A sticky one for satellites

[chopsticks]

URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21409

China develops
anti-satellite weapon
Low-cost but lethal ‘parasitic'
space technology successfully tested

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com


China has developed and successfully ground-tested a new anti-satellite weapon designed to "stick" to the body of enemy satellites so as to go unnoticed, then rendering it ineffective through jamming when activated.

The anti-satellite weapon, called a "parasitic satellite," will be deployed experimentally and tested in space in the near future, according to the Hong Kong newspaper Sing Tai Jih Pao.

WorldNetDaily reported in early 1999 on China's intentions to perfect an anti-satellite weapon.

Then, WND quoted Al Santoli, an Asian analyst at the American Foreign Policy Center and foreign policy adviser to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Santoli explained that "China is 'very interested' in exploiting 'asymmetrical warfare' -- a concept that involves attacking an enemy's satellites, computer systems, and information infrastructure."

In an AFPC "China Reform Monitor" brief published Wednesday, Santoli said the parasitic satellite is part of that effort.

"The weapon is being developed as part of China's 'asymmetrical' [warfare] strategy to fight and win a high-tech war against a powerful adversary" -- most notably, the technologically-superior military capabilities of the United States, according to published Chinese military "white papers."

According to Santoli, "well-informed sources" say "China's military has been working on 'asymmetrical' weapons capable of completely paralyzing enemy space-based fighting systems by 'attacking selected vital points' in [an enemy's] information and weapons guidance systems."

The Hong Kong paper said China's new anti-satellite weapon is actually a "micro-satellite" designed to "stick" to the body of an enemy satellite, which could then be activated during times of war or national emergency, for the purpose of jamming or destroying the enemy satellite.

The report said the parasitic satellite -- which otherwise goes undetected and won't affect the normal functions and operations of the enemy satellite until activated -- can be deployed against all types of satellites in low, medium or high orbits.

The weapon can be used against single or constellation satellites; constellations are groups of satellites linked together to provide global, or near-global, coverage. The U.S. military and American communications companies use constellations.

The Jih Pao also said enemy satellites would be unable to escape jamming or destruction by China's parasitic satellites, no matter how sophisticated the satellite and regardless of its purpose -- communications, early warning, navigational, reconnaissance or radar electronics jamming. The paper added that the weapon is even effective against a space station or a space-based laser weapon.

The American Foreign Policy Center's report said the micro-satellite is "one-thousandth" of the cost of an ordinary, full-size satellite. Furthermore, defense analysts believe China will soon have the capability to launch reusable rockets and space vehicles, which will further reduce the cost of deploying the parasitic satellites.

"China's objective is to greatly change the military balance between" Washington and Beijing, "and to make the U.S. not dare to become involved" in a conflict involving China, be it over Taiwan or any other Asian region China is seeking to influence, Santoli said, writing in China Reform Monitor.

Meanwhile, the Chinese space program is becoming more active, as Beijing plans to launch more than 30 regular satellites of all types -- as well as a number of space vehicles -- over the next five years, official Chinese news sources said Jan. 9.

Beginning in 2001, China plans to launch several unmanned space vehicles as a prelude to manned space missions within a few years.

China conducted its second successful launch of an experimental unmanned space vehicle on or about Jan. 10, the Xinhua news agency said.

Related stories:

China's strategic threat to the U.S.

Red Star over America

China gears US enemies for battle



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon E. Dougherty is the author of "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border."

[crazyinsane105]

I read that both Pakistan and China have this system. Maybe both nations worked on it together and are currently going to deploy it? :confused:

[walter]

I have heard of this in the past and it was said to have been an unreliable report, something to conjure up China military fear in the US.
...
Here is a more recent article claiming the whole report was based on a single Hong Kong tabloid article:http://www.space.com/adastra/china_engagement_0505.html

after a bit of research, I found other articles with the same original claim at the beginning of this thread, but more recent articles, such as the link i posted, seem to agree it is a hoax. Who knows, maybe there was nothing to it to begin with, but the idea is out there and could be implemented by countries with advanced space programs, including China.

[bd popeye]

Thsi man, Jon E. Dougherty, that wrote the article is a right wing nut case. He is past being a neo-con. Just do a google or yahoo search on him and see the dribble you get. Most of what he writes is conjecture on his part. As far as I'm concerned he has no crediablity.

[MIGleader]

bullshit. this was written in 2001, when china hasdnt even sent a man to space yet. how coult they have micro sattelites?

[walter]

bullshit. this was written in 2001, when china hasdnt even sent a man to space yet. how coult they have micro sattelites?

not that a disagree with you about the article being bull, but it is undoubtedly easier to build and launch microsatellites than it is to send humans safely into to space and bring them safely back. A microsatellite is just a small satellite, a couple hundred kilos or less, so being 'micro' has no reflection on its capabilities.

[MIGleader]

not that a disagree with you about the article being bull, but it is undoubtedly easier to build and launch microsatellites than it is to send humans safely into to space and bring them safely back. A microsatellite is just a small satellite, a couple hundred kilos or less, so being 'micro' has no reflection on its capabilities.

you dont know how hard attaching and jamming is...

[walter]

you dont know how hard attaching and jamming is...

I don't?

[MIGleader]

I don't?

jamming and mina sattelites are advanced tech, and the u,s doesnt even have them yet. having a control system that lets a mini sdattelite jam is hard. puttng space thrussters on a small craft is even harder.

[Newcomer]

China’s first small satellite Qinghua 1, weighing at 75 kg, was launched into LEO on June 20, 2000 and was able to take images of the earth with 39 m resolution. China’s second micro-satellite, Chuang Xin, weighed 100 kg and was launched with the ZY-2 in October of 2003. This satellite was designed to be a communication satellite. Another 150 kg micro-satellite called Tansuo (Exploration) was also developed to function as a high resolution imaging satellite. In 2004, China launched its first nano-satellite, called Nano-satellite 1, into orbit, making China the fourth country to possess this capability. Nano-satellite 1 was developed by Qinghua University and weights only 25 kg.

Source: Harvey, B (2004). China’s space program: from conception to manned spaceflight, Chichester, UK: Praxis Publishing.

[MIGleader]

China’s first small satellite Qinghua 1, weighing at 75 kg, was launched into LEO on June 20, 2000 and was able to take images of the earth with 39 m resolution. China’s second micro-satellite, Chuang Xin, weighed 100 kg and was launched with the ZY-2 in October of 2003. This satellite was designed to be a communication satellite. Another 150 kg micro-satellite called Tansuo (Exploration) was also developed to function as a high resolution imaging satellite. In 2004, China launched its first nano-satellite, called Nano-satellite 1, into orbit, making China the fourth country to possess this capability. Nano-satellite 1 was developed by Qinghua University and weights only 25 kg.

Source: Harvey, B (2004). China’s space program: from conception to manned spaceflight, Chichester, UK: Praxis Publishing.

they dont jam or attach, do they?

[Skycom Type 2]

I was under the impression that attaching objects to each other is really hard in space. After all space is really big, all the objects in it are traveling some 10+ mach… sure the space shuttle can link up with stuff like the ISS, but the space shuttle is under human control, and the ISS is constantly transmitting data about its position, rotation, etc…

Also why would you want to attach a micro satellite to jam another satellite, just to get rid of the satellite? Wouldn’t it be easier (but not easy) to simply ram the offending satellite, and send it either into the earth’s atmosphere to burn up, or out into the void where it can no longer communicate.

[Sea Dog]

jamming and mina sattelites are advanced tech, and the u,s doesnt even have them yet. having a control system that lets a mini sdattelite jam is hard. puttng space thrussters on a small craft is even harder.

The U.S. does indeed have this technology. Where do you think they got the capabilities for low Newton thruster designs? This stuff was tested in the USA in the late 1970's for NASA's micro-probe projects. This ain't new at all.

[walter]

you dont know how hard attaching and jamming is...

read my post again, i was just saying that using the term 'micro-satellite' refers technically to a small satellite, regardless of its capabilities. So whether it can jam, attach itself to another satellite, etc. has no bearing on its designation as a micro-satellite.

jamming and mina sattelites are advanced tech, and the u,s doesnt even have them yet. having a control system that lets a mini sdattelite jam is hard. puttng space thrussters on a small craft is even harder.


mini sats are advanced tech? no, they are not. even student groups have built mini- or micro-sats and had them launched. Again, this type of designation refers only to the size of the satellite and not its capabiltiies. For example, I could have a 100 kg satellite launched that just transmits a radio signal and does nothing more--it is still a micro-satellite because of its size.

you also say putting space thrusters on a small craft is hard--why? could you explain your reasoning. I don't think it would very difficult, not particularyly more difficult than for larger sats.


here are some links on recent US micro-sats:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/xss10_update_030130.html

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/microsat_formation_000707.html

[MIGleader]

read my post again, i was just saying that using the term 'micro-satellite' refers technically to a small satellite, regardless of its capabilities. So whether it can jam, attach itself to another satellite, etc. has no bearing on its designation as a micro-satellite.



mini sats are advanced tech? no, they are not. even student groups have built mini- or micro-sats and had them launched. Again, this type of designation refers only to the size of the satellite and not its capabiltiies. For example, I could have a 100 kg satellite launched that just transmits a radio signal and does nothing more--it is still a micro-satellite because of its size.

you also say putting space thrusters on a small craft is hard--why? could you explain your reasoning. I don't think it would very difficult, not particularyly more difficult than for larger sats.


here are some links on recent US micro-sats:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/xss10_update_030130.html

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/microsat_formation_000707.html

no, thats not hard, but being able to steer a sattelite onto another sattelite is redicoulous. this is space remebers, so you cannot use suction devices. magnets would be too disruptive. dont even think about glue...chinas simpy not there yet, maybe in 5 years.

[walter]

Most people think that some type of 'parasitic' micro sat would have to attach itself to another sattelite in order to disrupt it with 'jamming', as the article indicates. On further thought, this would not be necessary at all. In the case of observation sats, all that is necessary is the park a sattleite in front of the objective lens and it will be blinded. So this is no easy task, but if a micro sat can be roughly postioned in front of its target, It could then deploy a fan or some other large area, yet light weight device to block the spy sat's view. This type of design doesn't require absolute precision of the micro sat. Another option would of course be to bump into the target sat. This is potentially easily done if controlled from the ground. With a camera a ground controller can guide the microsat to bump into its target, negating the need for a difficult to develope autonomous system.

The point is, it doesn't take high tech to reak havoc in orbit. A small bump into a spy sat or GPS sat is all it takes to make it useless.

[chinawhite]

You can attach and jam with a micro satellite.

Here is a sernario.

The US sends a communication satellite into space. China finds which course the satellite is going in and sends one of these mirco satellites on the same course. It reaches it and slowly attaches itself to the american satellite.

Now if anyone thinks you cannot attach things in space you dont know anything about space travel. How do you think space capsules or the ISS attaches itself
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/mirstation/photos/mir_1993.jpg

This process of attaching indivuial capsules is extremely difficult because it you ram the other one a bit it could go out of control which the micro satellite doesn't have to worry about.

You use a remote control to move a stick to screw into the other capsule. while the micro satellite only needs to ram itself into the satellite of some how anchor itself to it.

Jamming is used to block Frequencies by releasing a large surge of energy. They use this on jamming aircraft

Regards,

chinawhite

[Mao23]

is it possible to blow the lens with explosive or anything. partialy damaging it will cause big problems won't it?

[chinawhite]

I think blocking the lens would be easier and cheaper option. You dont need a multi-million dollar project for that

Regards,

chinawhite

[chakos]

Am i the only one here that thinks this jamming, connecting, blocking business is a total waste...

If the Chinese have the ability to make one satellite get close to another then who the hell needs to block or jam or try to 'parasite' onto the enemy sattelite?

10kg of semtex (or any other high explosive) and goodbye american satellite.

quick, easy, cheaper and less mucking around.

:coffee:

[Fairthought]

With all due respect, none of these ideas are feasible.

The US has space based radar, and monitors very closely all satellites, including mircrosatellites. In fact, micro satellites are not so 'micro', they still weigh over a hundred pounds. The US actively monitors all satellites including space debris the size of your fist.

There is no way to 'block' a spy satellite, as it will be obvious, and the spy satellite will immediately alter is orbit to free its view. A micro satellite simply doesn't have enough fuel to outmaneuver a spy satellite.

You can't sneak up on a satellite and drill/clamp onto it without first raising alerts in the US who will have plenty of time to react.

A micro satellite would have to be stealthy, but even a stealthy one would be susceptible to optical detection as it occludes background stars. And the US has a lot of astronomical observatories at their disposal. And you can bet they are all digitally linked to the USAirForce Space Command -even if most astronomers don't realize this.

All ASAT weapons are based on lightning strikes, with very little reaction time granted to the target satellite. America's primary ASAT weapons are air-launched from high altitude fighters. Such armed fighters are kept prepetually inflight for just such an attack when needed. A micro satellite could be an ASAT that lies in wait as it trails a respectful distance behind its target. When the order for attack is issued, all the microsatellites attack quickly and simultaneously. The idea is there would be to many course corrections in need of transmission to save them all. But such a 'constellation' of ASAT's was rejected by both the US and the USSR as too costly to maintain. Perhaps, with the cost of microsatellites coming down, it may one day become a reality. Word is there is development of nano satellites (which are under one hundred pounds).

A parasite could possibly attach itself if the spy satellite were ever in the 'blind spot' of earth orbits. This is where the sun is immediately behind the satellite from the earth's point of view. But even this may be foiled by postioning a space based radar on Earth's first Lagrange point (facing the earth, not the sun). Solar studies satellites are usually placed at this point, but they face away from the earth, towards the Sun.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US already has a space based radar at the first Lagrange point (L1).

[MIGleader]

even if the u,s has spaced radar, they have minimal ability to counter a micro sattelite thats too close. i doubt asats work on micro sattelites. besides, a space radar is just as vulnerable to jamming as any sattelite.

[Fairthought]

i doubt asats work on micro sattelites.


Why do you doubt that? Microsatellites are easy to track. The US has multiple radio observatories to track them.

[MIGleader]

Why do you doubt that? Microsatellites are easy to track. The US has multiple radio observatories to track them.

but firing a missle at them is a whole different thing. a space sattelite, unlike an asa, does not move very quikly. another kind of asat would be needed.

[walter]

With all due respect, none of these ideas are feasible.

The US has space based radar, and monitors very closely all satellites, including mircrosatellites. The US actively monitors all satellites including space debris the size of your fist.

some of these ideas are feasible, but first off, the US does not have space based radar. The US monitors satellites and space debris with ground radars and the space based radar concept is just that--a concept, on paper. Development is way over cost and the whole SBR program is now in danger of being cancelled due to these cost overruns. Here is a link on the concept:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/aug2002/0802radar.asp

There is no way to 'block' a spy satellite, as it will be obvious, and the spy satellite will immediately alter is orbit to free its view. A micro satellite simply doesn't have enough fuel to outmaneuver a spy satellite.

...
You can't sneak up on a satellite and drill/clamp onto it without first raising alerts in the US who will have plenty of time to react.

...
A micro satellite would have to be stealthy, but even a stealthy one would be susceptible to optical detection as it occludes background stars. And the US has a lot of astronomical observatories at their disposal. And you can bet they are all digitally linked to the USAirForce Space Command -even if most astronomers don't realize this.


This assessment is based on a very poor assumption that a spy sat having way more fuel than a much smaller micro sat means it can 'get away'. First, obviously any micro sat designed for such a mission will have an apt fuel supply, but the bigger problem with this reasoning is the assumption that a multi-ton spy sat with say 500 kg fuel/oxidizer or thruster propellent will get further faster than a much smaller (100-200kg) micro sat with potentially over half its weight in fuel/oxidizer and/or propellent. Basic newtonian mechanics here.

Further, stealth shaping a micro sat (or any sat) is so easy considering aerodynamics are out of the equation, so if such a micro sat were to be developed, do you really think the developers/desginers won't think about making it hard to see by ground based radars? Remember, this this is desigend to sneak up on a satellite and make it inoperable, so those smart aerospace/robotics engineers will have thought of many more scenarios, and solutions to them, then we forum goers.

And a micro/nano sat being optically detected? Sure, if someone knew exactly where to look. Space observatories, ie telecopes, have very narrow field of views, so having the entire sky scanned continously doesn't seem realistic to me, and did you ever think about this micro sat attacking during the day time?--good luck with optical detection from the ground.

One viable way of detecting and then defending against such a weapon would be to have optical sensors (or some other type/combination of sensors) on the satellite you want to protect. This is the best way to detect a small stealthy sat approaching an expensive asset like a spy sat.


armed fighters are kept prepetually inflight for just such an attack when needed.

this is news to me, I only know of a few tests done in the 80's when F-15s launched ASAT missles, but a 24/7 patrol of fighters whose primary mission is ASAT is really news. maybe I don't believe it.


I wouldn't be surprised if the US already has a space based radar at the first Lagrange point (L1).
...
But even this may be foiled by postioning a space based radar on Earth's first Lagrange point (facing the earth, not the sun).


This would surprise me. L1 of the Earth-Sun system is about 1,500,000 km from earth--good luck getting a nice radar return from any radar based way out there.
L1 of the Earth-Moon system is still about 320,000 km from earth--I still don't know what radar will be able to track micro sats from that huge distance.


sorry to be so harsh, but...

[Fairthought]

I understand whenever someone's ideas get blasted on the forum they tend to take it a little personally. I did not mean to offend you, Walter. I welcome your response, and consider parts of it to contribute to the thread. With other parts of it I must politely but staunchly disagree.

First, I will admit where I was wrong. I had read about tests in space based radar many years ago. And I assumed America would have one or more operational by now. Perhaps I had given America too much credit.

Perhaps not.

A space-based imaging radar can see through clouds, and utilization of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) techniques can potentially provide images with a resolution that approaches that of photographic reconnaissance satellites. An project to develop such a satellite was initiated in late 1986 by the CIA. This effort led to the successful test of the Indigo prototype imaging radar satellite in January 1982. Although the decision to proceed with an operational system was controversial, development of the Lacrosse system was approved in 1983.

While LACROSSE is still highly classified and details scarce an imaging resolution of 1m (3.3 ft) is considered feasible for the system.

Lacrosse 1 (1988-106B 19671) was launched on 2 December 1988 by the Space Shuttle. The spacecraft entered an orbit with an inclination of 57 degrees, with an perigee of 680 km and an apogee of 690 km, and has not maneuvered significantly since launch.
Lacrosse 2 (199- A) was launched from Vandenberg AFB CA on a Titan-4 on 08 March 1991
Lacrosse 3 (199- A) was launched from Vandenberg AFB CA on a Titan-4 in the Fall of 1997, replacing Lacrosse 1.

17 August 2000 USA 152 Launch Site: Vandenberg . Launch Vehicle: Titan 4B. Perigee: 689 km. Apogee: 695 km. Inclination: 68.0 deg.



source: http://www.danshistory.com/spysats.shtml

Not satisfied? Here is another quote:

A KH-12 is a $1 billion satellite that resembles the Hubble Space Telescope, except it is looking at our planet. For security reasons, there are no published orbit schedules for the imagery spacecraft. They are supplemented by the 15-ton Lacrosse-class radar-imaging satellites.

Source: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question529.htm

On the other hand, the article you cited says that no such working space radar currently exists for the disposal of the US military -A BIG LIE- And that the soonest would be 2010. Yet Lacrosse has been assisting US Keyhole spy satellites for for over 15 years! Next time, check your sources. You cited a US Airforce public website, which obviously censors all classified information.

Based on your article, even if America has a secret space based radar, they appear unhappy with its performance. The article says they still lack the technology to monitor airborne threats from space as well as airborne radar systems and they do not see SBR replacing the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System any time soon.


Finally, I said I wouldn't be surprised if America didn't already post a SBR at L1. After reading the article you posted, I now would be surprised. I never actually claimed one existed, I simply pointed out its usefulness in eliminating a blind spot to ground based radar.


The inception of a space based radar will herald many more SBR's to follow. At that point, microsatellites will have a very hard time remaining stealthy from mutliple directions. This means: good-bye to any microsat parasite ideas.

Second, The US still has very effective ground based radar that observes space objects even as small as your fist and America's radar resolution is improving continuously. There will never be a time when microsats will be smaller than what the US can see. That includes nanosatellites.

Walter, you've also said:

And a micro/nano sat being optically detected? Sure, if someone knew exactly where to look.

Of course they would know exactly where to look: they would track their own spy satellites. This is a simple measure to insure they haven't been rudely sabotaged. That is why, as I have said earlier, a satellite ASAT needs to trail its target at a respectful distance.

Also, once there are several SBR's, optical detection would become even easier as the earth itself can be used as the background field for detecting a hidden satellite.

Finally, you state 'basic newtonian mechanics' as the reason why a microsatellite would be able to outmaneuver a spy satellite. I never claimed that a multi-ton spy satellite was more nimble. I claimed they would have plenty of warning time to take action. And once a microsatellite found itself lucky enough to position itself to block a spy satellite, as you are suggesting, if a Spy satellite can't shake it off then the US will destroy it I assure you. Most likely by lasing its sensors.

Spy satellites do carry more fuel and have much more endurance. Russian spy satellites last over four years. America's latest KH-12 spy satellite weighs over 15 tons, including 7 tons of fuel, and can last 10-12 years. Microsat's only last a year or so. Spy satellites, like the KH-12, have docking ports for resupply tugs for boosting their orbits. Do you think a stealthy microsat would remain undetected if they were attached to a resupply tug? A tug who's fuel nozzles are pointed straight towards the Earth?

Good luck trying to make a Microsat stealthy. Nearly all satellites take advantage of solar panels to power their systems -This dramatically reduces the weight be eliminating huge batteries for energy storage. The shape and necessary orientation of solar panels defy any attempt at stealth. In order to enter stealth mode, a satellite would need to fold up its panels. In order to maintain stealth mode, a satellite would need to rely on another source of power: either big batteries, or most likely a nuclear-thermal electric power source (like those on deep space missions). This would make the satellite too heavy to be a microsatellite as the nuclear material happens to be Plutonium, which is very dense material.

So much for combining micro agility with stealth in a satellite. Go home, try again.


And what would be the point in making a microsatellite stealthy enough to blcok a spy satellite???? Once blocking, it reveals itself. At that same instant its sensors will be fried by earth based lasers. Yes, the US has them. And, NO, you will not get a confirmation at a US Air Force WebSite.


Please don't take this personally.

[MIGleader]

perhaps the earth based lasers take it too far. earth based lazer are not starwars beams, they indeed exist(in both american and russian arsenals), but are not a pinpoint weapon. the waves from the laser woul fry both sattelites, since they are too close. laser technoloygy simply isnt at the pinpoint area phase yet.
.

macro sattelites dont have to be so stealthy. even if detected, there is litle chance of shooting it down, since no 'persuit aircraft" can be sent after it. much like stealth aircraft.

no offence either

[walter]

Fairthought,

I will tone this reply down, so here it goes:

the article you cited says that no such working space radar currently exists for the disposal of the US military -A BIG LIE- And that the soonest would be 2010. Yet Lacrosse has been assisting US Keyhole spy satellites for for over 15 years! Next time, check your sources. You cited a US Airforce public website, which obviously censors all classified information.


So according to those sources the US has has at most 3 SBR's orbiting earth--I obviously did not know this, but i doubt just 3 orbiting SBR's do any good when you need continuous radar coverage over specific areas for time sensitive targets. Also, these satellite's orbit's are known, so just a somewhat intelligent adversary could hide things from it--they are in LEO criss-crossing earth and there are just 3. Basically, i can see why this is a CIA asset and not an USAF asset. The propsed SBR system the USAF wants would be a large constellation of sats like GPS, providing continuous coverage everywhere--such a militarily sugnificant system does not yet exist. Maybe you disagree and think these three Lacrosse sats are game changers, I would like to hear what you think.

The inception of a space based radar will herald many more SBR's to follow. At that point, microsatellites will have a very hard time remaining stealthy from mutliple directions. This means: good-bye to any microsat parasite ideas.

I don't think SBR's will be looking for orbiting objects, but rather at the ground and air. Groundbased radars will still have the job of tracking orbiting objects.


Second, The US still has very effective ground based radar that observes space objects even as small as your fist and America's radar resolution is improving continuously. There will never be a time when microsats will be smaller than what the US can see. That includes nanosatellites.

...

Good luck trying to make a Microsat stealthy. Nearly all satellites take advantage of solar panels to power their systems -This dramatically reduces the weight be eliminating huge batteries for energy storage. The shape and necessary orientation of solar panels defy any attempt at stealth. In order to enter stealth mode, a satellite would need to fold up its panels. In order to maintain stealth mode, a satellite would need to rely on another source of power: either big batteries, or most likely a nuclear-thermal electric power source (like those on deep space missions). This would make the satellite too heavy to be a microsatellite as the nuclear material happens to be Plutonium, which is very dense material.

So much for combining micro agility with stealth in a satellite. Go home, try again.



I think you overestimate the difficulty of making a satellite stealthy from ALL angles. Stealth aircraft are optimized for low RCS at the front and less so from other angles due to aerodynamic reasons--I am sure you are aware of this. So in space the game changes, making an object stealthy from all angles would not be excessively difficult like you imply, and I do think micro/mini/nano sats of the future could easily stay hidden from ground based radar. So we just disagree here.

As to the physics/lifespan of microsats: why do you assume a microsat cannot be designed for a useful life of 5-10 years? I don't make this assumption. Maybe if you are thinking of current or past missions involving micro sats you could come to this conclusion, but again, if a micro sat's mission is to lie in wait indefinitely and then when the time is ripe attack a target in one form or another (by the way, I never said blocking is the only option), then it can surely be designed to last years.

This brings me to the power issue you brought up. You say solar panels are a no go b/c they would kill stealth and that the alternatives are all heavy, stripping the satellite of its 'micro' status. You are probably right that solar panels, deployed in the usual fashion, would increase radar reflectivity, but I believe with some creative construction that a) when deployed they could be deployed in such a way as to minimize radar reflection, and b) they could be retracted and stowed for the vast majority of the sat's life, or even be done away with. After all, such a sat would also be designed to minimize power consumption and could remain in a dormant state for years until contacted or automatically reboot at regular intervals to check in. As far as batteries or nuclear-electric power go, they probably would put the sat over the artificial wieghtlimit for a micro sat. Doesn't mean the satellite can't be small though. For purposes of remaining undetected I think a small size trumps heavy weight as the deciding factor. So even if such a sat loses status as 'micro' or 'nano', it can still be tiny and hard to say. So who cares if it weighs in at 300 lbs. if it is 3ft. x 3ft. x 3ft.

I guess my main point here, concerning micro sats designed to destroy or impair other satellites, is that all the necessary design features are do-able from an engineering standpoint. I really think you underestimate what well funded capable engineers could accomplish in this area.

Look forward to your reply.

[chinawhite]

@ Fairthought

""The US has space based radar, and monitors very closely all satellites, including mircrosatellites. .""

When they detect a launch what are they going to do?.:) . They cant do nothing to prevent the mircosatellite from jamming the other satellite. ASAT weapons weapons would work. But its costly shooting down your own satellite.

Regards,

chinawhite

[Fairthought]

Thank you for toning things down.

I will tone things down in return.

I would also like to add I am not thumping for American technology, even though it may appear that I am doing so. All the technologies I have described at America's disposal (ground based radar, spy satellites, ASATS, space based radar, ground based lasers, etc) are available for other countries too.

If the US can launch an SBR in 1988, then China (whose satellite technology is only three years behind) can do so too if they really wanted to. Many countries already have ground based lasers. Russia has had Giant CO2 lasers for decades, and even lased the Space shuttle once (it jammed communications leaving it out of contact with mission control for ten minutes).


I don't think Lacrosse Satellites are satisfactory for the Air force's needs. They eventually want to replace their E-3 airborne early warning systems with an SBR, and Lacrosse seems to be unable of providing the level of technology required. Lacrosse is designed to look at the ground, not the atmosphere. Nor does it look at Earth's orbitals. They have plenty of good ground based radars for that. In fact, even the Air Force's article describes an SBR that will look at earth's atmosphere and not space. It seems quite clear that ground based radar is quite sufficient for scouring earth's orbitals. There's just that problem with the solar blindspot...

I am not aware of any instance of a microsatellite with a mission life much more than one year. There is a serious challenge for satellites, especially LEO satellites, to stay aloft due to the earth's changing atmospheric volume. When solar activity increases, especially when there is a coronal mass ejection lobbed at the earth, the earth's atmosphere swells and satellites get caught in slightly denser medium. It's still space, technically, but its not a perfect vacuum and the friction of the medium slows down the satellite and causes it to descend.

It was solar activity that caused Skylab's orbit to degrade eight years ahead of plan and unintended debris fell all over northern Canada.

For this reason, satellites need fuel -not just to re-orient themselves and power their systems- but to boost themselves to their original desired orbit. This boosting takes alot of fuel, and the larger satellites have docking ports for resupply tugs. In any claim that a microsatellite can orbit several years, it will definitely need such a docking port in my opinion. This may also require specially designed resupply tugs with miniature ports created just for them.

I still don't understand the need for stealthing your microsatellite. If its mission is to block/jam then it will reveal itself anyway. If its mission is to be an ASAT lying in wait from a respectful distance than its free to orbit in plain view under a psuedo mission (like studying the earth for natural disasters -that appears to be a popular declared mission for many satellites launched recently). There is no need for stealth either way.

I don't think a satellite can be stealthy from all directions, especially with solar arrays. They would need to be folded up and into a compartment. And even then, when a SBR (orbited specifically for scouring earth orbitals) wants to seek it, it will be easy to optically detect any such stealth satellite by comparing it to the background field of the Earth.

Also, a satellite with its solar arrays folded up for an extended period of time needs to rely on its own internal power source. And it still needs to fire its rockets from time to time to maintain/recover orbit. Kinda hard to imagine firing your rockets (with exhaust directed towards the earth) and remaining unseen.

I think a giant satellite, not a micro satellite, is more likely for stealth missions in space. It also has an interesting option: Abduction.

As a matter of fact, it doesn't have to be a satellite, in the traditional sense. I'm talking about a stealth space shuttle type craft. It sneaks up to a spy satellite, and while blocking it communications from ground control, the robotic arm quickly loads the prize spy satellite into its cargo bay and then dips into a new orbit.

The danger is the spy satellite is still operating inside your cargo bay, and it thinks it's still in it's old orbit. The ground control will only know that they lost contact with their satellite. Visual access can be denied by timing the abduction precisely when the spy satellite is in the 'blindspot' of the sun with regards to the earth. If the spy satellite can be disabled in the cargo bay, it can be safely ferried back to earth.

Then comes the audacious option of meddling with it to your hearts content, and then returning it back to its original orbit to re-establish contact with its ground control -they will be mystified! There would be no reason to suspect the satellite they lost contact with for the last two months has been sitting on the ground here on earth having its guts re-wired and then relaunched back in space.

Perhaps, if you wanted to give them a hint, you could peel off a decal and re-attach it upside down. They probably won't even notice.


Such a stealth space shuttle is extremely hard to conceive, I imagine it would have to be incredibly complex, and probably beyond the scope of any affordability. Of course, if anybody even knows you have a stealth space shuttle it would become the first suspect in any missing satellite case and the whole idea is compromised.

I'd Just as soon forget about the whole ridiculous stealth space shuttle idea.

Other interesting readings I've come across: Japan is designing a new 1.5 ton spy satellite that is going to be very nimble and capable of turning on a dime so as to take more pictures from different angles on each fly-by.

Also, energy storage may become more efficient and smaller in the future as engineers try to develop frictionless zero gravity flywheels for the space station. This means no more big bulky batteries that slowly drain over time even when they are not in use.

[Kampfwagen]

As it has been stated earlier, the idea of two objects directed to hit each other in space is not exactly a cakewalk. The Gemini Orbital Docking, the first U.S space-docking operation (Not sure if the Soviets did something first.) was described by an engneer working on the project as "Getting two bullets to meet, point to point in an orbit around the earth." These Microsatelites are a nice idea but have no basis in reality. One slip and the thing will fly off into oblivion.

The idea of a 'Stealth' Space Shuttle is very intresting, but along with what you said, it sounds ridiculously expensive and incredibly complicated, too dependant on time windows and such. If anything, the most resonable bot by no means ideal way is to bring the satelite down with a laser or even some sort of 'tractor beam' and make the satelite come down to earth after making it 'go silent', total elimination of GPS or other tracking systems. Though one might want to 'flub' a co-ordinate for the satelite to make it seem as if it is in one spot on earth when you can 'land' it in your proverbial back yard. But data would likely be comprimised from Re-Entry, assuming the satelite comes down in peices bigger than a dime.

This can be pretty much picked apart, and has been by our intelectual circle. Irrational Fear: 0, Intelegent Analasys: 1.