Or it could be that they are going into the satellite servicing business, or the orbital debris mitigation business, or…
While the title of the article is “China’s Mystery Satellite Could Be a Dangerous New Weapon”, the contents reads more like “Suggestions that China’s Mystery Satellite Could Be a Dangerous New Weapon are ridiculous.”
If you can get close enough to another satellite, you don’t have to blow it up or even cut off pieces. You can permanently destroy a satellite by painting over the earth, star or sun sensors used for attitude control. Without those sensors, the satellite will go into survival mode until the batteries are drained. There are other sneaky things you can do if you can get that close.
Or better yet, stick a fake picture of the Earth over their cameras so they don’t see you stealing all their stuff when they’re asleep!
A heavy enough gob of something sticky deposited on it, well away from the designed center of mass, would disrupt a satellite if its attitude-control systems aren’t very sophisticated.
On the one hand, satellites are close enough their software can be patched to deal with changed conditions; on the other hand, are they all designed to be that adaptable? I suppose once the satellite war commences they will be.
Years ago, a colleague and I discussed the idea of attaching a remora-like device to a satellite for later activation. Depending on what your desired result is, the device could jam the TT&C system making it unable to command up to detonating a thermite or shaped charge for destruction. A jammer remora would only need to radiate at the microwatt or milliwatt level to saturate the receiver.
If it is a well executed survival mode, it can stay there indefinitely. Not much good in that condition, but felt a need to nitpick.
It depends on the satellite design. On the DSCS-IIIs that I used to operate, you could remain indefinitely in sun-hold mode. However, if loss of Earth lock caused the satellite to enter survival mode, the batteries would be drained in under 10 hours and the bird would be dead. On the D3, loss of Earth lock would turn off the attitude control system, the communications payloads and just about everything else except the TT&C subsystem and the thermostatically control propellant line heaters. As the vehicle cooled, more heaters turned on and the battery drain accelerated. If that happened, we had to quickly try and establish a sun-hold condition where the solar arrays were pointed at the sun. Once there, we had time to try and address the problems that triggered survival mode.
It’s possible the term survival mode has a different meaning in other satellite programs. A form of safe mode can usually be maintained indefinitely but in my experience, survival mode can’t.
Depends a lot on the altitude. Much easier in LEO.
China has already deployed an anti-satellite weapon. It started out as a Feng Yun weather satellite. In January 2007 it was deliberately transformed from a weather satellite into an orbiting shrapnel weapon. Reports that the satellite was “shot down” were inaccurate: the debris remains in orbit and will continue to present an indiscriminate threat to other satellites, including Chinese ones, for a period of centuries to come. The reason for this remains unclear, but may be simple stupidity.
Stephen
Oxford, UK
Along with a claw, my manipulator arm would be mounted with a large magnifying glass. With the power of the sun you can produce blow torch levels of heat that can cut off solar panels, burn out sensing equipment, snip exposed wiring, or burn out the equipment box to give the satellite a lobotomy. *puts pinkie to corner of mouth and laughs maniacally*
Physical attack is only one possible angle.
What i am wondering is how much at risk all the orbiting assets are for digital attacks. I’m obviously not intimately familiar with the protocols that are classified, but i’m pretty sure some of the older satellites would rely on outdated security and crypto approaches for HMACing their commands – and a software update would be impossible due to limited processing and storage available. Master keys could probably be found as well, given the resources of the adversary.
Or it could be that they are going into the satellite servicing business, or the orbital debris mitigation business, or…
While the title of the article is “China’s Mystery Satellite Could Be a Dangerous New Weapon”, the contents reads more like “Suggestions that China’s Mystery Satellite Could Be a Dangerous New Weapon are ridiculous.”
If you can get close enough to another satellite, you don’t have to blow it up or even cut off pieces. You can permanently destroy a satellite by painting over the earth, star or sun sensors used for attitude control. Without those sensors, the satellite will go into survival mode until the batteries are drained. There are other sneaky things you can do if you can get that close.
Or better yet, stick a fake picture of the Earth over their cameras so they don’t see you stealing all their stuff when they’re asleep!
A heavy enough gob of something sticky deposited on it, well away from the designed center of mass, would disrupt a satellite if its attitude-control systems aren’t very sophisticated.
On the one hand, satellites are close enough their software can be patched to deal with changed conditions; on the other hand, are they all designed to be that adaptable? I suppose once the satellite war commences they will be.
Years ago, a colleague and I discussed the idea of attaching a remora-like device to a satellite for later activation. Depending on what your desired result is, the device could jam the TT&C system making it unable to command up to detonating a thermite or shaped charge for destruction. A jammer remora would only need to radiate at the microwatt or milliwatt level to saturate the receiver.
If it is a well executed survival mode, it can stay there indefinitely. Not much good in that condition, but felt a need to nitpick.
It depends on the satellite design. On the DSCS-IIIs that I used to operate, you could remain indefinitely in sun-hold mode. However, if loss of Earth lock caused the satellite to enter survival mode, the batteries would be drained in under 10 hours and the bird would be dead. On the D3, loss of Earth lock would turn off the attitude control system, the communications payloads and just about everything else except the TT&C subsystem and the thermostatically control propellant line heaters. As the vehicle cooled, more heaters turned on and the battery drain accelerated. If that happened, we had to quickly try and establish a sun-hold condition where the solar arrays were pointed at the sun. Once there, we had time to try and address the problems that triggered survival mode.
It’s possible the term survival mode has a different meaning in other satellite programs. A form of safe mode can usually be maintained indefinitely but in my experience, survival mode can’t.
Depends a lot on the altitude. Much easier in LEO.
China has already deployed an anti-satellite weapon. It started out as a Feng Yun weather satellite. In January 2007 it was deliberately transformed from a weather satellite into an orbiting shrapnel weapon. Reports that the satellite was “shot down” were inaccurate: the debris remains in orbit and will continue to present an indiscriminate threat to other satellites, including Chinese ones, for a period of centuries to come. The reason for this remains unclear, but may be simple stupidity.
Stephen
Oxford, UK
Along with a claw, my manipulator arm would be mounted with a large magnifying glass. With the power of the sun you can produce blow torch levels of heat that can cut off solar panels, burn out sensing equipment, snip exposed wiring, or burn out the equipment box to give the satellite a lobotomy. *puts pinkie to corner of mouth and laughs maniacally*
Physical attack is only one possible angle.
What i am wondering is how much at risk all the orbiting assets are for digital attacks. I’m obviously not intimately familiar with the protocols that are classified, but i’m pretty sure some of the older satellites would rely on outdated security and crypto approaches for HMACing their commands – and a software update would be impossible due to limited processing and storage available. Master keys could probably be found as well, given the resources of the adversary.