My TCSDaily piece on the Chinese ASAT test is up now.

Over at The Space Review, Christopher Stone agrees that the notion of space as a sanctuary from military activity in the twenty-first century is a fantasy.

There's a lot of other good stuff over there, including some ideas on non-debris-causing ASATs from Taylor Dinerman, a brief history of space-based radar from Dwayne Day, and Paul Spudis' take on why we go to the moon. Not to mention why so many young people believe in the Apollo Hoax.

I'll probably have some further thoughts on better ASAT techniques later this week, if I get time.

As the arms control crowd tries to spin this into a "blame Bush/blame America" groove, it's important to recognize that the Chinese ASAT test does NOT occur in a vacuum.

The People's Liberation Army has been carefully examining US military operations for most of the past twenty years. It has sought to identify key weaknesses, those that will have the maximum effect if exploited.

Space is one of them.

And if, as the arms controllers do, you think the PLA did this test b/c of Bush and the National Space Policy or somesuch equivalent nonsense, then perhaps you need to learn a little about China and a lot about the PLA.

Wow, great, thorough article at TCS, Rand.

I think there's all sorts of scenarios we can dream up about why the Chinese did what they did. Whatever we think, the fact is that the Chinese just achieved the technological equivalent of the Japanese dive-bomb torpedo that only needed 20 feet of water: our safe harbor in space is no longer invulnerable, and the sooner we face it, the better.

The question is, how soon will we face it?

" it's important to recognize that the Chinese ASAT test does NOT occur in a vacuum."

500+nm is a pretty good substitute for a perfect vaccum. ;)

...the Chinese ASAT test does NOT occur in a vacuum.

If not, it was damn close. It was five hundred miles up, after all...

Rand

Very well thought out article. The subject of a "Space Pearl Harbor" has been extensively discussed in our space power theory efforts.

Dennis

Dennis,

I remember an article on the subject of a Space Pearl Harbor that I read in July 1984, perhaps in Omni magazine on that subject. Jim Oberg was the author IIRC.

It discussed using the moon to slingshot a vehicle into a counter GEO orbit that wiped out our entire constellation of comsats.

I remember that article too. Letting loose a bunch of junk in a retrograde orbit would have the effect of denying the equivalent prograde orbits to everyone. But if you don't have any assets there yourself (like where all the GPS satellites are), then it makes perfect sense.

I'll probably have some further thoughts on better ASAT techniques later this week, if I get time.

It seems to me that an ASAT arms race favors the Chinese as they are far less dependent on satellites than we are. Rather than better ASAT we need rapid replenishment as your TCS piece suggests.

Mike writes:

It discussed using the moon to slingshot a vehicle into a counter GEO orbit that wiped out our entire constellation of comsats.

This would suggest that a Shenzou Apollo 8 lunar circum-navigation would be more significant than merely PR. A Shenzou equipped with multiple independently targeted GEO ASATs doing a lunar fly-by and return to Earth could launch a sneak attack with essentially no warning.

Design kinetic kill vehicles with stealth technology to reduce radar cross section, deploy while passing behind the lunar far side and make the burns needed for trajectory adjustment on the farside as well.

Dark, steathly objects flying in formation with a Shenzou emerging from behind the Moon might not be noticed as they race (independently) towards GEO targets. Besides, how would we intercept anyway?

Solution? We need an EML-2 radar and communications hub.

= = =

That said, perhaps unlike the Iranain mullahs, I believe China would be amenable to deterrence. If they eradicate our satellites we eradicate their economy and populations in response.

But it does return us to a Mutally Assured Destruction stalemate. They can wreck our satellite networks devastating our economy and we can eradicate their nation. MAD, redux.

Rather than better ASAT we need rapid replenishment as your TCS piece suggests.

By "better," I mean less messy, so that even when employed (by us or them), they don't crap up LEO beyond recognition.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244593,00.html
(If that fails, google: navy railgun, third story or so is Fox News reporting on this)

We apparently have a working model with a 200-250 nautical mile range. It isn't quite clear what level of precision they can manage, nor whether they're using this in direct fire or ballistic mode.

But... 250 nautical miles... And when you're talking nearly straight up, g is going to change.

Could something like this reach the same level as a satellite? As you said, it really isn't the speed of the projectile that's going to cause the damage - its the satellite that's going to provide the KE.

Another wild thought:
The prototype is 3.2kg with 8MJ. With the projectile costing "less than $1000 to make" - once they add the guidance electronics. How does that compare in dollar and energy requirements to a sub-orbital launch? Is this even vaguely near the right ballpark for getting consumables to orbit?

By "better," I mean less messy, so that even when employed (by us or them), they don't crap up LEO beyond recognition.

Fair enough. Criticism withdrawn.

This comes as no surprise, that by reading Rand's article one gets the impression that Chinese just might have done a indirect favor for RLV's.
Just pointing out the obvious.

> I remember that article too. Letting loose a bunch of junk in a retrograde
> orbit would have the effect of denying the equivalent prograde orbits to
> everyone.

Everyone who's not prepared. There are countermeasures to such an attack (although they involve considerable mass, which makes them prohibitively expensive at present).

A few things to note. First, developing a "dirty" ASAT capability is relatively simple. Developing a clean ASAT capability requires more sophistication, so any attempt by arms controllers to halt ASAT development would simply lock the world into current, dirty ASAT systems.

Second, all the major powers already have a de facto ASAT capability. If a nation doesn't care about damage to the space environment, an ICBM or SLBM with a nuclear warhead will do a fine brute-force job of taking out a satellite.

Since there's basically zero chance of convincing world powers to give up nuclear weapons, there's no way to completely ban ASAT weapons, either. Banning the development of conventional ASAT weapons would leave nations with only one means of taking out a satellite -- the dirtiest means of all.

Third, any system that can deorbit an uncooperative target can be used as an ASAT weapon. Therefore, any system for cleaning up space debris could be used as an ASAT weapon. So, a genuine ban on ASAT development would also have to been development of means for space debris removal.

The bottom line: A ban on ASAT development would have little effect on dirty ASAT technologies, which are already here, but could prevent the development of clear ASAT technologies (and their civil cousin, which is space-debris removal). The result could harm, rather than protect, the space environment.

Uh oh, I agree with Edward Wright. Pretty much in full. At least on this post.

Pretty much anyone capable of manevuering nne space vehicle within the immeadiate vicinity of another has 99% of what they need for a basic asat.