US Satellites Dodging Chinese Missile Debris

GSGKT writes "Today's Washington Times runs a story about the increasing problem with space junk orbiting the earth. Debris from the anti-satellite missile test by the Chinese military last year threatens the integrity of more than 800 operating satellites, half of them belonging to the US. Two orbiting U.S. spacecraft were forced to change course to avoid being damaged soon after the incident. Air Force Brig. Gen. Ted Kresge, director of air, space and information operations at the Air Force Space Command in Colorado, estimates that "essentially (Chinese anti-satellite tests) increase the amount of space debris orbiting the Earth by about 20 percent", and the debris might threaten spacecraft for up to 100 years."

Comments

Well

[Icarus1919]

On the other hand, it looks like the missiles really do work.

Re:Well

[andyfrommk]

The link in the summary points to page two of the article, here is the whole article

Re:Well

[porkchop_d_clown]

made the space over China less habitable to spy satellites

You're not real familiar with how orbits work, are you?

Since that crap is in low orbit, I'm pretty sure it circles the entire planet every couple of hours.

Unless, of course, the Chinese have developed some sort of non-newtonian thruster system that lets their space trash hover in one place.

Re:Well

[CrazedWalrus]

If that wasn't the intended effect and was just a fortuitous (for them) side-effect, you can bet they've learned the lesson, and that it *will* be the intended effect next time.

"We didn't attack your satellites, we attacked our own (*cough*and used it to create a floating fragmentation grenade*cough*)"

Re:Well

[rpj1288]

Once every 90-odd minutes, actually.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, if they have decided they will never need satellites of their own.

Re:Well

[The_Xnuiem]

Unless, of course, the Chinese have developed some sort of non-Newtonian thruster system that lets their space trash hover in one place.

Um...my DirectTV satellite does just that. It's called a geostationary orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit. It has been around for quite some time and is used for most telecommunication satellite. It does require thrusters here and there due to debris, solar winds, etc... but for the most part it just sits in one place above the earth and appears stationary to an observer on the ground.

Re:Well

[nilbud]

Why post a link without reading it yourself?

Re:Well

[richardkelleher]

I didn't read the article. Is the space trash in geosynchronous orbit. If not then the trash isn't just sitting over China but making it hazardous all over the place. I think it is time to send up a space garbage truck to start cleaning this crap up.

Re:Well

[AJWM]

but for the most part it just sits in one place above the earth

As long as that one place is somewhere on the equator, yes -- which China isn't.

Anyway geostationary orbit is about 22000 miles higher up than the orbits of the space trash and other satellites of interest.

Re:Well

[S.O.B.]

The satellite and resulting debris field in question are in low Earth orbit not geostationary orbit and therefore do not remain over the same location on Earth.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

"We didn't attack your satellites, we attacked our own (*cough*and used it to create a floating fragmentation grenade*cough*)"

Until the debris ends up taking out one of their own satellites.

Re:Well

[HiThere]

Not a garbage truck, but a recycling truck. Wad it together and boot it into a slightly higher orbit, so it can be used later for manufacturing.

Re:Well

[russotto]

Naa, just wait until the cloud is in the right part of the orbit and detonate a big nuke in the upper atmosphere. This temporarily expands a portion of the upper atmosphere, causing the orbits of the junk to degrade faster. Pick the place such that the fallout falls on the vacation homes for the top Chinese officials. Nuclear weapons... is there anything they can't do?

Re:Well

[tabrnaker]

Perhaps they were tests. It's not like it isn't something the states hasn't done before. Perhaps it's step 23 in the 'building anger towards china' initiative that the states has planned. Granted, china makes it easy, they're definitely less skilled at hiding their greed and foul business practices, nothing like the US's stealth approach. Haha, both kill their own citizens, however, they deny it in the US and China just says 'get over it'.

Re:Well

[dbIII]

However think of what sort of satellites are in low orbits as the earlier poster did. Highly elliptical orbits that take satellites low are what spy satellites do because optical resolution at a wavelength (eg. visual light) is ultimately limited by distance - the closer you get the more you can see. They have to get a lot lower than any other satellites and only manage to stay up there for a long time due to having orbits around the earth that resemble a comet around the sun. The debris would of course create problems for more than just the ones that take a look at China.

Re:Well

[easyTree]

Well, the USanians put more effort in to the hollywood-style song and dance when they're [blatantly] lying, so they get points for that. The truth is a far more bland affair.

Re:Well

[IT]

Well, there's not much the US can complain about since it has refused to sign an international treaty banning space weapons advocated by the Chinese and Russians. Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/asia/18cnd-china.htm

Re:Well

[rcw-home]

Highly elliptical orbits that take satellites low are what spy satellites do because optical resolution at a wavelength (eg. visual light) is ultimately limited by distance

Such an orbit would mean the satellite is only at perigee a small percent of the time. Those orbits are great for maintaining communications coverage over a specific area from apogee using a very small satellite constellation. A major government, on the other hand, is just going to put a spy satellite in a low polar orbit so it can cover the entire globe. When it burns up, they'll probably have better optics technology ready for its replacement anyway.

Re:Well

[dbIII]

A polar orbit does not go low enough for the reasons described above. Specific spy sattelites are not set in orbit to monitor the entire globe either but are directed to specific areas.

Re:Well

[rcw-home]

A polar orbit does not go low enough for the reasons described above. Specific spy sattelites are not set in orbit to monitor the entire globe either but are directed to specific areas.

Are you sure about that?

Re:Well

[sumdumass]

Are you shure a space weapons treaty would cover a earth based weapon that goes into space? I mean the missile China launched was launched from earth, the only difference between hitting a satellite and another spot on earth is the deliberate targeting of either.

that being said, I don't think we should sign on to anything like that either. There will come a time when we need weapons in space. Maybe not to attack other countries but maybe to defend satellites or whatever. Then of course, we have to worry about when mars attacks.

Re:Well

[dbIII]

Yes I am sure about that. There are satellites that are in highly elliptical orbits so they can get closer than those in the links above and resolve finer details. They would not last very long if they spent their entire time at the low point of the orbit but they can stay in orbit for a long time by spending most of the time far above the atmosphere. This stuff was being taught in undergraduate mechanical engineering twenty years ago - I have it from my lecture notes, but orbits are simple enough that you could learn about them in high school. You dont't even need to open a book - you can learn about it on wikipedia now under "Molniya orbits".

I'm sorry but proof by irrelvant example and an insinuation of ignoranance is not going to work on a forum with a lot of readers.

Re:Well

[dbIII]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but it appears the poster above has linked the Molniya orbits entry but missed a few things. Take a look at the "Uses" section there and it will be clear what I was talking about before.

Re:Well

[eonlabs]

It does make it less habitable to spy satellites over China. It's making it less habitable for satellites in general over the planet. That doesn't exclude spy satellites, nor does it exclude the space over China.

In the same breath, yeah, it probably does orbit the earth every couple of hours.

Non-newtonian thrusters are possible, with Einsteinian physics.

Oh, and the obligatory:

I for one welcome our Non-newtonian overlords.

Anti-spy satellite missiles
???
profit?

Re:Well

[Skuld-Chan]

Low earth orbits are typically polar btw - so yeah the debris field will eventually cross China every 12 hours (give or take - depending on the height).

Re:Well

[MACC]

actually Bush said:

      "Space is ours to decide on."

insinuating that select nations
would face active denial
to space access by the US.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/19/bush_asserts_right_to_deny_space_access/

and the Chinese said:

        Think again.

It is still a lot cheaper and easier
to take stuff down than to get it up
in the first place.
Jerry Pournelle has understood this
quite a while ago.( and used it in his
CoDo Novels and still boasting to have
advised Reagan on Star Wars )
And the US is quite a lot more dependent
on Space Comms Structures than the Chinese
are or anyone else at that.

G!
MACC

Re:Well

[rcw-home]

it appears the poster above has linked the Molniya orbits entry but missed a few things. Take a look at the "Uses" section

Molniya orbits are used by communications satellites, not spy satellites, For example, Wikipedia notes that the Sirius network uses similar Tundra orbits - this allows it 24 hour coverage of the US with only 3 satellites. Lots of data from spy satellites is relayed to the destination country using comm satellites in Molniya orbits. The interesting part of the Molniya orbit is the apogee, not the perigee.

Irrelevant example? My examples were globalsecurity.org's entire list of active US military reconaissance spacecraft. If you don't believe me, then by all means do your own research, find the orbit data, find some of it that supports your assertions, and reply with references.

Re:Well

[porkchop_d_clown]

Um...my DirectTV satellite does just that.

Ummm... Communications satellites aren't in low orbits and geosynchronous orbits only work over the equator. Feel free to read that article you linked to, because I've been familiar with these concepts for more than 30 years now.

Re:Well

[Dun Malg]

My examples were globalsecurity.org's entire list of active US military reconaissance spacecraft. If you don't believe me, then by all means do your own research, find the orbit data, find some of it that supports your assertions, and reply with references. From your link, in the article on the current state of the art KH-12:

"USA 6 [a KH-11 launched 4 December 1984] introduced the approx 270 km x 1000 km orbit that has been the standard (more or less) ever since. Earlier KH-11s had the same perigee, but their apogee was about 500 km. The higher apogee reduces drag, thus conserving propellant, one of the factors that affect a spacecraft's useful life."

If 270 x 100 kilometers isn't elliptical, I don't know what is.

Re:Well

[rcw-home]

If 270 x 100 kilometers isn't elliptical, I don't know what is.

Typos aside, that's 6378+270 kilometers at perigee and 6378+1000 kilometers at apogee. 1-2/((7378/6648)+1)=.052. For reference, earth's orbit around the sun has an eccentricity of 0.0167, and the moon's orbit around the earth is 0.0554.

Granted, all circles are ellipses, and all orbits have some eccentricity, however minute, but if you held up a picture of that USA 6 orbit and asked people to name the shape, they'd call it a circle. If they had a ruler handy, they might call it "slightly elliptical", but definitely not "highly elliptical" - your choice of words:

Highly elliptical orbits that take satellites low are what spy satellites do

There are satellites that are in highly elliptical orbits so they can get closer than those in the links above

Since "highly" is a subjective word, I might as well just throw out my opinion and let you do the same:

• Any ellipse that is less eccentric than this is circular.
  
• Any ellipse with an eccentricity less than .1 is "slightly elliptical".
  
• Any elliptical earth orbit with one of the foci above earth's surface is "highly elliptical".
  

Re:Well

[dbIII]

FGS you supplied the link yourself above just read it! All this trouble just to try to show that simple introductory material on satellites is wrong.

Re:Well

[Gospodin]

We haven't signed a treaty banning air-to-air missiles, either. By your logic, we shouldn't have complained about the Russian shoot-down of Korean Air Flight 007. Right?

Re:Well

[rcw-home]

FGS you supplied the link yourself above just read it!

I'll presume you're talking about the Molniya orbit link. I didn't fully explain myself when I intentionally skipped over the Uses section. Here's a list of what that section mentions and why:

The same orbits, with slight adjustments, were also used by some Soviet spy satellites, with the apogee point over the continental United States (CONUS)

An apogee above the continental US puts your perigee (where you argue the photographs are being taken) over the Southern Ocean.

One such example is the US-KS early-warning satellite that watches for US missile launches

This (and likely the one above as well) is a missile launch detection satellite. While such a satellite is indeed a spy satellite, that's not what I was discussing and not what I assumed you were discussing either (if that's not the case, then my apologies). I was discussing imagery intelligence satellites.

The US has also made some use of the Molniya orbits for spy satellites of their own. The same long loitering time over high latitudes that makes them useful for broadcasting communications in Russia makes them just as useful for listening to Russian communications.

Again, this mentions the apogee as the interesting point of the orbit, and these are not imagery intelligence satellites.

Electronic intelligence satellites called Jumpseat and their successors called Trumpet are also reported to use Molniya orbits.

Again, not imagery intelligence satellites.

Another use is the Satellite Data System (SDS), which relays data from spy satellites operating over Russia back to the US download sites for processing.

Same thing. I mentioned this particular use in an earlier reply.

It seems the Uses section makes no reference to perigee at all.

All this trouble just to try to show that simple introductory material on satellites is wrong.

I feel the same way you do, so this will be my last post in this thread.

Re:Well

[dbIII]

Consider that if the primary role of a system is to take high resolution images a very high altitude is undesirable. You are part of the way there since you now know the shape of the orbit. One consequence of this orbit is that large photovoltaic arrays are not possible due to some air resistance at the low point of the orbit - so they have to use smaller power sources like the nuclear material that was famously in the Kosmos satellite that impacted in Canada. Satellites are interesting if you take the trouble to learn about them.

Huh?

[Skuldo]

Why does it say Chinese junk in the title, if half is American?

Re:Huh?

[NonSequor]

Half of the threatened satellites are American owned, not half of the debris.

Re:Huh?

[palegray.net]

Because our junk isn't the result of intentionally detonating explosives in space with the aim of developing technologies designed to disrupt communications, which is kinda the point of the story.

Re:Huh?

[palegray.net]

Aw crap, somebody read the article :).

Re:Huh?

[Skuldo]

Someone had to :p

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is all plastic Happy Meal toys?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's make sure we're clear here - the satellites in jeopardy do NOT all belong to the US government, nor are they spy satellites - they are commercial satellites; when someone else's stupid actions (e.g. Chinese anti-sat tests) impacts YOUR job and livelihood, you'd be as pissed about this as my coworkers and I (yes, I work for a US commercial satellite operator).

Re:Huh?

[vtcodger]

Assuming that Reverend Moon's right wing slag sheet has something right for once, half the debris threatening satellites being American wouldn't be far off since almost all of the 80% that was there prior to the Chinese test was put there over the past 50 years by the US and USSR/Russia. But the Chinese test really does seem to have been irresponsible. Presumably they could just as easily have done their test at with a lower altitude target where the majority of the debris would have decayed and burned up in the atmosphere in a few hours, weeks or months.

Does point out a problem with space warfare though. With current technologies or anything resembling them, there's only going to be one battle and a short one at that. After a few dozen satellite destructions, there will likely be so much junk in orbit that near earth satellite lifetimes will be measured in weeks and manned spaceflight will be ill advised for decades or maybe centuries.

Re:Huh?

[tabrnaker]

Nah, you guys spent more money to develop satellite disabling technologies that don't require explosives. Always a bit slow the americans, i guess that's why they're in so much debt. You know, russian pencil to US space pen. The states just gets pissed off when everybody solves the same problem as them at a billionth of the price. So, why the anger building propaganda NOW?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were not such an asshat you would have read a bit about the Space Pen and the risk of using pencils in zero-g. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9CF01C5C-E7F2-99DF-3EEFFCD06138AEC4

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, russian pencil to US space pen You idiot. Out of all the examples you could use, you use one that has been proven time and time again to be an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

Re:Huh?

[FateStayNight]

snopes vs scientific american. I would believe scientific american.

Re:Huh?

[tabrnaker]

Does it really matter? Everybody knows what i mean. We're just humans having a conversation, not writing stuffy crap for scientific journals :) Is anybody seriously going to argue that the US doesn't have pointless make work projects? Well, not totally pointless, generally good if they increase consumption :)

Re:Huh?

[DigiShaman]

...if half is American?

"Made in China" no doubt written all over them. Chinese Junk indeed.

Re:Huh?

[Richard_at_work]

You mean the 1958 US test of a nuclear anti-satellite weapon didn't produce any junk, despite disabling several satellites? How about the 1985 ASM-135 ASAT against an obsolete US satellite, which resulted in a successful interception and destruction of the target? Get off your high horse.

Re:Huh?

[Dun Malg]

snopes vs scientific american. I would believe scientific american. Then you're an idiot, because Scientific American is wrong and, faced with evidence showing this to be the case, you handwave it and make an Appeal to Authority. Both Fisher and NASA confirm what Snopes says. Are NASA, Fisher, and Snopes all in on a conspiracy to make both you and Scientific American look foolish? Did Scientific American even say/I. that? You provide no links, after all...

Re:Huh?

[MrNaz]

Write to your congressman and ask him to advocate a more conciliatory and cooperative foreign policy, and perhaps other nations will change their view of you as a threat and stop wanting to break all your toys.
Yours truly,
The voice of reason.

Re:Huh?

[Downside]

"Half of the threatened satellites are American owned, not half of the debris."

Yes, but the article said the test cased 20% increase in the debris.

That means that 85% of the (current total of) debris already existed, and 15% is Chinese from the test.

The rest is presumably mostly US and old Soviet Union stuff as I expect they were less careful and competent in the 60s than they are now. I believe that around 5% is natural.

So, I would guess it's something like:
20% Chinese
5% EU
35% US
35% USSR
5% Natural

Of course, the difference with the Chinese test is that it was deliberate action, whereas the others are accidental.

Stuart

Re:Huh?

[IdeaMan]

Co-operation did not stop Hitler.
Conciliatory did not bring down the wall.
Bullies must be stood up to, and made to pay the price for their misdeeds, or they will use the fact that they got away with it last time to do something worse next.
We need Laws because people on average are inherently evil.

Sounds like a treaty banning testing of anti-satellite weapons is in order. I don't know what the penalty should be though. De-orbiting 5 of their satellites perhaps?

Possible outcome.

[palegray.net]

If the Chinese keep up with this sort of behavior, they might just find themselves dodging some new missile debris. All it could take is some serious impact to American communications to tip off a set of rather unpleasant results.

Re:Possible outcome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, it's not *my* fault your communication system relies on orbital probes having a pristine outer space!

Re:Possible outcome.

[gmack]

Which would risk more debris in the atmosphere as the Chinese target every American spy satellite they find to erase the American technical advantage to one of pure numbers where the Chinese have the advantage.

The US military is completely dependant on their technology and the rest of the world knows it. Do their cruise missiles even work without GPS?

Any war by the US against a significantly developed nation runs the risk of rendering space completely useless for the next century. Think about the collateral damage from such a war taking out weather/TV/communications on top of the GPS which would almost certainly be targeted on purpose. The economic damage from that stupidity would be huge.

Letting the Americans know that was most likely a major reason behind the missile test in the first place and it's also why the Americans won't retaliate.

Re:Possible outcome.

[Firethorn]

Do their cruise missiles even work without GPS?

Yes, they do.

Re:Possible outcome.

[j. andrew rogers]

"The US military is completely dependant on their technology and the rest of the world knows it. Do their cruise missiles even work without GPS?"

The US has no weapon systems that are GPS guided and never has, precisely because it is vulnerable. The Chinese may have just now gotten around to developing anti-satellite technology, but the Soviet Union had it ages ago.

The core guidance package of US weapon systems is extremely high precision inertial navigation (all systems described as "GPS-guided" are actually inertial -- the media is a bit stupid about these things, as GPS is an optional untrusted overlay on inertial navigation systems). Some intelligent terrain following weapons also use optical geo-referencing. As a matter of policy going back to the Soviet Union days, the US military machine views satellite systems as "nice to have" but its infrastructure is pervasively designed to operate under the presumption that there are no satellites in orbit. The vulnerability of the US military to massive system outages is greatly overstated; the Soviet Union was a much bigger threat on this scale than the Chinese are, and the US military has always been pretty religious about designing systems whose functionality was robust and in the face of rapidly degrading military infrastructure and relatively decentralized. It is easy to forget it, but the Chinese have nothing on the old Soviet Union in terms of technology and force numbers, and that was the doctrinal enemy of much of the modern US military.

Re:Possible outcome.

[BattleCat]

Well, You didn't provided your sources, but I've heard that at least during the Iraqi Freedom Tomahawks were using GPS-assisted targeting until Iraqis obtained GPS jammers, after that precision was highly degraded and Tomahawks targeting systems switched to landscape-image-recognition modes, but landscape here lacks highly distinguishable features, every dune looks like others, and except rivers (Tigris) there are almost none notable landscape features. Highly precise inertial guidance, OTOH, needs at least highly precise launch coordinates, and those can be obtained via either stargazing or GPS usage (yes, I'm oversimplifying, but you've got an idea).

Re:Possible outcome.

[arse maker]

There was an interesting peice on wired about just this. http://blog.wired.com/defense/eye_on_china/index.html It seems well informed, puts in perspective the huge challenge of shooting down a satalite, well more accurately, doing it without america knowing you will do it. The US was well aware the chinese were going to launch an ASAT. The amount of missles required to take down all the GPS satalites (besides the fact 1/2 are on the side of the plannet when you attack) means you are going to give you hand away, after the first strike america will have more then enough to destroy all your major launch sites before you can do anything. China might have the worlds largest army, but america is surrounded by one big mofo moat, filled with the worlds most powerful navy :)

Re:Possible outcome.

[g_goblin]

Oh America can retaliate. As a previous poster said, pull all American companies from China. It's non-military and its affects China where it hurts most - the pocket book. Their economy would start to crumble quickly.

Re:Possible outcome.

[STrinity]

All the anti-sat weapons I've read about can only reach LEO, which makes them good against the majority of satellites up there, but not GPS, which are MEO, or comm sats, which are geosync.

Re:Possible outcome.

[Anonymous Coward]

GPS is in a much higher orbit. All the affected satellites, at least at this level of technology, are low-earth orbit, on the order of 100mi above the surface of the earth. Things like weather satellites, communications satellites, your precious TV (all geostationary orbit) and GPS will be just fine. Obviously, being in much higher orbits, they are also much harder to directly target than are low-earth orbit satellites.

Further, there's so much more open space in higher orbits, filling them with junk would take much longer anyway.

Re:Possible outcome.

[Guppy06]

"one of pure numbers where the Chinese have the advantage."

Can they swim?

"Do their cruise missiles even work without GPS?"

Since they tend to predate the GPS constellation, I'd imagine so.

"Any war by the US against a significantly developed nation runs the risk of rendering space completely useless for the next century."

If satellites require constant readjustment to compensate for drag (atmospheric, gravitational, etc.) and eventually have to be replaced after a few years as they run out of maneuvering fuel and fall out of orbit, why shouldn't the same be true of the debris?

"The economic damage from that stupidity would be huge."

1913 called, yadda.

Re:Possible outcome.

[nilbud]

No it wouldn't, it would destroy the US economy in a heartbeat.

Re:Possible outcome.

[WED Fan]

but I've heard that...

Yeah, many great statements have always followed that opening.

Consider that GPS, when functional, is used to seed initial starting positions, but inertial nav packs are used to provide guidance. Other back up systems include other inertial nav packs, stationary fixes, and celestial navigation.

Consider that the GPS system can be knocked out. But, it's pretty damned hard to change the known locations of fixed locations, its damn near impossible to block good old centuries proved navigation by heavenly objects (unless the Chinese have an unknown deal with Klingons and Vogons) and with modern time keeping and the ability to shoot the stars with computer, it is surprising accurate.

Had you involved yourself at all with your country's military, beyond letting the press inform you, you'd have never made this mistake.

But, you can go on with your, "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious."

Pullllease, "I heard that..."

Re:Possible outcome.

[Anonymous Coward]

GPS guidance on our JDAM kits and cruise missiles allow America to target military facilities that are in the midst of civilian areas. If we lose GPS then we'll have to go back to a more ham-fisted approach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II

Not that the Chinese give a damn about their civilians, but we'd be forced to destroy entire towns and cities rather than just buildings and compounds.

Re:Possible outcome.

[tabrnaker]

ah, so that's why they miss.

Re:Possible outcome.

[tabrnaker]

Gosh, why do all these posts turn out about war? What is the point of this article a year after the fact? Wait, the military wants funding? Congress wouldn't give them their missiles which (roughly paraphrased) 'might allow us to hit something quickly, but not guaranteed'. Don't you love the obfuscation abilities of English, best language for lying and misdirection. What's that? They states didn't do anything because they didn't want to admit to spying? What's that? The states is angry that China is trying to own space above china? Because right now, that's the states playing field. What's that? The states is angry that someone else made 1/5th of the garbage. We can't let somebody else be a bigger polluter than the states can we? The states is just jealous, because China is catching up in war crimes, civilian deaths, and global pollution. Who's going to fear the states when China comes to power??

Re:Possible outcome.

[RobBebop]

its damn near impossible to block good old centuries proved navigation by heavenly objects

Clouds. But I'll give you a pass because the systems that rely on stars to navigate fly above the clouds.

Re:Possible outcome.

[Anonymous Coward]

China lacks the infrastructure and sheer amount of equipment to "target every American spy satellite." For a good analysis of the first few rounds of a possible space-war with China, read the following:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-chin.html

Of course we live in the present, and capabilities are constantly changing. You don't build this sort of infrastructure in a day, though.

Re:Possible outcome.

[MadnessASAP]

*cough*JDAM*cough*Tomahawk*cough*F-16*cough*
Sorry got something stupid stuck in my throat. Anyways as I was saying the US has plenty of weapons sytems that use GPS systems and would either become completely ineffective or seriously crippled without it.

Re:Possible outcome.

[j. andrew rogers]

"*cough*JDAM*cough*Tomahawk*cough*F-16*cough*
Sorry got something stupid stuck in my throat. Anyways as I was saying the US has plenty of weapons sytems that use GPS systems and would either become completely ineffective or seriously crippled without it."

As was pointed out elsewhere, neither JDAMs nor Tomahawks (nor F16s for that matter) use GPS guidance -- only technically ignorant tools claim that any US weapon systems use GPS guidance. Even rudimentary research shows that systems like JDAMs and Tomahawk get their navigation data from ultra-precise laser ring interferometers (an extremely precise solid-state optical accelerometer with a purpose similar to mechanical gyroscopes), with the ability to optionally accept GPS fine-tuning corrections. The precision of the inertial systems is classified, but it is generally known that it is apparently not much worse than the GPS corrected version for weapon targeting purposes (they may have already converged for all we know -- INS has been continuously improved, and it wasn't bad to start with). Note that this is also why jamming or toying with the GPS signal does not send bombs and such flying way off course; the inertial system only accepts corrections within the computed error bars of its own positioning data. If the GPS signal is outside those bars, the navigation system assumes the GPS has been compromised.

I just gotta love the armchair weapon designers who think that of the thousands of bright engineers that built all these weapons, it never occurred to anyone that someone might jam or disable the weak RF signal that is GPS. GPS is a convenience, not a necessity, and it would only have small impact on the efficacy of American weaponry -- by design. The reason the US military embeds inertial navigation in everything is precisely because it is essentially impervious to countermeasures short of altering the physics of the universe. For all we know, nominal GPS weapon targeting is largely for show and indirection, since it costs next to nothing to strap a GPS receiver on an inertial navigation system (and it would seem to have worked in that case, considering how much breathless idiocy is fixated on GPS weapon targeting).

As a point of trivia, the laser inertial navigation systems used by the US military were invented in the 1960s for some (failed) ballistic missile interceptor research. Even though the ABM research was a dead end, the laser ring gyro technology developed for the project paid dividends for the US military way out of proportion to the money expended on the ABM research.

Re:Possible outcome.

[dbIII]

Is that you Rumsfeld? Take your pills please and remember that China is financing the USA's wars in the middle east. A communications satellite is not worth millions of deaths, complete economic collapse and becoming a global pariah.

Re:Possible outcome.

[DougF]

1) The US military has many weapon systems that are GPS-guided. Every fighter, bomber, tanker, tank, helicopter, and ship has GPS on board, as well as other guidance systems. All of them are considered "weapon systems".

2) The JDAM adaptor for the Mk-82, Mk-83, and Mk-84 general purpose bombs is GPS-guided. The JDAM relies primarily on it's inertial nav system, however.

3) While it is possible to jam the GPS signals, in practice it's extremely hard to do. A) The "jammer" stands out like a sore thumb and is an easy target. B) Military planners have been anticipating such attempts and have multiple guidance systems and methods to deliver the munitions/guide the troops.

Re:Possible outcome.

[rtb61]

I think the point quite clearly is that you can not own the space above your own country. Anything you put up there is in orbit and will travel above many other countries. Let alone extrapolating space above your country as the earth rotates and orbits about the sun, by logical extrapolation you are now attempting to claim Chinese ownership of the entire galaxy. So space remains a shared resource and should be treated as such.

Re:Possible outcome.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that we may even have a means of making replacement navigational signals via high flying aircraft if GPS satellites go down. Of course knowing China, they'll fly their trash into that too.

Re:Possible outcome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, who would ever shoot their BANKER with missiles ??? Surely not the US, given their current (bleak) economic future !!!

China was a technological super-power since about 2'000 BC ... they invented printing, the compass, firecrackers (later used by us dumb europeans as firearms) .. they also toured the world around 1'200 AD (going from eastern africa to -maybe- south america).
Additionally, they produced some of the finest litterature I've encountered (Sun Zi's art of war is still widely used in both economic & war schools, no ?), not to mention their Taoist philosophy/religion : the most concise and thought-provoking works so far ...
But to go back to the present, China is now the factory of the world (what high/low tech-gizmo isn't produced there ?). Chinese form the majority of alien science students in US (in other countries as well, no ?)... And, lastly, thanks to their huge technological past & present, they own the most of US's treasury bonds ...

-- Ni Hao, Zhong-Guo Ren
(sorry for my Chinese grammar & the lack of proper accents on my keyboard)

SanctionThem?

[Adambomb]

I find the tag of sanctionthem rather odd as how, realistically, would one impose these sanctions? Economic sanctions would be met with retaliatory tariffs; Do not forget that economically, North America needs them more than they need us (i'm not sure of the situation for the rest of the world).

What's left, political pressure? Because of how much China listens to political pressure concerning their own policies? Military pressure?

I do not see it.

Re:SanctionThem?

[X0563511]

Well, it would be my fault (i think i was the first to tag it as such)

My first reaction was "Those fucking idiots!" and that they need to be punished for further fouling up orbit.

My reaction to watching someone dump crap in a lake would be to break their face, so I am just that way.

Re:SanctionThem?

[Adambomb]

I hear ya, its just that when the person also has a shotgun and a decidedly unpleasant expression it makes it a bit more of a judgement call =).

Re:SanctionThem?

[QuickFox]

how, realistically, would one impose these sanctions? [...] What's left, political pressure? What's needed is of course persuasion, give-and-take, meeting halfway, international treatises, etc. Of course the current US administration would never think of such solutions, always preferring the bullying approach.

"Spreading democracy" my ass.

I yearn for change. The US can be wonderful.

Re:SanctionThem?

[ColdWetDog]

I find the tag of sanctionthem rather odd as how, realistically, would one impose these sanctions?

Nuke'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:SanctionThem?

[0xdeadbeef]

Do you realistically think our leadership doesn't have a contingency for open war with China, even just a trade war? The current administration notwithstanding, you're accusing our top military strategists, economists, financiers, and industrialists of outright incompetence. Somehow I doubt you're qualified to make that assessment.

We "need" China only in the way an illegal immigrant needs a DVD player from Wal-Mart.

Re:SanctionThem?

[Flavio]

I think the SanctionThem was meant to be sarcastic.

With the US economy decelerating and the loss of confidence in the US dollar, the US can't afford to stop trading with China. This move would essentially crash the global economy, and the US has the most to lose due to its massive foreign debt.

Most people don't realise just how rotten the American economic policy is. Back in 71, Nixon realised that the US could no longer finance the Vietnam war without printing money like mad. But the gold standard prevented the Fed from doing that, so he unilaterally cancelled the Bretton Woods system that made the US dollar convertible to gold. This was a total surprise, because he neglected to consult international bankers, and became known as the Nixon Shock. So from that moment on, the US effectively started printing gold. Of course this move didn't fool the bankers around the world, so the Fed had to raise interest rates to 21%/year to convince them to carry on using dollars. Over many years, the markets sort of returned to normal, despite the fact that the US debt had risen to unprecedented levels.

In 2006, the Fed was printing so much money that it stopped publishing the M3 money supply data in order to hide this fact. So now no one really knows how much money the Fed prints. We just estimate that the US foreign debt grows at the rate of $3 billion per day, mostly due to overseas military spending and interest on the already existing debt. This is despite the fact that the US is creating money out of thin air to partially cover this debt. A consequence is that the dollar has fallen in value about 15% in the last year against the Euro.

It bothers me a lot when the Fed governors propose what they call "financial incentive packages". These are usually composed of tax rebates and the central banks injecting money into the markets. Again, it's more money that was created out of thin air, and the tax rebates reduce the government's capacity to cover that money or to cover the debt. It's a temporary fix to the longstanding lack of financial discipline.

The general population typically doesn't care, and this includes Slashdot readers. They think that economics is awfully boring and complicated, and that the government is capable of taking care of policy. But the opposite is happening, and the US debt is getting out of control. This spending obviously makes politicians and contractors a lot of money, so they'll keep doing it until the economy crashes.

Re:SanctionThem?

[c6gunner]

What's needed is of course persuasion, give-and-take, meeting halfway, international treatises, etc. Of course the current US administration would never think of such solutions, always preferring the bullying approach.

Yeah! Just look at how they're bullying North Korea! Poor Kim runs home crying every day.

The problem here isn't that the US is unwilling to negotiate. The problem is that you seem to be unable to understand that "persuasion", "give-and-take", and "meeting half-way" are not the solution to EVERY situation. And if you really think the US is about to start "bullying" China because of some space-junk, you're out of your friggin' mind.

Re:SanctionThem?

[Anonymous Coward]

but....but...i LIKE raman =(

Re:SanctionThem?

[BlueCoder]

To a reasonable certainty anything the size of a nut or bolt is tracked and we know where it came from.

Anything that is already in orbit before you get there is your responsibility to avoid.

So if your satellite blows up because someone "new junk" damages it then that countries/entities responsibly for the damage to the satellite and future damage from the consequential debris from it.

When it comes to collecting against governments there are tons of ways to collect if they have the money. The most likely being deduction or increase of trade deficits. And the companies in return get a big fat deduction on their taxes.

Re:SanctionThem?

[Adambomb]

How would you prove the bolt did the damage? That IS a really good point I hadn't considered, but how would one conclusively claim (as in would hold up internationally as conclusive) that the man-made debris did the damage not some random chunks of "native" space debris?

I could see the cost being greater to have the damage properly examined than the damage would be technically worth.

Re:SanctionThem?

[whitehatlurker]

I find the tag of sanctionthem rather odd, especially when BombThemFromSpace would be the obvious choice. Where are the scifi fans when you need them?

Re:SanctionThem?

[tabrnaker]

Don't you think it's scary that the states does have a contingency plan for everything that always ends in WAR??? Isn't incompetence seeing the world through a limiting viewpoint?

Re:SanctionThem?

[inviolet]

With the US economy decelerating and the loss of confidence in the US dollar, the US can't afford to stop trading with China. This move would essentially crash the global economy, and the US has the most to lose due to its massive foreign debt.

That's backwards. The US has the least to lose, because a debt represents a good that we consumed but have not yet paid for. The first order of business in an economic collapse is to freeze or otherwise abate all foreign debts.

Either that, or we would just fail to make the payments. That would crash the value of all foreign debts, and so the holders would be lucky to get ten cents on the dollar by selling their paper to speculators (who are betting that we'll pull out of it).

This is why China dearly wants to avoid harming our economy. When somebody owes you an entire year of their salary, and is so far making payments on time, you don't knock them out of a job!

Indeed, in the long run, US foreign debts guarantee that other countries align their interests with our own, and look out for our well-being as one would keep an eye on one's best milk cow.

Re:SanctionThem?

[maxume]

When a debt is defaulted on, who is worse off, the person who spent the money, or the person who loaned it to him?

Re:SanctionThem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one possible answer to what you just said:

Ron Paul!

Re:SanctionThem?

[R2.0]

Abbreviated:
If you owe the bank $100, the bank owns you.
If you owe the bank $1,000,000, you own the bank.
(I believe this was coined in the 1800's, so adjust for inflation please)

Re:SanctionThem?

[QuickFox]

you're accusing our top military strategists, economists, financiers, and industrialists of outright incompetence. Now where would anyone get such ideas? Me, I feel quite confident that the US leadership has just the level of competence that they showed designing the Iraq exit strategy.

Re:SanctionThem?

[meringuoid]

Either that, or we would just fail to make the payments. That would crash the value of all foreign debts, and so the holders would be lucky to get ten cents on the dollar by selling their paper to speculators (who are betting that we'll pull out of it).

This is true to a certain extent; with America owing such a huge amount, nobody's really keen to do anything that would force them to default. However... if America ever did default, that would have consequences that lasted far longer than the ensuing world depression. Nobody would ever be willing to lend American governments money on such generous terms again. Right now US governments have as good a credit rating as exists in the world; lenders know that, come what may, Washington's word is good on any bond. That means that when America wants to raise money for a rocket project or a fleet of aircraft carriers or a great civil engineering work, they can get it. If America once defaults on a loan, that all changes, and it will take a long, long time to rebuild that good reputation.

Re:SanctionThem?

[WallaceAndGromit]

Technically I would say both are bad off. However, I think the borrower is worse off. Simply ask a sub-prime borrower who has recently had a mortgage foreclosed. You end up with nothing AND bad credit, which keeps screwing you for years (if not decades) to come. And that is only on an individuals level. How this will work on an international scale, where the US government became insolvent, is anyones guess. But US citizens would feel the brunt of the impact. I suppose we could look at the collapse of the USSR as an indicator of the aftermath, and that would be brutal for the average US citizen.

Re:SanctionThem?

[diablovision]

Let me guess, Ron Paul is the Only Man Who Can Save America.

Re:SanctionThem?

[mochan_s]

That's backwards. The US has the least to lose, because a debt represents a good that we consumed but have not yet paid for. The first order of business in an economic collapse is to freeze or otherwise abate all foreign debts.

That would essentially mean that the end of all trading. So, the US would have to revert to a self-sustaining economy. US consumes the most resources in the planet per human being and that is not really feaseable.

Either that, or we would just fail to make the payments. That would crash the value of all foreign debts, and so the holders would be lucky to get ten cents on the dollar by selling their paper to speculators (who are betting that we'll pull out of it).

That would lead to imports crashing as well. Then, prices would go up and cause inflation. Then, everything will be worth less and less and foreign buyers will just buy up everything - companies, technology etc. Our stuff will also be sold on ten cents to the dollar out there.

This is why China dearly wants to avoid harming our economy. When somebody owes you an entire year of their salary, and is so far making payments on time, you don't knock them out of a job!

That is until the Chinese economy is the largest in the world which might be in 10-15 years.

Indeed, in the long run, US foreign debts guarantee that other countries align their interests with our own, and look out for our well-being as one would keep an eye on one's best milk cow.

It's only best milk cow as long as the milk flows.

I've seen so people many buy shit they can't afford, live in the moment, default on loans and then file bankruptcy which absolves them of all responsibility since somebody somewhere will bear the burden of it all. I think you're suggesting a similar approach to the economy. I am skeptical of this approach.

Re:SanctionThem?

[NoMaster]

"Spreading democracy" my ass.

Yup. What the US practices is more like "Spread your ass" democracy.

Re:SanctionThem?

[Flavio]

Exactly. Ron Paul is the only candidate who's willing to tell Americans the truth.

I'm not American, but I care about the outcome of US elections. I want Americans to enjoy freedom and prosperity, because the US influences the world both through good and bad decisions. The US is quickly turning into a police state. At the current state of affairs, financial collapse would most likely lead to a fascist government, catering to people who feel lost and humiliated, much alike pre-WWII Germany.

Notice how no debate moderator asks real questions about the national debt. If they did, they'd show the giant flaw in every candidate's platform, except for Ron Paul's. Their solutions involve maintaining a heavy military presence abroad (and in the case of the neocons, expanding it), and expanding government healthcare. The US can't afford these any of these things. It's broke at the current rate, maintaining its empire by borrowing money, the dollar is slipping extremely fast and these guys want to increase spending. It's absurd, and Ron Paul is the only one who points this out.

I have yet to meet a person with good knowledge of economics who doesn't appreciate Ron Paul. People who criticize him have no idea just how troubled the US economy is.

Re:SanctionThem?

[Firehawk]

Either that, or we would just fail to make the payments. That would crash the value of all foreign debts, and so the holders would be lucky to get ten cents on the dollar by selling their paper to speculators (who are betting that we'll pull out of it). Failing to make payments on debt is a default. Perhaps you are not familiar with what happens to people or companies or even countries that are in default. People in default over their home mortgages lose their houses. Companies in default over their debt end up in bankruptcy and shareholders often end up with little or nothing. Countries in default have the value of their currencies (which is effectively a country's share price) drawn through the dust.

If the US defaults on all foreign debt, the value of the US dollar will be crap. Nobody will want to hold US dollars because it represents a liability that the country has shown it is not willing to pay back.

All US citizens would suffer the effects of hyperinflation as the price of all imports in US dollars soars.

Careful what you wish for.

Well? What would you expect from Xeonphobes?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just their way of building the Great Spacewall of China.

Weapons

[ShieldW0lf]

Kind of makes US reliance on space based technological dominance in the theater of war into a bit of a joke, doesn't it. If some dumb nation were to weaponize space, this is how easily they and their efforts could be shut down. Kind of makes the whole idea seem really stupid.

Re:Weapons

[palegray.net]

Their efforts could be shut down by nations capable of launching anti-satellite attacks, which is a rather uncommon and impressive feat. Most nations aren't anywhere near this sort of sophistication, and would be powerless to prevent space-based communications technologies from supporting a broad scale war on their country. Kinda makes the whole idea seem really smart.

Re:Weapons

[ShieldW0lf]

Are you unable to comprehend that this has nothing to do with anti-satellite attacks? All you need to do is ship up some junk and spread it around, and that's the end of it, indefinitely. Space access relies on everyone agreeing not to do this. If space access becomes a threat to any nation, space access can be removed from every nation.

Re:Weapons

[palegray.net]

Are you unable to comprehend how large the immediate orbital region surrounding out planet is? Or for that matter, exactly how difficult it would be to target only specific satellites, instead of risking wiping out your own with some shotgun approach? I assure you, space access will not be removed from every nation, although nations who make aggressive moves in that direction will meet with some rather nasty consequences.

Re:Weapons

[ShieldW0lf]

Are you unable to comprehend how large the immediate orbital region surrounding out planet is? Or for that matter, exactly how difficult it would be to target only specific satellites, instead of risking wiping out your own with some shotgun approach?

Exactly my point. Shotgun approach, easy, no more raining death from the sky, problem solved. You think people under threat of death care about the future of their communication satellites? It only takes one person to piss in the pool.

Re:Weapons

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Um, small point of order in this discussion... Most countries don't have the means to ship ANYTHING to space. You know, at all. In fact, most countries can't even launch a ballistic missile into neighboring territory. I'm looking at you "The Middle East". I mean, your solution of "All you need to do is ship up some junk [into space]" is quite far off for, you know, MOST OF THE WORLD.

Re:Weapons

[DrWho520]

Cluttering the space above your country to disable a space based military capability is the new "salting the earth?" If you do this as a countermeasure, you are also denying that space to any private venture as well. That includes private companies based in your adversary, your own country and every other country in the world. It is a decidedly short sited and unintelligent thing to do.

Re:Weapons

[palegray.net]

It only takes one person pissing in the pool with a small nuclear biological warfare device or in a major city, and that hasn't happened yet. It would arguably be much harder, and much more cost prohibitive, to launch a rocket capable of inserting significant debris into Earth orbit. Make a list of nations capable of launching rockets into space, then narrow it down to nations who might have an interest in destroying satellites on a wide scale, then narrow that down to nations who wouldn't mind losing their own (newly found, perhaps) ability to utilize their own satellites for their national benefit. Not to mention the fact that any such attack would be easily tracked to the source; it's virtually impossible to launch a rocket into space without lots of people noticing simultaneously. Listen, I understand the theory behind your point, but it's just not plausible in any sort of real world scenario. The consequences would be far too dire for any nation attempting such action.

Re:Weapons

[Snowmit]

Well, according to this series of articles on Wired, you guys will win the space war.

So, uh. All clear?

Re:Weapons

[deft]

This was posted above, but the parent apparently didnt see it, so I'm gunna paste it.

It basically points out that it would be pretty stupid to have everything reply on delicate electronics in space, and sorry, it's not that easy to beat the US military, no matter how unpopular its presidents actions may be.

"The US has no weapon systems that are GPS guided and never has, precisely because it is vulnerable. The Chinese may have just now gotten around to developing anti-satellite technology, but the Soviet Union had it ages ago.

The core guidance package of US weapon systems is extremely high precision inertial navigation (all systems described as "GPS-guided" are actually inertial -- the media is a bit stupid about these things, as GPS is an optional untrusted overlay on inertial navigation systems). Some intelligent terrain following weapons also use optical geo-referencing. As a matter of policy going back to the Soviet Union days, the US military machine views satellite systems as "nice to have" but its infrastructure is pervasively designed to operate under the presumption that there are no satellites in orbit. The vulnerability of the US military to massive system outages is greatly overstated; the Soviet Union was a much bigger threat on this scale than the Chinese are, and the US military has always been pretty religious about designing systems whose functionality was robust and in the face of rapidly degrading military infrastructure and relatively decentralized. It is easy to forget it, but the Chinese have nothing on the old Soviet Union in terms of technology and force numbers, and that was the doctrinal enemy of much of the modern US military."

Re:Weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

According to various high ranking official, there might be a factor that will not tolerate the weaponizing of space:

Short:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzwauVZu6QU

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/227929/the_eighth_witness/

Long:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=6552475158249898710

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-4694075066240662837

Re:Weapons

[spun]

There's a big difference between launching a biological attack, which kills biological things, which the person doing the launching is; and spreading some debris around in orbit, which kills satellites. If a country uses satellites as a weapon, another country can easily wipe out all satellites. The consequences are less dire than being wiped out from space.

Re:Weapons

[palegray.net]

You're asserting that the consequences of wiping out all satellites are somehow appreciably less dire? Especially considering long-term consequences, I think that's laughable. Please find a space-capable nation whose economy wouldn't be devastated by loss of satellite communications. I won't hold my breath.

Re:Weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

Sum Dum Nation...

Is that supposed to be some subtitle racist remark, pal? Because I'm not amused.

Re:Weapons

[tabrnaker]

Shhh,... you're taking away the frightening image of the 'axis of evil' that the states has built up. Yes, it was terribly funny when the states was claiming Iraq was an imminent threat, when they can't even hit a city in their own country. It wasn't so terribly funny when the US citizens bought it hook, line, and sinker. Then again, not to terribly suprising. According to polls, probably 50% of americans think that iraq is closer than canada!! :)

Re:Weapons

[Blakey Rat]

Kind of makes US reliance on space based technological dominance in the theater of war into a bit of a joke, doesn't it.

No, it just shows that satellites need to be protected against it. "People being shot" doesn't make the US reliance on human beings a bit of a joke, it just means we develop body armor and armored vehicles to cope with it.

If some dumb nation were to weaponize space, this is how easily they and their efforts could be shut down.

If it's so easy, why didn't China do it in 1957 (when the threat of satellites was first made real) instead of 2007? I call BS on this one, this technology is obviously very difficult and very expensive for any nation to develop, and the fact that it took China this long to pull it off only proves that.

How many nations on earth could launch packages like this? Maybe 5, maybe a couple more, that's about it. For comparison's sake, how many nations on earth can maintain armored vehicles? All of them can.

Kind of makes the whole idea seem really stupid.

Maybe it makes the idea of war seem stupid to say "technology A upstages technology B, so we develop technology C", but a lot of mankind's progress has been made that way. And war's been working that way for thousands of years now, so expecting it to stop anytime soon might be foolish.

Re:Weapons

[mochan_s]

I'm pretty sure weaponizing space assumes you have something like deflector shields (hull plating) or some sort of cannons that avoid this.

Re:Weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

According to polls, probably 50% of americans think that iraq is closer than canada!!

Wow you really are willing to believe any bit on nonsensical nationalist propaganda you hear, even if even a child would have doubts. Are you German perhaps?

Re:Weapons

[tabrnaker]

No, i made that sentence up.:) Apparently the truth and the humour of the sentence have bypassed you.

Actually it was good strategy

[NeverVotedBush]

They don't have so many satellites in orbit but could be worried about all the spy satellites the USA has. So they blast one of their junkers into lots of little ballistic missiles that damage all satellites.

It doesn't hurt them so much but it definitely harms other countries.

Give it time...

[Tastecicles]

...with all the debris already up there and the continual adding to it by the Chinese, we'll eventually find ourselves planet-locked with nowhere to go without having to run the gauntlet of bolt-sized particles travelling at 17000mph+. Someone's gonna have to go up there and sweep up while at the same time avoiding adding to the mess that's already there. Can you say Planetes?

Re:Give it time...

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(TV_series)

Re:Give it time...

[tabrnaker]

Why is this modded insightful when the premise is incorrect. The Chinese are not continually adding debris. This is a FUD campaign for more military spending.

Re:Give it time...

[AndyboyH]

It's insightful due to to the link to the anime Planetes.

Planetes revolves around the premise that after a space-flight to the moon is hit by a single bolt, killing most, if not all aboard, mankind actually realises all the junk up in space is something that needs to be captured, and dealt with. For what could essentially be a dull topic about space garbage collecting, it's actually a well thought out, entertaining and enlightening show with more than a little emotion too.

Certainly well worth a watch if this topic interests you at all.

(and no, I don't work for Bandai or, if you're in Europe, Beez)

Re:Give it time...

[LumenPlacidum]

It is very unfortunate, but sometimes fear, uncertainty, and doubt happen to be well-founded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablation_cascade [wikipedia.org]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/20070206_ORBIT_GRAPHIC.html [nytimes.com]

When one of these satellites is destroyed in an explosive way, particles go careening off into many orbits. Also, they spread out along these orbits as their velocities vary. The ultimate result of a space explosion like that is a ring of dangerous debris. Since every orbit at a given altitude passes through every other orbit at that altitude at two (or infinitely many) points, it's not like we can just avoid it by turning. Admittedly, we could go higher or lower, but the threat shouldn't simply be dismissed as FUD. This event was a warning saying that this is a bad thing to try to avoid in the future. Worst would be if the same thing happened to a satellite in geostationary orbit. This is a very singular place around the earth that could be rendered entirely inhospitable if it were filled with such debris.

Re:Give it time...

[tabrnaker]

Truth is an essential part of FUD, or else it wouldn't really work.

Re:Give it time...

[tabrnaker]

Thanks, maybe i'll check it out.

...so?

[Timothy Brownawell]

Send someone up with a really big vacuum cleaner.

Re:...so?

[NeverVotedBush]

Yo, dude. It's already a vacuum.

But at least you spelled vacuum correctly...

Re:...so?

[evilklown]

I think it's time we create a new "career path" for the men and women that can't quite make it through the astronaut training program: space garbage collector.

Re:...so?

[Opportunist]

That's the joke, duh. Vacuum cleaner. Get it? Like, not a "vacuum cleaner", but someone cleaning the vacu...

Never mind, no joke gets better by explaining it.

Re:...so?

[oldhack]

Send someone up with a really big vacuum cleaner.

On a second thought, send up a really big "leaf" blower. Hm... you know, this black matter thing, it may be the accumulation of these blown-over space debris seeping through time from the future... I see Nobel prize in my future.

Re:...so?

[LordKronos]

You mean like Mega Maid?

Re:...so?

[delvsional]

it'd be pretty hard to get a vacuum cleaner to do anything in a..... vacuum.

Re:...so?

[maltwhiskman]

This is all about nothing.

Re:...so?

[innerweb]

I think President Scroob (sp?) might have something for you.

InnerWeb

Re:...so?

[rpj1288]

Oh, where are my mod points when I need them?

Re:...so?

[CrazedWalrus]

Only if she goes from Suck to Blow.

Re:...so?

[sfraggle]

This is a job for Roger Wilco, space janitor!

I'll add this

[noric]

to my list of things capable of changing civilization as we know it. Although I'm no astrophysicist, I bet a linear increase in the amount of debris results in a higher-than-linear increase in general collision potential.

I'm really looking forward to being a middle aged person in a world with no oil, no satellites, global warming, foot shortages, energy shortages, and of course our #1 enemy terrorism.

Re:I'll add this

[Anonymous Coward]

foot shortages I'm only a 10 1/2 mens, you insensitive clod!

Re:I'll add this

[Anonymous Coward]

Kessler Syndrome

Re:I'll add this

[VolciMaster]

indeed, with a growth rate among diabetics, foot shortages are a thing to worry about

Re:I'll add this

[Anonymous Coward]

foot shortages,

Talk about a crippling legacy!

maybe that's what the chinese wanted

[petes_PoV]

Two orbiting U.S. spacecraft were forced to change course to avoid being damaged soon after the incident.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I will assume this is code for 2 spy satellites.

In that case, since the US has many more spy satellites than the chinese, is this just their way of levelling things out a bit?

Yes, it makes space less accessible, but when you're behind your "competitor" then they have more to lose than you do. Sadly this kind of logic has an attraction to the less responsible elements present in some governments.

Re:maybe that's what the chinese wanted

[RockMFR]

RTFA.

According to the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the commercial communication satellite Orbcomm FM 36 maneuvered to avoid passing within about 123 feet of the debris field on April 6. A NASA Earth observation satellite Terra was moved June 22 to avoid coming within about 90 feet of the debris.

Re:maybe that's what the chinese wanted

[ShieldW0lf]

Yes, it makes space less accessible, but when you're behind your "competitor" then they have more to lose than you do. Sadly this kind of logic has an attraction to the less responsible elements present in some governments.

This is a joke, right? You think people who are custodians of the safety of billions of people have a primary responsibility to preserve space access for the future? It would absolutely be a fulfillment of their responsibility in such circumstances.

Re:maybe that's what the chinese wanted

[Jeremy Erwin]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I will assume this is code for 2 spy satellites.

And I'm going to go out a limb here, and assume you didn't read the article.

According to the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the commercial communication satellite Orbcomm FM 36 maneuvered to avoid passing within about 123 feet of the debris field on April 6. A NASA Earth observation satellite Terra was moved June 22 to avoid coming within about 90 feet of the debris.

Of course, you could be using the Chinese definition of espionage, which is rather broad. Shame on you.

Was NBC visionary, perhaps?

[MrM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(TV_series)

'nuff said...

MrM

Re:Was NBC visionary, perhaps?

[RyogaHibiki]

If you want something entertaining for today's audience, check out Planetes, it's an anime about the "debris section" of a corporation with an orbiting spaceport. Even if you're turned off by "cartoons", give this a shot, it isn't meant for kids, it's designed for people in their late teens and young adults, but everyone can enjoy this series.. ^_^

That's a laugh!

[gbutler69]

North America does not *need* China in any sense of the word. That is a complete fallacy. We could cease all trade with China tomorrow and we would be perfectly fine. In fact, we'd probably be better off. Don't start in about all the "goods" we'd be missing. So what! We'd make 'em here. They'd be more expensive, but, that'd be a good thing. By the way, this WILL happen. As the oil reserves in the world dwindle, all nations will increasingly turn inward. Sorry to say it, but all the "international trade" and talk about "free trade" is economic voodoo! It's about to get UGLY! Real UGLY! Prepare for feudal times! By the way, this means the decline of human civilization and our inevitable extinction from this Galaxy. Free Trad, Schmree Trad. It won't matter one bit!

Re:That's a laugh!

[Adambomb]

What in the hell are you talking about? Theres more to prosperity than oil.

Remember who bought up all the steel reserves and is now slowly selling it back to the US? Have you ever been inside ANY manufacturing plant...at all..ever?

US industry would SHUT DOWN ENTIRELY if china pulled the plugs, or be cripplingly disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world if they decided to place punitive tarrifs. And if you think this is limited to crappy dvd players and laser pointers, do not forget that factory farms that are responsible for your daily food run off harvesters and harvester parts made primarily from components from china.

Do you have any idea how the world around you works at all?

Re:That's a laugh!

[Incognit0]

lmfao, obviously you do not have a clue on world economy, dont knock others when you yourself dont have a inkling

Re:That's a laugh!

[Adambomb]

okay then. By what reasoning?

You do have reasons to believe what you believe right?

Re:That's a laugh!

[Adambomb]

Keeping in mind i've turned and welded chinese steel as well as pressed chinese seals and bearings for harvester rollers and sprockets. The only "Made in the USA" component WE made use of was our poly mix and the diphenylmethane diisocyanate terminating agent. We were adversely impacted by the steel issue alone i terms of bottom line, so if you think China has no influence over american industry then i'd REALLY like to know why.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

As well as that, we're in hock to the Chinks for many billions. If we started to fight an economic war, all they would have to do is ask for their money back to bust us. And we have royally pissed off the rest of the world - so much that they would be happy to see us go down...

If things went the way our redneck friend wants, we would be cut off from the world economy and forced to feed ourselves. That would require a socialist controlled economy, and even then there would be famines and food riots. Given that we are the most violent society on the face of the planet, I suspect we would end up like Mad Max quite quickly.

Re:That's a laugh!

[rhizome]

Read their only other (non-AC) comment.

Re:That's a laugh!

[peragrin]

Yes and no. Your right China could/would hurt us dramactically. but remember this. All that steel, copper, aluminum that we import is because American's couldn't produce those same materials for that price. pennsylvania is filled with steel even though all the steel forges have shut down.

I don't know if it was by accident or on purpose but we are using up china's steel. While keeping our own stockpiled natures way. Our companies can't compete on price, and closed down, but if price was no longer the issue then we have all sorts of resources available to us. Sure it would take a while to get going again. Lots' of little experience has been lost but If it came right down to it the USA is one of the few countries who could survive such an economic collapse.

Other than Oil and rubber the USA could be self sufficient. We have more than enough old tires floating around that rubber would last until we could get back up on our feet.

While It would hurt the long term repercussions wouldn't be any worse than the great depression. indeed another massive depression could very well be the spark that sets it off.

Re:That's a laugh!

[QuickFox]

Given that we are the most violent society on the face of the planet, The US the most violent? You gotta be kidding. Iraq has political/religious terrorist murders almost every day, that's far more violent than the US.

Of course that's Iraq under the US military, but still...

Looking elsewhere, Darfur is much more violent than the US. Colombia too. Etc.

However I'm pretty sure the US is the most violent in the modern Western developed world. It may perhaps also qualify, among all countries, as the country with the most aggressively violence-prone foreign policy.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Skim123]

I don't know if it was by accident or on purpose but we are using up china's steel.

I think it is mostly on purpose. Why use up your own non-renewable natural resources when you can let another country deplete it's stockpile first? In short, many first world nations use second and third world nations as their garbage cans and sources of non-renewable resources because they want to protect their own environment.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Adambomb]

Given that we are the most violent society For all the fun of being canadian bashing america, I wouldn't say that one bit.

Might be a up there on the belligerence scale, but i'd put it neck and neck at best for whether china or the US has the most political arrogance.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Adambomb]

Thats a fine long term strategy, but consider the fact that you can't simply put that production capacity back online overnight. If china ever made a QUICK change, it wouldnt shut things down forever, but it would certainly have years of impact.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

US industry would SHUT DOWN ENTIRELY if china pulled the plugs

Wow, stop reading whatever you're reading, because you are so poorly informed. What would happen if we just dead stopped working in China? We'd see a short term product shortage. Least you forget, America has one of the greatest land sizes and resources in the world. We have oil (Alaska and off shore), large resources of Oil Shale, climates that are pretty much great for growing all kinds of foods, great stocks of cattle (ever hear how much better American beef is compared to European beef?), dairy farms in Wisconsin and California, ore mines all over in various states, a intelligent and willing work force, and so much more.

It's sufficient to say, that American could survive on isolation, it wouldn't be efficient but it would possible. America is not the U.K. that's a small island nation with similar climates and limited resources (partly their need for colonization a few centuries back). Of course, you're also forgetting a hell of a lot of other things. The "World" does not consist of China for cheap labour and products. Ever hear of Mexico and India? If America so wanted, they could give the big F.U. China, pass some laws to abolish the minimum wage, legal illegal immigrants and instantly gain a low-cost work force. Not to say I support that idea, but it's not hard to America to do, because it's already happening. America would just have to throw some (more) human rights stuff out the window, like China does.

As all things in life, actions will naturally take the path of least resistance. In this case, it's just easier to get things from China than doing other things like mentioned above. In fact, you'll actually see some prosperity in American Manufacturing. Oh, and I heard another interesting thing that America is still the worlds largest manufacturer (my father said it was in his Newsweek or Time magazine or something).

So, I guess I have one question for you...

Do you have any idea how the world around you works at all?

Re:That's a laugh!

[geekoid]

If we stopped trade with China tomorrow, are stock market would collapse. This would cause a huge ripple(read:Tsunami) through all industries in the US, and abroad.

Now as far as oil reserves dwindling.
We can do a global economy without using oil as fuel. The technology exists for electric/wind vehicles.
There won't be a global collapse.

Of course it matters. It matters to are descendants very much. Sure, we may be extinct in a million years(doubtful*) and the sun will grow cold in a few billion(certain) but that doesn't mean we need to go quietly.

We're very prolific when we need to be, so even if everything collapsed im sure we would continue to breed. A million years of evolution will certain change the species.

Re:That's a laugh!

[M. Baranczak]

Other than Oil and rubber the USA could be self sufficient. And coffee. One of the few crops that can't be grown in the US.

Re:That's a laugh!

[ScentCone]

If we stopped trade with China tomorrow, are stock market would collapse

Not to mention that Chinese factories are the only place where we can purchase large quantities of the word "our."

Re:That's a laugh!

[AJWM]

And coffee. One of the few crops that can't be grown in the continental US.

There, fixed that for you. Coffee grows just fine in Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

Re:That's a laugh!

[hazem]

In fact, we'd probably be better off. Don't start in about all the "goods" we'd be missing. So what! We'd make 'em here. They'd be more expensive, but, that'd be a good thing.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that these goods, while "made in china" are still sold by US Corporations for the most part. Many products take several months to get through a production development process. It takes even longer to get a production facility bought, built, and brought online. What are all those US Corporations going to sell (and consider, they have to sell things to make money to pay their employees) for the half a year or more it takes to get the first runs of production out of domestic factories?

So, it's not really the lack of goods for consumers to buy that will be the problem if our trade with China is suddenly cut off. It will the massive layoffs and economic destabilization before any significant factory production could be brought online domestically.

We USians gave the Chinese the stirrups, reins, and saddle in order to be able to get much higher margins on the products we sell (this is where the decisions were made, not by the consumer in the marketplace). We just have to realize that economically the Chinese can ride us any way they want and put us away wet... and there's not a whole hell of a lot we can do about it, especially in the short term.

Re:That's a laugh!

[mijkal]

Probably not enough to supply present demand, but Hawaii (USA) does produce coffee.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Skim123]

Right, I'm talking long term (but not terribly long term, as few environmental policies anywhere on Earth today are looking hundreds or thousands of years in the future).

Envision what it will be like 50 or 100 years from now when China has fewer resources and larger environmental problems due to their shortsighted policies. The US will still have relatively clean and productive natural resources and not insignificant non-renewable reserves.

I'm not saying such a world will be especially pleasant to live in, but if there are increasing environmental issues worldwide, the best place to be located would be those nations that have strong natural resources reserves and successfully "exported" their environmental damage to other countries.

Re:That's a laugh!

[JaredOfEuropa]

I don't know if it was by accident or on purpose but we are using up china's steel.

Why do you think China is getting into Africa in a big way? While we are dicking around with vague sanctions, humanitarian missions and pointless aid programs, China is working hard to secure a ncie chunck of the abundant natural resources in the continent.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

North America does not *need* China in any sense of the word.

Can you even build a computer any more without parts from the orient?

Re:That's a laugh!

[tabrnaker]

Wait, you're comparing violence with a reason (Iraq) to violence with no reason (US)? No, Americans are definitely more violent for absolutely no reason. Well, i'm sure some people think capping someone because he has bigger bling is a legitimate reason. Such is the reality that the US has created for itself. It's all about greed.

Re:That's a laugh!

[tabrnaker]

Don't worry about the oil. The US already has papers outlining the annexing of Canada if need be. Well, at least BC and Alberta. Then Canadians would have fun hiding in the rockies blowing up sections of the oil pipe. :)

Re:That's a laugh!

[tabrnaker]

I see that you understand that currently the way the world works is to make others suffer for your prosperity. Geez, i wonder why the world doesn't want the US spreading their 'foreign policy' everywhere. Is everybody really so dumb that they can't envision a world of, shudder, co-operation?

Re:That's a laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite catch phrase is "popular misconception". I just do not, for the life of me, understand how so many people can collectively be so wrong and just plain stupid. We would be much better off without Walmart (ChinaMart) and all of the rest of the Chinese-made crap. I don't even think a sudden loss of the Chinese crap would hurt us- there is plenty of still useable US-made stuff in attics, basements, landfills, etc.

America came to greatness in the 19th and 3/4 of the 20th centuries. Do you think we traded heavily with China during 1800-1975? If you have no idea, then please study. We did not. In fact, all of the trade with China is, IMHO, one of the worst things hurting the US now. We send them $, they send us: horrible crap that breaks, rusts, is painted with lead paint, etc., and ends up where? That's right, landfills and riverbeds (the rust). And the cycle continues, until they have so much US $ that they don't know what to do with it, and they are trying to buy the US. Don't believe me? Look it up- the US congress has had to block the sale of major US assets to China. China is NOT an open market/country. Free and open trade with China is NOT free or open.

Not only is China a highly organized collective (Borg) but they do NOT operate under strict and heavy burdens of EPA, OSHA, IRS, and so many other rules and regulations of the US.

We (the US) made toys, chairs, clothes, TVs, can openers, cookware, you-name-it- and well. I am so VERY proud to say that in some countries, even today, US made items are prized.

"Protectionism" is usually used as a bad word, and I just don't understand that sentiment. Nor do I understand why ANY supposedly patriotic American would oppose true fair trade, and true protection from foreign attacks, whether direct terrorist bombs, or economic attacks on our markets and corporations. (and NO, I do NOT support the existence of the "Dept. of Homeland Security"- the FBI and CIA should just do their jobs.)

Re:That's a laugh!

[ikkonoishi]

Us here in Birmingham AL are just waiting for them to try something like that. We've got the iron. We've got the coal. We've got the flux. All we really need is for high capacity steel production to become economically viable again with American labor costs and environmental restrictions.

U.S. Steel is just itching to push Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation out of fifth place of the global steel producers.

America really could be self sufficient if it needed to be. It would be rather difficult though, and would most likely piss off a lot of whiny people who like cheap shiny stuff.

China however is very precariously balanced. It exports a lot of stuff in exchange for liquid capital. It invests a lot of that capital in purchasing US debt to back its currency. (It might be changing policies soon though as its own economy ramps up.) If the US economy goes belly up a lot of that debt may very well become worthless paper, and at the same time China's primary purchaser of goods finds that it doesn't really have the money to purchase what it used to.

Re:That's a laugh!

[hattable]

Ha! The fact that you think GOODS are the only thing China has on us expose a very twisted view of the situation. It is NOT that face that China is our main trading partner for goods, but the fact that they have enough of our money sitting in some vault over in Beijing, should they decide to 'sell' or trade that away for any other currency, our _entire_ economic system would die instantly. They use this power to try and keep the US from interfering with their 'acts of public relation' with Taiwan. Taiwanese know this, and one actually informed me of this issue a while ago.

Re:That's a laugh!

[untouchableForce]

Your idea about using up China's steel used to be correct. But more recently China has been purchasing steel from us because they can't make it fast enough. I used to work for a steel company's IT department (One of the largest in the world) and I can tell you that they were in serious trouble until China started booming and put the demand for steel and other metals through the roof. China is purchasing a significant amount of our steel and other building materials. That won't last long however since they're using it to build more steel and concrete plants.

Re:That's a laugh!

[dbIII]

Hang on. Isn't the US steel market completely closed to the outside just like the US sugar market is? That's what Australia was told when we had to settle for a restricted "free" trade agreement.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you open up you PC and count the number of parts that don't say "made in China/Taiwan/Thailand/Phillipines".

While the technical knowledge comes from Europe and the USA, more or less everything is fabricated and assembled in Asia. Resistors, caps, board itself and probably 95% of all parts come from that region.
USA and to a lesser extend Europe while having the technical expertise to develop the technology simply lack the resources to build them. Most existing machines have been sold off to china already. Back to the times where you could decide between a mediocre pc and a car. Both sharing about the same price point.

If its an AMD PC, you CPU might say "Made in Germany", but thats about it.

Re:That's a laugh!

[miletus]

So in other words, we send them paper and they send us usable goods. And this makes the U.S. some kind of victim?

Re:That's a laugh!

[slazzy]

True, but Kona coffee tastes sooo good you don't have to drink as much of it :) Anyone who's had it knows what I'm talking about.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you have any idea how the world around you works at all?"

Apparently you certainly don't. What is it about China that robs people of their ability to think?

Even ignoring your (wrong) information, from a purely trade/economy standpoint, China's entire underpinning right now is to be cheaper than anyone else and have huge economic growth to prop up the illusion of a stable communist system. They're not a technological powerhouse, they're a cheap labor source.

Now consider: China stops selling to the US (and the US stops investing in China). For the US: oh noes, Americans have to make it locally or buy it somewhere else. For China: the entire house of cards collapses - there is no magical backup buyer to replace the lost trade with the US, and China can't just drop its prices to drum up more demand because it's *already* based on being ultra cheap and doesn't have any wiggle room left to do that.

All the secondary effects of any of this only hurt China more than anyone else. A global recession cuts into demand for Chinese goods and cuts into foreign investment into China. A tariff fight (very possible outcome of a global recession, too) eliminates the only incentive to buy Chinese goods in the first place (their cheapness).

Re:That's a laugh!

[NoMaster]

I don't know if it was by accident or on purpose but we are using up china's steel.

You're using up China's steel, but not their iron ore. One of the criticisms of China is that they're barely touching their own reserves.

While keeping our own stockpiled natures way.

Last I looked, China's own ore situation was comparable to the US - slightly lower known reserves, slightly higher quality; the total amount of iron that could be produced from these reserves was about the same.

New, let me ask you this: who'd be in a better situation if the US stopped importing Chinese iron/steel? The US, with its high ramp-up time / costs & higher ongoing production costs, or China, with working iron refineries, steel mills, 6 months or more of ore stockpiles at current production rates, and similar ore reserves?

(Actually, the correct answer is probably "neither". Russia, Canada, Brazil, and Australia - as the world's largest iron ore exporters - would be the winners. At least 3 of those have long-term guaranteed price & supply contracts with China, and could effectively name their own price to the US.)

Re:That's a laugh!

[mochan_s]

I think it is mostly on purpose. Why use up your own non-renewable natural resources when you can let another country deplete it's stockpile first? In short, many first world nations use second and third world nations as their garbage cans and sources of non-renewable resources because they want to protect their own environment.

Same reason as the oil in the middle east. They would use the money to buy off your companies and would essentially own the natural resources.

Essentially, we would turn into third world countries and them into first world countries at the end of it all.

Re:That's a laugh!

[NoMaster]

If the US economy goes belly up a lot of that debt may very well become worthless paper, and at the same time China's primary purchaser of goods finds that it doesn't really have the money to purchase what it used to.

The thing is, the US will have to do everything it possibly can to prop its economy up - the real value of the US dollar is not in what it can buy & sell, but in the very fact that it's the de facto currency for buying & selling. Take that away, and the US dollar is at the mercy of its domestic economy - which, to be honest, unlike a lot of the rest of the world, is totally unprepared to stand isolated on its own strengths.

To the world, the US dollar is only important as a useful & fairly stable convenience to measure trade. To the US, that fact is fundamental to its huge economy. Take way that stability, and the US dies.

You only have to look at how the US government & markets react at the mere suggestion that some important part of world trade move to the euro to see this. Sure, the rest of the world would tremble - but only until it switched to trading in euros (or yuan, as an outside chance). And your huge money trading market will lead the exodus - the whole thing is based on having a reasonably solid and well understood reference point; when that disappears they'll jump to the next-best one.

Sure, it'll hurt China - but it's a huge economy in its own right, with solid physical fundamentals underpinning it all. They produce, or can produce, a respectable amount of the world's raw material demand and most of the world's processed product demand cheaper than anyone else. If I was a betting man, and thought the US was likely to cut its own throat to pull China down a peg or two, I'd be betting on China to come out on top...

Re:That's a laugh!

[mycall]

I think you overestimate our resource situation. Tops of mountains are being chopped off because regular and strip mining are less and less effective due to depletion. Millions of acres of land is being fire-sold to foreign companies all the time. Unless we nationalize the land, there won't be much left here once China isn't a future option.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

It strikes me that only the Americans see the need to constantly express how much bigger/better/freer they/their country/their way of life is/are.

USofA has massive denial issues. Wake up people, your country has been eaten from within by corporations. Now, all that's left is a shell, resonating with the sound of George Washington shouting 'land of the free'. The whole world hates your overcorrecting-arrogance and government policies.

Mod me troll for telling it like it is then invade my country, bitches!

Re:That's a laugh!

[rdoger6424]

we CAN feed ourselves. It's practically the only thing we can do though.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Shakrai]

Well, i'm sure some people think capping someone because he has bigger bling is a legitimate reason

Wow, get all of your opinions about America from the movies do you?

Re:That's a laugh!

[Skim123]

Do you think it's possible for a country that has the majority of the world's guns and butter to become a third-world nation without using its guns and butter to ensure that it remained a first-world nation?

Re:That's a laugh!

[shinzawai]

and the UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, and others will have fun blowing up sections of your country. Now that would be fun !!

Re:That's a laugh!

[nitro316]

gotta agree with the fact that we are one of the most violent nations on the face of the earth. The United States Military is constantly involved in at least 8 to 10 major conflicts with foreign governments per year (that the news actually reports, who know how many we really participate in). The U.S. is currently the largest distributor of firearms to third world countries. Its easier and cheaper to give militants guns than fight their war for them. You have never been to the middle east so I doubt you have any real understanding of how life is really like overseas except for what you see on CNN. What you see on TV (the violence) is more based on survival and beliefs than that pure unadulterated violence. That's what a lot of people don't understand. These people are not ignorant savages that need to be saved by the mighty U.S. but they fight for survival, freedom, and their beliefs, much like the U.S. did roughly 230 years ago. Average Joe America does not see how they live, what life means to a Middle Easterner, things are different for them. Anyway kind of got off on a tangent there. For example just watch American television. No sex, its almost all violence. Its how Americans are raised. Its our lives, and thats what were used to. I was trying to go somewhere else with this but Captain Morgan ruined that for me. We are all violent in our own ways. Just leave it at that. Animalistic Behavior at its finest.

Re:That's a laugh!

[bogjobber]

However I'm pretty sure the US is the most violent in the modern Western developed world.

It depends on how modern, Western, and developed you consider Brazil or South Africa. The US is an order of magnitude behind them on violent crime rates.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Adambomb]

Don't worry about the oil. Close, but wrong fossil fuel.

Re:That's a laugh!

[tabrnaker]

Nope, American foreign policy. Why is everybody so literal? It's the same old story from different viewpoints in society. Still the same story.

Re:That's a laugh!

[TapeCutter]

"and Australia - as the world's largest iron ore exporters - would be the winners.

China is now our biggest customer for iron ore and Western Australia is booming because they signed up for 30yrs. The US kinda shot themselves in the foot with that part of the "free" trade deal.

Re:That's a laugh!

[tv_dinners]

Same reason as the oil in the middle east. They would use the money to buy off your companies and would essentially own the natural resources.

Essentially, we would turn into third world countries and them into first world countries at the end of it all. pfft. At anytime it feels like it, the US could declare all foreign investments located within its country United States property. Certainly in times of world war, and likely in desperate times of severly limited resources.

Re:That's a laugh!

[tv_dinners]

It strikes me that only the Americans see the need to constantly express how much bigger/better/freer they/their country/their way of life is/are. Well of course we do, the US is King of the Sandpile. If you and your country was, you would be trumpeting the same to the world. But since your country is not, your observation is only what any other non-King of the Hill country could state.

Re:That's a laugh!

[dreamchaser]

No. The US buys most of it's steel from abroad. Very little if any is actually produced here anymore.

Re:That's a laugh!

[CAIMLAS]

That's a nice idea and all, but you're forgetting one (or three) very, very important problems with your theory:

1) Starting up a business from scratch is expensive, and if the cost of metals/whatever is becoming prohibitive to import, those costs will impact the construction of such a facility as well.
2) Starting up an industry is even more expensive due ot nobody being familiar with it - and that's exactly what would be required, since it's been 20-40 years since any real manufacturing (depending on the type) has been done in the US.
3) This all takes time. Sure, you could probably get a steel facility up in 2-3 years. But would it be producing quantity or quality steel/shirts/whatever? No, probably not. That takes time.
4) You just think that groups like PETA and the various environmental protection agencies and activist groups are going to roll over and let companies start to mine/cut trees/drill for oil? Not on your life; there are just too many stupid people out there!

Consider: how long has it taken China to get their industry going well? It took them a good 15 years to get up to "capacity" to handle our needs, and they have many more people than we do to invest in such things. It took the US economy a good 50+ years to establish what it had, at the time of OPEC and various other messes.

In short: it's not possible to just start up something like that over-night. It'd take decades.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Firehawk]

If it could happen to the Roman empire, it can happen to the USA.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Firehawk]

pfft. At anytime it feels like it, the US could declare all foreign investments located within its country United States property. Certainly in times of world war, and likely in desperate times of severly limited resources. If that happens, it would be theft of property and the breakdown of law. It would end up as basically the US versus the rest of the world. The US is the world leader in economic and military power but I wouldn't bet on it winning against everyone else together.

Re:That's a laugh!

[peragrin]

I did say it would take a while as little details about how to o it have been lost. I am thinking 20 years down the line not tomorrow.

PETA will roll over when their members can't afford to live as no one has enough work. The whole point is that China puts us into a giant economic depression PETA only exists because people have free time and money to do things they are passionate about, PETA wouldn't survive very well through such a depression.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Skim123]

Ugg, the ol' "THE USA IS THE NEXT ROMAN EMPIRE!" bit. For some reason this is a popular meme on the Internet, even though it totally discards the vast governmental, communications, technological, societal, and economical differences between now and 2,500 years in the past.

I'm not saying that the US is always going to be the world's sole superpower, but I am saying that the only way the US will descend to a third-world nation - with runaway abject poverty, infant mortality, corruption, crime, famine, and other ills of third-world nations - is if some real bad shit happens all over the world first or in tandem.

Re:That's a laugh!

[ScrewMaster]

It's funny, but I still don't understand the people that want to continually lambaste their own country, even when they have to lie (or swallow someone else's lies) in order to do it. Honestly, the next person that says, "I'm pretty sure that ..." should simply be shot dead on the spot, because ignorance is not bliss.

In any event, self-loathing is rarely a healthy phenomenon.

Re:That's a laugh!

[TheLink]

Yeah China looks at Australia and go Mine, Mine, Mine, all Mine! :).

The US "fair/free trade" bullshit is bullshit anyway, so I guess it's better for Australia.

Don't think it's such a good idea to try to be the US's southernmost "insular area" with no voting rights.

Re:That's a laugh!

[ShieldW0lf]

You don't have the population. That's why you are not capable of exploiting the natural resources here, and instead rely on places like China, who didn't fuck their civilization up with all these so called "human rights" and end up systematically sterilizing themselves.

The only thing that might save civilization in North America here is massive waves of immigration from places like India, Pakistan or China. The so-called values that we hold here, they're going out the door either way regardless.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaa. yep, keep repeating it "we're best/biggest/lalalalalalala etc". lol

Do you REALLY believe that you're the "best", at everything? Oh please, try to get some perspective. Every country has its merits. This was my original point; you don't see people from any country but the US shouting about their country's merits. My contention is that Americans 'trumpet' their merits because they realise their 'American Dream' has turned into a nightmare. Massive debt, not an iota of freedom to the population, a 'president' in power who stole the election, Gangbangers walking the streets capping each other, invading foreigh countries to steal their oil whilst spinning a story about liberation, corporations have stolen the American People's right to healthcare, etc.. etc.. etc.. (repeat for twenty minutes).. etc..

la la la, land of the free. Wake up dude.

Re:That's a laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Inactive self loathing is unhealhy yes. Ignoring what one knows to be wrong is worse. Ask any cancer patient.

making changes based on when one sees oneself slipping is called adaptation.

Re:That's a laugh!

[ScrewMaster]

Well, I'm not talking about people who are ignoring problems, I'm talking about people that focus solely on those problems to the exclusion of the good things their nation represents. Whatever country that may be. If you really hate where you are, move somewhere else. If you can't find any place you like better, stop bitching so much about where you are.

Re:That's a laugh!

[sjames]

Not to mention that some cars in South Africa are equipped with flamethrowers to incinerate carjackers and airbags on the roof to break their necks.

Re:That's a laugh!

[peragrin]

there is 300+ million people living int he USA most with high tech jobs. If the economy collapses due to china demanding payment then a lot of those jobs will get killed off.

People go where the money is. If 40% of the population loses their jobs then you have 40% of the population who can work in the new industries.

Re:That's a laugh!

[LumenPlacidum]

I understand your point that it would take time to build up the production of steel in the country. At the same time, if a quick change were made then all of the workable steel in the country waiting to be made into goods wouldn't all suddenly disappear. It would be used up at a rate at most what it was previously, which may be enough to hold out until steel industry could step in to fill the gap.

Re:That's a laugh!

[ShieldW0lf]

If there are 300+ million people living in the USA and 75% of them are working while 25% of them are dependent, then in relatively short order that balance changes to 55% working and 45% dependent, what do you think is going to happen to the critical infrastructure?

Now the 20% that became dependent, suppose half of them were the most skilled in the population, and that those critical infrastructures relied on people with their highly specialized skills. What ramifications do you think that's going to have?

If you want to see the canary in the coal mine, look at Japan. They're ahead of the rest of the world on this curve, and there is a story on the front page about how they're working on building exoskeletons so their old farmers can keep picking turnips into their retirement.

Do you really think this is all going to pan out smoothly?

Planetes

[lattyware]

Anyone seen the anime Planetes? It's all about people working collecting debris in the future, because there is so much up there, that it is a risk to the (now common and commercial) space flights. Interesting that this is becoming a topic of interest as of late.

Re:Planetes

[Warll]

I thought about the exact same thing when I heard this article.

Re:Well? What would you expect from Xeonphobes?

[palegray.net]

They're afraid of Intel microprocessors? Damn, that's odd...

What we need is a space dredge!

[Anonymous Coward]

And, of course, to avoid a mineshaft gap.

Where's the news?

[Opportunist]

USA threatened by Chinese junk.

Oh, that it's now also in space? That's the news here, I guess?

Re:Where's the news?

[Sponge Bath]

USA threatened by Chinese junk.

Really? I thought the Chinese had small penises.

Re:Where's the news?

[Opportunist]

That was the Japanese.

Dude, when you draw your prejudices from Southpark, at least pay attention. :)

Re:Right when the Chinese dump junk in space:

[Opportunist]

You've seen enough Ninja movies haven't you?

Let them come. According to the RIAA we got way more than enough pirates to handle them. Yarr!

they're being smart

[Anonymous Coward]

China is just making sure that they are not able to be threatened by the US military complex without being able to stage a massive retaliation that would be unacceptable to the US.

After all the countries the US has invaded recently when they don't behave according to US wishes, any nation NOT preparing to defend themselves from the USA is being foolish. The US is seen as a bigger threat to world peace than any other nation right now, and it is only prudent to prepare to defend yourself.

Re:they're being smart

[ErikZ]

How does causing a lot of space debris prevent any of that?

Considering what a huge trading partner China is with the US, any war between the two would be devastating for the economies. This keeps both countries on friendly terms.

Re:China sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

We would, but unlike internet trolls they actually know kung-fu.

Space Invaders

[WaZiX]

Easy, just equip the satellites with lasers, and you just made yourself one heck of a space invaders game!!!

Re:Space Invaders

[Oktober Sunset]

more like asteroids, and the shooting just leads to more and more smaller bits.

Re:Space Invaders

[Tuoqui]

Decrease Altitude! Reverse Direction! Increase Speed!

You have been defeated!

Dr Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that hard to put junk in orbit if you don't care about it surviving the launch. Just imagine a really big gun. So a good plot for Dr Evil would be to build something capable of launching hunks of metal into orbit and threaten to fill up all the orbits with pieces of yugos unless he's paid 1 trillion dollars.

Space denial?

[Vadim Makarov]

Wasn't space denial one of the design objectives for the Energia booster? It would deliver to LEO and dissipate several 100+ ton loads of steel balls, or so I heard, making it impossible for everyone to use ICBMs, not to mention launch longer-living vessels.

Re:Space denial?

[deft]

There's plenty of nukes on subs that dont need to go into space. if the entire atmosphere was unusable... it wouldnt matter.

And who has the biggest sub fleet? Biggest bomber fleet? navy?

Hmm... dont think thats it.

Is it Possible for Safe Anti-Sat Testing?

[stoicfaux]

As more nations develop missile technology, they're going to want/need to test their anti-satellite capability. So is there any possible way to do it safely?

As yes, continued anti-satellite missile testing will happen, since any rational nation will have no desire to be under the thumb of someone else's satellites.

Re:Is it Possible for Safe Anti-Sat Testing?

[Anonymous Coward]

buy it/borrow it/steal it from another country

Re:Is it Possible for Safe Anti-Sat Testing?

[MadUndergrad]

Yes. You do it in a lower orbit so that the debris deorbits within a matter of months from atmospheric friction. That's unlike the Chinese, who did it in a higher orbit so that the debris is going to stay up there for a hundred years.

They even have a guy in their space program to make sure things like this don't happen, but that's what happens when random bigwigs are allowed to press buttons, I guess.

Re:China sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

good luck killing off at least 1/4 of the world's populations :)

The US is telling lies

[bogaboga]

Debris from the anti-satellite missile test by the Chinese military last year threatens the integrity of more than 800 operating satellites, half of them belonging to the US.

One wonders whether the US has taken down all "space junk" it has created since it first launched satellites. Of course not . But here we are blaming the Chinese!

Space junk has been a problem since the sixties. Let's be real. The US is always engaged is an attitude of self righteousness which is wrong.

I urge the Chinese to move forward with their plans and "catch up" with the US if in fields they are behind. The US should understand that space is no-longer its domain alone. There are other players that are catching up fast.

Re:The US is telling lies

[Arcanix]

How exactly is the US telling lies? The Chinese have openly stated that they did the test. Sure there is a lot of junk up there from the US and Soviets but we also didn't purposely blow up a satellite thereby in one second increasing the amount of debris by 20%.

Re:The US is telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you have sources, you're talking out of your ass.

You're not "sure" of anything

Re:The US is telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

According to wikipedia there are ~10k trackable debris and 2k of these are from the chinese anti-satellite test. There's an estimated 35k untrackable smaller debris that can still pose a huge danger (such as going through an astronaut's head during space walk...).

Sure, the U.S. currently has a retarded administration that lies about most things, but does not mean that everything they say is always a lie. The Chinese were irresponsible in their test because they are space noobs -- get over it.

Re:The US is telling lies

[terrymr]

Not since the 80's anyway.

Re:The US is telling lies

[RNLockwood]

The US "forgets" to compare or even mention the debris left from our anti-satellite test around 1985 when a satellite still being used by US scientists was destroyed. We lead the way and then castigate those who follow.

Re:The US is telling lies

[ScrewMaster]

Couldn't agree more.

Still, china's space administration will learn fast the first time one of their trillion-dollar launches gets perforated. Sure, people talk about "leveling the playing field", along with the rest of the unjustified anti-American rhetoric floating around Slashdot like so many pieces of space junk. That doesn't change the fact that China's actions in this regard were irrational and self-defeating, and an example of brinksmanship worthy of the old Soviet Union. Nobody that has a near-space presence is at all happy with their stupidity. This little game of theirs is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money, if nothing else because extra maneuvering uses fuel and shortens operating lifetimes.

If China wants a level playing field (of course, they have no intention of settling for that, they want superiority, period) let them put more satellites into orbit, let them utilize near-space rather than make it more dangerous for everyone including themselves.

In the modern world, there's always going to be at least one Superpower, at least one nation that will divert a substantial portion of its industrial output to its military. Germany did that. The United States too. Then Russia. China is doing it as we speak. And all the fools who think the "giant American military" (which, I might add, suffered substantial reductions from the Cold War days and is nowhere near as big and powerful as it once was) is such an imminent threat to everyone, need to ask themselves the following questions:

Who do you want to have that power? Who is mostly likely to hurt other countries and peoples when they have it? Who has a history of true imperialism?

These are not trivial questions, they deserve careful consideration, and anyone who automatically answers "The United States" is an uninformed idiot.

Re:The US is telling lies

[thesupraman]

And when the US did their anti-satellite tests previously, it was different how? I refer you to October 13, 1985.

"In April 1988, the two Democratic chambers of Congress voted against extending the ASAT ban"

"The ban on using the MIRACL laser against space targets lapsed in 1996, when the new Republican Congress opted not to renew it."

"in August 2004 the U.S. Air Force published a doctrine on "Counterspace Operations" which affirmed its readiness to conduct "operations to deceive, disrupt, deny, degrade, or destroy adversary space capabilities" in order to maintain U.S. space superiority."

Re:The US is telling lies

[ScrewMaster]

I refer you to October 13, 1985.

Okay, so then when one nation does something that is arguably stupid, we can't say that it's just as stupid for another nation to do it?

I refer you to basic logic.

Re:The US is telling lies

[ScrewMaster]

Who's castigating who? And 1985 was a long time ago and since then we've taken steps to reduce the quantity of space junk we release. Furthermore, the fact that we did this a couple decades ago should have served as a warning to the Chinese that it's a bad idea. They failed to learn from our experience and repeated the mistake. Why shouldn't we complain about that? They had a perfectly good negative example.

Besides, we're just pointing out that the Chinese did a bad thing, just as other people take high delight in noting when we do bad things, and we're under no obligation to comment upon our own misdeeds. I might add that if a serious nuclear confrontation ever does develop and those antimissile systems prove their worth, you'll not be complaining much about space junk. Get over your dislike for your own country already.

Re:The US is telling lies

[dwater]

Right. China's recent action is at least as stupid as the US's past action - I say 'at least' because China hasn't bothered to learn from the US's mistakes.

I think most people point out that the US has conveniently ignored it's own past, as a reason to defend China's current/recent behaviour. That's understandable, IMO, but somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Re:The US is telling lies

[BLAG-blast]

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Anti-satellite_weapon

"The first, and only, successful interception was on September 13, 1985. The F-15 took off from Edwards Air Force Base, climbed to 80,000 feet and vertically launched the missile at the Solwind P78-1, a US gamma ray spectroscopy satellite orbiting at 555 km, which was launched in 1979."

Okay, so then when one nation does something that is arguably stupid, we can't say that it's just as stupid for another nation to do it?

Sure, in some cases. In this case I find it hard to condemn China for making the same mistakes we made while trying to develop the same technology. The US is also partly to blame for the mistake China made, we could have shared the data and technology we developed.

This will happen again, take Iran, it has a great need to defend it self from the US (we've invade it's neighbors, we keep threatening it, call them names, and generally being nasty). Iran also has the capability to design and manufacture missiles. How long before they find the need to perform a test of a key defense system? Also, take North Korea, they already have long range missiles, we can only hope China will share their data with them so they don't have to repeat the test.

Re:The US is telling lies

[ScrewMaster]

You're confusing long-range surface-to-surface missiles with orbital craft, and weapons capable of taking them down. The two are very different, and Iran and North Korea, so far as I'm aware, aren't in the business of launching satellites or anti-satellite weapons yet. That's much more complicated, and of less benefit to either one of them than being able to drop nukes on ground targets.

Regardless, we are talking about a shared resource, low-Earth orbit. We got there first, made our mistake, and so far as I know haven't repeated it, and in the thirty years since have taken steps to alleviate further damage. China was, presumably, aware of this and yet chose to do much the same thing, with predictable results. An extra 20% added to the orbiting junk load ... that's substantial and they're going to pay for this as much as the rest of us. So yes, I do call it stupid and I can't excuse it just because we made a similar stupid move years before.

LEO is a valuable piece of space real-estate, being gradually contaminated by world militaries. My complaint is not that China is attempting to make use of near-space, but that they're doing it in a way the negatively impacts everyone.

The US is also partly to blame for the mistake China made, we could have shared the data and technology we developed.

What? That's so far out in left field I don't know where to begin. You're talking about some of the most advanced military technology we have, and you are blaming us for not sharing it with the world's largest totalitarian regime? A nation that is threatening the United States on every level? Are you serious? China failed to learn from our mistake which makes this their mistake, period. They knew what the consequences would be and they did it anyway without regard for anyone else.

Re:The US is telling lies

[BLAG-blast]

On one hand you talk about "shared resources", and on the other you say "f*ck off we're not telling you how it works".

Was the US making just as much noise when it performed the same experiment? I don't think so.

As long as the US hordes space research data, we can not expect everybody to treat this so called "shared resource" the same as we do. Yes, I know, it's sensitive military data... blah blah blah blah. If the US was smart, it would figure out how to share (license, supply, regulate equipment) and play nicely with others (while maintaining control). But currently the US seems to favor a wild west type of space rather than a more orderly shared space.

Re:The US is telling lies

[ScrewMaster]

Bosh and fiddle-faddle. By "shared resource" I mean "shared natural resource", just like the oceans, the atmosphere or our planet's mineral wealth. I feel the same way when nations (any nation, mine included) treat those resources with disrespect, just as I feel perfectly justified in criticizing China for its recent abuse of near-space.

Conversely, when a country invests billions of its citizens dollars in developing defense technology, it is in no way obligated to share that technology with any nation, particularly inimical ones. If you think China wouldn't use that tech against us in a heartbeat, you're naive. Furthermore, even if you truly believe that China is really a pleasant, friendly nation underneath that brusque, totalitarian exterior, it would be foolish of us to give them anything which we wouldn't feel comfortable with anyone else having. And believe me, there are a lot of countries on this planet that would pay big money for that technology, if nothing else to help figure out how to defeat it.

It would be utterly irresponsible for our government to just hand over advanced military technology (like they already have with so much else) in order to spare China some growing pains. We the People paid for it, it belongs to us, not the world. If China feels this is important to them, let them make the same investment we did. If not ... tough. And I might add that had America taken that same stance regarding all the other technology that we've given to China, or had outright stolen from us, we might not be in our current situation.

So stop making excuses what those assholes did here ... they knew better. Period.

Re:The US is telling lies

[BLAG-blast]

If China feels this is important to them, let them make the same investment we did.

They are making the same investment as us and they are making the same mistakes. We just stand there shaking our heads at China like we should be surprised by this. If you're going with "let them make the same investment", then you've got to allow (or at least expect) them to make the same mistakes and use up the same amount of natural resources to achieve this (include dumping garbage in LEO just like the US and Russia).

Space is kind of new, we are jealously trying to keep it to ourselves. But why? What does it buy us? Other than keeping humans out of space for a little while longer it serves no longterm purpose. China is going to catch up, many other nations will get space access, there will be battles, conflicts, wars, so what? this isn't new. We will have far more control over space if we supply access, we could even make lots of money doing it (you did say countries would pay big money, right?)... Otherwise, by time others catch up, our technology is not worth very much.

Twenty Percent

[DannyO152]

And who put the other 80 percent up there?

Re:Twenty Percent

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, 20 percent from one incident seems to be pretty significant.

Re:Twenty Percent

[tenco]

83 1/3 % It increased by 20%.

And US Junk?

[rueger]

"essentially (Chinese anti-satellite tests) increase the amount of space debris orbiting the Earth by about 20 percent"

So what you're saying is that the 70-80% of orbiting space junk that is American or Russian doesn't pose a hazard?

I call bullshit and scaremongering

Re:And US Junk?

[X0563511]

That 20% increase is with ONE TEST.

Kinda puts it to scale for you, doesn't it?

Re:And US Junk?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hardly call this scaremongering. While it is true that much of the space debris comes from the past actions of the Americans and Russians, the last thing we need is even more garbage up there than there already is. Yes, space junk is a problem. And yes, it is true that much of the space junk is the US' fault. But is the US putting harmful debris into space right now? Ultimately that is more important, because although we may not be able to do much about the past we can sure as hell stop things from becoming more worse than it already is.

Re:And US Junk?

[IvyKing]

And yes, it is true that much of the space junk is the US' fault.

A lot of the space junk came from boosters blowing up in space. A lot the final stages had leftover fuel that would exapnd and rupture the tanks. The US learned relatively early on and later persuaded the Russians to vent the fuel after the satellite was in proper orbit.

40 years of spaceflight, and can't send crew...

[mikelieman]

It's very saddening that:

1) After all this time we can't send someone up there to clean this up.

2) We can't send the Navy to secure the space-lanes-of-commerce.

Re:40 years of spaceflight, and can't send crew...

[Anonymous Coward]

"After all this time..."

You realize that all the smart people that sent the astronauts to the moon in the 1960's have all retired? In fact, one of the problems in the defense industry now is that all of the knowledge that the US supposedly had in that era did not get passed on to the current generation. "After all of this time", the industry has degenerated and not grown. I believe (from seeing the kinds of people in the industry) that, even though Bush promised that the USA is going back to the moon, and Lockheed even won a huge program to do so, we have forgotten so much that instead of lessons learned from the 1960's NASA programs, we will have to re-create so much from scratch (without the old dude's insight) that it is not one of those things that is going to be 100% successful.

I didn't bother to do any searching, but as an example of what I am talking about Boeing/Lockheed have not successfully re-created the launch capacity of the Saturn V rockets. It would take a pretty large payload to be sent into orbit to clean that stuff up, and I'm not so sure that the current generation of engineering would be able to do that.

Re:40 years of spaceflight, and can't send crew...

[mikelieman]

Yes, I do realize that RIGHT NOW we don't have, and can't recreate the lifting capacity we had way-back-when. That is essentially what I was lamenting.

The only thing to NASAs credit today is JPL and the robotic missions. Those don't totally suck.

However, I don't think we can do it 100 years from now, given that we've gone essentially nowhere for the past 40.

Bizarro am happy.

Crap, here comes the space junk

[Ignorant Aardvark]

I wrote about how idiotic this missile test was back when it first happened, and it looks like I was dead on. It's scary how myopic China is being in polluting space for everyone for some military propaganda of dubious value. I wonder how far we are from a run-away Kessler Syndrome (when the amount of space junk in orbit is so bad that the junk keeps hitting other junk in an exponentially growing manner until space is so polluted with tiny pieces of junk that we cannot even get off the Earth).

Re:Crap, here comes the space junk

[imsabbel]

Of course you ignore the fact that the us did anti-sat weapon tests before, and nobody complained.

Re:Crap, here comes the space junk

[Ranzear]

Wouldn't that be the best case scenario in terms of energy dissipation towards eventual clearing of the debris cloud?

Re:Crap, here comes the space junk

[MrYotsuya]

I suppose there's a reason why "Ignorant" is part of his ID.

Great Weapon

[3DKnight]

This is probably the best "Denial" type weapon developed. In the case of the chinese, if there was ever a major threat to thier sovereignty they could make the whole orbit plane into a huge denial zone, crippling the more advanced nation that relies on that area, while giving themselves the advatage of using an army that hasn't learned to rely on satellites. the whole mentality of "if we can't have it, neither can you" works very well in warfare. Scorched earth... just taken to the next level.

Re:Great Weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC carried this story today and like Slashdot, in all the long talk villifying China, the BBC never mentioned why China prepares to shoot down US satellites: the U.S. out of control space-war program is a threat to everybody-- growing an endless array of weapons in space.

I found myself experimenting with this thought: it might not be such a bad thing if China blows up a bunch more satellites. The U.S. space weapons are used for illegal aggressions, around the world. We don't need space weapons to defend the territory that is our jurisdiction. They are intrinsically aggressive. Our war pigs have no self restraint. Maybe China can provide some for us.

In fact I found myself thinking, it might not be such a bad thing if all earth orbits are made unusable by flying debris. Who do these space systems benefit? Not me. Sorry. I am selfish, like everybody else. I hope all the satellites go blind and fall down. Sorry. Nothing up there for me--not now, not ever. How about we learn how to live on Earth.

In other words...

[mcrh]

Chinese anti-satellite missile deployment successful.

And they must be...

[justkeeper]

Opetronphiles!!!

Yes,

[gbutler69]

and here in Ohio all the Steel plants sit idle because it's too expensive to produce the Steel here because of cheap imports. I call BULLSHIT!

Re:Yes,

[Adambomb]

Uh, and if china says no more steel those Ohio plants will be back up to full capacity immediately, with no lapse to retool or get workers back in there, and the shift in pricing would have no impact on american industry versus the rest of the world?

You do know theres a world out there right? Croikey, I sincerely hope you're just a troll and not really this short sighted.

Re:Yes,

[jamstar7]

They'll have to retool. And the price of steel will go up. Supply and demand. You can't just walk into one of those old steel mills and flip a switch and have them producing. It'll take time to ramp them back up.

Re:Yes,

[Adambomb]

(exactly what i was saying)

Plus, other nations might not be hampered by the same restrictions and so still have cheaper sources of steel.

US automakers alone would have a fit if they found themselves on that playing field.

NIce try

[geekoid]

The US shot down a satellite in 1985 that was at an altitude of about 555KM. The pieces decayed from orbit pretty quickly.

I would like to see a complete ban on anti-satellite technology that results in there being any debris.

The Chinese test was pretty irresponsible and they could have proven that they have the capabilities through other means. The US test was in direct response to the USSRs test. One of the last cold war cock waving events.

That said, after Bush's little speech; which certainly implied that the US was allowed to go after satellites but would be upset if anyone else did it, I do understand why the Chinese did the test.

A couple more events like these and you can kiss your cell phone/GPS/non-local TV good by. OTOH. we would have a lot of shooting stars for a few dozen years.

Re:NIce try

[IvyKing]

A couple more events like these and you can kiss your cell phone/GPS/non-local TV good by.

GPS and direct broadcast satellites are in a much higher orbit. The low orbit space junk may make it difficult to get up to the higher orbit, but it won't be the same level of threat to low altitude satellites. What the Chinese didn't take into account was that the space junk will threaten their manned missions as much as anybody elses.

Don't be a dork

[geekoid]

"So what you're saying is that the 70-80% of orbiting space junk that is American or Russian doesn't pose a hazard?"

No, the only person saying that is YOU. Classic strawman.

WHat they are saying it the total space junk INCREASED by 20%.

Easy

[j0hn7r0n]

Just send some giant balls of really sticky goo with a few engines on it for maneuvering up there. Kinda like a space Roomba. They'd fly around consuming debris, then, when they're close to the end of their fuel supply, they'd fly into the sun.

Re:Easy

[Jippy T Flounder]

that is a possibility, but wouldn't it be better to recycle all that material by using it for space construction? i'm sure we have enough out there to cover a few ground launches.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I always thought flying stuff into the sun was the answer (I probably got the idea from superman when I was a kid) but if you really think about it, it shouldn't become a habit to start offloading our mass into the nearest nuclear furnace. Recycling has got to be the way to go, I'm all for 0g manufacturing plants for space operations, and all the better that when clearing a space for them we actually use what was in the way...

Re:Easy

[toddestan]

It would likely take most of their fuel supply to get them to the sun from Earth's orbit. The most logical thing to do would be to burn them up in the atmosphere once they were "spent". Though if they were stable, it may make more sense just to park them somewhere for later retrieval as raw materials.

"Free Trade" - Re:That's a laugh!

[Tablizer]

and talk about "free trade" is economic voodoo!

Theoretically, it does maximize GDP, but it has unpleasant side-effects that big biz lobbyists tend to discount or simply not mention. The side-effects include loss of economic diversity and increased risk, like bigger recessions. And it means Americans have to keep going back to school as specialties keep disappearing over the horizon.

The Futue Big Businesses

[BlueCoder]

Commercial exploitation of space is going to take off in the next twenty years. Once liability is firmly established the first commercial businesses will be the junk collectors/deflectors along with fuel/energy storage/production/transmission and repair services. All mostly robotic.

Hypocritical

[Tablizer]

This article is kind of hypocritical because the US is still the biggest space polluter (being that we use space the most). Yes, the Chinese were irresponsible with that one test, but to blame them for the whole problem is unfair.

Re:Hypocritical

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to challenge modding down of the above. Is there a Slashdot court?

your sig

[CrazedWalrus]

New punctuation update "~" (no quotes) at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm.

Hey! That's a great idea!~

Need to create a space garbage truck.

[WindBourne]

Seriously, it strikes me that using a laser or something that can be used on the small fragments to slow them down (i.e. do-orbit them), would be worth a lot to us.

The other choice is to try and capture them physically, but that would mean a lot of fuel. Perhaps use an ion drive to steer and increase/slow speeds at each orbit. Once it acquires a piece of garbage, shoot it downward or down and back.

DMDs

[angryfirelord]

Debris of Mass Destruction?

In fact

[WindBourne]

to this day, Russia is probably still able to cause us more damage than china can from a tech POV. In fact, I would guess that only Britain, Canada and maybe Australia and/or Israel know more about our equipment than does Russia. The problem is that China has the ability to field a much bigger army than we do, AND china is stealing as much tech as they can. Worse, they are obviously hiding how much is being spent on the military. It is a great deal more than what they have admitted to.

Re:In fact

[IvyKing]

Having the largest army in the world and being able to do something with are two different things. The two nations with most to fear from the Chinese army are Russia and India.

I do think we're too lax about China's grab for technology.

Next x-prize?

[Midnight Thunder]

Maybe the next x-prize should allocated to a "solution to effectively clean up space debris". The only catch is the beyond the prize money, who is going to pay for the investment, since it is not clear who would be paying for the service?

Quick somebody call Andy Griffith!

[ankarbass]

Once upon a time, a junkman had a dream...

New Industry?

[xdor]

I wonder if there's any chance of starting an orbit cleaning service.

"Will clear a path x miles out for n passes for $$$."

I suppose getting clearance might be difficult, since any vehicle that has the capability of maintaining a precise orbit while collecting/colliding with space junk would probably be a great platform for cleaning up other items as well.

Reminds me of an anime...

[Talgrath]

...called Planetes in which the main characters are space junkers, people who's job is to either destroy or salvage pieces of junk floating around in space because there's so much of it now that it threatens satellites in orbit.

rogerwilco

[Anonymous Coward]

sudo apt-get install rogerwilco

problem solved

Re:Well? What would you expect from Xeonphobes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't be impressed until I can see that spacewall from the ground.

W's answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Can't we just bomb the space junk?"

And in future news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chinese space pollution destroys their hopes of mission to the moon, with all crew lost in unfortunate collision with space junk....

or was it really and accident?

The fools have set themselves up for some serious covert payback and their is nothing they will be able to do about it.

Multiple guidance systems

[Dire Bonobo]

*cough*JDAM*cough*Tomahawk*cough*F-16*cough* Sorry got something stupid stuck in my throat.

From the looks of it, that "something stupid" has migrated upwards a little.

Exactly as the parent poster said, weapons like the Tomahawk have multiple guidance systems of which GPS represents only one. In this case:

Guidance System: Inertial and TERCOM [terrain contour matching]

That same website has stats for JDAMs ("an inertial navigation system/global positioning system guidance kit") and F-16s ("AN/APG-66 pulsed-Doppler radar"). Little or nothing seems to be GPS-only.

Communications ...

[golodh]

Missile guidance systems may work fine without GPS, but as I understand, the military also makes heavy use of other types of satellites in Low Earth Orbit:

- communication satellites (all Command and Control over distances longer than say 20-80 Km; both voice and data).

- reconnaissance satellites (radar reconnaissance satellites, photo reconnaissance satellites, infra-red imaging satellites)

As far as I am aware, most of the emerging "networked" aspects of the military depend on satellite communications. The control of and imagery from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and all those automated little messages that collect information from many sensors to where it's combined, analysed, interpreted, and redistributed as terms of a coherent picture of what's where, down to the target coordinates. I believe that we saw both in Kosovo and in the Iraq war how extremely powerful those systems are.

In other words: if someone can destroy those satellites, the US military will -at a stroke- loose its single largest unmatched advantage. So one might imagine that there is some reason for concern.

Re:Sanction Them Please

[Ox0065]

I'll preface this with the statement that the USA's satelite system is just wonderful. USA rocks... (^-^) ...yay! etc... being your ally & all.

There has been a great deal of discussion in Australia as to how much we'll need to care, this time America hits a recession, given our enormous growth in trade with China. Around when the USA sub-prime loan thing first came up, BHP (steel, etc...) shares dipped. Front page of the Financial Review: The old addage "If BHP shares drop 10%, buy" rings true again. When BHPs clients (China) were asked about the problem they apparently responded with something approximating "what problem, Oh that, meh." BHP shares popped back up.

That said, the general gist has, however, been that, if the US economy tanks, then the impact on Australia will be a much smaller reflection as a result of reduced goods sales from China to the USA.

If you were to sanction China, could I suggest some commodities for your consideration? I'm sure that'd really hurt them bad.

WOW!! A solution to global warming AND big brother

[Ox0065]

We just need to get the boffins to work on how much space junk we need to put in orbit to balance the effects of all the CO2 we're pumping out
With the side effect of taking away sports coverage from regional areas... oh. cough.

Can you say JDAM?

[martinde]

> The US has no weapon systems that are GPS guided and never has, precisely because it is vulnerable.

We used thousands of JDAMs in Iraq II, those are GPS guided.

Re:Can you say JDAM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done, you managed to link an article yourself and inaccruately summerise it's content, you truely are a slashdotter now!

Fly paper.

[barry99705]

What we need is a chunk of reinforced flypaper the size of a football field. Or at least something along the lines of that. Or maybe something like those sticky mouse trap things. Big ol' chunk of sticky crap to trap and hold the chunks. Though then you'll need a way to get rid of that. Push it towards the sun would be a good choice. De-orbit might be okay, though the Aussie's might not think so, considering SkyLab.

Environment

[Fear the Clam]

I'm shocked, shocked to learn that the Chinese are shitting all over the environment.

well said...

[cheekyboy]

More info at financialsense.com and shadowstats dot org i think, but google it.

Its pure utter fraud, but sactioned and legal. Id love to walk up to an apple store and say, "heres $9000 I printed on my inkjet, can I buy that powerbook/iphone/itouch+28in lcd"

War coming

[Anonymous Coward]

China is on a war path with the United States. And American consumers are just too happy to provide the Chinese with the funds to do so.

safe?

[freaker_TuC]

I hope they use condoms ;)

More China-Baiting from the Washington Times

[schnippy]

The Washington Times and especially Bill Gertz are always good for a chuckle as I pass the newspaper box on my morning commute. You can't deny that he is a talented investigative reporter with unprecedented access to the defense and intelligence community but their agenda in selecting the intelligence to highlight is often amusingly transparent.

In this example, the new intelligence is that the debris from China's ASAT test is causing the U.S. to change the orbits of its satellites to avoid collisions. Thats all true and it can't be denied that the Chinese ASAT test caused an unprecedented amount of space debris. However, what Gertz chooses not to acknowledge is that these kinds of maneuvers have been going on for decades know, thanks to a legacy of space debris from U.S./Soviet space development and ASAT tests in the 70s-80s. Space debris was already becoming self-sustaining even before the Chinese test:

http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/3127

To be clear, China should more fully acknowledge its responsibility for the damage it has inflicted on the space environment. However, the way Gertz frames the article, the only reason we are having this problem is because of the test, as if China maliciously planned to create a lot of debris to tweak the U.S. (as many commenters here assume)..

Please read your own link above

[dbIII]

There are books available. The link you quoted also supports what I said. Ask almost anybody in Canada or even somebody that was reading Readers Digest a few years back about the Kosmos satellite that crashed for instance - this orbit is used (as your link above said) for this purpose. The reason is to be able to resolve finer detail on the ground - the best optics is not going to be able to exceed physical limits so you just have to get close. Things moving very fast in the upper atmosphere do not last long so an eccentric orbit allows it to get close at times and survive in orbit for a long time.

globalsecurity.org's entire list of active US military reconaissance spacecraft

That's an awful lot of classified launches for only three satellites! Have you considered that this source may be supplying limited information? Perhaps try reading a book written before the current administration since I'm not going to resort to dropping the name of the reference for my lecture notes when even Readers Digest and Wikipedia tell the story - you should see enough of what I'm talking about on your wikipedia link quoted above and I'm sure google will help if it needs clarification.

Most of the US debt is owed internally

[Bazar]

I'll point out that most of the US debts are held within USA, with about 25% of the debt owed externally to Japan and China.

You already have the vacuum..

[cheros]

.. so you only need to send up the cleaner .. :-)

Re:Well Golly! America solves it again!

[aqk]

... geostationary orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit. ... but for the most part it just sits in one place above the earth and appears stationary to an observer on the ground.

Golly! America just solved another one! In spite of its pathetic relative scientific illiteracy...
Alas, the "Geostationary orbit" whereof you speak is about 36,000 Km above the Earth, as I recall from my high-school physics (that's about 22,000 miles to you Americans). And only on the equator.
(Actually, I believe the Anglo-Ceylonese science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke first proposed this technique about 60 years ago in one of his SF novels)

Most low-Earth birds fly around 250 to 500 miles up, just above the remaining atmospheric drag.
And that includes all this Chinese Anti-sat "junk" that the article refers to.

But if you feel that your geo-stationary orbits can somehow be brought down a tad closer to this level, then NASA and perhaps the US Military might be interested in your theories and pedantry.
Why not give them a call?
Or perhaps suggest they start to spy on this low-level Geostationary Chinese technology?

Now, best you go back to watching your DirectTV (sic), lad! Hint: try watching some of the science channels - if there are any on Hughes...

Re:Well Golly! America solves it again!

[porkchop_d_clown]

Yes, Clarke did invent (or discover?) the geosynchronous orbit, long before the first satellite was launched. He also "moved" Ceylon to the equator (in another story) so he could place a space elevator there.

As I recall, he invented the space elevator concept, as well.

Space junk from the Chinese

[bronsinbound]

Where is SDI when you need it? Oh, the Chinese are our friends! They wouldn't think of shooting down/disabling/crippling our satellites.