Fwd: CNN Breaking News

[Curtis Burisch]

Lance A. Brown said:

>The point of shooting the satellite was to disrupt the fuel storage.  If 
>the satellite came down in one piece, there is a chance the hydrazine 
>fuel on board would survive to reach the surface.  If it impacts on 
>land, you get nasty poisonous gas cloud.

>If the missile did it's job, the fuel storage was destroyed.  The 
>satellite (or remaining parts) will still come down, but now the 
>hydrazine will burn up during reentry.

This is indeed what they said, but frankly that's just a ludicrous
statement. Hydrazine isn't fun, but nobody has cared before in the slightest
about spacecraft with much bigger loads of un-burnt hydrazine crashing to
earth. Given the very remote possibility that this US spy-bird had crashed
in a populated area, the negative effects of hydrazine landing on your head
would be far less problematic than a piece of hurtling space junk tapping
you on the head.

The general consensus among many (e.g. www.theregister.co.uk) appears to be
that the US wanted simply to test their sat-interceptor systems, and maybe
make a bit of PR capital by flexing their muscles on the world stage.

Curtis.

Alpha-male syndrome Maru.