Right-wingers think Obama seeks ban on Space Shuttle.

[Wyrm]

Pages two and three of this thread, actually. I'm not doing your fucking homework for you.

...

No no no, friend. That's not how it works. I can't say "go look at astronautix, the answer is there, I'm not doing your fucking homework for you". You seem to think I'm a retarded child. Please, Degan, rub my face in my stupidity. It ought to be very easy.

Your face is already so liberally plastered with your own stupidity, cupcake, that I almost resisted quoting the relevant passage in Degan's stead. Almost.

No, it is not, for reasons which should be all too obvious. Setting aside the expense and logistical effort required to get a manned spaceflight off the ground in the first place, astronauts going out for an EVA of any sort require at least 40 minutes preparation time to get into their spacesuits, then spend another four hours prebreathing as their suit pressures and life support gas mixtures are steadily adjusted. Physical stresses involved in performing even simple tasks, along with limitations upon movement simply to keep from spinning yourself out of control, and the heat and radiation hazards, limits the amount of time an astronaut can spend outside. He then must spend hours in decompression after the EVA in order to avoid the bends, not unlike having to readjust after a deep sea dive. For all this, you maybe will be able to sabotage one satellite in one mission-day. The next one will be in its own orbit hundreds of kilometres from your present position (and any vehicle more than 150km in altitude is one which your LEO space capsule will never reach). Computing that rate of advance, the crew will be lucky if they can actually put more than two satellites out of action before return Earthside is compelled by the endurance limitation of the spacecraft and crew.

I'd like to add to Degan's post the following way: most of the millitarily-critical satellites lie beyond the reach of Shep's Nike-Zeus and Thor ASAT systems (and way beyond the shuttle), and the ones that are in reach are multiply redundant 'constellations' anyway. You can't take those systems out without a fair amount of warning, or a large delay from you taking out the first satellite to taking out enough of the redundancy to make the constellation unusable. They are also acts of war, and your staging sites will be attacked instantly to keep you from attacking more.

It's not enough that an enemy be able to shoot down constellations of satellites. It must shoot them down fast enough to disable the constellations before the US and the other nations that parasatize off of them can respond. If it can't, then they will not bother. Everyone will know who did it.

I didn't outline the threat of manned antisatellite missions. Shep did... well, the Soviets did. Hell, they were willing to use an entire station (Salyut 3) to do so... and did in fact test this system!

And then dismantled it, and did not use the gun on any other spacecraft. This should tell you something.

Also, the primary mission of the Salyut 3 was spying, not space combat. The damn thing had a Agat-1 photographic camera, which was kept pointing toward the earth by a half-million firings by its thrusters during its 15 days of manned operation. The gun mounted in case the US wanted to shoot it down.

You cannot declare this and therefore have it be so. A Pegasus launch has, in this real world of which you are so afraid, impacted another satellite. This system was not purpose-built for anti-satellite missions.

While true that the Pegasus was not purpose built to destroy that satellite, it was purpose built to get near it. That mission requires certain guidance and tracking capabilities. The only way it differed from a kinetic-kill vehicle was its intended mission.

[erik_t]

Your face is already so liberally plastered with your own stupidity, cupcake, that I almost resisted quoting the relevant passage in Degan's stead. Almost.

No, it is not, for reasons which should be all too obvious. Setting aside the expense and logistical effort required to get a manned spaceflight off the ground in the first place, astronauts going out for an EVA of any sort require at least 40 minutes preparation time to get into their spacesuits, then spend another four hours prebreathing as their suit pressures and life support gas mixtures are steadily adjusted. Physical stresses involved in performing even simple tasks, along with limitations upon movement simply to keep from spinning yourself out of control, and the heat and radiation hazards, limits the amount of time an astronaut can spend outside. He then must spend hours in decompression after the EVA in order to avoid the bends, not unlike having to readjust after a deep sea dive. For all this, you maybe will be able to sabotage one satellite in one mission-day. The next one will be in its own orbit hundreds of kilometres from your present position (and any vehicle more than 150km in altitude is one which your LEO space capsule will never reach). Computing that rate of advance, the crew will be lucky if they can actually put more than two satellites out of action before return Earthside is compelled by the endurance limitation of the spacecraft and crew.

I'd like to add to Degan's post the following way: most of the millitarily-critical satellites lie beyond the reach of Shep's Nike-Zeus and Thor ASAT systems (and way beyond the shuttle), and the ones that are in reach are multiply redundant 'constellations' anyway. You can't take those systems out without a fair amount of warning, or a large delay from you taking out the first satellite to taking out enough of the redundancy to make the constellation unusable. They are also acts of war, and your staging sites will be attacked instantly to keep you from attacking more.

As far as I know, all spy satellites are in LEO (as you would expect, of course). Iridium, as another example, is at 485mi, well below Gemini 11's apogee. And of course there's the profound danger of attacks on commercial infrastructure. And yeah, it's an act of war, and you're subject to counter-attack. Duh. This is not unique to manned operations.

As for Degan's (I think they were Degan's) post, a laundry list of operational constraints does not explain why a ~$10million missile is a reasonable threat, while a ~$20million space launch is "bullshit pretending to be a legitimate argument". They have to prebreathe (although Alexei Leonov's first spacewalk took place 94 minutes after launch), and they can't spend ages and ages outside. Duh. You will be lucky to hit more than one satellite per launch. Duh. Taking all these factors into account, which I have done from the beginning, you're still looking at an improvised anti-satellite mission costing two to three times as much as a dedicated weapons system. I will not accept some a priori declaration that a twenty million dollar difference in this, which you rightly describe as something that will start a big fuckoff war, is going to deter anyone. If you've decided it's worth starting the war, then twenty million dollars is probably not a serious issue to you.

It's not enough that an enemy be able to shoot down constellations of satellites. It must shoot them down fast enough to disable the constellations before the US and the other nations that parasatize off of them can respond. If it can't, then they will not bother. Everyone will know who did it.

Well, everyone will know why took down a satellite with ANY ASAT weapon. As for destroying a full constellation... yeah, that takes a lot of resources, no matter if you've got a purpose-built weapon or not.

I didn't outline the threat of manned antisatellite missions. Shep did... well, the Soviets did. Hell, they were willing to use an entire station (Salyut 3) to do so... and did in fact test this system!

And then dismantled it, and did not use the gun on any other spacecraft. This should tell you something.

Not really. They demonstrated the capability. They had no need to keep such a system aloft, since they could just loft a proper ASAT weapon since no such ban is currently in place.

Also, the primary mission of the Salyut 3 was spying, not space combat. The damn thing had a Agat-1 photographic camera, which was kept pointing toward the earth by a half-million firings by its thrusters during its 15 days of manned operation. The gun mounted in case the US wanted to shoot it down.

It's difficult for us to state definitively why the weapon was mounted. I concede this point. However, they felt it worthwhile to demonstrate a manned ASAT capability.

You cannot declare this and therefore have it be so. A Pegasus launch has, in this real world of which you are so afraid, impacted another satellite. This system was not purpose-built for anti-satellite missions.

While true that the Pegasus was not purpose built to destroy that satellite, it was purpose built to get near it. That mission requires certain guidance and tracking capabilities. The only way it differed from a kinetic-kill vehicle was its intended mission.

This is correct, however these guidance and tracking capabilities are minimal, since placement of any satellite down to the tenth of a degree of declination or so. Delta-V requirements are similarly minimal; the Russians have been doing automated resupply for decades. The point is, though, that that guidance and tracking capability is a civilian need that will be fulfilled for nonmilitary missions. If a hypothetical ban prohibited official ASAT weapons but allowed this civilian capability, it would be an ineffectual ban.

[Wyrm]

As far as I know, all spy satellites are in LEO (as you would expect, of course). Iridium, as another example, is at 485mi, well below Gemini 11's apogee. And of course there's the profound danger of attacks on commercial infrastructure. And yeah, it's an act of war, and you're subject to counter-attack. Duh. This is not unique to manned operations.

The point of the immediate declaration of war being that you will have very little time to take the rest of the constellation out before the owners can use it to curbstomp your ass. If you're going to attack a satellite constellation which is of strategic importance, it's best to do it in a mighty, debilitating lightning strike. The manned mission is manifestly quite the opposite.

As for Degan's (I think they were Degan's) post, a laundry list of operational constraints does not explain why a ~$10million missile is a reasonable threat, while a ~$20million space launch is "bullshit pretending to be a legitimate argument".

Briefly, you don't have to worry about the missles coming back.

The ~$20 million space launch is manned; the saboteurs ought to have a reasonable expectation of getting back because they have much valuable training you don't want lost. That limits the rate of destroying satellites by this method, and that means such a method is strategically worthless. That's why it's "bullshit pretending to be a legitimate argument".

On the other hand, the ~$10 million missile is a reasonable threat because it is disposible. You can attack satellites as fast as you can launch 'em. Of course, bulding the required launchpads or silos will be noticed.

I will not accept some a priori declaration that a twenty million dollar difference in this, which you rightly describe as something that will start a big fuckoff war, is going to deter anyone. If you've decided it's worth starting the war, then twenty million dollars is probably not a serious issue to you.

So you're instead assuming a priori insanity on the part of hostile space-capable powers? That's nice to know. It's also completely unjustified. In case you haven't noticed, the batshit crazy threats to US security are all at the level of bearded men in caves. The Soviet Union was a lot more reasonable: that's why MAD worked.

And then dismantled it, and did not use the gun on any other spacecraft. This should tell you something.

Not really. They demonstrated the capability. They had no need to keep such a system aloft, since they could just loft a proper ASAT weapon since no such ban is currently in place.

"No need to keep it aloft"? Are you a retard? The Soviets knew we were spying on them from space... with unmanned satellites! You think the Soviets wouldn't like to keep their secrets by knocking them down? Hell, there wouldn't even be American lives killed, and since spy satellites good enough to provide strategic data at the time did not officially exist, the Soviets could knock them down with impunity.

"You destroyed one of our satellites!"

"My American friend, we cannot have destroyed what which did not exist, da?"

If anything, dual-use makes satellites harder targets, because they have civilian applications that do not need to be covered up. You can simply hide the millitary application under the civilian one.

This is correct, however these guidance and tracking capabilities are minimal, since placement of any satellite down to the tenth of a degree of declination or so. Delta-V requirements are similarly minimal; the Russians have been doing automated resupply for decades. The point is, though, that that guidance and tracking capability is a civilian need that will be fulfilled for nonmilitary missions. If a hypothetical ban prohibited official ASAT weapons but allowed this civilian capability, it would be an ineffectual ban.

Depends on how effective the civillian versions are, doesn't it? If the civvy version doesn't allow or makes impractical deployment that would knock out a constellation in one master stroke, then all trying to shoot down a constellation with the civvy version will win you is a quick ass-reaming by the offended power. The treaty can therefore be effective by limiting (or at least regulating) the technology that allows for the strategically dangerous lightning strike.

Also, I realize now that for your example to be worth anything, it must be reliably repeatable. One misadventure does not an effective weapons' system make.

[erik_t]

(all this is snippable, I think)

Also, I realize now that for your example to be worth anything, it must be reliably repeatable. [erik: ie meaning a constellation takedown] One misadventure does not an effective weapons' system make.

That's a valid position to take. I disagree, but we just define "effective" differently.

I do think you may be trivializing the difficulty in taking down a satellite constellation, though. Iridium has 60 active satellites up, as I recall, and they may be too high for SM-3 to reach. Even if they're not, I don't think we have that many missiles in our inventory, and we certainly don't have enough ships to be able to take down a global constellation in less than a few hours. GPS, meanwhile, is a hell of a lot higher, and can function with only three visible satellites (8-9 are usually in view), implying that you have to destroy at least 18 satellites in medium orbit, altitude ~20,000km. I don't think even KEI is energetic enough to get that high. And you still have the global coordination problem.

[K. A. Pital]

While it's true that the USSR pursued both manned and unmanned ASAT programs, their nature is painstakingly clear and at no point did it include specific manned spaceships launched up there as combatants without the necessary weapons installed.

The gun was considered an obsolete idea by the time it was implemented in the ALMAZ program, while space-to-space missiles were to be installed on future ALMAZ stations, SPIRAL spaceplanes, and later considered as armament for the Buran spaceship.

I hope that the "space saboteur" argument is finished, because like I said, using EVA for dedicated ASAT missions is ridiculous. Even with blasters (handheld laser guns) which the USSR readily granted to our cosmonauts, the EVA cosmonaut is not a cost-effective method of killing satellites.

That's why the USSR centered it's effort around SSMs. And yeah, SSMs can be launched by a manned craft, but it would be a craft which is initially armed with the SSM. And yes, with independent launch there's no way of checking. However, that's far from the "space saboteur" scenario - the manned ASAT platform utilizes dedicated weapons, not wrenches.

[Patrick Degan]

As a practical matter, killing satellites demands a purpose-designed system to do the job if there is to be any tactical value to the exercise. This is why your notion of improvised manned space-vandalism has no logic behind it as a threat worth considering on any level.

No it doesn't. You're making a leap from "the shuttle case example was fucking retarded" to "demands a purpose-designed system." The evidence presented makes it abundantly clear that it is possible to use civilian space-launch capacity or repurposed ABM/heavy SAMs to knock out satellites. Satellites are largely fixed and obvious targets. In fact, aside from the actual F-15 ASAT tests, almost all the major examples were repurposing or improvisation. It is quite the salient point that how can one ban ASAT if SM-3 does the job, unless you're also going to curb and monitor heavily other dual-use military and civilian launch capacity.

Even a kludged-together ASAT from existing technology is a purpose-designed system, in that some degree of dedicated planning and calculation, and testing, is put into the concept for the purpose of turning it into an operational machine. This is light years beyond the retarded manned space-vandalism concept which was put forth as a legitimate scheme for improvised satellite killing.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Even a kludged-together ASAT from existing technology is a purpose-designed system, in that some degree of dedicated planning and calculation, and testing, is put into the concept for the purpose of turning it into an operational machine. This is light years beyond the retarded manned space-vandalism concept which was put forth as a legitimate scheme for improvised satellite killing.

Fine. You won the debate that the vandalism case was a non sequitur. How does this change the fact that the issue discussed in spirit, that there is not enough fundamental, obviously-discernible distinction between "dedicated" and "improvised" ASAT to make ASAT weapons a good candidate for treaty policy such as the Soviet-U.S. bans on nuclear testing and intermediate-range nuclear weapon systems. The simple fact is that in reality there is no meaningful difference, no easy line of demarcation between "dedicated" and "improvised". There is only the gradient of economics and aerodynamic performance. And since ASAT technology has so much in common with other weapon systems down to form, booster, sensor package, warhead, and platform as ABM and other devices, it would be difficult to implement an effective treaty ban on them.

[Patrick Degan]

As for Degan's (I think they were Degan's) post, a laundry list of operational constraints does not explain why a ~$10million missile is a reasonable threat, while a ~$20million space launch is "bullshit pretending to be a legitimate argument". They have to prebreathe (although Alexei Leonov's first spacewalk took place 94 minutes after launch), and they can't spend ages and ages outside. Duh. You will be lucky to hit more than one satellite per launch. Duh. Taking all these factors into account, which I have done from the beginning, you're still looking at an improvised anti-satellite mission costing two to three times as much as a dedicated weapons system. I will not accept some a priori declaration that a twenty million dollar difference in this, which you rightly describe as something that will start a big fuckoff war, is going to deter anyone. If you've decided it's worth starting the war, then twenty million dollars is probably not a serious issue to you.

This is either some extended joke or this is you moving the goalposts. Because it certainly is not an honest or cogent argument even if you've deluded yourself into believing it so.

And no, Bright-Eyes, you have not taken the objections into account, as the record of this thread clearly demonstrates but have simply attempted to handwave them away and keep pretending that the whole thing comes down to somebody ignoring a not-trivial cost-differential and a not-trivial logistical difficulty if they're really determined. That works if your enemy is Ernst Stavro Blofeld (and even he wouldn't waste resources on an attempt to bash in a satellite with a wrench). It does not work in any real world.

As for the rest of your spew:

You cannot declare this and therefore have it be so.

You should try taking your own advice instead of continually trying to rescue a fundamentally silly argument about manned space-vandalism.

A Pegasus launch has, in this real world of which you are so afraid, impacted another satellite. This system was not purpose-built for anti-satellite missions.

But was purpose-adapted for such, involving a considerable degree of planning, calculation, and an active field-test of the concept, which achieved a far more certain result in a far quicker timeframe than your ludicrous manned space-vandalism concept is capable of.

I have, more than once, due to airline delays, arrived at an airport after the buses stop running. The capability of taking the bus was denied to me by factors outside my control, so I elected to take a taxi for something over ten times the price. I assure you that this price jump did not render the taxi to be without "tactical value".

And this has relevance to the difficulty in executing a manned mission for the sole purpose of committing vandalism in orbit v. using a missile to do the job of knocking down a satellite... how, exactly?

I think an analysis of plausible political scenarios involving a satellite shootdown is outside the purview of this thread. I'd be happy to discuss it in another of our making, Degan. I think it'd be an interesting thought exercise. However, unless it can be shown that the ability to take down a satellite is no more than a passing curiosity by some tinpot ruler, I think that a doubling or tripling of the price of a shootdown is unlikely to matter a great deal.

The difference is, "some tinpot ruler" is unlikely to have any sort of manned spaceflight capability at all. But some of them commanding a minimal orbital launch capability are more likely to put up a satellite with a cannister package which, when fired, would put out a cloud of debris (nails, ball-bearings, gravel) into the path of an orbital target. Not saying it's the most reliable method of achieving a satellite kill but is one which is far more accessible to states with a crude space capability (or even with a more advanced one) attempting to develop a clandestine and/or cheap ASAT weapon instead of doing anything obvious such as constructing dedicated missiles and their support facilities for the purpose —which would draw the attention of international observers and inspection agencies.

Furthermore, I find it amusing that you continue to handwave away a not-trivial cost differential between a manned space rocket and an unmanned missile and keep pretending that it makes your ludicrous manned space-vandalism concept in any way worthy of consideration as a credible threat.

[Patrick Degan]

Fine. You won the debate that the vandalism case was a non sequitur. How does this change the fact that the issue discussed in spirit, that there is not enough fundamental, obviously-discernible distinction between "dedicated" and "improvised" ASAT to make ASAT weapons a good candidate for treaty policy such as the Soviet-U.S. bans on nuclear testing and intermediate-range nuclear weapon systems. The simple fact is that in reality there is no meaningful difference, no easy line of demarcation between "dedicated" and "improvised". There is only the gradient of economics and aerodynamic performance. And since ASAT technology has so much in common with other weapon systems down to form, booster, sensor package, warhead, and platform as ABM and other devices, it would be difficult to implement an effective treaty ban on them.

Oh, on that score, I agree.

[MKSheppard]

NOT a red herring —you outlined a "threat" which wouldn't make the cut for the plot of a Bond movie

Funny then, that the Soviet Union felt the military threat of a manned spaceplane (STS) bombing the Soviet Union and doing various things in orbit was serious enough to warrant the expensive Buran complex to counter it in capability.

Anyway, it's proven fact that satellites can be fucked with in orbit:


This is an astronaut working on hubble during a spacewalk mission; just change things around and it would be an astronaut performing "unauthorized" repairs - i.e. damaging a anarchojihadocommie satellite.

So how do you prevent that from happening through a ban? Do we outlaw training astronauts/cosmonauts to repair things in orbit?

and entails not only a ludicrous amount of extra effort but takes three times the expense of a sea-launched ASAT missile (figuring on the current-day cost of a Soyuz launch v. the system presently deployed aboard the USS Lake Champlain) to put maybe a grand total of two satellites out of action (if that) and risks the lives of astronauts in the process for very little gain to justify the effort.

1.) Soyuz Launches are achieved for about $30 million or so. This can probably be cut by a million or so when the military gets involved in a big way and wants a production line set up so that they have a capsule and launch system ready at all times and for sustained launches.

2.) SM-3 Block I/IA/IB costs about $9 million now; but the SM-3 Block II/IIA will cost about $15 million a round.

3.) A ground/air launched ASAT's cheapness is of use only in a wartime situation, when you don't give a damn about the consequences; war has been decided one way or another. Sort of like ICBMs; which do nothing but sit in their silos until doomsday, while a manned system is much more flexible, because you can use it for other purposes which don't involve all-out war breaking out.

Some other points to make:

A.) The astronaut can prebreathe on the ground before launch, meaning once he's reached orbit, he's spacewalking within minutes of reaching a stable position near the target.

B.) The manned spacecraft offers plausible deniability; as well as a way to actually practice for real satellite intercept missions outside of major international crisises.

"What? Why are you complaining that our SF-25 Hawk spacecraft passed within 2 kilometers of your spy satell...errr...weather satellite? We just wanted to take a picture of it. Honest!"

You can also intercept your own satellites for legimitate repair missions to extend their lives, as well as practice for wartime intercepts.

C.) The Manned spacecraft offers great tactical flexibility; upon reaching orbit, it can independently track and destroy enemy satellites with SIM-120s (Space Intercept Missiles), and then manouver itself to intercept incoming enemy fire (missiles, a kill-sat) with SIM-9 Spacewinders, or a cannon.

As a practical matter, killing satellites demands a purpose-designed system to do the job if there is to be any tactical value to the exercise

O RLY.

Link to NIKE ZEUS ASAT
Link to Thor ASAT
Link to SM-3 ASAT (go down the page)

Let's see now; we have two ABM systems (Zeus and SM-3) repurposed to kill satellites, and one ICBM repurposed to kill satellites.

[K. A. Pital]

Shep, ABM and ASAT weapons are closely linked. Of course if you want to ban "purposeful" ASAT weapons, you will have to ban most types of space-to-space, air-to-space and even ground-to-space rockets and missiles.

[Wyrm]

NOT a red herring —you outlined a "threat" which wouldn't make the cut for the plot of a Bond movie

Funny then, that the Soviet Union felt the military threat of a manned spaceplane (STS) bombing the Soviet Union and doing various things in orbit was serious enough to warrant the expensive Buran complex to counter it in capability.

Like the the fact that it got funding from a government makes it a serious threat. US Anti-Psi Unit, anyone?

Anyway, it's proven fact that satellites can be fucked with in orbit:

This is an astronaut working on hubble during a spacewalk mission; just change things around and it would be an astronaut performing "unauthorized" repairs - i.e. damaging a anarchojihadocommie satellite.

So how do you prevent that from happening through a ban? Do we outlaw training astronauts/cosmonauts to repair things in orbit?

You're confusing "can be fucked with in orbit in principle" with "fucking with it in orbit using astronauts/cosmonaut/whatevernaut is a realistic option," and Degan is clearly arguing against the latter and not the former.

In order for you to fuck with a satellite, you first have to get near it. No sane government would trust a current enemy to get anywhere near its satellites. Long before an American astronaut gets anywhere near a Soviet satellite to fuck with it as you fantasize, the Prez gets a call from the Premier with the message: "You be getting the fuck away from our satellite or you be getting the thermonuclear suppository, da?"

Even if the Americans manage to get there and mess with the satellite before the missles fly, that's just one satellite in a redundant constellation. The performance of the constellation is not degraded appreciably, so even if that constellation actually had something to do with guiding nukes, it'll still be able to do its job and America is toast.

The bottom line here is that a manned sabotage mission cannot take down a constellation fast enough to make it a strategically smart move, so no one would do it in real life. That's what makes it a B-movie threat.

3.) A ground/air launched ASAT's cheapness is of use only in a wartime situation, when you don't give a damn about the consequences; war has been decided one way or another. Sort of like ICBMs; which do nothing but sit in their silos until doomsday, while a manned system is much more flexible, because you can use it for other purposes which don't involve all-out war breaking out.

Nobody's going to allow you to get near a satellite that isn't scheduled for service by you specifically. It doesn't matter how "flexible" your astronauts are, no one is going to buy that you're out to "repair" a satellite unless you're actually trusted to repair it, on that particular mission.

A.) The astronaut can prebreathe on the ground before launch, meaning once he's reached orbit, he's spacewalking within minutes of reaching a stable position near the target.

What about depressurization? What about the bends? That's what takes hours, dearheart. Otherwise, you're designing a capsule that serves as a pressure chamber in space and a vacuum chamber on the ground. That takes mass and a departure from every other manned space mission ever flown.

B.) The manned spacecraft offers plausible deniability; as well as a way to actually practice for real satellite intercept missions outside of major international crisises.

"What? Why are you complaining that our SF-25 Hawk spacecraft passed within 2 kilometers of your spy satell...errr...weather satellite? We just wanted to take a picture of it. Honest!"

You really have no idea how meticulously planned a space mission is, do you? Orbit changes need propellant, and every drop of it you take up into space is going to cost you major green. A large orbit change is not something done on a lark. It will either be obvious that you are going to be near this satellite the moment you launch, or you're going to make it really obvious you're after this satellite when you change your orbit to catch it.

And do you really think a spy satellite will not have anti-tamper countermeasures? If you mess with it at all, the owners are going to know about it... if you survive the experience, that is.

C.) The Manned spacecraft offers great tactical flexibility; upon reaching orbit, it can independently track and destroy enemy satellites with SIM-120s (Space Intercept Missiles), and then manouver itself to intercept incoming enemy fire (missiles, a kill-sat) with SIM-9 Spacewinders, or a cannon.

A spacecraft mounting such weaponry is obviously NOT going to be there for sightseeing, Shup.

[Beowulf]

NOT a red herring —you outlined a "threat" which wouldn't make the cut for the plot of a Bond movie

Funny then, that the Soviet Union felt the military threat of a manned spaceplane (STS) bombing the Soviet Union and doing various things in orbit was serious enough to warrant the expensive Buran complex to counter it in capability.

Like the the fact that it got funding from a government makes it a serious threat. US Anti-Psi Unit, anyone?

Hey look, a red herring.

Anyway, it's proven fact that satellites can be fucked with in orbit:

This is an astronaut working on hubble during a spacewalk mission; just change things around and it would be an astronaut performing "unauthorized" repairs - i.e. damaging a anarchojihadocommie satellite.

So how do you prevent that from happening through a ban? Do we outlaw training astronauts/cosmonauts to repair things in orbit?

You're confusing "can be fucked with in orbit in principle" with "fucking with it in orbit using astronauts/cosmonaut/whatevernaut is a realistic option," and Degan is clearly arguing against the latter and not the former.

In order for you to fuck with a satellite, you first have to get near it. No sane government would trust a current enemy to get anywhere near its satellites. Long before an American astronaut gets anywhere near a Soviet satellite to fuck with it as you fantasize, the Prez gets a call from the Premier with the message: "You be getting the fuck away from our satellite or you be getting the thermonuclear suppository, da?"

Even if the Americans manage to get there and mess with the satellite before the missles fly, that's just one satellite in a redundant constellation. The performance of the constellation is not degraded appreciably, so even if that constellation actually had something to do with guiding nukes, it'll still be able to do its job and America is toast.

The bottom line here is that a manned sabotage mission cannot take down a constellation fast enough to make it a strategically smart move, so no one would do it in real life. That's what makes it a B-movie threat.

Ah, thermonuclear war over a satellite, real smart proposition there.

3.) A ground/air launched ASAT's cheapness is of use only in a wartime situation, when you don't give a damn about the consequences; war has been decided one way or another. Sort of like ICBMs; which do nothing but sit in their silos until doomsday, while a manned system is much more flexible, because you can use it for other purposes which don't involve all-out war breaking out.

Nobody's going to allow you to get near a satellite that isn't scheduled for service by you specifically. It doesn't matter how "flexible" your astronauts are, no one is going to buy that you're out to "repair" a satellite unless you're actually trusted to repair it, on that particular mission.

So, what's going to stop them?

A.) The astronaut can prebreathe on the ground before launch, meaning once he's reached orbit, he's spacewalking within minutes of reaching a stable position near the target.

What about depressurization? What about the bends? That's what takes hours, dearheart. Otherwise, you're designing a capsule that serves as a pressure chamber in space and a vacuum chamber on the ground. That takes mass and a departure from every other manned space mission ever flown.

Ah, proof that you're an idiot. The point of prebreathing is to flush nitrogen out of your system. Doing so eliminates the possibility of the bends. It also makes depressurization a non-issue.

B.) The manned spacecraft offers plausible deniability; as well as a way to actually practice for real satellite intercept missions outside of major international crisises.

"What? Why are you complaining that our SF-25 Hawk spacecraft passed within 2 kilometers of your spy satell...errr...weather satellite? We just wanted to take a picture of it. Honest!"

You really have no idea how meticulously planned a space mission is, do you? Orbit changes need propellant, and every drop of it you take up into space is going to cost you major green. A large orbit change is not something done on a lark. It will either be obvious that you are going to be near this satellite the moment you launch, or you're going to make it really obvious you're after this satellite when you change your orbit to catch it.

And do you really think a spy satellite will not have anti-tamper countermeasures? If you mess with it at all, the owners are going to know about it... if you survive the experience, that is.

And now you're supposing that the spy sat designers will build a giant bomb into it. Great, you've not only made it heavier, which is expensive, but you've also increased the probabilility that it'll just randomly fail on you, losing you a valuable asset.

[Patrick Degan]

NOT a red herring —you outlined a "threat" which wouldn't make the cut for the plot of a Bond movie

Funny then, that the Soviet Union felt the military threat of a manned spaceplane (STS) bombing the Soviet Union and doing various things in orbit was serious enough to warrant the expensive Buran complex to counter it in capability.

Anyway, it's proven fact that satellites can be fucked with in orbit:


This is an astronaut working on hubble during a spacewalk mission; just change things around and it would be an astronaut performing "unauthorized" repairs - i.e. damaging a anarchojihadocommie satellite.

So how do you prevent that from happening through a ban? Do we outlaw training astronauts/cosmonauts to repair things in orbit?

So... sending up astronauts to perform a necessary and hazardous repair job on a needed space science platform, which justifies the effort, compares with a useless mission to commit manned space vandalism on one unit of a satellite constellation... how, exactly?

and entails not only a ludicrous amount of extra effort but takes three times the expense of a sea-launched ASAT missile (figuring on the current-day cost of a Soyuz launch v. the system presently deployed aboard the USS Lake Champlain) to put maybe a grand total of two satellites out of action (if that) and risks the lives of astronauts in the process for very little gain to justify the effort.

1.) Soyuz Launches are achieved for about $30 million or so. This can probably be cut by a million or so when the military gets involved in a big way and wants a production line set up so that they have a capsule and launch system ready at all times and for sustained launches.

2.) SM-3 Block I/IA/IB costs about $9 million now; but the SM-3 Block II/IIA will cost about $15 million a round.

3.) A ground/air launched ASAT's cheapness is of use only in a wartime situation, when you don't give a damn about the consequences; war has been decided one way or another. Sort of like ICBMs; which do nothing but sit in their silos until doomsday, while a manned system is much more flexible, because you can use it for other purposes which don't involve all-out war breaking out.

Some other points to make:

A.) The astronaut can prebreathe on the ground before launch, meaning once he's reached orbit, he's spacewalking within minutes of reaching a stable position near the target.

B.) The manned spacecraft offers plausible deniability; as well as a way to actually practice for real satellite intercept missions outside of major international crisises.

"What? Why are you complaining that our SF-25 Hawk spacecraft passed within 2 kilometers of your spy satell...errr...weather satellite? We just wanted to take a picture of it. Honest!"

You can also intercept your own satellites for legimitate repair missions to extend their lives, as well as practice for wartime intercepts.

C.) The Manned spacecraft offers great tactical flexibility; upon reaching orbit, it can independently track and destroy enemy satellites with SIM-120s (Space Intercept Missiles), and then manouver itself to intercept incoming enemy fire (missiles, a kill-sat) with SIM-9 Spacewinders, or a cannon.

Great. In attempting to defend Erik T's nonsense, you've just outlined at least one scenario which shows greater potential utility than the effort to send up men just to whack at a satellite with a wrench. Of course, this still doesn't answer the question of how this method would be preferrable to simply using ASATs to do the job far more quickly and with a greater chance of success at degrading a satellite constellation than a manned mission could manage. You also beg the question of why such an endeavour would even be considered in anything which is not a wartime situation. What would be the purpose?

As a practical matter, killing satellites demands a purpose-designed system to do the job if there is to be any tactical value to the exercise

O RLY.

Link to NIKE ZEUS ASAT
Link to Thor ASAT
Link to SM-3 ASAT (go down the page)

Let's see now; we have two ABM systems (Zeus and SM-3) repurposed to kill satellites, and one ICBM repurposed to kill satellites.

Yes really. As I outlined to Illuminatus: Even a kludged-together ASAT from existing technology is a purpose-designed system, in that some degree of dedicated planning and calculation, and testing, is put into the concept for the purpose of turning it into an operational machine. This is light years beyond the retarded manned space-vandalism concept which was put forth as a legitimate scheme for improvised satellite killing. You obviously didn't bother to read where this argument about repurposed ABMs for ASAT functioning was already covered.

[Thirdfain]

This entire argument is ridiculous. Fundamentally, the question is whether or not a ban on space weaponry could be effective. Now, perhaps I've misread something, but it seems like Deegan and Wyrm are arguing that a manned spaceflight with a few "armed" astronauts could not possibly present a serious threat to, say, the United State's satellite systems. This is clearly true. Any effort to take down our orbital support network would require tremendous resources and many, many launches.

As a matter of fact, I've seen Erik_T admit at least once that that is the case- it was never part of his argument in the first place that you could disable the orbital sections of the United States, or any other major nation's, defense system using only such primitive methods.

Rather, the argument I've seen adopted is that the difference between purpose built anti-satellite weaponry and, well, almost any other device for getting payloads into space is pretty negligible. Stas Bush said it:

Shep, ABM and ASAT weapons are closely linked. Of course if you want to ban "purposeful" ASAT weapons, you will have to ban most types of space-to-space, air-to-space and even ground-to-space rockets and missiles.

If someone wanted to build an anti-satellite arsenal with plausible deniability (Oh, no, Mr. UN inspector, these are part of our civilian space program,) they'd have a pretty easy time of it. I think this is the point which has been presented.

Which brings us back to the actual, useful, interesting part of the argument- is the President's policy statement with regards to space weaponry sensible?

Hell, no.

[D.Turtle]

Which brings us back to the actual, useful, interesting part of the argument- is the President's policy statement with regards to space weaponry sensible?

Hell, no.

If you limit it to ASAT, then you are right. If you expand it to include ALL potential space-based weapons, then it is a different thing entirely.

As this is just a very vague Policy Proposal, it can not be said if his goal is achievable or not.

And I'm really surprised MKSheppard and other Right-wingers haven't attacked the following proposal:

Move Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.

[Wyrm]

Like the the fact that it got funding from a government makes it a serious threat. US Anti-Psi Unit, anyone?

Hey look, a red herring.

Not a red herring. I was pointing out Shep's non-sequitor, that a government spending money on something somehow proves that it is a serious proposition. It's the exact same line of argument that alternative medicine nuts use to justify their nonsense: "SEE?? The governement's spending money on alternative medicine! That PROVES it has merit!"

The bottom line here is that a manned sabotage mission cannot take down a constellation fast enough to make it a strategically smart move, so no one would do it in real life. That's what makes it a B-movie threat.

Ah, thermonuclear war over a satellite, real smart proposition there.

If that satellite constellation is vital for your ability to wage thermonuclear war, and your enemy seeks to disable it and harm your ability to destroy them utterly, then yes, you wage nuclear war over it before the constellation becomes useless for that task. Because if you don't, and the enemy succeeds in taking down your constellation, then your enemy might consider thermonuclear war with you survivable as they have degraded your ability to destroy him, and contemplate attacking you. In that situation, you have to attack first, before your weapons become useless and you are at the mercy of your enemy.

3.) A ground/air launched ASAT's cheapness is of use only in a wartime situation, when you don't give a damn about the consequences; war has been decided one way or another. Sort of like ICBMs; which do nothing but sit in their silos until doomsday, while a manned system is much more flexible, because you can use it for other purposes which don't involve all-out war breaking out.

Nobody's going to allow you to get near a satellite that isn't scheduled for service by you specifically. It doesn't matter how "flexible" your astronauts are, no one is going to buy that you're out to "repair" a satellite unless you're actually trusted to repair it, on that particular mission.

So, what's going to stop them?

Welll... since your basic thesis is that ASATs are de facto unregulatable...

Okay, that was a bit facisious; no one is stopping the first one. But any enemy whose warmaking power can be seriously harmed by destroying one satellite is not worth this kind of nonsense. Otherwise, that enemy is going to be bringing nine kinds of hell down upon your head, even if they don't pull out the nuclear weapons.

What about depressurization? What about the bends? That's what takes hours, dearheart. Otherwise, you're designing a capsule that serves as a pressure chamber in space and a vacuum chamber on the ground. That takes mass and a departure from every other manned space mission ever flown.

Ah, proof that you're an idiot. The point of prebreathing is to flush nitrogen out of your system. Doing so eliminates the possibility of the bends. It also makes depressurization a non-issue.

What about the oxygen that's now in your system after your hemoglobin is saturated? Isn't that gas in your system? Won't it come out of solution when you depressurize just like nitrogen, and therefore cause the bends? Sorry, chum, but you can get the bends from pure oxygen, too. What prebreathing allows you to do is to reduce the pressure at the same time as nitrogen is flushed out of the system, so you don't simply replace one dissolved gas with another. (Alternately, you can replace the nitrogen with a gas that has a much greater rate of diffusion, like helium, but that just allows you to depressurize a bit faster.)

Also, you can't breathe 100% pure oxygen at normal pressure without severe health effects — look up oxygen toxicity sometime. Pulmunary effects set in within a day at normal pressure. How long do you have to prebreathe to get rid of the nitrogen, again? How long do your astronauts have before they start coughing up their lungs?

To avoid this, you need to reduce the pressure inside the capsule to a similiar level to that of the space suit, even on the ground, with the abovestated engineering challenges.

And even if you manage this trick, that's only one satellite down in what is almost certainly a redundant constellation, and orbit changes to get the others are not quick.

And now you're supposing that the spy sat designers will build a giant bomb into it. Great, you've not only made it heavier, which is expensive, but you've also increased the probabilility that it'll just randomly fail on you, losing you a valuable asset.

Or maybe just a breakable wire inside the chasis to detect people messing about with it. You might be able to pass off a single flyby as happenstance, but not actual breaking into the satellite. That takes deliberation.

Which brings us back to the actual, useful, interesting part of the argument- is the President's policy statement with regards to space weaponry sensible?

Hell, no.

Obviously, we can't catch the more subtle violations of an ASAT weapon treaty until someone actually uses a system as a weapon. However, if it is necessary to make a successful ASAT substantial to make a serious dent in one's space infastructure, it would discourage the penny-ante stuff, and large violations of the treaty would be harder to keep under wraps.