Skip to comments.
Expensive new U.S. spy satellite not working: sources
Reuters (excerpt) ^
| January 11, 2007
| Andrea Shalal-Esa
Posted on 01/11/2007 3:01:28 PM PST by HAL9000
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
1
posted on
01/11/2007 3:01:30 PM PST
by
HAL9000
To: HAL9000
That's just what they want you to think.
2
posted on
01/11/2007 3:02:27 PM PST
by
neodad
(USS Vincennes (CG-49) Freedom's Fortress)
To: HAL9000
3
posted on
01/11/2007 3:02:38 PM PST
by
fhlh
(Liberal (noun): A person so open minded, their brains have fallen out of their head.)
To: HAL9000
Space is a harsh environment. I'm surpised we don't lose more of them.
4
posted on
01/11/2007 3:03:55 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
To: HAL9000
It seems the satellite has adopted a liberal work ethic.
5
posted on
01/11/2007 3:04:01 PM PST
by
stm
(Believe 1% of what you hear in the lamestream media and take half of that with a grain of salt)
To: stm
6
posted on
01/11/2007 3:11:29 PM PST
by
slapshot
(""USAF- when you absolutely, positively need it delivered on target, on time, right away)
To: HAL9000
Mishaps and satellite failures happen occasionally. In August 1998, an NRO satellite estimated to cost over $1 billion was destroyed when the Lockheed Titan 4A rocket launching it into space exploded some 20,000 feet above the Atlantic. That one was Gore's fault.
7
posted on
01/11/2007 3:12:38 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: HAL9000
Expensive new U.S. spy satellite not working: sources
or maybe it's working beautifully and we don't want people to know that it is
8
posted on
01/11/2007 3:13:08 PM PST
by
verum ago
(The Iranian Space Agency: set phasers to jihad!)
To: HAL9000
If NASA wasn't so PC since they now refuse to allow the shuttle to work on classified military missions, they could repair it. It's one of the things the shuttle was designed for.
9
posted on
01/11/2007 3:15:12 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: neodad
Sounds like when the monkey was flown to space but the Russians got the real blue print, instead.
To: HAL9000
It don't matter. They will just buy another one and deduct it from your paycheck tomorrow. No worries.
11
posted on
01/11/2007 3:17:56 PM PST
by
sinclair
(The world economy is $140 trillion. The US government is $50 trillion in debt. WAKE UP!)
To: FreedomCalls
If NASA wasn't so PC since they now refuse to allow the shuttle to work on classified military missions Back in the 80's the Air Force used to have trained crews for classified missions like deployment or repair. Did something change?
12
posted on
01/11/2007 3:20:08 PM PST
by
Centurion2000
(Judges' orders cannot stop determined criminals. Firearms and the WILL to use them can.)
To: HAL9000
To: FreedomCalls
If NASA wasn't so PC since they now refuse to allow the shuttle to work on classified military missions, they could repair it. It's one of the things the shuttle was designed for.
Ummm. No. Complete nonsense.
Virtually all US reconnaissance satellites are in polar (north-south) orbits - thus as the earth rotates you can cover the entire earth. Given that this one was launched from Vandenberg AFB in California, it's almost certainly in a polar orbit.
There were plans for a Shuttle launch facility at Vandenberg for the sole purpose of launching and servicing military polar payloads that were abandoned after the Challenger disaster.
It would be a physical impossibility for the Space Shuttle to get anywhere NEAR this satellite because you can't launch into polar orbits from the KSC.
To: Centurion2000
Back in the 80's the Air Force used to have trained crews for classified missions like deployment or repair. Did something change? Yes. During the Clinton administration, NASA decided that the shuttle would not be used for classified military missions anymore. Only civilian missions.
15
posted on
01/11/2007 3:35:41 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
16
posted on
01/11/2007 3:37:03 PM PST
by
Jedi Master Pikachu
( WND, NewsMax, Townhall.com, Brietbart.com, and Drudge Report are not valid news sources.)
To: Strategerist
There were plans for a Shuttle launch facility at Vandenberg for the sole purpose of launching and servicing military polar payloads that were abandoned after the Challenger disaster.That's what I said. It was a political decision not to support those classified missions anymore.
It would be a physical impossibility for the Space Shuttle to get anywhere NEAR this satellite because you can't launch into polar orbits from the KSC.
That's correct. But if NASA had not chosed to be PC and not support those classified military missions, that launch complex would be operational and the shuttle would be able to repair this satellite by launching from there. That's what it was designed for. The shuttle's payload bay was enlarged during the design phase to allow for the recovery of such satellites. Were it not for NASA's decision to no longer support classified military missions, they would be able to repair this satellite -- just like I said.
17
posted on
01/11/2007 3:40:02 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: FreedomCalls
That's what I said. It was a political decision not to support those classified missions anymore.
Which occured in the REAGAN adminstration, though people have gone so kooknut-batty in attempting to blame Clinton for every evil on the planet whether he had anything to do with it or not I don't know why I bother to point that out.
And the decision to abandon Vandenberg had nothing to do with political correctness. The Shuttle program would never have been able to meet the needed scheduled launches of the military anyway.
To: FreedomCalls
I'm certain President Bush could get it repaired if need be.
To: HAL9000
Anyone know of a satellite that is not expensive?
20
posted on
01/11/2007 4:00:57 PM PST
by
cosine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson