ALERT>> Spy satellite Nuke Threat? National Reconnaissance Office EXPOSED!!!

[chris jones]

Common sence.
The US sends a missle containg lethal material and does not include in its super high tech system a abort method.
A simple and seperate, individual hardware to detonate the satelite.
Please, let me get this trait, do they beleive they are infallable and this is not necessary. Bullshit.
This does not sit right with me, I don't know about you folks, but they played with us before, am I a cynic, or is my question out of line here. With their millions invested in super spy 007 shit, they did not consider the dangers of the vessel to the people off this planet. Bullshit.
Reminds me or Ripleys, beleive it or not.

[StemCell]

A Secret Plan, Suddenly Quite Public
Shooting Satellite A Complex Affair

By ROBERT BURNS | Associated Press
    February 16, 2008

WASHINGTON— - Long before the public learned in late January that a damaged U.S. spy satellite carrying toxic fuel was going to crash to Earth, the government secretly assembled a high-powered team of officials and scientists to study the feasibility of shooting it down with a missile.

The order to launch the program came Jan. 4, according to defense officials who described Friday how it came to fruition for a final go-ahead decision by President Bush this week. The officials spoke on the condition that they not be identified because of the sensitivity of the work.

The initial order was twofold: Assess whether shooting down the satellite with a missile was even possible and, at the same time, urgently piece together the technological tools that it would take to succeed.

Related links

    *
      Space Shot

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, the ships' crews were trained for an unprecedented mission and three SM-3 missiles were pulled off an assembly line and given a new guidance system.

The decision to attempt a shoot-down was disclosed by the Pentagon on Thursday. On Friday, officials said that it could happen next week, shortly after the space shuttle Atlantis returns from its current voyage at midweek. Officials want the Atlantis to be home to avoid the risk of being hit with satellite debris.

Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday that it will be difficult not only to hit the satellite but even to know the best time to shoot.

"It's a bit of an imprecise science at this point," Ham said.

With an eye to the possibility that the missile effort will fail, the government has placed six rescue teams across the country to be prepared to act if the satellite hits the United States, according to a Federal Emergency Management Agency memo dated Feb. 14.

The spacecraft contains 1,000 pounds of hydrazine in a tank that is expected to survive re-entry and a fuel tank liner made of beryllium.

FEMA has prepared a guide for emergency responders that includes information about hydrazine and beryllium. The agency warns officials not to pick up any debris or provide mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to anyone who has inhaled hydrazine or beryllium.

The Associated Press first reported on Jan. 26 that the U.S. satellite had lost power and was going to crash to Earth by early March. Normally the government would simply let a dying spacecraft fall on its own, with minuscule odds that it would land in a populated area. But in this case, Bush was convinced by advisers that it would be worth trying to shoot it down to reduce the risk from the toxic fuel.

As a first of its kind, the shoot-down scenario draws on a wide range of scientific and military technologies — from ships and radar sites in the Pacific to high-powered telescopes in Hawaii and elsewhere, to a specially fitted Air Force plane and a Navy ship that snoops on missile tests.

To kick off the planning, the government assembled a high-security team of about 200 people — Navy scientists and missile defense experts, plus representatives of defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, as well as scientists from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Lockheed is the manufacturer of the Aegis system and Raytheon makes the SM-3 missile.

The USS Lake Erie, a cruiser that has participated in a dozen mostly successful tests to intercept a mock enemy missile in flight over the past six years, will take the first shot at the satellite at a distance of about 150 miles.

The SM-3 missile aboard the Lake Erie is equipped with a heat-seeking sensor that has been modified to enable it to zero in on the satellite, whose heat "signature" is smaller than that of a ballistic missile in flight.

The SM-3 costs $9.5 million, not counting its one-of-a-kind modifications. It is designed to destroy its target not by detonating an explosive nearby but by slamming directly into it at high speed.

The State Department has instructed U.S. diplomats around the world to inform their host governments that the operation is aimed solely at protecting people from the danger posed by the onboard fuel.

[StemCell]

http://mass.gov/Eeops/docs/mema/FEMA_First_Responder_Guide.pdf

[Infowarrior]

A question begs: If this satellite contains toxic fuel, do they currently have others up there with the same?  What happens to them when they are no longer useful?

You cannot possibly tell me either that they put this satellite into orbit with hydrazine and didn't have a plan for its eventual destruction, or a plan for its eventual return to earth.

[Dig]

http://mass.gov/Eeops/docs/mema/FEMA_First_Responder_Guide.pdf

that is about as useful as an insert in a $20 first aid kit.

Are they really getting paid for these "FEDERAL EMERGENCY PLANS"?

[onehundredmonkeys]

A question begs: If this satellite contains toxic fuel, do they currently have others up there with the same?  What happens to them when they are no longer useful?

You cannot possibly tell me either that they put this satellite into orbit with hydrazine and didn't have a plan for its eventual destruction, or a plan for its eventual return to earth.

There is a special 'junkyard-orbit' for burned-out satellites. They use the remaining fuel to manoeuvre them to that high orbit  and there they will stay for hundreds of years.
Or the let them burn in atmosphere.
It depends on size and configuration.
There are 'abort' and 'kill' procedures also.
But for all of the above (pun intended) you need to have control over the satellite.
And The statement is, that they don't have that.
(It could be that they DO have control and all of it is a setup, but thats speculation again)
see link for preliminary predictions
http://satobs.org/seesat/Feb-2008/0205.html

[chris jones]

Hi Folks.

Our regime has been aware of this abomination since 2006, and are just now getting into action, is that the deal here or what.
Nice timing wouldn't you say.
Our shuttle has been around these two years or was it in aba dabba land somewhere. Are they telling us thy could not have used our shuttle to remain at a safe distance  and harpoon a explosive magnetic devise to this contraption.Correct me if I am wrong but did not the shuttl and crew do work on a few satelites, but nothing on this one.
Boy ya know the more you stir a bucket of shit, the more it stinks.

Mentioned, was if this devise went off the air completely, they had no back up for detonation on a seperate system. Do they beleive us to be complete morons alltogether.
Yup they do, what is their plan here, a start of martial law, fema and homeland goes bananas and proves their might. Or the regime will claim it was the taliban that sabotaged their satelite, and this was all a prearanged terrorist tactic.
First 911, NORAD is brainless so they say, the FBI is incompetant, the CIA withheld evidence or it was faulty, FAA is moronic, air controller are drug addicts, ground control is useless, fighter pilots on emergncy responce got lost, boy do they like to point the finger of guilt.
Now its a sattelite the size of a bus, and for 2 years they have done squat, all of a sudden at this given time its a emergency.
Brother does their shit stink.
Keep us in fear, totaly confused, and they do as they want.

It could very well be they want a revolution, the armed type, shoot em up on our soil. They cAn show off their Homeland, their FEMMAS, THEIR BLACKWATERS MERCS, THEIR AIR POWER, THEIR MICROWAVE CROWD CONTROLLERS, THEIR DOMESTIC SPYING RESULTS USED IMEDIATLY,
NSA CONTROLS SET, AND THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF GETS ANOTHER 10 YEARS AT THE HELM. WHAT A FU&&% NIGHTMARE.
I DO NOT SMOKE THIS SHIT, SORRY FOLKS I AM A CYNIC WHEN IT COMES TO THESE SOCIOPATHS. This did not happen yesterday. WHAT TIMING>

[subz0r]

I dont understand how this could be used as a false flag operation. Every one knows that this satellite belongs to the United States and that they intend to shoot it down. So if something goes "wrong" and it ends up killing Americans or American enemies the blame would instantly fall at the feet of the Bush administration. That doesn't fit as a false flag operation. It does not benefit any one but only results in deaths, with the blame falling at the perpetrators feet.

The only false flag angle for this I could find is that NASA contrived this DOA satellite to discredit the United Launch Alliance (a Lockheed Martin and Boeing joint venture). But why?

[Mr Grinch]

It seems to me if they let it land in the US they could test their Martial law technique over a relatively large area.

Last night I observed a fast drop in altitude and thought maybe the thing was falling then as it passed the equator and the elevation started going up I started to think maybe the Earth was a little wider at the equator. It turns out, amazingly its 27 miles wider at 0 deg latitude than at the pole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge
An equatorial bulge is a bulge which a planet may have around its equator, distorting it into an oblate spheroid. The Earth has an equatorial bulge of 42.72 km (26.5 miles) due to its rotation: its diameter measured across the equatorial plane (12756.28 km, 7,927 miles) is 42.72 km more than that measured between the poles (12713.56 km, 7,900 miles).

An often-cited result of Earth's equatorial bulge is that the highest point on Earth, measured from the center outwards, is the peak of Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador, rather than Mount Everest. But since the ocean, like the Earth and the atmosphere, bulges, Chimborazo is not as high above sea level as Everest is.

     

[subz0r]

The martial law angle could work. If they state that they believe it could hit the Earth in the vacinity of a major U.S city they could test their martial law implementation for the 'benefit of citizen saftey". However, this would not techinically be a false flag operation as the actual originators of this "problem" are known and acknowledged to be such.

This would be more of a Hegelian construction.

[Dig]

The martial law angle could work. If they state that they believe it could hit the Earth in the vacinity of a major U.S city they could test their martial law implementation for the 'benefit of citizen saftey". However, this would not techinically be a false flag operation as the actual originators of this "problem" are known and acknowledged to be such.

This would be more of a Hegelian construction.

false flag would mean that someone else/something else is blamed for a real or imaginary threat.

there could be no threat, but they make us think there is a threat to take away our liberties.  or they could blame that imaginary threat for "forcing us" to use a nuke to take out the nuke.  even though we would be the one firing the second nuke, this could be seen as a countermeasure to the first threat as the instigator of the ensuing chaos.

the persons/thing that could be blamed in this false flag would be old satellites coming to earth.  well there may be hundreds (how do we know), and this may be a pretext to a future false flag where we all have to fear hundreds falling.  they could quaranteen any 100 mile radius they want anytime because of "phantom satellites" falling to earth.

once you get into a verifiably tyrannical and deceptive space program (NASA/NAZI) with the limitless powers of the national reconnaissance office and lack of oversight by all 3 branches of government, then Houston we have a problem.

[setmefree]

193 is crossing over middle east now.

[MikiQuick123]

They have stated that the immediate area of impact would be easily contained given whatever is left of the tank.So if this thing carries more than that, they would be caught in an outright lie.I have a hard time buying into a theory at this point without an admission  of gross understatement of the danger or a valid explanation as to why the pentagon beleives it is worth 74 million to shoot this thing down.

[setmefree]

They have stated that the immediate area of impact would be easily contained given whatever is left of the tank.So if this thing carries more than that, they would be caught in an outright lie.I have a hard time buying into a theory at this point without an admission  of gross understatement of the danger or a valid explanation as to why the pentagon beleives it is worth 74 million to shoot this thing down.

Must have a ton of top secret info.

[Dig]

They have stated that the immediate area of impact would be easily contained given whatever is left of the tank.So if this thing carries more than that, they would be caught in an outright lie.I have a hard time buying into a theory at this point without an admission  of gross understatement of the danger or a valid explanation as to why the pentagon beleives it is worth 74 million to shoot this thing down.

i have heard conflicting reports. 

2 months ago they said that, but a few days ago out of nowhere, Bush and the Pentagon insisted that there was a full fueltank because it never worked from the beginning.

Bush/Pentagon/NASA (Bush is supposed to be CIC of Pentagon and NASA, so really just Bush) demanded that it needed to be obliterated to "save lives." 

funny how Bush is always blowing things up to "save lives"

[MikiQuick123]

They will have to come up with better than that.74 million is a lot of smack for a defunct satellite.And then, what if they miss, kind of sort of by accident?

[setmefree]

This thing is supposed to cross right over my area at about 5-6 pm this evening.

[Brendan]

There is another thread about this- http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=26984.0


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/washington/16satellite.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1203185168-kcmHICqQh9ZhlWFnJ14csQ

Washington Memo

Missile Defense Future May Turn on Success of Mission to Destroy Satellite

By THOM SHANKER
Published: February 16, 2008

WASHINGTON — The order by President Bush for the Navy to launch an antimissile interceptor to destroy a disabled satellite before it falls from orbit carries opportunity, but also potential embarrassment, for the administration and advocates of its missile defense program.

The decision was described by senior officials as designed solely to protect populated areas from space debris, and not to showcase how the emerging missile defense arsenal could be reprogrammed to counter an unexpected threat: in this case hazardous rocket fuel aboard the dead satellite.

Even so, the attempt, expected within the next two weeks, will again throw into sharp relief the administration’s antipathy to treaties limiting antisatellite weapons, which puts the United States opposite China and Russia, which just this week proposed a new pact banning space weapons.

Often compared to hitting a bullet with a bullet, the shooting down of ballistic missiles with an interceptor rocket is difficult, as an adversary’s warheads would be launched unexpectedly on relatively short arcs — and most likely more than one at a time.

So it should be easier for the Standard Missile 3, a Navy weapon launched from an Aegis cruiser in the northern Pacific, to find and strike a satellite almost the size of a school bus making orbits almost as regular as bus routes around the globe, 16 times a day.

Should it succeed, the accomplishment would embolden those who champion even more spending on top of the $57.8 billion appropriated by Congress for missile defenses since the Bush administration’s first budget in the 2002 fiscal year.

It might even revive a dormant effort to focus the military on antisatellite operations, as well. Failure, on the other hand, would be cited as hard and fresh evidence for those who point to the futility of space-warfare programs.

Beyond arguments over whether antimissile weapons also provide thinly cloaked antisatellite capabilities, and Russia’s caustic opposition to building American missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, the highly unusual mission to destroy an American spy satellite has highlighted what historically was a sideshow of superpower nuclear arms control negotiations, the question of whether to ban space weapons altogether.

The United States is perhaps the nation most dependent on satellites, both for commerce and for military communications, reconnaissance and targeting. And, to be sure, the Bush administration was harshly critical when the Chinese launched an antisatellite missile last year, the first time any nation had blasted an object in space in the 22 years since the United States last conducted such a test.

At the same time, however, the United States has resisted suggestions that a new arms-control regime be negotiated to govern space weapons, and has asserted its sovereign right to defend its own access to space and to deny it to others in future wars.

“The administration places a higher priority on military flexibility and does not want to constrain military options,” said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, an arms-control advocacy organization.

That assessment is not refuted by White House officials.

“The United States is committed to preserving equal access to space for peaceful purposes,” a White House spokesman, Scott M. Stanzel, said Friday. “At the same time, we oppose the creation of legal regimes or other international agreements that seek to limit or prohibit our use of space.”

Mr. Stanzel noted that previous administrations opposed similar treaties, in part, he said, because they are hard to verify and police, since any object in space, even debris from a destroyed satellite, can act as a weapon.

During the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union conducted about 50 antisatellite tests: a significant number, but small compared with the 2,000 nuclear weapons tests carried out in that same grim period of superpower arms races.

Efforts to ban space weapons, like the treaty proposed by China and Russia, are generally favored by arms-control analysts, even though they view the latest such initiative as deeply flawed.

During a session of the Conference on Disarmament earlier this week in Geneva, China and Russia proposed a pact that would go beyond the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which bans orbiting weapons of mass destruction, and would prohibit all weapons in space.

Mr. Krepon of the Stimson Center said the problem with the new proposal, a hindrance that has bedeviled previous efforts, was how to define a weapon.

For example, lasers can be used harmlessly for determining distances in space and gathering information on objects in space, as well as for beaming communications back to earth, but also can be used as weapons. Similarly, debris from a decaying object in space, a satellite for example, can be as dangerous to other platforms in space as a missile fired from Earth.

The new proposal, by focusing on weapons in space, also “does not cover ground- and sea-based means that could be used to harm satellites, such as the Chinese ground-based antisatellite weapon tested a year go,” Mr. Krepon said.

Despite renewed interest in antisatellite weaponry sparked by Thursday’s announcement in Washington, the reaction from Beijing and Moscow thus far has been muted.

Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/washington/16satellite.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1203185168-kcmHICqQh9ZhlWFnJ14csQ

[IridiumKEPfactor]

The martial law angle could work. If they state that they believe it could hit the Earth in the vacinity of a major U.S city they could test their martial law implementation for the 'benefit of citizen saftey". However, this would not techinically be a false flag operation as the actual originators of this "problem" are known and acknowledged to be such.

This would be more of a Hegelian construction.

I agree. This could be used as more conditioning.

I think that they will try to shoot it down and hit it but it could break into a large chunk or two. Then Northcom and FEMA get involved with the land recovery. It could happen without ANY problems and go perfectly. The news could get shots of NORTHCOM troops securing a marginally populated area and secure the toxic fuel tanks.
It will put into peoples heads the FEMA can do a go job and the NORTHCOM is the best of the best...

This is just a guess of mine but we all know that it is just a possiblilty and could be completely off.

Another brain storm.
The military shoots down the wrong spy satellite and say that it is the broken satellite and one week late the satellite and hits a big city and people think that it is a dirty bomb.
Sorry about mudding the water.

[Brendan]

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/washington/16satellite.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1203185168-kcmHICqQh9ZhlWFnJ14csQ

Washington Memo

Missile Defense Future May Turn on Success of Mission to Destroy Satellite

By THOM SHANKER
Published: February 16, 2008

WASHINGTON — The order by President Bush for the Navy to launch an antimissile interceptor to destroy a disabled satellite before it falls from orbit carries opportunity, but also potential embarrassment, for the administration and advocates of its missile defense program.

The decision was described by senior officials as designed solely to protect populated areas from space debris, and not to showcase how the emerging missile defense arsenal could be reprogrammed to counter an unexpected threat: in this case hazardous rocket fuel aboard the dead satellite.

Even so, the attempt, expected within the next two weeks, will again throw into sharp relief the administration’s antipathy to treaties limiting antisatellite weapons, which puts the United States opposite China and Russia, which just this week proposed a new pact banning space weapons.

Often compared to hitting a bullet with a bullet, the shooting down of ballistic missiles with an interceptor rocket is difficult, as an adversary’s warheads would be launched unexpectedly on relatively short arcs — and most likely more than one at a time.

So it should be easier for the Standard Missile 3, a Navy weapon launched from an Aegis cruiser in the northern Pacific, to find and strike a satellite almost the size of a school bus making orbits almost as regular as bus routes around the globe, 16 times a day.

Should it succeed, the accomplishment would embolden those who champion even more spending on top of the $57.8 billion appropriated by Congress for missile defenses since the Bush administration’s first budget in the 2002 fiscal year.

It might even revive a dormant effort to focus the military on antisatellite operations, as well. Failure, on the other hand, would be cited as hard and fresh evidence for those who point to the futility of space-warfare programs.

Beyond arguments over whether antimissile weapons also provide thinly cloaked antisatellite capabilities, and Russia’s caustic opposition to building American missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, the highly unusual mission to destroy an American spy satellite has highlighted what historically was a sideshow of superpower nuclear arms control negotiations, the question of whether to ban space weapons altogether.

The United States is perhaps the nation most dependent on satellites, both for commerce and for military communications, reconnaissance and targeting. And, to be sure, the Bush administration was harshly critical when the Chinese launched an antisatellite missile last year, the first time any nation had blasted an object in space in the 22 years since the United States last conducted such a test.

At the same time, however, the United States has resisted suggestions that a new arms-control regime be negotiated to govern space weapons, and has asserted its sovereign right to defend its own access to space and to deny it to others in future wars.

“The administration places a higher priority on military flexibility and does not want to constrain military options,” said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, an arms-control advocacy organization.

That assessment is not refuted by White House officials.

“The United States is committed to preserving equal access to space for peaceful purposes,” a White House spokesman, Scott M. Stanzel, said Friday. “At the same time, we oppose the creation of legal regimes or other international agreements that seek to limit or prohibit our use of space.”

Mr. Stanzel noted that previous administrations opposed similar treaties, in part, he said, because they are hard to verify and police, since any object in space, even debris from a destroyed satellite, can act as a weapon.

During the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union conducted about 50 antisatellite tests: a significant number, but small compared with the 2,000 nuclear weapons tests carried out in that same grim period of superpower arms races.

Efforts to ban space weapons, like the treaty proposed by China and Russia, are generally favored by arms-control analysts, even though they view the latest such initiative as deeply flawed.

During a session of the Conference on Disarmament earlier this week in Geneva, China and Russia proposed a pact that would go beyond the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which bans orbiting weapons of mass destruction, and would prohibit all weapons in space.

Mr. Krepon of the Stimson Center said the problem with the new proposal, a hindrance that has bedeviled previous efforts, was how to define a weapon.

For example, lasers can be used harmlessly for determining distances in space and gathering information on objects in space, as well as for beaming communications back to earth, but also can be used as weapons. Similarly, debris from a decaying object in space, a satellite for example, can be as dangerous to other platforms in space as a missile fired from Earth.

The new proposal, by focusing on weapons in space, also “does not cover ground- and sea-based means that could be used to harm satellites, such as the Chinese ground-based antisatellite weapon tested a year go,” Mr. Krepon said.

Despite renewed interest in antisatellite weaponry sparked by Thursday’s announcement in Washington, the reaction from Beijing and Moscow thus far has been muted.

Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/washington/16satellite.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1203185168-kcmHICqQh9ZhlWFnJ14csQ

[rphope]

Shooting down of satellite doesn't worry space station crew

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/16/shuttle.ap/index.html

Whitson said NASA and the Department of Defense "love the station crew" and would not put them in harm's way.

"So, no, we're not worried about it," she said in a news conference with the 10-person shuttle-station crew.

How stupid do they think we are. They love them so they wouldn't hurt them?

The message is folks - Your government loves you. WE WONT HURT YOU!

[Mr Grinch]

I just realized something really disturbing: The sattelite US193 will be passing over Iran at some point and we have a carrier group stationed there! [It appears within the next 2 orbits.]

Convenient co incidence would you say? How do you think Iran would react if missles go hot in its zone? If it was you would you trust us?

For that matter what about Russia or China.

This may be the angle most unfortunately.

[rphope]

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL16451297

Russia: U.S. may use satellite blast to test weapon

MOSCOW, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Russia's Defence Ministry said on Saturday a U.S. plan to shoot down an ailing spy satellite could be used as a cover to test a new space weapon.

The ministry said there was insufficient proof that Washington's decision to fire a missile at the disabled satellite was to prevent a potentially deadly leak of toxic gas as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere.

"In our opinion, the decision to destroy the U.S. satellite is not as harmless as it is being presented. Especially as the United States has been avoiding talks on restricting a space arms race for quite a long time," the ministry's information department said in a statement.

"Under cover of discussions about the danger posed by the satellite, preparation is going ahead for tests of an anti-satellite weapon. Such tests mean in essence the creation of a new strategic weapon."

U.S. officials said on Thursday that President George W. Bush had decided to have the Navy shoot the 5,000-pound (2,270 kg) satellite with a modified tactical missile after security advisers suggested its re-entry could lead to a loss of life.

Some space and security experts have said they did not believe Washington's justification for the plans and argued the Pentagon was more likely testing its ability to target other states' satellites.

This suggestion is rejected by U.S. officials.

It will be the first time the United States has conducted an anti-satellite operation since the 1980s. Russia also has not conducted anti-satellite activities in 20 years. (Reporting by Tanya Mosolova)

[subz0r]

false flag would mean that someone else/something else is blamed for a real or imaginary threat.

I always thought false flags were operations designed to direct blame onto an innocent third party.

But I take your point. It could be a smoke screen for other activities.

[Brendan]

Source: http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/16/Opinion/A_space_shoot__em_up.shtml


A space shoot-'em-up

A Times Editorial
Published February 16, 2008
 
Aspy satellite as big as a bus and filled with toxic liquid is hurtling out of control toward Earth. The president orders it shot down, like a clay pigeon traveling at supersonic speed, with a ship-mounted missile fired into the fringes of space. No, it's not a sci-fi movie starring Will Smith but an actual plan ordered up by President Bush. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, our aim could be off. No problem, says Marine Gen. James Cartwright. We could just fire again because two more missiles modified for the mission stand at the ready. Of course, then we could end up with a satellite and three missiles rattling around in space.

Or our geopolitical rivals could see this as a ruse to test a new antisatellite missile system, which could ratchet up tensions with China and Russia. The United States objected when China did something similar last year, shooting down one of its own satellites just for practice.

Then there's the risk of creating more space debris that threatens future missions. As for crews in the recently launched shuttle and International Space Station, NASA offers assurances that it has considered the risks and "broadly speaking, they are negligible." How about narrowly speaking?

Finally, there's the chance that we'll just look foolish. Bush, who has patterned his military policy after cowboy movies, should remember the gunslinger's credo: If you shoot at something, you'd better not miss.

Last modified February 15, 2008, 21:35:09

Source: http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/16/Opinion/A_space_shoot__em_up.shtml

[Anti_Illuminati]

This is translated by google from Japanese:

"Inability to control spy satellites: U.S. forces to examine and rule"

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://wiredvision.jp/news/200802/2008021421.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dubichip%2Bdarpa%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

" United States, missile decision to obliterate spy satellite"

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://wiredvision.jp/news/200802/2008021523.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dubichip%2Bdarpa%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

[Dig]

I always thought false flags were operations designed to direct blame onto an innocent third party.

But I take your point. It could be a smoke screen for other activities.

Minnesota Bridge false flag blamed lack of SPP/NAFTA Superhighway Funding, Virginia Tech False Flag blamed "loners," Financial depression False Flag is being blamed on lower and middle class trying to cheat the system with subprime loans, etc.

[subz0r]

Minnesota Bridge false flag blamed lack of SPP/NAFTA Superhighway Funding, Virginia Tech False Flag blamed "loners," Financial depression False Flag is being blamed on lower and middle class trying to cheat the system with subprime loans, etc.

Precisely, who would this incident be blamed on? NASA? Lockheed Martin/Boeing? U.S government? U.S Military? They aren't usually the focus for false flag operations. I don't understand the angle

[Mr Grinch]

I just realized something really disturbing: The sattelite US193 will be passing over Iran at some point and we have a carrier group stationed there! [It appears within the next 2 orbits.]

Convenient co incidence would you say? How do you think Iran would react if missles go hot in its zone? If it was you would you trust us?

For that matter what about Russia or China.

This may be the angle most unfortunately.

It will pass almost directly over Tehran at 3:59 pacific and will head south over Iran crossing over the beach near Pakistani border heading out over the Arabian sea.

If you go here.. http://www.n2yo.com/passes.php?s=29651 and register [free] you can change your geographic location to Tehran and see when it will pass within the area for the next 5 days.

I used...

Your current location:   Change
Latitude: 34°n
Longitude: 52°e

[la Resistance]

Last night I observed a fast drop in altitude and thought maybe the thing was falling then as it passed the equator and the elevation started going up I started to think maybe the Earth was a little wider at the equator. It turns out, amazingly its 27 miles wider at 0 deg latitude than at the pole.
     

I was watching in the evening too as it passed thee equator, it fell quite rapidly - maybe a kilometer every ten seconds. So I was expecting it to be down.

The tracker said it would strike at around 11am AEST on Wednesday I think, I asked it to plot out where it would be as elevation.

If it really has struck by Wednesday, then the shuttle may not have landed, making this whole thing a very public excuse for about a 250M dollar defense budget black-hole. Y'all infowarriors haven't broached that angle yet - if they've been planning to let the thing strike the whole time, what else could they do with the money?

[onehundredmonkeys]

I was watching in the evening too as it passed thee equator, it fell quite rapidly - maybe a kilometer every ten seconds. So I was expecting it to be down.

The tracker said it would strike at around 11am AEST on Wednesday I think, I asked it to plot out where it would be as elevation.

If it really has struck by Wednesday, then the shuttle may not have landed, making this whole thing a very public excuse for about a 250M dollar defense budget black-hole. Y'all infowarriors haven't broached that angle yet - if they've been planning to let the thing strike the whole time, what else could they do with the money?

I just realized something really disturbing: The sattelite US193 will be passing over Iran at some point and we have a carrier group stationed there! [It appears within the next 2 orbits.]

Convenient co incidence would you say? How do you think Iran would react if missles go hot in its zone? If it was you would you trust us?

For that matter what about Russia or China.

This may be the angle most unfortunately.

Well, any state between 58.5 north and south..take your pick.
(58.5 degrees is the last known inclination angle to the equator)
That(incertainty) fact alone would suggest to me that they do KNOW to controll where it enters.
Either by pushing some numbers on a keyboard, or just blow the damn thing up. (they have done that a few times already so, nothing new there)
Or maybe them iz just dumb?

[Mr Grinch]

It seems to me if they let it land in the US they could test their Martial law technique over a relatively large area.

Last night I observed a fast drop in altitude and thought maybe the thing was falling then as it passed the equator and the elevation started going up I started to think maybe the Earth was a little wider at the equator. It turns out, amazingly its 27 miles wider at 0 deg latitude than at the pole.
     

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge
An equatorial bulge is a bulge which a planet may have around its equator, distorting it into an oblate spheroid. The Earth has an equatorial bulge of 42.72 km (26.5 miles) due to its rotation: its diameter measured across the equatorial plane (12756.28 km, 7,927 miles) is 42.72 km more than that measured between the poles (12713.56 km, 7,900 miles).

An often-cited result of Earth's equatorial bulge is that the highest point on Earth, measured from the center outwards, is the peak of Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador, rather than Mount Everest. But since the ocean, like the Earth and the atmosphere, bulges, Chimborazo is not as high above sea level as Everest is.

Thus it really is in a perfectly circular motion its just the equator sticking 27 miles higher measured from the core of the earth. I learned (re) just today myself.

[Dig]

Precisely, who would this incident be blamed on? NASA? Lockheed Martin/Boeing? U.S government? U.S Military? They aren't usually the focus for false flag operations. I don't understand the angle

The angle is that we should be scared of nuke satellites flying to the Earth.

There is no one to blame but "stupidity"

blaming carefully constructed plans on "governmental stupidity" is a false flag attack on our freedoms when we have to give up more of them.

how are we not giving up more freedoms by worrying about some fricking nuke satellite coming to earth and a new Navy space weapon trying to blast it with unknown consequences?

the false enemy here is "government stupidy" or government incompetence"

did you see the fricking Dr. Evil 1,000 foot Golf Ball?  Why was there not incompetence in making that fricking thing, but we are supposed to believe a nuke satellite was put up by a "clerical error."

it is highly possible that this is a false flag blaming government incompetence.

who wins - gov gets money to fight phantom renegade satellites and we get more tax money taken and the possibility of FEMA martial law anytime anywhere.

[subz0r]

Gotcha, thanks for clearing that one up for me!

I was thinking of entities to blame it on, not aspects of entities. It fits.

Thinking on this angle more I came up with this chillingly plausible hypothetical scenario:

The administration requests strict martial law provisions with copious amounts of excessively harsh powers incase the missile fails to hit the target and looks like its heading for the U.S (ostensibly to protect the hapless U.S citizens in harms way). The Democrat controlled Congress prevents such a severe curtailment of civil liberties and the Bush administration, who for onces obeys Congress, sits back while the rogue satellite wipes out a few city blocks.

An outraged U.S population stands squarely behind a vindicated Republican party, as well as behind their Draconian martial law provisions, and positively demands that such provisions be made available to the President at his sole discretion.

I can see it unfolding.

[larsonstdoc]

 OUR GOVERNMENT IS BEYOND EVIL!!!!!!

[PatriotX]

I agree with Chris Jones....Common sense.

"The US sends a missle containg lethal material and does not include in its super high tech system a abort method.
A simple and seperate, individual hardware to detonate the satelite.
Please, let me get this trait, do they beleive they are infallable and this is not necessary. Bullshit.
This does not sit right with me, I don't know about you folks, but they played with us before, am I a cynic, or is my question out of line here. With their millions invested in super spy 007 shit, they did not consider the dangers of the vessel to the people off this planet. Bullshit.
Reminds me or Ripleys, beleive it or not."


Again, as Chris infers....After all of this foreknowledge, why DON'T/DIDN'T they just harpoon the space bus like a giant whale and put a timed explosive charge on it???  This would have effectively given them more opportunity for actually "hitting" their target than the 80% chance I believe was stated in an earlier post..... But NOOOOO!  They choose to wait till the last minute to blast the thing out of the heavens.  What the hell sense does this make???

There is definitely more than meets the eye here.  Whether we will ever find out for sure is another matter.

For one thing.  I think it is about flexing some muscle with the space program.   For another, it might be convenient cover for God only knows what.....

Also, perhaps there is some very significant info on board that MUST either be destroyed or recovered (depending on the risk of falling into the wrong hands).  That would seem a given though, with the only real purpose being to cover their asses most likely and/or make believe that the precious data is lost forever......  


Patriot X  

[Jackson Holly]

~ Blowing Things Up In Space Does Not Make Any Sense ~

I don't get it - the whole Space Arsenal non-sense. Tiny pieces of metal/junk cruising at about 30,000 miles an hour will knock out just about anything - we all know that. We can't blow up huge metal objects in orbit - like our enemies' satellites - we would create a huge junkyard surrounding the planet for untold thousands of years, making space travel much more hazardous, if not impossible. We are already tracking/dodging thousands of pieces of junk that we are aware of. Space Wars can not happen - not in orbit around our home planet.

So WTF is this all about?? TONS of money for satellite weapons that we can't use - they are sitting ducks for anybody willing to blow them to smithereens and create this orbiting junkyard/minefield. Oh, I know they are using the orbiters for scalar EM, beam weapons and the whole laundry list of death from heaven schemes. But, surely our 'leaders" know they can NOT use them - it is crapping in our own bed.

(With this spy~sat 193 or whatever - the spooks say they will try to blast it just as it starts into re-entry so as to minimize the orbiting junkyard effect.)

All Nations know it can't happen - not a shooting war in space - so I don't get it.

The whole notion is insane - for any number of reasons.

http://www.peaceinspace.com/

[PatriotX]

Following the "junkyard" train of thought (for reasons that have merit) why couldn't you essentially use an abort system (detonation charge) at the altitude of choice and avoid the "junkyard" altogether?

Again.  Something is wrong here.  But I am a layman when it comes to physics and outerspace.


Patriot X

[MikiQuick123]

I see several possibilities here.The first,they don't care about the space junk since theres already a ton of it up there.The second,showing China we can do it too.The third,Cover their ass on projects they deny.Fourth,there is much more to this than a fuel tank.Fifth,they just like to shoot at shit.(not the boys you would want to go hunting with).Fifth,feign concern for the peasants.Sixth,simple weapons test.Seven,condition people to the reality of weaponized space.Eight, stage a malfunction and a resulting 'accident'.Nine,trigger an increased animosity and suspicion in the world.Ten, none of the above,they have other plans.

[Jackson Holly]

~ Some Space Junkyard Linx ~




http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/05/03/orbit.debris/index.html

Anti-satellite test generates dangerous space debris
"Because the density of the atmosphere is low at altitudes of about 800 km, the space junk could circle the Earth for a decade or more without dropping down low enough to burn up in the atmosphere. And if at some point the debris did hit a satellite, that satellite could also break up, creating ever more space junk in a cascade effect."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.rense.com/general78/usx.htm

The USAF Space Command  And What it Does
"The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://i.abcnews.com/Technology/Story?id=2841745&page=1


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7D91131F937A3575BC0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Orbiting Junk Threatens Space Missions
"Deep inside this hollowed-out mountain near Colorado Springs, the United States Space Command is hard at work sizing up the threat. The military command, in charge of the nation's space surveillance, now tracks nearly 7,000 orbiting objects the size of a baseball or larger: operating and dead satellites, an astronaut's wrench, spent rocket engines and thousands of whirling fragments created by the unintended breakup of more than 90 satellites and rockets.

Monitoring these objects, twice as many as were being tracked 10 years ago, is ''becoming difficult,'' said Capt. David P. Boyarski of the Air Force, who tracks and identifies orbiting objects.

And amid the measurable clutter may lurk millions of bits of smaller debris. Experts say a fast-moving fragment the size of a pea could easily shatter a $100 million satellite."

~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.slate.com/id/2184375

Guns in Space ~ WHAT'S THE POINT OF PUTTING WEAPONS IN ORBIT?

"According to UCS figures, the United States currently has more than 400 satellites in space, roughly as many as the rest of the world combined. With the region around Earth's gravitational field already cluttered with orbiting debris, it would be difficult to add many more, expenses notwithstanding. Furthermore, the costs of placing a functioning weapon in space are enormous compared with the costs of bringing one down. A system that could attempt to intercept anti-satellite missiles fired from the ground would require a similar network of satellites that would be vulnerable to ground-based attacks.

"The continued traction that the idea receives among political and military leaders is usually motivated by fears that the Earth's satellites are largely unprotected. Those on the other side argue that global dependence on satellites makes the prospect of a tit-for-tat orbital shootout extremely unlikely among space-faring nations. That's not to say that rogue nations or terrorists couldn't decide to target orbiting objects with a missile capable of reaching low-Earth orbit. But if they did, virtually all experts say, our best chance of intercepting it would be from here on Earth."