Talk:Anti-satellite weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Questions

What about the KE-ASAT program that the US is (was?) working on in the 1990s? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.131.28 (talk • contribs) December 6, 2004.

The F-15 portrayed in the photograph is from Edwards but is that where the lauch was from that shot down the satellite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.55.121.8 (talk • contribs) December 7, 2005.

[edit] Hazards

I suppose it would be off-topic to discuss the hazards of anti-satellite weapons such as the EMP shockwave amplified by the atmosphere (in greater detail) when using nuclear weapons in near-Earth space, or the plume of debris left by exploding missile shells and their targets left in orbit. I'd like to hear other peoples' view, though, because it's a bit of a reach. Oceanhahn 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion at High altitude nuclear explosion about using nuclear weapons in space. In all, it's not especially dangerous to those of us on the ground. I suppose the altitude of the satellite in question is important, but really, the radiation, and certainly not any of the other blast effects, aren't going to reach us. Satellite chunks falling from the sky are problematic, but most satellites are less than a ton or two and wouldn't provide much of a problem. They'd break up into much smaller pieces on reentry, and are of course only 30% likely to hit land. Debris in orbit is much more of a problem, of course, but near earth orbit is chock full of debris anyways. One satellite isn't going to pose a great threat to anyone. If there were a sustained campaign against satellites, there would be far greater havoc on the ground than in orbit. Remember also that the debris itself is subject to reentry. ... aa:talk 19:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian equivalent

There was also a Russian equivalent of ASAT being developed in late 80s till mid 90s, this was using a mofified MiG-31 (MiG-31D to be exact) with a Vympel developed missile - I have the designation somewhere but would have to find it. The project was initially abandoned in early 90s but resurrected around 2000 with commercial satellite launches in mind this time. Note that the system was intended to be used against LEO satellites as the missile mass was significantly below US ASAT. The program has apparently now been restarted post treaty demise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.30.77 (talk • contribs) May 11, 2006.

I wasn't aware there was an ASAT treaty in the '90s. --Dual Freq 22:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The phrse "kamazazee satellite" should be removed. It isn't official and leads to a page about Japanese suicide bombers in WWII.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) June 6, 2006.
Air Force 2025, Russian space web and International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation use similar terminology, sounds official when they use it. --Dual Freq 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the use of the term 'kamikaze'; though however slang it may be, it describes a tactic employed -- the intentional suicide of the attacker in order to damage a target -- in a brief, concise manner. Being official or not never had anything to do with it. --Oceanhahn 06:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"Kamikaze" suggests that it is manned, but I have my doubts whether this is meant. Either way it should be stated more clearly.--Patrick 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

This page could probably use some references if someone has the time/inclination.--Will.i.am 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starfire Optical Range

Shouldn't this article mention Starfire Optical Range's research? 89.180.130.194 20:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"It is also one of the plot elements in Matthew Reilly's Area 7 featuring a satellite-killing shuttle launched from a high-altitude plane"

I maintain that tagging bits on like this is unencyclopaedic. Also the way the sentence it written is terrible. "Area 7 featuring"?

[edit] China Developing Anti-Satellite Technology

This could be added on a new article instead of putting it here. Might be an long article.-- Walter Humala Godsave him! (wanna Talk?) 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Um why? Until they would use laser, or shoot down another satellite, short notice with altitude in km/m, and description of orbit suffice. It would be also nice a link to the missile they used. Raghar 03:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format for Clarity

This was a very good read, but I found that it would benefit greatly from a contents section like many Wikis have. And obviously break the article into sections...

Ifpk454 06:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on China

The new section on the Chinese missile launch suffers from recentism. There is nothing historically important in this launching, in relevance to this article. The technology and capabilities have been around for 20 years. It does not warrant it's own section. Significant enough to add to the article? Yes! Significant for its own separate section? No! Do not be so quick to justify its notability simply due to a news-crazed and sensationalistic network trying to catch viewers. ~ UBeR 01:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's shocking because the US will now develop their own space weapons. Actually US was already developing space based weapons. In any case, things will be quite interesting in the coming years for sure.

there is at least 2 active US space weapon program (both by lockheed martin) at the time of china's ASAT test. US had and are developing space weapon(or defenses as they put it) so what china did was just being the 1st to lanuch a test in 21st century; in PRC opinion, it might have seen US and Russia had already demostrated their capability, hence they were just playing catch up to show they are "up there" with the leading nations. on defensenews, an analyst opinioned that the GPS is quite safe from this ASAT since there are backup system and they operate very far away from earth, and the ASAT china used is design more to take out spysat, such as those ROC-Taiwan is using to spy on China. as there is usually no redundancy spysat to get back online quickly, it could have a serious effect on intelligence during short hostility. i agree on it being sensationalized; it is quite a big thing "now", and maybe we can keep it around abit until it settledown. Akinkhoo 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Haven't all the US tests been either outright failures or ridiculous charades, with the targets emitting homing signals rather than counter-measures? Isn't hitting a real target more than the USA has managed during the last 24 years? If so, I think that would make the Chinese efforts notable. -- Geo Swan 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually both the USA and Russia have successfully done the same thing China did, except they did it over 20 years ago. One reason (I would argue the main reason) they stopped was because of the space pollution it caused. ~ UBeR 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Technique wise, the China ASAT missile is equipped with kinetic-kill warhead, and it is the first successful kinetic-kill for ASAT warfare, and it shot down a satellite which is much smaller in size and much higher in orbit height (865km, compared to 500km the USA did before).

Tech-wise speaking it is far superior to any of the ASAT USA/USSR did in 1980s, and it is comparable to the lastest NMD techs.

Just like you can not say there is little point to build plane since people could built planes almost 100 years ago, the difference between different generations of planes is something worth looking at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pptv2r2 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti ASAT?

Is there any anti-ASAT weapon that satelites can use to defend against ASAT weapons? Any article for that? Frap (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pptv2r2 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political bias?

"Especially when the US knew of the eventual outcome of the defunct satellite at least 1 year in advance which lead some to ask, 'why choose this time to destroy the satellite and not earlier.'"

I think that this should be edited to present a more neutral tone. Isn't the reason for the intercept being delayed until just before re-entry to ensure that all the debris re-enters and does no become a space hazard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.117.107 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

that is a valid question. we don't know about the condition of said satellite until now, the military didn't refute the delay was for it to enter a given orbit neither. the satellite maybe in the same orbit for the past year, do you have the fact to back the claim that the orbital delay was recent? because i found no source on this. Akinkhoo (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)