Comments on: A Lame Excuse to Rattle the Sabres http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/ Science Science Revolution! Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:15:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: simian http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/comment-page-1/#comment-181 simian Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:18:21 +0000 http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/#comment-181 Thanks for your comment, tohper12. That really depends on your definition of space. Thanks for your comment, tohper12. That really depends on your definition of space.

]]> By: tohper12 http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/comment-page-1/#comment-180 tohper12 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:43:23 +0000 http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/#comment-180 ICBMs dont orbit, but they do reach apex and spend a good deal of their flight time in space... ICBMs dont orbit, but they do reach apex and spend a good deal of their flight time in space…

]]> By: simian http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/comment-page-1/#comment-173 simian Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:49:20 +0000 http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/#comment-173 Thanks for your comment, Matt. I doubt that any sensitive technology is likely to survive re-entry. The only thing with a decent chance of hitting the ground is the heavy hydrazine fuel tank. I agree with you that the debris risk is quite low; my point was just that it's higher than the risk of a school-bus sized object hitting a person when it could land anywhere on the surface of the planet. Think about the odds of what you're suggesting. You really believe that a school-bus sized object, which could land ANYWHERE on the surface of the planet, has a considerable chance of falling on a person or persons? I agree we're overpopulated, but it's not quite THAT bad yet! I know there are already satellites in space that are part of weapons systems, but they are just for surveillance and communication - they do not deliver the actual "killing force." That's what I want to keep out of space: satellite-based laser weapons, anti-satellite missiles, etc. And by the way, ICBMS do not orbit. Thanks for your comment, Matt. I doubt that any sensitive technology is likely to survive re-entry. The only thing with a decent chance of hitting the ground is the heavy hydrazine fuel tank. I agree with you that the debris risk is quite low; my point was just that it’s higher than the risk of a school-bus sized object hitting a person when it could land anywhere on the surface of the planet. Think about the odds of what you’re suggesting. You really believe that a school-bus sized object, which could land ANYWHERE on the surface of the planet, has a considerable chance of falling on a person or persons? I agree we’re overpopulated, but it’s not quite THAT bad yet!

I know there are already satellites in space that are part of weapons systems, but they are just for surveillance and communication - they do not deliver the actual “killing force.” That’s what I want to keep out of space: satellite-based laser weapons, anti-satellite missiles, etc. And by the way, ICBMS do not orbit.

]]> By: Matt http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/comment-page-1/#comment-172 Matt Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:27:21 +0000 http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/#comment-172 Actually, you've missed what is probably the real reason. It's a spy satellite, and has roughly a 1/4 chance of coming down over land. Russia, China, and the Middle East are big places. I suspect the US don't want to risk sensitive technology being seen by those governments. Which is reasonable enough to me. The humanitarian risk of hitting a populated area is also not that low. It's not huge, but the fraction of the earth's surface that is inhabited is considerable. Sure the odds of you or me in particular getting hit are smaller than lightning, but the odds of *someone* getting hit are much higher. The hydrazine isn't too dangerous, but a bus-sized satellite falling on some town is. The debris risk is low as well, unlike the China case which happened at 865km. The debris will decay in a few orbits, as even the article you linked mostly agrees. And finally, space is already weaponized. Spy, communications, and positioning satellites are already an indispensable part of modern war for every modern nation (not just the US). ICBMs also spend most of their flight in space, for that matter. So in summary, this is a test with real and legitimate reasons, and very tiny risks. Of course concern is legitimate, but in this case the benefits seem to far outweigh the dangers. Actually, you’ve missed what is probably the real reason. It’s a spy satellite, and has roughly a 1/4 chance of coming down over land. Russia, China, and the Middle East are big places. I suspect the US don’t want to risk sensitive technology being seen by those governments. Which is reasonable enough to me.

The humanitarian risk of hitting a populated area is also not that low. It’s not huge, but the fraction of the earth’s surface that is inhabited is considerable. Sure the odds of you or me in particular getting hit are smaller than lightning, but the odds of *someone* getting hit are much higher. The hydrazine isn’t too dangerous, but a bus-sized satellite falling on some town is.

The debris risk is low as well, unlike the China case which happened at 865km. The debris will decay in a few orbits, as even the article you linked mostly agrees.

And finally, space is already weaponized. Spy, communications, and positioning satellites are already an indispensable part of modern war for every modern nation (not just the US). ICBMs also spend most of their flight in space, for that matter.

So in summary, this is a test with real and legitimate reasons, and very tiny risks. Of course concern is legitimate, but in this case the benefits seem to far outweigh the dangers.

]]> By: simian http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/comment-page-1/#comment-171 simian Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:29:48 +0000 http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/#comment-171 Thanks for your comment, Dustin. Why do you present the statement "it IS going to happen" as an unquestionable fact? I think you're being more cynical than necessary. I never know what to make of people saying "In a perfect world, I agree..." I think that our actions should reflect a desire to attain a "perfect world," even while we know that absolute perfection is unobtainable. Are you suggesting that we should give up on anti-nuclear proliferation initiatives? I don't really see how this has anything to do with tree-hugging, by the way. Environmental issues are important too, but they are not the basis for my (or anyone's, as far as I know) opposition to weaponizing space. Then again, to right-wing ideologues, environmentalism and anti-militarism are one in the same. You're not one of those, are you? Thanks for your comment, Dustin. Why do you present the statement “it IS going to happen” as an unquestionable fact? I think you’re being more cynical than necessary. I never know what to make of people saying “In a perfect world, I agree…” I think that our actions should reflect a desire to attain a “perfect world,” even while we know that absolute perfection is unobtainable. Are you suggesting that we should give up on anti-nuclear proliferation initiatives?

I don’t really see how this has anything to do with tree-hugging, by the way. Environmental issues are important too, but they are not the basis for my (or anyone’s, as far as I know) opposition to weaponizing space. Then again, to right-wing ideologues, environmentalism and anti-militarism are one in the same. You’re not one of those, are you?

]]> By: Dustin http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/comment-page-1/#comment-170 Dustin Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:15:12 +0000 http://www.survivalmachine.org/2008/02/15/a-lame-excuse-to-rattle-the-sabres/#comment-170 No weapons in space, like tree hugging, is a nice gesture. The real deal is that such use of technology is inevitable. The atomic bomb is the ultimate result of such science. In a perfect world, I agree with the opinion in this article. However, if a nation has the notion, it IS going to happen. Why not our side first. As in any ultimate battle for tech superiority, the tree hugger, however sweet, will perish. Period. No weapons in space, like tree hugging, is a nice gesture. The real deal is that such use of technology is inevitable. The atomic bomb is the ultimate result of such science. In a perfect world, I agree with the opinion in this article. However, if a nation has the notion, it IS going to happen. Why not our side first. As in any ultimate battle for tech superiority, the tree hugger, however sweet, will perish. Period.

]]>