Free Dating Site    

Mao would not recognize the modern version of China any more than Stalin would recognize the new Russia

Good thing the entire fvcking world has caught onto English as the 'happenin' language for publishing research.

Geosynchronous (adj.): geo-, earth and synchronous, going on at the same rate and exactly together.

A satellite in geosynchronous orbit circles the earth once each day. The time it takes for a satellite to orbit the earth is called its period. For a satellite's orbit period to be one sidereal day, it must be approximately 35,786 kilometers (19,323 nautical miles or 22,241 statute miles) above the earth's surface. That is a lot higher than the Shuttle ever goes (usually about 300 kilometers). We calculate this height using, what are today, common geometric formulas.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/satellites/geo-high.html

they have a strong navy compared to Thailand, but it doesn't have the power to stand up to any of the actual powerful navies in the world....let alone the superpower of the US navy

The Boeing YAL-1A Airborne Laser (ABL) weapons system, designated , is a megawatt class chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) primarily designed to shoot down Tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs) similar to the Scud while in boost phase. The laser system is fitted to a heavily modified Boeing 747-400F freighter and is still in the test period. The laser has been test fired on the ground but not yet in flight. However a much less powerful early flying prototype successfully shot down several missiles in the 1980s. It was called the Airborne Laser Laboratory, and was a technological pathfinder for the ABL.

n theory the ABL could be used against hostile fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, or even low earth orbit satellites (see Anti-satellite weapon). However those are not its intended target and the capability against those is unknown. The ABL infrared target acquisition system is designed to detect the bright, hot exhaust of TBMs in boost phase. Satellites and other aircraft would have a much lower heat signature and possibly be harder to detect. This analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists discusses potential ABL use against low earth orbit satellites: ASAT Capability of US Missile Defense Systems.

Effective use against ground targets seems very unlikely. Aside from the difficulty of acquiring and tracking a ground target, firing downward through the dense atmosphere would significantly weaken the beam. Also, most ground targets are not fragile enough to damage with a megawatt-class laser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser

It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but — absolutely — we’re going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That’s why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms. We will engage terrestrial targets someday — ships, airplanes, land targets — from space."

- Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command, Joseph W. Ashy

However, research in the US and Russia was proving that the requirements, at least for orbital based energy weapon systems, were, with available technology, close to impossible. Nonetheless, the strategic implications of a possible unforeseen breakthrough in technology forced the USSR to initiate massive spending on research in the 12th Five Year Plan, drawing all the various parts of the project together under the control of GUKOS and matching the US proposed deployment date of 2000.

Both countries began to reduce expenditure from 1989 and the Russian Federation unilaterally discontinued all SDI research in 1992. Research and Development (both of ASAT systems and other space based/deployed weapons) has, however reported to have be been resumed under the Vladimir Putin government as a counter to renewed US Strategic Defense efforts post Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. However the status of these efforts, or indeed how they are being funded through National Reconnaissance Office projects of record, remains unclear. The U.S. has begun working on a number of programs which could be foundational for a space-based ASAT. These programs include the Experimental Spacecraft System (XSS 11), the Near-Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE), and the space-based interceptor (SBI).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

nside The Pentagon December 4, 2003

One year from now, when the Air Force Research Laboratory launches its Experimental Small Satellite No. 11, some eyes will gaze at the heavens in wonder at a feat of robotic technology that may lower the cost of maintaining and repairing satellites on orbit. It is just as certain that others will scrutinize this new arrival in space, suspicious that the so-called XSS-11 has a clandestine, dual capability -- as a ready-on-demand, orbiting anti-satellite weapon.

Air Force leaders describe XSS-11 as a small, maneuverable satellite -- a featherweight in the 100-kilogram class of space vehicles -- with a one-year mission to demonstrate "rendezvous and proximity operations" with other satellites. That's military jargon for meeting up with other space vehicles on orbit, and maneuvering close by to inspect or perform other tasks.

But the same capacity built into XSS-11 that enables it to maneuver around another satellite it is servicing can also allow the spacecraft to disable or destroy adversary satellites, if desired, some experts say.

"XSS-10 and -11 [were] both designed for the same mission," one defense official said this week, speaking on condition of not being named. "XSS-11 can be used as an ASAT weapon."

"Such a satellite could house a small kinetic-kill vehicle designed to smash into a nearby enemy satellite," Theresa Hitchens and Jeffrey Lewis of the Center for Defense Information in Washington wrote in a September opinion piece published in Space News.

In the Air Force's 1999 Microsatellite Technology and Requirements Study, the service raised the possibility of borrowing technology from the Army's Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite, or KE-ASAT, program for its own microsatellites, according to Hitchens and Lewis.

The study's "single strongest recommendation" was "the deployment, as rapidly as possible, of XSS-10-based satellites to intercept, image and, if needed, take action against a target satellite," the two analysts quoted from a 2000 unclassified summary.

Operators on the ground could use XSS-11 to transmit detailed images of a foreign spy satellite back to a U.S. command center, for example. If the spy satellite were deemed a threat to U.S. forces or assets -- particularly during a period of hostilities -- the new microsatellite would have the capability to eliminate it, experts in and outside the government say.

"If you don't like what you see, you can ram into it," says John Pike, a longtime space policy critic and director of GlobalSecurity.org, a clearinghouse for military information based in Virginia. In building XSS-11 to be relatively cheap and easy to launch, it also may be expendable and replaceable in an anti-satellite role, he says.

Looking back at the XSS-10 experiment, the defense official said the XSS-series spacecraft's potential for destroying other satellites was demonstrated.

"It is harder to rendezvous with an object in space than hit it," the defense official said. "XSS-10 went around the object a few times."

The experimental craft "doesn't need any modifications to kill a satellite," this source added. "It's capable of doing all the missions that KE-ASAT is intended to do -- and then some. That's been proven in the flight test."

Interviewed by telephone Nov. 17, Leaf declined to comment on anti-satellite capabilities, saying any such discussion about the XSS program would "all be speculation."

But he did say rendezvous and proximity operations are absolutely essential for XSS-11's experimental satellite maintenance tasks, regardless of what others may make of the capability.

"You can't closely inspect a vehicle -- say, one with an on-orbit malfunction -- without getting 'close' and approaching from the right angle," Leaf tells ITP. "To refuel, obviously you'd have to get more than close, and 'dock' with the vehicle. While we can do that with the [Space] Shuttle currently, an ability to perform such operations autonomously and with a much smaller vehicle offers great advantages in cost and availability."

Air Force officials do acknowledge selected offensive and defensive space capabilities the United States is developing for use against future enemies. But they will discuss offensive space capabilities only in broad terms, emphasizing those systems with "temporary and reversible" effects. Service officials stop short of disavowing satellite destruction in space warfare.

Leaf cited two "offensive counter-space" programs the Air Force first acknowledged earlier this year, both of which are ground-based.

A Counter-Communications System, to be fielded in fiscal year 2005, is aimed at temporarily blocking an adversary's command and control. And in 2008, the service intends to field a Counter-Surveillance and Reconnaissance System, focused on denying an enemy's access to space-based imagery.

Leaf would not acknowledge the technologies these "space control" programs will use to disrupt their targets, but experts believe they are jamming systems.

The general also declined to say if the military has now or plans any future offensive space capabilities beyond these two.

Asked why he could not be more forthcoming in explaining whether the United States currently has the capability to achieve space control, Leaf said, "We don't want to reveal any vulnerabilities, if we have any. We don't want to reveal classified information."

Air Force leaders say that in wartime, they would like to achieve "space superiority" much as the United States has achieved "air superiority" over enemy skies in past conflicts. But they are far less willing to open space systems and operating strategy to the kind of public scrutiny the procurement and use of fighter aircraft and bombers and tankers receive on Capitol Hill and in the news media.

"You don't have to understand where we're at with [space plans] to understand" the concept of space superiority, Leaf said in the Nov. 17 interview. He said the quest for space superiority is much like the objective the Air Force has sought and achieved in the air.

"We ensure the capability to use the atmospheric medium, and we deny that to the enemy. We want to do the same from space. There's absolutely nothing different about that just because it's space," Leaf said. "Now the specifics, some of the sensitivities and technical discussions and everything else are quite different, but it is as simple as wanting to do something we don't let the enemy do."

To some outside observers, it seems ironic at best -- and perhaps foolhardy at worst -- that the United States has developed the greatest reliance on space-based assets of any nation around the globe, yet is preparing to go on the offensive against relatively undeveloped foreign space capabilities. The U.S. military increasingly uses spy satellites, the Global Positioning System, Iridium satellite phones and other space-based communication networks to wage war on the ground, in the air and at sea.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031204-asat.htm

Originally scheduled for operation by 2008, due to development difficulties the program was "rescoped". The current plan calls for a prototype ABL to attempt shoot down of a test missile in 2008, delaying the final production design until after this test. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) says this is to allow design changes based on data acquired during the test. In essence it delays the ABL attaining operational capability for several years.

Wednesday, 22 October 1997

Early Report 10/22: U.S. LASER WEAPON TEST

Editors in Europe viewed with some degree of alarm the U.S. Army's successful test of a powerful laser--which hit a targeted satellite more than 260 miles from earth--last Friday. While they acknowledged that the test did not violate either the 1967 or 1972 treaties covering warfare in space, analysts nonetheless concluded that the U.S. had "crossed a new threshold" in the technological arms race. Brussels's independent Le Soir noted: "The Americans virtually have the power to blind or to destroy satellites in flight, and thereby to paralyze armies at war by depriving them of their eyes and of their ears. A frightening lead. This technological achievement reminds us that 'star wars' is not entirely dead." A number of writers expressed particular concern that the laser test might provide Russia with "an excuse" not to ratify its pending arms treaties with the U.S. As if to confirm those fears, Moscow's reformist Izvestia declared: "The test...won't help START II ratification in the Russian Duma."

U.S. LASER WEAPON TEST: 'STAR WARS ALIVE AND WELL'?

BRITAIN: "Doing Nasty Things With Mirrors"

The liberal Guardian told its readers (10/22): "Star Wars is alive and well, even if there's no one to play with. Last Friday's test of a high-powered U.S. army laser was talked down by the Pentagon as a modest defensive measure.... The purpose of the exercise, it says, is simply to find out what other--potentially hostile--countries might do with a laser at their disposal.

"There is just one small problem with the Pentagon's rationale. The only power around, hostile or otherwise, in possession of lasers capable of such a performance happens to be...the United States of America.

Last week's laser test toes not violate the letter of either the 1967 or 1972 treaties covering space warfare, but the spirit is another matter. There is another lesson from the test just carried out. It shows according to the Pentagon, that low-intensity lasers could be used--and the technology is available to quite a few countries--to 'blind' the sensors on the U.S. satellites now in use. This raises a whole set of different issues about the ethical implications of such 'spying' and whether it should be internationalized. These must be resolved on the ground, not 260 miles high in the air."

USSIA: "Lasers May Renew Arms Race"

Boris Vinogradov, commenting on a laser space weapon tested recently on an American earth satellite, pointed out in reformist Izvestia (10/22): "The test could just as well pose a threat to other countries' satellites. Military experiments with lasers are even more dangerous in that they can open a new round of the arms race. Today some 30 countries have similar capabilities. Besides, those tests won't help START II ratification in the Russian Duma."

BELGIUM: "Star Wars Has Come Down To Earth"

Pierre Lefevre wrote in independent Le Soir (10/22): "The United States has just achieved a first: Hitting an old military satellite orbiting at more than 400 kilometers from the earth with a powerful laser beam fired from the ground. It has thereby crossed a new threshold in the technological arms race. The Americans virtually have the power to blind or to destroy satellites in flight, and thereby to paralyze armies at war by depriving them of their eyes and of their ears. A frightening lead. This technological achievement reminds us that 'star wars' is not entirely dead....

"On Friday, the purpose was not to destroy the satellite but only to light it up to analyze its reactions. Incidentally, the U.S. administration denies that it intends to develop anti-satellite weapons. It says that it only wants to measure the vulnerability of its own satellites against blinding lasers whose technology is reportedly mastered by some thirty countries. This laser firing nevertheless breaks an international taboo: No one, so far, had carried out an experimental attack against a satellite. Although it was informed in advance of this experiment, Russia could take it badly. The Duma is already reluctant to ratify the Start II treaty. By trying too quickly to arm itself for the future space battlefields, the United States could lose the very peaceful means of getting rid of a few thousands of enemy nuclear warheads without firing a single shot."

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/971022-miracl-mr.htm

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #143
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1997 12:50, P.M.

QUESTION: How does the State Department feel about the Pentagon's decision to go ahead with the anti-satellite test?

MR. RUBIN: Well, as you know, Carol, I have some familiarity with this issue over the years and there is always going to be discussions back and forth on a subject like this. But having checked with our people, I have no reason to believe that we here in the Department had any specific problem with this test.

The reason is that the kind of test that it is doesn't pose any problem with becoming an anti-ballistic missile system and this experiment does not violate any arms control agreement. As you know, there is no anti-satellite treaty, other international law, or US domestic law. It is an experiment. It is designed to collect data that will help improve computer models used for planning protection measures for US satellites.

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/10/971003db.html