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.'"
More broken china (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While we are on the subject: why have subject lines?
Not much reason, really (Score:2)
99% of the posts that aren't forced to have one because they don't reply to anything just keep the "Re:" subject line that Slashdot fills in for them. Using them as a rhetorical device to split one part of your post from the rest is basically their main function.
What the hell? (Score:5, Funny)
Nice way to make even more space junk. Nice going, China. Are you trying to destroy access to LEO over time?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Funny)
Not a problem.
We now have a laser that can zap the junk out of space.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10682693 [bbc.co.uk]
But I still say what we really need is this guy:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3025049600/tt0077066 [imdb.com]
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow I had never heard of Raytheon until earlier this week and now I've seen them referenced in two different places for two different projects. (this and the "pain gun")
They are the largest private employer in the state of Massachusetts. Still smaller than Lockmart though.
Re: (Score:2)
They're an enormous manufacturing conglomerate that focuses on making high-tech hardware. Their most prominent work is with the US military building weapons systems (though I don't believe they make actual munitions, and I'm nearly certain they don't make actual firearms), though they are not exclusively a military contractor.
They are also one of the last big players doing a lot of fundamental research, which is both a credit to them as a company and a rather depressing fact given the nature of their busine
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
like the fact that our military is wholly dependent on GPS and real-time connected war fighting. Loss of satellites hurts us a *lot* more than them.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Will the debris be a problem?
I suppose that depends on where it's going to land. If its not going to hit in China, they might not think its their problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The title clearly says that they shot said satellite "down." I imagine its remnants will burn up upon reentry.
Nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It often takes more energy to de-orbit something (so it burns up) than it does to escape-orbit it (so it flies off into space)... A "shoot-down" pretty much always means "we scattered it into several lower and higher orbits". The only hopes for it removing itself from orbit are by atmospheric drag causing it to decay until it falls to earth.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really how orbits work. Unlike airplanes, when you blow up a satellite it doesn't all of a sudden fall out of the sky. It's quite unlikely they actually "shot it down".
Re: (Score:2)
And of course Slashdot titles and newspaper headlines are always 100% accurate.
I'm pretty sure "blown apart" would be far more accurate than "shot down".
The missile is ground based so it would hit the satellite from below, and
the explosion would go up.
Maybe if they did it when the orbit was almost entirely decayed it would be
OK, but the article does not indicate that.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely they are more likely to shoot it upwards than downwards?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between the space junk made by the US and the space junk made my the Chinese is that the US isn't blowing up satellites in orbit creating massive clouds of debris, on fucking purpose.
The US has been in space for years, but at this rate the Chinese should be able to catch up to us in the "space junk race" in no time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
God damn it, China! (Score:4, Informative)
NEO "pollution"? (Score:2, Funny)
What absolute bunk. No doubt you are also a staunch believer in the hoax of global warming. There is absolutely NO credible evidence that the near earth space is "polluted". This is all just bullshit big government propaganda, no doubt intended to form the basis for future MASSIVE rises in taxation to pay for a "cleanup" (likely involving the disappearance of plane fulls of cash into union and left wing paramilitary group pockets).
Re: (Score:2)
What absolute bunk.
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.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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!
Exactly: in the real world the odds of such an impact are minute over forseeable human timescales, so spending trillions of dollars to 'defend' against it would be insane. Even the odds of losing a city in that time are tiny, so spending billions would probably be a waste too.
But the 'true believes' demand we should spend vast amounts of money now to try to stop something that's unlikely to occur in the next few million years. And probably own shares in 'Asteroid Stoppers, Inc'.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you missed the sarcasm/humour.
Anyway, you're underestimating the odds, massively overstating the costs, and completely ignoring the fringe benefits. Of course, I suppose it depends on who you're referring to when you talk about "true believers", and on what kind of an approach they're proposing. Safe to say there are many reasonable steps we can take to work towards preventing such a disaster, and there are some actions which would be unreasonable overreactions. Just like with climate change.
Re:God damn it, China! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually I believe that this test didn't contribute to that.
It sounds as if the intercept was at sub orbital speeds. IE it was a missile interception test.
Frankly this was miss titled big time.
Not that it is a good thing but it may not be as bad as you think.
Re: (Score:2)
IE it was a missile interception test.
I think it goes without saying it must have failed to intercept any missiles, especially IE 6.
You're kidding. Right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
China is by far the heaviest polluter on the planet.
I know CO2 isn't the only pollutant. But don't downplay the role of the US.
China: 6.5 Billion metric tons. (22.30% of world)
USA : 5.8 Billion metric tons (19.91% of world)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, it is because of nations cheating (money manipulation, pollution emissions, etc) that I feel that EU's/Obama's/Dems' solution for CO2 is actually increasing CO2 and if America implements, CO2 will rise FASTER, not slower. With the solution that I have suggested elsewhere, it would actually lower the CO2 (and other pollution).
Re: (Score:2)
Now, as to the garbage about doing CO2 emissions based on a per ca
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...seems the Chinese think it is helping them. Now, why would that be?
Another world record attempt (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The term for this sort of scenario is Kessler Syndrome [wikipedia.org], and if China keeps this up it might become a quite likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Push against it with a laser to either send it into the atmosphere to burn up or out of orbit.
At least that has been my suggestion. Seems the simplest.
Not one that would be powerful enough to knock out existing satellites, but just enough to push around space junk.
Re: (Score:2)
Radiation pressure. Put a bunch of satellites up with big lasers and give everything it sees a retrograde zap. Bonus points if you put out enough wattage to cause ablation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any way to slow the junk down so it hits atmosphere and burns up?
Either space or ground based lasers with enough power to ablate debris in order to slow it's orbit until it's dragged into the atmosphere. Plenty of power on Earth and space for optics.
GPS and communication satellites (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The scary part of this is that even if current planners have no intention of ever fighting a war against the U.S. history has shown that when military and political leaders believe that they are in a position to win such a war they often choose to wage it even if a rational analysis says that it is a bad idea (see World War I).
The Germans would easily have captured France in WWI if they'd been rational; it was the irrational changes to their highly rational war plan that led to disaster on the Western Front. IMHO the Chinese military seem far more rational than the US military at this time... they have a clear idea of who their opponents are and they're developing the most effective methods of defeating them.
Re: (Score:2)
they have a clear idea of who their opponents are and they're developing the most effective methods of defeating them
That they do. Subs to counter the US and a billion man army to counter Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
That they do. Subs to counter the US and a billion man army to conquer Russia.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the last thing China wants is more people to govern.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo! Siberia is rich prize that would soooooo much richer if it were...depopulated...from those pesky non-Hans. Shades of Tibet? The Han think very long term...centuries. What is Russia willing to risk to keep Siberia?
Vive La Frace! (Score:2)
thats ok, they can have France....
Re: (Score:2)
Very true but for some reason I'd like to think that the US gov is a bit smarter than that, and maybe some of those top secret satellites can be turned into a back up GPS with the push of a button.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the U.S. war fighting capability is highly dependent on GPS and satellite based communication.
[Citation needed]. Everything I've seen suggests that the military is capable of running without GPS, and they've worked to maintain that ability, just it will be slower and less accurate. Jam GPS and more civilians will die, but the target will be hit anyway. Besides, our most important deterrence weapon against the Chinese is the ICBM, and that definitely does not need GPS.
The important thing here seems to be that they are actively trying to build a defense against our ICBMs, if it was a ballistic mi
Re: (Score:2)
Deterrence? Against what, precisely? The little saw-off runts running the political jail and the Peoples Republican Army have aspirations to show their dicks are not as small as we believe. Taiwan is next...among others. Will the U.S. threaten nuclear war to defend Taiwan? I think not. And if that China takes Taiwan, the pacifist element in Japan will be hard pressed to restrain that country from going nuclear. S. Korea has already demonstrated an exploration of nuclear potential. Vietnam, Malaysia, Indones
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you didn't read the article or the summary. And I'll bet I'm right.
Re: (Score:2)
Circular story (Score:5, Funny)
The story, on a Chinese website (.cn domain) is reporting that the US is reporting that China shot down the satellite. I'm not sure how reliable any of this really is.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like taking a bit fo news, spinning it 180 using the propoganda machine, then spinning it 180 again with another propoganda machine.
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.
we aren't too excited (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The actual news in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
GPS satellites are at 20,000 km - if the Chinese could hit those, that would really be something!
All the satellites shot down so far have been well under 1,000 km.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd venture a guess they could, if they wanted to - China also has some decent medium lift launch systems.
That it would be not so elegant / unraveling slowly / max few targets at a time / impractical is another issue...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You say it like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach is no longer the case.
Pakistan?
PS. Calling Taiwan a stable democracy is going a bit too far. They ceased to be authoritarian later than my place (late EU memberstate, formerly behind the Iron Curtain); you almost seem to have fallen yourself under "the enemy of..." And what about claimed sovereignity of Taiwan over China?
Re: (Score:2)
The missile is only guided during the relatively brief initial powered phase of flight and its course is subsequently governed by the laws of orbital mechanics and ballistics.
Re: (Score:2)
That article just describes basic concept, modern missiles can be slightly different. For one, mobile platforms do use GPS or GPS-like systems to pinpoint the position of the launch.
MIRVs make trajectories not purely ballistic, with crossrange of warheads from one missile on the order of dozens of km at least; warheads perhaps use aerodynamic lift to change terminal trajectory, too. And upcoming gen of MIRVs supposedly has much higher maneuverability (thank "the Shield" for that...)
Re: (Score:2)
The US does not use GPS guidance in its weapons. US weapon systems are based on ultra-precise inertial navigation that are not dependent on GPS. Some accept GPS corrections within the very small margin of error for inertial guidance but that does not really matter for most missiles since terminal guidance is optical or radar. At worst, loss of GPS would be an inconvenience for the military; they've known
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite.
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=108 [af.mil]
GPS is quite important, gives very notably better accuracy than pure inertial (for which the starting point are good gps data from the aircraft)
Re: (Score:2)
but did no one grasp the importance that one nation is capable of SHOOTING DOWN SATELLITES?!?
Meanwhile the US is perfecting it's capabilities at maneuvering one unmanned orbital object around a second unmanned orbital object and, possibly, docking the two. The US has been able to shoot down satellites for a long time. It's really not that hard, especially if you just use a cheap "buckshot" payload approach. Now, intelligently maneuvering around other orbital objects without a remote controller present, and being able to dock with them, that's the newest, latest and greatest game changing ability i
Re: (Score:2)
Focus on keeping Congress from being handed over to the corporations in November.
Handed over? In which timeline would ownership by corporations require a "handing over" event?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, the corporations have found a way to accrue mod points.
End fascism now.
until nationalised (Score:2)
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. :)
Re: (Score:2)
When North Korea torpedoed a South Korean vessel, the US and South Korea wanted to hold a joined naval exercise - a rather measured response to an unprovoked attack. But of course China can't let the chance pass to interfere. They are aiming to expand both their military influence and their territory. It's important to them that neighboring countries will not have th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China needs us to buy the exports that their billion+ underclass help manufacture. That keeps those workers busy and distracted from the fact that they are being exploited by the privileged classes and deprived of any say in their government. Stop the exporting and it is a short road to civil unrest.
China needs us to buy their products in US dollars so that the government can stand in between every export transaction and the local Yuan based economy and thereby control everything. They also get to wield
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC 1/3 of their econ is based off of the US buying their trinkets and another 1/3 is the EU buying them
Re: (Score:2)
China's "middle class" is now larger than the entire US population.
My ass it is. Definetely not in terms of buying power. And keep in mind that whatever they have, the rest of the hungry populace is going to want sooner or later.
Satellite Shmatellite (Score:2)
Russia can shoot down the moon!
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
What? And the US hasn't been giving the rest of the world the big 'FUCK YOU' for the last fifty years. Doing pretty much whatever they like.
It's the same old shit for us. Just another country compensating by trying to show how powerful they are. Actually, it's kinda refreshing that there is another 'sustainable' player.
Re: (Score:2)
America says one thing, but does others. Quite honestly, the leadership there sees themselves in a cold war with the east, and are trying to take advantage of the east's not wanting to be in one.
The problem is that America 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
1. working on a ground based laser designed to take out eastern sats to try and stop GPS and communications.
2. Working on interceptors designed to take out incoming missiles.
3. Building nuke-powered Boomers/attack sub at a rate of 1-2 EACH [actually these are already built in abundance].
4. Getting ready to launch multiple space stations. The first one will allow civilians on-board, but the second on, are expected to be military only. There is ZERO need for a military to have a manned space station, EXCEPT as a way of hiding weapons as a prelude to an attack.
Dude, no need to get all hot about it. Just thought I'd put a little perspective on it for you. I'm sure that Americans believe that their motives are innocent but I'm sure that the chinese think exactly the same. Like I said, same old shit for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
China == paper tiger (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Funny)
Oh no! At that rate, they'll have more than fifty by next!
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see... when's the last time China invaded another nation? When is the last time a Western nation invaded another nation?
China = one nation, western nations != one nation.
Re: (Score:2)
So, they answer is that direct invasions do not have to go on. Heck, America has not directly invaded another nation EXCEPT that invaded us, or where we were invited in. For example, Afghanistan attacked A
Re: (Score:2)
China constantly threatens Taiwain. They invaded India in the 60s. They supported north vietnam. They supported North Korea. They gave the tech for the nuke to North Korea and are currently helping Burma to get it. They currently pull the same garbage that the Cold war had earlier which is using proxies.
China and Taiwan just signed a treaty to further tie their economies together. Most observers see it as a first step towards a formal peace, and eventual reintegration, just as they did with Hong Kong. As far as the border skirmish with India, it lasted for exactly a month, and KIA was under two thousand. As far as who was at fault, you'll have to read the evidence for yourself.
As far as North Korea goes, they have been pretty adept at getting nuclear technology from others, probably including. The more mod
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do ya think is going to happen
The age difference between couples will increase.
Re: (Score:2)
Outer Space Pooper Scooper Law (Score:2)
That's what we need. Satellites should be outfitted with pooper scoopers and plastic bags. They should be required by international law to clean up after themselves, and toss the plastic bag at the sun afterwards.
Or maybe one of those "cleanup the side of the road" community walks . . . except in space.
This all sounds silly, but maybe we do need some kinda of special cleanup satellite. It would probably be a great opportunity for the international space community to cooperate, as on the ISS . . . ?
UFO (Score:2)
So is this what that "UFO" was that everyone was talking about the other day?
Not News and News (Score:2)
Not News: China shoots down a satellite using ICBM scale hardware (the speculative fiction and barely, if at all, relevant details padding TFA not withstanding).
News: US shoots down a satellite using a missile built from off the shelf components,
News: launched from a fighter jet,
News: 25 years ago. OK, not strictly 'news' but darn sure puts perspective on China's 'accomplishment' as well as the DoD FUD poured over it to try to make it sound newsworthy.
No offense meant to the poster. It's good to keep track
What else was missing from here (Score:2)
The satellite it's still there (Score:2)
The satellite it's still there, you guys are holding it wrong.