Interesting about the "mobile" part, though not surprising. DF-21 and
DF-31 based systems are still possible candidates.
=============
>From AvWeek:
Chinese ASAT strike was third try; had mobile element
Apr 12, 2007
Amy Butler/Web Exclusive
[EXCERPTS]
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright says
the Chinese made two unsuccessful attempts at an anti-satellite
intercept before the successful test in January.
During those earlier tests, at least one of which took place last
year, the Chinese interceptor boosted into space but missed the
target. The re-entry vehicles later fell back to Earth, an
intelligence official says.
Cartwright says the test was a pivotal moment for the U.S.’s presence
in space, but he cautioned against an overreaction. "This is not in my
mind the defining moment for our relationship," Cartwright says. "This
is a good wake up call." His comments came during a speech at the
National Space Symposium here Apr. 12.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley says the launch
system used by the Chinese incorporated a mobile platform, displaying
a worrisome level of flexibility on the part of this potential
adversary. The two earlier attempts also used a mobile launch system,
the intelligence official added.
Rick Jones <rick.jon…@hp.com> wrote in
news:evov6n$top$2@usenet01.boi.hp.com:
>> During those earlier tests, at least one of which took
>> place last year, the Chinese interceptor boosted into
>> space but missed the target. The re-entry vehicles later
>> fell back to Earth, an intelligence official says.
> OK, possibly silly question, but why would there be
> re-entry vehicles associated with an anti-satelite
> interceptor? Unless you are Ernst Stavro Blofeld I’d think
> you’d be satisfied with blowing the things up rather than
> trying to bring them back to Earth.
The idea’s mostly to hit the target and at such speeds,
anything will do very effectively. It sounds like a mostly
off-the-shelf system with enhanced accuracy; wonder how much
terminal guidance is involved either from the ground or by
the impact vehicle?
–Damon
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:11:35 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jon…@hp.com>
wrote:
>> During those earlier tests, at least one of which took place last
>> year, the Chinese interceptor boosted into space but missed the
>> target. The re-entry vehicles later fell back to Earth, an
>> intelligence official says.
>OK, possibly silly question, but why would there be re-entry vehicles
>associated with an anti-satelite interceptor? Unless you are Ernst
>Stavro Blofeld I’d think you’d be satisfied with blowing the things
>up rather than trying to bring them back to Earth.
The person writing the article has a vague understanding that The
Thing What Goes On The Pointy End Of A Big Missile And Blows Up
The Target Real Good, is called a "re-entry vehicle". That’s
the term he’s heard most of the time the subject came up in his
hearing, because 99+% of the Big Missiles out there are ICBMs,
IRBMs, or SLBMs, all of whose payloads do need to re-enter the
atmosphere to get the job done. And who needs to think about
what words mean, when you get paid the same just for parroting
them?
–
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schil…@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:32:40 -0500, Damon Hill
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<damon16…@comcast.not> wrote:
>Rick Jones <rick.jon…@hp.com> wrote in
>news:evov6n$top$2@usenet01.boi.hp.com:
>>> During those earlier tests, at least one of which took
>>> place last year, the Chinese interceptor boosted into
>>> space but missed the target. The re-entry vehicles later
>>> fell back to Earth, an intelligence official says.
>> OK, possibly silly question, but why would there be
>> re-entry vehicles associated with an anti-satelite
>> interceptor? Unless you are Ernst Stavro Blofeld I’d think
>> you’d be satisfied with blowing the things up rather than
>> trying to bring them back to Earth.
>The idea’s mostly to hit the target and at such speeds,
>anything will do very effectively. It sounds like a mostly
>off-the-shelf system with enhanced accuracy;
As long as it does the job it really doesn’t matter if it is
‘off-the-shelf’.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>wonder how much
>terminal guidance is involved either from the ground or by
>the impact vehicle?
>–Damon
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:28:49 -0700, in a place far, far away, John
Schilling <schil…@spock.usc.edu> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>The person writing the article has a vague understanding that The
>Thing What Goes On The Pointy End Of A Big Missile And Blows Up
>The Target Real Good, is called a "re-entry vehicle". That’s
>the term he’s heard most of the time the subject came up in his
>hearing, because 99+% of the Big Missiles out there are ICBMs,
>IRBMs, or SLBMs, all of whose payloads do need to re-enter the
>atmosphere to get the job done. And who needs to think about
>what words mean, when you get paid the same just for parroting
>them?
Here’s an amusing item.
http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/003237.html
Apparently knowledge and expertise are optional for AP reporters:
Job Opening (March 15, 2007)
INTELLIGENCE REPORTER
The Associated Press is seeking an experienced journalist to join
its reporting staff and cover intelligence issues from the nation’s
capital.
Coverage areas include the intelligence agencies and Hill
committees with oversight. Responsible for aggressive and imaginative
pursuit of stories, solid reporting and attractive writing. Must have
extensive reporting experience, with demonstrated excellent journalism
skills.
Must have demonstrated the ability to develop sources and break
stories against intense competition. *Prior experience covering
intelligence is a plus*. Should be versatile, aggressive, productive
and enterprising, with a thorough knowledge of the AP and enthusiasm
for its mission. Send resume to administrative assistant Naoko
Kadogawa at nkadog…@ap.org. [emphasis added]
"Wonder why so many of the news articles you read, or steam over, are
lacking essential information or perspective? Wonder no longer.
Knowledge and experience of the subject is only a *plus*.
Would the AP advertise for a sports reporter for whom knowledge and
experience with baseball, basketball, football, soccer, hockey,
tennis, and so forth is only a *plus,* rather than essential and
primary?
So, why should the AP believe that knowledge and experience of
intelligence, or medicine, or any other important and technical
subject only requires a *plus*?"
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglo…@org.trash> wrote in message
news:468cd29f.772597165@news.giganews.com…
> So, why should the AP believe that knowledge and experience of
> intelligence, or medicine, or any other important and technical
> subject only requires a *plus*?"
If they had knowledge and experience in these technical areas, why would
they have chosen journalism as a major in college? ;-)
Jeff
—
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
– B. Franklin, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations (1919)
> Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley says the launch
> system used by the Chinese incorporated a mobile platform, displaying
> a worrisome level of flexibility on the part of this potential
> adversary. The two earlier attempts also used a mobile launch system,
> the intelligence official added.
And just a teeny bit more:
===============
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-satellite22apr22...
Review ordered into vulnerability of U.S. satellites
China’s destruction of one of its spacecraft raises Pentagon concern
about the vulnerability of orbiting U.S. probes.
By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
April 22, 2007
[megasnippage]
U.S. officials have said little about the intelligence gathered on
Chinese anti-satellite capabilities. In Capitol Hill testimony last
month, Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, head of the U.S. Strategic
Command, said China launched three missiles as part of the anti-
satellite test in January, hitting the target on the third try.
"What was impressive was that in three attempts, they made significant
changes each time," Cartwright said.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Allen Thomson wrote:
>> Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley says the launch
>> system used by the Chinese incorporated a mobile platform, displaying
>> a worrisome level of flexibility on the part of this potential
>> adversary. The two earlier attempts also used a mobile launch system,
>> the intelligence official added.
> And just a teeny bit more:
> ===============
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-satellite22apr22...
> Review ordered into vulnerability of U.S. satellites
> China’s destruction of one of its spacecraft raises Pentagon concern
> about the vulnerability of orbiting U.S. probes.
> By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
> April 22, 2007
> [megasnippage]
> U.S. officials have said little about the intelligence gathered on
> Chinese anti-satellite capabilities. In Capitol Hill testimony last
> month, Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, head of the U.S. Strategic
> Command, said China launched three missiles as part of the anti-
> satellite test in January, hitting the target on the third try.
> "What was impressive was that in three attempts, they made significant
> changes each time," Cartwright said.
I wonder if they used a train-based launch system, like I speculated on
at the time?
Pat
On 22 Apr, 14:31, Allen Thomson <thoms…@flash.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley says the launch
> > system used by the Chinese incorporated a mobile platform, displaying
> > a worrisome level of flexibility on the part of this potential
> > adversary. The two earlier attempts also used a mobile launch system,
> > the intelligence official added.
> And just a teeny bit more:
> ===============
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-satellite22apr22...
> Review ordered into vulnerability of U.S. satellites
> China’s destruction of one of its spacecraft raises Pentagon concern
> about the vulnerability of orbiting U.S. probes.
> By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
> April 22, 2007
> [megasnippage]
> U.S. officials have said little about the intelligence gathered on
> Chinese anti-satellite capabilities. In Capitol Hill testimony last
> month, Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, head of the U.S. Strategic
> Command, said China launched three missiles as part of the anti-
> satellite test in January, hitting the target on the third try.
> "What was impressive was that in three attempts, they made significant
> changes each time," Cartwright said.
How easy would it be to make a satellite stealth?
The core of the satellite should be easily shaped for stealth,
especially if the only worry is upwards looking radar. The solar
panels may be more difficult, though thin film panels could be
transparent to radar.
Whilst satellites don’t emit much heat, I suspect against the space
background they would show up pretty hot.
The US could also launch decoy satellites, though at low altitude
these won’t have a long orbital life.
Alex Terrell schrieb:
> How easy would it be to make a satellite stealth?
Difficult.
They are supposed to send data. You either have a wide angle transmission,
or the satellite has to turn. Both are things that get detected easily.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
On Apr 22, 2:52 pm, Pat Flannery <flan…@daktel.com> wrote:
> I wonder if they used a train-based launch system, like I speculated on
> at the time?
The entrails seem to be saying that the ASAT is based on the DF-21,
which is basically a road-mobile system. That said, it can probably
be loaded on heavy flat cars and moved by rail to different deployment
areas.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/theater/df-21.htm
Volker Hetzer wrote:
> Alex Terrell schrieb:
>> How easy would it be to make a satellite stealth?
> Difficult.
> They are supposed to send data. You either have a wide angle transmission,
> or the satellite has to turn. Both are things that get detected easily.
I wouldn’t think sending data would be the problem, just don’t point the
antenna at the earth, use another satellite. A very narrow transmission
angle, maybe even a laser pointed at a relay satellite.
Craig Fink <WeBeG…@GMail.Com> wrote:
:Volker Hetzer wrote:
:
:> Alex Terrell schrieb:
:>> How easy would it be to make a satellite stealth?
:> Difficult.
:> They are supposed to send data. You either have a wide angle transmission,
:> or the satellite has to turn. Both are things that get detected easily.
:>
:
:I wouldn’t think sending data would be the problem, just don’t point the
:antenna at the earth, use another satellite. A very narrow transmission
:angle, maybe even a laser pointed at a relay satellite.
Somebody still has to be doing the downlink. Kill that guy and the
whole system is useless.
Your way just requires more launches of more expensive satellites in
order to achieve the same vulnerability.
–
"Some people get lost in thought because it’s such unfamiliar
territory."
–G. Behn
> During those earlier tests, at least one of which took place last
> year, the Chinese interceptor boosted into space but missed the
> target. The re-entry vehicles later fell back to Earth, an
> intelligence official says.
OK, possibly silly question, but why would there be re-entry vehicles
associated with an anti-satelite interceptor? Unless you are Ernst
Stavro Blofeld I’d think you’d be satisfied with blowing the things
up rather than trying to bring them back to Earth.
rick jones
—
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth…
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway…
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH…
Alex Terrell wrote:
> How easy would it be to make a satellite stealth?
> The core of the satellite should be easily shaped for stealth,
> especially if the only worry is upwards looking radar. The solar
> panels may be more difficult, though thin film panels could be
> transparent to radar.
You ditch the solar arrays and go with RTGs.
Pat
Allen Thomson wrote:
> The entrails seem to be saying that the ASAT is based on the DF-21,
> which is basically a road-mobile system. That said, it can probably
> be loaded on heavy flat cars and moved by rail to different deployment
> areas.
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/theater/df-21.htm
Think of advantages one accrues with a rail-mobile ASAT system – the
whole kit-and-kaboodle can travel around in one piece: missile,
launcher, command center, the sensors required for terminal guidance and
target destruction confirmation.
And by having pre-surveyed sites marked out on the rail system for its
launch, it would be possible to take that train to anywhere on the
entire Chinese railway network and know almost literally to the inch
where the ASAT was launched from on its mission, which would take out a
lot of variables in regards to its intercept trajectory, as well as
allowing it to engage targets at various orbital inclinations that are
within the latitudes of the Chinese mainland.
If we are going to deploy a operational ASAT system, this might be a
_really_ good concept to emulate.
It certainly simplifies the software used on the interceptor.
Delta-V requirements for terminal guidance on the interceptor as it
approaches its target are vastly reduced by getting almost directly
below it, and the less that shift is from its launch trajectory to
target impact trajectory equals lower on-board thruster weight and
thruster propellant weight versus overall launch weight for the
interceptor, and therefore higher potential intercept altitude for using
the same launch vehicle.
Pat
Allen Thomson wrote:
> "Had the United States been willing to discuss the military use of
> space with the Chinese in Geneva, that might have been enough to
> dissuade them from going through with it," said Jeffrey G. Lewis, an
> arms control expert at the New America Foundation.
I _think_ what they were trying to tell us is something like "We can
launch satellites full of aluminum BBs and carrying homing beacons on
board, intercept them with our ASATs…. and call the whole thing ASAT
tests within the law, like you and Russia did. Mind you, after we did
that ten or twenty times, LEO is going to be a flying shooting gallery
into which no other nation would dare send a satellite, space station,
or Shuttle into without considering that all that debris might well
destroy it, and make evey more debris… so let’s make an
agreement…you either see things our way, or LEO is a dead area as far
as you, and the rest of the world, are concerned….in other words, once
we have you by the balls, your hearts and minds will follow."
I think they have us on this one; outside of doing a attack on Chinese
ASAT launch sites, which means that at best, they stop picking our
national debt and cut off all imports to our nation for things that we
don’t even make here anymore, and at worst WW III has just started, with
all the other countries of the west on China’s side…because they are
also counting on those low-cost imports to keep their economies alive,
and have no other choice.
Me, I’m going to invent a time machine, go back in time, and personally
strangle Adam Smith in his crib before the little waif’s concept of
laissez-faire capitalism without any self-interest on the part of a
nation’s people or intervention of their own nation’s leaders regarding
their country’s long-term economic interests completely fucks over the
western world.
Adam Smith never believed in the concept of "sin"; and believe me, it shows.
Pat
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:21:58 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery <flan…@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>Me, I’m going to invent a time machine, go back in time, and personally
>strangle Adam Smith in his crib before the little waif’s concept of
>laissez-faire capitalism without any self-interest on the part of a
>nation’s people or intervention of their own nation’s leaders regarding
>their country’s long-term economic interests completely fucks over the
>western world.
Economic nuttiness noted.
>Adam Smith never believed in the concept of "sin"; and believe me, it shows.
I’d be willing to bet that you’ve never actually read Adam Smith. Or
if you did, you just did some socialist professors’s version of
Cliff’s notes.
> :>> How easy would it be to make a satellite stealth?
> :> Difficult.
> :> They are supposed to send data. You either have a wide angle
> :> transmission, or the satellite has to turn. Both are things that get
> :> detected easily.
> :>
> :
> :I wouldn’t think sending data would be the problem, just don’t point the
> :antenna at the earth, use another satellite. A very narrow transmission
> :angle, maybe even a laser pointed at a relay satellite.
> Somebody still has to be doing the downlink. Kill that guy and the
> whole system is useless.
Hence, the resilient Internet in the Sky, multi path and redundant for your
secure, encrypted, grains of sand to flow. Distributed Networks, flexible,
allowing the sands of information to flow in many and different direction,
as the Fickled Winds of War blow harder in an ever increasing storm.
Tit-for-Tat, in a negative direction, out of control, an ever increasing
spiral, creating a dust devil of enormous proportions…
Just sort through the grains of Sand later, to find the White ones. White
Sands, Centralized Control and centralized distribution systems with there
single point failures are obsolete. Looks like we can sell Air Force One,
and make the President fly commercially with his laptop. A Diplomatic Waste
Land doesn’t deserve the perks.
But, look at the bright side, at least we’ll be able to watch…, live and
on Internet.
On 24 Apr, 05:42, Pat Flannery <flan…@daktel.com> wrote:
> Alex Terrell wrote:
> > How easy would it be to make a satellite stealth?
> > The core of the satellite should be easily shaped for stealth,
> > especially if the only worry is upwards looking radar. The solar
> > panels may be more difficult, though thin film panels could be
> > transparent to radar.
> You ditch the solar arrays and go with RTGs.
Then the killer ditches the radar and goes for thermal imaging.
On 22 Apr, 23:33, Volker Hetzer <firstname.lastn…@ieee.org> wrote:
> Alex Terrell schrieb:> How easy would it be to make a satellite stealth?
> Difficult.
> They are supposed to send data. You either have a wide angle transmission,
> or the satellite has to turn. Both are things that get detected easily.
> Lots of Greetings!
> Volker
The satellite could store the data till it passes over the USA, or
anywhere far away from China.
Alex Terrell wrote:
> Then the killer ditches the radar and goes for thermal imaging.
You hide the RTGs behind a insulated shield facing the enemy.
Lookie what I found… pdf of the 174 page "Stealth Satellite
Sourcebook" from the FAS:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/stealth.pdf
Pat
Pat Flannery <flan…@daktel.com> wrote:
:
:Alex Terrell wrote:
:> How easy would it be to make a satellite stealth?
:>
:> The core of the satellite should be easily shaped for stealth,
:> especially if the only worry is upwards looking radar. The solar
:> panels may be more difficult, though thin film panels could be
:> transparent to radar.
:>
:
:You ditch the solar arrays and go with RTGs.
So now they find you by the hot spot…
–
"You keep talking about slaying like it’s a job. It’s not.
It’s who you are."
— Kendra, the Vampire Slayer