U.S. to Try to Shoot Down Spy Satellite
February 15th, 2008Remember how the Magic Anchor took out those undersea fiber optic cables recently, and how the network operators re-routed some of the traffic; satellite links played a key role.
In strategic information warfare, decapitation means taking out not only the primary links, but the backup ones as well.
I’d imagine that .mil would have had some pretty good guesses about which satellite links would be used (and the resulting throughput) in the event of a problem with the cables that the Magic Anchor * wink * took out.
But it’s not a matter of guessing which birds and cables will be used for backup, anymore, is it?
And now, the U.S. just happens to be planning to test use a surface launched missile to shoot down a satellite. Yeah, yeah, yadda yadda, I know the legend about the crippled NRO satellite, etc. and how this is not a test, repeat, this is not a test. Did you get that? This is not a test of an anti satellite weapon. This is an EMERGENCY.
I also know that if Their lips are moving, They’re lying.
Via: AP:
Taking a page from Hollywood science fiction, the Pentagon said Thursday it will try to shoot down a dying, bus-sized U.S. spy satellite loaded with toxic fuel on a collision course with the Earth.
The military hopes to smash the satellite as soon as next week — just before it enters Earth’s atmosphere — with a single missile fired from a Navy cruiser in the northern Pacific Ocean.
The dramatic maneuver may well trigger international concerns, and U.S. officials have begun notifying other countries of the plan — stressing that it does not signal the start of a new American anti-satellite weapons program.
Military and administration officials said the satellite is carrying fuel called hydrazine that could injure or even kill people who are near it when it hits the ground. That reason alone, they said, convinced President Bush to order the shoot-down.
“That is the only thing that breaks it out, that is worthy of taking extraordinary measures,” said Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a Pentagon briefing.
He predicted a fairly high chance — as much as 80 percent — of hitting the satellite, which will be about 150 miles up when the shot is fired. The window of opportunity for taking the satellite down, Cartwright said, opens in three or four days and lasts for about seven or eight days.
“We’ll take one shot and assess,” he said. “This is the first time we’ve used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft.” [Note: “P78-1 was a United States satellite launched February 24, 1979 which operated until September 13, 1985, when it was shot down in orbit during an US Air Force ASM-135 ASAT test.”]
Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey discounted comparisons to an anti-satellite test conducted by the Chinese last year that triggered criticism from the U.S. and other countries.
“This is all about trying to reduce the danger to human beings,” Jeffrey said. “Specifically, there was enough of a risk for the president to be quite concerned about human life.”
There might also be unstated military aims, some outside the administration suggested.
Similar spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere regularly and break up into pieces, said Ivan Oelrich, vice president for strategic security programs at the Federation of American Scientists. He said, “One could be forgiven for asking if this is just an excuse to test an anti-satellite weapon.”
A key issue when China shot down its defunct weather satellite was that it created an enormous amount of space debris.
“All of the debris from this encounter, as carefully designed as it is, will be down at most within weeks, and most of it will be down within the first couple of orbits afterward,” said Jeffrey. “There’s an enormous difference to spacefaring nations in … those two things.”
He and others dismissed suggestions that this was simply an attempt by the U.S. to flex its muscles, and that officials were overstating the toxic fuel threat.
Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.
If the missile shot is successful, officials said, much of the debris would burn up as it fell. They said they could not estimate how much would make it through the atmosphere. They said the largest piece that would survive re-entry would be the spherical fuel tank, which is about 40 inches wide — assuming it is not hit directly by the missile.
The goal, however, is to hit the fuel tank in order to minimize the amount of fuel that returns to Earth, Cartwright said.
A Navy missile known as Standard Missile 3 would be fired at the spy satellite in an attempt to intercept it just before it re-enters Earth’s atmosphere. It would be “next to impossible” to hit the satellite after that because of atmospheric disturbances, he said.
Known by its military designation US 193, the satellite was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.
Software associated with the Standard Missile 3 has been modified to enhance the chances of the missile’s sensors recognizing that the satellite is its target. The missile’s designed mission is to shoot down ballistic missiles, not satellites. Other officials said the missile’s maximum range, while a classified figure, is not great enough to hit a satellite operating in normal orbits.
“It’s a one-time deal,” Cartwright said when asked whether the modified Standard Missile 3 should be considered a new U.S. anti-satellite technology.
He said that if an initial shoot-down attempt fails, the military would have about two days to reassess and decide whether to take a second shot.
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told reporters that analysis shows the hydrazine tank would survive a fall to Earth under normal circumstances, much as one did when the Space Shuttle Columbia crashed.
“The hydrazine which is in it is frozen solid, as it is now. Not all of it will melt,” he said. If the tank hits the ground it will have been breached because the fuel lines will have broken off and hydrazine will vent out, he said.
Jeffrey said members of Congress were briefed on the plan earlier Thursday and that diplomatic notifications to other countries were being made by the end of the day.
“It should be understood by all, at home and abroad, that this is an exceptional circumstance and should not be perceived as the standard U.S. policy for dealing with errant satellites,” said House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton.
Meanwhile in a parallel universe:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3372001.ece
“Pentagon officials have announced plans to shoot down a failing spy satellite orbiting over Ireland with a missile from a US navy warship to prevent debris from showering the Earth.”
I do hope they shoot the right one
At the very least, this is a great opportunity to practice something in real-world conditions that, as you pointed out, Kevin, must be an integral part of info warfare. And I gotta say, I find it hard to believe that the same Pentagon that gave us Agent Orange and depleted uranium-tipped projectiles actually gives a flying fuck about the harmful effects this thing might have. If they did, then what about this, from the article: “The military hopes to smash the satellite as soon as next week — just before it enters Earth’s atmosphere — with a single missile fired from a Navy cruiser in the northern Pacific Ocean.” ? Just one missile? If this is such a big deal (with regard to protecting human life), then at least a LITTLE redundancy, in the form of a few other missiles, perhaps, would be appropriate, I would think. But in a real info-war, one shot might be all you get, so this would be a reasonable real-world simulation.
Let’s face it, it stinks from a number of angles. But let’s also face this: we’ll never know what they’re really up to.
From the Directory of U.S.Military Rockets and Missiles: “Not all the early flight tests have been successful. The kill vehicle’s SDACS (Solid Divert and Attitude Control System) malfunctioned on flight “FM-5” on 18 June 2003, which tested the SDACS for the first time in a realistic scenario. Flight “FM-6″ in December 2003 successfully intercepted its target, but the SM-3 program has nevertheless been significantly delayed.”
What could possibly go wrong…?
So they launch a satellite which instantly fails, wait a year and then shoot it down again. Nope, no way this is a test.
Militaries never found a destructive behavior they couldn’t rationalize. Although it could be a case of anti-satellite weapon envy…
China’s Anti-Satellite Test: Worrisome Debris Cloud Circles Earth