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

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Havoc in the Heavens: Soviet-Era Satellite's Leaky Reactor's Lethal Legacy

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

New Member
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

Potstirrer
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

Banned Member
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

New Member
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

Banned Member
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/s...?_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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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

Banned Member
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

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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

Banned Member
Correction: I meant recon/ spy plane, not necessarily "bomber". The US now flies sub-sonic U-2s, SR-71s even if weren't retired, and the Auroras, 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
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Correction: I meant recon/ spy plane, not necessarily "bomber". The US now flies sub-sonic U-2s, SR-71s even if weren't retired, and the Auroras, even if they do exist, are too few.

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

Banned Member
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

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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

New Member
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

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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

Entertainer
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

New Member
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

Entertainer
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.)
 
Last edited:

F-15 Eagle

New Member
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.
 
Top