And that's assuming the whole
lot came down in one piece. If you got close enough and breathed
enough of it in, you'd probably want to see a doctor, he continued

This isn't about a wonky satellite. It's weeny waving

2008\02\15@163924 by Matt Pobursky

flavicon
face
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:01:48 -0800, Chops\ wrote:
> One wonders if they're really anxious to destroy SOMETHING, or if they're
> just playing with their toys...

What's the fun of having a big gun if you can't shoot it once in a while? :-D

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

2008\02\15@164350 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>  > One wonders if they're really anxious to destroy SOMETHING,
>>  or if  they're just playing with their toys...
>
>It's a PR crock. I saw on the news the brass describing the effect
>of that amount of hydrazine re-entering. It would cover an area the
>size of two football fields, he said. And that's assuming the whole
>lot came down in one piece. If you got close enough and breathed
>enough of it in, you'd probably want to see a doctor, he continued
>
>This isn't about a wonky satellite. It's weeny waving

The real concern is that parts of the spy sat will come down intact
enough to be analyzed by another power. Although I am sure that the
opportunity to do an ASAT test factors in as well.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2008\02\15@172601 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> One wonders if they're really anxious to destroy
>> SOMETHING, or if
>> they're just playing with their toys...

> BING!
> And making a mess in low orbit too.  :-P

Suggestions are that it has a special 'spy camera' whose
secrets they don't want to fall into random hands.

Plus, nobody actually says this publicly but, what sort of
message does it send to whoever when "just another warship"
(albeit amongst the most capable in the world) can 'deorbit'
a spy satellite.


       Russell


2008\02\15@173045 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

I vote for the weeny waving excuse.
Cedric

2008\02\15@174512 by David VanHorn

picon face
I'm sure there are system elements they wouldn't want to fall into
someone's backyard, from a security standpoint.

Not so much that there's any pictures they're worried about but the
gear that took the pictures.

Anyone remember "Ice Station Zebra"?  Good flick.

2008\02\15@185421 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> What's the fun of having a big gun if you can't shoot it
> once in a while? :-D

Conversely - how do you know that your big gun is useful if
you haven't fired it in realistic conditions once in a
while. Having notional ASAT capability may be 'useful' and
others will be impressed that you notionally have it.

But, having demonstrated real world capability is both
comforting to you if you value having it, and valuable
beyond measure in terms of the effect that it may have on
the actions of others.

"We can put a satellite over there in 3 days at a cost of
unmentionable $/Rouble/RMB/Shekel/TWD/INR/Franc (Euro) ...
."*
'USA193!'.
"Ah. OK. It was worth a thought."



       Russell


* One of those hasn't got demonstrated satellite launch
capability behind it.
One has, but is irrelevant.

7 'countries' have demonstrated satellite launch capability.
Only one has subsequently relinquished the capability.

__________

It was claimed that at one stage Iraq was attempting to
achieve this, but that was a load of Bull.

:-)


2008\02\15@193846 by John Gardner

picon face
> It was claimed that at one stage Iraq was attempting to
> achieve this, but that was a load of Bull.

Well, you got the first two letters right. My .01 pence
( Devalued dollar, you know ) :

Hydrazine is nasty, but volatile stuff - Hard to believe any will
survive an uncontrolled re-entry. High BS factor.

No one is sure where the thing will come down at this point.

As much fun as it would be to read Russell's description of
the USA193 exhibit in the Great Hall of the People, long term
that outcome probably would'nt benefit most of us.

My guess is a determined effort will be made to prevent the
GHOTP scenario, should it work out that way.

If it comes down in the ocean, well, that's what the USN is for...

Fireworks? We'll see.

best regards, Jack






On 2/15/08, Apptech <.....apptechKILLspamspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\15@202518 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
Engineers in general will find the page references below of
interest.
Rocket geeks the more so.

>> It was claimed that at one stage Iraq was attempting to
>> achieve this, but that was a load of Bull.

> Well, you got the first two letters right.

No, I got all 4 right - but that too was a joke of sorts.
Gargoyling

                   Gerald Bull HARP

will tell much.

Good HARP writeup.
Impressive picture of HARP 16" gun firing.

   http://www.astronautix.com/articles/abroject.htm


Bull was attempting to develop high altitude projectiles
using converted ex US Navy guns, with a long term aim of
building a satellite launcher.  Barbados was the unlikely
site of much of the HARP work. When he had problem with
general interest in funding he acquired a patron from a
country whose name begins with Ir and which doesn't end with
an.

They were building several immense and long "guns" fixed on
hillsides. The larger one whose sections were found in
storage after a storm in a desert had AFAIR internal
diamters of about 2 feet (I have photos here somewhere and
no doubt My Gargoyle does too).

There were various claims about what they were trying to do.
Some said the aim was a low tech way of launching
satellites. I think (for various reasons) that they would
not have easily succeeded at that. (Note that a gun launched
projectile must also have an inbuilt  rocket stage to
achieve orbit - without it only a ballistic trajectory is
achievable.). To me a more likely aim
was a "Paris Gun" type device which would have allows Iraq
(ah, that's the name) to have shelled Israel directly.

Whatever was planned, Israel didn't like the idea and Bull
was murdered by Israeli agents.



               Russell

=================================

In the 1950's Bull pioneered the use of gun-fired models as
an economical approach to study supersonic aerodynamics. The
model was fitted with a wooden shell, or sabot, that matched
the diameter of the gun barrel. After leaving the barrel the
sabot would fall away and the model would continue, with
high-speed cameras recording its behaviour in flight.

By 1961 Bull had expanded his concept and obtained a $10
million joint contract from the US and Canadian Defence
Departments for a High Altitude Research Program (HARP).
This was to prove the feasibility of using large guns for
launch of scientific and military payloads on sub-orbital
and orbital trajectories.

For long range shots a range was established at Barbados,
where the payloads could be sent eastward over the Atlantic.
A surplus 125 tonne US Navy 16 inch gun was used as the
launcher. The standard 20 m barrel was extended to 36 m, and
converted to a smooth-bore. In 1962 - 1967 Bull launched
over 200 atmospheric probes to altitudes of up to 180 km.

By this time relations between Canada and the United States
were strained because of the Viet Nam war. Canada terminated
the project. Bull managed to retain title to the assets of
HARP, and became a consultant to artillery manufacturers and
users. This included work with South Africa, supported by
the American CIA. This landed him in jail in 1980 for
illegal arms dealing.

After release from prison he moved to Europe and continued
to help the world's combatants to modify their artillery to
out-range their opponents. This eventually led to a contract
with Iraq to build the 'Project Babylon' supergun, designed
for launch of payloads into orbit or warheads over extreme
ranges. Israel did not consider this a threatening weapon,
but Bull's work to assist the Iraqi's in a multistage
missile using clusters of Scud rockets was another matter.
After refusing to break contact with the Iraqis despite
repeated warnings, Bull was assassinated in March 1990. The
gun was never completed and was disassembled by the United
Nations after Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War.


2008\02\15@205739 by John Gardner

picon face
I was thinking more along the lines of "sh" than "ll",
but the saga of Mr. Bull certainly deserves contemplation.



On 2/15/08, Apptech <apptechspamKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\18@055123 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>>> One wonders if they're really anxious to destroy
>>> SOMETHING, or if
>>> they're just playing with their toys...
>
>> BING!
>> And making a mess in low orbit too.  :-P
>
>Suggestions are that it has a special 'spy camera' whose
>secrets they don't want to fall into random hands.

The suggestion I have seen published in Space News is that it carries
optical and radar cameras, and has the ability to correlate the two.

>Plus, nobody actually says this publicly but, what sort of
>message does it send to whoever when "just another warship"
>(albeit amongst the most capable in the world) can 'deorbit'
>a spy satellite.

I guess the message is being sent to a power that launched a ground based
missile to do the same thing ...

So long as they do it when the satellite is low enough that everything will
come down quick instead of staying in orbit.

I could see it being done at a point in the satellite orbit where they could
guarantee it coming down in the ocean, rather than risking it come down in a
populated area and doing major damage. This is irrespective of any military
secrets concerns.

2008\02\18@200819 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:
>> One wonders if they're really anxious to destroy SOMETHING, or if
>> they're just playing with their toys...
>
>
> BING!
>
>
> And making a mess in low orbit too.  :-P

They're specifically waiting until Shuttle is down (since it has to pass
through that orbital plane) and also planning on shooting at a very low
altitude, so most of the debris will re-enter, quickly.

Quite different from the mess China made in a much higher (and
longer-lasting) orbit.

Nate

2008\02\18@202317 by Charles Craft

picon face
Big deal on the news tonight that it would be visible to the naked eye.
Use this site for info on where and when to look.

http://www.heavens-above.com/usa193.aspx



{Original Message removed}

2008\02\19@210401 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Big deal on the news tonight that it would be visible to
> the naked eye.
> Use this site for info on where and when to look.
>
> http://www.heavens-above.com/usa193.aspx

Space weather says:


SPY SATELLITE UPDATE:  The US Navy's first attempt to hit
malfunctioning spy satellite USA 193 with a missile could
come on Wednesday night during the lunar eclipse.  This is
based on an air traffic advisory warning pilots to steer
clear of a patch of Pacific Ocean near Hawaii just when USA
193 is due to pass overhead. Until the satellite is shot
down, it remains visible to casual sky watchers during
evening passes over US and Canadian towns and cities;
experienced observers say the decaying satellite is
sometimes as bright as the stars of Orion, making it an easy
target for unaided eyes and off-the-shelf digital cameras.
Details, photos and more information are available at
http://spaceweather.com. Subscribers to Spaceweather PHONE
(http://spaceweatherphone.com) will receive email and
telephone alerts when the spy-sat is about to appear over
their backyards.

2008\02\22@024209 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
They indicated that the missile hit the satellite, and the result was
as expected.

I learned that the missile was non-explosive - they needed a direct
hit with a chunk of metal, rather than a fly-near with an explosive -
much more impressive with a satellite moving at 17,000mph.

Given the action and expense they took, I have a hard time believing
it was just for show, toxic fuel, or even sensitive components.  I
wonder if they blew up a shell, and the real (stealth) satellite is
still out there...

Love conspiracy theories.

-Adam

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Apptech <.....apptechKILLspamspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\22@070718 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> I learned that the missile was non-explosive - they needed
> a direct
> hit with a chunk of metal, rather than a fly-near with an
> explosive -
> much more impressive with a satellite moving at 17,000mph.
>
> Given the action and expense they took, I have a hard time
> believing
> it was just for show, toxic fuel, or even sensitive
> components.  I
> wonder if they blew up a shell, and the real (stealth)
> satellite is
> still out there...
>
> Love conspiracy theories.

Best believable theory is (IMHO) that it was a capability
demonstration, both to themselves, and to those who they
wish to demonstrate that they have the capability. "Don't
bother putting up a satellite to cover the area, if we don't
want it there it can be disappeared on cue ...".


       Russell

2008\02\22@090932 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
It's been long enough since the Chinese demonstration that they could
have built a specific purpose satellite and flown it up there.

-Adam

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Apptech <EraseMEapptechspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\02\22@124342 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V1788553

The government lies so often about so many things, I doubt there is  
is even a consensus privately between government muckity mucks about  
why they shot the missile down.  "because we can" is probably the  
most shared thought.

CC

2008\02\22@130536 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Assuming the collision or whatever generated many pieces with their own
vectors in all different directions, does that mean that the amount of
space junk is increased, and possibility of other collisions are
possible (likely), and some of those vectors create meteor like
displays? :) ~) (maybe faces interchanged or ??)

Cedric Chang wrote:
> http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V1788553
>
> The government lies so often about so many things, I doubt there is  
> is even a consensus privately between government muckity mucks about  
> why they shot the missile down.  "because we can" is probably the  
> most shared thought.
>
> CC
>

2008\02\22@131827 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Carl Denk wrote:
> Assuming the collision or whatever generated many pieces with their own
> vectors in all different directions, does that mean that the amount of
> space junk is increased, and possibility of other collisions are
> possible (likely), and some of those vectors create meteor like
> displays? :) ~) (maybe faces interchanged or ??)
>
> Cedric Chang wrote:
>  
>> http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V1788553
>>
>> The government lies so often about so many things, I doubt there is  
>> is even a consensus privately between government muckity mucks about  
>> why they shot the missile down.  "because we can" is probably the  
>> most shared thought.
>>
>> CC
>>
>>    
I doubt that this adds to much more space junk. The satellite was
already at a very low orbit, and
was struck solidly. The combined speed was 22,000 miles per hour,  so I
think  most of it should
fall to earth very shortly (if it hasn't already).

--Bob Axtell

2008\02\22@132226 by Dr Skip

picon face
It's pretty obvious what the motivations are... Follow any organization and
they will only take the route that gives the most 'bang for the buck' (pun
partially intended), and the easiest way. If it had been a communications sat,
they'd let it burn up and pay any damages (small change, easiest way). Given
the hydrazine that might remain, the cost goes up a little. Given the spy
nature of it, the 'cost' goes up a little more in having it come down in big
enough pieces to recognize.

The Chinese created another motivation, showing we aren't behind anyone in
defense capability... The easiest, lowest cost way to satisfy all the
motivations was a kill. No payments, a missile system that could already hit
re-entry BMs, look like an environmental good guy, lose no technology, and show
 the US can do it too. Talk about wins all around... A half dozen great 'check
marks' rolled into one event. It doesn't get much better than that.

The only question that might remain, and I didn't follow the history of that
sat to know if it did have early failure or not, was whether it really was dead
early or it was an old, expendable one ready to give its life for a great PR
moment. It would seem not, because it could violate the 'easiest, lowest cost'
rule, especially since the capability had been proven in the Pacific for that
type of vehicle. There probably weren't enough 'motivators' to create the
scenario, but once it started on its own, there's no question what would be
done. ;)


Cedric Chang wrote:
> http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V1788553
>
> The government lies so often about so many things, I doubt there is  
> is even a consensus privately between government muckity mucks about  
> why they shot the missile down.  "because we can" is probably the  
> most shared thought.
>
> CC
>

2008\02\22@224141 by Derward

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cedric Chang" <ccspamspam_OUTnope9.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <@spam@piclistKILLspamspammit.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [EE]:: USA 193 - coming to an Aegis Cruiser near you soon


> http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V1788553
>
> The government lies so often about so many things, I doubt there is
> is even a consensus privately between government muckity mucks about
> why they shot the missile down.  "because we can" is probably the
> most shared thought.
<SNIP>

Cedric, I am 76 years old and in these years I have observed.
That the Government is nothing but people.  So it is people who tell lies.
I have seen people who get in a political office and then against all I
believed they would they also start to lie.  What I notice is the everyday
people like you and me start putting pressure on them for favors
and they soon have go start telling lies to cover-up their actions.

The same thing happens when people in big business put the same kind
of pressure on them, they have to lie to cover up.

What this leads me to conclude is that the chances are good if you or I were
elected that you and/or I would after time  slip on the slippery slope
and be like all the others.

This does not make it right but it is the good citizens that are behind most
of
the problems.

What we need is a general moral awaking in our country so every one will
support the truth.

Derward Myrick  KD5WWI


2008\02\22@235248 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> Assuming the collision or whatever generated many pieces
>> with their own
>> vectors in all different directions, does that mean that
>> the amount of
>> space junk is increased, and possibility of other
>> collisions are
>> possible (likely), and some of those vectors create
>> meteor like
>> displays? :) ~) (maybe faces interchanged or ??)


I started to write a reply, but here are two comments from
another list that cover it better than I would have

The first is from Henry Spencer who is an internationally
respected authority on everything.
The second is from Dave Hall whose job is, er , we probably
don't know what his job REALLY is ... (but his wife builds
large missiles), and he says he doesn't know anyway. Not
that he'd tell us if he did, of course.


       Russell

____________

> ...The optimal trajectory would be one that impacts while
> travelling on
> the retrograde of the target's orbit, providing maximum
> relative
> velocity...

The actual optimum may well be the trajectory that involves
the *minimum*
relative velocity, because there is plenty of kinetic energy
there to
destroy the target even so, and a lower closing rate makes
the guidance
system's job easier.  More generally, what's "optimum" in
practice is
almost certainly mostly a guidance issue rather than an
energy issue, and
so the dominant factor is what sort of encounter geometry
the guidance
system does best.  Anyone who knows the answer, can't tell
us. :-)

> ...Another good method would be hitting it from below
> perpendicular
> to the velocity vector, but that would scatter some debris
> higher.

Not actually very important.

For one thing, any debris scattered upward will come back
down half an
orbit later, and will then drop *below* the original
altitude, so it will
actually burn up sooner.  The only case where debris might
end up in a
longer-lived orbit is if it's kicked *forward*, adding
orbital energy.
That's not very likely.

For another thing, for such a low-altitude intercept, the
rather lower
sectional density of most of the debris will shorten its
life considerably
even if it's in the same orbit or better, so the direction
in which debris
is kicked probably doesn't matter very much.

Finally, no matter which direction the interceptor is
launched in, it's
very much suborbital, so at impact, it will be moving *much*
more slowly
than the satellite.  So the satellite's velocity dominates
the encounter
regardless of the interceptor trajectory:  to a first
approximation, the
interceptor positions itself in the satellite's path, and
the satellite
slams into it.  Think roadblock, not sniper.

> The one shown on TV seems to indicate that it followed a
> trajectory that
> ended up chasing the satellite. Unless the missile was
> travelling at
> higher than orbital velocity I can't see this one working.

You're assuming that the interceptor's guidance system is
looking
*forward*, so it must close from behind.  But outside the
atmosphere,
that's not required.

If my suggestion above is correct, and the optimum
trajectory is the one
that provides the lowest encounter velocity, then you do
indeed launch
into a trajectory that ends up with the interceptor moving
parallel to the
satellite, but rather more slowly, *ahead* of the satellite.
Once clear
of the atmosphere, the interceptor turns 180deg so it's
looking rearward,
because the satellite is moving much faster and will be
coming up on the
interceptor from *behind*.

                                                          Henry
Spencer
                                                      KILLspamhenryKILLspamspamzoo.utoronto.ca
                                                      (RemoveMEhenryTakeThisOuTspamspsystems.net)


_______________________________________________

Dave says:


To "chase" the satellite would imply that the SM-3 is
capable of orbit.  I don't think there's anybody who
believes that to be the case.  So... If that's what the
stated trajectory is, it can only mean one thing: The real
trajectory is classified.  Don't bother asking.

David Findlay wrote:
Well, kind of.  As Philip noted, that was an Air Force
mission.  Not
widely known is that the target was a working U.S. Navy
observatory:
the U.S. Air Force shot down a U.S. Navy satellite.  (That
had to
feel good.)  (But boy were the owners bent out of shape!
They
weren't told in advance.)  This week was the Navy's day in
the sun.

I have some issues with the trajectory shown on TV for the
SM-3 Missile that
struck USA-193. The optimal trajectory would be one that
impacts while
travelling on the retrograde of the target's orbit,
providing maximum
relative velocity. It does however present the greatest
difficulty in terms
of accuracy. Another good method would be hitting it from
below perpendicular
to the velocity vector, but that would scatter some debris
higher. The one
shown on TV seems to indicate that it followed a trajectory
that ended up
chasing the satellite. Unless the missile was travelling at
higher than
orbital velocity I can't see this one working. What was the
trajectory?
Thanks,

David
_______________________________________________




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
spamBeGoneaRocketspamBeGonespamexrocketry.net
http://exrocketry.net/mailman/listinfo/arocket

2008\02\23@032427 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
I agree with you totally , Derward.
I am 56 years old.  I  would not brag about my behaviour as a callow  
youth.  As I approached my 40's  and was tested again and again , I  
found my way to the truth.  What I mean by that is not that I know  
all the facts of every situation and evaluate on that basis ; What I  
mean is that of the facts that I have been able to verify , I am  
largely immune to distorting them because of desire to avoid pain or  
embarrassment or some manner of quickie gain.  I have whittled my  
philosophical axioms down to a precious few.  If I were in political  
office, I would not lie ; That is why I will never be in political  
office.  I understand that asking for favors from people in the  
government puts pressure on them to become liars.  That is why I do  
not ask the government for any favors.  If I fantastically woke up as  
president of the U.S. , I would do as much damage as I could quickly  
and then get out of foggy bottom on the next camel train.  Because  
otherwise, I would succumb and be like all the others.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and imagined power  
causes imaginative corruption.
I am prepared..... to find out today......, that I am a horse's ass  
and that I have to toss out all my fine theories and start over.  It  
will have to be a compelling reasoned argument by someone for that to  
happen.
As for a general moral awakening in our culture....... I am not  
holding my breath for that one.

CC


On Feb 22, 2008, at 8:41 PM, Derward wrote:


{Original Message removed}

2008\02\23@050042 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Derward wrote:

> That the Government is nothing but people.  So it is people who tell lies.

how true, especially in Italy I'd say...

> What we need is a general moral awaking in our country so every one will
> support the truth.

I firmly believe this... every country I guess.

--
Ciao, Dario

2008\02\23@054625 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> What we need is a general moral awaking in our country so every one
> will support the truth.

IIRC the Soviets used to have a newspaper for that purpose (the truth
part, not the moral awakening, I guess they used Siberia for that).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\23@061034 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> What we need is a general moral awaking in our country so
>> every one
>> will support the truth.

> IIRC the Soviets used to have a newspaper for that purpose
> (the truth
> part, not the moral awakening, I guess they used Siberia
> for that).

I'm told that there was a Russian joke which went "There's
no truth in the news and no news in The Truth".

Pravda, the name of the official newspaper of Soviet
Communism, means, needless to say, "The Truth".



       Russell





2008\02\23@065153 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>>> What we need is a general moral awaking in our country
>>> so
>>> every one
>>> will support the truth.

As a rule -

What you need is not what you get
What you get is not what you want
What you want is not what you need
What you need ...

The problem lies in line 3.

Why should people want a moral awakening?
Which moral should be woken?
Who will wake it?
By whose mandate?
What is the cost of the awakening?
Who will pay?
Will it mean we can't have fun any more?
Will it mean we can't do what we want any more?
How will this be better?
What I REALLY want is ...
:-)


       Russell



2008\02\23@075601 by Enki

picon face
On 23 Feb 2008 at 11:00, Dario Greggio wrote:

> Derward wrote:
>
> > That the Government is nothing but people.  So it is people who tell lies.
>
> how true, especially in Italy I'd say...
>
> > What we need is a general moral awaking in our country so every one will
> > support the truth.
>
> I firmly believe this... every country I guess.
>
> --
> Ciao, Dario
> --

       Keep dreaming...
       That is against human nature...

       Mark

2008\02\23@152826 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Enki wrote:

>        Keep dreaming...
>        That is against human nature...

You may be right :)
but I've got time, a nice job, and I love dreaming.
It will eventually become true, or humanity will be destroyed.
In both cases, better than today's mess!

--
Ciao, Dario

2008\02\23@211055 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
Details of the missile system used for the shootdown

Note that the interceptor is a passive "kinetic energy"
device - referred to at one point as having "wooden round
simplicity". Potentially useful for vampire satellites.

This page is full of all sorts of ads some which may have a
somewhat greater degree of attempted intusiveness than
average. Nothing to worry a properly set up system, but text
copied below.

       http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm


           Russell
____________________

RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)
On 14 February 2008 it was announced that the Navy will
intercept a malfunctioning US spy satellite sometime after
20 February 2008. President Bush decided to fire a missile
to bring down a broken spy satellite because of the
potential danger to people from rocket fuel it is carrying.
The window for intercepting the satellite would remain open
for as many as seven or eight days. The military posted a
NOTAM closing airspace about 1000 km West of Maui,
indicating that the first intercept attempt might come on 21
February 2008 at about 03:30 UTC [10:30 PM EST on 20
February 2008]. Intercepting the satellite at about 130
nautical miles altitude will reduce the risk of debris in
space. Once the satellite is hit, officials hope 50 percent
of the debris will come to Earth in the first two orbits and
the rest shortly thereafter. Robert Burns of the Associated
Press reported 15 February 2008 that the order to launch the
program came 04 January 2008. In a matter of weeks, three
Navy warships - the USS Lake Erie, USS Decatur and USS
Russell - were outfitted with modified Aegis anti-missile
systems and three SM-3 missiles were pulled off an assembly
line and given the BMD Kill Vehicle.

Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is being developed as part of the
US Navy's sea-based ballistic missile defense system and
will provide theater-wide defense against medium and long
range ballistic missiles. In 1992, the Terrier LEAP
(Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile) demonstration
program culminated in four flight tests and demonstrated the
feasibility of theater-wide ballistic missile defense. This
program evolved into today's SM-3 development program which
is based on the SM-2 Block IV airframe and propulsion stack,
but incorporates a Third Stage Rocket Motor, a GPS/INS
Guidance Section and the SM-3 Kinetic Warhead.

The United States Navy and the Missile Defense Agency are
developing Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) as part of the Aegis
Ballistic Missile Defense System that will provide allied
forces and U.S. protection from short to intermediate range
ballistic missiles. The SM-3 Kinetic Warhead (KW) is
designed to intercept an incoming ballistic missile outside
the earth's atmosphere. SM-3 is under development by
Raytheon at its Missile Systems business unit in Tucson,
Arizona.

Configuration
The Aegis BMDS builds upon the Strategic Defense Initiative
Organization/Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (SDIO/
BMDO) investment in Lightweight ExoAtmospheric Projectile
(LEAP) technology and the Navy's Aegis weapon system
including Standard Missile and MK41 Vertical Launching
System currently deployed on many U.S. Navy and
international surface combatants.

The SM-3 KW is a highly modular, compact, space tested
kinetic warhead designed to defend against short to
intermediate range ballistic missile attacks. Raytheon has
engineered two prior generations of LEAP designs starting in
1985 under contracts with SDIO and BMDO. This third
generation LEAP design integrates the teamed experience of
Raytheon and Boeing in KW designs and Alliant Techsystems'
expertise in Solid Divert and Attitude Control. The SM-3 KW
design features a large aperture wide field of view long
wave infrared seeker that provides acquisition ranges
greater than 300 km against typical ballistic missile
threats. Seeker pointing and intercept guidance are
supported by a production IFOG Inertial Measurement Unit and
wooden round simplicity of the SDACS propulsion providing
over 2 miles of terminal divert capability. The KW includes
a fully encrypted data downlink capability for full
engineering evaluation of KW performance and to support
rapid kill assessment.

The SM-3 evolves from the proven SM-2 Block IV design. SM-3
uses the same booster and dual thrust rocket motor as the
Block IV missile for the first and second stages and the
same steering control section and midcourse missile guidance
for maneuvering in the atmosphere. To support the extended
range of an exo-atmospheric intercept, additional missile
thrust is provided in a new third stage for the SM-3
missile, containing a dual pulse rocket motor for the early
exo-atmospheric phase of flight and a Lightweight
Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) Kinetic Warhead (KW) for
the intercept phase. Upon second stage separation, the first
pulse burn of the Third Stage Rocket Motor (TSRM) provides
the axial thrust to maintain the missile's trajectory into
the exo-atmosphere. Upon entering the exo-atmosphere, the
third stage coasts. The TSRM's attitude control system
maneuvers the third stage to eject the nosecone, exposing
the KW's Infrared (IR) seeker. If the third stage requires a
course correction for an intercept, the rocket motor begins
the second pulse burn. Upon completion of the second pulse
burn, the IR seeker is calibrated and the KW ejects. The KW
possesses its own attitude control system and guidance
commands are acted upon by a solid divert propulsion system.
The IR seeker acquires the target. Tracking information is
continuously transmitted to the guidance assembly which
controls the divert propulsion system.

Discrimination algorithms enable defense systems to compare
objects in a target scene to determine which to intercept.
Increasingly complex threats with separated target elements,
countermeasures, and debris, require advanced signal
processing and discrimination algorithms to identify object
features needed to provide robust target selection. SM-3 has
flown and demonstrated fundamental discrimination capability
for unitary threats.

Computer program design upgrades are in work to expand the
current selection accuracy and add capability against more
stressing unitary and separating target scenes using target
features observed by the Aegis radar system and the KW LWIR
seeker to optimize selection confidence. Leveraging off
discrimination architecture used across Raytheon's missile
programs, SM-3 continues to evolve an integrated
discrimination design for insertion with the current seeker
design and each of the sensing and signal processor upgrades
available to counter advancing threats.

Raytheon is working closely with the Navy to ensure that
SM-3, based on legacy Standard tactical missile designs,
stands ready to provide immediate emergency Aegis BMD
capability against preponderant threats. The SM-3 Block I KW
configuration features a single color LWIR seeker, a solid
DACS propulsion, target identification and discrimination,
and lethal intercept accuracy.

2008\02\23@220859 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Details of the missile system used for the shootdown

More technical guff here

       http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/leap-pics.htm

>
>        http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...