Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Spy Satellite Not the First to Fall

aegis.jpg

As reported in the press, a Navy Aegis missile cruiser in the Pacific Ocean will try an unprecedented shoot-down of the out-of-control, school-bus-size U.S. spy satellite loaded with a toxic fuel as it begins its plunge to Earth. Marine General James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Navy missile will be fired as the satellite re-enters the atmosphere and "has a reasonably high opportunity for success."  The Navy has been developing -- and has successfully tested -- a ballistic missile intercept capability aboard several of its Aegis cruisers and destroyers. 
Aegis is an advanced radar/fire-control system that was originally developed to destroy incoming anti-ship cruise missiles. The Navy has 22 cruisers and some 60 destroyers with the Aegis system and between 90 and 122 vertical-launch cells for surface-to-air and Tomahawk land-attack missiles. The Navy is upgrading several of these ships for the ballistic missile defense role.
The three previous spy satellites that fell to earth with nuclear reactors on board were Soviet Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellites (RORSAT). The RORSAT was part of the world's first satellite system orbited for ocean surveillance to detect warships on the high seas. The Soviet Union began tests of the system in 1967 and the first operational RORSATs went into orbit in 1974. 
Two types of satellites were used in tandem: Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) satellites that were "passive" and sought to "lock on" to electronic signals emanating from ships, especially radar transmissions. The 18,400-pound EINT satellites became operational about 1970. Pairs of ELINT satellites were coordinated with a single RORSAT, guiding the latter to a suspected target ship. The 10,000-pound RORSAT could then use active radar to precisely locate and target Western warships. Later RORSAT satellites could send targeting data directly to missile-armed ships, surface ships, and submarines as well as to ground stations (as did the early RORSATs).
The power requirements for the RORSAT's radar was provided by a small nuclear reactor that carried some 110 pounds of enriched uranium (U235) to produce up to ten kilowatts of power for some 90 to 120 days in space.  When the service life of these Kosmos-series RORSATs was complete the reactor section carrying the radioactive fuel and weighing about one ton was designed to be boosted into higher orbits -- more than 550 miles -- where they would circle the earth for more than 500 years and then cause no danger when they did come down and burn in the atmosphere. (They normally orbited at an altitude of about 130 miles.)
But three reactor sections malfunctioned and plunged into the atmosphere: Kosmos 954 in January 1978, with portions of the craft landing in Canada; Kosmos 1402 in February 1983, which fell into the Indian Ocean; and Kosmos 1990 in February 1989. Apparently no significant pieces of the last survived reentering the atmosphere.
No attempt was made to intercept those SPYSAT reactor sections when they plunged to earth.

-- Norman Polmar

Comments

Therefore, I diligently practiced the level to promote, only then promote only then can help me to save many cheap 2moons gold.

Posted by: cheap 2moons gold at August 6, 2008 02:32 AM


In order to play the Requiem, I bought much Requiem Lant, it spend me much money.

Posted by: Requiem Lant at August 5, 2008 09:06 PM


From novice to play is not too difficult, mainly Liandao a bit high, we should sell what ah, we should start to buy what the point, of course, has often been Qiangguai,Then we have no choice but to buy mesos, can also buy cheap mesos.

Posted by: cheap mesos at August 5, 2008 09:05 PM


rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 3, 2008 09:00 PM


A chance opportunity, a friend asked me not to play online game to play, he told me a game, and he said that very interesting, so I came to this Rohan world.
At first I did not know anything, I had no friends and rohan gold, and soon I knew the first play friend, she had been very good to me my belt, also taught me how to make rohan crone. She is like my sister, and later she married, she did not too much time playing games. So I become a person again.

Posted by: rohan crone at August 2, 2008 02:29 AM


nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 14, 2008 09:14 PM


I heard today that the satellite was successfully destroyed by a missile.
That reminds me so much of a science fiction book that was published last year called Moon over Key Biscayne. - A light novel that gets into satellites and objects on a collision course with Earth.

Posted by: Everlasting at February 21, 2008 04:00 PM


Good Morning freefallingbomb,

It appears freefallingbomb that you have droped another dud, thud. I always know when I get right when folks who lack the guts to us there own name come out with a such reactions as yours.

So go back in your hole and wait for the next post. maybe you will come closer to getting it right.

Sierra Alpha Tango.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at February 21, 2008 02:24 PM


Re: vstress

There are a few cardinal differences between the ASAT and ABM missions:

The ABM mission in an operational environment will always be a hurry up game. The ABM shooter must be cued to the launch, detect the missile or reentry body, figure out the firing solution, and get the ABM bird(s) in the air within a rather narrow launch window.

The ASAT mission has the luxury of targeting something whose orbit is very predictable and a good deal larger than the reentry body of a ballistic missile. US193 was like the size of a school bus whereas an ICBM reentry body is roughly a man-sized cone. Moreover, the ICBM might deploy decoys or other devious tricks to throw off the ABM shooter.

Not to make light of what the Raytheon and Aegis fellas have done here. This was something for which they had precious little time for which to plan and execute. (NB: This ought to be a lesson for the naybobs and numbskulls who think that every defense program should be buggered for a decade. The Kelly Johnson approach of "give me your requirements and my budget and then leave me the hell alone for a little while.")

Aegis and Standard were neither designed nor intended to shoot satellites. These fellas had to rewrite, test, test again, and then upload to the ship the software that allowed SPY to acquire, track, and shoot the satellite. Not to mention reconfiguring the birds.

This is a very significant achievement indeed!

Cheers,
Chief B.

Posted by: Old Crusty Chief at February 21, 2008 11:22 AM


This is a unique event. It's the first shootdown of a non cooperative target in an uncontrolled environment. Says A LOT about what the Naval BMD is capable of.

It also says to the world that the USA is in control of space.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 21, 2008 09:46 AM


I thought they had already tested this system... I'm sure I heard an anit-ballistic missile weapon was launched last year.

To my knowledge it's the same thing, anti-sat and anti-ICBM, at least in the apogee and re-entry targeting phases.

You still need the same manouvering/control capability (very little atmosphere at this altitude) and the speeds are similar.

At these speeds you actually also enter general relativity effects (bending of space-time). Designing control and sensor systems for stuff like this is very challenging.

Anyway.. we drop a JDAM on our downed aircraft... why not do it with our satellites too. Keeps prying eyes away! (since as it is well known, the Chinese can't think of anything new themselves... ie. buying Russian carriers etc.)

Posted by: Vstress at February 21, 2008 07:55 AM


Re: freefallingbum

As a European, you have Americans to thank for your freedom to natter away here in peace. No thanks necessary. Our fathers and grandfathers fought to save your fathers and grandfathers because it was the right thing to do. For the most part, your elders were at least grateful for the American blood shed for them.

Rest assured that we'll do it again for your sorry asses should the need again arise. We're just a little nostalgic and loyal that way. And, besides, we like a good Donnybrook now and again. Younger Europeans, on the other hand, like to stir the pot, talk shit, and complain.

That you'd come here to stir that pot, talk a lot of (ill-informed, ignorant) shit, and complain is expected.

Kilo mike alpha, out.

Chief B.

Posted by: Old Crusty Chief at February 21, 2008 07:05 AM


Freefallingbomb,

You wrote, "U.S. American cultural incest, monolithic, half-strong, outworldish, autistic and ridiculous as only your nation can be...."

Two questions. One, why should us "US Americans" take your advice when you clearly harbor ill-will towards us?

And two, what country do you call home? It might help us understand your...perspective.

Posted by: Nessuno at February 21, 2008 02:43 AM


To the poster "Chief B.": You wrote: "My dear naive young friend, your ignorance is a refreshing! Not the first inkling of how orbital mechanics work, no understanding of how..."
"Please forgive me if I've hurt your feelings, undermined your human worth, or have otherwise tortured or scarred you for life."


Your Orbital Eminence, I'm afraid you've gotta try much harder than that to manage to embarass me! You know, I knew the moment I came to this board that I would only encounter an ambiente of depressing U.S. American cultural incest, monolithic, half-strong, outworldish, autistic and ridiculous as only your nation can be, that even the revelation that I'm a foreigner, my lack of provincialism, any expression of critical sense or even the slightest appeal to the public or private conscience of an U.S. American would reflexively trigger a stampede-like disturbance in some of you! (It took me a few provocative posts, though...) I'm ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED , or should I say: GRATEFUL that it worked, smooth like a mouse trap! Should I fail at every other job, now I know that I'll always be a successful cow-boy!


(I hope you don't mind me amusing myself at your expense? You're doing perfectly well!)

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 21, 2008 01:26 AM


And now to the dilettante usurper of the name "Byron Skinner": Joker, you still have A LOT to learn before you can legitimately claim and use that TITLE !


1) You actually wrote that... "the Chinese have naybey 20 warheads for land based ICBM's that are currently detached from a missile and in long term storage, last fall the Russians reduced there underground silos from 44 to 39 and there next generation ICBM by Putin's own admission won't come on line till around 2020".

(Side remark to all the other posters: Some despicable, respectless troll used poor, unsuspecting Mr. Byron Skinner's name to write this inadjectivable phrase and to try to trash his reputation forever on this Web-site. Probably an adolescent graffitist and prankster wanted by the authorities)

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/worldwide-nuclear-arsenals.html

http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm

http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/index.cfm

http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/nuclear.html

http://www.defenceindia.com/def_common/world_nukearsenals.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons

Etc. etc. etc. ...

NO COMMENTS , d'accord? C'est mieux!!!


2) "I would say that 75 Standard Missiles dedicated to missile defense is more then plenty."

As you know, enemy submarines deter when they are around, but even when they aren't. If an(y) enemy of the U.S.A. possessed even a single S.S.B.N. and wanted to use it, how would you defend the U.S.A.'s territory against its nuclear missiles? You can't have an U.S. American destroyer shadowing permanently every single non-U.S. American submarine, even if you always knew their exact coordinates at every given instant (doesn't look good) ! Ergo, you never know if, when and from where what enemy is going to launch a surprise attack against the U.S.A. (otherwise it wouldn't be a surprise attack) . What's my point?
You gauge the safety of the U.S.A. against nuclear missiles with simple mathematics. Here's what you do: The maximum flight radius of a "S.M.-3 Standard Missile" is said to be over 500 kilometres. Your proposed number of 75 "S.M.-3 Standard Missiles" x 500 kilometres x 2 (because 2 radii = 1 diameter) = a 75.500 kilometres long linear defense line against all nuclear missiles coming in from the sea(s). The U.S. American coastline has a length of 12.383 statute miles,

http://www.teachervision.fen.com/maps/bodies-of-water/725.html

which is nearly exactly 20.000 kilometers

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StatuteMile

, so that "S.M.-3 Standard Missile" "cordon" covers ~ 3,8 times the entire East coast, West coast and Gulf of Mexico (and South of that...?).

But:

a) That's also only ~ 25 anti-missile missiles guarding EACH of the three entire U.S. American coasts!!! This "defensive strength" immediately reminded me of an old Brit I met decades ago when fishing at the beach, who was responsible during the War to watch 30 miles of shoreline for German invaders, 12 hours a day. He told me: "Today I can tell you: They could have come! I had only three bullets to defend that entire stretch."

b) How well do 75 ( or 25...? ) Standard Missiles perform against a (mild, not wild) saturation attack, with or without decoys, with or without prior attacks against the destroyers that carry them?

c) What if all destroyers on only one coast are sunk? Or even just any 3 or 4 destroyers in a row anywhere, opening a small gap in the anti-missile defense? Won't the entire nation then be subject to nuclear blackmail (or to a follow-on nuclear Holocaust) from that direction?

d) What about the Northern flank? (I have a bad presentiment about Pearl Harbour too...) All a Russian submarine has to do is to exit its mountain base in the northern shore and slip under the unnavigably thick ice pack right in front of it, where no submarine-hunting ship, helicopter or plane can follow it (maybe a hunter-killer-submarine, but that's what it has escorts for too), blast (as in dynamite) a hole into the thick ice sheet while still submerged (!), on the other side of the North Pole, and fire all its nuclear missiles through that hole (always submerged!), which then will fly undisturbed over Canada and spread all over the U.S.A. . What are all the Spruance-, Arleigh-Burke- and Ticonderoga-class A.S.A.T.- and A.B.M.-destroyers (88 ships for only 75 missiles?) going to do about that then, thousands of kilometers away from that transcontinental trajectory, wondering whether there's even a way out of the iceberg labyrinth before the next summer thaw?

P.S.: Is it only MY strange impression or is the very real threat posed by nuclear cruise missiles and nuclear bombers - of all sizes... - constantly being ignored in all these discussions about anti-missile-technology, in the inverse proportion of the euphoria caused by new achievements in Space weaponry?

P.P.S.: After the (First) Cold War the increasing political isolation of Russia and China offered them a perverse, exclusive advantage for an early phase of a nuclear war against the U.S.A.: Having no middle-sized or nuclear-armed allies, no ideological satellite states near and far and even no loyal neighbouring countries nowadays (not even Cuba now, it seems), Russia and / or China paradoxically now hold a trump card which the U.S.A. don't: If they don't want to (or can't...) continue to wage a conventional war against the West, they can cherry-pick just about any Western target they want outside the U.S.A.'s territory for a demonstrative nuclear strike, for example a nice big British or a continental European city, or even ( HOPEFULLY...) that repellent, moribund experiment called "Israel", whereas the U.S.A. would be HARD-pressed to find ANY suitable target for a limited nuclear warning strike with similar characteristics, to bark at these two nuclear Super-Powers without actually biting them... It may not mean anything to you as an U.S. American, you may even feel smug knowing that there will always exist we Europeans as hostages of the Commies' nuclear forces, but it says something to me as an European, living in the most likely candidate theatre for a limited nuclear war! When two or three elephants fight, the grass beneath them suffers...


3) "It's time to shut down the land based interceptors"

Are YOU in all earnestness proposing a two- or even a O-N-E-layered, O-N-E-legged "A.S.A.T. / A.B.M. triad" for the entire U.S.A., one based on SURFACE vessels on top of that??? Jesus, if the real Byron Skinner hears that...
Update: I just checked for any recent posts and read what you just said about the future introduction of submarine-launched Standard Missiles. Gotta think about it. At a "mere" 1.500 kgs, according to

http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Ballistic-Missiles/Standard-SM-3-Block-IA_a001148009.aspx

it SHOULD theoretically be possible to launch it from planes too, similar to the F-15's 1.180 kgs heavy "A.S.M.-135 A.S.A.T." missile,

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-135.html

which also allows it to be redeployed much faster than underwater. I also wonder if those submarines are as easily contactable and as ready to jump into action as airfields and whether their battle positions around the U.S. coastline aren't going to be as statical as airfields too (since they're invisible, they don't have to be constantly on the move) !


Terribly sorry: Gotta see the rest of the lunar eclipse now - see you around!

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 21, 2008 01:12 AM


Looks like a good kill for the Navy! Waiting to see the details...

For our colleague freefallingbomb:

My dear naive young friend, your ignorance is a refreshing! Not the first inkling of how orbital mechanics work, no understanding of how many "deck scrubbing" Sailors are involved in a missile shoot (or how quickly Charlie Noble gets out the scuttlebutt on what the ship is doing), not a thimble-full of understanding of the size of the U.S. economy nor of how small the Defense budget is vis-as-vis social welfare programs, and a stunning ignorance of world history and Communism's bloody part in it.

But who am I to argue against the wisdom of university academics who've never done a damned thing but go to school? Surely by now they've managed to completely revise the history of the purges, pogroms, re-education camps, gulags, and mass graves. Surely by now Stalin, Mao, and Uncle Ho have been thoroughly rehabilitated. I imagine that they now toil ceaselessly to reveal Sadam Hussein as a great thinker, benevolent leader, and victim of U.S. aggression.

The trillions we've "wasted" on the military over the last century has ensured that you can sit there in front of your computer, use the internet, and bad mouth America.

I'd try to explain this a bit further but you strike me as an arrogant little sod and you likely already know everything.

Please forgive me if I've hurt your feelings, undermined your human worth, or have otherwise tortured or scarred you for life.

Cheers,
Chief B.


Posted by: Old Crusty Chief at February 20, 2008 11:38 PM


Good Evening Folks,

Well it worked (22:46 EST) and the world didn't come to an end. One aspect of the use of the Standard 3 is that it will soon be able to be fire from U.S. Virginia Class attack submarines. Alreadt successful intercepts have been made from the vertical launch tubes of Sidewinder and Sparrow AA missiles, the Standard is due to be tested this year.

The Ages problem is dealt with by slaving off from sea and land based systems to the underwater launch platform. This will give a new deminision to ABM defense. The surface ships can bee seen but it's a whole new game with the subs.

I don't think this is the begaining of nuclear disarmenment but rises the bar for Russia and China. I'll drink to that.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at February 20, 2008 11:29 PM


To the poster Greg: You said: "For those of you who say if we miss that we are behind china, did you consider that the chinese launched a 3 stage rocket that is designed to lift a payload to space and can't redibly be erected, while we are launching a missile from a ship which is always ready and easily pre-positioned...
Do you guys get my point?"


1) No, I don't. The "S.M.-3 Standard Missile" has a ceiling of between 160 kilometers and 240 kilometers, depending on your sources. The Chinese however shot down their own weather satellite at 865 kilometers altitude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test (third line from above)

Are you sure you aren't comparing the incomparable?

Plus: Since when does size matter in the Military, except perhaps for Roman catapults? Why on Earth should the Chinese or anyone else build "sea-worthy A.S.A.T. systems"?? Are they out to besiege someone? What truly matters is that the VERY FIRST Chinese A.S.A.T. test in History was successful - let's see about the next (yes, and nth...) U.S. American test.

And land-based A.S.A.T. and A.B.M. systems, especially when stationed deep inside the Asian land mass, are INFINITELY better protected against any conventional attacks than those U.S. SURFACE (!) vessels, upon whose shoulders part of the U.S. American anti-missile-shield also rests! (But maybe U.S. American destroyers are unsinkable too)


2) "I think the point is more that if you mess with our satellites with your hard to set up rocket which coincidentally would be probably picked up by satellite anyways, we are saying that we can reach out and touch their satellites with no for warning"

a) "Hard to set up rocket", huh?! I could swear that all the U.S. "Intelligence" agencies including the satellite operators snorted loud and chomped in their sleep while the Chinese successfully destroyed their first satellite! (Do that a lot of times)

b) Count slowly together with me: I think that at the Present it will take the U.S. Americans one... two... THREE (!!!) warships to knock down one dead U.S. American satellite.

c) It seems that the U.S. Americans still belong to the stupid minority of people who really believe that the "Reds" are out there to EAT them... (sigh)

d) Shoot down a Russian or Chinese satellite yourself and be prepared to fend off their entire nuclear arsenal, inside the atmosphere, outside it, above the ground, above the water and below it, and all of it arriving together!


(Hey: Maybe you win!!)

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 20, 2008 10:58 PM


You know what's funny is that when the Chinese did this (…totally unnecessarily destroying a harmless satellite just to show off their muscle) every US news outlet and Gov Agency came out with megaphones blazing proclaiming a practical declaration of cold war against the US. Now here we are just a few months later doing -exactly- the same thing. For no reason. Not even to intimidate the Chinese. Why are we doing this? it's not like the satellite is going to survive re-entry. What about the cloud of space junk we blamed the Chinese for making when they blew up their satellite. For the US gov to do this is sheer hypocrisy. Not to mention it’ll be bad press all over the world and make us look like everything we do is out of fear of China.

If we were really interested in taking the satellite out for safety reasons we should have done it in secret. It’s nuts to advertise this. Not to mention that we could -miss- and it’ll make us look incompetent on top of hypocritical. They could have at least tried to shoot it down successfully and then leak it to the Chinese, or to a few news outlets intentionally.

Posted by: William at February 20, 2008 10:57 PM


To "Chief B": You wrote:


1) "It does concern me that whacking satellites creates a debris hazard for everything else who's orbit crosses it. The CHICOMs have made a bloody mess of things with their test last year. One need only imagine a stray bolt or nut zipping through the space shuttle or the ISS to understand the problem."

There are already 600.000 MAN-MADE pieces of debris larger than 1 centimeter orbiting around Earth, threatening all Space travel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris

But how many of these were made in China, by the "CHICOMs"? Blaming the foreigners and (YAAAWN !) the "Commies" again for everything from a slumping dollar to Global Warming and now even for "Space pollution", U.S. American?


2) "What we need to develop is some sort of tug that can de-orbit the dead bird without fouling the orbit."

Maybe something with the contours of an underused "Space Shuttle" that forces each nation that litters Near Space with car uh... spacecraft wreckages to pick them up again and to stuff them for example into the Sun, to keep our Solar System tidy? (Would alternatively cheap, sunlight-seeking strap-on boosters not solve the problem?)

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 20, 2008 10:48 PM


To the poster "madleb": You wrote:


1) "No one seems to have mentioned what will happen if they miss?"

At least the U.S. Military could always have opted for SECRET test-firings at their still-born, re-entering satellite to let this whole embarrassing affair fade elegantly out of memory, as well as to avoid informing its (imaginary, unnecessary...) enemies about the eventual (!) absence of a minimally functioning anti-missile shield! With more discretion, they could even use this present occasion to evaluate a whole array of completely new, different A.S.A.T. technologies (air-based, land-based, submarine-based or space-based) ! To the average deck-scrubbing grunt on the destroyers any "S.M.-3 Standard Missile" launch will always appear as "just another, indiscriminate, routinely live fire exercise at some high-altitude drone", inconclusive enough to let him record it with his mobile phone and post it on "Youtube" afterwards... And I think I actually even read somewhere that the original intention was precisely to keep the targeting of the defunct U.S. American satellite a military secret (at least until after it happened) . But, unlike the larger Chinese Military which effectively surprised everybody when they blasted some worn-out satellite on the 11th of January of 2007, the smaller U.S. Military seems to have a problem with staying mum... That IS a problem, especially since it's only the U.S.A. who still have nutty nightmares about China and Russia (but not about their own atrocities in Iraq), and not the other way around.


2) "Does that mean the chinese with there measly defense budget are actually ahead of the US in ASAT?"

In relation to the seemingly bottomless U.S. American defense and defense R. & D. budget, generally speaking: Shouldn't the U.S.A. already have produced Sci-fi-like, completely undefeatable weaponry, be awash in them, won all the wars and conquered the whole World and everything beyond by now? Or AT LEAST have invaded Cuba (it's safer to try again now: Castro is gone) ? In Iraq however, 4.3 million-dollars-a-piece Abrams get still regularly knocked out by 150-dollar R.P.G.s bought with a discount or offered as a bonus at the local rug bazaar (one Abrams even got crippled by a single Russian Dragunov sniper rifle, during the assault on Baghdad's airport, at the beginning of the invasion! No kidding!) and by granny's lovely home-made I.E.D.s...
Right now it seems that the official U.S. American "2-and-a-half-wars-fighting-capability" is nothing but chauvinistic burps, a paper-tiger, national ego masturbation...

That's why I ask you: After DECADES (a CENTURY , soon!) of throwing TRILLIONS at the well-clad, well-paid, bemedaled, photogenic, perfumed brass, does no one in the U.S.A. ever stop in his tracks to attempt the first cost-efficiency analysis (even if they hit that damn satellite on Wednesday - that's NO EXCUSE to carry on burning fortunes as "usual") ?
Or can't that runaway train be stopped anymore... except with another well-aimed, cheap Chinese or Russian missile or laser beamed from Space?

(Don't forget to thank them afterwards)

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 20, 2008 10:41 PM


My apologies for spelling and grammer due to not enough time and a desire to post before this test.

This is a dual purpose test which will btw succeed. This is based upon a very successful comprehensive BMD system (development program).

Mr Skinner made a valid point. There was a paper put out last year which describes how the system as is, degrades offensive nukes. With the US precision strike capability (if used first) coupled with the low grade (exageration) BMD has made nuclear war unfeasible for enemies (sorry friends who steal and contribute actively to our demise using Walmart and Oil) I know - no politics.
Should this succeed and my bet based on the past is that it will.

btw:The US developed systems for F-15/F-16 for this AS purpose. With the SM3 great. I can't wait to be able to talk about what is coming in this technology and what strides have been made.

Have a great evening. Do you think the Pentagon caused the Lunar Eclipse?

Posted by: Blake at February 20, 2008 07:02 PM


"a) It contravenes the "Outer Space Treaty" (not that U.S. American politicians give a wet damn about any "treaties"...),"

No, it doesn't. The "Outer Space Treaty" only bans placing nuclear weapons in orbit. This is a common misconception about the treaty.

"b) the debris from successful hits spreads out and becomes harder to track, while also presenting a hazard to other satellites and spacecraft,"

This can be a problem, but breaking up the satellite apparently will accelerate the orbital decay of most components by changing the mass:drag ratio. Stuff kicked into a higher orbit by the impact is another story, of course.

"c) the net result of a hit would be that you still had the same amount of mass at exactly the same speed going in roughly the same direction, but after one or two (or centuries of...) orbits it would all be coming down in lots of different places, depending on the drag coefficient of each fragment."

Again, your physics are off slightly. The objective here is to break up the structure so that the hydrazine disperses and combusts on re-entry. Breaking up the structure is also going to make most of it re-enter faster by increasing the drag:mass ratio of the components.

Posted by: George Skinner at February 20, 2008 05:34 PM


"Empirically, that almost begs the next question...: How does a turtle catch a rabbit? By accurately predicting its more or less linear flight path and putting itself in the hyperbolic target's way, although with scant hopes for a final precision approach? Could even work, but then how comes that a few days ago I still read in the news that it would take even MONTHS before the precise impact point of this uncontrolled satellite on the Earth's surface became predictable? How many "S.M.-3 Standard Missiles" exactly do the U.S.A. want to spend on this experiment? Or is this whole thing nothing but a validation of the anti-missile-missile concept, one of many different "Star Wars" weapon technologies?"

Freefallingbomb: Until the satellite's orbit decays to the point of significant contact with the atmosphere, hitting it is almost as easy as hitting a train. However, since we have absolutely no clue (nor control) over exactly WHEN this atmospheric contact begins, we cannot predict where it will end up. The mathematical side is pretty easy, it's just getting the missile in the right place at the right time and then hitting the right spot that makes it tough.

Posted by: Andrew M at February 20, 2008 04:17 PM


Good Morning freefallingbomb,

Lets see, the Chinese have naybey 20 warheads for land based ICBM's that are currently detached from a missile and in long term storage, last fall the Russians reduced there underground silos from 44 to 39 and there next generation ICBM by Putin's own admission won't come on line till around 2020 and it doubtful that the Russians at this time have any operational warheads. Oh and did I mention that neither Russia or China has an operational SSBN. All of these numbers are varafiable on several web sites.

Any ICBM's from North Korea, Iran or any other non friendly is in the purely myth.

I would say that 75 Standard Missiles dedicated to missile defense is more then plenty. It's time to shut down the land based interceptors and cut the corporate/defense welfare to Boeing.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner


Posted by: Byron Skinner at February 20, 2008 02:54 PM


This is a totally new level of capability for ASAT and BMD technology.


-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 20, 2008 02:33 PM


For those of you who say if we miss that we are behind china, did you consider that the chinese launched a 3 stage rocket that is designed to lift a payload to space and can't redibly be erected, while we are launching a missile from a ship which is always ready and easily pre-positioned. As another note, I think this is more a message to not mess with satellites then it is a message that we can stop your incoming ballistic missiles. With only 75 of these things defending our nation, they would easily be overwhelmed by a saturation attack. I think the point is more that if you mess with our satellites with your hard to set up rocket which coincidentally would be probably picked up by satellite anyways, we are saying that we can reach out and touch their satellites with no for warning. Do you guys get my point?

Posted by: Greg at February 20, 2008 01:49 PM


Did I read this correctly? I was thinking that this was a redaction from a longer article as the "three previous spy satellites" phrase seems to beg a predicate.

Perhaps Mr. Polmar will amplify?

I must disagree with Vash's assertion. Anti-satellite capability has existed since the 1960s or so. As a practical matter, the Gemini program could be viewed as demonstrative of this; the difference between a rendezvous and a kill is but a few meters-per-second.

The Air Force worked on several programs throughout the 60s and 70s. In the 80s they successfully tested ASAT (ASM-135) destroying a defunct satellite. The program, being successful, was diddled by Congress and cancelled in 87.

It does concern me that whacking satellites creates a debris hazard for everything else who's orbit crosses it. The CHICOMs have made a bloody mess of things with their test last year. One need only imagine a stray bolt or nut zipping through the space shuttle or the ISS to understand the problem.

What we need to develop is some sort of tug that can de-orbit the dead bird without fouling the orbit. Or perhaps an onboard failsafe that would quickly de-orbit in the event of loss of comms/control from the ground. Also perhaps a way of blasting itself as it entered the atmosphere to reduce the 1:1,000,000,000,000 chance that little Johnny, Hadji, or Kwong will be whacked by an errant hydrazine tank.

In any event, this will be good experience for the SM3 guys.

Cheers,
Chief B.

Posted by: Old Crusty Chief at February 20, 2008 05:07 AM


No one seems to have mentioned what will happen if they miss? Does that mean the chinese with there measly defense budget are actually ahead of the US in ASAT?

Seems to me less a case of saving "2 football fields" of dangerous hydrazine vapour. Gasp - the terror! and more a case of we'll show them we can do it too!

Posted by: madleb at February 20, 2008 02:41 AM


To the poster Mr. Byron Skinner: You said:

1) "The Navy last week place an order with Raytheon for $1.4 Billion for 75 more Standard SM-3 Block IV's and 27 for Japan

2) This will demonstrate to the Russians and Chinese that on call now we can intercept an ICBM in orbit before it re-enters and dispenses its warheads. This could put bach Russian and Chinese ICBM and SSBN missile development a generation or more."

Uh... is that so? Thanks to a mere "75 + 22 Standard SM-3 Block IV's" ?

No more all-out launches then?


Great: We're safe!

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 20, 2008 12:08 AM


God Evening Folks,

Whats so hard to understand here it called follow the money. The Navy last week place an order with Raytheon for $1.4 Billion for 75 more Standard SM-3 Block IV's and 27 for Japan.

The Navy is asking for 19 CG(N)2000's, Missile Defense is the largest single item in the budget.

This will demonstrate to the Russians and Chinese that on call now we can intercept an ICBM in orbit before it re-enters and dispenses its warheads. This could put bach Russian and Chinese ICBM and SSBN misslile development a generation or more.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at February 19, 2008 11:29 PM


I miss some details in this article:


1) U.S. officials announced plans to use a single modified "S.M.-3 Standard Missile" launched from a group of three ships in the North Pacific to shoot down the failed re-entering U.S. American satellite "U.S.A. 193". They stated that their intention was to "reduce the danger to human beings" due to the possible release of the toxic hydrazine fuel carried onboard that satellite. But what spot on the globe exactly is threatened by this entering satellite, to justify such a Space-War-like measure? Without ANY concrete names of places, this whole thing sounds to me just as more unbearable "me too" whining from the U.S. Americans, because the Chinese recently and successfully shot down an obsolete satellite of their own (= U.S. American superiority complexes).


2) If the "S.M.-3 Standard Missile" is going to be used, then according to this Web-site here

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

the "S.M.-3 Standard Missile" has a speed of 9.600 kilometers / hour (6.000 miles / hour), but according to Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry

the typical re-entry speed of spacecraft (at 60 kilometers altitude) is of 7,8 kilometers / second (= 28.080 kilometers / hour). But that alone is 2,925 times (= almost three times) faster than the "S.M.-3 Standard Missile" chosen to intercept it, and that doomed satellite is even to be shot down at 240 kilometres altitude = out there in Space, where it surely flies even faster than that! (The typical re-entry speed for example of large = non-evaporating meteorites is ~ of 50 kilometers / second, that's 180.000 kilometers / hour. I'll take my hat off to any country's Armed Forces who manage to hit those somehow directly, tip to tip - anyhow - and on very short notice too!)
Empirically, that almost begs the next question...: How does a turtle catch a rabbit? By accurately predicting its more or less linear flight path and putting itself in the hyperbolic target's way, although with scant hopes for a final precision approach? Could even work, but then how comes that a few days ago I still read in the news that it would take even MONTHS before the precise impact point of this uncontrolled satellite on the Earth's surface became predictable? How many "S.M.-3 Standard Missiles" exactly do the U.S.A. want to spend on this experiment? Or is this whole thing nothing but a validation of the anti-missile-missile concept, one of many different "Star Wars" weapon technologies?


3) For the Trekkie-minded poster "Nessuno": 3 arguments AGAINST plinking at satellites just for da kicks, unless it's absolutely imperative:

a) It contravenes the "Outer Space Treaty" (not that U.S. American politicians give a wet damn about any "treaties"...),
b) the debris from successful hits spreads out and becomes harder to track, while also presenting a hazard to other satellites and spacecraft,
and
c) the net result of a hit would be that you still had the same amount of mass at exactly the same speed going in roughly the same direction, but after one or two (or centuries of...) orbits it would all be coming down in lots of different places, depending on the drag coefficient of each fragment.

Don't you remember any caricatures about the constant rain of "Mir" space station parts here on the ground while it was STILL IN ORBIT ?

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 19, 2008 10:43 PM


for some reason, I think a highly combustible substance that will burn up in descent is a better target than a lump of radioactive matter that will be shot into millions of pieces and land god knows where. Plus, you don't have to pay for the health insurance...

Posted by: Alex at February 19, 2008 10:17 PM


This is the most bizarre argument I've seen against testing yet.

Posted by: Nessuno at February 19, 2008 05:53 PM

and now my friend?

Posted by: James at February 19, 2008 07:54 PM


NO NO NO! i tell you the evil zionist are ploting to blow up the world and we have to stop the missile launch /sarcasm

or how about way out there

oh my god no no its the peaceful aliens in that ship!!!(see they want you to think its a satelite but we all know the aliens wont let us launch those)there coming to take us away to socalismo the greatest place in the universe!!!
i have to go know were having a picnic and the great leader says i get to drink the koolaid first

ps! i hope its grape!!!

Posted by: James at February 19, 2008 07:53 PM


Let's also make clear that the satellite target is NOT nuclear powered. The danger is posed by a tank full of frozen rocket fuel which might survive reentry. As for the implied logic of "we didn't shoot down falling Soviet satellites during the Cold War, so we shouldn't shoot down our own satellite when it poses a danger now" well...wow. There are reasons not to think this is a good idea or warranted by the risk, but this version is weak.

Posted by: lucabrazi at February 19, 2008 07:04 PM


Wow, I've seriously underestimated the animus toward missile defense among the ostrich-types.

This is the most bizarre argument I've seen against testing yet.

Posted by: Nessuno at February 19, 2008 05:53 PM


"No attempt was made to intercept those SPYSAT reactor sections when they plunged to earth"
No attempts could've been made at the time :)

Posted by: Vash at February 19, 2008 04:50 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.