A prominent politician recently proposed, as part of our SDI, to place a defensive satellite in geosynchronous orbit directly above Washington, D.C.

What if anything is wrong with his suggestion?

I agree with the tecnical defintions of the orbits in various previsous comments related, but there is another practical issue that is just as important that must be commented on.

By SDI, the accpeted definition is a spaced-based defensive system that can in some way render incoming ballistic mssiles harmless.  Givne the speeds involved in ICBMs, or especailly shorter trajectory sub-launched weapons, a sattelite in either geo orbit (both of which would have to be a a high altitude) would have to react over a very long distance. 

If the defensive system is electromagnetic engery based (laser, particle, etc.), this might be a bit more possible, but kinetic energy types wold have a long way to travel. 

Also, to allow time for targeting and firing, the SDI sattelites would better be placed over the oceans, so as to be closer to the launches, and to track the power parts of the ICBM fligt - the better able to predict the ballistic flight whcih is onlt dependant on graivty.  *Unless you beleive th latest new stories about wrheads that can zig-zag in thier ballistic phase...).

So, another "problem" is that, even if an orbit can be directly above DC (whcih I agree it cannot - at least not all the time), it's not the best place for such a system to be able to PROTECT DC.

Posted by Kenny M on 2006-02-04 13:15:02