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

[LARRY KLAES]

Ah, it almost feels like the "good" old days of the Cold War all over again,
with space missions with ulterior motives involving national prestige and
security, and both the West and East accusing the other of subterfuge.

Even if the main reason is to keep a big satellite from landing on some
poor civilian's head, using it as an excuse for target practice certainly
won't hurt, and it will send a message to the Russians and especially
the Chinese about US anti-sat capabilities.

Larry


>From: "Peter Pesavento" <pjp961 at svol.net>
>To: <fpspace at friends-partners.org>
>Subject: [FPSPACE] Experts scoff at upcoming USA-193 shootdown attempt 
>(asto reasoning)
>Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:54:37 -0500
>
> >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."
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FPSPACE mailing list
>FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace