Technology-Reliant U.S. Warns of Threats to Satellites

[watchman]

Technology-Reliant U.S. Warns of Threats to Satellites

http://thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2825

U.S. commercial and military satellites are under threat, Undersecretary of State Robert G. Joseph stated.

Speaking to the George C. Marshall Institute, Joseph warned that a number of countries are “acquiring capabilities to counter, attack and defeat U.S. space systems.” For the technology-reliant United States, this is bad news.

The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the short-term ripple effects they had on the U.S. economy demonstrate that America’s enemies are adept at diagnosing and exploiting American weaknesses. As such, Joseph feels that the U.S. space system also stands as “a highly lucrative target” for terrorists or enemy nations, like Iran and North Korea. USA Today reported:

“For our part, we must take all of these threats seriously because space capabilities are essential” to the U.S. economy and government, Joseph said. …

Joseph listed telecommunications, transportation, electrical power, water supply, gas and oil storage, transportation systems, emergency services, banking and finance, and government services as relying heavily on data transmitted by satellites.

Technology is among America’s strongest assets. It helps underpin an above-average standard of living for American citizens, while also giving America a strong military edge over its enemies abroad. But technology is also one of America’s weak points: The orderly functioning of America’s infrastructure and the superiority of American military forces heavily depend on it. Disabling proper functioning of America’s technological infrastructure could leave the country vulnerable to attack and foster a climate of civil disorder.

Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and Terrorism in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 6, 1999, Michael A. Vatis of the National Infrastructure Protection Center stated, “Foreign nations are developing information warfare programs because they see that they cannot defeat the United States in a head-to-head military encounter and they believe that information operations are a way to strike at what they perceive as America’s Achilles heel—our reliance on information technology to control critical government and private sector systems.”

As Vatis suggested, an enemy confronting the United States in a head-on military clash is a highly unlikely scenario. However, the prospect of an invasion becomes more likely under the theory that once America’s technological infrastructure is disabled or severely compromised, the U.S. would likely lack the ability to either muster a call to war or to coordinate its military assets to face an incoming invader. If such a scenario were to occur, attacking American space satellites, which control large swaths of American civil and military infrastructure, could be a precursor to a more direct invasion.

As an example of how America is a target of technology warfare, a 2005 report prepared by the United States Congressional Research Service titled “China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress” described how “China opensource writings demonstrate an interest in information warfare … as an increasingly important element of warfare, particularly against a sophisticated opposing force such as the U.S. military. Concern about potential pla iw/io capabilities has been heightened by recent press reports about attacks on U.S. computer systems that in some cases appear to have originated in China. One observer has stated that ‘China even now is planting viruses in U.S. computer systems that they will activate’ in the event of a military conflict with the United States” (Defense Today, Aug. 2, 2005).

The door is clearly open for foreign nations to exploit American technology weaknesses. As foreign nations close the technology gap between themselves and America, the U.S. can expect to have this weakness tested. And to nations that are already technologically more on a par with the United States, like Europe, America should pay particular attention, because they have the technological wherewithal to bring America to its knees.

[windscorpion]

I was reading a book on Space Warfare over the holidays, it suggested a scenario where a state like North Korea could gain a real short term advantage by detonating a nuke in LEO to render the US' satellites in the area out of action (and anything else up there).

[Tasman]

How difficult would it be to take out a satellite?

Which nations (or organisations) have the capacity to do so?

[PETER671BT]

How difficult would it be to take out a satellite?

Which nations (or organisations) have the capacity to do so?
Actually to take out a saterlite for the usa is not hard,they've already achieved this about seven times over three decades with obserlete saterlites.
They can shoot missile out of South australia,which aren't even nuclear.It has been seen half dozen times from the old russian space station,new international space station.The only thing that remains a mystery is what type of missle.some say a new improve tomahawk.

[Khairul Alam]

China seems to have already mastered the technology to render satellites useless. Read this article:
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw061016_1_n.shtml

WOW!!

[turin]

Why wow? Its not exactly like laser-based satellite countermeasures are something new... Its just that the Chinese are starting to play with the big boys now.
;)

[Tasman]

China seems to have already mastered the technology to render satellites useless. Read this article:
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw061016_1_n.shtml

WOW!!

Thanks for that. This makes the current reliance on satellites a bit of a worry.

I guess the next step will be to develop defensive systems of some sort for the satellites. Is it possible to use decoys for example? Also, is there some way a laser can be deflected? This question probably demonstrates my ignorance re laser technology!

Cheers

[gf0012-aust]

Why wow? Its not exactly like laser-based satellite countermeasures are something new... Its just that the Chinese are starting to play with the big boys now.
;)

The US was firing laser bursts to a transponder on the moon in 1969. ;)

Its a big deal for china - but the first demonstration of long distance targeting via laser happened 38 years ago. Methinks there is a bit of a way to go for them yet.

[powerslavenegi]

The US was firing laser bursts to a transponder on the moon in 1969. ;)Yes.I guess that was for primarily for range finding.Lasing a LEO so that its sensors be blinded or completly rendered ineffective requires much more powerful lasers (Soviets threatened to use the same against the Americans over latters possible military use of shuttles).

Its a big deal for china - but the first demonstration of long distance targeting via laser happened 38 years ago. Methinks there is a bit of a way to go for them yet.
Nope infact China was in news recently for blinding US satellites by means of some lasers,having said that yes the rest have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to laser/microwave based interception of BM's which US is pursuing.

[gf0012-aust]

Yes.I guess that was for primarily for range finding.Lasing a LEO so that its sensors be blinded or completly rendered ineffective requires much more powerful lasers (Soviets threatened to use the same against the Americans over latters possible military use of shuttles).

no, the significant issue is the evidence of targetting capability. From that point on the second stage is an issue of target destruction - by any means available. Current laser technology multiplies the emphasis on ability. For all of the stated russian achievements, they have not demonstrated long distance (space related) targetting - and certainly not 38 years worth.

the US has thus been able to demonstrate space targetting with complete accuracy since 1969.

[tphuang]

no, the significant issue is the evidence of targetting capability. From that point on the second stage is an issue of target destruction - by any means available. Current laser technology multiplies the emphasis on ability. For all of the stated russian achievements, they have not demonstrated long distance (space related) targetting - and certainly not 38 years worth.

the US has thus been able to demonstrate space targetting with complete accuracy since 1969.
hey Gary, I'm just wondering. If China was to attempt to "blind" satellites over its territory during a conflict, what kind of counter measures would be available for Americans at that point?

[gf0012-aust]

hey Gary, I'm just wondering. If China was to attempt to "blind" satellites over its territory during a conflict, what kind of counter measures would be available for Americans at that point?

How longs a piece of string? :rolleyes: I guess its subject to too many variables:

eg:


who's in power (republicans/dems)
if it was a singularity attack and thus able to be diplomatically talked away
if it was seen as a declaration of war
whether the international community would accept that a natrions borders extends into space as a column. (IIRC, INt'l law does not accept column space in outer space as territorial)
etc etc.....

I certainly believe that the US has the capacity to respond and rapidly degrade chinese capability in retribution, the danger being that it could escalate from reciprocity to a full declaration of war.

[PETER671BT]

The Us is just starting to build laser weapons,in 747 and it takes a lot of room
up.I wonder if it could be more like a satellite doing some like high energy jamming system.I suppose by now the chinese might of work how lighten and smallen the laser technology.

[tphuang]

How longs a piece of string? :rolleyes: I guess its subject to too many variables:

eg:


who's in power (republicans/dems)
if it was a singularity attack and thus able to be diplomatically talked away
if it was seen as a declaration of war
whether the international community would accept that a natrions borders extends into space as a column. (IIRC, INt'l law does not accept column space in outer space as territorial)
etc etc.....

I certainly believe that the US has the capacity to respond and rapidly degrade chinese capability in retribution, the danger being that it could escalate from reciprocity to a full declaration of war.
sorry, I should've stated it more clearly. Suppose this happened in the event of a war and China was trying to blind US satellite. And these laser countermeasures are located deep in land, let's say Xinjiang.

[rjmaz1]

sorry, I should've stated it more clearly. Suppose this happened in the event of a war and China was trying to blind US satellite. And these laser countermeasures are located deep in land, let's say Xinjiang.
I think someones forgetting that Afghanistan shares a border with China and it happens to be Xinjiang Province :onfloorl:

The US with its current military advantage wouldn't have any trouble at all.

[tphuang]

I think someones forgetting that Afghanistan shares a border with China and it happens to be Xinjiang Province :onfloorl:

The US with its current military advantage wouldn't have any trouble at all.
I don't think you realize how big xinjiang province is. But if you really want to go there, how about somewhere more central then, but still far enough from the south and east coast.

[rjmaz1]

I don't think you realize how big xinjiang province is. But if you really want to go there, how about somewhere more central then, but still far enough from the south and east coast.
Based on a 1000 mile combat radius of F-15E's flying out of afghanistan they would be able to strike any target in the xinjiang province.

The USAF wouldn't risk bombers entering china without escorts so somewhere in central china would be a good place to hide.

The F-22 doesn't have the legs to reach far into china, and the US navy has very limited range at the moment with its Super Hornets.

The F-22 with four 600 gallon external tanks would be a great escort. Even with the extra drag it could still cruise above Mach 1 and have a combat radius well over 1000 miles, once it reachs the combat zone, the external tanks are dropped and the F-22 has full internal fuel and stealth to get the mission done and return home. Im not even sure if external tanks have even been cleared on the F-22 though.

[DarthAmerica]

sorry, I should've stated it more clearly. Suppose this happened in the event of a war and China was trying to blind US satellite. And these laser countermeasures are located deep in land, let's say Xinjiang.


Well there are several means the DoD has to cover Xinjiang. U.S. Spacecraft are strategic assets and their loss could have far reaching consequences possibly resulting in huge US/Allied loss of life in a shooting war. The JCS would go ballistic. But it ultimately depends on how effective the Chinese attack was. If its a question of losing the conflict then I'd say the USA would spare no expense to find a way to destroy the site. In my opinion, the Chinese wouldn't reveal a capability like this just because. They would be doing it to exploit the loss of coverage in support of a much more damaging attack. In that case...

B-2A Blk30

Pro's

designed to penetrate the toughest defense
adequate payload
adequate range and persistenceCon's

Long response time(12 to 24 hours at least)
limited numbers and availability
huge propaganda and technological coup if shot down
Risk to air crew

F-22A/F-117

Pro's

able to penetrate defenseCon's

limited payload
requires a lot of support(tankers, basing rights, overflight rights)
Risk to air crew
long response time


SLBM sorties

Pro's

Prompt immediate response(minutes)
excellent lethality
nearly unstoppableCon's

Risk of escalation to full nuclear war
Fall Out
Possible Chinese nuclear retaliatory strike attempt

Depending on the urgency the SLBM is the most likely response. The USA ideveloping conventional warheads for SLBM's, conventional IRSLBM's, hypersonic cruise missiles and possibly even DEW's to give prompt non nuclear options for dealing with threats like this.


DA

[ahussains]

Well there are several means the DoD has to cover Xinjiang. U.S. Spacecraft are strategic assets and their loss could have far reaching consequences possibly resulting in huge US/Allied loss of life in a shooting war. The JCS would go ballistic. But it ultimately depends on how effective the Chinese attack was. If its a question of losing the conflict then I'd say the USA would spare no expense to find a way to destroy the site. In my opinion, the Chinese wouldn't reveal a capability like this just because. They would be doing it to exploit the loss of coverage in support of a much more damaging attack. In that case...

B-2A Blk30

Pro's

designed to penetrate the toughest defense
adequate payload
adequate range and persistenceCon's

Long response time(12 to 24 hours at least)
limited numbers and availability
huge propaganda and technological coup if shot down
Risk to air crew
F-22A/F-117

Pro's

able to penetrate defenseCon's

limited payload
requires a lot of support(tankers, basing rights, overflight rights)
Risk to air crew
long response time

SLBM sorties

Pro's

Prompt immediate response(minutes)
excellent lethality
nearly unstoppableCon's

Risk of escalation to full nuclear war
Fall Out
Possible Chinese nuclear retaliatory strike attempt
Depending on the urgency the SLBM is the most likely response. The USA ideveloping conventional warheads for SLBM's, conventional IRSLBM's, hypersonic cruise missiles and possibly even DEW's to give prompt non nuclear options for dealing with threats like this.


DA

What you thinks chinees are looking for you . please come and hit us .. they are already well prepared .. COME and join the PARTY..:nutkick

[goldenpanda]

I don't think USA can find anything in China. We have so much terrain we conceal everything extremely well--and we love to hide things you all know that :)

There's also a big problem launching aircraft from foreign soil willy nilly. We saw that in both Gulf wars. Considering Japan would bring war to home soil first time since WWII, against slightly trigger happy Chinese, I doubt you could use even Okinawa against us.

[Tasman]

I don't think USA can find anything in China. We have so much terrain we conceal everything extremely well--and we love to hide things you all know that :)


There's also a big problem launching aircraft from foreign soil willy nilly. We saw that in both Gulf wars. Considering Japan would bring war to home soil first time since WWII, against slightly trigger happy Chinese, I doubt you could use even Okinawa against us.

Given the problems the USA had in finding out exactly what was going on in Iraq before GW2 I suspect you are right. It would be very difficult for US satellites to find information that China did not want them to see.

I also agree that Japan would probably be reluctant to become involved in any conflict with China. This may include not allowing US aircraft to stage out of Okinawa but I guess there would be a lot of diplomatic pressure from Washington so I am not certain of what the outcome might be. Other countries would most likely also be reluctant but that doesn’t mean that they definitely wouldn’t allow their airfields or other facilities to be used. However, aircraft like the B2 don't need staging airfields. In addition I believe the USN probably has sufficient firepower of its own to effectively deploy (and successfully defend) a large enough carrier strike force to inflict an appropriate retaliatory response. Any action against China would certainly involve multiple carrier strike groups, backed by the full power of the US fleet.

However, I can’t see any circumstances that are likely to arise where either the USA or China would allow relations to reach the stage where strikes against China by the USA, or against the USN by China, would be contemplated. It would not be in the interests of either country to allow this to happen. My understanding of the relationship between the two countries is that it has improved tremendously and that both are trying to continue in this direction. The destruction of a US satellite would certainly provoke a fierce retaliation but I can't see this happening (I hope I'm not being naive).

Cheers

[goldenpanda]

I don't doubt USA can launch a powerful strike using cruise missiles, B2's, and maybe even ground attack aircraft against the eastern seaboard. Just how much damage will depend on timing and surprise. China does have a lot room to disperse.

There is some question of B2's ability to operate deep inland given the new technologies involving networked radars. I am most skeptical however, about the ability of carriers to sustain air battle against land based air and coastal navy. Carrier air operations are hampered by any number of factors such as weather, range, and the need to evade attack. If you think landing is hard during exercises, try to do it down wind while the ship is turning to avoid a torpedo. As I understand it, carrier navies during WWII depended on the ability to choose their battles. They become vulnerable if they stick around to provide air cover.

As far as China is concerned, it needs to succeed just once--the capitulation of Taiwan--while it can fail again and again so long as there is capacity to continue the war. This capacity is largely in the form of national will and the manufacturing base. Neither of those should be easy to destroy.

If China actually destroys an American satellite then it has already chosen full scale war. No one understands better than Chinese how much this is against our national goals. The thorn for China is that Taiwan is not an area of compromise, at all. I'd compare it with giving California back to Mexico, but it wouldn't do justice. It is the meaning of our civilization that Taiwan should remain part of China. The west simply cannot win, because China will not lose.

[Waylander]

The west simply cannot win, because China will not lose.

Ah, I remember some very similar arguments from our history some 60 years ago. ;)

[eckherl]

I don't doubt USA can launch a powerful strike using cruise missiles, B2's, and maybe even ground attack aircraft against the eastern seaboard. Just how much damage will depend on timing and surprise. China does have a lot room to disperse.

There is some question of B2's ability to operate deep inland given the new technologies involving networked radars. I am most skeptical however, about the ability of carriers to sustain air battle against land based air and coastal navy. Carrier air operations are hampered by any number of factors such as weather, range, and the need to evade attack. If you think landing is hard during exercises, try to do it down wind while the ship is turning to avoid a torpedo. As I understand it, carrier navies during WWII depended on the ability to choose their battles. They become vulnerable if they stick around to provide air cover.

As far as China is concerned, it needs to succeed just once--the capitulation of Taiwan--while it can fail again and again so long as there is capacity to continue the war. This capacity is largely in the form of national will and the manufacturing base. Neither of those should be easy to destroy.

If China actually destroys an American satellite then it has already chosen full scale war. No one understands better than Chinese how much this is against our national goals. The thorn for China is that Taiwan is not an area of compromise, at all. I'd compare it with giving California back to Mexico, but it wouldn't do justice. It is the meaning of our civilization that Taiwan should remain part of China. The west simply cannot win, because China will not lose.

You lost when you decided to turn your back on the rest of the world when North Korea built their new toy.

[Firehorse]

I posted this clip (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=129808&postcount=66)on another tread, but it's relevant here too!

Havoc in the Heavens: Soviet-Era Satellite's Leaky Reactor's Lethal Legacy (http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/havoc_in_heavens.htm)

IMO, this spin that The out-of-control falling US spy satellite (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=41040&sectionid=3510212)is expected to crash into North America may be to prepare the world opinion for the USAF shooting it down, as a tit-for tat to the PRC ASAT test. It could be that this "falling US spy satellite" is being allowed to fall on purpose!

[gf0012-aust]

IMO, this spin that may be to prepare the world opinion for the USAF shooting it down, as a tit-for tat to the PRC ASAT test.

The US first demonstrated ASAT capability 27 years ago, they don't need to kill their own satellite to demonstrate capability. They already have.

In fact they have 3 publicly declared and demonstrated ASAT capabilities.

[eckherl]

I posted this clip (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=129808&postcount=66)on another tread, but it's relevant here too!

Havoc in the Heavens: Soviet-Era Satellite's Leaky Reactor's Lethal Legacy (http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/havoc_in_heavens.htm)

IMO, this spin that may be to prepare the world opinion for the USAF shooting it down, as a tit-for tat to the PRC ASAT test. It could be that this "falling US spy satellite" is being allowed to fall on purpose!

No - we do not need to prove anything, been there done that how many years ago, kind of a mute statement for my country to make at this point.

It has already been reported that this satellite in question was launched in December 2006 and had a on board computer fail immediately after we tried to activate it, so its been floating in no mans land for all this time and would eventually come tumbling down from space, all we are trying to do is warn everyone ( countries ) that there is a possibility that it could land on their territory.

[defhurl]

Based on a 1000 mile combat radius of F-15E's flying out of afghanistan they would be able to strike any target in the xinjiang province.

The USAF wouldn't risk bombers entering china without escorts so somewhere in central china would be a good place to hide.

The F-22 doesn't have the legs to reach far into china, and the US navy has very limited range at the moment with its Super Hornets.

The F-22 with four 600 gallon external tanks would be a great escort. Even with the extra drag it could still cruise above Mach 1 and have a combat radius well over 1000 miles, once it reachs the combat zone, the external tanks are dropped and the F-22 has full internal fuel and stealth to get the mission done and return home. Im not even sure if external tanks have even been cleared on the F-22 though.

I dont know the distances, frankly i have no idea where xin province is but the South Korean Osan air base will most likely be used for combat operations into China.

@osan.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123084390

[Firehorse]

No - we do not need to prove anything, been there done that how many years ago, kind of a mute statement for my country to make at this point.
It has already been reported that this satellite in question was launched in December 2006 and had a on board computer fail immediately after we tried to activate it, so its been floating in no mans land for all this time and would eventually come tumbling down from space, all we are trying to do is warn everyone ( countries ) that there is a possibility that it could land on their territory.

Well, does the US have that capability now- are those missiles and F-15s that carry them ready to go? Or will they have to resort using BMD interceptors in AK or CA? Or maybe even SLBMs on SSBNs? It will be very embarassing indeed if the Russians or Chinese will have to shot it down!

[eckherl]

Well, does the US have that capability now- are those missiles and F-15s that carry them ready to go? Or will they have to resort using BMD interceptors in AK or CA? Or maybe even SLBMs on SSBNs? It will be very embarassing indeed if the Russians or Chinese will have to shot it down!

What is the point in shooting it down, it is already on a downward spiral, and who said anything about the U.S even wanting to make a attempt at shooting at it,all sensitive equipment will either be burned up or destroyed after impact. if the Russians or Chinese want to take a shot at it then they have that right if it is going to impact in their territory.

[Firehorse]

Again, US spy Sat targets North America
Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:13:12

The out-of-control falling US spy satellite is expected to crash into North America, says the American Air Force General Gene Renuart.

"We're aware it is a fairly substantial size. And we know there is at least some percentage that it could land on ground as opposed to in the water,” said the Head of the US Northern Command.

Renuart explained 'as it looks like it might re-enter into the North American area', and called for contingency plans to deal with the impact or assist Canadian or Mexican authorities.

Military agencies are doing an analysis to determine which pieces most likely would survive re-entry, said the General.

However, he cautioned that officials won't have much detail on where or when it will crash until it begins to move through the atmosphere and break up.

Renuart said there were no worries about the sensitive technologies on the satellite falling into the wrong hands and added that the main cause of concern for the time being was making preparations for the incident.

Defense experts claim the threat from the satellite expected to crash into Earth in late February or early March would not be eliminated by destroying it with a missile because that would create debris that would then re-enter the atmosphere and burn up or hit the ground.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=41040&sectionid=3510212


So, it may be desirable to shoot at it!

[eckherl]

Again,

So, it may be desirable to shoot at it!

The statement that you just posted clearly states that by shooting at it will not eliminate the threat of falling debris, it could actually make it even worse by having multiple pieces slamming into the ground.

[Firehorse]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But, having smaller fragments may be better than a big chunk- they may burn out easier and/or cause less damage.
I completely forgot to mention that even though a US jet intercepted ballistic missile (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7139) recently, but it was a boost fase one. My point here is that those ASAT tests were done 27 years ago, - precisely- the Appolo Moon landings were also done even earlier- is there current capability do that? In case of ASAT, I guess it's more of a rhethorical question, as we all know that NASA can't repeat the manned Moon landings yet.

[eckherl]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But, having smaller fragments may be better than a big chunk- they may burn out easier and/or cause less damage.
I completely forgot to mention that even though a US jet intercepted ballistic missile (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7139) recently, but it was a boost fase one. My point here is that those ASAT tests were done 27 years ago, - precisely- the Appolo Moon landings were also done even earlier- is there current capability do that? In case of ASAT, I guess it's more of a rhethorical question, as we all know that NASA can't repeat the manned Moon landings yet.

As gf0012-aust has mentioned earlier, we have done it three times with public knowledge, who knows how many other times this has been accomplished. As far as landing on the moon goes, why do we need to, been there done that also. I have always wondered what other nasty surprises that the Department of Defense and NASA have placed in space, we do walk with alot of confidence in this subject.

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But, having smaller fragments may be better than a big chunk- they may burn out easier and/or cause less damage.
I completely forgot to mention that even though a US jet intercepted ballistic missile (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7139)recently, but it was a boost fase one. My point here is that those ASAT tests were done 27 years ago, - precisely- the Appolo Moon landings were also done even earlier- is there current capability do that? In case of ASAT, I guess it's more of a rhethorical question, as we all know that NASA can't repeat the manned Moon landings yet.

Read the posts for subtlety.

The first successful tests were done over 27 years ago. Have you been looking at what public tests have been done at a BMD level in the last 3 years? Have you considered that a BMD multistage test done now negates the previous ASAT technology of air lobbing a sat killing exercise?

As for temporal excuses. The US has successfully initiated and maintained laser targetting from an orbitting mass to a determined earth location at over 384,000 km. The capability has not degraded, and yet its a 48 year old technology. Aging of the capability is not relevant, it demonstrates latency way beyond the capability of any other nation in almost 50 years.

How about making the effort to understand the issues of how technology demonstrated = latency and how current tech advances mean that the chances of those systems being real and relevant are much higher than theory in absentia.

You do realise that any nation conducting a shoot against someone elses asset without prior would cause a little precendent that would make things very very uncomfortable for the technologically inferior state?

You do understand that the kind of sat kill that china conducted does mean lots of fragments - and that has been clearly articulated in the aviation press. Kinetic kills cause massive fragmentation - and china is already unpopular due to some of the flotsam fallout from her prev flag waving exercise.

NASA hasn't done a moon shot for over 25 years, and yet they've sent deep space missions and maintained contact beyond Mars. (all the while maintaining comms - comms main at that distance says a considerable amount about targetting and latency issues. Meanwhile those nations who decry the decline tare yet to land anything on the moon - let alone launch Mars and Venus probes, deep space telescopes etc......

I'm putting my money on the technologically superior power to be able to roll out the capability when it needs to with a far shorter cycle time.

[Firehorse]

All are good points, but still, the shuttle Columbia didn't land as planned, the PRC has a lunar probe, and, in the event of US SAT set to crash in China's or Russia's populated areas they may or may not coordinate ASAT measures with the US. And, what if it crashes in Koreas or Japan? I don't think neither of them can reach high enough to ensure its destruction/fragmentation!

USAF seeks to harden satellite defences (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw080128_1_n.shtml)

[gf0012-aust]

All are good points, but still, the shuttle Columbia didn't land as planned, the PRC has a lunar probe, and, in the event of US SAT set to crash in China's or Russia's populated areas they may or may not coordinate ASAT measures with the US. And, what if it crashes in Koreas or Japan? I don't think neither of them can reach high enough to ensure its destruction/fragmentation!

USAF seeks to harden satellite defences (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw080128_1_n.shtml)

You're missing the previous point considerably. Landing on the moon, shuttle events and shallow space lunar probes do not have any relevance to ASAT intercepts. Deeep space tracking and lunar based comms do demonstrate clearly a comms capability - and ipso facto, a targetting capability. Again. No other country has even the remotest close track record for long distance laser comms and targetting designation. Killing any space assets (let alone LEO) involves that capability

For over 48 years, the US has for 24/7/365 been able to laser designate from an orbiting platform at a range of over 380,400km. That means targetting capability. Lunar probes are not comparable. Its like watching greyhound racing.... as opposed to the complexity of a gymkhana

You haven't understood that you don't need to have an ASAT capability to intercept and kill a decaying satellite. Once a target enters the atrmosphere its a BMD target anyway - not an ASAT target. So even if Japan and Sth Korea are in the terminal descent basket, they have the capability to intercept and target the satellite.

In addition, the US keeps all nations informed about these issues (as other nations are supposed to do as well as part of their obligations) - the US is certainly not going to keep principle allies out of the progress and decision loop. You do understand that the US is the only country that has access to Japanese comms? Thats how Japan managed to interact at RIMPAC with all the other non US participants. Comms is not an issue.

[Firehorse]

I just used those examples to point out that others aren't that backward in their space-related development. Well, it's good to learn that TBMD can engage a falling SAT! How about using a nuke to ensure that no debries reach the ground? Maybe not with this one, but a bigger man-made object?

[Todjaeger]

I just used those examples to point out that others aren't that backward in their space-related development. Well, it's good to learn that TBMD can engage a falling SAT! How about using a nuke to ensure that no debries reach the ground? Maybe not with this one, but a bigger man-made object?

And what reason would there be for a nuclear device (and all that entails) to be used against a satellite on re-entry? In what sort of situation would there be less trouble from the device detonation than from the impact?

From a historical perspective, AFAIK Skylab was the largest man-made satellite to enter the atmosphere from a decaying orbit. IIRC Skylab was approximately 78 tons and virtually all of it burned up during re-entry, except for some small pieces which impacted some remote areas of Western Australia. IMS a young person (late teens or early twenties) found some of the pieces and then boarded a flight to the US with some of them to win a contest about recovering parts of Skylab. As such, it would be logical to assume that any pieces which survived were quite small.

With regards to a mil/def spy satellite coming down from a decaying orbit, the item I would be concerned with would be the powerpack. That I would expect would be large enough and have sufficiently robust shielding, to withstand re-entry and as such where it would impact could be an item of concern if it appeared to be headed towards an inhabited area.

Using a nuclear device to deflect it would IMV make things worse, there would be the effects of the EMP and any radiation/fallout from the nuclear warhead, as well as the possibility that the powerpack would be ruptured or vapourized, increasing the amount of airborne radioactive material.

If someone is going to suggest means of something, I would also suggest consideration be given to the why, since that will effect what is considered an acceptable outcome.

-Cheers

[Firehorse]

Havoc in the Heavens: Soviet-Era Satellite's Leaky Reactor's Lethal Legacy (http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/havoc_in_heavens.htm)

I agree that it may do more harm than good, but nuking a nuclear powered SAT before it enters the atmosphere may prevent bigger damage on the ground, if it were heading toward a populated area.
I wonder, if that SAT was in trouble since '06, why the shuttle didn't attempt to retrive it? what were they thinking?!

[Todjaeger]

Havoc in the Heavens: Soviet-Era Satellite's Leaky Reactor's Lethal Legacy (http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/havoc_in_heavens.htm)

I agree that it may do more harm than good, but nuking a nuclear powered SAT before it enters the atmosphere may prevent bigger damage on the ground, if it were heading toward a populated area.
I wonder, if that SAT was in trouble since '06, why the shuttle didn't attempt to retrive it? what were they thinking?!

And what are the implications and effects of using a nuclear device against a satellite, by this I mean best case, worst case and most likely scenarios? Also, what are the best case, worst case and most likely scenarios with allowing the satellite orbit to decay naturally?

Just stating "I agree that it may do more harm than good, but nuking a nuclear powered SAT before it enters the atmosphere may prevent bigger damage on the ground, if it were heading toward a populated area." adds nothing to whether is it a good idea to use a warhead (nuclear or not) against a satellite, nevermind what the issues with doing so or the outcomes.

-Cheers

[onslaught]

I'm not a science genius, but wouldn't the radiation from the nuke affect any other satellites that pass through the blast area? This would probably mean satellites from other countries and if something goes wrong with their satellites, then they're obviously going to be extremely ticked off. Also, I might be going off on a hypothetical limb here, but depending on the altitude of the blast, would the effects of EMP be significant on the surface?

[Todjaeger]

I'm not a science genius, but wouldn't the radiation from the nuke affect any other satellites that pass through the blast area? This would probably mean satellites from other countries and if something goes wrong with their satellites, then they're obviously going to be extremely ticked off. Also, I might be going off on a hypothetical limb here, but depending on the altitude of the blast, would the effects of EMP be significant on the surface?

Neither am I (a science genius I mean), but that is what I was trying to get at. A nuclear blast to destroy a ~20 ton recon sat would generate an EM pulse and/or release radiation. All of which could effect other satellites in orbit, as well as things on earth. Not to mention that it would likely cause there to be a debris cloud which could put other satellites in orbit at risk due to possible impact damage when passing through the debris. This could effect the operational lifespan of satellites as well as future space launches which might need to either pass through the debris field or maneuver to avoid it.

Given these factors compared to what I would expect the risk to be even if some of the recon sat impacted in a populated area, IMV a nuclear device does not make sense. It would be akin to removing a skin growth (mole, pollip or wart) with a 12 gauge loaded with 00-buckshot. It could work, and it could be done, but would not likely be the best method.

-Cheers

[Firehorse]

Well, if those arguments are against nuking a disabled SAT, they are for disabling enemy SATs!
I just read an article in AW magazine about Hubble space telescope-it said that a propulsion unit could be sent & attached to it for safe de-orbiting. IMO, that's a good idea, and it can also be used to "de-orbit" enemy SATs without creating more debries!

[onslaught]

Several satellites are in geosynchronous orbit which means they are about 22000 miles from the Earth's surface. Some are in semisynchronous orbits which are over 12000 mi. high. Trying to kill a satellite that's this high would be much easier said than done. As for nuking any satellite, I think it's been established that there are just way too many side effects of nuking a satellite of any kind. Attaching something to an orbiting body isn't as easy as some people say it is. Attaching something to a orbiting body about 360 mi. up (like Hubble) is different from attaching something over 10000 mi. up (like many military satellites). It's one thing to knock down a satellite with a missile or projectile, but trying to take it down by attaching something to it without creating a large debris field is definitely something different.

[Firehorse]

Most SATs worthy of destrying are in LEO, not GEOSTAT or semisynchronous orbits.

Satellite Spotters Glimpse Secrets, and Tell Them
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
When the government announced last month that a top-secret spy satellite would, in the next few months, come falling out of the sky, American officials said there was little risk to people because satellites fall out of orbit fairly frequently and much of the planet is covered by oceans.

But they said precious little about the satellite itself.

Such information came instead from Ted Molczan, a hobbyist who tracks satellites from his apartment balcony in Toronto, and fellow satellite spotters around the world. They have grudgingly become accustomed to being seen as “propeller-headed geeks” who “poke their finger in the eye” of the government’s satellite spymasters, Mr. Molczan said, taking no offense. “I have a sense of humor,” he said.

Mr. Molczan, a private energy conservation consultant, is the best known of the satellite spotters who, needing little more than a pair of binoculars, a stop watch and star charts, uncover some of the deepest of the government’s expensive secrets and share them on the Internet.

Thousands of people form the spotter community. Many look for historical relics of the early space age, working from publicly available orbital information. Others watch for phenomena like the distinctive flare of sunlight glinting off bright solar panels of some telephone satellites. Still others are drawn to the secretive world of spy satellites, with about a dozen hobbyists who do most of the observing, Mr. Molczan said.

In the case of the mysterious satellite that is about to plunge back to earth, Mr. Molczan had an early sense of which one it was, identifying it as USA-193, which gave out shortly after reaching space in December 2006. It is said to have been built by the Lockheed Martin Corporation and operated by the secretive National Reconnaissance Office.

Another hobbyist, John Locker of Britain, posted photos of the satellite on a Web site, galaxypix.com.

John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a private group in Alexandria, Va., that tracks military and space activities, said the hobbyists exemplified fundamental principles of openness and of the power of technology to change the game.

“It has been an important demystification of these things,” Mr. Pike said, “because I think there is a tendency on the part of these agencies just to try to pretend that they don’t exist, and that nothing can be known about them.”

But the spotters are also pursuing a thoroughly unusual pastime, one that calls for long hours outside, freezing in the winter and sweating in the summer, straining to see a moving light in the sky and hoping that a slip of the finger on the stopwatch does not delete an entire night’s work. And for the adept, there is math. Lots of math.

“It’s somewhat time consuming and tedious,” Mr. Molczan said, acknowledging that the precise and methodical activities might seem, to the uninitiated, “a close approximation to work.”

When a new spy satellite is launched, the hobbyists will collaborate on sightings around the world to determine its orbit, and even guess at its function, sharing their information through the e-mail network SeeSat-L, which can be found via the Web site satobs.org.

From his 23rd-floor balcony, or the roof of his 32-floor building, Mr. Molzcan will peer through his binoculars at a point in the sky he expects the satellite to cross, which he locates with star charts. When the moving dot appears, he determines its direction and the distance it travels across the patch of sky over time, which he can use to calculate its speed.

Mr. Molzcan declined a request to visit him in Toronto and to be photographed for this article, saying: “No offense intended, but this is beginning to sound like more of a human interest story than one about the substance of the hobby. My preference is for the latter. Also, I prefer not to have photos of myself published.”

Mr. Locker, who favors a telescope for his camerawork, said that people like him and Mr. Molczan were not, as he put it, “nerdy buffs who lie on our backs and look into the sky and try to undermine governments.” Spotting, he said, is simply a hobby.

“There are people who look at train timetables and go watch trains,” he said. People are drawn to what interests them, he said, and “it’s what draws people to any hobby.”

While recent news coverage has focused on the current satellite’s threat to people when it falls from above, that threat is, statistically, very small. Even when the space shuttle Columbia broke up over Texas five years ago and rained debris over two states, no one on the ground was injured.

Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, noted that 328 satellites had come down in the past five years without injury to anyone. While Mr. Johndroe declined to divulge much about the current satellite aside from the fact that it carries no nuclear material, he said that the government would take responsibility in the remote chance of damage or injury.

The government’s relationship with the hobbyists is not a comfortable one. Spokesmen for the National Reconnaissance Office have stated that they would prefer the hobbyists not publish their information, and suggest that foreign countries try to hide their activities when they know an eye in the sky will be passing overhead.

The satellite spotters acknowledge that this may be so, though they doubt that such tactics are effective. Mr. Molczan said he believed that the hobbyists hurt no one but that “you can’t say with absolute certainty what effect you’re having.”

Mr. Pike said the officials who complained about the hobbyists “don’t like it, but they’ve got to lump it.” Despite the many clever ways that the spy agencies try to minimize the likelihood that their satellites will be spotted, he said, they will be. And that, he said, is a valuable warning: a world with so many eyes on the skies renders deep secrets shallow.

“If Ted can track all these satellites,” Mr. Pike said, “so can the Chinese.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/science/space/05spotters.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


I also spotted a 4 engine jet plane with what looks like a radome underneath the fuselage a few times flying alongside US-Mexico border. Can anyone tell more?

Admin: This is off topic. If you want to ask general questions then place them in the appropriate section. Do not divert discussion from the thread topic by asking divergent questions without any directed context.

Any off topic questions and responses resulting from OT input runs the risk of being deleted.

[gf0012-aust]

Firehorse, can you please refrain from cut and pasting news excerpts at every opportunity on things that do not have meaningful or relevant commentary. Invariably they are vague enough to appear to have some association, but usually are being regarded by members of the Mod Team as space fillers with little value. We all can cut and paste a news item - the issue is it's relevance to the debate - and more importantly, what we seek is a demonstration of capable commentary thats productive to the topic.

We don't need line fillers. Please refer to the Forum Rules.

This issue has been discussed by the Mods so it requires no response from you but it does require your attention. It also applies to anyone else who may see that cutting and pasting news commentary qualifies as acceptable posting. It does not.

[Firehorse]

I hope this is relevant, and if not, please move this to a different tread. Thaks in advance!

The development of hypersonic technology has taken on new urgency after China destroyed one of its satellites 530 miles above Earth in a January 2007 test. The test raised fears within the U.S. government that a foreign power is capable of destroying military satellites in low Earth orbit.
"The Chinese and Russians have learned how to disable our spy satellites, so we need some way to avoid being blinded in a war," said military analyst Loren Thompson, an executive at the Lexington Institute, a defense policy organization in Arlington, Va. "A really fast aircraft that could get over those countries right away would be a good backup to losing our spy satellites."
http://www.kansas.com/107/story/305536.html


If they weren't afraid of loosing SATs, that argument wouldn't be used to promote hypersonic bomber development.

[eckherl]

I hope this is relevant, and if not, please move this to a different tread. Thaks in advance!



If they weren't afraid of loosing SATs, that argument wouldn't be used to promote hypersonic bomber development.

Please take what you read when it comes to articles like this with a grain of salt, if we were really that concerned then it wouldn`t be public knowledge.:) This sound like a money grab/justification for research and purchase. I am not under estimating the importance of this being a viable threat to low orbiting SATs though.

[gf0012-aust]

Please take what you read when it comes to articles like this with a grain of salt, if we were really that concerned then it wouldn`t be public knowledge.:) This sound like a money grab/justification for research and purchase. I am not under estimating the importance of this being a viable threat to low orbiting SATs though.


The other issue is that the development of hypersonic bombing (manned and unmanned) has very little to do with the issue of satellite vulnerability.

It's an issue of blended and layered response. It's been a cornerstone of US response ever since the failsafe concept was developed.

The US has been able to ballistically, target and deliver on target without satellites for over 45 years. This emphasis on the vulnerability of satellites ignores the reality that weapons on target can be and are able to be achieved without satellites. Its called redundancy.

I'm going to lock this thread if it does not pick up in quality. I am getting complaints that it has degraded into nonsensical commentary and people are not responding due to irritation about content.

[Firehorse]

Correction: I meant recon/ spy plane, not necessarily "bomber". The US now flies sub-sonic U-2s, SR-71s (http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/sr71.shtml) even if weren't retired, and the Auroras (http://www.geocities.com/yoda448/area51/xr-7.html), even if they do exist, are too few. The best known military plane that approached hypersonic speeds was the now-retired Air Force SR-71, which flew at 3.2 times the speed of sound. In 2004, an experimental hypersonic craft known as the X-43A tripled that speed, flying at Mach 9.6, or nearly 7,000 mph.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080211/NEWS08/802110328/1018/NEWS08


http://www.flygplan.info/images/SR-71%20och%20U-2.gif

[gf0012-aust]

Correction: I meant recon/ spy plane, not necessarily "bomber". The US now flies sub-sonic U-2s, SR-71s (http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/sr71.shtml) even if weren't retired, and the Auroras (http://www.geocities.com/yoda448/area51/xr-7.html), even if they do exist, are too few.

http://www.flygplan.info/images/SR-71%20och%20U-2.gif

Whats has this got to to do with being technology dependant?

The SR-71 was finally supplanted in the 80's by satellites because the risk and vulnerability matrix didn't match up with the benefit that could be achived from using satellites.

The U2 was not a replacement either - both planes had discrete missions.

I'm not even sure why you bring build volume into this either, the US looks at capability requirements, their development history is littered with examples of discrete platforms being developed for boutique roles.

It's not how many, it's what they do in the environment they are developed for, and quite frankly a series of unarmed planes first started in the mid to late 50's is not regarded as survivable in complex battlespace or sensorspace. The fact that this was recognised in the mid to late 80's is an indication that other solutions were obviously robust enough and competent enough to either directly supplant them or compliment other sweep systems

If your argument is about a secondary fallback methodology to backstop satellites, have you looked at how many disparate satellites in disparate constellations in disparate orbits are up there? The Chinese don't have the remotest possibility of gold bb'ing the entire US sat footprint, and even if they attempted, it wouldn't render the US blind deaf and dumb. Operational redundancy is a military fact of life.

[Firehorse]

OK, are those in US Congress not smart enough to figure out if someone tries to use scare tactics to win lucrative contracts? Those who push these new programs must have their duck in row, especially after other overspending scandals, SNAFUs and GAO studies!
I remeber a documentary about SR-71 a few years back- during an Arab-Israeli war of '73, if I remember, one plane was sent to verify the situation on the ground- and at that time the US had many SATs. As I undestand the concept of "redundancy", it should include hypersonic bombers/recon aircraft as well as SATs, due to vulnarability of the latter!

[gf0012-aust]

OK, are those in US Congress not smart enough to figure out if someone tries to use scare tactics to win lucrative contracts? Those who push these new programs must have their duck in row, especially after other overspending scandals, SNAFUs and GAO studies!

Sorry, you're not making yourself understood. I have no idea what the GAO and project spending has to do with a technical discussion. It's irrelevant to this debate.

I remeber a documentary about SR-71 a few years back- during an Arab-Israeli war of '73, if I remember, one plane was sent to verify the situation on the ground- and at that time the US had many SATs. As I undestand the concept of "redundancy", it should include hypersonic bombers/recon aircraft as well as SATs, due to vulnarability of the latter!

The US pulled the SR-71's in the mid 80;s because they were regarded as less suitable for ISR work than sats. Sats in 1967 were primitive to 1985 or 2007.

The US abandoned ferret missions for a reason.

Hypersonic platforms are not getting developed for recce, they'e being developed for strike roles.

Quite frankly, an asset orbiting in space has far greater chances of survival due to constellation redundancy than any manned aircraft.

You do realise why the US constellation numbers for sats in a given constellation exist?

You can't compare even Glonass constellations in redundancy levels, they don't even remotely get close to the numbers required to overlap a racetrack.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Gf: there would have to be significant redundency on the ground as well? How many surpluss sats are sitting in launch facilities that can be put into orbit in a mater of hours? Even if a few ASAT's poked a few holes here or there they would probably be filled in a matter of hours/days.

[gf0012-aust]

Gf: there would have to be significant redundency on the ground as well? How many surpluss sats are sitting in launch facilities that can be put into orbit in a mater of hours? Even if a few ASAT's poked a few holes here or there they would probably be filled in a matter of hours/days.

No idea on surplus sats. The constellations are setup so that each timeslot on the racetrack is merge covered by another, and they have redundant sats that can also move in to take up the race track slack.

In fact as an example, as a comparison, they have almost 3 times the backfill redundancy that the Russians have with Glonas. Nobody else comes even remotely close to Glonas at a numbers level.

Then there's also the issue that sats in another constellation track can backfill or supplementary fill a role.

Put it this way, the US has more milsats in place than all other sat users combined, and if anyone tries to blind one of the constellations by killing everything within a specified window slot in that "race track" it would require so much effort to undertake that it would obviously be an act of war.

[Grand Danois]

I think one could get an idea of redundant launch capability by looking at launch frequency, pipeline & infrastructure. There should be a significant redundancy, but I haven't made any research. :D

[Viktor]

Gf: there would have to be significant redundency on the ground as well? How many surpluss sats are sitting in launch facilities that can be put into orbit in a mater of hours? Even if a few ASAT's poked a few holes here or there they would probably be filled in a matter of hours/days.


For sure redundency must exist but it is mutch easier to make 100-200-500 ASAT missiles than to lounch as mutch sats i orbit to poked "few" holes.

So if a country has prepared ASAT weapons in use they can make a whole difference. Dont know but I read US is working on some new gadgets to overcome Chinese suspected ASAT network development.

[Grand Danois]

A country, no country, just does not have a couple of hundred ASATs lying around. Consider that the effort to destroy a GPS or DSP sat is almost similar to launch the sat itself. The current US constellations have been launched over a decade or more. Consider how massive an effort that is. No country has the capabity to shoot them down in one go as it would mean that it would need to match and compress an effort corresponding to a decade of US launches and shoot it off inside the temporal window of a war. And also maintain it in order to have it as latent threat...

That is a huge single purpose investment, not even doable for the US! (edit: if done from CONUS only; location, location, location.)

[F-15 Eagle]

A country, no country, just does not have a couple of hundred ASATs lying around. Consider that the effort to destroy a GPS or DSP sat is almost similar to launch the sat itself. The current US constellations have been launched over a decade or more. Consider how massive an effort that is. No country has the capabity to shoot them down in one go as it would mean that it would need to match and compress an effort corresponding to a decade of US launches and shoot it off inside the temporal window of a war. And also maintain it in order to have it as latent threat...

That is a huge single purpose investment, not even doable for the US! (edit: if done from CONUS only; location, location, location.)

Your right, but it can be a possibily in the future. China can make a large number of cheap ASAT weapons that can take out the GPS satellites. The U.S. can do the same, along with Russia.

[Firehorse]

The Russian foreign minister also warned the US against complacency over its technological lead, making a comparison with the nuclear arms race after World War II.
"Let us not forget that the nuclear arms race was started with a view to preserving a monopoly of this type of weapon," Lavrov said.
"But this monopoly was to last only four years."
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says Moscow and Beijing want a new treaty partly in an attempt to hold the moral high ground in the arms control debate, and also to curb the militarisation of the heavens in which the US is seen as having a significant lead.
Most to lose
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in space.
But now the Russians and the Chinese want to go further. A Chinese weapons test in January 2007 placed the militarisation of space firmly back on the agenda.
China launched a missile which destroyed one of its own ageing weather satellites, highlighting the vulnerability of satellites to attack.
Both the Americans and the Russians had pursued such capabilities during the Cold War.
But our correspondent says satellites today are essential for all major military operations, so on the face of things it is the Americans who have the most to lose from an unconstrained race in anti-satellite weaponry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7240796.stm

I would also add that India, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, Russia and S.Korea have much less SATs- the Chinese ASAT missiles are more likely to be used against them and/or their own ageing SATs to create "space smokescreen", i.e. debries. And besides, ground stations receiving/controlling them can also be targeted!

[gf0012-aust]

I would also add that India, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, Russia and S.Korea have much less SATs- the Chinese ASAT missiles are more likely to be used against them and/or their own ageing SATs to create "space smokescreen", i.e. debries.

So china is going to be happy shooting down other countries assets and not expect that to generate a co-ordinated military oprobrium? I don't think so. They're not stupid. That kind of stupidity would create a defacto alliance when chinese military doctrine and philosophy is to isolate the principle threat in the primary stages.

And besides, ground stations receiving/controlling them can also be targeted!

Ground stations are invariably harvesters. They are not controllers unless someone elects to change elements within the racetrack. In addition ground stations are redundant. As per the above, taking out a groundstation may well mean that an Israeli or French leased asset is doing hand offs to another countries receiving point. eg, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada. You automatically create a secondary conflict point if you target a passive partners assets by associating primary proxy links.

Again, the chinese aren't stupid.

[eckherl]

Well - according to CNN headline news, the U.S will be making a attempt to shoot down the malfunctioned sat. Please do not hurt your arm patting yourself on the back Firehorse.:D

So - does anybody know if there is a possibility that we may attempt this with a airborne or groundbased laser.

[Grand Danois]

USS Lake Erie (CG 70) + SM-3?

[eckherl]

USS Lake Erie (CG 70) + SM-3?

Is this what they have stated, what I read was only a news flash.

[Grand Danois]

Is this what they have stated, what I read was only a news flash.

They say a cruiser will shoot it down, I'm guessing Lake Erie. The SM-3 on the other hand is the only ship-based missile that can do an exoatmospheric shootdown, so that should be certain.

This will be interesting indeed.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/14/spy.satellite.ap/index.html

[eckherl]

They say a cruiser will shoot it down, I'm guessing Lake Erie. The SM-3 on the other hand is the only ship-based missile that can do an exoatmospheric shootdown, so that should be certain.

This will be interesting indeed.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/14/spy.satellite.ap/index.html

Thanks for the information, all eyes will be on the outcome of this, has this been accomplished from a naval vessel before.:)

[Grand Danois]

Thanks for the information, all eyes will be on the outcome of this, has this been accomplished from a naval vessel before.:)

AFAIK it would be a first. With the US air launched weapon in the eighties and the Chinese groundbased in 2007, one could say that all bases will be covered with a seabased shot. :D

[Firehorse]

Thanks, eckherl!
US to shoot down satellite: officials (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080214/pl_afp/usmilitarysatellite_080214221018&printer=1;_ylt=AkS.mXyo1fS2deuEjbfb_K2tOrgF) by Jim Mannion
14 minutes ago

President George W. Bush has directed a US warship to shoot down an out-of-commission spy satellite before it crashes to Earth, senior US officials said Thursday. ..
A US Aegis warship will fire a single modified SM-3 missile at the spy satellite in hopes of scoring a direct hit on a tank carrying the hydrazine, Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
..The soonest that the intercept will take place is in three or four days, but the window will remain open for seven or eight days, Cartright said.
Three Aegis warships will be on station with two back-up missiles in case there is a problem with the launch of the first missile.
"We will have radars and space sensors pointed at the area so that we have some sense of whether we were successful or not," he said.
"In the case that we're not successful with the first shot, we'll reassess," he said.
"What we're looking for is to catch it here very close to the earth's surface. What we're shooting for, nominally, is about 130 miles (210 kilometers) up," he said.
He said about half the debris will come down in the first two revolutions if the intercept is successful, but it could talke longer than a month for some of the smaller debris to come down.
"But it's a very finite period of time that we can manage, and it's in an area where we don't have satellites manned or unmarked; in other words, down very low," he said.
NASA administrator Michael Griffin said the space shuttle Atlantis will have finished its space mission and have landed before the intercept.
"This missile is designed, of course, for other missions, but we concluded it could be reconfigured, both the missile and other systems related to it, on a one-time reversible basis to do the shot," he said.
Asked why this intercept was any different than the Chinese anti-satellite test, Cartwright said the United States was notifying the international community beforehand and was conducting the intercept near the edge of space.
Jeffrey said the Chinese test was conducted against a satellite in a circular orbit at around 530 miles (850 kilometers) of altitude, creating a debris field that could remain for decades over a large swathe of orbital space.


IMO, that SAT was planned to be shot down- its "malfunction" is a convinient cover story!:onfloorl:

Also, I think that Chinese ASAT test was also BMD test- they "killed two birds with one stone", -without having to launch a target BM!

[Grand Danois]

Thanks, eckherl!


IMO, that SAT was planned to be shot down- its "malfunction" is a convinient cover story!:onfloorl:

Also, I think that Chinese ASAT test was also BMD test- they "killed two birds with one stone", -without having to launch a target BM!

The altitude of 210 km hardly qualify as an ASAT test, invalidating your theory.

[Firehorse]

Why? A SAT at 210km alt., in space, above the athmosphere, is still a SAT, and a BM, when in space, is a falling SAT!

[Grand Danois]

Why? A SAT at 210km alt., in space, above the athmosphere, is still a SAT, and a BM, when in space, is a falling SAT!

Nope. That's semantics. If you wish to continue down that path we could label it a falling debris shot.

Regardless what the target object is, this is more like a BMD shot than an ASAT shot.

[Firehorse]

Well, I read others' assesments that there is very little difference between intercepting a SAT and a warhead in space. Their speeds must be similar- actually, a falling/decaying SAT orbital speed maybe even somewhat higher!
I'll wait for experts to correct me on this!

[Schumacher]

Admin: Text deleted. Another pointless response. Debate the topic rather than use this as a vehicle to air your own prejudices.

[gf0012-aust]

Well, I read others' assesments that there is very little difference between intercepting a SAT and a warhead in space. Their speeds must be similar- actually, a falling/decaying SAT orbital speed maybe even somewhat higher!

I'll wait for experts to correct me on this!

You do understand that this will be the 3rd part of the demonstration leg of ASAT capability by the US? Arguing that an ASAT kill is an ASAT kill is like arguing that anything with 4 wheels is a car.

There's little point appealing to supporting expert commentary when you don't understand the basics.

[Holt_Allen]

Nice one Firehouse. I like the following part the best.

"....Asked why this intercept was any different than the Chinese anti-satellite test, Cartwright said the United States was notifying the international community beforehand and was conducting the intercept near the edge of space..."

The guy might as well have said...."Good question sir, our test will be different because the Chinese test was err .... done by the Chinese ... whereas our test will be done..... by us. Next question please." :onfloorl:

What was the reasoning behind the Chinese ASAT being launched? From what I understand the test was conducted without warning, furthermore it was a legitimate ASAT test designed to test Chinese ASAT capabilities.

This situation seems to be entirely different from the Chinese one. First of all, the information I have read in the AP report suggests that this satellite began malfunctioning shortly after it was launched. According to Wikipedia, it is possibly the military spy satellite NRO 21 (AKA: USA 193) which lost contact with ground control sometime in 2007, and has been in orbital decay ever since. Secondly, the Pentagon has given warning to the international community before deciding to shoot down a satellite. This will prevent confusion, and help alleviate potential backlash when the actual operation does occur. Thirdly, this does not seem to be an actual ASAT test designed to test the capabilities of an ASAT system. It is my understanding that they are using a modified version of the SM-3 to conduct the operation, and that the intercept will take place at a significantly lower range than the Chinese one. (and the original American ASAT test from the eighties) Finally, whatever branch of the US government that oversees space and satellites has determined this one to poses a significant enough threat that it should be destroyed before it can re-enter. According to the Pentagon this satellite has some rocket fuel on board that has a high chance of surviving re-entry, and that if it impacted a civilian area could potentially kill people living there.

I think I have provided a decent outline as to why American condemnation of the Chinese ASAT test a year ago, and their forthcoming intercept of a malfunctioning NRO satellite does not place them in a position of looking like hypocrites.

[Grand Danois]

Well, I read others' assesments that there is very little difference between intercepting a SAT and a warhead in space. Their speeds must be similar- actually, a falling/decaying SAT orbital speed maybe even somewhat higher!
I'll wait for experts to correct me on this!

Do you argue it is the same or not? Make up your mind.

Well, don't get excited over that media, and eventually Wikipedia, will label it an ASAT shot.

And for the relativists and those on an never ending search for "American double standards;" the difference between responsible and irresponsible will be how long the debris swarm stays in orbit. ;)

[Schumacher]

.......

I think I have provided a decent outline as to why American condemnation of the Chinese ASAT test a year ago, and their forthcoming intercept of a malfunctioning NRO satellite does not place them in a position of looking like hypocrites.

Admin. Text deleted. You just don't get the rules do you? After all the other little imbroglios that you've gone through about slagging off at americans or the japanese you have to let rip again.

Read the rules over the next 10 days while you're on holidays.

[Viktor]

The altitude of 210 km hardly qualify as an ASAT test, invalidating your theory.

True china 850km atitude hit-to-kill missile was true ASAT capable missile.

210km SM-3 is just power demonstration of this great system. If they hit it this will prove F-15 AGM-135 combo irelevant witch is good but it is a still very small atitude.

[Firehorse]

If the Chinese came out and said the same thing about their SAT (the one they later destroyed), there wouldn't be so much fuss about their ASAT test in the West. The Americans, unlike the Chinese, are better at PR. Once they openly implied that there is a danger posed by it to the CONUS, I realized that the PR compaign was under way to prepare the public opinion and the world at large for the shotdown atempt.
A Delta II lifted off from Vandenberg Air Force Base on 14 December 2006, carrying the NROL-21 USA-193 satellite. The NROL-21 spacecraft failed within hours of its launch. By January 2008 the satellite was expected to reenter the Earth's atmosphere in late February or March. Although some of the spacecraft would burn up on reenty, the uncontrolled reentry could result in some heavier pieces of debris reaching the Earth's surface. The odds were about three in four that the debris would hit an ocean area. Although the safety hazard of the impacting debris was small, there was some concern that secrets of the spacecraft could be compromised if the debris were recovered by a hostile intelligence agency. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/e-305.htm

The SM-3 Kinetic Warhead (KW) is designed to intercept an incoming ballistic missile outside the earth’s atmosphere. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm

If they can be modified for ASAT, then their original design allows it! I won't be surprised if the PRC reciprocates by also conducting another BMD/ASAT test at sea!

[gf0012-aust]

If the Chinese came out and said the same thing about their SAT (the one they later destroyed), there wouldn't be so much fuss about their ASAT test in the West. The Americans, unlike the Chinese, are better at PR. Once they openly implied that there is a danger posed by it to the CONUS, I realized that the PR compaign was under way to prepare the public opinion and the world at large for the shotdown atempt.

Make the effort to understand how this has transpired rather than throw out wild opinion all the time.

The sat is on the decay cycle. in other words there has been no need to do anything about it until now. Its got nothing to do with PR. The US demonstrated ASAT across 2 different mediums over 20 years ago, they hardly need to prove anything.

If they can be modified for ASAT, then their original design allows it! I won't be surprised if the PRC reciprocates by also conducting another BMD/ASAT test at sea!

The original design is Russian, so it probably can, but as for sea based FCS and hand offs, this would be via what systems? But, in the scheme of things so can France, so can the UK, so can Japan, so can Russia and so can Israel.

So what?

[Firehorse]

I can make an effort, but having only open-source access it's just getting what "the powers that be" want me to believe. I'm not a "conspiracy" type, but had learned to read between the lines, using my critical thinking skills.

In many ways, the task resembles shooting down an intercontinental nuclear missile, although this target is larger, its path is better known and, if a first shot misses, it will continue to circle the Earth for long enough to allow a second or even a third try.
The weapon of choice, after modifications that are under way, is the Standard Missile 3 on Aegis cruisers. The defensive missiles and supporting radar were being modified and tested to shoot down enemy warheads. So the software is being reprogrammed to home in on the radar and other signatures of a large satellite instead of a ballistic missile, officials said.
Although White House, military and NASA officials described the president’s decision as motivated solely by wanting to avoid a spread of toxic fuel in an inhabited area, the effort has implications for missile defense and antisatellite weapons. ..Jeffrey G. Lewis, an arms control specialist at the New America Foundation, warned that China would cite the intercept to justify its antisatellite test last year.
“The politics are terrible,” Mr. Lewis said. “It will be used by the Chinese to excuse their hit-to-kill test. And it really strengthens the perceived link between antisatellite systems and missile defenses. We will be using a missile defense system to shoot down a satellite.”In January 2007, the Chinese fired an SC-19 missile at a target satellite orbiting 475 miles overhead. About 1,600 pieces of debris, its remnants, were detected soon after that test. ..Debris from the Chinese test, officials said, may orbit and pose a threat to space vehicles for decades, and debris from the American satellite, if hit by the missile, should fall within weeks.
David C. Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists said the American satellite was far larger than the one that China destroyed. Mr. Wright predicted the missile strike could produce 100,000 pieces of debris, some smaller than a marble but still dangerous to vehicles in space.
He agreed with Pentagon projections that most of the debris would fall into the atmosphere within weeks. But, he said, a risk remained that some debris could be kicked into a higher orbit. Specialists in spy satellites have speculated that the problem satellite, managed by the National Reconnaissance Office, is an experimental imagery device built by Lockheed Martin and launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California aboard a Delta II rocket.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/15satellite.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1203117937-AnbHpETjG424LcNZfValbQ&pagewanted=print

If we are to follow their reasoning, and since the Columbia did break-up (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/columbia_questions_answers.html)on reentry- back then NASA also been warning people about the toxic fuel (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aacolumbia.htm)-they should be ready to shot at every returning space shuttle the moment it starts to break up!
The breakup created a shattering bang that was heard as far away as Arkansas, and scattered a shower of fiery - and potentially toxic - debris from the shuttle across a 500-square-mile swath of eastern Texas and western Louisiana. Chunks of metal crashed into backyards, parking lots and pine forests, as well as a dentist's office, a reservoir and a rooftop. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=115311

IMO, in this latest twist, it's as much a desire to conduct ASAT test as to prevent damages on the ground!

[AegisFC]

Here is the transcript of the press briefing, pretty interesting read.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4145

[Transient]

If we are to follow their reasoning, and since the Columbia did break-up on reentry- back then NASA also been warning people about the toxic fuel-they should be ready to shot at every returning space shuttle the moment it starts to break up!

What great critical thinking skills. Will you please use your critical thinking skills to think about when NASA realised the shuttle was breaking up?

[Firehorse]

I'm talking about the future disasters, if they are to happen with shuttles. And there are many others who don't by this spin:
Russia: U.S. may use satellite blast to test weapon
Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:37pm EST
MOSCOW, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Russia's Defence Ministry said on Saturday a U.S. plan to shoot down an ailing spy satellite could be used as a cover to test a new space weapon.
The ministry said there was insufficient proof that Washington's decision to fire a missile at the disabled satellite was to prevent a potentially deadly leak of toxic gas as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere.
"In our opinion, the decision to destroy the U.S. satellite is not as harmless as it is being presented. Especially as the United States has been avoiding talks on restricting a space arms race for quite a long time," the ministry's information department said in a statement.
"Under cover of discussions about the danger posed by the satellite, preparation is going ahead for tests of an anti-satellite weapon. Such tests mean in essence the creation of a new strategic weapon."
.. Some space and security experts have said they did not believe Washington's justification for the plans and argued the Pentagon was more likely testing its ability to target other states' satellites.
This suggestion is rejected by U.S. officials.
It will be the first time the United States has conducted an anti-satellite operation since the 1980s. Russia also has not conducted anti-satellite activities in 20 years.
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USL16451297

Similarly, debris from a decaying object in space, a satellite for example, can be as dangerous to other platforms in space as a missile fired from Earth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/washington/16satellite.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=us&adxnnlx=1203190083-3I9hreb5IrGB69gys3c7tw&oref=slogin

Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information, said the administration's plans to shoot down the satellite -- using a missile that is part of the missile defense program -- will inevitably be interpreted by some as a test of an anti-satellite system.
"I don't believe our missile defense was developed as a secret offensive system, but this plan [to shoot down the satellite] shows the technology can go either way," Hitchens said. "We've given the Chinese and the Russians more cause for concern, and there could be very unfortunate consequences."
John Tkacik, a China specialist at the Heritage Foundation, agreed that the satellite shoot-down will be seen by Chinese and Russian leaders as further indication that the United States intends to develop its abilities to intercept incoming ballistic missiles that travel through the atmosphere and briefly through space.
"I don't think the U.S. is in fact sending that message, but I'm certain the Chinese will think so," Tkacik said. ..
David Wright, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the Navy has no better than a 50 percent chance of hitting its target. He also said he is concerned that a successful strike could push debris further into space and harm spacecraft in low orbit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503249.html

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

[Firehorse]

“In my opinion, this decision is imprudent and ill advised,” said Li Bin, an arms control specialist at Tsinghua University in Beijing. “If this satellite is shot down, the toxic fuel will still be there. Therefore, the pollution still exists.”
But, Mr. Li said, destroying the satellite would be an effective way to prevent its technology from falling into the wrong hands.
Just days after China and Russia renewed their call for a global ban on space weapons at a disarmament conference, the United States announced late last week that it was preparing to fire a missile at the crippled reconnaissance satellite by the middle of next week during one of its passes over the Pacific.
The United States opposes treaties or other measures to restrict space weapons.
In what will be a challenging test of antiballistic missile technology, the interceptor will be fired from an American warship just before the satellite is expected to plunge uncontrollably back to earth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/world/asia/19china.html?th&emc=th


And then there is an issue of costs. The attempt by the U.S. Navy to use an anti-missile missile to shoot down a potentially hazardous satellite will cost between $40 million and $60 million, Pentagon officials told CNN on Friday.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/15/spy.satellite/?iref=mpstoryview

Would the potential damage costs be comparable with those figures? And lastly, how much would it cost to have dedicated ASAT air-launched missiles & F-15s and/or other fighters on stanbdby when there are many other missions to be flown, in comparison with being able to use existing BMD structures? :D

[Grand Danois]

Mr. Li should know better if he is a specialist. A hit by a KKV will pulverize the sat, making the hydrazine burn or disperse in the atmosphere. Doesn't he know or does he say this with a different purpose than a technical evaluation of potential outcomes?

Responsibility (and liability) increase with ability. The potential loss of a single life from the fuel is enough justification - in Western terms.

[Firehorse]

That's a valid point- he has his own ax to grind! But, without venturing too far and off- topic, if the Western lifes were so valueable, there would be no "war on drugs" that had cost many innocent lifes, at the same time as many "over the counter" drugs turn out to be dangerous, the US dentists have the highest suicide rate (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/358562/jobs_with_high_suicide_rates.html) among professionals as they use mercury/silver amalgam fillings (http://www.amalgam.org/), and the refined sugar, which is more dangerous than cocaine (http://macrobiotics.co.uk/sugar.htm), can be bought freely by anyone!

[Grand Danois]

That's a valid point- he has his own ax to grind! But, without venturing too far and off- topic, if the Western lifes were so valueable, there would be no "war on drugs" that had cost many innocent lifes, at the same time as many "over the counter" drugs turn out to be dangerous, the US dentists have the highest suicide rate (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/358562/jobs_with_high_suicide_rates.html) among professionals as they use mercury/silver amalgam fillings (http://www.amalgam.org/), and the refined sugar, which is more dangerous than cocaine (http://macrobiotics.co.uk/sugar.htm), can be bought freely by anyone!

Who said "Western lives ?"

Nope, that is relativism (in the popular sense). It is also a discussion of what can be controlled. And also a question of managed and accepted risk wrt the dentists. Improving knowledge etc.. Basically it is not evidence of double standards.

You have to compare equal to equal.

[Firehorse]

If that SAT "poses danger to USA", then it's the Western lifes that are primaraly at stake- to drive the threat home. When it's in the interests of certain circles, they'll use the "sanctity of life" to justify anything. In reality, it's their lifes and pocketbooks they are most concerned about! I would have more respect for them if they did 1 of 2 things: stop pretending that this planned shootdown attempt is nothing more than to prevent damages to innocents; or just let that SAT fall and then pay the victims, in accordance with the international law and treaties, for "collateral damage", like they do in the war zones.

[Grand Danois]

If that SAT "poses danger to USA", then it's the Western lifes that are primaraly at stake- to drive the threat home. When it's in the interests of certain circles, they'll use the "sanctity of life" to justify anything. In reality, it's their lifes and pocketbooks they are most concerned about! I would have more respect for them if they did 1 of 2 things: stop pretending that this planned shootdown attempt is nothing more than to prevent damages to innocents; or let that SAT fall and then pay the victims for "collateral damage", like they do in the war zones.

Read my prev reply. You've created false premise, with the aim of doing a strawman.

[Firehorse]

Well, I read it again- they just think it can be controlled. Who is to say that the outcome of this ASAT attempt will be less damaging in the long run? Even the independent experts aren't so sure! If you feel that I missed something, please PM me.

[Grand Danois]

Well, I read it again- they just think it can be controlled. Who is to say that the outcome of this ASAT attempt will be less damaging in the long run? Even the independent experts aren't so sure! If you feel that I missed something, please PM me.

Actually we don't know if it can be controlled. The Americans say they can - and I expect them to be right - otherwise they wouldn't try it.

But things can go wrong. We'll know by the end of the week.

[merocaine]

Looks like the US has 3 strikes on this before they run out of converted sm-3's,
wouldn't be surprised if they zap it on the first strike.

Anyway this is going to be a great test for the BMD system, and has some serious wow factor as a nice add on to!

[kamikazeranger]

woah, woah, woah, slow down..... who mentioned aurora bombers ealier? that has no effect on the balistic and satalite capabilities of the united states.

[Firehorse]

While U.S. officials have depicted the attempt solely as a precaution against the slim chance that the satellite's hazardous rocket fuel could harm people on Earth, the test will inherently have spillover military consequences, the experts said.
To accomplish this week's task, for example, the Navy has modified its Aegis anti-missile radar system for satellite tracking, making clear that a system designed for missile defense can be transformed into an anti-satellite system in a short time.
The attempted shoot-down will also enable the Pentagon to practice using, in an urgent scenario, key elements of its space defense apparatus, including the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and its sophisticated space identification, tracking and targeting system.
The attempt will further provide an unscripted opportunity to see whether ship-based missiles can blow up the satellite just as it reenters Earth's atmosphere -- a key moment in any attempt to intercept an intercontinental missile that might someday be launched against the United States.
"Whatever their motivation for shooting down the satellite, it's clear that this will be quite useful to the military," said Joan Johnson-Freese, an expert on military space issues and a department head of the Naval War College in Newport, R.I.
When asked last week about Chinese and Russian capabilities to harm our satellites, Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, told the House Armed Services Committee, "It would not be that difficult to inflict significant, serious damage to our capabilities over [a] couple of days." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902510.html


"Essentially, speculations about the danger of the satellite hide preparations for the classical testing of an anti-satellite weapon," a statement reported by Itar-Tass news agency said.
The Russian defence ministry argued that various countries' spacecraft had crashed to Earth in the past, with many using toxic fuel on board, but that this had never before merited "extraordinary measures". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7254540.stm

Here is a different angle: The hydrazine explanation seems far-fetched, but the alternative explanations make even less sense. The U.S. doesn’t need to do this to impress the Chinese. They were already impressed by earlier successful tests, including the last one where an SM-3 missile launched from an Aegis cruiser hit a warhead 87 miles above the Pacific Ocean. This didn’t get a lot of public attention, but the Chinese military was sure to have followed it closely, if only because the U.S. has a cooperative missile defense program using Aegis with Japan, which the Chinese think could be used to defend Taiwan. .. The notion that secret high tech gizmos would fall into the wrong hands has some merit, but not enough to justify a shoot-down. There are always pieces of wreckage when a satellite falls to the ground. When they fall in the Canadian Arctic, the U.S. and Canada collect the pieces. When a nuclear powered satellite built by the Soviet Union crashed in Canada in the 1970s, the Soviets said they didn’t want the pieces back. When a Chinese rocket carrying a Western-owned communications satellite blew up shortly after launch, the Chinese carefully collected all the pieces and tried to examine them before turning them back, but the most sensitive items were charred and cracked beyond recognition. The probability of gaining useful information from the crash is low, as the best technology would have to survive reentry and the debris would have to fall in an opponent-controlled area. The probability of surviving reentry and landing in a hostile controlled area are too low to explain the decision to shoot down.
The one scenario that doesn’t get as much attention is planetary defence, possibly because it sounds silly. The notion that the U.S. should add intercepting meteorites or asteroids before they strike the earth to its defense missions seems pretty far-fetched. These events are so rare as to be improbable. On the other hand, supporters say, an asteroid strike wiped out the dinosaurs, drastically changed the environment, created a year-long winter and so on. It still sounds far-fetched. On the other hand, a 200-foot wide meteorite that struck Tunguska Siberia in 1908 had the effect of a nuclear explosion (without the radiation aftereffects). If there was warning that a similar event was about to occur over a populated area, it would be nice to have the ability to stop it. It's not worth spending much time worrying about being hit by asteroids, however, or even by satellites, but having spent all that money on missile defense, it’s nice that it finally has some practical use.
http://news.google.com/news?btcid=f1dc7c2674b26f1a


Well, I forgot to mention that, if the earlier ASAT method, using an F-15 or F-16 (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7139) , was still available, why not use it now? Having run out of the Earthly reasons, he appeals for extraterrestrial ones! :onfloorl: :D :shudder

Admin: Again you fail to understand or comprehend the rules about respect and decorum. Come back in a week.

[radiosilence]

The AP is reporting the Satellite was hit but no word on whether the tank containing toxic fuel has been destroyed.

A missile launched from a Navy ship successfully struck a dying U.S. spy satellite passing 130 miles over the Pacific on Wednesday, a defense official said....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dead_satellite;_ylt=A9G_RmYk9bxHei8BJxd.m_8A

[Firehorse]

When not too long ago NK was testing its new ICBM, there was some talk about US to try shooting it down (http://spiiderweb.blogspot.com/2006/06/us-considering-shooting-down-nkorean.html). That BM failed, but this time, the opportunity presented itself- either by design or coincidence.
First, all informed technologists understand that any ballistic missile defense (BMD) system that can shoot down long-range Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) also has the potential to shoot down satellites in low-earth-orbit (LEO)-such satellites travel slightly faster than ICBMs and move in similar altitudes above the earth. [As I've said earlier! Regardless, being a non-expert gives me a fresh perspective! ]..6-weeks crash effort made clear that for about $25 million, such software upgrades can give an anti-ICBM capability to the Aegis ships now operating around the world-a good buy by any reasonable measure.. http://www.aim.org/guest-column/make-navy-missile-defense-all-it-can-be/


I think these quotes neatly summarize the latest ASAT/mission implications for the US in space:
Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester under former President Bill Clinton, said he suspected one of the unstated U.S. goals on Wednesday was to strut an ability to shoot down a satellite from any ocean on earth.
"It was a bad idea," he said. "It will make it easier for other countries to justify shooting down satellites for whatever supposed reason, thereby increasing the likelihood of an arms race in space."
"I'll bet you a dinner that the Russians will do it next," he added in an E-mail interview.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2144210520080221?sp=true

Ever since President Ronald Reagan launched “Star Wars,” countries such as Russia and China have been suspicious that the real aim of the U.S. missile defense program was to develop offensive technology to control space. Russian and Chinese officials often have argued that U.S. missile defense interceptors are really anti-satellite weapons in disguise. Not to indulge what is arguably paranoia, but the use of the SM-3 interceptor – designed to shoot down intermediate range ballistic missiles – to hit the ailing spysat threatens to validate these fears. With a relatively simple software switch-out (software that Cartwright said took only three weeks to develop), the SM-3 will be able to target a satellite. Cartwright stressed that this is a one-time mission for the Navy’s interceptor, and that the satellite-targeting software is not compatible with the software necessary for the interceptors to target incoming missiles so would not be replicated through the fleet. But the fact of the matter is that the software wasn’t all that hard to develop, and it now exists. And while the SM-3 missiles don’t have the range to reliably target most active satellites, the U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse interceptors in silos at FortGreeley and Vandenberg do.
And about that Chinese ASAT test. It is also clear that the move to target US 193 will be read by many abroad as a deliberate “signal” to Beijing that the United States can rapidly match, indeed outstrip, any ASAT capability the Chinese may be building. (All we need is software!) Even if there was no intention by the White House or the Pentagon to saber rattle, that will be the perception – especially as the announcement of the planned intercept attempt came only two days after Russia and China put forward a proposed treaty to ban space weapons at the UN Conference on Disarmament. The geopolitical risk here is twofold. First, it is likely to increase the Sino-American tensions in space and spur negative reaction in China (and perhaps also Russia), such as galvanizing research on ASATs into pursuit of an operational program. Second, it sends a signal that destructive ASAT tests are OK, as long as they are low in altitude and can be given plausible deniability by the rational of “saving lives.” The United States might regret setting that precedent if the planned Iranian satellite “fails” and Tehran decides to destroy it with its Shahab. The proliferation of debris-creating ASAT technology is in no one’s self-interest, because sooner or later, someone will be tempted to use it. And as the Chinese test proved in spades, that would threaten us all. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=507

"They're going to use this as a test of an anti-satellite system to destroy the satellite," said Ivan Oelrich, a security expert at the Ploughshares-funded Federation of American Scientists, in a Reuters interview. "I'm concerned about the implications this will have with the Chinese and the Russians for starting an anti-satellite arms race, which will do nobody any good but will particularly threaten the United States because we are far and away the biggest presence in space," he said.
Michael Krepon of the Henry L. Stimson Center, another Ploughshares Fund grantee, is not buying the government’s rationale for shooting down the satellite. “Keeping space from becoming a shooting gallery is a critically important goal,” he maintains. “The Pentagon’s ASAT [anti-satellite] test will be designed to mitigate debris, while raising international concerns that the Pentagon is using a failed satellite to hone its space warfare skills. The ostensible reason for the ASAT test – to protect human beings from the satellite’s unused supply of deadly fuel – is unpersuasive. If this man-made object causes human casualties or fatalities, they will be the first in the history of the space age.
http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=506

Yet, even the successful mission in no way proves that the United States is safe from nuclear attack or that it can do what it wants in space.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/22/america/satellite.php

[Schumacher]

There's at least the offer by the defence chief to share data with China, I wonder if there's any follow up to the offer.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080222/NEWS01/802220383/1001/NEWS01

'.......Yesterday, the Beijing government asked the U.S. to release data on the shootdown, and the Communist Party's newspaper blasted what it called Washington's callous attitude toward the weaponization of space.

Asked about China's concerns, Gates told reporters during a visit to U.S. Pacific Command at Camp Smith that the United States is prepared to share with China some of the information about the shootdown, but he was not specific. He said some was provided beforehand.........'