Attempt to shoot down spy satellite to cost up to $60 million

[Zeebadee]

Attempt to shoot down spy satellite to cost up to $60 million - CNN.com

The attempt by the U.S. Navy to use an anti-missile missile to shoot down a potentially hazardous satellite will cost between $40 million and $60 million, Pentagon officials told CNN on Friday.

More lies from an administration already infamous for the lies it's previously fed the public.

"Pentagon officials argue the effort is worth the expense because of the slim -- but real -- chance that the satellite's unused fuel, 1,000 pounds of toxic hydrazine, could land in a populated area.
Because the super-secret spy satellite malfunctioned immediately after launch in December 2006, its fuel tank is full, and it would probably survive re-entry and disperse harmful, even potentially deadly fumes over an area the size of two football fields."

Yeah, sure, this administration, which has already shown it's willingness to accept the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq is worried about possible casualties in an area the size of two football fields. How many lies are the American public willing to accept??


"And if the tank makes it to the surface? Well, we are told it might cover an area the size of two football fields with hydrazine and if someone remained in the area they could get a fatal dose. (If I were outside and a large tank of strange material fell from outer space, I confess, it would never occur to me to leave the area.) Well, if “two football fields” is as large at 100 meters by 100 meters, that is 10,000 square meters or just less than one ten billionth of the surface of the Earth. That makes winning the lottery seem like very good odds, indeed. To put this in perspective, the United States produces 36 million pounds of hydrazine every year, the world produces 130 million pounds of it. (It is used in, among other things, the production of plastic.) Most of this is transported around the industrial world by trucks and rail. At any given time, vastly more hydrazine is in transit around the world than is in this satellite. If the government were interested in public safety it would be better to take the $3 million cost of the Standard-3 missile and pay for a traffic light at a bad intersection or pay for children’s vaccinations.

So what is going on? When control of the satellite was first lost, the risk from the satellite was dismissed as trivial, not worth any real concern. Now we need to “shoot it down.” I cannot attribute motives without being able to read minds but a normally skeptical person could be forgiven for at least suspecting that this satellite is offering a chance for the Navy to test its missiles in an anti-satellite mode for the first time since the end of the Cold War. I have seen virtually no discussion of the arms control implications of this. Are we fueling an anti-satellite arms race? Who knows, but I don’t think anyone in this administration cares."
U.S. Plans Test of Anti-Satellite Interceptor Against Failed Intelligence Satellite » FAS Strategic Security Blog

Lies, lies, lies. The bush administration has indeed set a record.

[another day]

Indeed the Russians have voiced their concern that this is simply an opportunistic ploy to test their defense/attack weapons systems... Probably is. 60 mil to shoot down some lumps of metal which probably pose no threat at all?

In any case it's clear the government is not working for the people. It has become a corporation - a seemingly self serving power.

[Chaossaber314]

My question is, after spending all of this money on defense over the past decades why does it cost 60 million for a single attempt on a satellite? Haven't we been led to believe that we would at least be able to respond to a nuclear attack by another nation? If it costs 60 million to shoot down one thing, how the hell would we even be able to attempt to shoot down multiple missiles raining down on our cities?

Just goes to show that you can throw buckets of a money at a task and still not even come close to accomplishing it.

This should have been a piece of cake.

Apparently the military industrial complex isn't even good at the military part anymore.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Zeebedee (If I were outside and a large tank of strange material fell from outer space, I confess, it would never occur to me to leave the area.)

If this was meant to be sarcastic, any hint of Zeebedee's objectivity went flying out the window with this statement. Folks might scatter at the initial crash, but once down, every looky-loo in a hundred miles would converge on the site like so many midnight cockroaches to view the carnage and collect souveneirs... and soak up a lungfull of hydrazine.

(Hydrazine, if you recall, was the fuel used for the German Me-163 Komet rocket plane in WWII, and was incredibly dangerous.)

Quote by: Zeebedee Yeah, sure, this administration, which has already shown it's willingness to accept the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq

Apples and Bullfrogs. Methinks concerns about toxic fuels landing in populated areas is entirely legitimate, especially if it lands in any of 100 countries we'd like to remain friendly to us... not the least being our own.

The Bush League was ripped to shreds of ignoring the warnings of danger from natural disasters. Why then should they ignore this if there's legitimate potential for danger? And if it's a top secret spy satellite, even more reason to blow it to smithereens.

.

[Compugasm]

Hmm, well I guess if they have the means to prevent it, then they should. Spy satelite or not. Although, I am dissappointed that hundreds of peeps have been working since January to retrofit something. I thought all we had to do was fire up the super-laser.

[Kite]

They obviously forgot to install a self-destruct mechanism on this one. If it goes down in a foreign country, they cant risk having their technology salvaged and possibly used against them, and it does give them an excuse to do the aforementioned testing. A win-win for the pentagon. Personally I'm not that perturbed, the Pentagon has lied to me for years and will continue to do so. I've been inside it, and it is painfully obvious something is going on in there other than what the public has been led to believe. I can't change it, so let them have their little missile test. Perhaps there will be a cool explosion!

[Jack]

They got it.
US takes out rogue satellite with missile hit - Radio Netherlands Worldwide - English

[xyzer]

What a bunch of pure uninformed, unadulterated nonsense I'm reading on this thread. Hey the failing satellite which was moving at something like 17000MPH was shot out of the upper atmosphere this morning...

It shows that the Reagan initiative which Clinton impeded ,works and we are safer as a nation.It is amazing and reassuring that we have the technology to do that...Just ask the Iranians if they think shooting nukes at the USA will be possible?

When costs of such a project are covered in the press they do not consider the existing cost of such a project(which congress funded) in a complete sense. The project was on going and funded so the additional cost was minimal. e.g we already had a missile, a ship to fire it, etc.

I wonder if this will substitute for talking to rogue leaders in the middle east and north Korea. Hey guys you can defy the world an develop your missiles and nukes..we can shoot them down and obviously retaliate.Your leftie heros keep saying talk beats the reality of capability? Nonsense.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Sonart If this was meant to be sarcastic, any hint of Zeebedee's objectivity went flying out the window with this statement.

That wasn't my statement, it was from the link.

Quote by: Sonart Methinks concerns about toxic fuels landing in populated areas is entirely legitimate, especially if it lands in any of 100 countries we'd like to remain friendly to us... not the least being our own.

Only if you believe the lies that toxic fuels are going to survive the heat of reentry.

Quote by: Sonart Why then should they ignore this if there's legitimate potential for danger? And if it's a top secret spy satellite, even more reason to blow it to smithereens.

My issue with this action isn't the shootdown, it's mostly with the government lying to us again. We are constantly being told that when they do something like this it's "for our protection".

[Sonart]

.

This was interesting and all, Xyzer, but don't pee your panties just yet. Shooting down a single, well tracked ballistic satelite is one thing, but the fatal flaw of 'Star Wars' remains what it always was... the challenge of hitting an incoming missile is so huge, and the means to countering anti-missile technologies are so simple, it's a curve we can never catch up to should someone actually decide to attack us...

...which, given our own counterstrike technologies, no one would ever be dumb enough to actually do.

Quote by: zeebedee My issue with this action isn't the shootdown, it's mostly with the government lying to us again. We are constantly being told that when they do something like this it's "for our protection".

Why would something being "done for our protection" automatically be a lie? Number one, pieces of all kinds of stuff have survived re-entry, from SkyLab to the Space Shuttle, and given the nature of hydrazine, I suspect the fuel tanks were built incredibly rugged... not necessarily for orbit but for loading and launch safety.

"...which added a true fuel of hydrazine hydrate and methanol, designated C-Stoff,...The fuel system was particularly troublesome, as leaks experienced during hard landings easily degenerated in fires and explosions. Metal fuel lines and fittings, which failed in unpredictable ways, were used as this was the best technology available. Both fuel and oxidizer were toxic and required extreme care when loading in the airframe -- yet there were still occasions when Komets simply exploded on the tarmac. The corrosive nature of the liquids also mandated special protective gear for the pilots."

However, I will grant one possible cynicism... the administration is pandering to folks like Xyzer by reminding them of the Bush League's early focus on Star Wars -- instead of terrorism, at least up to Sept. 2001 -- and trying to restore some credibility and sense of achievement to a tattered legacy.

.

[xyzer]

Sonart..

This was interesting and all, Xyzer, but don't pee your panties just yet. Shooting down a single, well tracked ballistic satelite is one thing, but the fatal flaw of 'Star Wars' remains what it always was... the challenge of hitting an incoming missile is so huge, and the means to countering anti-missile technologies are so simple, it's a curve we can never catch up to should someone actually decide to attack us...

Aren't you ignoring the fact that this technology has also been successfully used against missiles. It's damned accurate.
Plus, if the tank carying the potentially harmful chemical was destroyed(all indications show it was) the ?toxic chemical will be spread out at something like 130 miles above the earth and allowed to mix into harmlessness as it drifts down. Mission accomplished.

We need to give the military credit for an efficient job which also sends a warning to hostile nations...Our technology will counter and even surpass yours...Star Wars has been successful in anti missile technology. I agree however there are other ways that international terrorists can smuggle in nuke devices. It would appear that is another chapter in the war against terrorists.

You making a valid point..I am proud of our military capability, no thanks to the Clinton Administration in which our military funding was cut some 25% ..It was called 'reinventing government' and required a buildup after 9/11 saw that terrorism was not a local matter and required a reinvention of the reinvention? Of course, who got the blame..? Bush! He was spending so much money reinventing government correctly. Luckily Star Wars didn't die in this century..blame Bush. If Hillary(part of the anti defense cabal is elected what do you think will happen to defense spending?

Add to that my belief that our country is right in its current battle against international terrorism and its sponsors and sympathizers. These Islamci savages understand force not words.

By the way would you complainers rather have no technological development and not develop any counter measures against terrorist nations for fear a small piece of metal may not burn up on reentry? Get real!

[Apeman81]

Just a word about the reported "cost" of this mission.
The missile was not built for this specific mission. It was already in the inventory. The missile could sit inert or be fired at this satellite. The cost was the same.
The naval personnel that were involved already existed. No new hires were required for this mission. They could not work to knock out the missile or they could do so with no extra cost. (no overtime pay involved)
The same holds true for others involved in the mission. They pre-existed the firing and will go on afterwards.
The only true cost of demonstrating our technological ability to intercept a space borne target will be the replacement cost of the missile itself, which could have been fired at a target or left in inventory until it's shelf life had been exceeded.
Keep it real

[Rainbow]

Why do you feel so upset, guys ?
Can not U.S. military run some tests ? in order to adjust some strategies, tactics, weaponary system, technology, personnel, etc. ?

[Suburbanite]

i bet the satellite just had a database of incriminating evidence against the white house. BOOM

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Suburbanite i bet the satellite just had a database of incriminating evidence against the white house. BOOM

Space based databases. Is this available from CDW? My ID can be stolen when some idoit looses a disk. Forget LifeLock, I'm looking for something a little more secure... such as my personal information stored on an orbiting satelite, guarded by missle self destruct. That's the ticket.

[Suburbanite]

you're not that important and it still wouldnt stop identity theft

[thebuescherman]

Apeman's got it right about the money guys.

And of course there were ulterior motives besides the "public safety". I figured something that blatantly obvious wouldn't have received such a negative reaction.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Apeman81 Just a word about the reported "cost" of this mission. The missile was not built for this specific mission. It was already in the inventory. The missile could sit inert or be fired at this satellite. The cost was the same. The naval personnel that were involved already existed. No new hires were required for this mission. They could not work to knock out the missile or they could do so with no extra cost. (no overtime pay involved) The same holds true for others involved in the mission. They pre-existed the firing and will go on afterwards. The only true cost of demonstrating our technological ability to intercept a space borne target will be the replacement cost of the missile itself, which could have been fired at a target or left in inventory until it's shelf life had been exceeded. Keep it real

Mostly correct, but not entirely. New software had to be rush developed and tested for this mission, which undoubtedly amounted to a big payoff to one of the major defense contractors.

[Ender's Shadow]

I believe this whole matter is straightforward. The United States government doesn't want its spy technology leaking out to other nations. The Pentagon has spent much more than a slim 60 million in an attempt to maintain any possible lead over nations such as Russia. If any wreckage were to be recovered by or sold to any nation other the US the effects would be cataclysmic. All of the money spend on research would have been thrown down drain.
And as far as the whole angry upset about the Pentagon doing things and leaving citizens unaware, my argument is simple. When you find a way to guarantee that no enemy of the United States can ever learn of our strategy or technology and you insure that they will never flip on CNN, you let me know.

[Anmon]

Its great that they got it, but come on 60 million?