New Evidence Contradicts Official Explanation for U.S. Spy Satellite Shoot-Down

Who cares?

I, for one, think it's a good thing that our enemies understand that we have a functioning anti-missle system. It's called deterrent. Everyone stop whining.

riask Hazard?

Apparently NASA scientists have a gag-order not to talk about the real risk. I doubt it is anywhere near as high as Oberg claims.

See:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2009/bullsht-hydrazine-story

It would be good if reporters could check with NASA whether they have a gag-order, and why.

Does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about my govt.

nobodysaysBOO

you know what happened and who caused the mess,put that piece of garbage in JAIL!

The same piece of garbage has now made the ISS inaccessable to the NASA folks!

But oh we will go back to the moon SOMEDAY,we should have cities on our moon already!

hazards of hydrazine and open-mindedness

There are people with closed minds, with open minds, and some with minds so open their brains have fallen out. We've attracted all types on this thread.

My cited article described the actual -- not mythical, or imaginary -- thermal stresses on the tank, and why I believe specific people whose skills and integrity I'm familiar with over decades of working together, and why the tank would very likely survive to the ground with its toxic contents -- unless some measure was taken.

When I testified before Congress in 1997 about NASA's decayed safety culture, and soon after walked out of my day job at NASA, and afterwords published articles expressing anxiety that NASA could wind up killing more astronauts, I somehow didn't get the impression I was 'agreeing' with the government. THEY certainly didn't get that impression (grin) -- I'm the ONLY journalist ever denounced by name in a NASA press release, in 2000 in the final months of the Clinton administration, a source of great pride to me.

My impression of the technical arguments about the tank's survival is that they are fig leaves over pre-existing conclusions by folks with political agendas. That happens. What shouldn't happen is a major news media story that ONLY reports one side of a clearly still-incandescent dispute. But all too often, that's become the norm -- and this USNEWS article is an example of that sloppiness, IMHO.

My views on other subjects that have so outraged recent posters can be read in all their glorious iconoclasm at my home page, www dot jamesoberg dot com. Come on over and stay awhile!

Eric

Infamous skeptic James Oberg appears to have posted here. So James -- if the massive heat of atomospheric reentry can not destroy a small satellite, then how did World Trade Center Building #7 (a 50-story steel reinforced skyscraper) completely collapse on 9/11 given a fire contained to two floors? Mr. Oberg, who is apparently incapable of disagreeing with ANYTHING the government ever tells him, should have his credibility called into question on this one.

Eric

Good point about the collapse of World Trade Center 7. A relatively cold fire on two floors of a 50+ story skyscraper can cause that entire skyscraper to collapse, but the intense heat of atmospheric reentry won't destroy a 20-foot satellite?

another theory:

The satellite held a computer that had filed all the illegal phone taps going on and disclosure would be embarrassing if the hard disck survived and fell into the wrong hands. It operated during the 9/11 inside job and could have contained dammimg information disclosing who the real perpetrators were.

Oh well NIST will tell us!

What about "Thermal Expansion?"

According to the NIST recently released report on the collapse of WTC 7, excessive heat caused "thermal expansion." which led to the steel falling apart, which led to the building collapse.

Considering the excessive heat during re-entry, wouldn't the "thermal expansion" theory also hold true for the metal fuel tanks on the satellite, making the tanks disintegrate and burn up during re-entry?

Whadda say, there NIST?

You can do a study on the satellite tanks, even though you don't have the tanks to inspect, just like you didn't have the steel beams, girders and columns of WTC 7 to inspect.

Interestingly US satellite shoot-down came just after successful Chinese satellite shoot-down;

"Under a space policy authorized by President Bush in August, the United States asserts a right to "freedom of action in space" and says it will "deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so."

The policy includes the right to "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

Low Earth-orbit satellites have become indispensable for U.S. military communications, GPS navigation for smart bombs and troops, and for real-time surveillance. The Chinese test highlights the satellites' vulnerability."

source - http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

Risk and Lies

I have great respect for Jim Oberg's opinion; if he says that there was a creditable risk, I would tend to believe him.

However...

As for government stooping to lie about such a matter, well duh! For ANY official government pronouncement, the safest bet is to assume that they are lying unless you have some specific reason to think other wise. Large groups (governments, corporations, etc.) are normally headed by people who have aspired to great power. Information is power. Whenever people interact with each other accurate information ensures that the holder can act efficiently in his self interest. Most people who hunger for power will automatically, consistently, and unthinkingly, lie to ensure that they have an advantage in every interaction.

Unless proven otherwise always assume they are lying.