[FPSPACE] Experts scoff at upcoming USA-193 shootdown attempt (as to reasoning)

[Peter Pesavento]

>From Wired:

 

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/fishy-rationale.html

 

Experts Scoff at Sat Shoot-Down Rationale (Updated)

 

By Noah Shachtman  February 15, 2008 | 4:34:00 PM

 

 

The Pentagon says it has to shoot down a malfunctioning spy satellite
because of the threat of a
<http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/some-time-in-th.html>  toxic gas
cloud.  Space security experts are calling the rationale highly unlikely.
"Having the US government spend millions of dollars to destroy a
billion-dollar failure to save zero lives is comedic gold," one tells DANGER
ROOM.

Yesterday, Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey said the
satellite's tank full of hydrazine rocket propellant was the main reason the
military was planning to blast the orbiter.  There's a small but real risk
that the hydrazine tank could rupture, releasing a "toxic gas" over a
"populated area," causing a "risk to human life." 

But, as we noted yesterday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James
Cartwright cast the threat from the satellite in much less dire terms. Even
if the hydrazine were released, he noted, the effects would likely be mild
-- akin to chlorine gas poisoning, which can cause burning in the lungs, and
elsewhere. The area affected would be "roughly the size of two football
fields [where you might] incur something that would make you go to the
doctor."

And that doesn't sound like much of a risk at all.

Especially when you consider that several other hydrazine-filled object have
come crashing down to Earth.  Not only did the space shuttle Columbia have a
similar tank, which survived re-entry, with no toxic gas cloud.  Several
other hydrazine-laced objects have also crashed into the atmosphere, with no
ill effects.  Space researcher Ed Kyle notes that there were 42
<http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11627&mid=24477
2#M244772>  major reentry objects for 2007, including 9 satellites -- at
least one of which contained a form of hydrazine, UMDH (unsymmetrical
dimethylhydrazine). 

In addition, roughly 8-12 upper stages that originally contained UDMH
reentered during 2007. Some of these could very well have contained some
residual propellant.  [One particular] upper stage probably contained
several hundred [kilgograms] of residual propellant, for example.

Which leads one military satellite observer to tell DANGER ROOM, "Everything
they said made sense except for the reason for doing the intercept in the
first place."

"The hydrazine tank is a 1-meter sphere containing about 400 liters of
hydrazine. The stated hazard area is about 2 hectares, something like
1/10,000,000,000 of the area under the orbit," he adds.  The potential for
actual harm in unbelievably small.  Which means the hydrazine rationale just
doesn't hold up, literally not within orders of magnitude."

"The cynic in me says that the idea that this is being done to protect the
lives of humans is simply a feel-good cover story tossed to the media,"
another veteran space security specialist adds.  "It is true that hydrazine
is very toxic and could result injury or death, but the odds of this
happening are minuscule.  The average person in American is many thousands
of times more likely to be killed in a car accident than by any falling
debris.  In fact, no one has ever been killed by space debris (I have heard
of one or two being struck but only minor injuries).  So pretty much
everything else you can think of (including getting hit by an
asteroid/comet) is many times more likely than dying from this.  Having the
US government spend millions of dollars to destroy a billion-dollar failure
to save zero lives is comedic gold."

"There has <http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/475788.html>
to be another reason behind this," said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the
Henry L. Stimson Center, tells the Washington Post. "In the history of the
space age, there has not been a single human being who has been harmed by
man-made objects falling from space."

So what could that other reason be?

Our veteran space security specialist believes there are several. To him,
the satellite shot is a chance for the military to try out its missile
defense capabilities; a way to keep secret material out of the wrong hands;
and a warning to the Chinese, after they destroyed a satellite about a year
ago.  He shared some educated guesses: 

My first thought is that MDA [Missile Defense Agency] is always looking for
ways to pimp their systems and provide further justification that they work.
The upcoming change in Administration is almost guaranteed to result in
missile defense losing the top-level advocacy that it has enjoyed for the
last several years.  Any additional missions and justifications that the
missile defense community can provide would increase the likelihood of their
systems (and budgetary power) surviving.

An additional reason could be that destroying the satellite would prevent
any chance of another nation getting access to any of the potentially
sensitive technology on board.  However, I have heard from other sources
that supposedly the NRO [National Reconnaissance Office - the country's spy
satellite shop] is actually against the "shootdown" (and I hate that term -
the satellite is not flying and is coming down regardless of whether or not
it gets hit by a missile). Their absence at the press briefing could lend
some weight to this rumor, although it could also be explained by the nature
of the satellite and its still classified link to the NRO.

My real concern is that this is simply a knee-jerk reaction made by the
Administration in response to the purported threat by the Chinese. Since the
April 2007 ASAT [anti-satellite] test, there have been rumors and whispers
going around that the Administration and like-minded individuals are looking
for more sticks (instead of carrots) to use against China. While this "shoot
down" is not a direct action against China, it would be a clear signal that
the US can possess an active ASAT capability at any time if it so desires.
That is a serious development as the previous US ASAT system using F-15s was
mothballed in the 1980's.  

There are many significant political ramifications that would happen as a
result of this.  The US has been berating the Chinese on their ASAT test but
now demonstrate that it is okay as long as it occurs at a low enough
altitude to prevent long-lasting debris and can "save lives".  This is close
to an implied "ok" for the US and other nations to conduct more ASAT tests,
which could open another arms race.  I am also certain that Russian and
China would also see this as a slap in the face as they are trying to revive
the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space treaty discussion and ban on space weapons.
It would further negatively affect the relations between them and the US.
Which could lead to increased tensions, arms buildup, etc etc etc.  Nothing
good for anyone outside of arms manufacturers and politicians that need a
bogeyman to scare people into voting for them.

Oh, and [NASA Adminsitrator Mike] Griffin's presence at the briefing was
also an indicator to me that they are trying to spin this as a safety issue
and not a missile  defense / ASAT test.  NASA has absolutely nothing to do
with US Strategic Command using a Navy missile to blow up a broken NRO
satellite. This is a military/national security op from the start and the
only reason you trot the NASA Administrator out is to try and convince
people otherwise. 

UPDATE: Regardless of the central rationale for the anticipated intercept of
a dying satellite, the action almost certainly would offer the
<http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2008_2_15.html#123C879B>  Pentagon
useful data on conducting antisatellite missions, our own Jeffrey Lewis
<http://armscontrolwonk.com>  tells Global Security Newswire.

The dead U.S. satellite is to be struck at a significantly lower altitude
than other space assets.  However, that could prove even more of a challenge
to the Navy than any future antisatellite operation because spacecraft on
lower orbits typically travel at higher speeds, Lewis said. 

The upcoming shot - using a sea-based Standard Missile 3 developed for
regional and tactical missile defense - could thus prove to be a useful test
for less demanding intercepts that might someday follow, he said.

"The higher a satellite is [in space], the slower it moves, more or less,"
Lewis said.  "This is a perfectly good ASAT test."

...Asked if it would be fair for other nations to regard the Standard
Missile 3 as an antisatellite-capable weapon if the upcoming mission is
successful, Cartwright said it was "a fair question and a good question."

However, he said, the Navy has implemented for this action a "one-time"
modification to the three ships and missiles, which "would not be
transferable to a fleet configuration."

For their part, "the Chinese are going to use this to excuse their otherwise
inexcusable test," Lewis said.  "And those other countries who we count on
to create a norm against debris-creating ASATs will be less willing to help
us" in that effort, he said.

That said, Lewis added, "maybe they'll buy the hydrazine story."