This is a currently operational ground-based Russian
ABM<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBto1aVOQwE>
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't think it was intercepted, but I am not convinced by the
> argument that it was technically impossible.
>
> Harry
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Please apply some common sense.  The object was too small to detect and
> was
> > totally unexpected. Even if it was detected with enough time to launch a
> > missile, why do this?
> >
> > Ed
> > On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
> >>> approaching
> >>> from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to
> the
> >>> ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass.  Yes,
> >>> we're
> >>> talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
> >>> ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.  Ignoring
> >>> the
> >>> out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with
> >>> for
> >>> this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage.
> >>> An
> >>> optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
> >>> expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical
> artifact
> >>> that would also explain those fragments.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> According to this wikipedia entry the russian's posses a missle that
> >> could have conceivably intercepted the meteor.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M
> >> The first stage has three rocket motors developed by the Soyuz Federal
> >> Center for Dual-Use Technologies. This gives the missile a much higher
> >> acceleration than other ICBM types. It enables the missile to
> >> accelerate to the speed of 7,320 m/s and to travel a flatter
> >> trajectory to distances of up to 10,000 km
> >>
> >> harry
> >>
> >
>
>

Reply via email to