Comments on: US to shoot down dead spy satellite: Why? http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/us-to-shoot-down-dead-spy-satellite-why/ science│nature│space│technology Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:03:56 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Recent Links Tagged With "n2h4" - JabberTags http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/us-to-shoot-down-dead-spy-satellite-why/#comment-3295 Recent Links Tagged With "n2h4" - JabberTags Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:49:32 +0000 http://blogearth.wordpress.com/?p=50#comment-3295 [...] public links >> n2h4 US to shoot down dead spy satellite: Why? Saved by payasa1997 on Fri 10-10-2008 US to shoot down dead spy satellite: Why? Saved by [...] [...] public links >> n2h4 US to shoot down dead spy satellite: Why? Saved by payasa1997 on Fri 10-10-2008 US to shoot down dead spy satellite: Why? Saved by [...]

]]> By: Richard http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/us-to-shoot-down-dead-spy-satellite-why/#comment-81 Richard Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:15:12 +0000 http://blogearth.wordpress.com/?p=50#comment-81 David: I can see your point, but the main problem with China's shootdown was that it was so badly done. Millions of dangerous pieces of satellite were left floating around when the Chinese destroyed their satellite, whereas the U.S. shootdown was relatively clean. I'm glad you like my blog - thanks! :) Neil: The hydrazine would likely not have burnt up if the satellite had come down naturally because it was in a strong metal container. This could then have developed a leak or a hole when it hit the ground, releasing the toxic hydrazine. David: I can see your point, but the main problem with China’s shootdown was that it was so badly done. Millions of dangerous pieces of satellite were left floating around when the Chinese destroyed their satellite, whereas the U.S. shootdown was relatively clean.

I’m glad you like my blog – thanks! :)

Neil: The hydrazine would likely not have burnt up if the satellite had come down naturally because it was in a strong metal container. This could then have developed a leak or a hole when it hit the ground, releasing the toxic hydrazine.

]]> By: Neil http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/us-to-shoot-down-dead-spy-satellite-why/#comment-80 Neil Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:57:02 +0000 http://blogearth.wordpress.com/?p=50#comment-80 Would'nt the Fuel burn up when the satelite reenters the atmosphere, or does Hydrazine need a catalyst or other reactant than oxygen to combust? They use this fuel to fly military jets, where's the concern then? I think they want to make sure it comes down in tiny pieces so our inteligence gathering secrets stay that way. Which is fine with me, but just say that if that is the case. Would’nt the Fuel burn up when the satelite reenters the atmosphere, or does Hydrazine need a catalyst or other reactant than oxygen to combust?

They use this fuel to fly military jets, where’s the concern then?

I think they want to make sure it comes down in tiny pieces so our inteligence gathering secrets stay that way. Which is fine with me, but just say that if that is the case.

]]> By: David http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/us-to-shoot-down-dead-spy-satellite-why/#comment-79 David Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:43:46 +0000 http://blogearth.wordpress.com/?p=50#comment-79 re: "It would significantly reduce what little remains of America’s credibility on the international stage." The US strongly criticized China when they did the exact same thing one year ago though. Perhaps shooting it down would actually mean more lost credibility? Interesting blog by the way - just found you from this NG link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080220-toxic-satellite.html re: “It would significantly reduce what little remains of America’s credibility on the international stage.”

The US strongly criticized China when they did the exact same thing one year ago though. Perhaps shooting it down would actually mean more lost credibility?

Interesting blog by the way – just found you from this NG link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080220-toxic-satellite.html

]]> By: Richard http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/us-to-shoot-down-dead-spy-satellite-why/#comment-75 Richard Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:29:28 +0000 http://blogearth.wordpress.com/?p=50#comment-75 Oops... that was a pretty major typo. Sorry to anyone who got the wrong impression - GeologyJoe is indeed correct that the mission will cost between 40 and 60 MILLION dollars, not billion. I've corrected the post. Thanks for telling me! As for the hydrazine, check out my last comment on this page. I still maintain what I wrote there. Oops… that was a pretty major typo. Sorry to anyone who got the wrong impression – GeologyJoe is indeed correct that the mission will cost between 40 and 60 MILLION dollars, not billion. I’ve corrected the post.

Thanks for telling me!

As for the hydrazine, check out my last comment on this page. I still maintain what I wrote there.

]]> By: GeologyJoe http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/us-to-shoot-down-dead-spy-satellite-why/#comment-74 GeologyJoe Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:32:56 +0000 http://blogearth.wordpress.com/?p=50#comment-74 I think shooting it down has nothing to do with public safety. Regular old gasoline can cause the same health effects, less the skin burns. You seem to have a typo. it will cost 60 Million not billion. Cheers. I think shooting it down has nothing to do with public safety. Regular old gasoline can cause the same health effects, less the skin burns.

You seem to have a typo. it will cost 60 Million not billion.
Cheers.

]]> By: Richard http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/us-to-shoot-down-dead-spy-satellite-why/#comment-57 Richard Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:27:04 +0000 http://blogearth.wordpress.com/?p=50#comment-57 Lauren, I can see what you're saying, and I don't doubt that the government was probably more eager than it might have been to shoot down the satellite because it wants to test out new missile technology. However, imagine if the satellite had landed in, say, Russia, and injured loads of people with the hydrazine. It would significantly reduce what little remains of America's credibility on the international stage. Lauren, I can see what you’re saying, and I don’t doubt that the government was probably more eager than it might have been to shoot down the satellite because it wants to test out new missile technology.

However, imagine if the satellite had landed in, say, Russia, and injured loads of people with the hydrazine. It would significantly reduce what little remains of America’s credibility on the international stage.

]]> By: Lauren http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/us-to-shoot-down-dead-spy-satellite-why/#comment-56 Lauren Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:06:51 +0000 http://blogearth.wordpress.com/?p=50#comment-56 Oh pa leeeeze. Last month the reports said the satellite was 10,000 pounds. Now suddenly it's 5,000 pounds. Last month they asked us to believe they didn't know how big the satellite was and they didn't know if there was any toxic stuff onboard. These guys couldn't tell us the truth if it was pinned on their noses and drawing blood. Suddenly the government is worried about the loss of human life? I doubt that. Oh pa leeeeze. Last month the reports said the satellite was 10,000 pounds. Now suddenly it’s 5,000 pounds. Last month they asked us to believe they didn’t know how big the satellite was and they didn’t know if there was any toxic stuff onboard.

These guys couldn’t tell us the truth if it was pinned on their noses and drawing blood.

Suddenly the government is worried about the loss of human life?

I doubt that.

]]>