> > On Apr 14, 3:07 pm, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Apr 14, 12:02 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Apr 14, 4:49 am, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Apr 14, 1:17 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On Apr 5, 5:13 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
> > > > > > > of valid reasons:
> > > > > > >  http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d360/rollout/
> > > > > > >  “Tuesday's mission, known as NROL-25, placed a new-generation radar-
> > > > > > > imaging surveillance spacecraft into a retrograde orbit.”

> > > > > > > How many retrogrades are currently deployed?

> > > > > > >  http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> > > > > > >  http://translate.google.com/#
> > > > > > >  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

> > > > > >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_satellites_in_retrograde_orbit
> > > > > >  "a satellite in retrograde orbit could pose a major hazard to other
> > > > > > satellites, especially if it was placed in the Clarke belt, where
> > > > > > geostationary satellites orbit. This risk highlights the fragility of
> > > > > > communication satellites and the importance of international
> > > > > > cooperation in preventing space collisions due to negligence or
> > > > > > malice."

> > > > > > Not all satellites are under our control, in fact some of our very own
> > > > > > satellites no longer respond to their navigational commands.  Once the
> > > > > > artificial debris field increases within anything retrograde, it can
> > > > > > quickly escalate into a cascade of encounters for which we and most
> > > > > > others have no defense.  Before it subsides, a large number of spendy
> > > > > > satellites could be damaged beyond the point of no return.

> > > > > > One retrograde interaction as encountering any satellite will create a
> > > > > > vast and expanding multi-satellite debris from those retrograde and
> > > > > > prograde orbits, as creating a combined gauntlet of lethal flack,
> > > > > > which could make LEO, GSO and even polar orbits nearly unusable
> > > > > > without including armor and their own autonomous robotic collision
> > > > > > avoidance and defense capability.  To clean this mess up could take
> > > > > > decades and easily cost more than everything to date ever put into
> > > > > > orbit.

> > > > > > The least costly anti-satellite weapon is simply a retrograde
> > > > > > IED(Acetone-Peroxide) that’ll deploy a few tonnes of retro-orbit
> > > > > > debris.  Otherwise, specifically targeted via ASM-135 or SM-3 ASAT
> > > > > > works:
> > > > > >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

> > > > > >  Of course our public-funded mainstream oligarchs that always have
> > > > > > wealth and authority over whomever we elect or appoint, could care
> > > > > > less how much this fiasco could cost us.

> > > > > >  http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> > > > > >  http://translate.google.com/#
> > > > > >  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

> > > > > Brad, enough of the cutting and pasting technical terms that you
> > > > > clearly do not comprehend.  Fred has pointed out clearly that your
> > > > > original statement is false.  Choose a new subject and try to be
> > > > > rational.

> > > > If I was public-funded like yourself, I might think and act exactly
> > > > the same as you and Fred.

> > > > The original cherry-pick statement you mention, even if were taken
> > > > entirely out of context, is actually a very for-real threat, made a
> > > > whole lot worse by retrograde orbits (especially of those we have
> > > > little or no control over).

> > > >  http://groups.google.com/groups/search
> > > >  http://translate.google.com/#
> > > >  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

> > > You're clueless.

> > Most brown-nosed clowns and FUD-masters like yourself seem to think so.

> Most rational people think so.