Tankfixer wrote:
In article <1169295867.757957.17720@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
dynamics@vianet.on.ca mumbled
Jack Linthicum wrote:
We apparently tracked the launch, thank someone for that. A direct hit
by an MRBM warhead that splinters a 1600 pound satellite into large
significant pieces is hardly a direct hit.
As opposed to a "near miss"?
Really it's the old hitting a bullet with a bullet
problem that the most advanced US ABM
systems have problems with.

Or you put a reciever on the "test" missle and tune it to hone on a
transmission from the "target"

Launching both missiles from the same site and similar amounts of
fuel will tend to get them to orbit at the same height and
inclination. Give one a speed boost and wait for them to crash.

There is a big difference between a bullet and a satellite, your
interceptor gets another go at the satellite every 100 minutes.

Andrew Swallow

"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:A6GdnSjK-_PaDCnYnZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d@bt.com...
Tankfixer wrote:
In article <1169295867.757957.17720@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
dynamics@vianet.on.ca mumbled
Jack Linthicum wrote:
We apparently tracked the launch, thank someone for that. A direct hit
by an MRBM warhead that splinters a 1600 pound satellite into large
significant pieces is hardly a direct hit.
As opposed to a "near miss"?
Really it's the old hitting a bullet with a bullet
problem that the most advanced US ABM
systems have problems with.

Or you put a reciever on the "test" missle and tune it to hone on a
transmission from the "target"

Launching both missiles from the same site and similar amounts of
fuel will tend to get them to orbit at the same height and
inclination. Give one a speed boost and wait for them to crash.

There is a big difference between a bullet and a satellite, your
interceptor gets another go at the satellite every 100 minutes.

Andrew Swallow

"Give one a speed boast........" and the orbit will change! They may never
meet.

Its not simple as changing speed, that's why they call it rocket science.

Tankfixer wrote:
In article <1169295867.757957.17720@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
dynamics@vianet.on.ca mumbled
Jack Linthicum wrote:
We apparently tracked the launch, thank someone for that. A direct hit
by an MRBM warhead that splinters a 1600 pound satellite into large
significant pieces is hardly a direct hit.
As opposed to a "near miss"?
Really it's the old hitting a bullet with a bullet
problem that the most advanced US ABM
systems have problems with.

Or you put a reciever on the "test" missle and tune it to hone on a
transmission from the "target"

Launching both missiles from the same site and similar amounts of
fuel will tend to get them to orbit at the same height and
inclination. Give one a speed boost and wait for them to crash.

There is a big difference between a bullet and a satellite, your
interceptor gets another go at the satellite every 100 minutes.

. And since China's
economy is still *not* an export-reliant industry, like for example
Japan's, export restrictions will probably not have terrible effects

. But China now has something it has wanted for a very long time - a
western-style economy.

Hehe, some funny stuff in that article. I suggest flexing of muscle or
not, one should always be on the lookout for more information about
the deeper agenda, since almost by definition government agendas are
not laid out openly. The gaffe about the national anthem is funny too:
does that reflect on how the US administration feels a real Republic
should be run?
--
BOFH excuse #87:

Password is too complex to decrypt

I get the impression that someone in China is in terrible hot water over
this..:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Gernot Hassenpflug" <gernot@mb3.seikyou.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:87lkjue916.fsf@fukaolx15.rish.kuins.net...
Hehe, some funny stuff in that article. I suggest flexing of muscle or
not, one should always be on the lookout for more information about
the deeper agenda, since almost by definition government agendas are
not laid out openly. The gaffe about the national anthem is funny too:
does that reflect on how the US administration feels a real Republic
should be run?
--
BOFH excuse #87:

Password is too complex to decrypt

In article <A6GdnSjK-_PaDCnYnZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d@bt.com>,
am.swallow@btopenworld.com mumbled
Tankfixer wrote:
In article <1169295867.757957.17720@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
dynamics@vianet.on.ca mumbled
Jack Linthicum wrote:
We apparently tracked the launch, thank someone for that. A direct hit
by an MRBM warhead that splinters a 1600 pound satellite into large
significant pieces is hardly a direct hit.
As opposed to a "near miss"?
Really it's the old hitting a bullet with a bullet
problem that the most advanced US ABM
systems have problems with.
Or you put a reciever on the "test" missle and tune it to hone on a
transmission from the "target"
Launching both missiles from the same site and similar amounts of
fuel will tend to get them to orbit at the same height and
inclination. Give one a speed boost and wait for them to crash.

I understand the target was a out of service weather satellite.

There is a big difference between a bullet and a satellite, your
interceptor gets another go at the satellite every 100 minutes.


I'd wonder if there arn't some "trailers" out there sitting a hundred
miles back and waiting for the "go" signal to boost and catch up.

. And since China's
economy is still *not* an export-reliant industry, like for example
Japan's, export restrictions will probably not have terrible effects

I wonder how this statement was arrived at. China has large numbers of
agricultural and subsistence farmers. Their kids go to the city to build
coffee pots and radios and so on. I tend to think that if the US marekt
was closed that the economic impact would be enormous. Of course, the
1.077 trillion that China holds in US Treasury debt would last for a
while.

. But China now has something it has wanted for a very long time - a
western-style economy.

Perhaps. But the foundation it is built on is a third-world country.
The major problem is water. 90% of the rivers in China are too toxic to
touch. Wastewater treatment seems to be more difficult that letting all
of the stuff just flow into rivers. Not to mention almost unregulated
dumping of mercury, arsenic, acids, etc.

Hundreds of millions of Chinese are illiterate peasants living in crude
mud houses. The whole country is a ramshackle mess except for a few
percent of the economic elite, who put their money in Switzerland with
the hope of retiring somewhere other than China. I am unimpressed by
China on multiple levels. Local police are used as the personal
enforcers for local Pary bosses to whip any political opposition into
submission. Any sort of widespread social disruption would quickly lead
to a mass holocaust as the prevailing psychology of the population lacks
any really valid social contract, to say nothing of morality or what
civilized people regard as common decency.

. And since China's
economy is still *not* an export-reliant industry, like for example
Japan's, export restrictions will probably not have terrible effects

I wonder how this statement was arrived at. China has large numbers of
agricultural and subsistence farmers. Their kids go to the city to build
coffee pots and radios and so on. I tend to think that if the US marekt
was closed that the economic impact would be enormous. Of course, the
1.077 trillion that China holds in US Treasury debt would last for a
while.

Revision wrote:
. And since China's
economy is still *not* an export-reliant industry, like for example
Japan's, export restrictions will probably not have terrible effects

I wonder how this statement was arrived at. China has large numbers
of agricultural and subsistence farmers. Their kids go to the city to
build coffee pots and radios and so on. I tend to think that if the
US marekt was closed that the economic impact would be enormous. Of
course, the 1.077 trillion that China holds in US Treasury debt would
last for a while.


Risky. The value of the bonds is the interest the US Government pays.
The USA could copy a lot of third world governments and refuse to pay.
SNIP