soc.women

In article <13rufm7oee97j38@>,
werewolfking@ says...
> The news release about the Navy's destruction of the NASA satellite
> mentioned that the missle hit the satellite at "22000 mph at an altitude of
> 130 miles producing a fireball".
>
> However, I have trouble with this scenario. First of all, there is no
> signifcant oxygen above Earth at this altitude which would support a
> "fireball" from a hydrazine explosion.

The satellite would also have had oxygen tanks. What else would be
used as an oxydizer for the fuel if not oxygen? Don't forget, a jet can
carry just fuel because air is let in and compressed so the fuel will
burn, but on a rocket you have to carry your own oxydizer aboard. I'm
sure if the video had been faked, other countries analysts would know.

> Then, although there is a small
> amount of N2O4 oxidizer on board, which would not explode the hyrazine,
> where is the igniter? The missle contained a kinetic-energy warhead, not an
> explosive, so what provided the trigger for the so-called fireball?
>

You can't possibly believe that a kinetic energy kill vehicle
striking an object at 22,000 mph would not produce enough heat - even if
it struck no metal - to ignite hydrazine, can you?

> Was the photo doctored to mislead the public as the Navy either missed or
> the satelllite plopped into the ocean? Or did the missle hit a much lower
> altitude resulting in the fireball? Or, did the hydrazine tank vent due to
> the hit, and just released a vapor cloud?
>
> Your thoughts please!
>
> I'm a retired chemist who worked many years for a NASA contractor.
>
>

Well then, you ougtta know.