Russian Satellite Hit by Debris from Chinese Anti-Satellite Test

[Developereo]

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.

Why should China waste time with others' hypotheses?

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

I don't have to offer anything since I am not making any claims. The people making claims need to substantiate them with as much evidence as they can.

 

[Audio]

Why should China waste time with others' hypotheses?

Why did it "waste time" then when the PLA hacking unit came to light?
That's a hypothesis too, no direct evidence (most likely due to courtesy of the Americans not wanting to squeeze China in a way they could loose face) points to the building where the unit is stationed, only to its immediate district, with also the logical assumption that it would be incredibly dumb if someone else would be doing it while the PLA doesn't know anything about it.

I don't have to offer anything since I am not making any claims. The people making claims need to substantiate them with as much evidence as they can.

We did. With as much as we can obtain in the public domain. Obviously there was no photographer in orbit at the time of impact to make a picture which would satisfy your...erm...high standards.?

 

[gambit]

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.

Next time he says the Jews did this or the Zionists did that, see if he is willing to hold to the same standards. No worries. His kind always trips up.

 

[Audio]

Next time he says the Jews did this or the Zionists did that, see if he is willing to hold to the same standards. No worries. His kind always trips up.

I know, i know, i did not want to bring this up as to avoid accusations of going off topic and seeking a way out. But i do remember yes, how i was called a glutton for punishment in one of those threads. the only evidence presented that time was a German media company agenda of not denying holocaust. Rather self explanatory why that is so.

 

[Developereo]

We did. With as much as we can obtain in the public domain. Obviously there was no photographer in orbit at the time of impact to make a picture which would satisfy your...erm...high standards.?

Not my high standards; the standards at play in the real world.
As opposed to your make-believe world in the internet.

Next time he says the Jews did this or the Zionists did that, see if he is willing to hold to the same standards. No worries. His kind always trips up.

Still smarting, I see...

 

[gambit]

I know, i know, i did not want to bring this up as to avoid accusations of going off topic and seeking a way out. But i do remember yes, how i was called a glutton for punishment in one of those threads. the only evidence presented that time was a German media company agenda of not denying holocaust. Rather self explanatory why that is so.

That is just a self insecure way of puffing himself up.

 

[Audio]

Not my high standards; the standards at play in the real world.
As opposed to your make-believe world in the internet.

So Russian and US institutions and heaps of amateur astronomers tracking debris cloud do not belong in your real world?

But i digress, my favourite mod will probably slap me with some infractions if i would start to speculate who does belong in your real world anyway.

 

[Developereo]

So Russia and US do not belong in your real world?

Have Russia or the US filed a legal motion accusing the Chinese as the guilty party?

But i digress, my favourite mod will probably slap me with some infractions if i would start to speculate who does belong in your real world anyway.

My real world deals with facts and evidence that would stand up in court, not things that "appear to be".

 

[Audio]

Have Russia or the US filed a legal motion accusing the Chinese as the guilty party?
My real world deals with facts and evidence that would stand up in court, not things that "appear to be".

It was a worthless microsatellite, no sense to go to courts for that. Still does not mean a part of Fengyun didn't hit it. They based the only logical assumption that it was indeed so because the change in trajectory of the BLITS occured in a time window of 10 seconds around the predicted pass of Fengyun debris.

Use common sense man.....

 

[gambit]

It was a worthless microsatellite, no sense to go to courts for that. Still does not mean a part of Fengyun didn't hit it. They based the only logical assumption that it was indeed so because the change in trajectory of the BLITS occured in a time window of 10 seconds around the predicted pass of Fengyun debris.

Use common sense man.....

He tried to make it as if he understood the legal system regarding circumstantial evidences. Turned out I had to show him what are circumstantial evidences and how often they convict more than they were dismissed. Common sense would compel a person to bias his judgment when there are sufficient circumstantial evidences available. This is not about common sense but about ego. He let that 'Think Tank' label gone to his head. More like 'Thinking Tanked'.

 

[gambit]

Have Russia or the US filed a legal motion accusing the Chinese as the guilty party?

Actually, Russia could and they would have a good case without the need for direct forensic evidence that says: This piece of metal came from the Feng Yun 1C satellite.

The Chinese best defense would be to argue that man years have passed and that since natural forces dispersed the debris field even further than original, it would be Nature that is at fault. The Russians would counter that if China had not destroyed the satellite at such an advantageous orbit (to all) in the first place, this accident would not have happened.

My real world deals with facts and evidence that would stand up in court, not things that "appear to be".

For a claimed 'man of science', you are awfully selective about your 'facts and evidence'.

Chinese space debris hits Russian satellite, scientists say - CNN.com

The problem of collisions involving space debris is not a new one.

"Collisions happen all the time, everywhere. Big collisions -- now those are the rare ones," said space debris expert William Schonberg, chairman of the Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering Department at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.

The last major space debris collision was in 2009 between Iridium 33, an operational U.S. communications satellite, and Cosmos 2251, a decommissioned Russian satellite, Kelso said.

Scientists know of only a handful of such collisions, but that's only because they happened with objects that were being monitored. Kelso and Schonberg say it's likely there are other "junk to junk" collisions involving unmonitored objects that no one knows about.

In the case of the Russian satellite in January, "it would have been very difficult to tell there had been a collision if it hadn't been for the fact that somebody was operating the satellite and noticed a collision," said Kelso.

I can record the locations of 100 cars but that does not mean I have monitored them. I may record their locations from A to B but that does not mean I monitored their progress on the road. So while the US and Russia does try to track and record orbital objects that can be detected by radars, that does not mean there are real time continuous monitoring of all of them. Some, not all. Since orbital paths can be predicted, prior to every launch, NASA will scan the projected path of the spacecraft and inform those involved if there are any recorded 'junk' objects that may be in the general vicinity based upon previous known locations.

In this case, it is likely that the BLITS satellite was not a continuously monitored object by Russia and when the Russians tried to conduct their experiment (Feb 4), they found the satellite was not where it SHOULD BE -- projected. So they backtracked to the last known experiment location to determine what happened (Jan 22). And when they discovered such an abrupt change, a collision was the only plausible explanation, and that a trackable large object from the Feng Yun 1C debris field was in the general vicinity.

When all of these circumstantial evidences are in front of you, it is intellectually dishonest to deny the most likely cause when in the absence of direct evidence.

Some 'man of science' you are...

 

[Developereo]

He tried to make it as if he understood the legal system regarding circumstantial evidences. Turned out I had to show him what are circumstantial evidences and how often they convict more than they were dismissed. Common sense would compel a person to bias his judgment when there are sufficient circumstantial evidences available. This is not about common sense but about ego. He let that 'Think Tank' label gone to his head. More like 'Thinking Tanked'.

I always LOVE it when you expose your ignorance of English and legal matters. Where did I say that circumstantial evidence is not enough for conviction? For your information, circumstantial evidence is only useful when it dovetails with other evidence, which may also be circumstantial, to form a corroborative chain of evidence.

And my point was that we only have one piece of circumstantial evidence: that Joe (Chinese satellite) was near the Russian craft.

Here's my quote again:

It's called circumstantial evidence, as in "Joe was near the crime scene when the crime happened".

Right. So all we have is that Joe (Chinese satellite) was near the crime scene.

Did Joe do it? did he leave any evidence behind linking him to the crime?

Do we have any other corroborative evidence, circumstantial or otherwise?

What it means is that the lone circumstantial evidence we have in this case (proximity) is useless by itself to prove guilt or innocence.

Now run along and save yourself more embarrassment -- although I know you will keep coming back for more...

Actually, Russia could and they would have a good case without the need for direct forensic evidence that says: This piece of metal came from the Feng Yun 1C satellite.

I guess the Russians are waiting for you to show them how to file a case and win.

Sir gambit, defender of the Russian space program, to the rescue!

For a claimed 'man of science', you are awfully selective about your 'facts and evidence'.

So all your blabbering amounts to how much actual evidence in this case?

Oh, that's right: ZILCH

You seem to confuse quantity with quality. Your entire post boils down to the ONE item of circumstantial evidence that we knew all along: Chinese craft's proximity when Russian satellite when haywire.

P.S. I know you are smarting from the drubbing you got on the US Constitution, but you really don't have to make it worse for yourself by coming back for more and more...

 

[gambit]

I always LOVE it when you expose your ignorance of English and legal matters. Where did I say that circumstantial evidence is not enough for conviction? For your information, circumstantial evidence is only useful when it dovetails with other evidence, which may also be circumstantial, to form a corroborative chain of evidence.

You do not have to say so. Your deliberate omission -- dare we say deliberate -- that circumstantial evidences can convict misled the readers into believing otherwise.

Do we have any other corroborative evidence, circumstantial or otherwise?

What it means is that the lone circumstantial evidence we have in this case (proximity) is useless by itself to prove guilt or innocence.

Of course there were. The debris field for one. Every piece of evidences, logical inferences from them, experience, and theories of natural laws, are legitimate admissions.

I guess the Russians are waiting for you to show them how to file a case and win.

I already advised them it was not worth it. The satellite loss is an inconvenience to research, not national defense, and that even though the Chinese have a Pakistani anonymous Internet forum legal adviser which would practically guarantee defeat for the Chinese, court cost would be more expensive than building another research satellite.

So all your blabbering amounts to how much actual evidence in this case?

Actual evidences?

Circumstantial evidences are actual evidences, just like direct evidences are also actual evidences.

You seem to confuse quantity with quality. Your entire post boils down to the ONE item of circumstantial evidence that we knew all along: Chinese craft's proximity when Russian satellite when haywire.

The satellite did not 'go haywire'.

http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/satellite_missions/current_missions/blit_support.html

The BLITS nanosatellite consists of two outer hemispheres made of a low-refraction-index glass (ЛК6 type) and an inner ball lens made of a high-refraction-index glass (ТФ105 type). The ball lens radius is 53.52 mm, the total radius of the spherical retroreflector is 85.16 mm. The hemispheres are glued over the ball lens; the external surface of one hemisphere is covered with an aluminum coating protected by a varnish layer. All spherical surfaces are concentric. The satellite total mass is 7.53 kg.

There are no machineries, let alone electronics. It cannot maneuver. It is nothing more than a very high quality glass ball. So it cannot 'go haywire'. All circumstantial evidences points to a most likely explanation for the collision: a debris from the Chinese satellite debris field.

P.S. I know you are smarting from the drubbing you got on the US Constitution, but you really don't have to make it worse for yourself by coming back for more and more...

The one who got slapped upside the head was YOU.

You said that it was not possible for any Shariah law to be imposed upon non-believers in the US. I countered that it can be -- through the US Congress. You said that it was wrong and that it had to be through a Constitutional amendment.

YOU

ARE

WRONG

The US is a constitutional republic, meaning all laws must come AFTER the establishment of a constitution and any provisions contains therein.

AFTER...!!!

Say that 2/3 of all 50 states have the SENTIMENT that left-handed people can marry only left-handed people while right-handed people can marry anyone. If any legislature branch of those 2/3 states make such a law, it will be struck down as un-Constitutional. As there are no Constitutional provisions upon which any law can be held against, SENTIMENTS are no good.

Say that those 2/3 of 50 states managed to get a Constitutional amendment for that sentiment. Fine, but UNTIL a legislature, state or the US Congress, make a law that can be held against that new amendment, that new amendment will just sits there, like all the other provisions in the Constitution, and left-handed people can marry anyone they want. Once a law is created, even if all nine Justices found the law morally distasteful but as long as there is a Constitutional provision to represent the sentiments of the people via that 2/3 of 50 states condition, they have no choice but to rule that the law is Constitutional.

So when I said that the US Congress can have Shariah laws on the books, it was with the understanding that:

1st - A Constitutional provision exists.
2nd - A legislature, state congress or US Congress, make the law.

And it must be in that order. You clearly do not know how constitutional republics supposed to work.

This is also a slap upside your head -- but on the other side.

 

[asianamerican]

How can they tell if it Chinese debris and not American debris, or something else? American have test more ASAT than anyone. I wonder if this just another smear piece from media.

 

[armchairPrivate]

Today I went for a walk, I saw Big Foot.

Repeat this a thousand times, it will be true.