And I'm guessing that the corporate media will do their job to ensure that such cover is provided.
The NewsHour did cover this last night. They had on 2 guests and one was very skeptical of the reasons for the shoot down.
Posted by CG at February 21, 2008 04:55 AMpbs? wonder of the corporate media will dare...
Posted by Turkana at February 21, 2008 05:01 AMDoncha just hate America?
Posted by sonar at February 21, 2008 05:01 AMum. no, sonar. do you? but i do hate the bush administration.
Posted by Turkana at February 21, 2008 05:02 AMindeed, NPR interviewed a reporter on this subject and did not mention the scientific criticism that the satellite would likely break up and disintegrate in re-entry and that the statistical chances of landing in an inhabited area were remote, at best, instead the interview consisted of pie-eyed wonderment at the technology and underlying fear of some toxic fuel landing in downtown Peoria.
Posted by leftymn at February 21, 2008 05:54 AMMy immediate reaction, Monday, when I read a short story about it in Salon was to fire an angry letter declaring this was just an excuse for "boys to play with their dangerous toys". It has always been patently clear that this was a transparent excuse to conduct a "test" of their illegal, ship-borne anti-satellite system.
The Chinese ruffled more than a few lame duck feathers when they shot down one of their own. America is utterly dependent on their space systems and are literally terrified at the idea they could lose them when they really needed them.
The disturbing thing about this whole episode, other than the vapid acceptance of the dreaded hydrazine story by the vigilant press corpse, is that the Pentagon folks are so used to lying they seem incapable of even telling the truth. It is perfectaly reasonable to say, "we wanted to ensure that the highly sensitive technology on this satellite didn't somehow survive re-entry and fall into the wrong hands." Who would have a problem with that? They could even admit that they wanted to demonstrate the capability of their AS system to warn potential adversaries, unspecified, not to attack our satellites.
Instead, what did they say? We couldn't take the risk that a roughly yard-wide, spherical tank sticking out the side of a satellite,containing enough hydrazine to cover about 2-4 football fields with non-lethal levels of irritating gas would somehow, survive hitting the atmosphere at 17,500 mph and somehow, strike the 3.1% of the surface of the Earth that has ANYBODY living nearby. HORRORS!
Now we have a large debris field, some of which may have been thrust back into long term orbit and a destabilized political situation and a HUGE windfall due to the manufacturers of our, now "proven," satellite buster systems. Does anyone recall that just last month, both the Chinese and the Russian governments were calling for serious negotiations to de-militarize space? Fuh-gedd about it!
Eleven more months of this CRAP is too much to take!
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 21, 2008 06:54 AMNice sales pitch.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 21, 2008 07:30 AMOne of the most ridiculous parts about this is an actual anti-satellite system can be a helluva lot cheaper than AEGIS or "Son of Star Wars," both of which remain basically untested to this day. Note that this satellite shoot-down involved more AEGIS technology -- the navy's anti-missile system -- than Son of Star Wars. Both of those systems were designed to be anti-missile systems, not anti-satellite systems. Knocking a satellite down is easy -- track it, which they've had months and months to do (at least) -- shoot a missile at it and knock it down. Nothing to it. Those anti-missile systems are supposed to be able to track and shoot down incoming missiles, which is an entirely more expensive proposition.
Here's an idea, if they really wanted to test the much-vaunted AEGIS. Stick a carrier group with AEGIS out there somewhere and shoot even 10 anti-ship missiles at the carrier at once, and don't tell the crews when or where they're coming from, exactly. OH, wait, then the carrier would sink, 'cuz AEGIS is a big, expensive, truly untested pile of crap. It's never gone up against any navy or shore defenses worth a damn. And Son of Star Wars is worse. Shooting anti-ballistic missiles at things you know the flight-path of ahead of time is an exercise in uselessness. I guess the only thing it's good for is the pocketbooks of TRW and Boeing. Both systems are a joke, and the only thing that can be said in AEGIS' favor is at least it cost "only" about $7 billion and probably could hit a couple incoming missiles. Son of Star Wars, or the National Missile Defense system, has cost at least $100 billion so far, including the original Reagan-era work, has never been shown to work, and has helped to significantly weaken international nuclear arms treaties, to the likely detriment of human life on Earth. But, hey, I bet the brass got some nice steak dinners from the defense contractors! I'd laugh if it wasn't so insane.
This satellite knock-down was wholly unimpressive. All it might have served to do is remind the Chinese we can knock down satellites, too. But seeing as we're the nation more dependent on them than the Chinese, it's kind of a moot point. Maybe they were just trying to show Congress what the billions and billions and billions have bought. Maybe it was designed to impress the masses -- "Gaze in wonder upon your mighty military, America!" What a pile of crap.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 21, 2008 07:53 AMThe message China sent to us and the world when they shot down one of their satellites was "we can cripple you at a moments notice". I think it was imperative that we reciprocated that message. Look for Russia to join the club in the future.
Sure, the reasoning given was a con and no one likes to be conned, but could we really tell the world our real intentions?
Proud to say I worked on the Aegis weapon system deployed in this mission.
OxyCon, that's exactly the message the Chinese sent to us. However, what kind of message did we just send to the Chinese with this satellite shoot-down? The Chinese don't use many satellites for any kind of intelligence gathering. It's kind of a silly threat back to the Chinese, isn't it? "Take that, China! We can shoot down our own satellites, too!" LOL! Ridiculous. By the way, OxyCon, thanks for wasting less of my tax money on AEGIS than you might have wasted had you worked on Son of Star Wars.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 21, 2008 08:06 AMA few points...
The Standard missile as carried on board US Navy ships is not really an effective anti-satellite weapon. It was pretty much at the limits of its vertical range capability to make a head-on attack on a satellite which was orbiting well below any other satellites that could be considered targets. The Chinese ASAT test referenced earlier was conducted at a much higher orbital track in a chase situation where the killersat caught up with the target in orbit and then exploded to destroy it. Regular satellites don't skim the top of the atmosphere as USA-193 was doing as they will de-orbit and burn up quite quickly.
Spysats, the obvious targets for ASAT attacks can manoeuvre in orbit -- that's what the hydrazine fuel tank described as part of USA-193 was for. This allows ground controllers to change the orbits of the spysats so they can observe different targets on the ground. It also allows them to dodge ASAT attacks, especially something as limited in capabilities as a Standard missile.
As for this being an anti-warhead NMD test shot, well a nuclear warhead re-entry vehicle is a much smaller target (about the size of a small garbage-can) than the 3-tonne spysat hit by the Standard missile (it is traditional to describe something like this satellite as the size of a Greyhound bus). A nuclear warhead is also not tracked to within a hair by multiple large radar systems over a period of days or weeks before it is intercepted. The Standard's designed utility against nuclear/conventional ballistic missiles is predicated on a completely different targetting strategy -- its job is to protect a naval battlegroup against missile attacks within a 200-mile radius or thereabouts. For this shoot the launch ship had to position itself directly under the satellite's track.
So why do it? My guess is a combination of factors, some or all of which may be true.
1. Because they could. This was a live-fire exercise testing a complex system of radars, missile control systems, the missile itself, tracking, logistics and operational processes. The people who carried it out only had a few days to get a lot of things right and make it work, and they succeeded. As a training exercise, it was invaluable, and remember that one or two missiles are shot off against drones and dummy targets each year in tests anyway.
2. To disrupt the satellite. USA-193 was not an operational spysat, according to many sources, but a technology demonstrator for a lot of new tech for the next generation of US spysats. The equipment it carried was highly-classified and bleeding-edge. As I mentioned before it's quite big and there was a chance that if it re-entered in one piece then not all of it would burn up. The outer casing would protect the internal parts for quite a long time and perhaps prevent significant pieces from burning up and being destroyed, allowing them to fall to earth who knows where. By hitting the satellite the casing has been ruptured, which means that when it does re-enter it is much more likely to be totally destroyed. f the impact fragmented the satellite and made it tumble, so much the better as this will hasten its re-entry and make its detruction more certain.
As for costs, well the satellite and its launch cost the US taxpeyer over a billion dollars, and a lot more if you include the R&D that went into its payload. The 100 million or so for this shoot is a small part of that, and well worth it if it keeps the tech on board a secret for a while longer.
Posted by Robert Sneddon at February 21, 2008 08:19 AMUm, let me see here.
Chance to test "new weapon system", previously banned by agreements.
Wait until well known orbital parameters are locked in.
Illuminate object with radar and infrared to guarantee it is the brightest object in the sky, at least in those wavelengths.
Pray that a supernova doesn't happen simultaneously.
Have two backup for, well, backup.
Even though known within a few miles, do not publish impact coordinates in case you miss so you can CYA.
Be prepared to lie like with Jessica and Tillman.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by IntelVet at February 21, 2008 08:23 AMHey, at least we know that Reagan "Star Wars" shit actually works.
Cool explosion, too.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at February 21, 2008 09:00 AMSneddon nails the story here. Despite killing a satellite, this wasn't an anti-satellite test. (satellite was too low) Despite using the missile interceptor, this wasn't a missile defense test (satellite was too big, position was very well known). Despite the government's insistence, I have yet to see anyone who puts for a good argument for the hydrazine threat. The did it primarily because it was a chance to have some fun with expensive toys that won't come up very often, and because they couldn't predict exactly where it would come down to make sure no one could maybe get a peek at what was onboard. But mostly just for fun.
For the more satellite savy of our group: Why is there not a "self-distruct" option on these satellites?
You know, realize that the satellite is coming down, walk over to the red button, push it, and boom, no more satellite? Bueller? Anyone?
Posted by Howd at February 21, 2008 10:38 AMWhat was different about this test than what we could do in the 80's? From the NYTimes:
China Tests Anti-Satellite Weapon, Unnerving U.S.
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: January 18, 2007
China successfully carried out its first test of an anti-satellite weapon last week, signaling its resolve to play a major role in military space activities and bringing expressions of concern from Washington and other capitals, the Bush administration said Thursday.
Only two nations — Russia and the United States — have previously destroyed spacecraft in anti-satellite tests, most recently the United States in the mid 1980s.
The 'hydrazine' excuse is ridiculous. Historically, several meteors have been thought to have liquid in them (usually, melted ice) have entered the atmosphere, but they never reached the ground. Why not? Because the liquid expanded as it heated up, blowing the meteor apart. Why would this satellite bew any different?
Posted by jwrjr at February 21, 2008 11:15 AMEleven more months of this CRAP is too much to take!
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 21, 2008 06:54 AM
Shoot yourself.
Posted by jj at February 21, 2008 03:29 PMI'll hazard a guess or two, Howd. The most likely reason is that the added weight, while probably not a lot, is still added weight. Add to that the fact that it's not really (generally) a concern: 2/3 of the planet is ocean, a tiny fraction of the remaining 1/3 is inhabited, and most of the satellite burns up on re-entry anyway. Think of the shuttle: it is designed to be able to survive its nasty trip through the atmosphere with all kinds of heat shielding and whatnot, and a little gouge in that was all it took to tear it to shreds (which came down over land because it was trying to land, and still nobody hurt). It's easier to just use the last bit of a satellite's fuel to either put it into a lower orbit where it will eventually re-enter and burn up (for low orbits) or put it in a higher "graveyard obrit" if it's a geosynchronous sat. And of course, you don't want to just blow it up while it's up at a useful altitude for all the reasons everyone was so upset about the Chinese test.
Finally, it wouldn't have helped in this case: the whole reason this satellite was coming down was because it failed to boot up properly and we had no means of communicating with it.
Posted by Doosh at February 21, 2008 04:33 PMc&p from U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (just because I found it interesting)
Disposal for final mission orbits: A spacecraft or upper stage may be disposed of by one of three methods:
a. Atmospheric reentry option: Leave the structure in an orbit in which, using conservative projections for solar activity, atmospheric drag will limit the lifetime to no longer than 25 years after completion of mission. If drag enhancement devices are to be used to reduce the orbit lifetime, it should be demonstrated that such devices will significantly reduce the area-time product of the system or will not cause spacecraft or large debris to fragment if a collision occurs while the system is decaying from orbit. If a space structure is to be disposed of by reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere, the risk of human casualty will be less than 1 in 10,000.
b. Maneuvering to a storage orbit: At end of life the structure may be relocated to one of the following storage regimes:
I. Between LEO and MEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee altitude above 2000 km and apogee altitude below 19,700 km (500 km below semi-
synchronous altitude
II. Between MEO and GEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee altitude above 20,700 km and apogee altitude below 35,300 km (approximately 500 km above semi-synchronous altitude and 500 km below synchronous altitude.)
III. Above GEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee altitude above 36,100 km (approximately 300 km above synchronous altitude)
IV. Heliocentric, Earth-escape: Maneuver to remove the structure from Earth orbit,
into a heliocentric orbit.
Because of fuel gauging uncertainties near the end of mission, a program should use a maneuver strategy that reduces the risk of leaving the structure near an operational orbit regime.
c. Direct retrieval: Retrieve the structure and remove it from orbit as soon as practical after
completion of mission.
Thanks Doosh. Those sound like reasonable explanations. It is just that I heard that it cost up to $100M to shoot the thing down so I thought a fail safe self-destruct option might be cost effective.
Posted by Howd at February 21, 2008 08:13 PM