# you here what happended last night ?



## fly boy (Feb 21, 2008)

did you guys here about the spy thing that got destroyed?


----------



## wilbur1 (Feb 21, 2008)

Nope not one thing about it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2008)

Its not a secret. They blew up the Sat...


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 21, 2008)

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


----------



## fly boy (Feb 21, 2008)

yea i find it odd that they blow it up in one shot


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2008)

Why?


----------



## fly boy (Feb 21, 2008)

well it was a heat seeking missle and that sat was cold


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 21, 2008)

fly boy said:


> yea i find it odd that they blow it up in one shot




You do realize that the SM2 and especially the SM3 have incercepted much more complicated trajectory objects before?

The first mission of this test series, Flight Mission Four (FM-4), was flown on 21 November 2002 resulting in a third consecutive successful intercept for the program. Flight Mission-4 (FM-4) involved the firing of a developmental Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) from the Aegis ballistic missile defense cruiser USS Lake Erie to engage a ballistic missile target launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. FM-4 also provided a key verification of SM-3’s capability to accurately hit the target at a predefined point for lethality which, for this test, was forward of the target center. The KW impacted within centimeters of the aimpoint, completely destroying the target avionics section.

FM-5 on 18 June 2003 failed in an attempt to intercept its target. A developmental Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) was launched from the U.S. Navy cruiser, USS Lake Erie (CG-70), in a Missile Defense Agency test near Kauai, Hawaii. The main mission of Aegis ballistic missile defense Flight Mission-5 (FM-5) was to evaluate the SM-3 kinetic warhead's guidance, navigation and control operation in space using an upgraded solid divert and attitude control system (SDACS). FM-5 was the second of a planned six flight test series within the missile defense Block 2004 time period to develop a sea based ballistic missile defense against short to intermediate range ballistic missiles. FM-5 is the second developmental flight test against more complex, stressing, and operationally realistic ballistic missile engagement scenarios. 

On 11 December 2003 Flight Mission-6 (FM-6) involved the detection and tracking of an Aries medium-range target missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), Kauai, Hawaii at 8:10am HST (1:10pm EST). FM-6 was the third of planned six flight test series within the missile defense Block 2004 time period. Approximately two minutes after target launch, a developmental Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) was launched from the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense cruiser the USS LAKE ERIE (CG 70). Approximately two minutes later the SM-3 successfully intercepted the target missile with hit to kill technology, using only the force of the direct collision to destroy the target. This was the fourth successful intercept for Aegis BMD and SM-3. Between January 2002 and late 2004, the Aegis BMD system had successfully intercepted targets in space four times with SM-3. In all the flight tests, the SM-3 was launched from a US Navy cruiser under increasingly realistic, operational conditions. 

On 24 February 2005 the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) destroyed a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere during an Aegis BMD Program flight test over the Pacific Ocean. The Feb. 24 mission -- the fifth successful intercept for SM-3 -- was the first firing of the Aegis BMD "Emergency Deployment" capability using operational versions of the SM-3 Block I missile and Aegis BMD Weapon System. This was also the first test to exercise SM-3's third stage rocket motor (TSRM) single-pulse mode. The SM-3 was launched from the Aegis BMD cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and hit a target missile that had been launched from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii. FM-7 was the fourth of a planned six flight test series within the missile defense Block 2004 time period, was scheduled for the 3rd quarter of FY2003 as of February 2002. 

On 17 November 2005 a test involved for the first time a "separating" target, meaning that the target warhead separated from its booster rocket requiring the interceptor to distinguish between the body of the missile and the actual warhead. The interceptor missile was launched from the Pearl Harbor-based Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70). The target was intercepted more than 100 miles in space above the Pacific Ocean and 375 miles northwest of Kauai. FM-8 the fifth of a planned six flight test series within the missile defense Block 2004 time period, scheduled for the 1st quarter of FY2004 as of February 2002. By February 2004 this test was scheduled for the 2nd quarter of FY2005. 

A Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) was launched on March 8, 2006 from the USS Lake Erie (CG 70) in a Missile Defense Agency and Japan Defense Agency joint test in the Pacific. The Joint Control Test Vehicle-1 (JCTV-1) cooperative test demonstrated the SM-3 with a Japan-designed advanced nosecone. The flight test, a milestone in a joint cooperative research project, is an example of the ongoing coordination between the U.S. and Japan on missile defense efforts. FM-9 was the sixth of a planned six flight test series within the missile defense Block 2004 time period, scheduled for the 2nd quarter of FY2004 as of February 2002. By February 2004 this test was scheduled for the 3rd quarter of FY2005. 

The 22 June 2006 test involved the launch of a Standard Missile 3 (SM-3 Block IA) from the USS Shiloh, an Aegis-class cruiser, modified to perform the ballistic missile defense mission, and a hit to kill intercept of a ”separating” target, meaning that the target warhead separated from its booster rocket. It was the seventh successful intercept test involving the sea-based component of the nation’s ballistic missile defense system in eight attempts. The missile successfully intercepted the target warhead outside the earth’s atmosphere more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai.

FTM-11 Event 4 on 7 December 2006 was a no-test, resulting in a re-schedule. The planned sea-based missile intercept test scheduled for today by the Missile Defense Agency and the U.S. Navy was not completed due to an incorrect system setting aboard the Aegis-class cruiser USS Lake Erie which prevented the fire control system aboard the ship from launching the first of the two interceptor missiles. FTM-11 was completed 26 April 2007 by the Aegis BMD cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70). FTM-11 was the 4th Objective flight test to verify BMD 3.6 engagement capability with a near simultaneous multiple engagement and intercept of one low exo-atmospheric Group A (SRBM) target using an SM-3 Block IA missile, and a BQM-74 aerial target using an SM-2 Block IIIA missile. Conducted FTM-12 flight test to verify BMD 3.6 engagement capability with an intercept of a Group B (MRBM) target with an Integrated Reactive Lethality Payload (IRLP) using an SM-3 Block IA missile. The SM-3 intercept occurred approximately 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai. 

Flight Test Standard Missile -12 (FTM-12) on 22 June 2007 marked the ninth successful intercept in eleven flight tests for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Program. FM-12 was scheduled for the 2nd quarter of FY2005 as of February 2002. By February 2004 this test was scheduled for the 4th quarter of FY2006. The test involved a “separating” target, meaning that the target warhead separated from its booster rocket. The USS Decatur (DDG 73), using the operationally-certified Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Weapon System (BMD 3.6) and the Standard Missile – 3 (SM-3) Block IA missile successfully intercepted the target during its midcourse phase of flight. The USS Decatur’s crew launched the SM-3, and two minutes later the missile successfully intercepted the target warhead outside the earth’s atmosphere more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai. FTM-12 flight test verified BMD 3.6 engagement capability with an intercept of a Group B target using an SM-3 Block IA missile. 

Flight Test Standard Missile-13 (FTM-13) on 06 November 2007 marked the tenth and eleventh successful intercepts, of thirteen targets in twelve scheduled flight tests for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Program. FM-13 was scheduled for the 3rd quarter of FY2005 as of February 2002. By February 2004 this test was scheduled for the 2nd quarter of FY2007. The mission was completed by the cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70), using the tactically certified 3.6 Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense shipboard weapon system and the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA interceptor. At approximately 6:12 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (11:12 p.m. EST), a target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. Moments later, a second, identical target was launched from the PMRF. The USS Lake Erie’s Aegis BMD Weapon System detected and tracked the targets and developed fire control solutions. Approximately two minutes later, the USS Lake Erie’s crew fired two SM-3 missiles, and two minutes later they successfully intercepted the targets outside the earth’s atmosphere more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai. 

The JFTM-1 test event on 18 December 2007 verified the new engagement capability of the Aegis BMD configuration of the recently upgraded Japanese destroyer, JS KONGO (DDG-173). At approximately 12:05 pm (HST), 7:05 am Tokyo time on Dec. 18, 2007, a ballistic missile target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. JS KONGO crew members detected and tracked the target. The Aegis Weapon System then developed a fire control solution and at approximately 12:08 pm (HST), 7:08 am Tokyo time, a Standard Missile -3 (SM-3) Block IA was launched. Approximately 3 minutes later, the SM-3 successfully intercepted the target approximately 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean. The flight *marked eleven intercepts in twelve attempts. *


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2008)

fly boy said:


> well it was a heat seeking missle and that sat was cold



Explain how the SAT is cold.


----------



## ccheese (Feb 21, 2008)

You guys must have missed this:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/navy-shoot-down-satellite-11910.html

Charles


----------



## wilbur1 (Feb 21, 2008)

No charles just um heh uh havin fun


----------



## drgondog (Feb 21, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> The JFTM-1 test event on 18 December 2007 verified the new engagement capability of the Aegis BMD configuration of the recently upgraded Japanese destroyer, JS KONGO (DDG-173). At approximately 12:05 pm (HST), 7:05 am Tokyo time on Dec. 18, 2007, a ballistic missile target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. JS KONGO crew members detected and tracked the target. The Aegis Weapon System then developed a fire control solution and at approximately 12:08 pm (HST), 7:08 am Tokyo time, a Standard Missile -3 (SM-3) Block IA was launched. Approximately 3 minutes later, the SM-3 successfully intercepted the target approximately 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean. The flight *marked eleven intercepts in twelve attempts. *



Nice summary EM!


----------



## DBII (Feb 21, 2008)

I'm surprised that Green Peace did not Muck it Up with a lawyer.

DBII


----------



## Glider (Feb 21, 2008)

My guess is that they beat then to the draw. There was a report here a few days ago and the clear message was that the shot would take place in the next 8-10 weeks when the US had a good opportunity. I was very surprised (and pleased) to hear that they shot it down so quickly.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 21, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Explain how the SAT is cold.



Yes, I would guess it was quite the opposite; compared to the cold of the space surrounding it, it would seem the satellite was a relatively "warm" target, comparatively speaking. Even a "dead" satellite would radiate more heat than the empty space surrounding it.

Moving on, how many people here (besides me) suspect there was more to this than the government let on? According to several experts, the actual hazard the satellite posed to humanity with it's 100 lbs. or so of hydrazine on-board was extremely small; even assuming it came down in a relatively populated area (highly unlikely to begin with), it would not have posed a serious health risk to anybody, unless it hit them on the head. My guess is the US Gov't wanted to show the world (especially China) in a very public way that we have the means of taking out any satellite of our choosing. 

There is also talk that the US Gov't didn't want parts of their top-secret satellite showing up on eBay, where anybody (including the Chinese the Russians) could buy (supposedly) top-secret technology. IMHO, whatever pieces did make it to earth probably would've been burned beyong recognition, even assuming anything made it back to earth in one piece.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2008)

There is always a risk of something sensitive getting out, and I think that was one of the concerns. But there was about 100 *gallons*, not pounds, of hydrazine on board, and that would cause some damage. 


> Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
> 
> Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma in humans. Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine.[17]



Now imagine that coming down into an area of a country that we are not on good terms with, or maybe we are. It could be speculated that the satellite was deliberately aimed there. Likely? No, but that wouldn't stop propagandists and conspiracy nuts from coming up with something.

The are of contamination would be about 2 football fields. Landing in the middle of the desert somewhere would be no big deal, but what if it landed in the middle of say, downtown Los Angeles?


----------



## Bernhart (Feb 21, 2008)

agree with SOd stitch, figure it was agreat way to show that they can hit satellites while in space.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 21, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Moving on, how many people here (besides me) suspect there was more to this than the government let on? According to several experts, the actual hazard the satellite posed to humanity with it's 100 lbs. or so of hydrazine on-board was extremely small; even assuming it came down in a relatively populated area (highly unlikely to begin with), it would not have posed a serious health risk to anybody, unless it hit them on the head. My guess is the US Gov't wanted to show the world (especially China) in a very public way that we have the means of taking out any satellite of our choosing.
> .




As was said before its not 100lbs of hydrazine, its half a TON of hydrazine. 


Anyways, people, stop believing the liberal media. Thats what they want you to think, in reality, both the Russians and the Chinese know that the US has had the ability to run ASAT missions since the introduction of the ASM-135 in 1984 (almost 15 years ago). In 1985 the ASM-135 was launched by an F-15 and competely destroyed the P78-1 Solwind sat, showing without a doubt that the US could easily take a sat out of its choosing a long time ago.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 22, 2008)

evangilder said:


> There is always a risk of something sensitive getting out, and I think that was one of the concerns. But there was about 100 *gallons*, not pounds, of hydrazine on board, and that would cause some damage.



I stand corrected on my facts (or lack thereof!). Obviously, I misheard (or mis-remembered; more likely at my advanced age!) the "100 gallons" as "100 lbs."; my mistake . . . . but I still think there's more behind it than simply "interest for the public's safety". As I said, the chances of it actually coming down in a populated area were extremely remote to begin with. I guess we'll never know the truth . . . .


----------



## wilbur1 (Feb 22, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> As was said before its not 100lbs of hydrazine, its half a TON of hydrazine.
> 
> 
> Anyways, people, stop believing the liberal media. Thats what they want you to think, in reality, both the Russians and the Chinese know that the US has had the ability to run ASAT missions since the introduction of the ASM-135 in 1984 (almost 15 years ago). In 1985 the ASM-135 was launched by an F-15 and competely destroyed the P78-1 Solwind sat, showing without a doubt that the US could easily take a sat out of its choosing a long time ago.



Merlin you think like i do it was 24 years ago you old fart!


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 22, 2008)

Oh damn it is almost 24 years ago. I guess I'm trying to block it out... I am getting old.


----------



## wilbur1 (Feb 22, 2008)

I know, i had to think about it too frekin years


----------



## Elvis (Feb 22, 2008)

DBII said:


> I'm surprised that Green Peace did not Muck it Up with a lawyer.
> 
> DBII


LOL!

Probably couldn't figure out how to float their kayaks into outer space!

 




Elvis


----------



## insomnia (Feb 22, 2008)

evangilder said:


> There is always a risk of something sensitive getting out, and I think that was one of the concerns. But there was about 100 *gallons*, not pounds, of hydrazine on board, and that would cause some damage.
> 
> 
> Now imagine that coming down into an area of a country that we are not on good terms with, or maybe we are. It could be speculated that the satellite was deliberately aimed there. Likely? No, but that wouldn't stop propagandists and conspiracy nuts from coming up with something.
> ...




yet those of us in the USAF get dumped on and they give less than a **** about us... in fact about 15-20 people in my unit alone this past year (including myself). 

Didn't even get the rest of my shift off and ended up coughing for the next few days.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Yes, I would guess it was quite the opposite; compared to the cold of the space surrounding it, it would seem the satellite was a relatively "warm" target, comparatively speaking. Even a "dead" satellite would radiate more heat than the empty space surrounding it.



Exactly I was going to explain the same thing to him.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2008)

insomnia said:


> yet those of us in the USAF get dumped on and they give less than a **** about us... in fact about 15-20 people in my unit alone this past year (including myself).
> 
> Didn't even get the rest of my shift off and ended up coughing for the next few days.



Sadly, some things never change.


----------



## fly boy (Feb 25, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Explain how the SAT is cold.



the sat was in orbit about may be 56miles above us


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 25, 2008)

fly boy said:


> the sat was in orbit about may be 56miles above us



It most assuredly doesn't mean it was cold, especially to a IR seeking warhead...

Cold to us humans? Sure. Cold to a warhead designed to track heat radiation? Not even close.

Mind you the SM-3 used more than IR guidance to get it's now confirmed kill.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 25, 2008)

I would expect that the Highly volitile (and quite flamable) hydrazine would be burned-up (or at least evaporated) along with the salellite on reentery.

A side note: Hydrazine Hydrate was a major component of C-Stoff fuel (the rest being methanol) used in the Me 163 along with T-Stoff (80% Hydrogen Peroxide) the T-stoff being more corrosive and harmful to contact and the C-stoff more toxic and volitile. (in terms of vaporization)


----------



## brickhistory (Feb 25, 2008)

No, it _HAS _to be a conspiracy.

There is no earthly (pun intended) reason that the US Government would take the precaution of letting 1000lbs of hydrazine in a pretty strong tank land on either the US or a foreign country. 

Nope, they'd much rather take a chance, no matter how remote, that the thing and stuff would land harmlessly in either the water or the middle of nowhere (where the environmental damage would be significant as the casing ruptured going from mach 6 to 0 in a millisecond) than LA, Honolulu, or Sydney.

Jeez, some of the conspiracy nuts in the world just grate. News flash - BIG pieces of the Shuttle Columbia came down intact including, guess what? That's right, folks, fuel tanks for some of the OMS and manuevering thrusters.

Just a thought; if it were a test, why announce it? The Chinese that we'd want to know that we had the same capability to knock out satellites as did the PRC would know if we shot one down. Why risk the bad press in the event such a shot went amiss?

Jeez, go find Jimmy Hoffa or Amelia Earhart or the like. Let the facts on this one just be the facts............


----------



## Njaco (Feb 25, 2008)

A funny side note:

Today I had to attend a Animal Emergency Workshop because I'm part of the CART Team (County Animal Response Team). This stuff came about because of Katrina and now they are making contingencies for people with animals in disaster emergencies. Well, we had to have a table top exercise and the scenario was this - a satelite is shot down and crashes across 3 counties and we have to evacuate all residents and animals.

It was amusing.


----------



## DOUGRD (Feb 25, 2008)

Aviation Week Space Tech. has run articles on this shoot down in last weeks and this weeks magazines. Last weeks article was about how the Navy was going to shoot it down with a MODIFIED missile. Supposedly three missiles were modified for this shoot. This weeks article spent a lot of lines reporting how OUR U.S. CONGRESS was ranting about how this was a thinly disquised plot to show the rest of the world, especially China, that we still have the "Star Wars" capabilities and how they (Congress) were not going to let this happen again. Just makes you want to puke don't it?


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 25, 2008)

brickhistory said:


> N
> Jeez, some of the conspiracy nuts in the world just grate. News flash - BIG pieces of the Shuttle Columbia came down intact including, guess what? That's right, folks, fuel tanks for some of the OMS and manuevering thrusters.



Yep and some people did get sick because of it. I think most of it was limited to burns and lung irritation, but it did happen.


----------



## DOUGRD (Feb 26, 2008)

brickhistory said:


> Jeez, some of the conspiracy nuts in the world just grate. News flash - BIG pieces of the Shuttle Columbia came down intact including, guess what? That's right, folks, fuel tanks for some of the OMS and manuevering thrusters.
> .



Those fuel tanks were mostly empty....REPORTEDLY.


----------



## DOUGRD (Feb 26, 2008)

fly boy said:


> the sat was in orbit about may be 56miles above us



I can't remember the source but as I understand it the intercept point was set to be in an area of space where the suns rays would be shining on the sat. so it would absorb some of the heat and this would make its heat signature stand out from the surrounding area. Sounds plausible don't it?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 26, 2008)

The satellite was being illuminated by the sun and would have had a juicy IR signature.

The solar cells themselves are effective heat radiators.


----------



## A4K (Feb 27, 2008)

Who knows the real reasons? Those that do certainly won't let on.
Is there really a UFO at Area 51, or was it all really just a cover-up for Project Mogul, for example... 

The US don't tend to reveal these things unless
A) Someone shoots something down and they have to explain it
B) They finally succeed after the hundredth test (at 6 times the original estimated cost) and are proud of it
C) They're trying to take the spotlight off something else
D) They just want to wave the patriotic flag a bit more, "We may be up our eyeballs in corruption and mismanagement, but we're still the biggest and the best!"
or D) All of the above

I would love to travel ahead in time, and see the real reasons behind half the crap that's going on.


----------



## A4K (Feb 27, 2008)

(No offence to you guys BTW, but unfortunately more than a 'fair share' of your countrymen need to get off their high-horse a bit. Alot of people around the world can't stand North Americans in general because of these star-spangled "individuals")


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 27, 2008)

A4K said:


> D) They just want to wave the patriotic flag a bit more, "We may be up our eyeballs in corruption and mismanagement, but we're still the biggest and the best!"



And how is that different from any other country? Atleast we can back it up...


----------



## DOUGRD (Feb 27, 2008)

A4K said:


> (No offence to you guys BTW, but unfortunately more than a 'fair share' of your countrymen need to get off their high-horse a bit. Alot of people around the world can't stand North Americans in general because of these star-spangled "individuals")



But they sure do love those tourist dollars and US government aid programs don't they? And when the sh-t really hits the fan such as a tsunami or hurricane, earthquake or the like who do "they" call for assistance? It ain't the fuking ghostbusters is it? Don't take this personally A4K, it's not directed at you per se, but it's true. A lot of folks don't like the USA just like you pointed out but that doesn't stop them from sticking their hands out for Uncle Sams green backs does it?


----------



## A4K (Feb 28, 2008)

I know, you guys definitely are the biggest, but depending on the subject I would query 'the best' - 'the best budgeted' I grant you.

And anyone with any sense knows you don't get Uncle sam's assistance for nothing though, you pay BIG interest for that kind of help. Shame the people in power haven't cottoned onto that yet.

Again, no offence guys, I definitely don't tar ya's all with the same brush.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 28, 2008)

Well, as Doug pointed out, when it comes to some world disaster, the US - on a local level - does seem to respond regardless of political rantings. The tsunamis near India are a good example. Most of that support was from middle-class mucks who, beside having to pay for the house, the car, the government, still was able to give some for someone they would never meet. Not saying other countries also sent support, but a good portion of US citizens - not the government - responded.

And you know we'll take the hits (not 9/11), the bad-mouthing, the evil looks but we'll still be there with a hand to help them up, whoever needs it.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 28, 2008)

A4K said:


> (No offence to you guys BTW, but unfortunately more than a 'fair share' of your countrymen need to get off their high-horse a bit. Alot of people around the world can't stand North Americans in general because of these star-spangled "individuals")


I'm not star spangled .


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 28, 2008)

> A) Someone shoots something down and they have to explain it



Th reason we shot it down was abundantly clear. The satellite was a hazard, and we needed to remind the PRC that they're decades behind us in space technology



> B) They finally succeed after the hundredth test (at 6 times the original estimated cost) and are proud of it



Wrong on the success rate and I would like to see how you get the cost over runs at 600%. My bullsh*t detector is going off on this statement of yours.

And I would be happy to debate you on how often its hard to push the technology on something new without having an occasion failure. 



> C) They're trying to take the spotlight off something else



Like what?




> D) They just want to wave the patriotic flag a bit more, "We may be up our eyeballs in corruption and mismanagement, but we're still the biggest and the best!"



Corruption and mismanagement? Care to give us some specifics? or are you a sloganeer?


----------



## A4K (Mar 3, 2008)

Syscom, Syscom...!

My statements were very much generalities, but believe me, they are based upon the personal knowledge and experiences of myself, and many other people in the 6 different countries I have lived in, not to mention the 13 others I have visited over the last 12 years. I know what I'm talking about, and many Americans do too. 

Njaco's and Doug's comments were fairer (and right, especially Njaco's) -I never said you don't do good things aswell


----------



## evangilder (Mar 3, 2008)

And for the record, I have been to "Area 51", and the only things there are terrestrial, plain and simple. The conspiracy nuts crack me up with all the talk of "alien technology", "flying saucers", etc. When I went out there, they were testing the F-117A. There were a lot of reports at the time of black, triangle shaped UFOs, and alien craft...

People too often make up stories for that which they do not know or understand. The F-117A is a great example. Not everything the military does needs to have full disclosure.


----------



## A4K (Mar 4, 2008)

Check up about 'Project Mogul' on the net, Evan! If true, it explains the whole 'UFO crash' conspiracy, -although they do mention UFO's were sighted regularly while testing the Mogul equipment.

One of the my favourite UFO pics is that of a delta flying wing with unusual markings, which was actually the Horten XIII being test flown! Why it was painted with large circles though I don't know.


----------

