Anti-satellite weapon test?, Is this true? |
Anti-satellite weapon test?, Is this true? |
Jan 19 2007, 02:39 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 20-September 06 From: Hanoi, Vietnam Member No.: 1164 |
According to this link, China fired a missile to destroy an orbiting weather satellite last week: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Tras...e_Test_999.html
I am curios about what kind of projectile could be used? A "smart" one with on board guidance system or just a dumb one? How close did the "killer satellite" came to the target? Does anybody have an idea? |
|
|
Jan 24 2007, 04:39 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 599 Joined: 26-August 05 Member No.: 476 |
There was an article quoting unamed sources that there were three previous unsuccessful attempts.
Regarding detecting / tracking the ASAT engine plume, the ASAT would only need course correction maneuvers in the end game. These burns are relatively low energy. Early warning sats are required to detect rocket plumes during boost phase which are much larger. Whether their sensors are sensitive enough to detect small ASAT course correction burns is unknown outside the classified realm, but my guess is not likely. Regarding staring sensors, the operational US early warning sats in geosynchronous orbit still use a scanning sensor. There have been tests of staring senors in add-on payloads to other military sats in high elliptical orbits. I don't recall reading that these are in operational use. |
|
|
Jan 24 2007, 12:11 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
There was an article quoting unamed sources that there were three previous unsuccessful attempts. Regarding detecting / tracking the ASAT engine plume, the ASAT would only need course correction maneuvers in the end game. These burns are relatively low energy. I'm not surprised to hear that, three sounds sorta sensible for a demo programme. As for the rocket plume, I'll grant that control inputs will lessen as 'rendezvous' (haha) approaches, but you still need a reasonable belt to get up there in the first place, and that's the signature which would be detected. I'd also wager that the test took place over some appropriate part of China and that the USAF had a good idea of which might be a target satellite well in advance, thus making detection almost a numbers game. And that numbers game would serve to obfuscate the exact capabilities of US space intelligence assets, too... ...staring IR or not! Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Jan 24 2007, 07:46 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 688 Joined: 20-April 05 From: Sweden Member No.: 273 |
As for the rocket plume, I'll grant that control inputs will lessen as 'rendezvous' (haha) approaches Nix - that is true for a slow "friendly" rendezvous like ISS/STS. For a high speed interception it's the other way around. The need for control inputs increases dramatically at the end when the relative angular velocity goes up and the inevitable minor initial errors must be corrected. tty |
|
|
Jan 24 2007, 09:14 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
The need for control inputs increases dramatically at the end when the relative angular velocity goes up and the inevitable minor initial errors must be corrected. tty I'll buy that - however, with (presumably) burnout of the main stage the vehicle mass will be way down so smaller burps will do the job. One of the 1980s-era US kill vehicles had a (IIRC) *five* terminal engine setup, and these could actually support the thing (though briefly) in a 1G static environment. They did some testing with the thing flying free over a big a net, into which it dropped at the end. Something I just noticed is that some (early) reports spoke of an air-launch, while the latest are talking about the thing being on top of an IRBM. Somehow, I think the IRBM carrier version, knocking out a satellite in a well-known orbit is rather less of an achievement than the air-launched scenario. I don't think the whole affair has made Sino/US space co-operation more likely, but international diplomacy is a funny old game. Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Jan 25 2007, 07:07 AM
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 688 Joined: 20-April 05 From: Sweden Member No.: 273 |
I think the IRBM carrier version, knocking out a satellite in a well-known orbit is rather less of an achievement than the air-launched scenario. That is definitely true. It also makes the chinese system much less capable since it can only be used when the satellite track passes close to the launch site. An aircraft carried ASAT allows much more flexible targeting. tty |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd September 2024 - 12:40 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |