Chinese Satellite Observed Grappling Another and Pulling It Out of Orbit (thedrive.com) 161
Last week a Chinese satellite "was observed grabbing another satellite and pulling it out of its normal geosynchronous orbit," reports the Drive, "and into a 'super-graveyard drift orbit.'"
"The maneuver raises questions about the potential applications of these types of satellites designed to maneuver close to other satellites for inspection or manipulation and adds to growing concerns about China's space program overall." On January 22, China's Shijian-21 satellite, or SJ-21, disappeared from its regular position in orbit during daylight hours when observations were difficult to make with optical telescopes. SJ-21 was then observed executing a "large maneuver" to bring it closely alongside another satellite, a dead BeiDou Navigation System satellite. SJ-21 then pulled the dead satellite out of its normal geosynchronous orbit and placed it a few hundred miles away in what is known as a graveyard orbit. These distant orbits are designated for defunct satellites at the end of their lives and are intended to reduce the risk of collision with operational assets....
According to Chinese state news outlets, SJ-21 was designed to "test and verify space debris mitigation technologies."
SJ-21's recent maneuver raises questions and concerns about these types of satellites and their potential for military use. Todd Harrison, director of CSIS's Aerospace Project, told Breaking Defense that SJ-21's actions present "more questions than answers," adding that while we can observe the satellite's actions, "the intent behind it and what China plans to do with this technology is a more subjective assessment."
This isn't the first time SJ-21 has made headlines with its questionable behavior. In November 2021, just a month after its launch, an unknown object was seen orbiting alongside SJ-21. At the time, Space Force designated the unidentified object as a spent apogee kick motor, but it was also reported that it might have been an experimental payload designed to test SJ-21's ability to perform remote operations and manipulate other satellites....
Analyzing the potential applications of these dual-use satellites is difficult.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for submitting the story!
"The maneuver raises questions about the potential applications of these types of satellites designed to maneuver close to other satellites for inspection or manipulation and adds to growing concerns about China's space program overall." On January 22, China's Shijian-21 satellite, or SJ-21, disappeared from its regular position in orbit during daylight hours when observations were difficult to make with optical telescopes. SJ-21 was then observed executing a "large maneuver" to bring it closely alongside another satellite, a dead BeiDou Navigation System satellite. SJ-21 then pulled the dead satellite out of its normal geosynchronous orbit and placed it a few hundred miles away in what is known as a graveyard orbit. These distant orbits are designated for defunct satellites at the end of their lives and are intended to reduce the risk of collision with operational assets....
According to Chinese state news outlets, SJ-21 was designed to "test and verify space debris mitigation technologies."
SJ-21's recent maneuver raises questions and concerns about these types of satellites and their potential for military use. Todd Harrison, director of CSIS's Aerospace Project, told Breaking Defense that SJ-21's actions present "more questions than answers," adding that while we can observe the satellite's actions, "the intent behind it and what China plans to do with this technology is a more subjective assessment."
This isn't the first time SJ-21 has made headlines with its questionable behavior. In November 2021, just a month after its launch, an unknown object was seen orbiting alongside SJ-21. At the time, Space Force designated the unidentified object as a spent apogee kick motor, but it was also reported that it might have been an experimental payload designed to test SJ-21's ability to perform remote operations and manipulate other satellites....
Analyzing the potential applications of these dual-use satellites is difficult.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for submitting the story!
Maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe the two satellites are going to make a new satellite...as in, "When two satellites love each other very very much, they have a special kind of hug..."
Re: (Score:2)
It's called the laws of gravidity.
US dreams, China delivers. (Score:2)
Us dreams about orbital cleanup.
China realizes it.
Space junk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen no evidence that anyone considers Astroscale [astroscale.com], Orbit Guardians [orbitguardians.com], ClearSpace [clearspace.today], Morpheus Space [morpheus-space.com], etc, to be military threats.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the difference between a cop walking into a store with a holstered gun versus a sketchy guy that is twitchy and yells at other customers having a gun stuffed in his pants. Both have guns but the angry twitchy guy makes you nervous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I’m more worried about the cop who can shoot people with impunity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Space junk (Score:4, Informative)
you seem to view Ukraine's potential accession to NATO as a betrayal of the post-Soviet 'agreement'.
Just to be clear - NATO is not enticing Ukraine's membership. Ukraine themselves - a sovereign and independent nation - is begging to join NATO because they're so sick of living next door to the senile retard Putin. In fact, the Yanukovych and Yatseniuk governments always wanted to be non-aligned, but then Russia decided to invade Crimea and public opinion turned against them - leading to the current situation in Ukraine where NATO accession is so popular.
Who's fault is all this, again?
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda like how Cuba asked the Soviets to station some nukes in their territory? Or when any number of countries said "hey, let's try out this communism thing and see how it goes?"
If the Soviets had inducted a western hemisphere country into the Warsaw Pact the US would have gone ballistic, literally.
Re:Space junk (Score:4, Interesting)
"Expand" is also an odd word. The Baltic states asked be in NATO first, NATO did not court or encourage them. And of course, given Russia's history towards the Baltic states is it any wonder they wanted out of that sphere of influence (of course, true to form Russia calls them Nazi sympathizers because it's the only insult they know, you're either for Putin, or you're a Hitler lover, it's simplistic and naive).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know the parent is an AC, but can someone explain in what way was Russia blocked from accessing their own naval base?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're completely correct. Though I'm not entirely sure who is the cop or who is the twitchy guy in your analogy. The guys with a space program, or the guys with a space program and a separate dedicated space serving branch of the armed forces.
Re: Space junk (Score:2)
First, I like China but your analogy isn't quite fair. All of China's space program is associated with the military which is why NASA is banned from working with them. China is starting to have commercial space companies but they are mostly just getting of the ground.
This being said China keeps organizations under the government umbrella for a long time. The fire department was military till something like 10 to 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but just being associated with the military is meaningless. One country engages in the systematic genocide of its neighbours. But the other is a lose canon on a global scale which makes me thankful that the country I live in doesn't have any oil.
That said I'm thankful America has a bit more of a calm leadership right now. It was one thing for Trump to say "come at me bro" to North Korea, but I would be genuinely concerned about his utterly garbage diplomacy in the face of what is currently going on in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that one is, you know, kinda foreign looking.
Re: (Score:2)
what nonsense, Democrats just as guilty. Meddling in foreign nations and starting insurrections, wars against those that didn't attack us, warmongering, taking away freedom and spying on citizens, carrying out the will of big corporations rather than the people, the Democrats also do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget how many regime changes that the US had a hand in that failed disastrously. Iran, half of Latin America....
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget all the times when China has declared other countries, seas, and people belong to them and have always belonged to them. I would not be surprised if someday China claims that space is their historical territory.
Re: (Score:2)
And they have the painting of the guy on the rocket chair, from 100BCE to prove it!
Re: (Score:2)
"Regime changes" is a nice way of phrasing "CIA coup."
Re: (Score:3)
Depends how you define invaded. If you narrowly define it as political to make China look good, sure.
But China has invaded many countries if you include economic. The "Belt and Suspenders" program China does is an economic invasion program meant to put countries in permanent indebtedness to China.
China basically builds those countries very expensive overpriced infrastructure - like spending hundreds of millions on airports where the country gets... 2 flights... per week. That coun
Re: (Score:2)
BOB (Score:2)
Next step is to have the satellite disassemble the defunct one and reuse the spare parts to add functionality.
Why is this automatically concerning? (Score:2)
The United States developed the ASM 135 [wikipedia.org] anti-satellite weapon in the 80's and demonstrated the capability to perform ASAT engagements with the SM-3 missile in 2008. The space shuttle had an inherent antisatellite capability - it actually had the capability to steal one. I would be astonished if the USA didn't have the capability to reach out and touch something in geosynchronous orbit.
Point is, the capability is not automatic cause of concern. What is a cause of concern is that every time China gains any
Re: (Score:2)
The space shuttle had an inherent antisatellite capability - it actually had the capability to steal one.
No, it didn't. To "steal" a satellite would mean burning a lot of fuel to get into the proper orbit, then somehow grab onto something which wasn't designed to be grabbed onto. All the while being watched by hordes of radars around the world, not to mention the country's whose satellite was being "stolen" sitting by and not saying a word. BTW, did you know that nearly all satellites have maneuvering th
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what would happen if the country whose satellite was being "stolen" decided to turn on those thrusters while the satellite was in the cargo bay of the shuttle?
A capability to fire thrusters while in a cargo bay would likely need to be implemented (and is not currently implemented by default). Overall I agree that trying to steal a satellite is stupid. It is much easier to shoot it down.
No [Re:Why is this automatically concerning?] (Score:2)
The space shuttle had an inherent antisatellite capability - it actually had the capability to steal one.
No, it didn't.
Right: the shuttle could, in principle have rendezvoused with and picked up a satellite in a low-inclination (but not equatorial) Low Earth Orbit. But no satellites of military value are in the orbits the Shuttle can reach. Spy satellites would be in near-polar (and often even retrograde) orbits, and navigation satellites and military com satellites in much higher orbits.
Re: (Score:2)
The space shuttle had an inherent antisatellite capability - it actually had the capability to steal one.
No, it didn't. To "steal" a satellite would mean burning a lot of fuel to get into the proper orbit, then somehow grab onto something which wasn't designed to be grabbed onto.
It had a fucking arm that could have attachments fitted onto the end and a big cargo bay to put the thing in. It was literally capable of flying up to space, grabbing whatever satellite it could fit into its cargo bay and return that back to earth. It was more than capable of flying into space, grabbing a Chinese communications or military satellite and returning it to Cape Canaveral to be picked up by the CIA or whoever.
Re: (Score:2)
The space shuttle had an inherent antisatellite capability - it actually had the capability to steal one.
No, it didn't. To "steal" a satellite would mean burning a lot of fuel to get into the proper orbit, then somehow grab onto something which wasn't designed to be grabbed onto.
It had a fucking arm that could have attachments fitted onto the end and a big cargo bay to put the thing in. It was literally capable of flying up to space, grabbing whatever satellite it could fit into its cargo bay and return that back to earth. It was more than capable of flying into space, grabbing a Chinese communications or military satellite and returning it to Cape Canaveral to be picked up by the CIA or whoever.
As was said above, military and communication satellites are positioned far above the shuttle's orbit. Communication satellites are positioned 22,000 miles (36,000 km) high [sciencedirect.com]. Military satellites are generally 600 - 1,200 miles high. Meanwhile, the space shuttle's orbit was only 120 to 400 miles [spacetoday.org]. As also mentioned, the shuttle would have needed a large amount of extra fuel to raise itself to a high enough orbit for the lowest satellites, and then figure out how to position itself to use its arm on somethi
Re: (Score:2)
You should google it. One of the reasons the space shuttle was such an impractical vehicle was that the US Air Force demanded that it have a payload bay of very specific dimensions, and be able to perform an odd type of mission where it launched into an unusual orbit then landed, with massive cross-range capability, less than a full orbit later.
https://twitter.com/DJSnM/stat... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the US, which is a corrupt oligarchy with legalised bribery of politicians (just remember to call it "lobbying") bent on forcing their IP laws, perpetual copyright, DMCA, one-sided "free trade agreements" etc. on the rest of the world, and enacting "regime change" whenever they feel like it?
Re: (Score:2)
No need to read what you wrote, because I can easily answer to your comment title: "Why is this automatically concerning?"
Because being able to derail satellites is a thread: imagine they derail ones needed for GPS, Internet, Communications, TV, etc. and puts them into a wrong "collision" orbit...
I guess you can imagine the "ending" and why is "concerning".
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine if "We" can do it, but it's scary if "They" can do it.
You can stop hyperventilating (Score:5, Informative)
We want the Chinese to clear their junk out of orbit, just like we want everyone else to clear their junk out of orbit. The double standard here is about as subtle as a kick to the groin. Northrop-Grumman, a U.S. company, demonstrated a similar capability in April -- docking with a satellite to refuel it -- and nobody took this for an ominous development. And there are several U.S. and European companies developing vehicles to de-orbit space junk, with absolutely nobody intimating that this is some sort of grave threat.
Literally yesterday (Score:3)
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
'"This debris and associated congestion threaten the longer sustainability of the space domain," said Space Force's vice chief of space operations, in a video advertising the seed-money program, adding that America's Department of Defense tracks 40,000 objects in orbit the size of a fist or larger, with at least 10 times as many smaller objects the Pentagon can't reliably track.'
Oh, the Irony (Score:2)
This story comes only a day after the following was posted on SlashDot:
"US Space Force Wants to Fund Space Junk Cleaning Startups"
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
So... Chinese cleaning space debris is bad and poses grave military concerns, but the U.S. military being involved in cleaning space debris is good, no reason for concern?
As long as its their own satellite, OK (Score:2)
The real headline: China develops new space techno (Score:4, Insightful)
Drop the paranoia and setup cooperation in space through technology transfer agreements to benefit from this technological breakthrough instead of fearing it.
Re: The real headline: China develops new space te (Score:3)
China develops new space technology advancing human progress in utilizing the high-high-ground. Paranoid militarists focus on fantasy threats while ignoring the practical solution to clearing space debris the technology offers
Anti satellite capabilities are not paranoid fantasy, they're real, with real strategic value. Countermeasures have to be developed or the risk mitigated some other way. This isn't something anyone relying on satellites can ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has already demonstrated the ability to shoot down satellites.
This kind of interception has little military value. The military will just fire missiles at satellites.
Good Example! (Score:2)
inaccessibility as a security measure is gone (Score:3)
Like it or not, the days in which inaccessibility was the most important aspect of satellite security are gone. If Starship really works out, we could cross the line of having an orbital population of 1000 people before the next decade is up, and they will mostly be civilian. If our defense establishment hasn't figured that out and protected against it yet, the space battle is already lost. In the spirit of planning for things three decades out because it might take that long to develop solutions, they need to plan for how they are going to handle Joe Public deciding it would be cool to take a selfie with a defense satellite.
James Bond movie (Score:2)
Re:It may be true (Score:5, Informative)
Well this is an insane point to make since the mission of the satellite is space clean up and it's not secret in any way.
Re: It may be true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: It may be true (Score:5, Interesting)
True, however I think the military implications are what concern most..
For fuck sake almost everything can have a military implication. You can kill someone with a fucking spoon or a glass bottle you break so maybe Russia is attacking the USA by using glass bottles for it's exported Vodka. Imagine living in a country so fucking paranoid you assume everything anyone does is for the purposes of attacking you.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine living in a country so fucking paranoid you assume everything anyone does is for the purposes of attacking you.
Historically speaking, not only is everything known about warfare known when making war, but whole new technologies are invented during wars specifically for the purpose of more efficiently exterminating assorted and/or specific humans, and/or materiel. It's a concern when any of the usual hostile powers develop new capabilities, especially in space (the ultimate high ground.) China is one of those, Russia, and yes if we are fair, the USA. But let's not pretend that we all trust China, okay?
Re: It may be true (Score:2)
How is China hostile?
Just because you (usa) world, doesn't mean China would.
Re: (Score:3)
And vice versa, and so? That's not a point, that's a misdirection.
Talk to Taiwan (Score:5, Insightful)
about Chinese aggression.
But if you wanted to destroy satellites militarily, you would blow them up rather than pushing them away. If you wanted to do it secretly you would launch a bucket of ball bearings on a collision orbit and put it down to space junk.
But what this does do, like Sputnik, is demonstrate their advanced capability.
Re: (Score:2)
They did that before, and saw the issues it caused themselves later on. Yes, as a last ditch effort they could blow up the satellites, but that can and likely will impact their own assets. How much better to simply inop the other's asset without creating a debris field.
Re: It may be true (Score:3)
Re: It may be true (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but it's a pretty inefficient method. [youtu.be]
Or maybe that's the point, because it'll hurt more [youtu.be].
Re: It may be true (Score:2)
Psst. Don't tell these guys you can actually kill someone with a butter knife, or all they'll eat from now on is marmalade spread directly on the toast.
Re: (Score:2)
The risk of war with China has been slowly growing. Issues over things like Taiwan, North Korea is still showing aggression (and China declared they will fight with North Korea if they feel "America started the fighting"), etc...
It's completely rational and logical in the current political climate to be concerned of this being used as a weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
True,
Thanks for agreeing that his point was insane.
however I think the military implications are what concern most.
Not relevant to the OP, so I'm ignoring the rest of the post.
Re: It may be true (Score:2)
However, if there could be composite laws that prohibit the use of these technologies in a combative scenario, I believe it would be beneficial.
There can't be, because there's no World Government to make, let alone enforce, such a law. The word you're looking for is "Treaty."
Re: It may be true (Score:2)
It would be very difficult to bring a satellite back to the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Though the US has a robotic spaceplane (X37) that can be launched traditionally, manoeuvre to a different, hard to predict, orbital plane, and glide from pretty much any orbit to a suitable runway. Sure, it won't be able to bring back down as big a load as the Shuttle could, but it would still be enough to fulfil the USAF needs. The X37 is not a NASA spaceship, it is a military craft.
Re: It may be true (Score:5, Interesting)
To see how much China cares about international law, just look at how well they are abiding by the UNCLOS in the South China Sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They are ignoring an international ruling because they disagree with it, even though it follows the UNCLOS rules to the letter, and they are signatories of UNCLOS, so agreed to abide by it.
If there are future laws about what can and can't be done in space, I totally expect China to utterly ignore them when they would be inconvienient.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
or it may be more US anti-Chinese propaganda.
Well this is an insane point to make since the mission of the satellite is space clean up and it's not secret in any way.
It isn't all that insane of a point at all.
Especially since it isn't the satellites mission in question. It's the capabilities.
The mission is moving their space junk out of the way.
The capability is moving anything out of the way.
A propaganda angle is not just sane, but these days a default. My first thoughts were the same but in the other direction.
Here we have China cleaning up their space junk, and the US pointing out the potential capabilities as including bad acts.
At the exact same time, the US alread
Re:It may be true (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's more likely that China is simply trying to demonstrate the extent of their capabilities to others while the US is trying to keep theirs secret. Anything else is just a fortunate (or unfortunate) side effect when it comes to optics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact it made an amazing weapon was an un-intended side effect whose pull wasn't ignored.
(Before anyone states it, yes I know all about Nobel and dynamite and the history there)
Re:It may be true (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It may be true (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if you would feel that the US Space Force wanting to clean up space debris is just as concerning: https://www.wired.com/story/th... [wired.com]
No one has bombed more countries since WW2 than the US. So who should be more concerned, them or us?
https://www.thelondoneconomic.... [thelondoneconomic.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Every country should have at least some concern about countries having the capability. Again, to be clear, the CSIS isn't at all claiming this is the actual intended purpose of the satellite. They're only saying the satellites are capable of moving other satellites, and that poses questions for the future.
I expect my country, the UK, does. Howeever as we're not as fucking paranoid and living in fear as America is we don't need to point out that it could be used for military purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
Excuse me? The UK, not as paranoid as the USA? Which country has the most surveillance cameras again?
Re: (Score:2)
Big Brother is good.
Re: (Score:2)
Both the US and China have anti-sat capabilities. Why care if they can push one with another sat in orbit? The cost of pushing a sat from orbit vs. destroying it from the ground are like a dozen orders of magnitude in difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, I hear ya. The Roman Empire screwed up countless civilizations, should be be more concerned with Italy or us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It may be true (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: It may be true (Score:3)
They put in infrastructure, built roads, put in water and sewerage systems, brought modern farming techniques, introduced education
Yadda yadda. Besides all that, what has the Romans ever done for anyone ?
Re: It may be true (Score:2)
You realize that Italy is not the Roman Empire, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That is untrue. Wikipedia has some stats from 2015, and the numbers today are even higher.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
95% in 2015.
Re:It may be true (Score:4, Informative)
Um, there was a story a few days ago about the US Air Force sponsoring orbital "debris cleaning" research, and IIRC the US launched three of these orbital rendezvous satellites recently, also covered here. But when China does it it's "a matter of concern."
Everyone with global aspirations, including the US, is busy testing missiles, lasers and other things that can mess with satellites.
Hooray [Re:It may be true] (Score:5, Insightful)
or it may be more US anti-Chinese propaganda. Sadly, these days, the US is not trustworthy enough that this possibility is non-null.
Since space debris mitigation is pretty universally understood to be a desirable thing, the Chinese demonstration of debris removal (which is what this did) would be pro Chinese propaganda.
Hooray for them!
What's anti-Chinese is the interpretation "OMG, they could also do something sinister with the same technology!" But since there have been numerous US proposals to do exactly this, rendezvous with dead satellites to dispose of them in order to mitigate debris, it's a little bit of a "when we do it it's great, when they do it it's threatening" argument.
Yes, it's true that many technologies have dual uses. Most probably all.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't even limit this way of thinking to technologies. We need water to live, but people can drown in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
or it may be more US anti-Chinese propaganda. Sadly, these days, the US is not trustworthy enough that this possibility is non-null.
Luckily there's not a Republican president right now, they'd be having a field day with this one.
Re:It may be true [that the tech is bad] (Score:3)
or it may be more US anti-Chinese propaganda. Sadly, these days, the US is not trustworthy enough that this possibility is non-null.
Apparently needs to be requoted against censors with mod points. But a rather vacuous Subject. I guess some folks think those are the best kind?
My angle would be that it's another morally neutral technology. Therefore the morals of the technology's users should count double?
But of course they are going to say it's only for good purposes. Even if later evidence proves otherwise. However, right now it seems they are just testing the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they confused the Netflix TV Show "Space Force" with their own space division.
Re: (Score:2)
or it may be more US anti-Chinese propaganda
Well, there's definitely a propagandistic twist to the article. The overall tone is ominous, but the technology it describes is decidedly neutral. Sure, it could be used to attack the satellites of other countries, but both China and the US already have the capabilities to just blow them up anyway. Using a satellite to automate the process of collecting another satellite and moving it to another orbit is a useful advance. Let's not forget that the US developed the capability to do this by hand with the spac
Re: BFD (Score:2)
Sour grapes much? Seems to be a regular theme lately planet-wide. Those who can, do. Those who canâ(TM)t, criticize on the internet.
Re:It may be true (Score:5, Insightful)
The big things are much easier to push off into the graveyard. It is the tiny things, such as those from that Chinese satellite they destroyed. When they go after the tiny things, then I'll believe they are just doing it to clean up space.
Re: (Score:2)
The US space force isn't afraid China is going to deorbit their satellite. They're afraid China is going to inspect it. Or maybe just take pictures of the giant football field sized satellites they have in orbit intercepting everyone's phone calls.
They're afraid because they planned to do the same thing (and did, except on the ground) to the Soviets.