Slashdot Mirror
The United States Space Arsenal
ntmokey writes "When China tested a missile on its own satellite in January, the nation's aggressive statement immediately raised eyebrows among the world's other space-faring nations. Popular Mechanics looks at the implications of a conflict in space — including debris that could render space unusable for decades — and examines the United States' own space arsenal."
Whatever happened to the Strategic Defense Initiative?
The United States' Space Arsenal.
It really makes no sense for one state to be united.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Most spacecraft -- including spy sats -- are in low Earth orbit, which stretches 1240 miles into space. As the Chinese test proved, such targets could be hit with medium-range missiles tipped with crude kill devices. GPS satellites are far higher, orbiting at about 12,600 miles. Many communications sats are in the 22,000-mile range. Destroying them requires a much more powerful and sophisticated long-range ballistic missile
Most of the strategic targets are in a much safer place, sure they could easily knock out our spy satellites, but there are alternatives to those.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Judging by how humanity acts on Earth it was a logical step to bring war to space as sad as that is. what happened was China took out one of their clunky near-dead weather satellite with a missile [kinetic warhead I believe] which basically tore the hell out of it with sheer speed and mass. They failed a few times before but by the rate their military spending is going it wont be long before they actually out pace us [if not already] this combined with their long standing rivalry with us on economic, political and cyberspace issues we very much need to watch this a lot closer than Iraq/war on terror because of the real implications of possible future conflict.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
What I'd like to know is what can we do to clean up the space junk that is already up there? I know eventually everything will burn up in the atmosphere, but that could take hundreds of years. Maybe I've watched a few too many Sci-Fi shows, but could they send up a satellite to look for some debris and zap it with a laser to vaporize it?
What happens if we set of a nuke in the upper atmosphere? Will debris be vaporized? Would it cause other problems? Maybe I'm just being naive, but I think we need to think about this.
P.S. Space Roomba?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
What -could- be considered shocking is that they'd litter their own skies with junk debris, thus making it harder for them (and everyone else) to use space in the future.
Reagan was a moderate who stopped the hardliners like his vice-president Bush from arming space. Instead he listened to his people and worked towards arms reduction which ended the cold war.
He also didn't change his policy when he was shot by a complete looney.
Where did all the moderates go? Even Obama seems like a hardliner to me.
a war in space
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
so if china does it it's shocking, i wonder what it'd be called if you yanks did it
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"Today the United States blew up one of it's satellite creating an expanding cloud of debris. It's purpose was to show to the world it's military might and not to fuck around with them."
Yeah, I think shocking would cover it.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
we would call it history We yanks have had the demonstrated ability to shoot down satellites for more than 20 years.
What's shocking about the Chinese effort is that most folks tend to underestimate them in the progress they've made in their space program. What they don't take into account is that they are able to stand on the shoulders of giants...they won't need nearly as much time to develop theirs as we did since most of the "hard work" of basic designs and calcs has already been done and is readily available in textbooks. All it takes is money and will at this point...something they have plenty of due to the trade imbalance and their desire to be taken seriously as a world power.
I forget the name but it was written years and years ago. It's from the perspective of a young canadian watching the first return trip to space since WWIII. He thinks back to how things were before the war, the assumptions made around the globe. The US and USSR were so intent on mutually annihilating each other that no concern was given to any other nation, including the one most of the warheads would be flying over. The Canadians developed a secret WWIII plan. Special tunnels were carved into mountains, angled at the trajectories the missiles would be sure to follow over the pole. Gigantic atom bombs were created in a secret program. These bombs were placed at the bottom of the tunnels and the intervening space was filled with aerodynamic shrapnel. When the button was finally pushed and the missiles flew on their way, the Canadians pressed a button of their own. Their bombs went off and powered what were essentially giant shotguns, blasting debris into unstable orbits. The blast destroyed most of the warheads in the first exchange and continued to remove large fractions of each subsequent exchange. There was a bit of luck with bombers being more vulnerable to interception than prewar doctrine had anticipated with the net result being both sides running out of weapons before civilization was destroyed.
So our narrator is watching the first rocket trying to get back into space in the twenty years since the war. The night sky is still full of shooting stars as the debris comes back down into the atmosphere. All but the highest of the pre-war satellites were destroyed and nothing new has been able to survive making it through the shrapnel cloud. The thought is that most of it will deorbit in the next hundred or so years. The hope is that armored rockets might be able to survive impacts. The narrator sees this new rocket struck by debris and destroyed, the astronauts lost along with it. Mankind survived the war but lost space in the process.
The story probably isn't as scientifically accurate as one could hope but it still has emotional impact, an visceral truthiness.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Parting a little from the premise of the article's main idea, I can't help but point this out...
With the mention of "space debris", making space unusable: Well, wouldn't this give us a brief glimpse into the possible job descriptions of the future? Crews of "space garbagemen" drifting off into the abyss to clean up this debris.
It seems quite interesting to think about it. What new occupations will arise if space, or another planet were conquered and colonized? Would there be scores of men, eager to become a part of this great new frontier? Will they become unionized?
We can only speculate.
Actually, The Elements of Style expressly contradicts you. It states that one should use the form "Chris's book" unless the proper noun is a biblical persona. So "Moses' book" or "Jesus' book" is proper.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
> Of course, it helped that the enemy that we faced was morally bankrupt
> and couldn't have possibly won the cold war.
Yup, but the genuis of RWR was in realizing that the way to defeat the Soviets was by breaking the taboo on SAYING that. Before Reagan 'all right thinking people' believed: (or were too afraid to disagree with in public)
1. That socialism was the future.
2. That the Cold War was either just a dick size contest between two 'great powers; equally bent on world domination' or just the death rattle of the West as we finally accepted the socialist future. Basically either a moral equivelence or the West as villian.
Reagan was having none of that crap, he pronounced the Soviets as "The focus of evil in the modern world", "destined for the dustbin of history" and summed up the Cold Was simply as "We win, they lose."
By actually saying these things it forced people to either accept it or argue against it. Because when the Cold War was just a dick size contest most of Europe could straddle the fence or even dangle their feet over the wall onto the Soviet side. But once Reagan called em 'Evil" those people had few choices. Argue that they weren't evil (a very hard argument to make) or admit it and say "yay evil!" Morally bankrupt people (the French come to mind) don't mind making a deal with the devil, so long as people don't KNOW they are making a deal with the devil, appearances matter.
So yes, SDI, the defense buildup, the 600 ship navy, etc. helped financially bankrupt the Soviets. Arming the Afgans and causing the 'invincibility' of the Soviet military machine to come into question helped defeat the Soviets. But the biggest weapon was the Will & the Word. Ronald reagan's having the courage and clarity of moral vision to speak truth to power forced Evil to retreat.
The current problem's solution is equally obvious.
Democrat delenda est
...when he said "Great, kid. Don't get cocky"
www.purevolume.com/martyd
Popular Mechanics looks at the implications of a conflict in space -- including debris that could render space unusable for decades
If there is a conflict big enough to F-up space, I am sure that there will be far worse problems back home such that space junk would be the least of our worries.
Table-ized A.I.
Heh, no. There are no air-to-air missiles in the U.S. inventory with enough energy to do it "accidentally"...the AIM-54 (phoenix) would be the only one that would *remotely* have a snowball's chance in hell of making it that high, and you'd have to put the plane into a ballistic profile at max attainable altitude to do it..hardly an "accidental" scenario. Even then, there's no way the phoenix would have enough umph to go the additional 100+ miles straight up (I'd have to do the calcs to figure it's max altitude, and I'm feeling lazy tonight...but since it only has a max *horizontal* range of a little over 100 miles it's pretty clear that traveling 100 miles vertically against gravity isn't going to happen)...especially considering it only has aerodynamic surfaces for guidance so there'd be no way for it to maintain course at extreme altitude and would corkscrew wildly like an inflated balloon that's been let go to fly about the room while the solid booster was burning. Not to mention the F-14 (the only plane that carried the missile) doesn't have an optimal thrust/weight ratio that would provide best initial energy to the missile. The YF-12 was to carry a predecessor phoenix called the AIM-47 that had a bit longer range, but it's basically the same story besides the fact that both were very short-lived projects. The Soviets, on the other hand, had a couple of missiles that might have come closer...the ones that were designed to kill the SR-71. A decent write-up on several of these missiles can be found here though I haven't cross-checked all the facts for accuracy.
n ). That was a specially-made missile for the task..and its success was no accident.
Instead, I think you are referring to the ASAT tests conducted by the Air Force using a F-15 in the 1980's (I linked it in my post above, but here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapo
David Parnas, a Software Scientist, who formerly served on SDI Committees and who had no moral qualms about death and destricion ended up quitting SDI and debunking it when he realized the whole program wasn't plausible and a huge waste. It still isn't BTW, but politicians don't get science: billions of dollars regularly flushed down the toilet after it.
e rs/parnas_acm_85.pdfd /
http://klabs.org/richcontent/software_content/pap
http://www.wordyard.com/2007/01/05/parnas-sdi/fee
What? All of it?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
> so if china does it it's shocking, i wonder what it'd be called if you yanks did it
Successful. If by "you yanks" you mean the US Air Force. They launched the Vought ASM-135A ASAT against a "retired communications satellite" from an F-15 in 1985 and killed it. Note this was an air launched weapon (the "could this be next?" question on the article), not rocket launched as was the Chinese weapon.
If by "you yanks" you mean the US scientists who were at the time using the Solwind research satellite that the USAF actually shot down, I suppose it'd be called "what the fuck happened to our satellite?", until they figured out what happened. At that point it probably became "what the fuck did you do that to our satellite for?"
Since the official story is still that they shot down a retired communications satellite, rather than acknowledging the actual kill (the answer to the above questions being essentially "What satellite? Shut the fuck up."), we've no way to know if they missed their target and the ASAT locked onto Solwind by mistake, or if they just took out a target of opportunity that wouldn't cost them anything. Both are disturbing in their own way.
There's also no word on how much debris was created by Solwind's destruction. The US Space Surveillance Network knows they answer, but they're not saying. They are, after all, operated primarily by the USAF.
Although the ASM-135A ASAT project was cancelled soon after the Solwind kill, there's no reason to expect the USAF stopped ASAT development. The ASM-135A was built from an AGM-69 SRAM and Vought Scout B fourth stage (a Thiokol Altair III motor). These had both been operational for more than a decade when they put the ASAT together. They could have used much newer and more powerful, already operational hardware the very next day, taking it off the active armament shelf, bypassing the messy PR problem of using a defense contractor directly and so having to admit they launched something. The Vought project proved the feasibility based on older hardware. The US military doesn't readily let go of a proven idea they deem necessary unless it has something better to replace it.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
We need MEGAMAID!
Since I already modded a different section of the topic, I'm forced to reply anonymously. I was thinking of just modding you as troll, but that would be incorrect - you're just flat out wrong.
The economy isn't tanking, but the overall population isn't benefiting. Median salary has increased by less than inflation in the last 5-6 years, while average salary has gone up. Employees are taking on more risks by having to pay larger health insurance premiums with larger deductibles. What does this mean? The wealthy are getting wealthier, the middle class is getting squeezed. Not the epitome of a tanking economy, but it ain't pretty either.
We don't have the capability of dealing with another war. According to the generals of the Army Reserve, we are at a breaking point with the troops - essentially, we can't stretch the troops any thinner than we are doing now without significantly lowering the quality of the overall force. Another war can only be fought by withdrawing troops from Iraq, which would mean we're essentially giving up on Iraq. Furthermore, just nuking a place is not a proper response either. You've apparently forgotten the saying "War is just diplomacy with other means." Nuking another country would mean we'd essentially be pariahs for the foreseeable future. Is that the price you want to pay? I suspect you'll be like every other warhawk who is now clamoring for a troop return because the war isn't working: too stupid to see the consequences of your actions, but not afraid of blaming others for when the chickens come home to roost.
We're not defenseless. But we're also incapable of dealing with a significant challenge in another country - not unless we just pull up shop and move the troops elsewhere. And don't forget that those troops have been redeployed at least once, and are probably on an 18 months tour right now. Life is indeed not bad. But if you think that we can do anything to Iran outside of diplomatic pressure, you're just as ignorant as Bush was when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. And the consequences would be similarly disastrous.
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
Truman was a surprise (though he was very low rated in his day). Sense then they have learned to select better (worse) V.P.s
Johnson was another exception. Kennedy selected well, no one but a madman or Johnson himself would have considered assassinating JFK. But again lessons were learned, which is why no matter what happens Hillary will not be V.P. No one has that kind of death wish.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It wasn't shocking to me personally...but it was shocking to a lot of folks in the West who fancy themselves "experts" in the capabilities and motivations of the Chinese...including the authors of the article cited. The same pundits who think China is still a land of rice farmers and bicycles when it is in actuality becoming quite the economic and military powerhouse paid for in large part by the generosity (or stupidity?) of the completely insane trade policies between China and the U.S. Personally, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner...technologically it's not that difficult for a nation that has already figured out ICBMs and, as I stated previously, such an accomplishment really only takes money and will since the rocket technology is well-known and suitable guidance systems are practically commodities these days. I think the timing was chosen to coincide with a time of American weakness around the world...to usher in an era of "Here we are, take notice" by the Chinese.
In the end, it's more shocking that it is shocking to anyone...shows the level of ignorance that permeates the folks whose job it is to actually know about this kind of stuff. But that seems to be a re-occurring theme as of late here the States...*sigh*
"...by the rate their military spending is going it wont be long before they actually out pace us [if not already]..."
i tary-report_n.htm
That turns out not to be the case. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-11-mil
Note that the USA spent about $529 billion on armaments in 2006, whereas China spent nearly $50 billion - maybe 9 percent as much, 9.5 percent at most. When you bear in mind that China has about four times as many people as the USA, the disparity becomes even more glaring. At least the USA no longer spends more on arms than the rest of the world combined. In 2006 it contributed a mere 46% of the world total.
As one reader of US Today's article ("The Mick") points out: "The United States spends $40 per person on defense for every $1 China does. I don't see why China's spending is such a big deal particularly because it not only has a large land mass to defend, but it borders on near-lawless Afghanistan and a few near-lawless former members of the Soviet Union".
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
In some cases, the good are the strong, and the strong are the good. If that frightens you, maybe you're not a part of either group.
If you aren't frightened by people that confuse strength with righteousness, then you almost certainly can't be counted amongst be the righteous. Might doesn't not make right, nor does it prove it.
The winner is not always the just, but history will do its best to remember them that way.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I don't know... me working for lazy people's gain seems fairly evil to me. Maybe it's just Ayn Rand talking though.
I don't know... me letting people starve in the street 'cause I consider them lazy seems fairly evil to me. Maybe it's just Jesus talking though.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").