C/Net says last week’s spy satellite shootdown left some questions hanging in the air.
Was the mission really necessary? Was it worth the cost? How much of a threat was the hydrazine fuel, really? Did we escalate a space weapons race? Here are some opinions:
- Five myths about the satellite smash-up from MSNBC’s space analyst James Oberg.
- 4 Questions from Geoff Forden on ArmsControlWonk.com by Dr. Geoff Forden who has been at MIT since 2000 where his research includes the analysis of Russian and Chinese space systems.
DailyWireless has more here and here. Wired’s Danger Room had the best coverage. Noah Shachtman has a passion for the subject. Blog Runner has more.
I know nothing about rocket science.
But I can search the internet and read The Washington Post, The New York Times, Center for Defense Information, and Aviation Week — just like everyone else.
Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, noted that 328 satellites had come down in the past five years without injury to anyone.
Skeptics say the administration had other reasons to shoot down the satellite — to destroy secret equipment onboard or to test ASAT defenses. Those seem like legitimate reasons.
I understand there has to be a judgment call. There are often serious, negative political repercussions to being honest. Sometimes a “cover story” simply has to be concocted.
But it could have been handled better, with less dismissiveness to the general public.
It made NASA look stupid. Why should we believe anything they say. The agency now seems more like an arm of the military. Billion dollar projects like the James Webb Space Telescope, a case in point. Soon a disaffected contractor may expose NASA for what it actually is.
That story will now have more credibility. NASA did it to themselves.
.gif)
