India Shoots Down Satellite in Test (reuters.com) 158
India shot down one of its satellites in space with an anti-satellite missile on Wednesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, hailing the country's first test of such technology as a major breakthrough that establishes it as a space power. From a report: India would only be the fourth country to have used such an anti-satellite weapon after the United States, Russia and China, said Modi, who heads into general elections next month. "Our scientists shot down a live satellite 300 kilometres away in space, in low-earth orbit," Modi said in a television broadcast. "India has made an unprecedented achievement today," he added, speaking in Hindi. "India registered its name as a space power." Anti-satellite weapons allow for attacks on enemy satellites, blinding them or disrupting communications, as well as providing a technology base to intercept ballistic missiles. Update: U.S. says studying India anti-satellite weapons test, warns on debris.
Space Debris (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for contributing. Have a nice day!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Space Debris (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They tried to boost it into a permanent orbit. But the rocket blew up, so they changed the story to claim they destroyed it intentionally.
I was going to say that they shot down a satellite, but they were aiming at Karachi, Pakistan.
Re:Space Debris (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. No space debris. The satellite was destroyed in very low earth orbit. Really in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. The orbits of the smaller pieces will decay within hours. The bigger chunks will de-orbit in a few days or weeks.
India did this test far more responsibly than China's 2007 test, most likely because of the worldwide condemnation of China's behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Hours? Days? Weeks?
That's not soon enough. We are talking about pollution here! We demand clean LEO at all times. /s
Re:Space Debris (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, geopolitics [tribuneindia.com]:
Time was running out for India to declare itself as an ASAT power to join the US, Russia and China. The United Nations Conference on Disarmament is discussing a new treaty banning militarisation of space. Once the treaty is done and had India not carried out the ASAT test it would put New Delhi at a serious disadvantage, as it would then only be able to negotiate on such a new treaty as an “outsider” rather than an “insider” with ASAT capability.
Re: (Score:2)
Most objects that pass through these altitudes are big or are in elliptical orbits. Collisions will likely lead to faster deorbiting. India's target satellite was in a circular orbit, and it is unlikely that any part of it will survive longer than a few months at most.
Orbital junk is a problem, but this is not adding to it.
Militarization of space is a problem, but the biggest escalator, by far, is America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read they claim 300km. That's not so low. Certainly the ISS has dropped to that altitude, and Kim has fired ICBM's higher than this. But it's higher than the space shuttle used to fly.
That is entirely incorrect. Hubble Space Telescope is at 540km and a Space Shuttle put it there.
Re: (Score:2)
The space shuttle is oft quoted at flying 250 nautical miles above Earth.
I'll leave it to pundits for why they chose a unit of measurement that's too obscure for even Americans to use.
Re: (Score:2)
i think they should have stuck to fathoms
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, I live in a city whose streets are marked in a Cartesian coordinate system.
In hundredths of a furlong.
Re: (Score:2)
The space shuttle is oft quoted at flying 250 nautical miles above Earth.
I'll leave it to pundits for why they chose a unit of measurement that's too obscure for even Americans to use.
A nautical mile is exactly one minute of arc at the equator. So it is handy for navigation, which is why it is used by ships. As long as they are using it for horizontal distances, they may as well use it for vertical distances as well.
Raised Threat To Space Station (Score:1)
NASA: Debris From India's Anti-Satellite Test Raised Threat To Space Station
"That is a terrible, terrible thing to create an event that sends debris in an apogee that goes above the International Space Station," NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said, referring to the debris' highest point in orbit. "And that kind of activity is not compatible with the future of human space flight that we need to see happen."
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/02... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. They should be using something that could actually modify the orbit of the satellite either forcing it outside of earths gravity on a trajectory for the sun (don't need it aiming toward nowhere in particular so that the Starship Enterprise crashes into it 10 million years down the road, that's just silly) or making it so that it reenters earths atmosphere and burns up.
Re:Space Debris (Score:5, Interesting)
They should be using something that could actually modify the orbit of the satellite either forcing it outside of earths gravity on a trajectory for the sun.
Actually, launching anything into the sun is extremely difficult. It takes speeds of at least 65K mph to counteract Earth's orbit in order to hit the sun and not just end up in an elliptical orbit. It's easier to send something outside of the solar system at just 25K mph.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to do this with the inner planets because (1) they're closer together so you don't have to wait as long for multiple flybys, and (2) they orbit more quickly so you don't have to wait as l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
About the only thing feasible would be to degrade the orbit intentionally to cause it to burn up in the atmosphere. The amount of energy required to move a payload from Earth's orbit and impact the Sun is insane. You don't just point it at the Sun and call it a day. Orbital dynamics don't work like that.
Re:Space Debris (Score:5, Informative)
I guess not bothering to read the article is something of a tradition here, but this point is addressed. From TFA:
The three-minute test in the lower atmosphere ensured there was no debris in space and the remnants would “decay and fall back on to the earth within weeks”, the ministry added.
So, no space debris, unlike China's test, which was at a much higher orbit, and caused a huge cloud of debris that will last anywhere from decades to centuries.
Re:Space Debris (Score:4, Funny)
I guess not bothering to read the article is something of a tradition here, but this point is addressed. From TFA:
The three-minute test in the lower atmosphere ensured there was no debris in space and the remnants would “decay and fall back on to the earth within weeks”, the ministry added.
So, no space debris, unlike China's test, which was at a much higher orbit, and caused a huge cloud of debris that will last anywhere from decades to centuries.
I only read the first line of your comment but I want to know - what about all the space debris they created?!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong.
There will be space debris, though it may be reduced, here's why:
1) You're exploding a fucking missile next to the target.
2) That's going to disintegrate and give energy to launch enough shit in *ALL* directions(simple physics), enough to reach orbit. It only takes a nut to count as debris, given the damage that could cause when it says hello to other kit at great velocities relative to each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Fucking idiots.
300Km is extremely low... no debris + dead mission (Score:2)
Basically, at 300Km your sat is dead, unless it still contains a ton of fuel to regain altitude. The indian sat must have been at end of mission, ready to enter the atmosphere in a matter of weeks, of months maybe, and burn/land debris randomly along its last track. At 300Km, full sat or debris, you decay real quickly.
The new laws for both French-guyana and US-launched future sats now impose to keep a significant amount of fuel for 'controlled' reentry (read : you must show you'll re-enter over a given ocea
Re: (Score:1)
That depends on where in LEO. This barely qualified as LEO, was practically in the upper atmosphere.
For an idea of longevity, the very first satellite ever shot into LEO is still there.
Re: (Score:2)
For an idea of longevity, the very first satellite ever shot into LEO is still there.
No, Sputnik's orbit decayed and it burned up in about 3 months. Sputnik 2 also burned up (poor Laika!). Explorer 1 stayed up for 12 years, but burned up in 1970.
There was some early sat that's still up there, can't remember which one, but it wasn't one of the first 3. Everything in LEO will eventually decay, though drag falls exponentially with altitude.
There is a bit of garbage in GEO, which is a far more lasting problem, but every modern sat in GEO is required to have enough reserve fuel to boost it in
Re: (Score:2)
You are thinking of Vanguard 1 [wikipedia.org] the third satellite ever put into orbit. Its small and its in a 3,840 x 657 km orbit, so its going to be up there for centuries.
Its upper stage booster is still up there too.
https://www.heavens-above.com/... [heavens-above.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Fourth satellite, but yes. "But the fourth one stayed up!"
Do you want Space Force? (Score:2)
Because this is how you get Space Force!
Re: (Score:2)
Or you get it by having redundant capability spread across different branches and by isolating the budget and command structure to prioritize the needs of space capabilities that are not a priority under the AF.
These kind of things does highlight the importance of having people dedicated to address the growing concern of space challenges.
But Yes. I do want a Space Force with maybe a different name.
Re: (Score:2)
Why a different name? Air Force; Space Force. Sounds better than Space Corps or Space Guard.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it'll annoy the Air Force to have done to them what they did to the Army - split off a branch into a separate Service, which can then ignore the parent Service, except to squelch any attempts by same to do anything that infringes on their turf....
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Army gets Helicopters
Air Force gets Planes
Space Force gets Satellites
But the SpaceSHIPs go to the Navy.
Navy always finds a way to get its own force whether its Infantry (Marines), Air (Carriers) or freaking SPACESHIPS.
They are SHIPS so the navy needs to get them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why a different name? Air Force; Space Force. Sounds better than Space Corps or Space Guard.
Actually, I think Space Corps and Space Guard sound less comedic. Space Force sounds like some kind of spoof the "South Park" writers would come up with.
I think I prefer the name Space Guard. That said, it doesn't really matter what it's called- it's the concept that should be debated on- not the name. In the grand scheme of things, the name doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
One good reason to have a different name is to do away with the space-based-arms-race-provoking nature of "Space Force," which likely contributed to India being emboldened to carry out this test.
If any country feels that they absolutely must have a space-based weapons program despite all the good reasons not to, they should keep it top secret. The Soviets were smart enough to know that:
https://www.popularmechanics.c... [popularmechanics.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Today's Russians are still smart enough to know this:
http [skyrocket.de]
Re: (Score:2)
One good reason to have a different name is to do away with the space-based-arms-race-provoking nature of "Space Force,"
The point of the military is to present strength, and thus to deter attack. Anyway, too late, Russia already has a "space force", we're just playing catchup in the space-based-arms-race.
If any country feels that they absolutely must have a space-based weapons program despite all the good reasons not to
We already have plenty of space-based military equipment. I'm sure the US and Russia both have some weapons in orbit, but that's not really the point. The "space domain" is mostly about intelligence and communication. It's not obviously a useful place for weaponry, other than for ballistic missile defense.
But if space ba
Re: (Score:2)
Playing catchup publicly in an arms race is exactly how you perpetuate an arms race. The only ways to win are not to play, or at leasy to not let anyone know you're playing. Countries don't attack just because they think they have an edge, presenting strength is usually not necessary and is merely a secondary use of a military. The point of having a military is, or should be, the capability to defend a country if attacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Countries don't attack just because they think they have an edge, presenting strength is usually not necessary and is merely a secondary use of a military.
You know nothing of history.
The point of having a military is, or should be, the capability to defend a country if attacked.
The cost of that happening is massive "in blood and treasure". No. You deter violence, you don't wait for it to happen to you. Strength is the only way to deter a bully, or a psychopath.
Re: (Score:2)
You know nothing of history.
I do, and also that patterns change. The USA hasn't taken over Canada even though it would be fairly easy to do with a military sized to occupy a planet, why? Why did they give up on invading Cuba? Why has no other recent US President considered annexing Venezuela and taking their oil just for shits n' giggles? Why hasn't the US just nuked North Korea? The reason: Diplomacy - that shit works, and the world uses it more these days. I admit it's easy to miss, but we have progressed a bit from being warring tr
Re: (Score:2)
Should be called "Orbital Force", or maybe "Solar Force". Space is like, big.
Re: (Score:2)
"Space" is the existing term of art in the military, as is (sadly) "cyber". The US military thinks of combat as happening in 5 domains: air, land, sea, space, and cyber.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like "cyber" any more than the next guy, but I'm actually hard pressed to come up with something that says "electromagnetic spectrum attacks and defense in addition to hacking-based IT attack/defense or other attack/defense on system operation".
Whatever term you prefer, it has to include, for both attack/defense: jamming, hacking/spoofing, spying/snooping, and the general "flying a small drone with high-powered transmitter which issues orders to my missile-drone and steals it".
Cyber kinda encompasse
Re: (Score:2)
Tech-Force?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and don't forget the cyber domain also include deception and propaganda on social media, whether to disguise the actions of your troops, to attack the moral strength of the enemy, or to prop up the moral strength of your own side.
Yeah, I don't have a better name either. I suppose it's inevitable that "Cyber Corps" joins "Space Force" one day.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are Cyber PsyOps ;).
PS - Land PsyOps is firing "please surrender" leaflets via mortar.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: as part of the "propaganda leaflet war" in the Battle of Casino, the allies fired leaflets in claiming the German commander was a womanizer who cheated on his wife (and many other character flaws). and not the sort of man they should follow. The German commander fired back a rebuttal to the US troops, who got seemingly out a nowhere leaflets from the German commander stating that these accusations that he cheated on his wife were unfounded.
Re: (Score:3)
The real purpose of this launch is to give Modi's BJP party a boost before general elections next month. They will most likely win, despite being the moral equivalent of the KKK. Modi is divisive and bigoted, and not the sort of person who should be leading a nation with nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are people so hung up on the proposed Space Force? The space part of the Air Force has been massive for years, it really is a separate function from acquiring and operating airplanes, and space is an extremely critical defense arena. Space has been a separate command in the Air Force for something like 20 years, it is perfectly logical that it become a separate complete force.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are people so hung up on the proposed Space Force? The space part of the Air Force has been massive for years, it really is a separate function from acquiring and operating airplanes, and space is an extremely critical defense arena. Space has been a separate command in the Air Force for something like 20 years, it is perfectly logical that it become a separate complete force.
I think because it reeks of yet another vanity project rather than anything really needed. There really isn't enough space stuff in the Air Force to warrant the extra red tape involved. I think people just don't like all the expensive pointless vanity projects.
There may come a day when a "Space Force" is needed, but we're nowhere near that yet. We didn't create an Air Force with the first airplane that flew.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you insane? The space side of the air force is HUGE, far bigger than NASA, or any other countries entire space efforts, and has been for decades.
Jerks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It was in low earth orbit, so the space junk won't survive for more than a few days, two weeks at tops.
Re: (Score:1)
Some of the blast adds delta v to the debris.
Re:Jerks (Score:5, Informative)
It was only in LEO - this stuff will de-orbit pretty quickly. In a couple of weeks to months, it will all be gone. Unlike the results of the China test or all the stuff we have parked in geosynchronous orbit, which won't deorbit before the sun expands and swallows us...
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing modern is parked in GEO - that's expensive real estate! There's a junkyard orbit above GEO, and sats are required to have reserve fuel to boost them up there at the end of their service life.
Re: (Score:2)
The only safe test would have been in atmosphere.
For all intents and purposes, that's pretty much where they did this, just really high up. Enough air to not let you stay in orbit very long, high enough to demonstrate the technology.
Re: (Score:3)
But YOU did it first...Decades ago...
Seriously, like it or not, destroying and protecting stuff in space is an important set of technologies to have in today's age. I don't blame India for developing and demonstrating this capability.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't blow up shit.
Though you can be guaranteed if I did have that capability, I would use it.
whut? (Score:2)
India would only be the fourth country to have used such an anti-satellite weapon after the United States, Russia and China, said Modi, who heads into general elections next month. "Our scientists shot down a live satellite 300 kilometres away in space, in low-earth orbit," Modi said in a television broadcast. "India has made an unprecedented achievement today," he added, speaking in Hindi.
Can someone explain this one to me?
Re: whut? (Score:2)
It worked first shot unlike the others. It was cheaper.
Remember that ISRO sent a probe to Mars which was cheaper than making a Hollywood movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They were the first to achieve this without resulting in debris that will orbit the earth for many decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they have an election coming up so Modi has to appear as envisioning the future by hitching himself to the synergy between the Hindi religious nutjobs and the rest of his political base...his campaign official just graduated from business school with an MBA in buzz-speak.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the US and Russia also did theirs in low enough orbit for the debris to re-enter fairly quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone explain this one to me?
Sure. Unprecedented for India or any other country that is not seen as a major space force.
But, the meanings of the words don't actually matter. Mother fucker! It was *UNPRECEDENTED! Get excited and be awed! It was unprecedented!
*For certain values of unprecedented.
Re: (Score:2)
A good example of military spending too
"ASM-135 was estimated to cost $5.3 billion (US) up from the original $500 million (US) estimate." "In 1988, the Reagan Administration canceled the ASM-135 program because of technical problems, testing delays, and significant cost growth."
So 2000s (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia has already moved to hypersonic cruise missiles that don't have to go into space to deliver their payload.
You don't need spy satellites anymore when you can have smaller, faster, lighter, remote drones fly into a nation to do photographs.
Satellites are still necessary to national infrastructures so space weapons are still useful but it's no longer a panacea to a nation's security, let alone defense.
Re: (Score:1)
The biggest defense anyone has here is limited intel on where/which sats their adversaries have.
Re: (Score:2)
Pakistan's wise response would be to rain down nuclear weapons preemptively as that would be declaration of no-holds barred war , how is blinding Indian satellites a solution to anything?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how likely it is for countries to simply smuggle a nuke into their opponents capital cities. Buy a house, stick it in the basement and let it sit there forever unless you need it. So much cheaper than trying to fly and aim an ICBM. I'd be surprised if there weren't many of these in houses on K Street in DC.
Re: (Score:2)
lolz, would take 350 years for 1 percent of a mass of Pu-239 to decay
Re: (Score:2)
For standard plutonium weapon pits, 85 years is known to be fine with 99.75% remaining according to declassified reports , look it up.
you do realize a U-233 pit would only be about 50% bigger (it's a very different beast than U-235) but with 160,000 year half-life would be usable for centuries
Google Maps (Score:2)
Next time Google Maps publishes an unblurred image of an Indian Air Base , Modi strokes his beard and goes "nice little satellite your vendors got their. Hooaahhhhhhhh!!"
Pointless. (Score:1)
The greatest threat to India is Pakistan and you don't need a orbital satellite to spy on India when you are next door to it. It would be more effective and less expensive to just launch a weather balloon with a ballast system.
Re: (Score:2)
This technology would be helpful in shooting down Pakistani ballistic payloads.
Bigger fish to fry, India (Score:2, Insightful)
Really, India?
You felt so threatened by satellite surveillance that you decided to pour your scientific and financial resources into weaponizing against it and ratcheting up the potential for war? You've got far bigger problems on earth than over your heads. A population of 1.3 billion who represent the largest number of people living below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day, breathtaking income inequality and 31% of children under the age of five underweight. But, by all means, spend millions
Re: (Score:1)
Why, it's almost as if those silly Indians think you can do more than one thing!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nonsense, this was a very tiny amount of money
solving those issues would require level of money the Indian government doesn't have.
Children starving in Baltimore (Score:2)
India needs to develop its space technology to get more efficient at growing food so they can send aid for all the starving kids in Baltimore.
Saddens me deeply... (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
that we as a civilization are still boasting about our abilities to do harm towards one another when we're losing the only battle that matters: the battle to save Earth.
How do you propose we battle the alien invasion if not with space weapons? Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
that we as a civilization are still boasting about our abilities to do harm towards one another when we're losing the only battle that matters: the battle to save Earth.
How do you propose we battle the alien invasion if not with space weapons? Duh.
Convert them to Mormonism. They will self destruct.
Who is next? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Summon the meteors, already, for our reign has gone on long enough. Let us be done with it.
Sure man... but you first. Let's make sure you really are dedicated before the rest of us miserable humans make this commitment to purging reality of our offensive existence.
What? Why are you still alive? You weren't actually serious and just passing judgement on others while excluding yourself? That's not nice.
Have a nice day. :)