Right-wingers think Obama seeks ban on Space Shuttle.

[Beowulf]

You don't even need a large enough vehicle to go orbital. All you need to do is have something in the way when the satellite speeds by. Something like a SM-3 LEAP warhead would work just perfectly. Which is to say: pretty much every ABM system is also an ASAT system. Also, nearly every space launch system is one as well.

[Darth Wong]

... Is there anyone who disagrees that this bill is a bad idea?

There is no bill. It's only a vague policy statement. Congratulations for being such a diligent reader that you somehow missed that even though it was repeated several times.

[Thirdfain]

... Is there anyone who disagrees that this bill is a bad idea?

There is no bill. It's only a vague policy statement. Congratulations for being such a diligent reader that you somehow missed that even though it was repeated several times.

Yeah, I knew it wasn't enacted yet or whatever. I could have been more specific in my language. So, does anyone disagree that this vague policy statement is a bad idea?

[General Zod]

Yeah, I knew it wasn't enacted yet or whatever. I could have been more specific in my language. So, does anyone disagree that this vague policy statement is a bad idea?

Enacted? It hasn't even been written up. They're still hammering out the framework for it, regardless of what some people in this thread would want you to think.

[Thirdfain]

Enacted? It hasn't even been written up. They're still hammering out the framework for it, regardless of what some people in this thread would want you to think.

Right. So, we don't know precisely what it would entail. However, in general I'd think that a restriction on orbital weapons, particularly with regards to ASAT capabilities as well as the capacity of our own satellites to defend themselves actively, would be a bad idea. The people who would be likely to wind up in confrontation with the US would just ignore the treaty, and hampering our own development along those lines would weaken America in an area which is absolutely vital for it's military supremacy as well as national defense.

[General Zod]

Right. So, we don't know precisely what it would entail. However, in general I'd think that a restriction on orbital weapons, particularly with regards to ASAT capabilities as well as the capacity of our own satellites to defend themselves actively, would be a bad idea. The people who would be likely to wind up in confrontation with the US would just ignore the treaty, and hampering our own development along those lines would weaken America in an area which is absolutely vital for it's military supremacy as well as national defense.

I don't think anyone's contesting that, just some of the absurd claims people are using to justify it as bad.

[D.Turtle]

You don't even need a large enough vehicle to go orbital. All you need to do is have something in the way when the satellite speeds by. Something like a SM-3 LEAP warhead would work just perfectly. Which is to say: pretty much every ABM system is also an ASAT system. Also, nearly every space launch system is one as well.

Except there is a big difference between something jury-rigged or adapted in order to be used as an ASAT weapon, and something built as a dedicated ASAT or space superiority weapon.

That would be like saying that every plane is a bomber because you can drop objects from very high from it that can do damage on the ground - ignoring the whole thing about how effective something like that is.

And in answer to MKSheppard: How about agreeing to such a treaty in order to stop the US from achieving total and complete space-superiority with their massive advantage in funds? You do realize that this policy proposal is about the current situation in which there does not exist any country on earth able to keep up with the military expenditures of the US? And you do realize that if such a country were to rise up, that such a treaty could still be annulled by the US?

As for Thirdfain: The obvious goal of this policy proposal is to stop a new space arms race from starting. Considering that no one can afford such a thing at the moment, it is a good policy proposal.

[MKSheppard]

Except there is a big difference between something jury-rigged or adapted in order to be used as an ASAT weapon, and something built as a dedicated ASAT or space superiority weapon.

How strange that the US Air Force actually did operationally deploy what you would call a "jury rigged" or "adapted" ASAT weapon in the form of NIKE-ZEUS at Kwajalein, and then later, with converted Thor ballistic missiles.

Link to NIKE ZEUS ASAT
Link to Thor ASAT

And in answer to MKSheppard: How about agreeing to such a treaty in order to stop the US from achieving total and complete space-superiority with their massive advantage in funds?

Hey genus, we already saw this happen with the Washginton/London Naval treaties; instead of Japan having 20% of the strength of the US Navy in 1940, they had 70%, making it feasible for the Japanese to seriously consider war with the US.

[erik_t]

You don't even need a large enough vehicle to go orbital. All you need to do is have something in the way when the satellite speeds by. Something like a SM-3 LEAP warhead would work just perfectly. Which is to say: pretty much every ABM system is also an ASAT system. Also, nearly every space launch system is one as well.

Except there is a big difference between something jury-rigged or adapted in order to be used as an ASAT weapon, and something built as a dedicated ASAT or space superiority weapon.

Yeah - only one of them would be banned. That's about the only meaningful difference.

[Graeme Dice]

Yeah - only one of them would be banned. That's about the only meaningful difference.

Well, other than the fact that the dedicated system is the only one that's likely to be effective at destroying satellites of course.

[D.Turtle]

How about you forget the entire ASAT part (I concede that no useful limit on them is possible), and think about stuff like like space-based superiority stuff, you know, stuff like having weapons in space that can be quickly deployed with out warning (kinetic penetrators and the like), or stuff like having military stations in space with multiple weapons on them, capable of taking larger number of satellites or stuff on earth out with little or no warning - stuff like that? Stuff that can't be easily jury-rigged or adapted, but is very effective.

And OBVIOUSLY this would be a weakening for the US in comparison to a situation in which an arms race takes place. It is called conceding something in order to achieve success somewhere else. For example, avoiding a huge, giant, expensive space arms race at the cost of having to create yet another military frontier where the US has to reign supreme by outspending the rest of the world combined.

[MKSheppard]

Well, other than the fact that the dedicated system is the only one that's likely to be effective at destroying satellites of course.

You haven't been following events have you? In partiuclar the one where a US Navy cruiser shot down a satellite with a missile designed for an entirely different task, namely intercepting an incoming ballistic missile?

Or the fact that in the 60s, we had an operational ASAT system kludged out of variously an ABM system, and then an ICBM?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not to mention the innocuous F-15 ASAT. If that program could be emulated it'd be really easy to hide, especially if the rocket motor could be purposed for some conventional missile and the different guidance package was relatively easy to conceal in other projects like ABM.

[Thirdfain]

I don't think anyone's contesting that, just some of the absurd claims people are using to justify it as bad.

Gotcha.

And OBVIOUSLY this would be a weakening for the US in comparison to a situation in which an arms race takes place. It is called conceding something in order to achieve success somewhere else. For example, avoiding a huge, giant, expensive space arms race at the cost of having to create yet another military frontier where the US has to reign supreme by outspending the rest of the world combined.

The big problem here is in the specifics- In the '20s, a treaty limiting naval construction *sounded* like a good idea. In practice, the exact terms of the treaty lent themselves to extensive cheating and actually lead to a far more unstable world by giving Japan a navy comparatively much stronger than she should have had. Since this whole deal is hardly past the "vague policy statement" stage we just can't tell if the details of such a treaty would be useful or disastrous. One could imagine a ban on space weaponry which lead to, say, China gaining preponderance in space weaponry while the United States, Europe, or Russia had none. Things could go badly in many ways- enforcement, allowed levels or armament, the banning of certain space weapons and not others. I think that would pretty clearly be a Bad Thing.

I'd say that any treaty regarding the disarmament of space would have to be evaluated with regards to the merits of the specifics- which simply don't exist yet.

[erik_t]

Yeah - only one of them would be banned. That's about the only meaningful difference.

Well, other than the fact that the dedicated system is the only one that's likely to be effective at destroying satellites of course.

Ah, yes. So, let me get this straight.


ASM-135A F-15-launched anti-satellite missile. 4 of 5 launches successful. Dedicated system. "Effective".


Orbital Sciences Pegasus launch vehicle. 37 of 41 launches successful. Pegasus XL/HAPS F36 DART (autonomous rendezvous technology test mission) intended to close within a few meters of a US satellite. Accidently collided with said satellite. Non-dedicated anti-satellite system. "Not likely to be effective."


Perhaps you could provide further clarification, as the distinction is eluding me.

[Kanastrous]

Actually shooting down a satellite seems like 'actual use' of an anti-satellite weapon, to me...

[Questor]

The shot was about as real-world as it gets. They knew the orbital data for the satellite ahead of time, but you'd know that for pretty much every satellite within a couple orbits. So, prove it was a proof of concept test (when the system is well tested against it primary threat), with ideal conditions, and how it doesn't compare to actual use.

As the satelite was damaged, it may also have been venting fuel, and moving in a chaotic way in the orbit. (I know the changes would be small, but what is the kill range for an SM-3s warhead in space?)

[K. A. Pital]

The point is that the ban of purpose-designed weapons does not negate the threat of having satellites destroyed.

Were it possible to check on the launches, which is impossible now, it would largely negate "the threat". Cosmonauts in EVA aren't a threatening enough "weapon", you know, not at all. Only a fool would be risking cosmonauts in unreliable and slow procedure of "space vandalism" when he could develop and launch ASAT missiles from Earth.

Oh, and of course space-to-space and space-to-ground missiles are far better suited at destroying stuff; not only do they work faster and require nothing unnecessary like sending humans in a capsule into space, but they are also generally very close in terms of performance.

In particular though this debate does not have any substance. You simply cannot check on "space weapons". End of story. Regardless of people in EVA suits, space weapons would not be banned in an effective fashion.

[erik_t]

Yes, in any circumstance I can imagine, one would be a fool to waste a manned flight on anti-satellite tasking. Pegasus, or Scout if we still had it, would be a much better option.

The point is that nothing is stopping anybody from doing it.

[Patrick Degan]

Now, Degan, explain why a ~$10million missile is a reasonable threat, while a ~$20million space launch is "bullshit pretending to be a legitimate argument".

Asked and answered, bullshitter —not only by myself but by several other posters in this thread.

Then it must be very easy to just cut and paste, yeah? I must have missed it. Please point me to the relevant post, or copy and paste it.

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

Oh, and BTW, the present launch cost of Soyuz, the cheap alternative to the Shuttle, is actually $30 million per shot —which means the unmanned ASAT is only a third of the cost, is far more likely to achieve a kill minutes after launch, and doesn't risk people in orbit to gain the objective.

Well we've all known for a while that you live in your own little world, Degan. Hell, we've had a member go ahead and vouch for my qualifications before I even made it back to reply. But by all means, take a bold stand against reality, see how that goes for you.

Sayeth the alleged "rocket engineer" who's twittering on about sending up spacesuited men to perform a little vandalism on satellites —a job best taken care of with an ASAT barrage— and uses as support for that "argument" blather about car vandalism. Talk about living in one's own little world...

Red herring. Of course a purpose-designed weapon would be superior. The point is that the ban of purpose-designed weapons does not negate the threat of having satellites destroyed. Did you forget how we got on this subject?

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

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.

[Spyder]

I'm sure they'll tighten up the definition if anything actually gets drawn up. Perhaps, "you're not allowed to put things in space that explode...on purpose."

[Sky Captain]

IMO the whole ban ASAT thing is pointless because any rocket capable of suborbital flight equipped with suitable guidance system can be used to destroy enemy LEO satellites. Even US laser armed 747 can be used to destroy satellites in LEO and perhaps damage sensors of satellites in geosynchronous orbit

Real thing any treaty banning weapons in space should focus on is stuff like orbital weapon platforms with potential of launching attacks without warning.

[Illuminatus Primus]

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.

[erik_t]

Then it must be very easy to just cut and paste, yeah? I must have missed it. Please point me to the relevant post, or copy and paste it.

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

Oh, and BTW, the present launch cost of Soyuz, the cheap alternative to the Shuttle, is actually $30 million per shot —which means the unmanned ASAT is only a third of the cost, is far more likely to achieve a kill minutes after launch, and doesn't risk people in orbit to gain the objective.

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.

As for Soyuz, you've now upgraded to... well, an upgraded vehicle, of course. You don't need three guys with wrenches. But if you want to go with three times the cost, we can work with that number.

And a dedicated antisatellite weapon will do the job for less money and do it more reliably? Blinding flash of the obvious. Thanks, Degan. Nobody claimed otherwise, only that other avenues (be they Shep's guy with a wrench, a Pegasus launch, or whatever else) present a credible threat.

Red herring. Of course a purpose-designed weapon would be superior. The point is that the ban of purpose-designed weapons does not negate the threat of having satellites destroyed. Did you forget how we got on this subject?

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

Hey everyone, Degan contributed the following useful tidbit: the name of the launching ship.

Google-CHOP!

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!

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.

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.

When I said earlier that only the mechanical capability need be considered... that was in retrospect a little too simplistic. Obviously, the degree of importance attached to the ability to take down a satellite is important.

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".

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.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What's hilarious is that the system aboard USS Lake Champlain was NOT a dedicated ASAT weapon, but a reprogrammed SM-3 launch. SM-3 is a theater ballistic missile defense system.