Important Stories Hidden By The Election

China had earlier shot down a failing satellite. Many now suspect that the USA wishes to show the world, and warn, that it also can shoot down a space vehicle.

BUSH: Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities, and could re-open dangerous gaps in our intelligence.

NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn't made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn't it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn't renewed by tomorrow?

MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it's a very complex issue. It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector.

Advocate wrote:

China had earlier shot down a failing satellite. Many now suspect that the USA wishes to show the world, and warn, that it also can shoot down a space vehicle.

I doubt that's an adequate explanation. The difficulty of hitting this dropping-duck ain't gonna be a big worry (think of all the orbital docking operations we do) and the science/rocketry/military folks in any country are going to to be fully aware of this.

Orbital rendezvous, followed by controlled docking is a trivial undertaking compared to the intercept of a vehicle on a reentry orbital path.

In addition firing the intercepting vehicle from a ship at sea is also something new. At $40-$60 million the effort is cheap compared to other like tests.

I do agree that the real motives likely go far beyond the offered one of sparing the world a small bath in hydrazene (though it is very toxic stuff ). However, so what? It is still a good idea. and the other motives listed are perfectly valid.

Quote:

Orbital rendezvous, followed by controlled docking is a trivial undertaking compared to the intercept of a vehicle on a reentry orbital path.

Why would a reentry path differ in our case here from an orbital path?
.

Because it is dynamic and changing -- unlike a stable orbit. Moreover, as the reentering vehicle approaches the outer bounds of the atmosphere it enters a domain of rather large sensitivity of very small changes in its velocity vector as a predictor of its future trajectory. It all makes for an exceedingly difficult intercept problem - particularly given that, unlike orbital rendezvous, it doesn't permit controlled, slow vectoring in the final stages of apoproach.

What objection would you have to the demonstration of a capability we have on about 25 ships that can go anywhere in the world's oceans? Sounds like a good idea to me.

That's understood. Are you sure that the planned rendevous point occurs after descent into atmosphere? I'm not sure what these missles' capabilities are.

georgeob1 wrote:

]What objection would you have to the demonstration of a capability we have on about 25 ships that can go anywhere in the world's oceans? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Capability to do what though? And who are we trying to impress? If, for example, we are trying to impress those who hold the purse strings so that billions more can be put into the coffers of weapons technology manufacturers and lobbyists, then I'm not among the impressed.

I don't know what is the planned intercept point, but I am sure they will try do do all they can to select one that will optimize their chances. The fact remains though that an already decaying orbit is not at all the same as a stable one and that there is no opportunity in this case to do slow, controlled vectoring of the missile in the final stages of its intercept as is the case with the rendezvous of space capsules in orbit.

Britain powerless in face of Saudi threats, court told
Judges sceptical about efforts to resist pressure
BAE review told ministers entitled to ignore treaty

The British government was powerless to resist the Saudi threats that forced it to close down the BAE corruption investigation, its lawyers insisted in the high court yesterday.

The claim met with scepticism from Lord Justice Moses, who is trying the case along with Mr Justice Sullivan. He pointed out that the government had apparently made no attempt to resist such "unlawful" Saudi threats or to deter their behaviour.

Philip Sales, QC for the crown, said the government could not "magic away" the threats from the Saudi ruling clan.

But the judge said: "Every time a hostage is taken or a ransom demanded, the answer by the government is: 'We do not yield to threats'."

The high court has heard unchallenged allegations that it was Prince Bandar, the alleged beneficiary of £1bn in secret payments from the arms giant BAE, who threatened to cut off intelligence on terrorists if the investigation into him and his family was not stopped.

Investigators said they were given to understand there would be "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they carried on delving into the payments.

The government argued yesterday that these threats were so "grave" and put Britain's security in such "imminent" threat that the head of the Serious Fraud Office had no option but to shut down his investigation immediately.

More than 100 metric tons of man-made objects reenter in an uncontrolled fashion each year. Of satellites that reenter, approximately 10-40% of the mass of the object is likely to reach the ground.[17] On average, about one catalogued object reenters per day. Approximately a quarter of all objects are of U.S. origin.

Due to the Earth's surface being primarily water, most objects that survive reentry land in one of the world's oceans. The estimated chances that a person will get hit and injured is around 1 in a trillion.[18]

In 1978, Cosmos 954 reentered uncontrolled and crashed near Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Cosmos 954 was nuclear powered, using a nuclear fission reactor, and spread radioactive debris across northern Canada. [Go Home Yanqui Radiocative Pig Bits!]

In 1979, Skylab reentered uncontrolled and parts of it crashed into Esperance, Western Australia, damaging several buildings. Local authorities issued a fine for littering to the United States, but the fine was never settled.[19]