China Shoots Down Another Satellite 221
An anonymous reader writes "It was reported this weekend that China shot down another of its satellites in January this year. 'The website of Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV said the anti-satellite missile test, if confirmed, is likely related to the missile interception test, which occurred at the peak of a dispute between Beijing and Washington on a massive US arms sales deal to Taiwan. During the interception test, US agencies spotted two missiles launched from two locations from the Chinese mainland, colliding outside the atmosphere, a Pentagon spokesperson said.' I guess ballistic trajectories that intersect with orbital ones don't count as 'weapons in space.'"
Will the debris be a problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone know how much of an issue the debris from these satellites are? From the perspective of collisions in orbit more so than what happens when it lands (I imagine the parts are small enough that reentry will take care of them).
Is there any way to clean out the LEO/NEO junk? (Score:3, Interesting)
With China trying to show off what it can do, what happens if they get enough fast moving junk in the orbit levels that it starts hitting other objects... which will promptly start speeding off in other directions, essentially causing a chain reason, tearing up anything in orbit at that level, eventually making an almost impenetrable barrier of fast moving stuff, blocking any chances at anything going into space for the next several hundreds years?
Is there any way to slow the junk down so it hits atmosphere and burns up?
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Interesting)
The article is unclear, but it sounds more like China tested their ASAT weapon against a launched suborbital target, not an actual satellite as the headline suggests.
A fast ballistic trajectory that either immediately returns to earth, or returns after a couple of orbits, would be a comparatively responsible way of testing these weapons. A well designed test would have most of the same challenges as firing on an actual satellite, without leaving a semi-permanent debris cloud.
The actual news in the article (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently people have completely missed the point of this article. Space junk, yes it's a problem, but did no one grasp the importance that one nation is capable of SHOOTING DOWN SATELLITES?!?
It's obviously aimed at countering US ballistic missile technology that we're selling to Taiwan. Perhaps not to intercept the missiles, but to destroy US GPS satellites so the US missiles won't track. This is just as important as ballistic missile interception program. There's going to be another arms race to have satellites that can "counter" incoming missiles and missiles that can counter the counter on the satellite.
Lastly, can we please stop arming other countries. It always backfires and we end up getting shot by the same bullets we gave out.
Who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
Honestly, the only people who benefit from this China-US military hype are the huge suppliers of military equipment. China and the US will never fight against each other. They are joined at the hip, about as much as California and, say, Idaho are. China needs the US, the US needs China. Stop buying into the paranoid, tinfoil-hat ladden, slashdot reactionary ultra-hyped bullshit that they're feeding you.
Besides, the US can out-nuke them any day if they really needed to. :)
Not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that China has a VERY active space weapons program and will not give it up. If you look closely at what they are working on, it should be obvious that it is not about defense, but about an offense. They are
Heck, even the agreement to get FTA and WTA required them to open their money in 2004, quit dumping, quit subsidizing, and drop trade barriers. Yet, they fixed their money against the dollar, they dump more than ever, subsidies have actually gone up (vs 1999), though trade barriers have shifted all around.
China is positioning themselves for a hot war.
Re:NEO "pollution"? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're looking at a global warming analogy, you'd probably be better to look at the numerous calls for 'global asteroid defence' against a threat which would almost certainly cost vastly less than the cost of trying to defend against it.
Well, yeah, technically you're right - an asteroid causing the extinction of the human species would cost nothing at all, so the cost of trying to defend against it would certainly be vastly higher. Good thinking!
Re:More broken china (Score:3, Interesting)
While we are on the subject: why have subject lines?