Go Navy!

A missile interceptor launched from a Navy warship has struck a dying American spy satellite orbiting 130 miles over the Pacific Ocean, the Pentagon announced late Wednesday.

Officials cautioned that while early information indicated that the interceptor’s “kill vehicle” had hit the satellite, it would be 24 hours before it could be determined whether the fuel tank with 1,000 pounds of toxic hydrazine had been destroyed as planned.

Even so, one official who received a late-night briefing on the mission expressed confidence that the impact had been so powerful that the fuel tank probably had been ruptured.

Completing a mission in which an interceptor designed for missile defense was used for the first time to attack a satellite, the Lake Erie, an Aegis-class cruiser, fired a single missile just before 10:30 p.m. Eastern time, and the missile hit the satellite as it traveled at more than 17,000 miles per hour, the Pentagon said in its official announcement.

“A network of land-, air-, sea- and spaced-based sensors confirms that the U.S. military intercepted a nonfunctioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite which was in its final orbits before entering the Earth’s atmosphere,” the statement said.

Hitting that target was a significant accomplishment, and it is highly likely that they hit the fuel tank on the first try. If not, there are additional opportunities to take an additional shot at the satellite before it reenters the atmosphere. And while the odds of the craft striking a person were always quite small, the elimination of the hydrazine has been the major issue.

Oh, and for those who wondered why the Navy was concerned about undertaking the mission under less than perfect conditions, let me offer you the best non-conspiratorial answer -- when you have several days to complete a mission, multiple windows for doing so, and the option of waiting until the most favorable conditions prevail, you take that option. It isn't like there was only one chance to hit that satellite. So don't go arguing, as I've seen a number of liberals do, that concerns about the weather means that the Aegis system is unreliable. Rather, it is a sign of prudent judgment in a situation where timing was critical but time was not.