Russian Satellite Hit by Debris from Chinese Anti-Satellite Test

[Developereo]

I guess in desperation to suck up to the Chinese and remove them from this problem, no quackery is off limits to you.

You truly are a glutton for punishment.

I am neither defending the Chinese, nor condemning them; merely pointing out that the evidence presented so far is not conclusive.

Your grasp of English is even worse than your understanding of legal matters. The item you posted merely restates what has already been discussed in this thread. In your visceral racial hatred of Chinese, you will just keep repeating the same thing over and over, hoping that people will believe your blabber if you repeat it enough times.

Since your legal and linguistic capabilities are stretched beyond limit, let me reiterate that the evidence provided so far does not make a conclusive case -- the best we have is 'appears to be'.

Just restrict yourself to cutting and pasting radar specs -- every time you venture outside that narrow realm, you embarrass yourself.

 

[gambit]

You truly are a glutton for punishment.

I am neither defending the Chinese, nor condemning them; merely pointing out that the evidence presented so far is not conclusive.

Your grasp of English is even worse than your understanding of legal matters. The item you posted merely restates what has already been discussed in this thread. In your visceral racial hatred of Chinese, you will just keep repeating the same thing over and over, hoping that people will believe your blabber if you repeat it enough times.

Since your legal and linguistic capabilities are stretched beyond limit, let me reiterate that the evidence provided so far does not make a conclusive case -- the best we have is 'appears to be'.

Just restrict yourself to cutting and pasting radar specs -- every time you venture outside that narrow realm, you embarrass yourself.

Yup...Nothing is ever 'conclusive'. So in your world, everything is in limbo since you will strain your intellectual utmost to make anything as inconclusive as possible. Your kneepads must be well worn.

 

[Developereo]

Yup...Nothing is ever 'conclusive'. So in your world, everything is in limbo since you will strain your intellectual utmost to make anything as inconclusive as possible.

That is how the legal system works in the real world. You need to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just saying "it appears to be" with no further evidence won't cut it.

If, tomorrow, someone comes up with more direct evidence, I will revise my opinion.

Your kneepads must be well worn.

I LOVE it when you demonstrate your crass nature at every opportunity.

 

[kawaraj]

Your grasp of English is even worse than your understanding of legal matters. The item you posted merely restates what has already been discussed in this thread. In your visceral racial hatred of Chinese, you will just keep repeating the same thing over and over, hoping that people will believe your blabber if you repeat it enough times.

Since your legal and linguistic capabilities are stretched beyond limit, let me reiterate that the evidence provided so far does not make a conclusive case -- the best we have is 'appears to be'.

Just restrict yourself to cutting and pasting radar specs -- every time you venture outside that narrow realm, you embarrass yourself.

he is a Vietnamese immigrant we can't be tough on his clumsy in understanding nuance in English words, as to a native English speaker. (though none of us are).

 

[JSCh]

Russia’s Ball Lens in the Space (BLITS) spacecraft

 

[United]

why is only russian's being hit by space objects now a days........meteorite rain and now this,

they defiantly have pissed some aliens..........maybe ISRO can shed some light on this.

 

[Audio]

I am neither defending the Chinese, nor condemning them; merely pointing out that the evidence presented so far is not conclusive.

The debris cloud was tracked since 2007, as are most satellites and near Earth objects.

China's Anti-Satellite Test: Worrisome Debris Cloud Circles Earth | Space.com

The majority of the debris is in the 800km orbit, coincidentally roughly the same as BLITS.

A release from AGI concludes that a change in orbit and spin period for the active Russian BLITS satellite reported on February 4 is due to collision with a piece of Chinese ASAT debris from Fengyun 1C.

The change was observed by Institute for Precision Instrument Engineering (IPIE) scientists Dr. Vasiliy Yurasov and Dr. Andrey Nazarenko. They recorded a sudden decrease in semi-major axis of 120 m and decrease in spin period from 5.6 seconds to 2.1 seconds. The scientists estimate that the change occurred on January 22 at 0308 UTC. Checking in with AGI’s Center for Space Standards & Innovation (CSSI), they found only one close approach that occurred near that time. A tracked piece of Fengyun 1C was expected to pass within 3.1 km of BLITS within 10 seconds of the observed trajectory change. Given the available data, CSSI technical program manager Dr. T.S. Kelso concluded that the two bodies must have been closer than anticipated. The Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) apparently agrees: it released the first two line elements (TLE) for BLITS debris on March 3.

Fengyun 1C Debris Collided with BLITS Satellite | Space Safety Magazine

Some animations:

http://www.space.com/20138-russian-satellite-chinese-space-junk.html

 

[gambit]

The debris cloud was tracked since 2007, as are most satellites and near Earth objects.

China's Anti-Satellite Test: Worrisome Debris Cloud Circles Earth | Space.com

The majority of the debris is in the 800km orbit, coincidentally roughly the same as BLITS.



Fengyun 1C Debris Collided with BLITS Satellite | Space Safety Magazine

Some animations:

Russian Satellite Hit by Chinese Anti-Satellite Test Debris | Space.com

Let him believe his own arguments. We have the two most capable space going countries: Russia and the US, and upcoming China who is saying nothing about this, agreeing on the most probable cause. But the best he can come up with is 'not sure'.

 

[Skyman]

Let him believe his own arguments. We have the two most capable space going countries: Russia and the US, and upcoming China who is saying nothing about this, agreeing on the most probable cause. But the best he can come up with is 'not sure'.

This is debris from the US shooting not ours. It's been proven. Nothing more to discuss.

 

[Developereo]

The debris cloud was tracked since 2007, as are most satellites and near Earth objects.

China's Anti-Satellite Test: Worrisome Debris Cloud Circles Earth | Space.com

The majority of the debris is in the 800km orbit, coincidentally roughly the same as BLITS.



Fengyun 1C Debris Collided with BLITS Satellite | Space Safety Magazine

Some animations:

Russian Satellite Hit by Chinese Anti-Satellite Test Debris | Space.com

Reminder: just repeating the same info without adding more evidence doesn't advance your case.

The animation just repeats the same info in a different form; it does not prodive additional evidence.

If you like animations, watch Bugs Bunny cartoons.

 

[Audio]

Reminder: just repeating the same info without adding more evidence doesn't advance your case.

The animation just repeats the same info in a different form; it does not prodive additional evidence.

If you like animations, watch Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Oh, but there is more evidence. Namely an article from 2007. But for whatever reasons, on which i wont speculate in detail you again prove to be very unsusceptible to it. Must be that servility complex.

Try to prove their claim that it was Chinese debris and not random piece of meteor.

See this statement? You haven't presented a shred of evidence yourself to support this theory, coincidentally the only other possible explanation.
But, it's because you dont know much about near Earth asteroid/satellite tracking or just dont know much in general and are trying to favoritize your new "idols" without anything but a hope and a prayer. I know this, that's why i replied to this thread in the first place. Just like you like crass language being used on you, i like putting you down with reason and arguments.

Now since i know you will repeat the same old arguments in your next post ad infinitum, let us reiterate:

-China shoots down a satellite in 2007
-Cloud of debris is created, the majority at ~ 800km
-Russian microsatellite orbiting at ~832km suddenly gets knocked out of it's direction and it's rate of spin changes
-The only other tracked object in the vicinity at that time were the debris from the above mentioned ASAT test

Now i concede that this is all circumstancial, but it is stilll miles above (no pun intended) then any argument you presented in support of the meteor theory. Oh, wait, you presented no arguments, just a hissy fit.
So, the question is, where inside of you is that scientist you claim to be? If he wasn't completely suppressed by your alter ego's you will have to concede in absence of evidence supporting the meteor theory this is the only logical, reasonable conclusion.

Unless, ofcourse, the reptilians moved it.

 

[Developereo]

Oh, but there is more evidence. Namely an article from 2007. But for whatever reasons, on which i wont speculate in detail you again prove to be very unsusceptible to it. Must be that servility complex.

There is NO new evidence, no matter how many times you repeat your nonsense. Everything you have blabbered in your post is the same exact old data rehashed a dozen different ways. You can repeat the same data in English, Russian, Swahili, table form or in animation. If the underlying data is the same, it is all the same info -- nothing new.

Since you seem challenged, let me spell it out slowly for you: near-Earth objects, including man-made objects, are tracked and the tracking projected that the Chinese satellite would pass around 3.1km of the Russian craft. In case your math skills are on par with your English and logic skills, 3.1 > 0.

Oh, and by the way, I never claimed it was a meteor -- I am not making a claim either way; I am demanding that the people making their claim provide evidence to back it up.

In your typical hatred of all things Chinese, you are also jumping the gun without any facts to support you. I, on the other hand, am neutral in the matter and will let the evidence speak for itself. If, tomorrow, new evidence comes to fore proving the Chinese collision, I will accept it.

Until then, no sale!

 

[Audio]

There is NO new evidence, no matter how many times you repeat your nonsense. Everything you have blabbered in your post is the same exact old data rehashed a dozen different ways. You can repeat the same data in English, Russian, Swahili, table form or in animation. If the underlying data is the same, it is all the same info -- nothing new.

Since you seem challenged, let me spell it out slowly for you: near-Earth objects, including man-made objects, are tracked and the tracking projected that the Chinese satellite would pass around 3.1km of the Russian craft. In case your math skills are on par with your English and logic skills, 3.1 > 0.

Oh, and by the way, I never claimed it was a meteor -- I am not making a claim either way; I am demanding that the people making their claim provide evidence to back it up.

In your typical hatred of all things Chinese, you are also jumping the gun without any facts to support you. I, on the other hand, am neutral in the matter and will let the evidence speak for itself. If, tomorrow, new evidence comes to fore proving the Chinese collision, I will accept it.

Until then, no sale!

Man of science!
Show me another explanation then, which of course you wont because you cannot. And in absence of any other argument or piece of evidence presented circumstancial evidence is enough.

If it talks like a duck, it walks like a duck, then most likely it is a duck. There is no other logical conclusion but the above and no matter how you will try to spin it it will still stay the only reasonable explanation. 3.1km up or down, it quite obviously did not behave according to projections.

 

[Developereo]

Man of science!
Show me another explanation then, which of course you wont because you cannot. And in absence of any other argument or piece of evidence presented circumstancial evidence is enough.

If it talks like a duck, it walks like a duck, then most likely it is a duck. There is no other logical conclusion but the above and no matter how you will try to spin it it will still stay the only reasonable explanation. 3.1km up or down, it quite obviously did not behave according to projections.

Your grasp of science is as weak as your grasp of logic and English.

What we have here is called the leading hypothesis for the most likely explanation -- it is NOT a rigorous mathematical proof, even by scientific standards.

And by legal standards, which is what I am talking about and which is all that matters, you are out in left field --- waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out! (3.1km out, to be precise!)

 

[Audio]

Your grasp of science is as weak as your grasp of logic and English.

What we have here is called the leading hypothesis for the most likely explanation -- it is NOT a rigorous mathematical proof, even by scientific standards.

And by legal standards, which is what I am talking about and which is all that matters, you are out in left field --- waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out! (3.1km out, to be precise!)

Sure, meanwhile even China with it's usually very vocal denial of any wrong doing is quiet. I guess the Information Ministry memo to be quiet just didn't reach you yet.

Leading hypothesis yes or no, still better then what you offered.