[FPSPACE] U.S physics blunder [in 1964] almost ended space pr ograms

[Porter, William R]

Frankly D-Day it sound sort of like the plot from the movie "Voyage to the
Bottom of the Sea" but in reverse. In the movie the Van Allen Belts caught
fire and the SS Seaview had to fire a ICBM and detonate a nuke to put it
out. A fun movie, and a 25 year old Barbara Eden, yea baby.

Randy Porter


-----Original Message-----
From: Dwayne Allen Day [mailto:wayneday@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 1:29 AM
Cc: fpspace@friends-partners.org
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] U.S physics blunder [in 1964] almost ended space
programs



This is a loooong reply.  Basically, this article does not pass the smell
test.  I don't believe it.



On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 JamesOberg@aol.com wrote:
> U.S physics blunder almost ended space programs
> By Richard Sale, Terrorism Correspondent
> 
>  WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 (UPI) -- In 1964, a U.S atomic bomb blast in the Van
> Allen belts surrounding the earth almost permanently ended the U.S. space
> program, according to retired Gen. Ken Hannegan of the Defense Nuclear
> Agency. Hannegan spoke recently with United Press International.

I think this is an exaggeration.  The effects of this test have been
reported before.


> effort was based on Johnston Island, which is due east, and a little north
> of the Marshall Islands. The Johnston Island testing used nuclear-armed
Thor
> intermediate range ballistic missiles, according to Hunter and other
former
> Lockheed officials who asked not to be named.

The Thor-based program, known as Program 437, is well-known and
well-documented.  A recent series of articles in Quest covered it quite
well and I have a declassified official history of the program that
includes much excellent information.  For instance, it states that the
warhead was a one megaton bomb.  With all this information, how come the
reporter had to resort to unnamed sources?


>  One effect of the panic was the strengthening of U.S. satellites against
> radiation that in the end would help shield them from ground-based laser
> attacks.

Erm...  I'm somewhat skeptical of this.  Not all radiation is the
same.  There are things that you have to worry about from lasers that you
don't associate with the radiation encountered in space.  For instance,
optics don't respond well to laser beams and the best way to protect them
is with a lens cover.  But this does diddly-squat against gamma or X-ray
radiation.  (Mr. McDowell is probably better-suited to discuss this stuff,
since he does tinker with telescopes.)  And lasers cause heating while
radiation generally does not.


>  These sources said that the Soviets fired ground-based lasers to cripple
> sensitive optical equipment attempting to scan launches at Tyuratam to
> obtain a variety of sensitive military information including payloads and
> throw weights. The Soviet laser "hosings" of costly satellites, details of
> which remain classified, occurred throughout the 1980s and into the early
> 1990s, and sent U.S. scientists scrambling to shield the space
surveillance
> system.

Now this is where I get skeptical.  The reputed laser shots at US early
warning satellites (DSP) were later determined to be nothing of the
sort.  It turns out that they were massive oil fires in Siberia.  This is
all documented in the book America's Space Sentinels.  It *did* result in
the inclusion of a "second color" capability on these satellites as a
precaution.  There are plenty of declassified documents on this subject.


>  According to a former Senate Intelligence Committee chief of staff,
Angelo
> Codevilla, the Soviets regularly "pulsed" or targeted lasers on U.S.
> satellites. A senior Air Force official said that the U.S. had decided to
> keep evidence of the laser attacks hushed up for a variety of reasons.

Now are they referring to the DSP incidents or to other laser incidents
against other satellites?


>  The official said that first, it makes our equipment "look bad" but more
> important, the United States has used the collective evidence as a
> bargaining chip in strategic arms limitation talks. "U.S. negotiators say,
> look, we know this is happening and we are willing to make it public if
you
> don't give us this or that concession," said the official.

I am skeptical for several reasons.  First, when the US tested a laser
against the MISTI satellite several years ago, all of the reports
indicated that this was one of the first times that the US had done this
(I have come across documents indicating that it was indeed considered as
early as the 70s).  Now if US satellites were regularly being lased
through the 80s and 90s, why didn't the US do something to improve its
satellites until 1997?  

Furthermore, there have been plenty of people in recent years talking
about how unprepared US satellites are for laser attacks.  Several
prominent Air Force officials have said, in effect, "The first we would
know about it would be when the satellites suddenly died."  The US lacks
(lacked) warning systems for laser attack.  If it was common, why not
develop sensors to detect it?

Further, the author is now talking about "national technical means" and US
officials take these things very seriously.  If the Soviets had been
messing with them, the US would have protested loudly--and it probably
never would have signed another arms control treaty.  Why did the US agree
to START I if the Soviets were routinely zapping the primary means of
verifying the treaty?


>  In 1976, a KH-11 or Code 1010 satellite was "painted" by a Soviet laser
> and sustained "permanent damage," according to a senior Air Force
official.
> This source said that such paintings continued into the late 1980s.

The 11 was launched on 19 December 1976.  On 20 January 1977 it took
pictures of President Carter's innauguration ceremony, which were shown to
the new president the next day.  Carter declared the satellite
"operational."  In fact, this information has been officially
declassified.  Now if the satellite was permanently damaged soon after
launch (sometime during the last 13 days of 1976?), why was Carter so
derned happy with it?

This does not compute.


>  According to U.S. intelligence sources, the attempt to use U.S.
satellites
> to view launches at Tyuratem, stemmed from concern over the Soviet launch
of
> "killer satellites" that would be used in the event of war. Although U.S.

Erg...  I think he is mixing up the KH-11 with the DSP.  The DSP is used
to view launches at Tyura-Tam.


>  Air Force officials told UPI that for years the Soviets had a
> "battle-ready" ground-based laser at Saryshagan that they said they
believed
> had been involved in past blindings of U.S. spacecraft.
> 
>  When the Soviet Union dissolved, it was in the process of building a new
> battle-ready laser at Nurek in Tadzhikstan and a second 500 miles away at
> Khazakstan in the Caucasus Mountains. Four more ground laser battle
stations
> were planned, one begun on mountains near Dushanbe and another between
Nruek
> and Dushambe and two more at unidentified areas. A Pentagon source said
the
> collapse of the Soviet Union prevented their being completed.

I think that at least a couple of these facilities were opened to western
scientists, who discovered that they were not what US intelligence
speculated that they were.  Indeed, I vaguely remember reading a report
somewhere (Aviation Week?) about how low-powered one of these lasers
was--they expected to find a weapon and found a research tool.


>  But the result of the "hosings" of U.S. equipment was positive. The
United
> States moved quickly to install laser warning receivers on its newest
> generation of low-orbit spacecraft, U.S. intelligence sources said. The
> receivers have allowed time for evasive action and have assisted ground
> controllers seeking to prove the Soviets had inflicted the damage.

Erm...  There are a number of public statements by US Air Force
officials--not anonymous sources--indicating that this was not the case as
of 1998.  If the laser threat was so real during the 80s, how come it took
so damn long to respond?


>  One State Dept. analyst said that the whole Star Wars system of the
Reagan
> presidency was the result of Soviets "messing around with our satellites."

And that State Dept. analyst is a goofball...


>  And although official U.S. policy was not to interfere with Soviet
> satellites, the U.S. scientists often targeted Soviet spacecraft trying to
> observe the launch of U.S. missiles involved in a Defense Research
Projects
> Agency

Defense Research Projects Agency?  Really?  Think he means DARPA?  Defense
ADVANCED Research Projects Agency.  (Come on, who hasn't heard of DARPA
before?  After all, they invented the Internet and Spam.)


>  Freeman added: "If we didn't' damage Soviet equipment, it wasn't because
> we weren't trying." The U.S. has since moved to jam Russian satellite
radio
> communications to ground stations, he said.

Sure...


>  But former military space expert, Clarence Robinson said that the reason
> the United States probably stopped such testing was because it discovered

This suddenly ends?


I'm rather dubious of all of this.  There are way too many anonymous
sources for my own tastes.  I didn't see the author quoting any military
space analysts that I've actually heard of (and I've heard of most of
them).  And it was long a tacit understanding during the Cold War that you
didn't mess with each other's satellites during peacetime.  During a war
all bets were off, however.

Furthermore, does anybody remember the Reagan administration?  Remember
how they were willing to charge the Soviets with sneezing too loud in
church?  Do you honestly believe that if the Soviets were regularly
messing with US satellites that Ronald Reagan would have kept quiet about
it?  Not for a second.

I'm just not convinced.  There is some truth to this article, but I find a
lot of it hard to swallow, and I think that the author was somewhat
confused.



DDAY



_______________________________________________
FPSPACE mailing list
FPSPACE@friends-partners.org
http://fpmail.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/fpspace