Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
> > through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
> > want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
> >
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23166344/
> >
> > A fascinating mini-step to an anti-asteroid defense maybe?
>
> I just love how the drive-by media is hyping it up like a great disaster!
> IT'S ****ING TARGET PRACTICE!!! No drones, no simulators... the Navy gets to
> actually blow the **** out of something, test and calibrate its systems, and
> learn from the experience. This is a great thing! Just think, when that
> missle blows the everloving crap out of that little itty bitty satellite
> waaaaaaaay the bloody hell up there... Think what a statement that will
> make! Poor Kim Jong Il (or whoever has almost a nuke now), finally develops
> a missle that soars thru the air for TWO minutes before self destructing,
> and then we pull this **** off? This will be one of the greatest "Just don't
> **** with America, okay?" demonstration since Hiroshima! (Yeah, I went
> there...)
> Stand up and cheer, America! We're about to vaporize some space crap! ****
> Yeah!

It's not necessary to make that statement again. Everyone in the
world, including Mr. all hat/no cattle Kim Jong Il, is aware of
America's conventional military superiority. By and large, nations
don't **** with America overtly. Even when we attack their allies,
everyone knows to behave... or else.

It's the entire reason there's terrorism. There's no other way to
effectively attack America without the risk of total retaliatory
annihilation. If there is an N/B/C attack on America in the near
future, it will be delivered manually and not in a manner that a big
gun will be able to stop.

The only real solution to the problem of American security, over the
long term, is the Pax Americana promoted by PNAC in 2000's "Rebuilding
America's Defenses". Starting this process was the goal of the Iraq
war, whatever the pretext, and is the reason America cannot elect a
Presidential candidate in 2008 committed to withdrawal from the
region. Over the short and long term, that's suicide.

A permanent presence in Iraq is necessary to ensure the future of
America and all of Western civilization.

On Feb 17, 1:38 pm, Pocket Protector Man <jacks...@japan.com> wrote:
> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>
>
>
> > "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
> > > through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
> > > want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>
> > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23166344/
>
> > > A fascinating mini-step to an anti-asteroid defense maybe?
>
> > I just love how the drive-by media is hyping it up like a great disaster!
> > IT'S ****ING TARGET PRACTICE!!! No drones, no simulators... the Navy gets to
> > actually blow the **** out of something, test and calibrate its systems, and
> > learn from the experience. This is a great thing! Just think, when that
> > missle blows the everloving crap out of that little itty bitty satellite
> > waaaaaaaay the bloody hell up there... Think what a statement that will
> > make! Poor Kim Jong Il (or whoever has almost a nuke now), finally develops
> > a missle that soars thru the air for TWO minutes before self destructing,
> > and then we pull this **** off? This will be one of the greatest "Just don't
> > **** with America, okay?" demonstration since Hiroshima! (Yeah, I went
> > there...)
> > Stand up and cheer, America! We're about to vaporize some space crap! ****
> > Yeah!
>
> It's not necessary to make that statement again. Everyone in the
> world, including Mr. all hat/no cattle Kim Jong Il, is aware of
> America's conventional military superiority. By and large, nations
> don't **** with America overtly. Even when we attack their allies,
> everyone knows to behave... or else.
>
> It's the entire reason there's terrorism. There's no other way to
> effectively attack America without the risk of total retaliatory
> annihilation. If there is an N/B/C attack on America in the near
> future, it will be delivered manually and not in a manner that a big
> gun will be able to stop.
>
> The only real solution to the problem of American security, over the
> long term, is the Pax Americana promoted by PNAC in 2000's "Rebuilding
> America's Defenses". Starting this process was the goal of the Iraq
> war, whatever the pretext, and is the reason America cannot elect a
> Presidential candidate in 2008 committed to withdrawal from the
> region. Over the short and long term, that's suicide.
>
> A permanent presence in Iraq is necessary to ensure the future of
> America and all of Western civilization.

Pull out of Iraq now, and de-arm the U.S. military now, we only need
UN peace keepers here in the U.S. and around the world....peace out
man....
Signed;
a citizen of the world....

I
>Pull out of Iraq now, and de-arm the U.S. military now, we only need
>UN peace keepers here in the U.S. and around the world....peace out
>man....
>Signed;
>a citizen of the world....

Are you going to be the one who comes to my house to take my gun away from me?
I'd like to see that!

"GMAN" <glenzabr@dontspammebro.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:fpablf$ekr$1@news.xmission.com...
> I
> >Pull out of Iraq now, and de-arm the U.S. military now, we only need
> >UN peace keepers here in the U.S. and around the world....peace out
> >man....
> >Signed;
> >a citizen of the world....
>
> Are you going to be the one who comes to my house to take my gun away from
me?
> I'd like to see that!

Yep, the same kind of idiot that thinks UN peace keepers are from some
magical place and aren't trained professionals from standing armed forces of
UN member countries, like the US. Probably votes for the NDP too.

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

Pocket Protector Man wrote:
> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23166344/
>>>
>>> A fascinating mini-step to an anti-asteroid defense maybe?
>> I just love how the drive-by media is hyping it up like a great disaster!
>> IT'S ****ING TARGET PRACTICE!!! No drones, no simulators... the Navy gets to
>> actually blow the **** out of something, test and calibrate its systems, and
>> learn from the experience. This is a great thing! Just think, when that
>> missle blows the everloving crap out of that little itty bitty satellite
>> waaaaaaaay the bloody hell up there... Think what a statement that will
>> make! Poor Kim Jong Il (or whoever has almost a nuke now), finally develops
>> a missle that soars thru the air for TWO minutes before self destructing,
>> and then we pull this **** off? This will be one of the greatest "Just don't
>> **** with America, okay?" demonstration since Hiroshima! (Yeah, I went
>> there...)
>> Stand up and cheer, America! We're about to vaporize some space crap! ****
>> Yeah!
>
> It's not necessary to make that statement again. Everyone in the
> world, including Mr. all hat/no cattle Kim Jong Il, is aware of
> America's conventional military superiority. By and large, nations
> don't **** with America overtly. Even when we attack their allies,
> everyone knows to behave... or else.
>
> It's the entire reason there's terrorism. There's no other way to
> effectively attack America without the risk of total retaliatory
> annihilation. If there is an N/B/C attack on America in the near
> future, it will be delivered manually and not in a manner that a big
> gun will be able to stop.
>
> The only real solution to the problem of American security, over the
> long term, is the Pax Americana promoted by PNAC in 2000's "Rebuilding
> America's Defenses". Starting this process was the goal of the Iraq
> war, whatever the pretext, and is the reason America cannot elect a
> Presidential candidate in 2008 committed to withdrawal from the
> region. Over the short and long term, that's suicide.
>
> A permanent presence in Iraq is necessary to ensure the future of
> America and all of Western civilization.

You're missing the WHOLE point.

There's concern that a tank full of toxic propellant in the satellite
will survive reentry, resulting in a dangerous spill in the area where
it lands. It's hoped that the missile will strip the other satellite
structures away from the tank, possibly rupturing the tank itself, so
that the toxic propellant can dissipate in space or during reentry.

"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23166344/
>>>>
>>>> A fascinating mini-step to an anti-asteroid defense maybe?
>>> I just love how the drive-by media is hyping it up like a great
>>> disaster!
>>> IT'S ****ING TARGET PRACTICE!!! No drones, no simulators... the Navy
>>> gets to
>>> actually blow the **** out of something, test and calibrate its systems,
>>> and
>>> learn from the experience. This is a great thing! Just think, when that
>>> missle blows the everloving crap out of that little itty bitty satellite
>>> waaaaaaaay the bloody hell up there... Think what a statement that will
>>> make! Poor Kim Jong Il (or whoever has almost a nuke now), finally
>>> develops
>>> a missle that soars thru the air for TWO minutes before self
>>> destructing,
>>> and then we pull this **** off? This will be one of the greatest "Just
>>> don't
>>> **** with America, okay?" demonstration since Hiroshima! (Yeah, I went
>>> there...)
>>> Stand up and cheer, America! We're about to vaporize some space crap!
>>> ****
>>> Yeah!
>>
>> It's not necessary to make that statement again. Everyone in the
>> world, including Mr. all hat/no cattle Kim Jong Il, is aware of
>> America's conventional military superiority. By and large, nations
>> don't **** with America overtly. Even when we attack their allies,
>> everyone knows to behave... or else.
>>
>> It's the entire reason there's terrorism. There's no other way to
>> effectively attack America without the risk of total retaliatory
>> annihilation. If there is an N/B/C attack on America in the near
>> future, it will be delivered manually and not in a manner that a big
>> gun will be able to stop.
>>
>> The only real solution to the problem of American security, over the
>> long term, is the Pax Americana promoted by PNAC in 2000's "Rebuilding
>> America's Defenses". Starting this process was the goal of the Iraq
>> war, whatever the pretext, and is the reason America cannot elect a
>> Presidential candidate in 2008 committed to withdrawal from the
>> region. Over the short and long term, that's suicide.
>>
>> A permanent presence in Iraq is necessary to ensure the future of
>> America and all of Western civilization.
>
> You're missing the WHOLE point.

Not really, just concentrating on the fun part. :-)

> There's concern that a tank full of toxic propellant in the satellite will
> survive reentry, resulting in a dangerous spill in the area where it
> lands. It's hoped that the missile will strip the other satellite
> structures away from the tank, possibly rupturing the tank itself, so that
> the toxic propellant can dissipate in space or during reentry.

The fact that we have a legitimate reason to blow the crap out of the thing
only makes it better. Instead of lessening the risk tho the drive-by media
reports it as if the Navy has suddenly gone batshit and is playing games
with all our lives. No point in just reporting the news when they can scare
the bejeezus out of people instead...

LG
--
"The United States is like a giant boiler. When the fire is finally lighted
under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate." - Winston
Churchill

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
Fullback!" <lordgow@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.net> wrote in message
>news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
>> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
>>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
>>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
>>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.


I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..

Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
Fullback!" <lordgow@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.net> wrote in message
>news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
>> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
>>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
>>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
>>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23166344/
>>>>>
>>>>> A fascinating mini-step to an anti-asteroid defense maybe?
>>>> I just love how the drive-by media is hyping it up like a great
>>>> disaster!
>>>> IT'S ****ING TARGET PRACTICE!!! No drones, no simulators... the Navy
>>>> gets to
>>>> actually blow the **** out of something, test and calibrate its systems,
>>>> and
>>>> learn from the experience. This is a great thing! Just think, when that
>>>> missle blows the everloving crap out of that little itty bitty satellite
>>>> waaaaaaaay the bloody hell up there... Think what a statement that will
>>>> make! Poor Kim Jong Il (or whoever has almost a nuke now), finally
>>>> develops
>>>> a missle that soars thru the air for TWO minutes before self
>>>> destructing,
>>>> and then we pull this **** off? This will be one of the greatest "Just
>>>> don't
>>>> **** with America, okay?" demonstration since Hiroshima! (Yeah, I went
>>>> there...)
>>>> Stand up and cheer, America! We're about to vaporize some space crap!
>>>> ****
>>>> Yeah!
>>>
>>> It's not necessary to make that statement again. Everyone in the
>>> world, including Mr. all hat/no cattle Kim Jong Il, is aware of
>>> America's conventional military superiority. By and large, nations
>>> don't **** with America overtly. Even when we attack their allies,
>>> everyone knows to behave... or else.
>>>
>>> It's the entire reason there's terrorism. There's no other way to
>>> effectively attack America without the risk of total retaliatory
>>> annihilation. If there is an N/B/C attack on America in the near
>>> future, it will be delivered manually and not in a manner that a big
>>> gun will be able to stop.
>>>
>>> The only real solution to the problem of American security, over the
>>> long term, is the Pax Americana promoted by PNAC in 2000's "Rebuilding
>>> America's Defenses". Starting this process was the goal of the Iraq
>>> war, whatever the pretext, and is the reason America cannot elect a
>>> Presidential candidate in 2008 committed to withdrawal from the
>>> region. Over the short and long term, that's suicide.
>>>
>>> A permanent presence in Iraq is necessary to ensure the future of
>>> America and all of Western civilization.
>>
>> You're missing the WHOLE point.
>
>Not really, just concentrating on the fun part. :-)
>
>> There's concern that a tank full of toxic propellant

So THATS what they did with all that "NEW COKE"?


>> in the satellite will
>> survive reentry, resulting in a dangerous spill in the area where it
>> lands.
>



Return of the Living Dead?

On Feb 19, 2:34 am, LongRodSilver <d...@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
>
> Fullback!" <lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotm...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> >news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
> >> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
> >>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
> >>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
> >>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
> >>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>
> I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..
>
> Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?

For a lot of reasons: Cost ( The Shuttle is also supposed to be
retired in 2
years ), risk ( The hydrazine in the tank on the dead sat is frozen;
put the
sat into the cargo bay of the Shuttle, and it'll likely warm up before
landing,
with the changes in pressure that that means for the tank ), orbits
( The sat
is likely in an orbit where a rendezvousing Shuttle could not then
continue
to the ISS, and its pretty much hard policy that all remaining Shuttle
slights
are to the ISS, only, for reasons of safety ), the Shuttle is fully
booked to
haul more sections of the station to the ISS - It just delivered a
science lab
that should have been up there years ago, etc.

A 1 Billion $ mission for a dead sat would be a huge waste of $$$.

Andre

LongRodSilver <deep@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
>Fullback!" <lordgow@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.net> wrote in message
>>news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
>>> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
>>>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
>>>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
>>>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>
>
> I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..
>
>Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?

There speaks the voice of optimism!
Do yourself a favour and have a good look at the differing orbits of
the two objects.

Eugene L Griessel

Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk'; Never do it in 'awk' if
'sed' can handle it; Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job;
Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient; Avoid using 'cat'
whenever possible.
-Taylor's Laws of Programming

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

On Feb 19, 3:20 am, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
> LongRodSilver <d...@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
> >Fullback!" <lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotm...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> >>news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
> >>> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
> >>>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
> >>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
> >>>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
> >>>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>
> > I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..
>
> >Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?
>
> There speaks the voice of optimism!
> Do yourself a favour and have a good look at the differing orbits of
> the two objects.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk'; Never do it in 'awk' if
> 'sed' can handle it; Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job;
> Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient; Avoid using 'cat'
> whenever possible.
> -Taylor's Laws of Programming
>
> - I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

Navy says they will start shootdown attempts on Thursday. When is the
first Pacific Ocean orbit that 24 hours and subsequent?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/18/satellite.intercept/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Jack Linthicum <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Feb 19, 3:20 am, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
>> LongRodSilver <d...@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
>> >Fullback!" <lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotm...@invalid.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
>> >>> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
>> >>>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>> >>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
>> >>>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
>> >>>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>>
>> > I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..
>>
>> >Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?
>>
>> There speaks the voice of optimism!
>> Do yourself a favour and have a good look at the differing orbits of
>> the two objects.
>>
>> Eugene L Griessel
>>
>> Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk'; Never do it in 'awk' if
>> 'sed' can handle it; Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job;
>> Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient; Avoid using 'cat'
>> whenever possible.
>> -Taylor's Laws of Programming
>>
>> - I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
>
>Navy says they will start shootdown attempts on Thursday. When is the
>first Pacific Ocean orbit that 24 hours and subsequent?

It passes within easy shooting distance of Honolulu at least 6 times
between the 21st and 22nd.

Eugene L Griessel

Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote:

>Jack Linthicum <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 19, 3:20 am, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
>>> LongRodSilver <d...@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:
>>> >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
>>> >Fullback!" <lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotm...@invalid.net> wrote in message
>>> >>news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
>>> >>> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
>>> >>>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>>> >>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> >>>>>news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>> >>>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
>>> >>>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
>>> >>>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>>>
>>> > I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..
>>>
>>> >Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?
>>>
>>> There speaks the voice of optimism!
>>> Do yourself a favour and have a good look at the differing orbits of
>>> the two objects.
>>>
>>> Eugene L Griessel
>>>
>>> Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk'; Never do it in 'awk' if
>>> 'sed' can handle it; Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job;
>>> Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient; Avoid using 'cat'
>>> whenever possible.
>>> -Taylor's Laws of Programming
>>>
>>> - I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
>>
>>Navy says they will start shootdown attempts on Thursday. When is the
>>first Pacific Ocean orbit that 24 hours and subsequent?
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/18/satellite.intercept/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
>
>If I was going to shoot - and my ship was near Hawaii - I'd go for the
>14:57 local time pass. Debris, if any, has no chance of hitting
>anything major before the coast of Angola.

Sorry that's local time South Africa - 12:57 UT.

Eugene L Griessel

Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

In article <qi1lr3tsunaf45n713dlupn8fjj943ugmo@4ax.com>, LongRodSilver <deep@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
>Fullback!" <lordgow@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.net> wrote in message
>>news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
>>> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
>>>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
>>>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
>>>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>
>
> I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..
>
>Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?
The goddamn thing is as big as the space shuttle!!!!

Pocket Protector Man <jacks...@japan.com> wrote:
>
> A permanent presence in Iraq is necessary
> to ensure the future of America and all of
> Western civilization.

The Golden Rule is the path to peace!
It's the wisdom of the ages! It means
that if you want a voice in your country's
affairs and want to trade and travel freely,
then you have to allow others the same!
And the Golden Rule must operate _across_
generations, too! That is, it's not _fair_
to future generations to have to live in
more and more crowded conditions! No, we
must also control population by stopping
the suppression of influenza!
..
..
--

On Feb 18, 8:19 pm, RobertVA <robert_c72athotm...@invalid.net> wrote:
> There's concern that a tank full of toxic propellant in the satellite
> will survive reentry, resulting in a dangerous spill in the area where
> it lands.

Absolutely positively bogus argument.

Hyrazine is a flameable and explosive propellent.

It would no more survive re-entry than a frozen block of ice...
and even less so because Hydrazine burns and explodes
where frozen water would just vaporize.

studio wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:19 pm, RobertVA <robert_c72athotm...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> There's concern that a tank full of toxic propellant in the satellite
>> will survive reentry, resulting in a dangerous spill in the area where
>> it lands.
>
> Absolutely positively bogus argument.
>
> Hyrazine is a flameable and explosive propellent.
>
> It would no more survive re-entry than a frozen block of ice...
> and even less so because Hydrazine burns and explodes
> where frozen water would just vaporize.
>
>
Excuse me but your statement is absolutely positively bogus as well. Now
forgiving the three spelling errors:

The hydrazine is frozen inside an insulated metal tank. Not only can it
survive, if you'd care to do a quick Google, you will find that a
similar tank of hydrazine survived the Shuttle Columbia disaster.

in article fpersq$lg0$2@news.xmission.com, GMAN at
glenzabr@dontspammebro.xmission.com wrote on 2/19/08 9:16 AM:

> In article <qi1lr3tsunaf45n713dlupn8fjj943ugmo@4ax.com>, LongRodSilver
> <deep@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
>> Fullback!" <lordgow@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "RobertVA" <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.net> wrote in message
>>> news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
>>>> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
>>>>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>>>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
>>>>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
>>>>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>>
>>
>> I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..
>>
>> Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?
> The goddamn thing is as big as the space shuttle!!!!

It's the size of a bus. The shuttle could probably fit it inside its cargo
bay easily. IF it was empty, which it's not, and IF there was some way to
secure it inside so it's not floating free, which there's not.

Tim McGaughy wrote:
> in article fpersq$lg0$2@news.xmission.com, GMAN at
> glenzabr@dontspammebro.xmission.com wrote on 2/19/08 9:16 AM:
> > In article <qi1lr3tsunaf45n713dlupn8fjj943ugmo@4ax.com>, LongRodSilver
> > <deep@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
> >> Fullback!" <lordgow@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> "RobertVA" <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.net> wrote in message
> >>>> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
> >>>>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
> >>>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
> >>>>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
> >>>>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
> >>
> >> I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..
> >>
> >> Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?
> > The goddamn thing is as big as the space shuttle!!!!
>
> It's the size of a bus. The shuttle could probably fit it inside its cargo
> bay easily. IF it was empty, which it's not, and IF there was some way to
> secure it inside so it's not floating free, which there's not.

a - too big
b - too heavy
c - wrong orbit
d - would take too long to plan and train for
e - bay not equipped to secure it even if it fit

That oughta wrap that up.

On the other hand, it wold provide an opportunity for the shuttle to test fire
the plasma toroidal ring cannon at it...

On Feb 20, 8:01 pm, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The hydrazine is frozen inside an insulated metal tank. Not only can it
> survive, if you'd care to do a quick Google, you will find that a
> similar tank of hydrazine survived the Shuttle Columbia disaster.

That's because the shuttle fuel tank was insulated from the
extreme re-entry heat by the tiles and added insulation on/in the
shuttle.
The tank on the satellite has no such protection.

Hydrazine material properties are almost indentical to that of water.
Because re-entry takes many days to actually occur, when the
final day came...
First, the tank would heat up and liquify the fuel inside.
Then the heat and pressure build up would most likely
cause it to explode, or at minimum catch fire without stopping.
Notice they didn't find any water tanks surviving from the shuttle.

My argument is absolutely positively correct; spelling errors or not.

studio wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:01 pm, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The hydrazine is frozen inside an insulated metal tank. Not only can it
>> survive, if you'd care to do a quick Google, you will find that a
>> similar tank of hydrazine survived the Shuttle Columbia disaster.
>
> That's because the shuttle fuel tank was insulated from the
> extreme re-entry heat by the tiles and added insulation on/in the
> shuttle.
> The tank on the satellite has no such protection.
>
> Hydrazine material properties are almost indentical to that of water.
> Because re-entry takes many days to actually occur, when the
> final day came...
> First, the tank would heat up and liquify the fuel inside.
> Then the heat and pressure build up would most likely
> cause it to explode, or at minimum catch fire without stopping.
> Notice they didn't find any water tanks surviving from the shuttle.
>
> My argument is absolutely positively correct; spelling errors or not.
>

"fire" in the traditional sense is extremely unlikely

frictional heating of metal components in reentry normally results in
melting and vaporization without combustion


Vince

RT <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

> c - wrong orbit

Actually, IIRC, the shuttle could get into this orbit. The problem is
that it would take about two years of mission planning to get it there,
and it would not be able to carry much up, but all it would need is a
cradle for the satellite and the arm. This was essentially one of the
reference missions used in designing the shuttle.

No problem bringing back 5,000 pounds though, or even ten times that
much. Remember, the payload bay is sixty feet long and 15 feet in
diameter - plenty of room for a school bus.

The other problems are real though. Especially the lack of a handle to
grab the satellite by. Plus, there's the danger of landing with a full
tank of rocket fuel, essentially a live bomb, in the cargo bay.

On Feb 21, 2:49 pm, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> "fire" in the traditional sense is extremely unlikely
>
> frictional heating of metal components in  reentry normally results in
> melting and vaporization without combustion

Hydrazine becomes combustible at about 460F
and boils at about 230F.
Frictional heating of metal until it melts occurs
at substantially higher temps.

The tank would most likely explode, or at minimum catch fire
as the tank became breached during re-entry.

The point is; it's a completely bogus explaination as to the fuel
being the primary reason why it needed to be shot down.

A more logical reason would be the remote possiblity that
the trajectory migh bring it over populated areas and that
pieces might hit something.
Then the call would be: 'well why didn't they shoot it down'?

It's right wing paranoia that drives this more than anything.

"Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:210220081606442787%cmn-nospam@comcast.net...
> RT <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
>> c - wrong orbit
>
> Actually, IIRC, the shuttle could get into this orbit. The problem is
> that it would take about two years of mission planning to get it there,
> and it would not be able to carry much up, but all it would need is a
> cradle for the satellite and the arm. This was essentially one of the
> reference missions used in designing the shuttle.
>
> No problem bringing back 5,000 pounds though, or even ten times that
> much. Remember, the payload bay is sixty feet long and 15 feet in
> diameter - plenty of room for a school bus.
>
> The other problems are real though. Especially the lack of a handle to
> grab the satellite by. Plus, there's the danger of landing with a full
> tank of rocket fuel, essentially a live bomb, in the cargo bay.

All other arguments aside, it was my understanding that the satellite was
already brushing the atmosphere, making a shuttle rescue extremely
dangerous, even if the planning could be accomplished in the few weeks
available. I also suspect it was not in a steady orbit, and may have
already been 'rolling', making a shuttle grab near impossible.

John

"RT" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:47BD961D.79D2ABF6@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Tim McGaughy wrote:
>> in article fpersq$lg0$2@news.xmission.com, GMAN at
>> glenzabr@dontspammebro.xmission.com wrote on 2/19/08 9:16 AM:
>> > In article <qi1lr3tsunaf45n713dlupn8fjj943ugmo@4ax.com>, LongRodSilver
>> > <deep@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
>> >> Fullback!" <lordgow@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> "RobertVA" <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.net> wrote in message
>> >>>> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
>> >>>>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
>> >>>>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>> news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
>> >>>>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might
>> >>>>>>> not
>> >>>>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>> >>
>> >> I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..
>> >>
>> >> Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?
>> > The goddamn thing is as big as the space shuttle!!!!
>>
>> It's the size of a bus. The shuttle could probably fit it inside its
>> cargo
>> bay easily. IF it was empty, which it's not, and IF there was some way to
>> secure it inside so it's not floating free, which there's not.
>
> a - too big
> b - too heavy
> c - wrong orbit
> d - would take too long to plan and train for
> e - bay not equipped to secure it even if it fit
>
> That oughta wrap that up.
>
> On the other hand, it wold provide an opportunity for the shuttle to test
> fire
> the plasma toroidal ring cannon at it...

When I saw this post, it made me think of the super weapon the "Doctor" on
Voyager threatened to use when he was having his "Command Hologram" day
dreams. I can't remember what it was called though.

John

studio wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:49 pm, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>> "fire" in the traditional sense is extremely unlikely
>>
>> frictional heating of metal components in reentry normally results in
>> melting and vaporization without combustion
>
> Hydrazine becomes combustible at about 460F
> and boils at about 230F.
> Frictional heating of metal until it melts occurs
> at substantially higher temps.
>
> The tank would most likely explode, or at minimum catch fire
> as the tank became breached during re-entry.

What are you reacting the hydrazine with?

It is nitrogen and hydrogen
you can catalytically decompose it

Fire requires a stable environment and an oxidizer

Vince

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:30:09 -0800 (PST), studio <tlack@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 20, 8:01 pm, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The hydrazine is frozen inside an insulated metal tank. Not only can it
>> survive, if you'd care to do a quick Google, you will find that a
>> similar tank of hydrazine survived the Shuttle Columbia disaster.
>

Night of the Living Dead!!

On Feb 21, 8:29 pm, LongRodSilver <d...@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:30:09 -0800 (PST), studio <tl...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 20, 8:01 pm, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> The hydrazine is frozen inside an insulated metal tank. Not only can it
> >> survive, if you'd care to do a quick Google, you will find that a
> >> similar tank of hydrazine survived the Shuttle Columbia disaster.
>
> Night of the Living Dead!!

Night of the Comet?

On Feb 21, 6:36 pm, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> studio wrote:
> > The tank would most likely explode, or at minimum catch fire
> > as the tank became breached during re-entry.
>
> What are you reacting the hydrazine with?

The atmosphere would cause the reaction.

I just seen a news conference and the explaination was in it.

They were afraid because of it's orbit that they wouldn't be
able to use it's thrusters to point it to land in the ocean away
from possible populated areas where pieces might come down.

Regardless of they say; the hydrazine wouldn't have survived
re-entry, but it's a certainity that heavier metal pieces would.
And if those metal pieces hit a populated area, there would
most certainly be hell to pay.

studio wrote:
> On Feb 21, 6:36 pm, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>>studio wrote:
>>
>>>The tank would most likely explode, or at minimum catch fire
>>>as the tank became breached during re-entry.
>>
>>What are you reacting the hydrazine with?
>
>
> The atmosphere would cause the reaction.
>
> I just seen a news conference and the explaination was in it.
>
> They were afraid because of it's orbit that they wouldn't be
> able to use it's thrusters to point it to land in the ocean away
> from possible populated areas where pieces might come down.

You or the presenters missed somethng. The bird had no working thrusters.
No body was going to point it anywhere. The satellite has been deader
than a door nail since about 20 hours after launch more than 13 months ago.

Zero functioning electric power, zero functioning radios to accept
commands,
zero functioning thrusters.

>
> Regardless of they say; the hydrazine wouldn't have survived
> re-entry,

And you, personally, are absolutely certain of this because......?


Yeah, thats what I thought.

but it's a certainity that heavier metal pieces would.
> And if those metal pieces hit a populated area, there would
> most certainly be hell to pay.

studio wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:01 pm, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The hydrazine is frozen inside an insulated metal tank. Not only can it
>> survive, if you'd care to do a quick Google, you will find that a
>> similar tank of hydrazine survived the Shuttle Columbia disaster.
>
> That's because the shuttle fuel tank was insulated from the
> extreme re-entry heat by the tiles and added insulation on/in the
> shuttle.
> The tank on the satellite has no such protection.

The tank was surrounded by the structure of the satellite, which would
have protected for a while despite not being built out of the high
temperature tolerant materials used for the shuttle orbiter.

> Hydrazine material properties are almost indentical to that of water.
> Because re-entry takes many days to actually occur, when the
> final day came...
> First, the tank would heat up and liquify the fuel inside.
> Then the heat and pressure build up would most likely
> cause it to explode, or at minimum catch fire without stopping.
> Notice they didn't find any water tanks surviving from the shuttle.

Little heating would have occurred until the last few minutes before the
satellite broke up. Remember that Earth's atmosphere tapers off VERY
gradually at higher altitudes and a very GRADUAL braking effect will
occur until ramping up sharply within a hundred miles (probably a dozen
or two miles under 100 - I don't know the exact figure) of sea level.
With insulation that was originally intended to protect the fuel against
the cold of space and other satellite structures that would have
protected the tank for a significant portion of reentry before breaking
away, the tank wasn't so certain to being destroyed and the fuel not
necessarily thawed AND boiled off. For that matter, the frozen fuel
would have cooled the tank.

Also, the shuttle orbiter doesn't need much in the way of water tanks
because the fuel cells continuously produce pure water as a byproduct of
electrical power production. Any excess (not used for drinking, food
preparation or crew washing) can be dumped overboard. The systems that
deal with the crew's body wastes don't require water to "flush".

> My argument is absolutely positively correct; spelling errors or not.
>

On Feb 22, 12:14 am, RobertVA <robert_c72athotm...@invalid.net> wrote:
> The tank was surrounded by the structure of the satellite, which would
> have protected for a while despite not being built out of the high
> temperature tolerant materials used for the shuttle orbiter.

The satellite is not an aerodynamic vehicle. It's meant for space, not
atmospheres.

> Little heating would have occurred until the last few minutes before the
> satellite broke up.

Not true. The decay of orbit takes place in the atmosphere as well -
for many days in fact.
The heating would have liquified and boiled the hydrazine on and off
well in advance of the critical decay.
The actual explosion would have came during the final stages of fall
when temps heat up beyond the boiling point.

> Remember that Earth's atmosphere tapers off VERY
> gradually at higher altitudes and a very GRADUAL braking effect will
> occur until ramping up sharply within a hundred miles (probably a dozen
> or two miles under 100 - I don't know the exact figure) of sea level.

Exactly. Which causes heating, especially of an unaerodynamic body.

> With insulation that was originally intended to protect the fuel against
> the cold of space and other satellite structures that would have
> protected the tank for a significant portion of reentry before breaking
> away, the tank wasn't so certain to being destroyed and the fuel not
> necessarily thawed AND boiled off. For that matter, the frozen fuel
> would have cooled the tank.

A very liberal assessment.
Again, if the hyrazine is at -120 and the re-entry temp is >1500F,
boiling
and pressure build up within the tank will take place.
With the metal tank weakening under temp and dynamic stress, add the
hydrazine creating pressure inside the tank...the tank will breach.
It would be a severe safety hazard for you to be near it...as the
result
would most likely be very explosive, very fast.

studio wrote:
> On Feb 22, 12:14 am, RobertVA <robert_c72athotm...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> The tank was surrounded by the structure of the satellite, which would
>> have protected for a while despite not being built out of the high
>> temperature tolerant materials used for the shuttle orbiter.
>
> The satellite is not an aerodynamic vehicle. It's meant for space, not
> atmospheres.

The outer skin of the satellite would experience the heating, NOT the
hydrzine tank. The vacuum between the satellite's outer skin and the
tank would be a QUITE effective insulator (in addition to the insulation
built into the tank) so even the tank's outer skin would experience
little heating until the remainder of the satellite broke up, which
wouldn't occur until a FEW dozen minutes before the debris hit the
Earth's surface.

>> Little heating would have occurred until the last few minutes before the
>> satellite broke up.
>
> Not true. The decay of orbit takes place in the atmosphere as well -
> for many days in fact.
> The heating would have liquified and boiled the hydrazine on and off
> well in advance of the critical decay.
> The actual explosion would have came during the final stages of fall
> when temps heat up beyond the boiling point.

See above. Remember thermos bottles? The tank wouldn't be in contact
with the air rushing by. With so little air between the satellite skin
and the tank there would be LITTLE heat reaching the tank. Also remember
that gases (like the atmosphere) get remarkably hotter when there's a
pressure increase, so much of the reentry heat would be the result of
gases being compressed ahead of the satellite by its tremendous speed.

>> Remember that Earth's atmosphere tapers off VERY
>> gradually at higher altitudes and a very GRADUAL braking effect will
>> occur until ramping up sharply within a hundred miles (probably a dozen
>> or two miles under 100 - I don't know the exact figure) of sea level.
>
> Exactly. Which causes heating, especially of an unaerodynamic body.

Heating which doesn't even start for the outer skin of the satellite
until a FEW dozen minutes before the debris hits the Earth's surface.
Even though not designed for that purpose, those materials would have
prevented almost any heating of the tank for a couple of minutes. Only
when the rest of the satellite burned away would the tank's outer skin
start experience significant heating. Then the tank's contents would
enjoy the protection of insulation between the tank walls.

>> With insulation that was originally intended to protect the fuel against
>> the cold of space and other satellite structures that would have
>> protected the tank for a significant portion of reentry before breaking
>> away, the tank wasn't so certain to being destroyed and the fuel not
>> necessarily thawed AND boiled off. For that matter, the frozen fuel
>> would have cooled the tank.
>
> A very liberal assessment.
> Again, if the hyrazine is at -120 and the re-entry temp is >1500F,
> boiling
> and pressure build up within the tank will take place.
> With the metal tank weakening under temp and dynamic stress, add the
> hydrazine creating pressure inside the tank...the tank will breach.
> It would be a severe safety hazard for you to be near it...as the
> result
> would most likely be very explosive, very fast.

Remember, the satellite held a HALF TON of DEEP frozen solid fuel in a
tank with intentional insulation (ironically intended to keep it warm).
Reentry heating would only be applicable for a FEW minutes, much of
which would be taken up burning the satellite's outer skin and framework
away. The tank would have only been exposed for the later portion of the
reentry and been distributing the heat around its surface as it tumbled
like a pig on a spit. By that time the tank would have been
significantly slowed and any heating of its surface would be VERY brief.
Any melting or boiling would occur on the surface of the half ton ball
of frozen fuel and benefited from pressure relief through the burned off
stubs of lines that connected the tank to the rocket motor(s).

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:14:43 -0500, RobertVA
<robert_c72athotmail@invalid.net> wrote:

> Remember that Earth's atmosphere tapers off VERY
>gradually at higher altitudes

It 'tapers off' at the same rate at all altitudes, dropping the
pressure by half every 18 000 feet.

Casady

Pocket Protector Man <jacksoap@japan.com> wrote:

> It's not necessary to make that statement again. Everyone in the
> world, including Mr. all hat/no cattle Kim Jong Il, is aware of
> America's conventional military superiority. By and large, nations
> don't **** with America overtly. Even when we attack their allies,
> everyone knows to behave... or else.

Well, there's one simple way of protecting your nation from US military
incursions...

Keep your oil reserves secret.

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

ask@me.com (PeterBP) writes:

> Pocket Protector Man <jacksoap@japan.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not necessary to make that statement again. Everyone in the
>> world, including Mr. all hat/no cattle Kim Jong Il, is aware of
>> America's conventional military superiority. By and large, nations
>> don't **** with America overtly. Even when we attack their allies,
>> everyone knows to behave... or else.
>
> Well, there's one simple way of protecting your nation from US military
> incursions...
>
> Keep your oil reserves secret.

That's about as simple as saying the solution to the world's problems is for people not to e greedy.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug

PeterBP wrote:
[snip]

>
> Well, there's one simple way of protecting your nation from US military
> incursions...
>
> Keep your oil reserves secret.
>
And kill anyone living in your country who tries to destroy a building
in the USA.

Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:

> PeterBP wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Well, there's one simple way of protecting your nation from US military
> > incursions...
> >
> > Keep your oil reserves secret.
> >
> And kill anyone living in your country who tries to destroy a building
> in the USA.
>
> Andrew Swallow

Well, I'm not aware of anybody in Iraq or Serbia who destroyed buildings
in the USA...

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:6o-dnVrT5fBd-VzanZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@bt.com...
> PeterBP wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Well, there's one simple way of protecting your nation from US military
>> incursions...
>>
>> Keep your oil reserves secret.
>>
> And kill anyone living in your country who tries to destroy a building in
> the USA.
>
> Andrew Swallow

Does that work both ways .... ?

Harrods,
Grand Hotel Brighton,
No 10 Downing Street,
Warrington, shopping street,
Arndale Centre, Manchester,

to name a few ....

--

Brian

PeterBP wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> PeterBP wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Well, there's one simple way of protecting your nation from US military
>>> incursions...
>>>
>>> Keep your oil reserves secret.
>>>
>> And kill anyone living in your country who tries to destroy a building
>> in the USA.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> Well, I'm not aware of anybody in Iraq or Serbia who destroyed buildings
> in the USA...
>
There were in Afghanistan. Bush has ordered more than one invasion.

Andrew Swallow

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:83fwj.372$Z_2.341@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:6o-dnVrT5fBd-VzanZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@bt.com...
>> PeterBP wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> Well, there's one simple way of protecting your nation from US military
>>> incursions...
>>>
>>> Keep your oil reserves secret.
>>>
>> And kill anyone living in your country who tries to destroy a building in
>> the USA.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> Does that work both ways .... ?
>
> Harrods,
> Grand Hotel Brighton,
> No 10 Downing Street,
> Warrington, shopping street,
> Arndale Centre, Manchester,
>
> to name a few ....

Goodness no, only dead Americans count...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

PeterBP wrote:
> Pocket Protector Man <jacksoap@japan.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not necessary to make that statement again. Everyone in the
>> world, including Mr. all hat/no cattle Kim Jong Il, is aware of
>> America's conventional military superiority. By and large, nations
>> don't **** with America overtly. Even when we attack their allies,
>> everyone knows to behave... or else.
>
> Well, there's one simple way of protecting your nation from US military
> incursions...
>
> Keep your oil reserves secret.
>
..
..
We get the vast majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico. We're
more concerned with illegal immigration from Mexico than oil shipments.

Maybe the solution to not having a "military incursion" is to have a
government that isn't constantly on the brink of civil war and suicide
bombings that threaten the leadership of that government and the
stability of the entire region.

Just a thought.

Ryan P. <rpaque@delete.this.part.wi.rr.com> wrote:

> PeterBP wrote:
> > Pocket Protector Man <jacksoap@japan.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It's not necessary to make that statement again. Everyone in the
> >> world, including Mr. all hat/no cattle Kim Jong Il, is aware of
> >> America's conventional military superiority. By and large, nations
> >> don't **** with America overtly. Even when we attack their allies,
> >> everyone knows to behave... or else.
> >
> > Well, there's one simple way of protecting your nation from US military
> > incursions...
> >
> > Keep your oil reserves secret.
> >
> .
> .
> We get the vast majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico. We're
> more concerned with illegal immigration from Mexico than oil shipments.
>
> Maybe the solution to not having a "military incursion" is to have a
> government that isn't constantly on the brink of civil war and suicide
> bombings that threaten the leadership of that government and the
> stability of the entire region.
>
> Just a thought.

Well... during 9/11 the White House was not hit, the Pentagon was hit
but casualties were limited... WTC was hit and 3000 civilians died.

It's always the populace that suffers today. Politicians and power
brokers usually get away easy.

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

PeterBP wrote:

> Well... during 9/11 the White House was not hit, the Pentagon was hit
> but casualties were limited... WTC was hit and 3000 civilians died.
>
> It's always the populace that suffers today. Politicians and power
> brokers usually get away easy.
..
..
True... but that's the nature of armed combat for several hundred
years. The REAL important people never engage in direct combat themselves.

Osama isn't going to suicide bomb himself any more than Jacques Chirac
is going to lob a flash grenade into a group of French students
protesting the idea that they should have to work for a living.

They have underlings for that sort of thing!

On Feb 19, 12:19 pm, RobertVA <robert_c72athotm...@invalid.net> wrote:
> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
> > Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
> >> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com....
> >>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
> >>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
> >>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>
> >>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23166344/
>
> >>> A fascinating mini-step to an anti-asteroid defense maybe?
> >> I just love how the drive-by media is hyping it up like a great disaster!
> >> IT'S ****ING TARGET PRACTICE!!! No drones, no simulators... the Navy gets to
> >> actually blow the **** out of something, test and calibrate its systems, and
> >> learn from the experience. This is a great thing! Just think, when that
> >> missle blows the everloving crap out of that little itty bitty satellite
> >> waaaaaaaay the bloody hell up there... Think what a statement that will
> >> make! Poor Kim Jong Il (or whoever has almost a nuke now), finally develops
> >> a missle that soars thru the air for TWO minutes before self destructing,
> >> and then we pull this **** off? This will be one of the greatest "Just don't
> >> **** with America, okay?" demonstration since Hiroshima! (Yeah, I went
> >> there...)

Actually no it won't scare him a bit. Hitting something in a
decaying orbit is easy, it's path is quite predictable and you have
hours to recalculate if it changes. An ICBM is has no predictable
path, is in the air for minutes and can change course in seconds.
This test was valueless for purposes of scaring people.

> >> Stand up and cheer, America! We're about to vaporize some space crap! ****
> >> Yeah!
>
> > It's not necessary to make that statement again. Everyone in the
> > world, including Mr. all hat/no cattle Kim Jong Il, is aware of
> > America's conventional military superiority. By and large, nations
> > don't **** with America overtly. Even when we attack their allies,
> > everyone knows to behave... or else.
>
> > It's the entire reason there's terrorism. There's no other way to
> > effectively attack America without the risk of total retaliatory
> > annihilation. If there is an N/B/C attack on America in the near
> > future, it will be delivered manually and not in a manner that a big
> > gun will be able to stop.
>
> > The only real solution to the problem of American security, over the
> > long term, is the Pax Americana promoted by PNAC in 2000's "Rebuilding
> > America's Defenses". Starting this process was the goal of the Iraq
> > war, whatever the pretext, and is the reason America cannot elect a
> > Presidential candidate in 2008 committed to withdrawal from the
> > region. Over the short and long term, that's suicide.
>
> > A permanent presence in Iraq is necessary to ensure the future of
> > America and all of Western civilization.
>
> You're missing the WHOLE point.
>
> There's concern that a tank full of toxic propellant in the satellite
> will survive reentry, resulting in a dangerous spill in the area where
> it lands. It's hoped that the missile will strip the other satellite
> structures away from the tank, possibly rupturing the tank itself, so
> that the toxic propellant can dissipate in space or during reentry.

Well that's the official story. It's a story that implies an
extreme level of incompetence by the US military (because they don't
include a failsafe) and an extreme level of competence by the US
military (because they allegedly hit a target in space without a
homing beacon). Anyone else have a problem with the inconsistency?
Anyone else doubt there was ever a threat and see this as a stunt for
more air force funding?

On Feb 19, 7:14 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:34 am, LongRodSilver <d...@thebackofyourneck.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:06:38 -0500, "Lord Gow333, Conservative
>
> > Fullback!" <lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotm...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> > >news:i8quj.3280$f8.322@newsfe23.lga...
> > >> Pocket Protector Man wrote:
> > >>> Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback! wrote:
> > >>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:b5669ef5-69b6-43d8-a517-b29face63855@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > >>>>> Actually if this helps reduce the chances of large chunks getting
> > >>>>> through and landing on earth, or landing in a place people might not
> > >>>>> want them to, I'm all for it. Awesome.
>
> >   I keep saying it.. so I'll say it here..
>
> > Why the hell dont they grab it with the space shuttle?
>
> For a lot of reasons: Cost ( The Shuttle is also supposed to be
> retired in 2
> years ),

But a conventional rocket is still cheaper than missle option.
Remember the missle is a specialised thing with no other use produced
by US military contractors. An off-the-rack rocket with a payload of
an off-the-rack satellite orbit adjustment system with a bomb straped
to it is more likely to be effective and cheaper.

> risk ( The hydrazine in the tank on the dead sat is frozen;
> put the
> sat into the cargo bay of the Shuttle, and it'll likely warm up before
> landing,
> with the changes in pressure that that means for the tank ),

Then just strap some C4 to it.

> orbits
> ( The sat
> is likely in an orbit where a rendezvousing Shuttle could not then
> continue
> to the ISS, and its pretty much hard policy that all remaining Shuttle
> slights
> are to the ISS, only, for reasons of safety ), the Shuttle is fully
> booked to
> haul more sections of the station to the ISS - It just delivered a
> science lab
> that should have been up there years ago, etc.
>
> A 1 Billion $ mission for a dead sat would be a huge waste of $$$.
>
> Andre

But then so is the whole episode. A failsafe would have cost, what,
ten grand including lift costs? Maybe twenty? This test cost
millions.

On Feb 22, 1:25 pm, edbedb <edb...@comcast.com> wrote:
> studio wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 6:36 pm, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
> >>studio wrote:
>
> >>>The tank would most likely explode, or at minimum catch fire
> >>>as the tank became breached during re-entry.
>
> >>What are you reacting the hydrazine with?
>
> > The atmosphere would cause the reaction.
>
> > I just seen a news conference and the explaination was in it.
>
> > They were afraid because of it's orbit that they wouldn't be
> > able to use it's thrusters to point it to land in the ocean away
> > from possible populated areas where pieces might come down.
>
> You  or the presenters missed somethng.  The bird had no working thrusters.
> No body was going to point it anywhere.  The satellite has been deader
> than a door nail since about 20 hours after launch more than 13 months ago..
>
> Zero functioning electric power, zero functioning radios to accept
> commands,
> zero functioning thrusters.

For 13 months? Wow they really screwed the pouch on this one didn't
they? And now they're advertising it as "look how cool we are we can
hit things in space". In fact they could have blown this thing up
months ago with a semicompetent satelite launch. Thanks for that tip.
>
>
>
> > Regardless of they say; the hydrazine wouldn't have survived
> > re-entry,
>
> And you, personally, are absolutely certain of this because......?
>
> Yeah, thats what I thought.
>
> but it's a certainity that heavier metal pieces would.
>
>
>
> > And if those metal pieces hit a populated area, there would
> > most certainly be hell to pay.