There are many things that are wrong with the U.S. plan to shoot down the USA 193 satellite. One is that the reason for "the shot" seems totally bogus - for the hydrazine tank to survive the reentry intact it would have to have a heat shield or something, which it most certainly does not. Even if some pieces of the tank could survive the heat, the fuel would be long gone - vaporized or otherwise dispersed.
Unfortunately, there is virtually no one outside of the U.S. officialdom who could provide a quick independent and authoritative assessment of the "hydrazine" claim. Russia probably has some relevant data - it has experience with rocket stages falling to the ground during launches and after failures. However, it is unlikely that Russia will get organized to do anything of the kind.
What we will see in Russia instead - and this is another problem with the U.S. shot - is more statements of the kind made by one of the Russian generals last month. General-Colonel Yuri Solovyev, the commander of the air defense branch of the Russian Air Forces, said last month that Russia needs interceptors that can hit targets in "near space".
It would be interesting to see how General Cartwright will be telling General Solovyev that this is not a good idea.
P.S. And, of course, there are other projects that the Russian industry will be happy to dust off - Naryad-V, for example.
The book
Comments
I have been thinking a lot about the arms control aspects of a 'weaponization of space'. Does anyone subscribe to the idea that a weaponization in space would mean the reduction of nuclear arms on earth? I mean, what is the difference? Humanity has had the capacity for the past 40 years to destroy anywhere on earth within 30min. So what if that's transferred to space? Is it possible that the nuclear-armed countries would prefer weapons in space as opposed to earth? It would certainly increase survivability and prevent civilian casualties if an opponent used a counterforce strategy.
The true danger is that the timeline from decision to actual strike would be dramatically shrunk; thereby making the results of an accidental strike or misunderstanding that much more destructive. Major Powers would have to create communication mechanisms to reduce this possibility.
Thoughts anyone?
JF Cooper:
The weaponization of space is inevitable. Throughout all history, weapons systems are only set aside when their successors arrive. The bow and arrow gave way to firearms. The propeller aircraft gave way to jets. The battleship gave way to the submarine and carrier aircraft. The nuclear weapon of today will give way one day to its successor. In war, taking the high ground is paramount to owning the battlefield. Space is the ultimate “high ground”. Today, MILSPACE (Military Space) is all about command and control; communications and reconnaissance. Tomorrow it will be about defense systems; to detect ballistic missiles on launch and destroy them in flight. Later it will be about futuristic “strike” weapons, first to supplement existing ground and sea based ballistic missile technology and then later still to replace it with even a more powerful, deadly weapon. It’s inevitable.
Frank Shuler
USA
Space, in fact, is not a very good place for weapons. Whatever mission you have in mind can be done more easily and cheaply with land-based systems - ICBMs or others. ASAT may seem to have some value, but in reality it does not - it is virtually impossible to launch a miltiary significant attack against virtually any military or civilian system.
This pretty much means that there is no upside to space weapons/ASAT deployment - only downside. In that regard, it is much like missile defense - the system is worthless, but it generates a lot of political tensions, which are quite real.
Pavel:
Respectfully disagree. In 1919 at the conclusion of the Great War (the First World War), the general conclusion was that the machine gun had ended maneuver warfare forever and thus any future war would end in stalemate; rendering war obsolete. Nations would hide behind their Maginot Lines and wait on negotiations to decide territorial gains and losses. Of course, technology found a way. It will again.
Frank Shuler
USA
Nice post, but what interests me is the Naryad-V, I can't read Russian, does anyone have an english translation, or a similar link?
So what would be the political fallout if the US decided "nah we changed our mind" and it landed on Moscow or some other populated area? Would Putin praise the US for it's restraint? Of course not. The world would be screaming because the US might have been able to do something and decided not to. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Kubo: There is not much written about Naryad-V. In short, it's an ASAT kill vehicle that can be carried by an SS-19 missile. There are some details in my old post.
Frank: Yes, this is a familiar argument, but I don't think it's valid. What good does all this high technology do to the U.S. in Iraq or Afganistan? Not much.
Pavel:
While you are correct in that it does us no good in those two countries we are not near-sighted and look forward to the real threats in the future, namely China. If we focus 100% on solving issues in the desert then we are, pardon my language, screwed.
You and Franks are both correct, while weaponizing space is not the smartest idea, someone else will do and we shouldn't get caught with our pants down.
Pavel:
Perhaps a conflict like in Iraq and Afghanistan today will be fought differently in fifty years.
Frank Shuler
USA
> P.S. And, of course, there are other projects that the Russian industry will be happy to dust off - Naryad-V, for example.
- Probably, it would not be a 'dusted' 'Naryad-V', - it would be a new S-500 complex from 'Almaz - Antey'.
> General-Colonel Yuri Solovyev, the commander of the air defense branch of the Russian Air Forces, said last month that Russia needs interceptors that can hit targets in "near space".
- On December 28, 2007, Head-commander of Russian Air Forces Alexander Zelin has declared that 'Russia create the system of air defence of the fifth generation which will be able to parry impacts from space'.
[...]
> [...]
- Censorship again?
Not really. I'm just trying to keep the discussion to the point.
> I'm just trying to keep the discussion to the point.
- But my comment was 100 % 'up to the point'!
As the topic is 'Recklessness race in space' - I just cited the Russian understanding of 'our partners' plans in the aerospace 'recklessness race':
- On January 19, 2008, Alexander Zelin said that 'present state of Russian Aerospace Defence is critical' and 'Russian Federation has only 13 years to overcome this situation':
"We estimate a present condition of Aerospace Defense as critical. Threats to the Russian Federation from air and outer space are the most significant ones.
Till 2020, the dramatical changes connected with transformation of aero- and outer space into the uniform sphere of armed struggle, will take place. During this period, some foreign states will get essentially new weapon systems, such as hypersound and aerospace flying devices, and prospective unmanned reconnaissance devices.
Thus, an integration of reconnaissance, communication, navigation and battle units management to the uniform informational system will take place; forms and ways of reconnaissance and battle management will change qualitatively.
In hands of opponents of Russia there'll be a weapon at new physical principles; in these conditions, our opponents will get opportunity to put _coordinated in time and space_ precision impacts practically on all targets at the territory of the Russian Federation'.
- Again, it's NOT the 'General Zelin's point of view' - it's ENTIRE Russia's point of view... Or you'll prefer a 'descent of Naschists' onto your blog, - just to proof this?
- And, why this point of view has no 'right on existance'? All described below are real Russian concerns in the latest years, - Pavel, you're really 'out of ground', if you can't understand the simpliest thing, - all written above is not the point of view of 'our generalitet' only, - 90 % of Russian people has concerned about this new Pentagon's 'aerospace race'.
- But, - I forgot: you're considering all our generals (and president Putin, too) as incompetent. Well, these your declarations that 'President Putin is incompetent' (and, contrary, - it seems that only Pavel Podvig's point of view is quite competent), - just make a lot of laugh to thinking people:
http://russianforces.org/rus/blog/2007/09/protivoraketnaya_oborona_v_evrope.shtml
You need to be more objective.
Russian: I've seen enough Russian generals to know when one can take their word seriously and when one should not. I would certainly not say that Zelin's opinion is "ENTIRE Russia's point of view" (if there is such thing at all).
Personally, I think militarization of space is a fundamentally flawed idea. Any country which relies too heavily on this is asking for trouble (the U.S., for example). As Russia (SS-9 ASAT) and more recently China (GBL) have shown, destroying satellites is not unreasonably difficult for major military powers (and this says nothing about very high vulnerability to EMP from nuclear detonations); and who is willing to start a war over loosing a satellite, especially when it is over someone else's territory? There should be no fundamental difference between shooting down Gary Power's U2 at 65,000 ft and shooting down a contemporary NRO satellite at 850,000 ft in terms of response to a violation of sovereign airspace. War would not result if either Russia or China were to knock out every US military satellite that crossed it's airspace, whereas it would if they attacked the land based BMEWS/Pave PAWS/Cobra Dane early warning sites. I should think other country's would consider the U.S. militarization of space "Milspace" to be arrogant, if not reckless.
Jon Grams:
Respectfully disagree. If any foreign power systematically began the destruction of America’s space assets, it would be considered an act of war and the United States would respond accordingly.
Frank Shuler
USA
I have to agree with Frank. There is a huge difference between a U2 and a NRO satellite. U2's don't cost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to field. If a foreign power began to destroy billion dollar assets, they had better expect a reciprocal response.
Russian:
Surely, you could not imagine any situation where Russia would launch ASAT weapons against the United States in such a manner?
Conversely, if the United States launched ASAT weapons and took down the entire Russian satellite system, wouldn’t you think this was a precursor to a nuclear strike?
I can’t follow your logic here.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Surely, you could not imagine any situation where Russia would launch ASAT weapons against the United States in such a manner?
> Conversely, if the United States launched ASAT weapons and took down the entire Russian satellite system, wouldn’t you think this was a precursor to a nuclear strike?
- Frank, all is possible to imagine, - at least virtually, - because all these new US military programs (like NMD, weapons on new physical principles, ASAT and space-based weapons), - only starts a new game.
A GAME WITHOUT RULES because there's no international treaties to regulate it.
And US refuse such a regulation, - this is a real danger.
That's the logic.