What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
54 Comments
- atact88, on 08/08/2008, -4/+38Author basically saying to keep an open mind, people. Don't assume everything the US does is a conspiracy with ulterior motives. You see what you look for. You've already jumped to conclusions before knowing the whole story, and reporters do it a lot. He's right, you know.
- DMcMehan, on 08/08/2008, -0/+14It was a derelict satellite meaning that it was no longer functioning, therefore whatever ever means that kept the fuel tank heated haven't been working for a while, causing it to freeze. The satellite kept orbiting the Earth these last few years or so was from pure momentum, and that's why the satellite was about to reenter the Earth's atmosphere.
- sh0k, on 08/08/2008, -8/+22This paper is published on an IEEE website.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I trust the IEEE and their affiliates more than any sensational journalist with something to prove.
/but still, ***** Bush. - billybillyboy, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10Hydrazine's melting point is around 1 deg C, so it was solid while in space. The catalytic reaction used to produce the gasses that give thrust are extremely exothermic, so possibly the heat of those reactions could melt some of the hydrazine once the reaction had started. Hydrazine is a monopropellent (no oxidizer) and does not need to be ignited, only catalyzed. So really, they dont have to pump it in an engine, just the off-gas of reaction is used for thrust. To initiate the reaction, possibly they have some thermoelectric heaters to melt the first few drops? Google is awesome.
- adml_shake, on 08/08/2008, -4/+13For once the pentagon did something to try to HELP people (and the environment) can we please just leave it at that?
- LiveAPC420, on 08/08/2008, -3/+11“The cynic in me says that the idea that this was being done to protect the lives of humans is simply a feel-good cover story tossed to the media. Having the U.S. government spend millions of dollars to destroy a billion-dollar failure to save zero lives is comedic gold.” that funny as ***** LOL
- exformation, on 08/08/2008, -1/+6Pissing contest? Puh-lease. We've had this technology for over 20 years. It's weird how in all the articles I read about the satellite shootdown, not one journalist mentioned it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P78-1 - Quisquis, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5You do realize that space's lack of pressure has nothing to do with a TANK of gas, right? It's all about internal pressure.
- atbnet, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5You're an idiot. The IEEE isn't a government agency.
- exformation, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Personally, I was more impressed when we did it in 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P78-1 - inactive, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5Just out of curiosity, do you have absurdly orange skin and wear your collars popped?
- Badandy127, on 08/08/2008, -3/+6You do know that the U.S. doesn't directly control our Olympic team nearly as much as China does, right?
We have this thing called economic freedom, where our government doesn't force you to play a certain sport from the time you show promise in it as a child. - majordanger, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4The big difference is the Chinese did not shoot "DOWN" their target. Instead, the Chinese blast debris is still in a million tiny little trash orbits. High speed metal objects posed to start a chain reaction of collisions with other satellites rendering that entire orbital altitude space wasteland.
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine
Melting point 1 °C (274 K)
Boiling point 114 °C (387 K) - trevorh, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3Why do you have so much hate for the EE majors.
- Wonderama, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Their explanation doesn't preclude the possibility it was a multi-purpose act; to protect the safety of persons from possible harm AND show China the US still has a set of balls.
- Zerophnx, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3"Chilton attended the White House briefings where President George W. Bush was given the options and the odds, and he remembers Bush's specific directive that if something could be done to mitigate the risk to human life, it had to be done. But what about the risk of people saying it's really an antisatellite test, Chilton recalls asking the president. He says Bush responded, “I don't care what people will say. We're doing it for the right reason, and it's transparent.”"
No point in over politicizing this. - bjornski, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3Ah c'mon, this it he ultimate objectivist mind fame anyway.
As every Car's Jr machine will eventually say.
"***** you, I'm eating". - 1gunners4, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1So your baseless claims somehow override science? You know nothing about USA 193, you know nothing about what it was carrying, and you know nothing about the physics behind re-entry and its effects on hydrazine. The Pentagon is generally full of *****, but this is one of the rare times where it is not.
- inactive, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1I wonder if it was P L U T O N I U M and they aint tellin ya?
- prophet74, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1It is quite possible the satellite was shot down for a reason not popularly specified. The nature of the satellite's purpose could have been the reason for such an aggressive action. On the other hand, this administration has earned our general lack of trust in their decision making. After being lied to by this administration on multiple occasions, our natural reaction is disbelief.
- alpinecow, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3Believe what you will, but how do you know that the ascribed motives are true or not? You can't...
- miptex, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Every major military power has to keep up in the race for technological superiority. At the moment these nations are, among other things, striving for air superiority in space. China has already demonstrated their capability to shoot down satellites and probably intercepting ICBM's. Of course the United States are working on the same technology. You would have to be really naive to believe otherwise.
Either this was a true accident happening at just the right time, or it was a cover for testing some new technology we _know_ they are working on. Which one is more likely? Of course the physics and math of the cover story checks out. Thats the whole point.
You dont just 'modify' an interceptor missile on the fly to hit a fast moving target in space. It takes years of engineering to accomplish that task. - RadioFreeOpium, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Very well written article but seeing as how its written by a former NASA employee doesn't help the case against the cynics much. The fact that this occurred one year after the chinese incident certainly doesn't help either. Its amazing how they spend millions of dollar just because of the very slight possibility of a death or two, when those millions could be saving many more lives by being put to better use. Transparent indeed.
This is nothing more than the typical call-and-response tech game that NASA has been playing ever since the space race began. Go read a history book. - inactive, on 08/08/2008, -6/+7No, like sending men to the moon and saying you didn't hurry because of sputnik. How do you live in a consumer society and not buy everything someone tries to sell you?
- sysop073, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2"I refuse to breed" is something I wish I saw a lot more on Digg
- inactive, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Where did I say I hated them nimrod?
- InetRoadkill, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I still think it was done to protect the technology contained inside. The last thing the US wanted was to risk their latest spy satellite crashing down somewhere over Asia.
- 1gunners4, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1USA 193 was a state of the art machine that went dead the minute it was turned on; they had absolutely no control over it, ergo they could not burn the fuel.
- kaosethema, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1the opportunity arose for the cowboys to show off them 'injuns' their sharpshooting skills. in the process, they get to 'protect' some of the townspeople.
- atact88, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Not everything the government and military do is "this administration," just because it gets publicized. There is a huge autonomous bureaucracy in place that does its job...
- robbh66, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2"pissing contest with China."
You do realize that the US has had the technology to do this since the mid 80s?
Ah, nevermind. You're just one of those people who are just so consumed with distrust that you ask your mother why she needs to know when she asks you where you are. - inactive, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Tsk tsk tsk.
- wishninja, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Trust has to be earned, the USA government seems to be running a deficit. sad
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1i wonder what they where hiding and why they needed to show china they could do it.
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2You can't tell when someone is lying to you or not either, no matter how many times they lie to you, you can't tell for sure, so the answer is to always believe everyone, right? You can never know when someone is telling you the truth or lying, and yet, you make decisions assuming you can hundreds of times every day. You just go with your best judgment. You go with what you feel, and mostly, it works.
- saisumimen, on 08/08/2008, -9/+9It's not a conspiracy that we currently do -- and in the past have done -- stuff like this to show off our technology.
One of the most ridiculous: Bush kept cutting and cutting and cutting NASA's budget. Then out of nowhere China announces they're building a freakin' MOON BASE. Guess what happens next? Bush does a "me too!" and gets us going on yet another international pissing contest. It's no conspiracy; look at the space race with the Soviet Union and all the effort, funding and research the governments of China, Russia and the US put into their Olympic team and you'll see it's pretty opposite from a "conspiracy". - Mystage, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0OK, i just think its a kinda bad way to handle such thing, why not first tell the people there is nothing to worry about before they do it?
And if they dropped it to the earth, and it did land like a toxic ball of slush, just go there asap and remove it and store it in a safe location. Then there would be no worry at all. And is this the first time they use a satellite with such fuels? If not what happened to the others?
I don't believe that such a risk factor of 1:10000 would be something the government would worry about, do they always do that?
Although i will always be open to anything someone says. And i don't think it was a act of revenge, but the chance that it is, is just to big for me. - johnj21, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1A politician would take a poll and "care what people say"
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -8/+7Like sending men to the Moon?
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1why didn't they just burn the fuel?
seems another reason would be plausible. Perhaps another payload? Perhaps an old satellite up for a international show of weaponry - jhails, on 08/08/2008, -5/+4Total ***** people. A beautiful cover story to hide the real intensions. Since when does George give a ***** about a few lives? Wake up people.
- CosmicJustice, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1The take away is that you're not going to breed and for that we can all be thankful. (Like there was a chance of you getting laid ROFL)
- EBFoxbat, on 08/08/2008, -6/+3You all realize that temperature has nothing to do with anything in space right? It's all about the lack of pressure.
- IHateRegisterin, on 08/08/2008, -7/+3Since when would President Bush spend millions of military dollars to "possibly" save a life, he has spent billions killing people. Agree with first post - BS.
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -5/+1I was talking about double E nerds. A disproportionate number of them wind up working for the government. Ones writing about satellites and rockets are even more likely to work for the government. They go to MIT, and Purdue and lots of them get jobs working for the government. I went to Purdue. I know. As a final response to your comment. Eat *****!
- turpialito, on 08/08/2008, -8/+3Flogistan and saisuminen are absolutely right. Sh0k, I trust the IEEE too, but limited to a technichal sense. This article, however, isn't technical. Sure, it has a tech veneer, but it's political downplay. Shooting down satellites was a pissing contest. Both China and the US have the capacity to knock down satellites. Yipee. We're still screwed.
- EBFoxbat, on 08/08/2008, -9/+4Here's what I still don't get: If the hydrazine was frozen while in space how was the satellite using it as fuel? It's pretty hard to pump a solid into any type of engine.
- saisumimen, on 08/08/2008, -14/+9Agreed. It was blindingly obvious to anyone with at least one brain cell that it was nothing but a pissing contest with China.
Is anyone here old enough to remember the ridiculous time and money wasting that was done to "show up" the Soviet Union? -
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is