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

[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.

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.

 

[Firehorse]

Thanks, eckherl!

US to shoot down satellite: officials 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!nfloorl:

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!nfloorl:

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." nfloorl:

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!