US Modifies Surface-To-Air Missile To Target Objects In Space
The US sent official diplomatic notice in January to over 200 countries announcing that one of its spy satellites (US-193 / NROL-21) would soon drop out of orbit. The bus-sized satellite was launched in 2006 by Lockheed Martin using a Delta-II rocket. It lost power and communication shortly after. Unpowered, it circled the globe 16 times a day for the past year. It weighs anything between 2-20 tons based on conflicting reports.
The Pentagon announced it will attempt to intercept it before descent by firing a missile from Pearl-Harbor based Aegis cruisers in the Pacific Ocean. The window for the interception is 3-8 days (13-22 Feb), but that the Navy will not fire until the Space Shuttle Atlantic completes its mission Wednesday (20-Feb).
In 1985, the US tested shooting down a satellite by deploying a (Kill Vehicle) from an F15 fighter, but this would be the first attempt to do it using a surface based missile. The Raytheon Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) was designed to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) carrying nuclear warheads using infrared guidance. Three SM3s were modified to allow on-board software to home in on the satellite’s Radar, and increase the missile’s fuel capacity.
George Bush ordered the launch, but defense officials noted that Russia and China have just proposed a new treaty limiting anti-satellite and space weaponry. Such treaties have been opposed by the Bush administration in the past.
Possible Motives:
- The official explanation for shooting the satellite down is that if allowed to crash uncontrolled, it will release 450+Kg of Hydrazine Fuel as a highly poisonous gas in a possibly populated area the size of two football fields. Experts pointed out that similar objects have dropped into the atmosphere and simply burned up or broke apart. One example is Skylab which weighed over 79,000 Kgs. Another is the space shuttle Columbia which broke apart on reentry killing its crew, and leaving debris over several populated areas. The Columbia also had a hydrazine fuel tank on board.
- A response to China shooting down its weather satellite about 1 year ago with a similar missile (SC-19). At the time, the US, Russia, and Japan condemned the act because 100s of debris pieces formed a large ring which could hinder space launches. Some have compared the event to Russia launching the Sputnik satellite in 1957 then considered a major setback for the US in the space race. The US launch could be the prelude to a new military space race.
- A live test of ground-based Anti-satellite weapons.
- Since this was supposedly one of the most sophisticated Radar-intelligence spy satellites the US has launched. They wouldn’t want to risk the technology falling into enemy hands. This is reminiscent to when a US spy-plane collided with a Chinese jet fighter and crash landed in 2001. The crew of the spy-plane did not have time to destroy all top-secret equipment before they landed.
- A message to Iran which has been conducting missile tests in preparation to launch its first scientific (spy) satellite next summer.
- A demonstration to European countries opposed to deploying a US Missile Shield in the Czech Republic, and Poland. Critics indicated that unlike an incoming ICBM, the Pentagon has had months to track the satellite’s trajectory, and plan where, and when to intercept it.
Wildcard: Since the programming of the multi-billion dollar satellite failed on launch. How reliable is the last minute re-programming of a missile designed for a different purpose? How bad would it look if they missed? and how much worse if they hit a Chinese satellite, or the currently inhabited International Space Station?
Final Note: Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to target nuclear weapons at European countries that host the US missile shield. More alarmingly, Russia’s chief of staff issued a statement last week making it clear that they would be willing to use nuclear weapons to defend the territorial integrity of both Russia and its allies (implying Iran). Russia also resumed long range bomber patrols which had been halted at the fall of the soviet union . Two days ago US fighters had to escort 2 such bombers away from a US aircraft carrier. Should we start rebuilding the Berlin Wall ?
Update (21-Feb): The satellite was successfully shot down by the Aegis Cruiser USS Lake Erie. Defense secretary Robert Gates confirmed theories that this was a test of the missile shield by issuing a statement saying this proves that the missile defense system works.
15 Users Commented In This Post
Posted from
2-15-2008 at 11:33:45
Worst thing anyone can do!
It’s about time someone invented controlled descent crafts. Nothing fancy.. just plunge the damaged piece of debris into the pacific ocean.. issue solved! It will not be more expensive than this multi million dollar missile!
We don’t need more space junk! It’s already too crowded up there.
There’s nothing to prove. If I remember correctly on of the Soviet SAMs was able to shoot down a satellite back in the 80’s .. So this is totally bogus!
And what the hell happened to the Airborne laser system capable of shooting down anything? Why can’t then target the damn thing with a devastating laser bolt to break it in pieces and allow it to do a little firework show for the kids?!
Posted from
2-15-2008 at 16:39:58
Raytheon is the largest misille manufacturer in the world. They make tomahawks (surface to surface), sidewinders (air to air), javelins (anti-tank), and many others. Either the US doesn’t have anything better in its arsenal to shoot down a satellite, or it didn’t want everyone to know they do.
I’ve read about research on lasers like the ones you mentioned, but they’re not the stuff we see in Sci-Fi yet. Over $9Billion was spent on a gigantic one mounted on a Boeing 747 jet. It was supposed to be able to zap scud missiles, but it’s nothing more than a prototype.
Posted from
2-15-2008 at 19:13:05
I know about the Airborne laser, and have seen the footage three years ago of what appears to be very successful trials. It’s not just for scuds, it was designed for any BM
Anyway, my idea is simpler.
Take a little device to orbit (somehow, self propelled, using the shuttle) this device consists of nothing more than an explosive charge, and a small rocket that will place the satellite on a calculated decaying orbit. The second it hits the atmosphere … detonate the charge!
Problem solved. Costs way less than “intercepting” a satellite in orbit!
Posted from
2-15-2008 at 20:34:48
I liked your first idea even more, anything placed in orbit should have a pre-designed method to get rid of itself once its orbit decays, but then again it’s like everything else we won’t really worry about alternative fuel sources until we run out of oil, or about the ozone layer until it’s all gone. When a shuttle launch collides into some orbitting debris killing half a dozen astronauts, they’ll come up with an “ingenious” method to vaporise it.
Posted from
2-17-2008 at 05:35:35
أيش يا بابا،صرت أخر هالزمن خبير عسكري أمريكي متافائل وموروج، شو بدك اينا نعمل ؟نرقص ونغني علي ما تصنعه هذه الامبروطوريه من أسلحه دمار
Posted from
2-17-2008 at 08:48:43
مشكلجي إقرأ قبل ما تتفلسف لأنه المكتوب ما إله أي صلة بتعليقك
شكرا
Mashkalji, if you really thought this post was an advertisment for the US military, you obviously haven’t read it. Thank you.
Posted from
2-17-2008 at 09:23:00
What is the value behind your post?Is’nt your enthusiasm for the so called American power?.
Posted from
2-17-2008 at 11:38:20
Mashkalji, why would I be enthusiastic ?
1. I am not American
2. What you call (American Power) has not only destabilized the region, but killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the resulting rise in oil prices has and will cause so much price inflation in every product category that people will be economically ruined.
3. Being not only the inventor of nuclear weapons, but the only country to use them in an actual war, and to make the technology available to its allies, the US is currently not only the biggest threat to world peace (as an international poll confirmed), but the most likely to annihilate human civilization as we know it.
In a nutshell, I am unhappy they are now also bringing their weapons to space, and that is the “value” behind this post.
Posted from
2-18-2008 at 06:32:15
I am not a political analyst (I am not even into politics) but I don’t really believe that the cold war ended to begin with.
Like Qu said, I am just surprised they invest so much money on military equipment. I have been watching some Discovery Channel podcasts and some of the weapons they developed are just fascinating, especially pre-programmed ammunition that explodes depending on how you configure it.
If they can configure ammo, can’t they configure satellites to deal with their own demise? Like, if it has a few hour’s energy left, it could alter its orbit so it can go and plummet in some neighboring planet for aliens to pick up :P
Posted from
2-18-2008 at 06:45:22
Hani, I was reading your response to princess and decided to higher my IQ a bit more and respond properly.
First of all, what IS democracy? Google says:
# Democracy (literally “rule by the people”, from the Greek demos, “people”, and kratos, “rule”) is a form of government. While the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other groups and organizations.
# the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
# a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
Now sticking with this literal sense of democracy, how is the US enforcing democracy on other nations? Are these nations WELCOMING the US-imposed rules?
Case in point: Democracy is actually an abstract philosophical argument and not a scientific fact. In terms of programming, Democracy is a class and the US is an instance of the class. How people want to implement democracy is different from how the US people want to implement democracy.
Since democracy by definition is a government as wanted by the people’s country, not another country’s people.
Let’s see the definition of dictatorship:
A system of government in which a country is ruled by a single person with absolute power.
Rings any bells?
Here is the analogy: If one person rules a country, then it is dictatorship. Then my transition, if one country rules other countries, it is also dictatorship (euphemism is occupation).
So what we are seeing here is the US “super-power” (again, an abstract term created by two separate words: super and power, all of which are defined subjectively) which is imposing its OWN rules and ideas onto OTHER countries. How does this mean that it is spreading democracy? From what I understand, the Iraqis (or any country in the world) called up Bush and asked him to send over his troops to kill everyone, destroy the country’s infrastructure, so that they can elect someone else.
In philosophy, democracy is the worst type of government second only to dictatorship, and the US is practicing both: The latter internally and the former externally.
OK my comment got a bit too long now, so I will leave it at that
Posted from
2-18-2008 at 13:39:27
KJ, absolutely what the US is shoving down Iraq’s throat can’t be called a democracy by any standard. You’d be hard-pressed to find an Iraqi other than the puppets the US put in power who wouldn’t admit that even as a dictatorship, Iraq and Iraqis were much better off under Sadam than they are now. Whether that situation changes remains to be seen, but it’s been years and the situation is only getting worse.
The book club has been discussing 1984 (George Orwell’s book) recently, and it’s very relevant. Some of them took it too literally thinking it refers to life in the USSR or to two superpowers. Really the concepts outlined in that book are being applied in democracies as well as dictatorships throughout the world.
Notice the themes:
1. Unite against an enemy (whether communism or terrorists). Use the fear from that enemy to drive the people and quash all dissent.
2. Sacrifice freedom and privacy using security as an excuse
3. Keep the populace either only aware of the facts you provide or otherwise too preoccupied or indifferent to see the big picture. The first part can be done by controlling the media. Now in a democracy they have to get creative about censoring the media, but they still do it. For example, the white house decides who to invite to their press conference, who to give an exclusive to, and who to keep out of the loop. Someone who writes what the administration wants will be more likely to be invited, given an exclusive, an interview etc. So they force the mainstream media to walk the line and not deviate too far away regardless what the truth is. The second part (keeping people too indifferent and preoccupied) is easy. People are naturally lazy and self absorbed, so as long as you’re not directly hurting them they won’t bother pushing back, or to be inquisitive as N.A.P. mentioned above most of them don’t know what happened. Those that do, well with the right spin-doctors you can make them sound like lunatics. I mean can you believe people with the power to impeach their president just sit their after he lied to them and took them to war for a private agenda ? The majority obviously don’t know what is happening. US voter turnout percentages are quite low, particularly for a country at war. Who knows if it will be different this election.
Posted from
2-24-2008 at 16:03:38
Hani,
You supported an argument by Ana Garfaan that the Palestinian cause is a drain on Arab development. I am glad Africans have pride and don’t think like some Arabs, or else South Africa and ex-Rhodesia would still be White settlements.
http://mab3oos.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post_22.html
Posted from
2-24-2008 at 16:14:47
Aziz
I supported most of what he said aside from the conpiracy theory part about Jordanian oil.
Regarding Africa, I am glad Africa is somewhat more free than it used to be. However the European colonies in Africa didn’t go because of any African unity. Each one had to be fought for individually. In the end the Europeans left it because the resources to maintain their presence weren’t providing enough income in return. finally please note the great amount of debt several African nations are under, and the fact that even with this debt they continue to buy weapons to suppress their people, and each other. Part of the blame goes to the countries that are selling them these weapons.
The other difference is that in most almost all African countries, the occupation was by a foreign army, wheras the Israeli soldiers actually consider Palestine their home, and many of their families have been there for several generations. So it’s much more complicated.
Moreover, Africans are no more united than we Arabs are. Sure we voice verbal objections (istinkar) every once in a while, but that’s it. This is what mab3oos and I are objecting to.
I suggest keeping the discussion in mab3oos’s post since he took the time to write about it.
Posted from
2-26-2008 at 10:47:52
I heard the Chinese launched a similar messile last year , right ??
Posted from
2-26-2008 at 12:07:09
Abed Absolutely right, that is the weather satellite I mentioned in the post. At the time the US got very upset about it, and said China was leaving debris in orbit threatening future space launches. I guess it’s another case of “Do as I say, not as I do”!
Sharing Is Caring.....