Thread: USA quietly reintroduces Star Wars

Originally Posted by Тоби

I dont know why you would think that placing satellites above the US is not possible? We have satellites right now that are above the US and they stay pointing at us, and rotate with our orbit as well. Called geostationary. Now of course we have GPS satellites as well which are all over the world. But I understood that the satellite system Bush is talking about would orbit around us. I dont think many other countries would like us to put a satellite over them. Believe it or not, if we want "spy" information, we still have to get it via high altitude flying.

You can read about satellites here
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite.htm

I am sure there are more affective satellites that do spy but we US citizens dont know about them. So I cant elaborate.....

Tobi, coming from someone in the telecommunication business this dissapoints me. You arguments are unfortunately flawed. Geostationary satellites are place above the equator (as Basurero said) because their rotational axis (called the orbit normal) has to be parallell to the Earth's rotational axis as well as the speed of this roation be equal for both the Earth and the Satellite; only then will we have a geostationary satellite - a satellite that stays above our heads. You can not put a satellite that will be "over us" (and only us) unless it is on the equatorial plane. In fact, most spy-satellites are not geostationary (35,786 km out in space) but so-called LEOs (Low Earth Orbit - 800 km)... Secondly, how can you claim space above US as U.S. "air-space" (can't call it space-space, can we? )? How far out do you consider it US "property", is it a straight angle out of the contour of the US or what?

[quote=kalinka_vinnie]

Originally Posted by Тоби":wjoyk88f]I dont know why you would think that placing satellites above the US is not possible? We have satellites right now that are above the US and they stay pointing at us, and rotate with our orbit as well. Called geostationary. Now of course we have GPS satellites as well which are all over the world. But I understood that the satellite system Bush is talking about would orbit around us. I dont think many other countries would like us to put a satellite over them. Believe it or not, if we want "spy" information, we still have to get it via high altitude flying.

You can read about satellites here :)
[url="http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite.htm

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite.htm[/url]

I am sure there are more affective satellites that do spy but we US citizens dont know about them. So I cant elaborate.....

Tobi, coming from someone in the telecommunication business this dissapoints me. You arguments are unfortunately flawed. Geostationary satellites are place above the equator (as Basurero said) because their rotational axis (called the orbit normal) has to be parallell to the Earth's rotational axis as well as the speed of this roation be equal for both the Earth and the Satellite; only then will we have a geostationary satellite - a satellite that stays above our heads. You can not put a satellite that will be "over us" (and only us) unless it is on the equatorial plane. In fact, most spy-satellites are not geostationary (35,786 km out in space) but so-called LEOs (Low Earth Orbit - 800 km)... Secondly, how can you claim space above US as U.S. "air-space" (can't call it space-space, can we? )? How far out do you consider it US "property", is it a straight angle out of the contour of the US or what?[/quote:wjoyk88f]

Yes but we are not talking about Spy satellites are we. Bush did not say that we would be occuping satellites in space that would not rotate with us. So I am assuming that you are assuming that this is the case. I was going with the fact that he wants to protect US soil and will place these satellites that rotate with us. And I never mentioned about US space, what is ours our what is not ours. Just because I am in the Telecommunications business does not mean I know about space satellites, there is more to know about telecommunications then any one individual can know. Our company does not have satellites as well, nor do they supply equipement for satellites. Although we do use the Governments GPS Satellites for timing, however they dont give us anymore information then that. Therefore no reason for me to know about satellites. My expertise is 8 years of telecommunications with the land line side of the house and another 9 years of expertise on the wireless side, specifically for CDMA technology.
Sorry to disappoint you.

Don't worry, I didn't mean to come so hard down on you, but you seemed to be patronizing basurero, when he was right as a do-do!

I have actually no idea what Bush said, but if we are thinking star wars, you'd want satellites a *little* closer to the action than geostationary ones, I'd think. Satellites can't rotate "with us" unless with "us" you mean the Earth... You can choose orbits that will maximize satellite coverage over a specific area of the Earth, but you can't have any stationary above a given country. The satellite will always be able to cover other countries... it's orbital kinematics.

Sorry, I will give a huge apology to Basurero, I dont mean to patronize anyone. If you think I have just let me know and I will try to explain better.
Sometimes my assumptions may get the better of me. As I get to be on these forums longer and longer I will understand more and more of you and it will be easier for me to make better comments.

I like these forums and dont mean to patronize anyone!

I dont know what the real plans are that Bush as, it was left kind of open.
Yes your right, it would be to our benefit to have whatever he is is looking to have ie.. satellite or weapon system, right above where you think you would need it.
But I am sure it would be questioned just like it is questioned today with the US having missile systems all over the world. Ok not all over but definetly in other countries.
Similiar to the issues that US had with Russia having many Nukes capable missiles in Cuba in the early 60s.

So its tough to say until we see what he is really looking at.
Thats why I mentioned NASA earlier, because I would hope that the government would use NASA to transport a satellite for the government versus spending money on building another rocket or space ship etc...
That went towards the other point of the US spending lots of taxpayers money that was unnessary.

Originally Posted by basurero

Чертовские американцы. Почему они думают, что только им принадлежит космос?

Они могут думать что угодно. Если России или Китаю или Индии, или ещё кому-либо подадобится космос - спрашивать Америку никто не станет, как бы они не хотели обратного.

Originally Posted by Тоби

So its tough to say until we see what he is really looking at.
Thats why I mentioned NASA earlier, because I would hope that the government would use NASA to transport a satellite for the government versus spending money on building another rocket or space ship etc...
That went towards the other point of the US spending lots of taxpayers money that was unnessary.

I happen to work with satellites, so don't be angry for correcting your misnotions...

With NASA, do you mean the Space Shuttle? Again, NASA really only does civilian stuff and its employees don't have the necessary security clearances to do anything like "star wars" and the shuttle can only reach an altitude of 300-400 km. Furthermore, a rocket has to be built to launch the shuttle, so in any case you'll have to build a rocket. And no, NASA doesn't build rockets, you have companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing who does that. I don't know of a single (modern day) NRO or Air Force satellite that has been launched by the shuttle (and trust me, if it is "star wars" it is a military satellite, and they are very capable of launching their own satellites).

Yes I was on the understanding that NASA did launch satellites but was unaware that the did not do military. So thanks for correcting me.

I cant answer that fully, other then my own opinion. Please dont bash me because of it. We as a country do not make threats to other countries that they should not exist. Nor do we make threats about testing products specifically for that country. As North Korea was doing with there long range missile program. As well as of course there daily threats with Japan and South Korea. Agian just my opinion.
I dont have issues with folks like Russia/US having Nukes because I believe that they believe it is a last protection resort. These other countries such as North Korea/Iran would use it as a first resort. Or better yet, would sell it to some terrorist and watch the outcome on TV.

Почему ты думаешь, что такие страны как Иран бы использовали свои ядерные бомбы так беспечно? По-моему, страна, которая скорее использовала бы такое оружие - это Америка. Америка единственная страна, которой удалось бы так делать без того, чтобы не быть уничтожена.

We as a country do not make threats to other countries that they should not exist. Nor do we make threats about testing products specifically for that country.

Каждый раз когда я включаю телевизор, Америка угрожает Ирану или Северной Корее экономическими санкциями или даже военными действиями.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by basurero

Чертовские американцы. Почему они думают, что только им принадлежит космос?

Они могут думать что угодно. Если России или Китаю или Индии, или ещё кому-либо подадобится космос - спрашивать Америку никто не станет, как бы они не хотели обратного.

Да, я знаю, что в действительности Америка - единственная мировая держава и поэтому они могут делать все, что хочется. Однако, лицемерие этой страны просто удивительно. Они говорят, что хотят сохранить мир... ну почему же вторгаются в другие страны без основания?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

I happen to work with satellites

Oh man that's so cool. That's what I've always wanted to do when I grow up. NORAD here I come! (Hopefully...)

Originally Posted by RusskiSlav

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

I happen to work with satellites

Oh man that's so cool. That's what I've always wanted to do when I grow up. NORAD here I come! (Hopefully...)

That's easy, you just need to go to college and get an engineering education and there are a flush of jobs available for you! Go, go gadget!

LOL I will!

I looked at the text, and it did not sound like Bush was referring to the space exactly over the US proper, what he was talking about was that the US should have capacity to deny enemies use of space against the US (basically an ability to shoot satellites and the like if need be). Not as in "we'll shoot down anything NK launches", but as in "if NK launches a satellite with nukes, we'd like to be able to shoot it down".
Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to have, and I don't see anything wrong with US (or Russia, etc) working on it.

Originally Posted by laxxy

I looked at the text, and it did not sound like Bush was referring to the space exactly over the US proper, what he was talking about was that the US should have capacity to deny enemies use of space against the US (basically an ability to shoot satellites and the like if need be). Not as in "we'll shoot down anything NK launches", but as in "if NK launches a satellite with nukes, we'd like to be able to shoot it down".
Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to have, and I don't see anything wrong with US (or Russia, etc) working on it.

I agree

Originally Posted by laxxy

I looked at the text, and it did not sound like Bush was referring to the space exactly over the US proper, what he was talking about was that the US should have capacity to deny enemies use of space against the US (basically an ability to shoot satellites and the like if need be). Not as in "we'll shoot down anything NK launches", but as in "if NK launches a satellite with nukes, we'd like to be able to shoot it down".
Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to have, and I don't see anything wrong with US (or Russia, etc) working on it.

This way any other country won't have any restrictions on shooting down American satellites passing over their territory. The Cinese have already experimented with that. They pointed laser at one American satellite. No harm has been done but that's just the matter of beam power. They do have that technology. America has much more satellites in space than China does, besides, USA relies heavily on these satellites so destroying them could be painful for it.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by laxxy

I looked at the text, and it did not sound like Bush was referring to the space exactly over the US proper, what he was talking about was that the US should have capacity to deny enemies use of space against the US (basically an ability to shoot satellites and the like if need be). Not as in "we'll shoot down anything NK launches", but as in "if NK launches a satellite with nukes, we'd like to be able to shoot it down".
Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to have, and I don't see anything wrong with US (or Russia, etc) working on it.

This way any other country won't have any restrictions on shooting down American satellites passing over their territory.

Does it have any now? no, the only one is the fear of the American response. I hope it stays effective

The Cinese have already experimented with that.

As they well should have. As I said, it's quite a reasonable thing to do.

They pointed laser at one American satellite. No harm has been done but that's just the matter of beam power. They do have that technology.

which only proves the point. What would you like, another "non-laser proliferation treaty" with UN inspections?

All I want is to point out the fact that US strive to monopoly in the space will remain on paper only. US simply doesn't have any means of enforcing that desire. Should they interfere in any nation's space policy they too would suffer from retaliation.

Originally Posted by Ramil

All I want is to point out the fact that US strive to monopoly in the space will remain on paper only. US simply doesn't have any means of enforcing that desire. Should they interfere in any nation's space policy they too would suffer from retaliation.

Well, they aren't suffering much retaliation from messing with North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs, at least not from any nations that matter. They are just brainwashing the western world to believe their propaganda about the "axis of evil" and "people who hate freedom" and all the rest of that nonsense.

Originally Posted by Ramil

All I want is to point out the fact that US strive to monopoly in the space will remain on paper only. US simply doesn't have any means of enforcing that desire. Should they interfere in any nation's space policy they too would suffer from retaliation.

surely, just as with military dominance, one can strive to achieve anything but the actual results will also depend on the actions of others.
I'd be only happy if other nations have a more active space policy, as it would spur the American effort too, and more so with these policies in place.

Originally Posted by basurero

Originally Posted by Ramil

All I want is to point out the fact that US strive to monopoly in the space will remain on paper only. US simply doesn't have any means of enforcing that desire. Should they interfere in any nation's space policy they too would suffer from retaliation.

Well, they aren't suffering much retaliation from messing with North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs, at least not from any nations that matter. They are just brainwashing the western world to believe their propaganda about the "axis of evil" and "people who hate freedom" and all the rest of that nonsense.

there's a difference, nuclear devices (even fake ones, like with NK) have too much of a propaganda value (pretty much all of their value is propaganda) to just let them be. Plus, there is the NNPT and probably some other treaties that restrict their production.