Missle Defense Shield Goes Active

[sbailey924]

I know it's only a small portion of the defense spending, but it still could go to AIDS relief in Africa.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 2 2004, 07:55 PM
There's something missing from your stream of events though isn't there?

The NASA refusal is dated 1999 according to your links.

In 2000, Boeing, an American company, was awarded a contract to launch Radarsat-2 via a Delta rocket in April 2003 from Vandeburg Air Force Base in California. (Hey, I drove by their last year).

First of all: Your link is from July 2000. My link was last updated in Novemeber of 2000.


As well, accoridng to the Canadian Space Agency in February 2004, NASA backed out and there is no mention of another company launching the satellite.

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/apoge.../01_review.asp

As for RADARSAT-2, the CSA had a signed agreement with NASA for which was to take care of the launch of the spacecraft in exchange for the data the satellite can provide. The same agreement had been signed for the launch of RADARSAT-1, which was in fact launched by the Americans. Since then, the Canadian Space Agency has been supplying the Americans with all the data from that satellite. However, NASA has now backed away from that commitment, so Canada is faced with the cost of launching RADARSAT-2. A satellite launch is expensive—more than $100 million—so we will not be able to undertake certain new projects.

I also can't find anything on any of the RADARSAT sites that mention NASA or Boeing as a partner. Maybe they did change their mind, but considering all the obstacles that the U.S. put up, it says a lot about the way they view us. It also doesn't change the fact that the U.S. government refused to cooperate on something that would benefit Canada because they wanted to control it. Even if Boeing manages the launch, they are a private company. I also wouldn't be surprised if they end up launching from France.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Nov 2 2004, 09:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Nov 2 2004, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Nov 2 2004, 07:55 PM
There's something missing from your stream of events though isn't there?

The NASA refusal is dated 1999 according to your links.

In 2000, Boeing, an American company, was awarded a contract to launch Radarsat-2 via a Delta rocket in April 2003 from Vandeburg Air Force Base in California. (Hey, I drove by their last year).

First of all: Your link is from July 2000. My link was last updated in Novemeber of 2000.


As well, accoridng to the Canadian Space Agency in February 2004, NASA backed out and there is no mention of another company launching the satellite.

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/apoge.../01_review.asp

As for RADARSAT-2, the CSA had a signed agreement with NASA for which was to take care of the launch of the spacecraft in exchange for the data the satellite can provide. The same agreement had been signed for the launch of RADARSAT-1, which was in fact launched by the Americans. Since then, the Canadian Space Agency has been supplying the Americans with all the data from that satellite. However, NASA has now backed away from that commitment, so Canada is faced with the cost of launching RADARSAT-2. A satellite launch is expensive—more than $100 million—so we will not be able to undertake certain new projects.

I also can't find anything on any of the RADARSAT sites that mention NASA or Boeing as a partner. Maybe they did change their mind, but considering all the obstacles that the U.S. put up, it says a lot about the way they view us. It also doesn't change the fact that the U.S. government refused to cooperate on something that would benefit Canada because they wanted to control it. Even if Boeing manages the launch, they are a private company. I also wouldn't be surprised if they end up launching from France. [/b][/quote]
Did you miss this part of my post:

Secondly, Radarsat-2 is scheduled for launch in late 2005 according to the schedule of Vandenburg AFB (at the bottom):

http://mocc.vandenberg.af.mil/launchsched.asp

I didn't say Boeing was a partner. I said Boeing was being contracted to provide a Delta rocket to launch the RADARSAT-2 from an AMERICAN AIR FORCE BASE OWNED BY A USA GOVERNMENT AGENCY in late 2005 as per the schedule above.

The NASA story you provided is dated Feb. 18, 1999, as I said, and the Boeing contract was awarded in 2000. The CBC story you provided says it was UPDATED in Nov. 2000, meaning something was added to the original copy even though the NASA annoucement, as per your earlier link, was clearly Feb, 1999.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

No, I didn't miss anything, but I will still be surprised if they actually do follow through in the end. The U.S. governement already tried to stop it.

I'm just wondering what concessions they had to give the U.S. I am willing to bet that a lot of control over the information will be by the U.S. if this is the case

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Nov 3 2004, 01:17 AM
No, I didn't miss anything, but I will still be surprised if they actually do follow through in the end. The U.S. governement already tried to stop it.

I'm just wondering what concessions they had to give the U.S. I am willing to bet that a lot of control over the information will be by the U.S. if this is the case

Or maybe nothing.

Or maybe doing the business is smarter than having Canada get in the habit of having the French launch our stuff into orbit on Ariane rockets . . . . without any strings.

I can't speak to the NASA thing but it looks pretty straight forward now.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Daradon@Nov 2 2004, 08:53 PM
Don't the modern missiles that the U.S and Russia have also have cluster warheads that split apart sometime during their flight and drop somewhere between 6 and 12 bombs or warheads? These would have to be destroyed BEFORE they split to be effective against the threat.

Are you talking about a Mirv (Multiple Independant Re-Entry Vehicle). It allows a warhead bus to carry up to 12 independant warheads.

thats been around since the late 70's

The thing that you have to worry about is either a FOB (Fractional Orbital Bombardment) where you launch a satellite that carries warheads mounted on rockets that drive down at at a high rate of speed with 0 launch warning.

The missile defense shield would also be useless against upper atmosphere detonations, which are designed to destroy unshielded electronics.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Nov 2 2004, 09:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Nov 2 2004, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Nov 2 2004, 08:53 PM
Don't the modern missiles that the U.S and Russia have also have cluster warheads that split apart sometime during their flight and drop somewhere between 6 and 12 bombs or warheads? These would have to be destroyed BEFORE they split to be effective against the threat.

Are you talking about a Mirv (Multiple Independant Re-Entry Vehicle). It allows a warhead bus to carry up to 12 independant warheads.

thats been around since the late 70's

The thing that you have to worry about is either a FOB (Fractional Orbital Bombardment) where you launch a satellite that carries warheads mounted on rockets that drive down at at a high rate of speed with 0 launch warning.

The missile defense shield would also be useless against upper atmosphere detonations, which are designed to destroy unshielded electronics. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, those MIRV's were what I was talking about.

I knew they had been around for some time, I just meant 'modern' as compared to other nations rocketry systems. Nations that don't even have an advanced rocketry system wouldn't have these obviously, and it would be other sep up the development curve.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Daradon+Nov 3 2004, 04:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Nov 3 2004, 04:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Are you talking about a Mirv (Multiple Independant Re-Entry Vehicle). It allows a warhead bus to carry up to 12 independant warheads.

thats been around since the late 70's

The thing that you have to worry about is either a FOB (Fractional Orbital Bombardment) where you launch a satellite that carries warheads mounted on rockets that drive down at at a high rate of speed with 0 launch warning.

The missile defense shield would also be useless against upper atmosphere detonations, which are designed to destroy unshielded electronics.

Yeah, those MIRV's were what I was talking about.

I knew they had been around for some time, I just meant 'modern' as compared to other nations rocketry systems. Nations that don't even have an advanced rocketry system wouldn't have these obviously, and it would be other sep up the development curve. [/b][/quote]
Countries that currently have Mirv technology

USA, RUSSIA, UK (Sub based), France (Sub based)

Countries that have long range balistic missile technology with large megaton warhead (single)

USA, Russia, China, North Korea

[Cowperson]

Captain Crunch can correct me, but most likely if you're worried about a rogue state and if this is a technology aimed at protecting America from those rogue states, then you're probably not worried about MIRV at this point.

They probably haven't advanced technologically for that option.

So . . . . . you're most likely looking at one rocket with one warhead, a significantly lesser challenge.

And they probably don't have cruise missile technology.

Again, the techno's in the crowd can correct me if I'm assessing that wrong . . . .

Cowperson

[Daradon]

Lol, I hope Cappy's not getting heat for something I started.

Basically my point was, nations with advanced systems will find a way through it.

Rogue states or terrorists will find a way 'under' it. Look at how effective four airplanes were...

It's a possible failure on all sides. Maybe the biggest waste of money ever. I couldn't vote conservative this year because they were willing to negotiate (or showed leanings of it) with the U.S. on this.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 3 2004, 05:40 AM
Captain Crunch can correct me, but most likely if you're worried about a rogue state and if this is a technology aimed at protecting America from those rogue states, then you're probably not worried about MIRV at this point.

They probably haven't advanced technologically for that option.

So . . . . . you're most likely looking at one rocket with one warhead, a significantly lesser challenge.

And they probably don't have cruise missile technology.

Again, the techno's in the crowd can correct me if I'm assessing that wrong . . . .

Cowperson

Its unlikely that a country like Iran or North Korea, or any other fringe member of the Nuclear Club is going to have a Mirv system. Its not that thier complicated to build. Its just that you need a very high thrust rocket that can lift the additional weight. Plus the target geometry is extremely complicated.

The missile shield is there to knock down a very simple single warhead low boost system in limited number. IE the launch of one or two rockets.

A Russian advanced system with lets say a dozen Mirvs and advanced counter measures (IE Chaff dispensors, rotated speed. will likely not get all of the warheads through but some of them will get through

A Fobs system will get through because there is no pre warning launch and its unlikely to be picked up on a early warning system til its about 30 seconds from impact.

A advanced country will find a way through. A country with a very rudimentary system and limited vehicles will not get through

Your right, a determined nation will find a way through. Smuggling a bomb in by sea or car, but thats not the job of a missile defense shield.

Its put in place to remove the blackmail aspect from North Korea, or Iran or China's playbook

ie (If you mess with us, we'll launch)

Its also easy to say that these beginner countries don't have the range to nuke the U.S. But North Korea does have a missile vehicle that can reach the california coast with a very light warhead

[Daradon]

Thanks for the info Cappy! Very well explained.