India Shoots Down Satellite in Test (reuters.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

India Shoots Down Satellite in Test (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @02:50AM from the space-power dept.

India shot down one of its satellites in space with an anti-satellite missile on Wednesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, hailing the country's first test of such technology as a major breakthrough that establishes it as a space power. From a report: India would only be the fourth country to have used such an anti-satellite weapon after the United States, Russia and China, said Modi, who heads into general elections next month. "Our scientists shot down a live satellite 300 kilometres away in space, in low-earth orbit," Modi said in a television broadcast. "India has made an unprecedented achievement today," he added, speaking in Hindi. "India registered its name as a space power." Anti-satellite weapons allow for attacks on enemy satellites, blinding them or disrupting communications, as well as providing a technology base to intercept ballistic missiles. Update: U.S. says studying India anti-satellite weapons test, warns on debris.

158 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Space Debris by mholve · 2019-03-27 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Thanks for contributing. Have a nice day!
1. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Designated shitting space...
2. Re:Space Debris by jeadly · 2019-03-27 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Did they shoot it down, or blow it up? Big difference.
3. Re:Space Debris by ShanghaiBill · 2019-03-27 03:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Nope. No space debris. The satellite was destroyed in very low earth orbit. Really in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. The orbits of the smaller pieces will decay within hours. The bigger chunks will de-orbit in a few days or weeks.
  India did this test far more responsibly than China's 2007 test, most likely because of the worldwide condemnation of China's behavior.
4. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  That was my first thought as well, but the destruction was in LEO which means that the debris will last a few days before burning up in the atmosphere.
5. Re:Space Debris by InvalidsYnc · 2019-03-27 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. They should be using something that could actually modify the orbit of the satellite either forcing it outside of earths gravity on a trajectory for the sun (don't need it aiming toward nowhere in particular so that the Starship Enterprise crashes into it 10 million years down the road, that's just silly) or making it so that it reenters earths atmosphere and burns up.
6. Re:Space Debris by tomhath · 2019-03-27 03:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They tried to boost it into a permanent orbit. But the rocket blew up, so they changed the story to claim they destroyed it intentionally.
7. Re:Space Debris by jdastrup · 2019-03-27 03:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  They should be using something that could actually modify the orbit of the satellite either forcing it outside of earths gravity on a trajectory for the sun.
  Actually, launching anything into the sun is extremely difficult. It takes speeds of at least 65K mph to counteract Earth's orbit in order to hit the sun and not just end up in an elliptical orbit. It's easier to send something outside of the solar system at just 25K mph.
8. Re:Space Debris by Dutch+Gun · 2019-03-27 03:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I guess not bothering to read the article is something of a tradition here, but this point is addressed. From TFA:
  
  The three-minute test in the lower atmosphere ensured there was no debris in space and the remnants would “decay and fall back on to the earth within weeks”, the ministry added.
  
  So, no space debris, unlike China's test, which was at a much higher orbit, and caused a huge cloud of debris that will last anywhere from decades to centuries.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
9. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  About the only thing feasible would be to degrade the orbit intentionally to cause it to burn up in the atmosphere. The amount of energy required to move a payload from Earth's orbit and impact the Sun is insane. You don't just point it at the Sun and call it a day. Orbital dynamics don't work like that.
10. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, that's something I learned from KSP. Getting into close orbit of the sun takes a tremendous amount of power.
11. Re:Space Debris by Hodr · 2019-03-27 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  That depends on where in LEO. This barely qualified as LEO, was practically in the upper atmosphere.
  For an idea of longevity, the very first satellite ever shot into LEO is still there.
12. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  The debris form the US and Chinese test is still orbiting. Talk about exponential hypocrisy.
13. Re:Space Debris by penandpaper · 2019-03-27 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hours? Days? Weeks?
  That's not soon enough. We are talking about pollution here! We demand clean LEO at all times. /s
14. Re:Space Debris by White+Yeti · 2019-03-27 04:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I agree that the short-term collision risk is low and the long-term risk negligible. Even so, there are about 600 objects in or passing through those low altitudes (~100-350 km): about 100 payloads (working or not), 280 spent rocket bodies, 280 other debris. The rocket bodies are relatively large targets, with the highest potential to generate more debris from collisions.
  
  Ah, geopolitics:
  Time was running out for India to declare itself as an ASAT power to join the US, Russia and China. The United Nations Conference on Disarmament is discussing a new treaty banning militarisation of space. Once the treaty is done and had India not carried out the ASAT test it would put New Delhi at a serious disadvantage, as it would then only be able to negotiate on such a new treaty as an “outsider” rather than an “insider” with ASAT capability.
15. Re:Space Debris by lgw · 2019-03-27 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  For an idea of longevity, the very first satellite ever shot into LEO is still there.
  No, Sputnik's orbit decayed and it burned up in about 3 months. Sputnik 2 also burned up (poor Laika!). Explorer 1 stayed up for 12 years, but burned up in 1970.
  There was some early sat that's still up there, can't remember which one, but it wasn't one of the first 3. Everything in LEO will eventually decay, though drag falls exponentially with altitude.
  There is a bit of garbage in GEO, which is a far more lasting problem, but every modern sat in GEO is required to have enough reserve fuel to boost it into the junkyard orbit above GEO.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
16. Re:Space Debris by ShanghaiBill · 2019-03-27 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Most objects that pass through these altitudes are big or are in elliptical orbits. Collisions will likely lead to faster deorbiting. India's target satellite was in a circular orbit, and it is unlikely that any part of it will survive longer than a few months at most.
  Orbital junk is a problem, but this is not adding to it.
  Militarization of space is a problem, but the biggest escalator, by far, is America.
17. Re: Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  Really ? And how you know about it ?
18. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  flamebait??? this is hilarious! well-played, Tom Hath.
19. Re:Space Debris by Dunbal · 2019-03-27 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  I read they claim 300km. That's not so low. Certainly the ISS has dropped to that altitude, and Kim has fired ICBM's higher than this. But it's higher than the space shuttle used to fly.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
20. Re:Space Debris by skaralic · 2019-03-27 04:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I guess not bothering to read the article is something of a tradition here, but this point is addressed. From TFA:
  
  The three-minute test in the lower atmosphere ensured there was no debris in space and the remnants would “decay and fall back on to the earth within weeks”, the ministry added.
  So, no space debris, unlike China's test, which was at a much higher orbit, and caused a huge cloud of debris that will last anywhere from decades to centuries.
  I only read the first line of your comment but I want to know - what about all the space debris they created?!
21. Re:Space Debris by Oswald+McWeany · 2019-03-27 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  They tried to boost it into a permanent orbit. But the rocket blew up, so they changed the story to claim they destroyed it intentionally.
  I was going to say that they shot down a satellite, but they were aiming at Karachi, Pakistan.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
22. Re:Space Debris by Dunbal · 2019-03-27 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you calculate your gravity assists right...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
23. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Furthermore - the reason we don't read the articles is because people summarize the important bits!
  Well done and thank you.
24. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Can you trust what India says? They have been executing fake surgical strikes for many years.
25. Re:Space Debris by Tough+Love · 2019-03-27 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Right. Fucking idiots.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
26. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Wrong.
  There will be space debris, though it may be reduced, here's why:
  1) You're exploding a fucking missile next to the target.
  2) That's going to disintegrate and give energy to launch enough shit in *ALL* directions(simple physics), enough to reach orbit. It only takes a nut to count as debris, given the damage that could cause when it says hello to other kit at great velocities relative to each other.
27. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  And it aint gonna get any easier/ more cost-effective if we dont do it more often.
  Just advertise it properly:
  Blockchain intersectionality raytracing justice thrusters.
28. Re:Space Debris by nitehawk214 · 2019-03-27 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I read they claim 300km. That's not so low. Certainly the ISS has dropped to that altitude, and Kim has fired ICBM's higher than this. But it's higher than the space shuttle used to fly.
  That is entirely incorrect. Hubble Space Telescope is at 540km and a Space Shuttle put it there.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
29. Re:Space Debris by nitehawk214 · 2019-03-27 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  You are thinking of Vanguard 1 the third satellite ever put into orbit. Its small and its in a 3,840 x 657 km orbit, so its going to be up there for centuries.
  Its upper stage booster is still up there too.
  https://www.heavens-above.com/...
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
30. Re:Space Debris by lgw · 2019-03-27 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Fourth satellite, but yes. "But the fourth one stayed up!"
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
31. Re:Space Debris by sl3xd · 2019-03-27 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  The space shuttle is oft quoted at flying 250 nautical miles above Earth.
  I'll leave it to pundits for why they chose a unit of measurement that's too obscure for even Americans to use.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
32. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong.
  Rude.
  
  That's going to disintegrate and give energy to launch enough shit in *ALL* directions(simple physics), enough to reach orbit.
  Sorry, but it seems your view of physics is too simple. You can't move something to a higher stable orbit with a single thrust. A single change in delta-V will turn a circular orbit elliptical, but will still return to the atmosphere. When spacecraft need to increase altitude, they thrust twice approximately 90 degrees apart.
33. Re:Space Debris by zlives · 2019-03-27 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  i think they should have stuck to fathoms
34. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  Until it hits a plane and kills 100s of passengers!
35. Re:Space Debris by Solandri · 2019-03-27 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's not strictly true. It's correct if you want to get there (the sun or leave the solar system) in one shot. But if you're willing to do multiple passes (slingshot maneuvers) around planets, you can get there for a lot less energy. (Non-wiki link because the Wikipedia article doesn't really explain it.)
  
  It's easier to do this with the inner planets because (1) they're closer together so you don't have to wait as long for multiple flybys, and (2) they orbit more quickly so you don't have to wait as long for the proper orbital configuration. Cassini was launched this way, doing multiple passes around Venus, then another by Earth to pick up more velocity on its way to Saturn. So overall I suspect it's actually easier to send something into the sun (after passing inner planets multiple times) than it is to shoot it out of the solar system.
36. Re:Space Debris by ShanghaiBill · 2019-03-27 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  The space shuttle is oft quoted at flying 250 nautical miles above Earth.
  I'll leave it to pundits for why they chose a unit of measurement that's too obscure for even Americans to use.
  A nautical mile is exactly one minute of arc at the equator. So it is handy for navigation, which is why it is used by ships. As long as they are using it for horizontal distances, they may as well use it for vertical distances as well.
37. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. No space debris. The satellite was destroyed in very low earth orbit. Really in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.
  Mind provide us with the PROOFS of what you have claimed?
  So far, other than the word of Modi, no one is shown any convincing evidence of India shooting down satellites, low orbit, or otherwise.
  
  India did this test far more responsibly than China's 2007 test, most likely because of the worldwide condemnation of China's behavior.
  Again, please provide PROOFS of "India's more responsibly satellite crap shoot incident", thank you !
38. Re: Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:46 · Score: 0
  
  Cassini needed velocity to arrive at Saturn during the team scientists' working lives. Same with New Horizons, fastest probe ever until recently, Parker solar probe.
  If you have lots of time, it doesn't take much Delta v to leave the solar system... Eventually.
39. Re:Space Debris by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  I disagree, it is strictly true. The means of obtaining the Delta-V may vary, but a specific amount of Delta-V is required. Gravity assists are a great way to change your velocity for "free". Even though conservation of angular momentum is conserved, any effect on the planet used for the assist will be so relatively small as to be nigh undetectable.
40. Re:Space Debris by sl3xd · 2019-03-28 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, I live in a city whose streets are marked in a Cartesian coordinate system.
  In hundredths of a furlong.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
First Post Satellite by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 02:54 · Score: 0

Damn, they took down my satellite!
Do you want Space Force? by xaosflux · 2019-03-27 02:56 · Score: 1

Because this is how you get Space Force!
1. Re:Do you want Space Force? by penandpaper · 2019-03-27 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Or you get it by having redundant capability spread across different branches and by isolating the budget and command structure to prioritize the needs of space capabilities that are not a priority under the AF.
  These kind of things does highlight the importance of having people dedicated to address the growing concern of space challenges.
  But Yes. I do want a Space Force with maybe a different name.
2. Re:Do you want Space Force? by ShanghaiBill · 2019-03-27 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  The real purpose of this launch is to give Modi's BJP party a boost before general elections next month. They will most likely win, despite being the moral equivalent of the KKK. Modi is divisive and bigoted, and not the sort of person who should be leading a nation with nukes.
3. Re:Do you want Space Force? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:30 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  The real purpose of this launch is to give Trump's Republican party a boost before general elections next month. They will most likely win, despite being the moral equivalent of the KKK. Trump is divisive and bigoted, and not the sort of person who should be leading a nation with nukes.
  FTFY
4. Re:Do you want Space Force? by lgw · 2019-03-27 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Why a different name? Air Force; Space Force. Sounds better than Space Corps or Space Guard.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
5. Re:Do you want Space Force? by Brett+Buck · 2019-03-27 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Why are people so hung up on the proposed Space Force? The space part of the Air Force has been massive for years, it really is a separate function from acquiring and operating airplanes, and space is an extremely critical defense arena. Space has been a separate command in the Air Force for something like 20 years, it is perfectly logical that it become a separate complete force.
6. Re:Do you want Space Force? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  Why a different name? Air Force; Space Force. Sounds better than Space Corps or Space Guard.
  Wait until Space Force gets its own service academy so we can have real space cadets!
7. Re:Do you want Space Force? by CrimsonAvenger · 2019-03-27 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Why a different name? Air Force; Space Force.
  Because it'll annoy the Air Force to have done to them what they did to the Army - split off a branch into a separate Service, which can then ignore the parent Service, except to squelch any attempts by same to do anything that infringes on their turf....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
8. Re:Do you want Space Force? by lgw · 2019-03-27 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  You say that like it's a bad thing.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
9. Re:Do you want Space Force? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  No collusion actually means collusion, the new npc doublethink
10. Re:Do you want Space Force? by Oswald+McWeany · 2019-03-27 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Why a different name? Air Force; Space Force. Sounds better than Space Corps or Space Guard.
  Actually, I think Space Corps and Space Guard sound less comedic. Space Force sounds like some kind of spoof the "South Park" writers would come up with.
  I think I prefer the name Space Guard. That said, it doesn't really matter what it's called- it's the concept that should be debated on- not the name. In the grand scheme of things, the name doesn't matter.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
11. Re:Do you want Space Force? by Oswald+McWeany · 2019-03-27 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Why are people so hung up on the proposed Space Force? The space part of the Air Force has been massive for years, it really is a separate function from acquiring and operating airplanes, and space is an extremely critical defense arena. Space has been a separate command in the Air Force for something like 20 years, it is perfectly logical that it become a separate complete force.
  I think because it reeks of yet another vanity project rather than anything really needed. There really isn't enough space stuff in the Air Force to warrant the extra red tape involved. I think people just don't like all the expensive pointless vanity projects.
  There may come a day when a "Space Force" is needed, but we're nowhere near that yet. We didn't create an Air Force with the first airplane that flew.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
12. Re:Do you want Space Force? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  But we could have had Space Marines...
13. Re:Do you want Space Force? by GameboyRMH · 2019-03-27 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  One good reason to have a different name is to do away with the space-based-arms-race-provoking nature of "Space Force," which likely contributed to India being emboldened to carry out this test.
  If any country feels that they absolutely must have a space-based weapons program despite all the good reasons not to, they should keep it top secret. The Soviets were smart enough to know that:
  https://www.popularmechanics.c...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Today's Russians are still smart enough to know this:
  https://space.skyrocket.de/doc...
  And before Trump, the US was too:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
14. Re:Do you want Space Force? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  I will only accept Earth Defense Force.
15. Re:Do you want Space Force? by BringsApples · 2019-03-27 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Should be called "Orbital Force", or maybe "Solar Force". Space is like, big.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
16. Re:Do you want Space Force? by lgw · 2019-03-27 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  One good reason to have a different name is to do away with the space-based-arms-race-provoking nature of "Space Force,"
  
  The point of the military is to present strength, and thus to deter attack. Anyway, too late, Russia already has a "space force", we're just playing catchup in the space-based-arms-race.
  
  If any country feels that they absolutely must have a space-based weapons program despite all the good reasons not to
  We already have plenty of space-based military equipment. I'm sure the US and Russia both have some weapons in orbit, but that's not really the point. The "space domain" is mostly about intelligence and communication. It's not obviously a useful place for weaponry, other than for ballistic missile defense.
  But if space based weapons better enable our military to kill the enemy, then they get space based weapons too. The ability to kill the enemy is, after all, the point of a military, whether used to deter, to conquer, to influence trade negotiations, or for whatever other "extension of politics" might be needed.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
17. Re:Do you want Space Force? by lgw · 2019-03-27 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  "Space" is the existing term of art in the military, as is (sadly) "cyber". The US military thinks of combat as happening in 5 domains: air, land, sea, space, and cyber.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
18. Re:Do you want Space Force? by GameboyRMH · 2019-03-27 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Playing catchup publicly in an arms race is exactly how you perpetuate an arms race. The only ways to win are not to play, or at leasy to not let anyone know you're playing. Countries don't attack just because they think they have an edge, presenting strength is usually not necessary and is merely a secondary use of a military. The point of having a military is, or should be, the capability to defend a country if attacked.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
19. Re: Do you want Space Force? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  Holy crap, there's a general election next month? I must have set the clock wrong and slept through daylight saving time! October already!
20. Re:Do you want Space Force? by Brett+Buck · 2019-03-27 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  There really isn't enough space stuff in the Air Force to warrant the extra red tape involved.
  Are you insane? The space side of the air force is HUGE, far bigger than NASA, or any other countries entire space efforts, and has been for decades.
21. Re:Do you want Space Force? by SunTzuWarmaster · 2019-03-28 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't like "cyber" any more than the next guy, but I'm actually hard pressed to come up with something that says "electromagnetic spectrum attacks and defense in addition to hacking-based IT attack/defense or other attack/defense on system operation".
  Whatever term you prefer, it has to include, for both attack/defense: jamming, hacking/spoofing, spying/snooping, and the general "flying a small drone with high-powered transmitter which issues orders to my missile-drone and steals it".
  Cyber kinda encompasses it as "not air, not land, not sea, not space" and "uses fancy electrical/computer stuff to accomplish objectives".
  "Computer war" or "hack war" doesn't fit (jamming).
  "Electromagnetic war" doesn't fit.
  Open to other suggestions.
22. Re:Do you want Space Force? by BringsApples · 2019-03-28 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Tech-Force?
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
23. Re:Do you want Space Force? by lgw · 2019-03-28 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Countries don't attack just because they think they have an edge, presenting strength is usually not necessary and is merely a secondary use of a military.
  
  You know nothing of history.
  
  The point of having a military is, or should be, the capability to defend a country if attacked.
  The cost of that happening is massive "in blood and treasure". No. You deter violence, you don't wait for it to happen to you. Strength is the only way to deter a bully, or a psychopath.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
24. Re:Do you want Space Force? by lgw · 2019-03-28 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and don't forget the cyber domain also include deception and propaganda on social media, whether to disguise the actions of your troops, to attack the moral strength of the enemy, or to prop up the moral strength of your own side.
  Yeah, I don't have a better name either. I suppose it's inevitable that "Cyber Corps" joins "Space Force" one day.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
25. Re:Do you want Space Force? by SunTzuWarmaster · 2019-03-28 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Those are Cyber PsyOps ;).
  PS - Land PsyOps is firing "please surrender" leaflets via mortar.
26. Re:Do you want Space Force? by GameboyRMH · 2019-03-28 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  You know nothing of history.
  I do, and also that patterns change. The USA hasn't taken over Canada even though it would be fairly easy to do with a military sized to occupy a planet, why? Why did they give up on invading Cuba? Why has no other recent US President considered annexing Venezuela and taking their oil just for shits n' giggles? Why hasn't the US just nuked North Korea? The reason: Diplomacy - that shit works, and the world uses it more these days. I admit it's easy to miss, but we have progressed a bit from being warring tribes of cavemen in areas other than technology.
  
  The cost of that happening is massive "in blood and treasure". No. You deter violence, you don't wait for it to happen to you. Strength is the only way to deter a bully, or a psychopath.
  There's a time when presenting strength makes sense, and it comes just before deterring violence. When Russia's fucking with former satellite states on the other side of the planet, participating in arms races but otherwise posing no physical threat to the US? Not a good time. Presenting strength unnecessarily does approximately nothing for a lot of money at best, or causes escalation at worst. You'll also note that military strength did not deter the Nazis from invading Russia.
  There are no bullies that pose a physical threat to the US right now. Keep in mind that having the capability to pose a threat is not the same as posing a threat. Russia and China bully the little countries in their back yards, and of course Russia is the world's top information warfare threat, but they're not thinking about invading the US.
  Teddy Roosevelt got it right - walk softly and carry a big stick.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
27. Re:Do you want Space Force? by lgw · 2019-03-29 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Fun fact: as part of the "propaganda leaflet war" in the Battle of Casino, the allies fired leaflets in claiming the German commander was a womanizer who cheated on his wife (and many other character flaws). and not the sort of man they should follow. The German commander fired back a rebuttal to the US troops, who got seemingly out a nowhere leaflets from the German commander stating that these accusations that he cheated on his wife were unfounded.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
28. Re:Do you want Space Force? by ghoul · 2019-03-29 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Army gets Helicopters
  Air Force gets Planes
  Space Force gets Satellites
  But the SpaceSHIPs go to the Navy.
  Navy always finds a way to get its own force whether its Infantry (Marines), Air (Carriers) or freaking SPACESHIPS.
  They are SHIPS so the navy needs to get them.
  
  --
  **Life is too short to be serious**
Surprised.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 02:57 · Score: 0, Interesting

Surprised no west troll mentioning, starvation or toilets.
1. Re:Surprised.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  Imagine the toilets they could have installed with the money spent on this shit.
2. Re:Surprised.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  Golden toilets with dark blue water and walls decorated with pink ponies!
3. Re:Surprised.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Imagine how badly low earth orbit smells now.
4. Re:Surprised.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  "Imagine how badly low earth orbit smells now."
  its near enough to vacuum. Try sniffing up there and your nose would bleed
5. Re:Surprised.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Very True, but they were shipped to Dimran and Winnie the Pooh to use it after this news.
Jerks by phantomfive · 2019-03-27 02:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

Space junk.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:Jerks by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  It was in low earth orbit, so the space junk won't survive for more than a few days, two weeks at tops.
2. Re:Jerks by bobbied · 2019-03-27 03:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It was only in LEO - this stuff will de-orbit pretty quickly. In a couple of weeks to months, it will all be gone. Unlike the results of the China test or all the stuff we have parked in geosynchronous orbit, which won't deorbit before the sun expands and swallows us...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
3. Re:Jerks by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Some of the blast adds delta v to the debris.
4. Re:Jerks by lgw · 2019-03-27 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing modern is parked in GEO - that's expensive real estate! There's a junkyard orbit above GEO, and sats are required to have reserve fuel to boost them up there at the end of their service life.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
5. Re:Jerks by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Ya, exploding missile here - meet my pal mr physics.
  I exploderated in all directions, with lots of energies! I definitely shot shit in the right direction for a more stable higher orbit!
  The only safe test would have been in atmosphere.
6. Re:Jerks by bobbied · 2019-03-27 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  The only safe test would have been in atmosphere.
  For all intents and purposes, that's pretty much where they did this, just really high up. Enough air to not let you stay in orbit very long, high enough to demonstrate the technology.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Really. Please stop that. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 02:58 · Score: 0

Dear various national air forces,
I know. It's pretty fun to do. But please stop doing that. Please, please stop. I know it's fun. It's actually pretty awesome, but don't do it. Thanks.
-All of humanity that is interested in space for reasons other than blowing things up
1. Re:Really. Please stop that. by bobbied · 2019-03-27 03:14 · Score: 2
  
  But YOU did it first...Decades ago...
  Seriously, like it or not, destroying and protecting stuff in space is an important set of technologies to have in today's age. I don't blame India for developing and demonstrating this capability.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Really. Please stop that. by nitehawk214 · 2019-03-27 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't blow up shit.
  Though you can be guaranteed if I did have that capability, I would use it.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
whut? by TimothyHollins · 2019-03-27 02:59 · Score: 2

India would only be the fourth country to have used such an anti-satellite weapon after the United States, Russia and China, said Modi, who heads into general elections next month. "Our scientists shot down a live satellite 300 kilometres away in space, in low-earth orbit," Modi said in a television broadcast. "India has made an unprecedented achievement today," he added, speaking in Hindi.
Can someone explain this one to me?
1. Re: whut? by shm · 2019-03-27 03:03 · Score: 2
  
  It worked first shot unlike the others. It was cheaper.
  Remember that ISRO sent a probe to Mars which was cheaper than making a Hollywood movie.
2. Re:whut? by geoscodin · 2019-03-27 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Were they first from 300km? First in "low-Earth orbit"? First with that combination of distance and orbit? Is it simple political posturing?
3. Re:whut? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  There is nothing strange about it. It is a political jargon, full of bullshit!
4. Re:whut? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  no. no. no. yes.
5. Re:whut? by thegarbz · 2019-03-27 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  They were the first to achieve this without resulting in debris that will orbit the earth for many decades.
6. Re:whut? by froggyjojodaddy · 2019-03-27 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe but Modi didn't say that so I'm gonna lean towards it's political posturing since he's fully aware that 95%+ of India's population ain't gonna question the accuracy of his statement.
7. Re:whut? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  It's "unprecedented" because no one has ever been the "fourth" country to use an anti-satellite weapon before! And no one will ever be fourth again!
8. Re:whut? by gtall · 2019-03-27 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  And they have an election coming up so Modi has to appear as envisioning the future by hitching himself to the synergy between the Hindi religious nutjobs and the rest of his political base...his campaign official just graduated from business school with an MBA in buzz-speak.
9. Re: whut? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  "first shot"? uh, the interceptor missile they used has been in production and testing since 2008. they've had plenty of shots.
10. Re:whut? by jeff4747 · 2019-03-27 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, the US and Russia also did theirs in low enough orbit for the debris to re-enter fairly quickly.
11. Re: whut? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Remember that it took a photo of Mars, that's it.
12. Re: whut? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  It's not hard. It's unprecedented for *India*.
13. Re: whut? by Dunbal · 2019-03-27 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I use the same rifle as marksman Billy Dixon therefore that makes me a marksman...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
14. Re:whut? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  And they have an election coming up so Modi has to appear as envisioning the future by hitching himself to the synergy between the Hindi religious nutjobs and the rest of his political base...his campaign official just graduated from business school with an MBA in buzz-speak.
  Elections has nothing to do with this....Let me help you .. it is Winnie the Pooh
15. Re: whut? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:09 · Score: 0
  
  +1. Nitpicking never seems to go out of fashion
16. Re:whut? by strikethree · 2019-03-28 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Can someone explain this one to me?
  Sure. Unprecedented for India or any other country that is not seen as a major space force.
  But, the meanings of the words don't actually matter. Mother fucker! It was *UNPRECEDENTED! Get excited and be awed! It was unprecedented!
  *For certain values of unprecedented.
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I hope you cleaned up the fucking mess by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:05 · Score: 0

Otherwise you just registered yourselves as a bunch of twats making the space debris problem worse.
And if you exploded it, quite a bit of that crap now has enough momentum now to stay in orbit rather than fall to earth.
Fucking brilliant.
Did they use the F-15 ASAT by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:07 · Score: 0

Always impressed with that one, a plane-launched anti-satellite weapon...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1. Re:Did they use the F-15 ASAT by edi_guy · 2019-03-27 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  A good example of military spending too
  "ASM-135 was estimated to cost $5.3 billion (US) up from the original $500 million (US) estimate." "In 1988, the Reagan Administration canceled the ASM-135 program because of technical problems, testing delays, and significant cost growth."
end mean by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:09 · Score: 0

All religious and political systems eugenically breed their adherents into supporters of the administration. Nature genetically breeds species successfully adapted to their environments. Eventually, regression to the mean brings about the success of nature and the extinction of the suicide cults.
And may God help you if that thing carried the Spi by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:12 · Score: 0

And may God help you if that thing carried the Spice Channel!
So 2000s by the_skywise · 2019-03-27 03:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's impressive but from an actual strategic standpoint it may already be out of date.
Russia has already moved to hypersonic cruise missiles that don't have to go into space to deliver their payload.
You don't need spy satellites anymore when you can have smaller, faster, lighter, remote drones fly into a nation to do photographs.
Satellites are still necessary to national infrastructures so space weapons are still useful but it's no longer a panacea to a nation's security, let alone defense.
1. Re:So 2000s by Micah+NC · 2019-03-27 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Respectfully disagree. If an invading country lost all their satcomms (e.g. Pakistan), this could easily be a decisive advantage.
  
  The biggest defense anyone has here is limited intel on where/which sats their adversaries have.
2. Re:So 2000s by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  Well, they still have nukes to fall back on.
3. Re:So 2000s by iggymanz · 2019-03-27 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Pakistan's wise response would be to rain down nuclear weapons preemptively as that would be declaration of no-holds barred war , how is blinding Indian satellites a solution to anything?
4. Re:So 2000s by edi_guy · 2019-03-27 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how likely it is for countries to simply smuggle a nuke into their opponents capital cities. Buy a house, stick it in the basement and let it sit there forever unless you need it. So much cheaper than trying to fly and aim an ICBM. I'd be surprised if there weren't many of these in houses on K Street in DC.
5. Re:So 2000s by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  You mean let it sit there until the nuclear fuel decays past the point where it's fissionable. Then you have to smuggle it out so it isn't discovered.
6. Re:So 2000s by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  this
7. Re:So 2000s by iggymanz · 2019-03-27 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  lolz, would take 350 years for 1 percent of a mass of Pu-239 to decay
8. Re:So 2000s by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 22:50 · Score: 0
  
  hmmmmmm.... @the_skywise have you heard of Brahmos II http://idrw.org/pakistan-flew-... I guess you'd think Mach 7 is supersonic - especially since the US doesn't have one...
9. Re:So 2000s by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  yes that's true, now tell us what % of decay is tolerable before a suitcase nuke trigger becomes unreliable...
10. Re:So 2000s by iggymanz · 2019-03-28 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  For standard plutonium weapon pits, 85 years is known to be fine with 99.75% remaining according to declassified reports , look it up.
  you do realize a U-233 pit would only be about 50% bigger (it's a very different beast than U-235) but with 160,000 year half-life would be usable for centuries
Meanwhile, back on earth... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:20 · Score: 0

India has one of the highest rates of child malnutrition in the world, and seem to be doing little about it:
https://www.worldvision.org/hunger-news-stories/top-nine-countries-fighting-child-malnutrition
countries with the weakest commitment to ending child malnutrition are:
1. Angola*2. Cameroon3. Democratic Republic of Congo*4. Cote d’Ivoire5. India*6. Myanmar*7. Philippines*8. Sudan*9. Yemen
Well done India, hope you're happy with your space weapons!
Absolutely designated by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:24 · Score: 0

Amazing! They can shoot down a satellite, but haven't toilet trained half their citizens.
Pointless. by Gravis+Zero · 2019-03-27 03:24 · Score: 0

The greatest threat to India is Pakistan and you don't need a orbital satellite to spy on India when you are next door to it. It would be more effective and less expensive to just launch a weather balloon with a ballast system.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:Pointless. by jeff4747 · 2019-03-27 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  This technology would be helpful in shooting down Pakistani ballistic payloads.
2. Re:Pointless. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  This technology would be helpful in shooting down Pakistani ballistic payloads.
  Would it stop a nuke on a lorry?
3. Re:Pointless. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but Pakistan is launching these satellites for or with (depends on your perspective) China, as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. India is basically saying "Nice fledgling space program you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it." in the way that only nation-states can.
  You were correct that the greatest threat to India is Pakistan. However it's also true that the greatest threat to Pakistan is India. It's also arguable that the greatest threat to the entire world is the squabbling between India and Pakistan. If it ever really goes hot, we might need to kiss civilization goodbye.
4. Re:Pointless. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty sure the region would be fucked, and there would be fallout - but civilization would probably survive that one.
5. Re:Pointless. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  well, it depends on how eager the rest of the world is to take sides. people en masse are fucking idiots, and demagogues are very popular these days...
  hopefully you are correct.
6. Re:Pointless. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  The greatest threat to India is Pakistan and you don't need a orbital satellite to spy on India when you are next door to it. It would be more effective and less expensive to just launch a weather balloon with a ballast system.
  Pakistani is nook nood
Bigger fish to fry, India by Lucas123 · 2019-03-27 03:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

Really, India?
You felt so threatened by satellite surveillance that you decided to pour your scientific and financial resources into weaponizing against it and ratcheting up the potential for war? You've got far bigger problems on earth than over your heads. A population of 1.3 billion who represent the largest number of people living below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day, breathtaking income inequality and 31% of children under the age of five underweight. But, by all means, spend millions defending yourself from the "space enemies".
1. Re:Bigger fish to fry, India by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why, it's almost as if those silly Indians think you can do more than one thing!
2. Re:Bigger fish to fry, India by Lucas123 · 2019-03-27 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I believe in priorities. They don't seem to be doing a whole lot about the other things, but they got money and resources to spare on space defense.
3. Re:Bigger fish to fry, India by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  They don't even have toilets. It's like buying a new Rolex instead of the baby's formula.
4. Re:Bigger fish to fry, India by iggymanz · 2019-03-27 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  nonsense, this was a very tiny amount of money
  solving those issues would require level of money the Indian government doesn't have.
Saddens me deeply... by gravyface · 2019-03-27 04:21 · Score: 1, Troll

that we as a civilization are still boasting about our abilities to do harm towards one another when we're losing the only battle that matters: the battle to save Earth.

--
body massage!
1. Re:Saddens me deeply... by skaralic · 2019-03-27 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  that we as a civilization are still boasting about our abilities to do harm towards one another when we're losing the only battle that matters: the battle to save Earth.
  How do you propose we battle the alien invasion if not with space weapons? Duh.
2. Re:Saddens me deeply... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  I know from movies that all aliens have sort of a hive mind weakness, that allows for maximum tension until they are last-minute defeated entirely by some hero. So we maybe only need like one or two such weapons
3. Re:Saddens me deeply... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  How do you propose we battle the alien invasion if not with space weapons? Duh.
  We sneeze on them. Duh!
4. Re:Saddens me deeply... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  Troll? really?
  This is a very valid concern. Maybe Offtopic? But not troll. India is very much a country that needs to clean up their industry. (Not an excuse for any other country.)
  We the most intelligent (i use that term lightly) animal on earth are the ones that need to take time and energy to keep the Earth clean and functioning like it should. Carrying our destroy it mentality into space is not a good thing. Space will be much less forgiving about pollution than earth. Fighting a war in space is like two men hanging off a cliff and still fighting each other. If we trash LEO so bad that we cant even launch anything to space to save us from earth killer rocks; then I guess we won't be a problem to Earth anymore.
  Peace Love Linux
5. Re:Saddens me deeply... by ghoul · 2019-03-29 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  that we as a civilization are still boasting about our abilities to do harm towards one another when we're losing the only battle that matters: the battle to save Earth.
  How do you propose we battle the alien invasion if not with space weapons? Duh.
  Convert them to Mormonism. They will self destruct.
  
  --
  **Life is too short to be serious**
the big 4 by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 04:42 · Score: 0

I guess we know who to blame when our phones stop working...
1. Re:the big 4 by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  Ahhhh... There we go... The call center perspective... Where's the outsourcing perspective where India outsourced this... This place is consistently racist which is one reason I've stopped hanging out here (feeling-pretty-sick emoji)...
2. Re: the big 4 by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 14:49 · Score: 0
  
  lol, racist? I was talking about space junk taking out our satellite communication networks. you are an idiot, and possibly a racist.
a big stupid ineffective wall duh by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:13 · Score: 0

that's how you handle shoeless penniless alien invaders
Trusting India? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:19 · Score: 0

Do you really feel what they said in the press release is true. India has been executing fake surgical strikes for years now.
Unprecedented .. That word you keep using... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:57 · Score: 0

"India has made an unprecedented achievement today,

India would only be the fourth country to have used such an anti-satellite weapon after the United States, Russia and China
omg by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:08 · Score: 0

you were at my wedding, India...
300Km is extremely low... no debris + dead mission by Herve5 · 2019-03-27 09:01 · Score: 1

Basically, at 300Km your sat is dead, unless it still contains a ton of fuel to regain altitude. The indian sat must have been at end of mission, ready to enter the atmosphere in a matter of weeks, of months maybe, and burn/land debris randomly along its last track. At 300Km, full sat or debris, you decay real quickly.
The new laws for both French-guyana and US-launched future sats now impose to keep a significant amount of fuel for 'controlled' reentry (read : you must show you'll re-enter over a given ocean, no land) and, soon, heavy pieces that wouldn't burn will be banned (although this shows difficult with metallic thing like thrusters or the thick mirrors from observation telescopes)
But the old indian sat was launched well before -so outside these laws. Which means, after all, firing it was not so bad.
Last thing : I said 300Km is low, this is all the more significant than you must raise your air-air missile up there.
This probably means India actually would have difficulties to kill a really active observation sat, for which the lowest altitudes start around 600Km (some are at 800...). Ok, difficulties just for now, and they indeed show they solved the targeting issues, etc.

--
Herve S.
Who is next? by manu0601 · 2019-03-27 12:12 · Score: 1

Who will be the next leader stupid enough to test how much space debris can be added? Emmanuel Macron? Theresa May? Benjamin Netanyahu? Shinz Abe?
It’s us. by Hallux-F-Sinister · 2019-03-27 12:47 · Score: 2

We are why we can’t have nice things.
At some point everyone agreed, let’s not militarize space. Let’s have ONE place, at least, just ONE place where we won’t practice violence upon each other. To this place we all agreed we wouldn’t even bring the TOOLS with which to DO violence... we’d leave them all behind, on the surface. It is an environment too difficult and expensive to reach and too fraught with danger, besides being a place where we could learn so much, to pollute and befoul with such horrible things as weapons.
Now we’re shooting down satellites.
This fucking species. H. “Sapiens” (hahaha) is a disease bedeviling the biosphere, and now we’re both infesting and infecting space around the world, and other nearby bodies.
As a child, I dreamt with great anticipation the discovery of some means to explore space, faster-than-light travel... hyperspace, warp drive, etc. Now I only hope we never realize it, so as to prevent humanity from metastasizing to the broader universe.
Summon the meteors, already, for our reign has gone on long enough. Let us be done with it.

--
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
1. Re: It’s us. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  uh sorry man but Hillary lost. get over it. (shrug emoji) lol.
2. Re:It’s us. by strikethree · 2019-03-28 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Summon the meteors, already, for our reign has gone on long enough. Let us be done with it.
  Sure man... but you first. Let's make sure you really are dedicated before the rest of us miserable humans make this commitment to purging reality of our offensive existence.
  What? Why are you still alive? You weren't actually serious and just passing judgement on others while excluding yourself? That's not nice.
  Have a nice day. :)
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Google Maps by ghoul · 2019-03-29 07:28 · Score: 1

Next time Google Maps publishes an unblurred image of an Indian Air Base , Modi strokes his beard and goes "nice little satellite your vendors got their. Hooaahhhhhhhh!!"

--
**Life is too short to be serious**
Children starving in Baltimore by ghoul · 2019-03-29 07:30 · Score: 1

India needs to develop its space technology to get more efficient at growing food so they can send aid for all the starving kids in Baltimore.

--
**Life is too short to be serious**
Raised Threat To Space Station by tomatocat · 2019-04-02 13:46 · Score: 1

NASA: Debris From India's Anti-Satellite Test Raised Threat To Space Station
"That is a terrible, terrible thing to create an event that sends debris in an apogee that goes above the International Space Station," NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said, referring to the debris' highest point in orbit. "And that kind of activity is not compatible with the future of human space flight that we need to see happen."
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/02...