Gadzooks! You use a missile... 
when your phasers and photon torpedoes don't work!
Posted on 02/17/2008 6:26:54 PM PST by neverdem
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...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
shbe Tom Wanker.
The NYT is banking on failure.
Hard for me to believe our guys can’t get the thing with three shots at it.
What does missile defense have to do with "space warfare"?
Oh well gosh, let's not try it then, /s
Gadzooks! You use a missile... when your phasers and photon torpedoes don't work!
at least that headline is the fervent wish at the NYT and DNC. Is it any wonder why those folks are in favor of gun-free zones (aka target rich environments).
It’s like completing a pass in football. A quarterback may aim for the numbers, but if he gets the football within arms reach of the receiver’s chest, the football is catchable.
Before the satellite hits the atmosphere, we can predict its path just like the quarterback knows the routes that his receivers will be running. “Hitting” the satellite in this case requires about the same accuracy as completing a 2,000 yard pass.
“Hard for me to believe our guys can’t get the thing with three shots at it.”
They will hit it.
And if they don't, they damned sure will say they did.
It’s a hallmark of the “anti” anything bunch that they take early failures and herald them as harbingers of the failure of the entire process or project.
We’ve really seen this in Iraq where they knew the window for discrediting the effort was finite and they had to make as much hay as possible in the early days of the surge if they had any hope of it failure.
Hit or miss on this attempt, it’s just one step in the series of steps it will take to develop a fully functional defensive missile system.
The SM-3 is a kinetic kill vehicle and does not carry explosives. It won’t blow up near the satellite. They need to have a direct hit or nothing will happen.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/stardsm3.htm
Ridiculous.
The Missile Defense system has been under developement for years and tested many times, with amazing improvements.
It's future in no way depends on this single event.
Ross Kemp in Afghanistan [Brits at war and what they REALLY think about the Americans]
(pdf link)Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence by Gary A. Mauser & Don B. Kates says a resounding NO!. All the tables are at the end.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
“What does missile defense have to do with “space warfare”?”
Nothing.
I said this earlier,
If the ASAT is a success, the Star Wars Part Deux lobbyists will claim it a victory for their programs.
If it fails they will point out, truthfully, that it wasn’t a product of their lobbies.
NYT has nothing worthwhile to say.
Everything in the context of defense against ICBMs which must travel through space to reach their targets.
I respectfully disagree, this satellite is orbiting and not flying ballistic. Orbiting means it's moving fast, much much faster than an ICBM which is ballistic. This will be a much more difficult shot to make a kinetic kill on due to the velocity of the target alone. Still I have confidence in the Aegis BMDS system and the SM-3, the engineers and scientists would have never suggested it as an option for the President if they weren't sure they could do it. It will be a huge feather in the cap of MDA.
On the negative side, it does support the Russians thesis that the system is offensive, this will prove that it can be.
If our guys can’t hit something they’ve been tracking for years, it’s time to throw in the towel. Quit. Walk away. Call it a game.
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.