Newsgroup: it.fan.culo
Titolo: Satellites in wrong orbits

Ed oggi mandiamo a fare in culo...
... il Pentagono!
Giustissime le ultimissime righe del post (non perche' le ho scritte
io, anche perche' il post originale non e' mio).
Buona lettura?
***
New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com
Contact:
Claire Bowles
New Scientist Press Office, London
claire...@rbi.co.uk
, 
+44(0)20 7331 2751
Satellites in wrong orbits
AMERICA'S spy satellites are not in the orbits the Pentagon says they
are,
according to a respected space analyst. The errors will add to
concerns
over George W. Bush's plans to place weapons in space. If today's
satellite
orbits cannot be trusted, opponents reason, how will we verify the
numbers
of future space-based anti-missile lasers and anti-satellite weapons?
The 1975 UN Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer
Spacerequires nations to maintain a registry of objects they launch,
and to
provide the UN with copies. But Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at
the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, has
found several discrepancies in the UN data. "Suspicious mistakes date
back
as early as the 1970s," he told New Scientist.
"The US is not in compliance. The 1989 launch of military satellite
1989-72A
was never registered with the UN," McDowell says. And the
discrepancies have
become worse recently: correct orbits are listed for only two of the
ten
classified satellites the US launched in 1999 and 2000, he says.
McDowell
says three listed orbits are not those the satellites finally slotted
into,
while another four are wrong for other reasons, such as listing the
orbit
of another object launched at the same time. The remaining discrepancy
is
simply a typographical error.
The UN Office for Outer Space Affairs has confirmed that the
Pentagon's data
is incorrect, but says it can't do anything about it. A spokesman for
US
Space Command, which tracks nearly 9000 orbiting objects from its base
deep
inside Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado, says the US "is in full
compliance
with the convention". According to the treaty, each nation can
determine "the
content of each registry and the conditions under which it is
maintained",
he says. He offered no comment on the orbital discrepancies.
Unfortunately, the UN registry relies on a treaty that allows long
delays in
providing data, and does not require nations to give final orbits. "In
fact,
they mostly provide only the initial orbit," said Petr Lala, research
chief
for the UN office, which is aware of McDowell's findings.
The UN's outer space convention was intended to identify the owners of
all
satellites, in case any posed hazards or caused damage. Governments
want
to know the orbits of other objects so they can be sure no one is
trying
to intercept their own satellites, says Charles Vick of the Federation
of
American Scientists in Washington DC.
Although US Space Command says its actions fall within the letter of
the treaty, McDowell says: "It's certainly violating the spirit of an
international commitment."
Vick suspects that the Pentagon hopes to make it harder to evade
surveillance from space by concealing the orbits of its spy satellites
--
but Russia and China have their own tracking systems, and amateur
astronomers post orbits on the Web.
"It's silly. These things are among the brightest objects in the sky,"
says
John Pike director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based policy
group.
He says the Pentagon has grown arrogant, believing "we won the cold
war,
we can do whatever we want".
       ###
Author: Jeff Hecht, Boston
New Scientist issue: 11 August 2001
Please mention New Scientist as the source of this story and, if
publishing
online, please carry a hyperlink to:
 
http://www.newscientist.com

 Ed oggi mandiamo a fare in culo...
1) tutti quanti voi, perche' non avete risposto a questo che era il
post piu' intelligente passato da queste parti negli ultimi decenni;
2) la tipa di icq, che se la tira e non me la da;
3) me stesso, perche' leggo sul client casalingo i messaggi che
postate, ma devo aspettare dalle 3 alle 9 ore per rispondere giacche'
google ci mette tutto 'sto tempo per visualizzare i post;
4) la mia rispettabilita', che mi costringe ad usare un sistema
anonimo anziche' quello piu' comodo e rapido.

 post piu' intelligente passato da queste parti negli ultimi decenni;
Abbiamo evidentemente definizioni diverse per il lemma "intelligente".
D.