ASAT

[raghara2]

I looked recently at a lot of articles, however in majority of articles the author was scared about possibility of attack against satellite, or weapons in space. Why? Are people with love with something like satellite? Do people have a phobia from weapons in space?<br /><br />Space was already militarized. For example GPS are part of weapon systems, so they are VALID targets. Basically if GPS would be destroyed, these GPS guided bombs would miss the target. So ASAT capability would be used. However the question remains, why are people that much scared?

 

[summoner]

They're afraid because space is the ultimate high ground. There is really no defence against a true space born weapon system. As to the GPS question number 1 is that there is a whole constelation of then up there, so there is redundency to the system, also most of those weapon systems have backup systems that will work. <br /><br />Edited for spelling. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[qso1]

Some of it is the fact that people are fascinated with weapons as well. Imagining beam weapon constellations, death star type stuff. So far the only practical military capability has been spysat and commsat type systems. No known weapon systems are deployed operationally or even in test.<br /><br />ASATs were test launched from F-15 Eagles back in 1985 or thereabouts but no known operational ASAT weapon exists and only the U.S. and former Soviet Union ever developed one to the point of testing.<br /><br />The Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or Star Wars) proposal ended up mostly being scrapped once it became evident the Soviet Union was beginning to collapse. The current missile defense system being developed is one of the very few systems thats origins go back to star wars but its a ground launched system rather than a space based one.<br /><br />But consider for a moment the fascination with weapons. How many movies about the real human spaceflight program are there vs how many sci fi movies, shows featuring space based laser battles, star fighters, and just about any other battle scenario imaginable. That is an indication of the popularity of space based weapons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[raghara2]

<font color="yellow">As to the GPS question number 1 is that there is a whole constelation of then up there, so there is redundency to the system, also most of those weapon systems have backup systems that will work</font><br /><br />For example all F-22 air to ground weapons require GPS. The difference between GPS or not GPS is at least 5 meters. 5 meter miss could be nice news for an air defense installation.<br /><br />As for redundancy 16 hour of lasing is enough to melt down all GPS satellites. (And I doubt EU, or Russia will not decreasse precission of theirs networs until the end of the conflict.)

 

[raghara2]

Re qso1<br />That F-15 test was somehow non telling. First stage done be SRAM, the second stage the real missile. Attack up to 350 nm, and precise requirements for speed and altitude. Fine for a prototype, not as much for a real weapon.<br /><br />Freedom of maneuver on orbit, and freedom of deposit of satellites and other things on orbit will not last too long. Imagine if a company would unilaterally launch satellite on GEO, and say &%$#@! with you all. Or imagine what would happen if NK would be successful with the most expensive prank in recent history. Satellite with a strong emiter... A lot of people would laugh it's ass off, but then they would try to get it down... By what? Space shuttle?<br />I consider current lack of research in ASAT weapons (with exception of China, that dislike spy sats thus it do something about them.) as a lack of common sense.<br /><br />Actually NMD is a working ASAT system, with that radar to the boot.<br /><br />This however doesn't explain why so many articles liked anti satellite weapons about as much as shooting small dogs on the street.<br /><br />Re newsartist<br /><br />To have camera in each room would be interesting for police forces, imagine how many crimes could be prevented, and how many 16 years old women could be viewed in bathroom as they are doing &%$#@!ion... Violation of privacy? Surely. Necessary? About as much as spy satellites.<br />Either you would trust other country, or not. If you need verification by spy sat, you are offending the other country.

 

[PistolPete]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>For example all F-22 air to ground weapons require GPS. The difference between GPS or not GPS is at least 5 meters. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Bear in mind that neither the F-22 nor the JDAM <i>require</i> GPS. They both have internal navigation systems which allow them to know where they are fairly accuratly without the use of GPS. A 5m difference between GPS and INS circular errors of probobility sounds about right. The US military has functioned just fine using just maps and compasses for centuries, I'm sure we could tough it out a little while longer if all of our GPS sattelites were taken out.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>5 meter miss could be nice news for an air defense installation.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Are you implying that "missing" an air defence site by 5m would mean completely missing it? If so, then I have to laugh. I was within 5m of a 105mm artillery shell exploding once, and believe me, it was not fun. I just barely excaped with my life because I just so happened to be behind armor. That 105mm round <b>only</b> weighed about 50 lbs. (25kg), a "small" 500 lb. (250kg) Mk 82 JDAM is ten times bigger. And radar guided ADA sites are a bit bigger than 5m in diameter anyway. "Missing" a target by 5m with a 2000 lb. (1000kg) Mk 84 JDAM, or even a Mk 82, would mean the difference in pieces of the target being no bigger than a postage stamp and pieces being no bigger than a tea saucer. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This however doesn't explain why so many articles liked anti satellite weapons about as much as shooting small dogs on the street. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The reason for this is that even with GPS and spy sattelites, space has allways been fairly peacefull. The only known spacecraft to ever carry a weapon of any sort was the Russian (then Soviet) unmanned Polyus spacecraft, which never reached orbit anyway. Using ASATs means bringing war into an otherwise peacefull place. Remember that there are civillians in space right now and throwing around a lot more space debris would put their lives in danger, creating a massive international incident and bring other nations into the conflict that the user of the ASAT may not have intended. Also, a massive ASAT battle against, let's say all US GPS and spy sats, would endanger every LEO sattelite in orbit, which means that you've effectively managed to piss off the entire industrialized world. Such a shortsighted attack would ultimatly backfire on the instigator in a very painfull way. If it's a space Pearl Harbor that you want, then a space Pearl Harbor is what you just might get. In the imortal words of Japanese Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, such an attack would "awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve".<br /><br />War in space will eventually happen some day. And just like the atomic bomb, once you've let the space war genie out of it's bottle, there is no way to put him back in. This is why every responisble nation is trying to stave off the inevitable for as long as possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[halman]

ragharA2,<br /><br />There are a couple of things to consider. For one thing, there is a considerable inventory of very expensive satellites in orbit right now, which are involved in the economy in a big way. Weather satellites supposedly save large amounts of money because of accurate forecasting, broadcast satellites must make a lot of money, judging by the number of calls I get for satellite TV networks, and imaging satellites are proving to be very valuable in detecting resources, pollution emitters, changes in the biosphere, etcetera. So there is a lot of money involved in the day to day operation of satellites.<br /><br />Also, it does not require extremely advanced launch vehicles to be able to render useless satellites. Even orbital capability is not necessary, as throwing a bunch of ball bearings straight up at the right time can disable a satellite, or several. So even relatively poor, almost-third world countries can be a threat. And they are far harder to predict than the major powers. Or what about a private assualt, launched from a third world country, with no known launch capability? What if Boeing decided that the best way to stimulate the launch industry was to clandestinely bring down 15 or 20 birds? They have the know how, the resources, and could launch from any number of sites without advance dectection. Knowing where a rocket was launched does not neccessarily tell us who launched it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>