Russia blows up old satellite, NASA boss 'outraged' as ISS crew shelters from debris In a test of its missile technology, Russia destroyed one of its own old space satellites, littering Earth's orbit with fragments and forcing astronauts on the International Space Station to temporarily take shelter. The cloud of debris was generated when Cosmos 1408, a 2,200-kg defunct signals intelligence satellite launched …
Yeah, the Chinese did this in 2007, and guys, you might not want to believe this, but the Americans also did this, in 1985.
https://taskandpurpose.com/history/air-force-pilot-shot-down-a-satellite/
And yes, each satellite destruction was considered a jerk move for the amount of debris. The 1985 American target was an "aging weather satellite." The Pentagon "forgot" to mention to NOAA that one of their functioning satellites was going to be "decommissioned." 285 pieces of debris were scattered into orbit.
I like how, "State Department spokesperson Ned Price said the U.S. won’t tolerate Russia’s Monday test of a direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) missile in which it used the weapon to shoot down its own satellite." - November 17, 2021, Ryan Morgan, American Military News. I will assume Ned Price doesn't remember the American shootdown since he was only two at the time.
Another classic case of "don't do what I do." There are no winners in this game.
The old style cold war is back. The Russian, Chinese, and America militaries all are pushing for bigger budgets to develop weapons, including space weapons, with the rationale that because the enemy is or might be developing a weapon then we need to develop that weapon as well. And, of course, once the weapon is developed it must be tested to show that it works. Consequences and collateral damage are not a concern any more than they were with atmospheric or space nuclear bomb tests.
Note that Russia is late to the game. China did the first successful intercept in 2007 and the US followed in 2008.
US in 2008 - Operation Burnt Frost. It was, however, at a much lower altitude than the Chinese satellite so "most" of the debris return to earth within a few months. Graph from wikipedia showing time vs altitude of tracked debris from Operation Burnt Frost - File:Apoapsis_of_USA-193_debris.svg.
Responsible Warmongering (?)
It was also a satellite filled with hypergolic fuel which posed a significant risk to people & the environment left in an uncontrolled state, so whilst the development of such technology was condemned at the time it was seen as necessary and was done in a way so it minimised the risk to operations in space.
It is on a completely different scale to what the Russians just did, who have not only created more than 1500 potentially lethal to human space flight operations projectiles travelling at orbital speeds , and ruinous to any satellites in its path. But they did it to a satellite whose orbital mechanics intersects with the International Space Station not just putting all existing and future ISS crew at risk, some of whom are Russian, but which could destroy it completely.
The objection to the US test wasn't so much the debris, it was a blatant attempt to test an anti-ICBM system.
That was the real danger, if the USA has an effective missile defence, the only option the French USSR Russia have is a first strike launch before it becomes operational - that's why there is a ban on testing such systems.
And as typical, you left out the reason for that deployment as it was NOT a test. The satellite in question was a recently launched one that failed. While the satellite was no issue, its hydrazine was; most of it would survive reentry if the fuel tank failed to explode and there was a high probability of this. The satellite itself would reenter in late February or early March on its own so orbital debris would be minimal and short lived.
A single SM3 was used to destroy the satellite. The kinetic impact set off the hydrazine and dispersed the by-products; no more environmental threat.
The software used for this mission has never been loaded into other SM3s. Could it be, sure, but that would be a lengthy process and not worth the effort.
Already massive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_military_expenditure_by_country
also see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
UK spending is crazy. Who is going to invade UK? Much is spent in USA. GDP loss due to Brexit will exceed UK Miltary spending!
USA it's about pork barrel votes, not real threats.
x3 next highest and 3.7% of GDP ad 738 Billion
Saudi Arabia is spooked by Iran, a lesser extent Iraq. 48 Billion & 8.4% of GDP, is highest GDP. But seems disproprotionate
Israeli: Iran, Syria, Hezbolla, Hamas etc sp 19.9 Billion and 5.6% of GDP. Unlike UK & USA, it's survival.
South Korea spooked by North Korea. But partly USA ties.
China is not going to invade USA or Australia. Maybe Tiawan if everyone is distracted by the UK, Russians or USA doing something really stupid. See 1956: Suez vs Hungary.
So that makes it just as fallible as every other form of human communication. The problem is not that idiots can contribute, the problem is that an increasing number of idiots fail to check their believes and fall ever-deeper into the idiocy trap.
“Who is going to invade UK?” France. They succeeded in 1066 and have made multiple attempts since. Italy managed, once. Assorted Germans have made multiple attempts, some successful. Norwegians and Danes have had a go, too. Britain expects every person to do their duty.
Exits, to “Men of Harlech”. Hint: the good guys were native Britons, the bad guys were nasty Germans.
"“Who is going to invade UK?” France. They succeeded in 1066 and have made multiple attempts since. Italy managed, once. Assorted Germans have made multiple attempts, some successful. Norwegians and Danes have had a go, too."
And not forgetting Argentina. It may not have been the mainland, but it was most certainly UK territory.
There's quite a few rather remote places like the Falklands that are either UK territory or are UK dependencies. Maybe some should not be, these days, but they are, and most, AFAIK, want it to remain that way.
Absolutely. The fact the the invasion of 1688 was successful and usurped the rightful heir (by male primogeniture) to the throne is glossed over when people say there has been no successful invasion since 1066. The power-brokers in England at the time found the idea of a Catholic heir unacceptable, so the invasion was not unpopular, just unlawful according to the rules in force at the time, that were soon changed by the victors. For good or ill, anti-Catholic feelings determined the course of the monarchy rather than rules of succession, and The English Parliament ultimately determined the outcome with the Bill of Rights (1689) and Act of Settlement (1701).
As for other invasions, Perkin Warbeck (possibly Flemish) tried, unsuccessfully, more than once in the 1490s.
>Saudi Arabia is spooked by Iran, a lesser extent Iraq. 48 Billion & 8.4% of GDP, is highest GDP. But seems disproprotionate
Saudi Arabia is spooked by the problem of people not being able to buy oil in US $.
That's why they have to find a way of returning USD to the USA to keep the global economy running - they do this by buying vast numbers of M1 Abrams that are never going to be used.
China were not the first by a long shot; the US did it in the UK 80s (and not again at such an altitude as even then it was a reckless, selfish, irresponsible, and self-inflicting thing to do).
China were just as grossly irresponsible as Russia have just been. The difference being that they seem to have learned their lesson (likely because if their own space endeavours - also at risk from this).
The end of life of the ISS is approaching really fast. Russia's space program is a joke. And since Russia's only function in the modern world is to destroy nice things and drag everyone else down so they're as bad as Russia's kelptocracy, starting their own Kessler Syndrome to render near earth orbits unusable so nobody else can have things in space either would be entirely consistent with Putin's Russia.
This could be one reason for them blowing up a satellite. They do want to quit the ISS and the sooner the better. On the other hand, we have Musk who's really trying to make a solid wall around earth with every launch of his TV satellites.
I'm beginning to believe that the mindset of many countries is "If we can't have space to ourselves, no one else can use it either".
I'm waiting now to see who's next to blow up their own satellite.
Sorry but that's absurd. SpaceX have put enormous effort into making their constellation safe. They're at a height where parts will naturally reenter if destroyed, are actively tracked, and engage in automated collision avoidance. There is simply no comparison with blowing up a satellite, creating thousands of untracked, unguided, invisible pieces of debris on random orbits.
SpaceX have a direct interest in keeping low earth orbit safe to fly in.
Musk has reapetedly demonstrated advanced, full self-colliding capability with vehicles operating at a fraction of ludicrous speed. Crash barriers, stationary police and fire trucks, all with relative velocities a fraction of orbital speeds. Well, M25 excepted. And a track record of forward looking statements underestimating risks.
So as billionaires litter space, I think it's a case of not if, but when. And Starlink satellites have even less on-board collision detection capability than a Tesla. Well, Ethernet excepted. And when it happens, well.. Oops. It'll be fine in a decade or so. Or might one be interested in a launch on an armoured* Starship?
*Armoured ish. In theory, potential to carry a bit of armour, once the snags with Elon's bullet proof glass have been worked out.
"I'm beginning to believe that the mindset of many countries is "If we can't have space to ourselves, no one else can use it either"."
Quite.
I doubt the Russians can afford to commercialise space, at least with regards to Earth orbiting "stuff"...
And given the likely billions of US$ that the likes of Musk/Bezos/Branson are expecting to make, a few thousand extra bits of debris, added to what's already "up there", is bound to make it a lot harder to put things in space and even harder to keep them there safely...whether they have humans on board or not.
So, throwing a "strop" and basically "muddying the water" is just going to make space travel by astronauts and/or pleasure seekers/holidaymakers much more dangerous.
A good part of that klepto haul ends up in the the welcoming arms of the City of London - c.f., Private Eye, "Looting with Putin" (special report). Which far from helping the average Brit, serves instead to ensconce an entitled elite in privileged financial and politcal power.
The contestants that have entered so far in alphabetical order are: China, India, Russia and the founders of the contest the USA.
(ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon )
I guess the best we, as a planet, can hope for is that everyone else who managed to launch a satellite (France, Japan, United Kingdom, Israel, Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, New Zealand) does not try and join this contest but looking at the names alone you know that at least one or more of them will.
They all will, because nobody wants to admit he's got a tiny one...
Seriously, the problem is that dissuasion only works if you prove you can do whatever you threaten to do. So I'm afraid they'll all will try to show at some point that they can, at will, easily and repeatedly.
I wish to emphasize that NZ would never do this.
The only way it could happen is if one of Rocket Labs' trained guidance possums, were to go feral.
That's very unlikely, as St Cindy would give it a jolly patient talking to, and even a dead possum doesn't want that.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Americans shot down a satellite at a put lower orbit that was a potential risk if left alone. Of course it was convenient target practice, but the orbit means that very lottle debris remain in orbit and only for a few months.
It's not comparable to what the US did decades ago, or the what the Chinese did not too long ago and Russia just did.
India were a bit reckless with theirs, but theirs was also at a low altitude.
So enough with the dishonesty from you.
This post has been deleted by its author
True, but hypocrisy is hardly something new for the Americans. They scream every day in the papers about things that China does that they do themselves under different names and labels (e.g. what is the difference between China spending a billion dollars on their farms and the US giving their farmers a billion dollars in "subsidies"?)
It's not at all new, in fact it's SOP. We periodically have US governments whine about Canada limiting imports of US dairy. We don't subsidize our farmers, we have a managed supply system so that the prices are maintained at a level that farmers can stay in business. How could they compete with US farmers and their billions in direct subsidies?
There's joke that goes something like this
Two farmers are talking about next years crops, the first farmer asks the other if they are growing corn again next year, The second farmer replies that he's switching to alfalfa as the government pays him more to not grow alfalfa than to not grow corn.
There is a similar paragraph in Catch 22, though I don't know which came first
The status quo of agricultural labor in the US is that is defacto legal for agricultural employers to hire so-called illegal workers. Such employees rarely complain about their rights. In contrast, Canada requires employers to obtain visas for temporary labor, provided them with transportation to and from their country of origin, provide them housing and insurance for health care, stipulates a minimum wage and humane working conditions.
That's why Canadian milk costs more, and why Canadian small dairy farmers can stay in business while in the US only dairy farms that employ large numbers of de-facto-legally-employed illegally-working "illegals" can compete.
"only dairy farms that employ large numbers of de-facto-legally-employed illegally-working "illegals" can compete."
Total bullshit. I can show you any number of small, family run dairy farms here in Northern California which employ absolutely zero illegals.
Remind me again what this has to do with unnecessarily establishing orbital debris fields?
It's definitely true. Maybe California has some weed-smoking *woofers who are happy to work in the Golden State, but Iowa and other Midwestern states have a bunch of illegal workers.
"Roughly half of the nation's 1.4 million field workers (47 percent, or 685,000 workers) are undocumented immigrants. And that estimate, from the Labor Department, is a conservative one, with labor experts citing far higher percentages."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/08/24/iowa-murder-casts-spotlight-farms-hiring-undocumented-immigrants/1075320002/
*Woofers are people who work voluntarily for a year on organic farms. See https://wwoof.net/
Employees on dairy farms are not exactly your traditional "field workers", even on farms which grow their own cattle chow. Most of the ones I referenced above (or below, depending on how you read ElReg) are actually run by the family owner/operator, sometimes with a part-time local to assist with milking.
I agree with the wwoof concept, but here in the US at least, the implementation is usually far more exploitative than our more traditional use of migrant workers and in fact approaches indentured servitude. Thankfully the typical wwoof sucker worker has daddy back at home to wire them money for little details like boots and socks.
Really Mr. Nelson? You hypocrite! May I draw your attention to Operation Burnt Frost in Feb. 2008. The USA feared that a newish but out of control spy satellite may crash on land. There being a possibility (albeit small) of classified debris scattered in enemy country, say Russia, China or maybe the Independent Land of The Deep Fried Mars Bar. (AKA Sturgeonsville)
Mr. Nelson the USA were the first recorded nation to turn our space into a potential death trap.
Poor point, badly made.
The US was indeed the first to deploy an ASAT weapon. But it was not Burnt Frost - it was the test of ASM-135 back in 1985, before any permanent human outpost in spaaaace. That's long since burned up.
Burnt Frost was actually rather responsible, blowing up a satellite that we on the cusp of re-entry anyway (~350km) and leaving no appreciable debris. By contrast, the Chinese ASAT Test in 2007 (one year before Burnt Frost) targetted a satellite at 800km, the debris cloud from which still poses a threat to orbital traffic.
This Russian test is at a smidge over 500km, which means the debris field is eventually going to have to come down past the ISS (430km).
India's 2019 ASAT test likewise shot down a microsat at a mere 270km.
In this contest of international willy-waving, the US and India have behaved relatively reasonably, demonstrating capability whilst minimising consequence. The Chinese and Russians have behaved with reckless abandon, endangering a much larger regime of orbital operations as well as human life.
That when the US did it, there were no humans at risk from it. And yes, it was still very irresponsible then, but considerably less so. And being a first, it was a mistake as is often the case.
I was going to type that in my reply but I though that as a reader here that you'd have the brains to think of that yourself.
Being an apologist for selfish irresponsible idiocy is never a good look, nor is attempting to justify selfish irresponsible idiocy by pointing to someone else's selfish irresponsible idiocy.
Selfish irresponsible idiocy is selfish irresponsible idiocy.
And those guilty of it deserve all the shit that gets heaped on them.
> "I’m outraged by this irresponsible and destabilizing action," fumed NASA Administrator Bill Nelson.
> Really Mr. Nelson? You hypocrite!
Hypocrite? Not at all.
Expressing outrage at the stupidity of the military[1] - whether Russia's or America's - is a right, bordering on an obligation for a scientist.
[1] Other stupid Government departments are also available.
with its long and storied (uhm, WHAT?!) history, it's been shown a good few times that Russia don't give a flying monkey (...) about their own, after all 'we have plenty of people' (to spare).
This post has been deleted by its author
And the loss of Challenger had little to do with PR stunts (yes, it was the "first teacher in space", but blaming the victims for the loss of the vehicle they were in is pretty low).
The principle reasons for its loss were pork-barrel politics, the limited gauge of the US railways, and a reckless launch decision in sub-zero temperatures.
In essence, the booster rockets were designed the way they were, because the contracts to make them were put out to tender, and they ended up being made on the other side of the country, for largely political reasons. This meant that they had to be loaded onto trains to be transported, which in turn meant that they had to be of a limited diameter, and also made in sections. The joins between sections were sealed with rubber O-rings, which became brittle at low temperatures. On the day of the launch, the temperature on the launch pad was several degrees below freezing, which led to failure of one or more of the O-rings under the vibration of the launch, and an "explosive disassembly" of the craft.
I believe the "fix" to the redesigned boosters was to use a double O-ring, not to build them in one piece, as that would have been "too expensive". Still a risk, but a reduced one.
Columbia broke up because the protective heat tiles on the leading edge of the wing turned out to be more brittle than thought, and took a hit from a piece of falling insulation foam on take-off (the question remains as to why the design allows bits of foam to fall off), causing a hole in one of the tiles, allowing superheated plasma to enter the airframe during re-entry. It's a testament to how much of a chance occurrence this was that this was far from the first shuttle flight, and was the only failure of this kind as far as I am aware.
I suppose willy waving was what really inspired space exploration. After all sputnik and Mercury/Gemini/Apollo were really only about this sort of behaviour, we should expect that attitude to predominate but it is still a bit depressing that the most childish aspects of humanity have to come to the fore in space.
So long as none of it hits the JWST on its way up next month.
jake: "Either that, or it just looks normal now :-)
Don't you dare try to put your so-called "order" on my piling system!"
No, I can actually see the floor in every room now! :o)
I would not even dream of attempting to inflict my idea of order on anyone else's piles (I don't have suitable rubber gloves).
"That's 'electronics', mate. You'll have to take that to the council dump"
"No, that's hazardous waste. You'll have to get a licensed contractor to dispose of that"
(later it mysteriously appears at the side of the road, alongside half a Dalek and the diodes from Marvin's left side)
And if you live in Reading, UK, you have the delight of a 3 month trial of being able to carry it to the 'recycling centre' and drop it off at reception as a pedestrian, rather than needing to use a car and make an appointment. So make the most of it!
(This is entirely true. Having scrapped my car, and having some no longer wizard electronics, plus a couple of small fire extinguishers, I put the lot into a backpack and walked the 4 miles to the dump only to be told there is 'no pedestrian access'. I told the chap at reception that I was not intending to carry it the 4 miles home, and that if I had to it would all go into landfill. He took pity on me and said I could leave it with him and he'd deal with it in his break. So I sent an email to one of the relevant local councillors about it, pointed out that we are supposed to be using cars less due to global warming, and how about letting pedestrians drop off small amounts of waste? So they are giving it a trial for 3 months.)
BTW, half a Dalek might actually be quite valuable, depending on if it is an original BBC Dalek or not.
Russia? Being petulant and disruptive?
Why-- the very idea.
I, for one, shan't stand idly by as you churlish cads sully the long-standing reputation of such a civic-minded nation and compassionate administration as Russia.
You cowardly, self-serving opponents to Mommy Russia will just have to rotate your own space stations from now on.
This is why I don’t like space force fantasist. We could well end up with loads of useful orbits becoming useless and there is currently no technology capable of cleaning them up.
No explosive weapons or intentional debris generation should be used in orbit. It simply shouldn’t be a discussion.
It’s also hard to assume that an agency capable of building a space weapon isn’t capable of thinking through the consequences of using it. They either don’t care or they want to create debris fields. I don’t think there’s any “ooops we didn’t foresee that outcome.”
With the commercialisation of space and I would suspect a growing paranoia in certain countries about open access communications satellites that can’t be firewalled or blocked, you’re going to see a lot more chaotic messes in the years ahead, both with accidents and deliberate incidents.
Hopefully we’ll still be able to get to space!
Yeesh.
Yes there is history on this issue -- i.e. there have been cases where the US China and the Russians have made things go boom in orbit previously. One has to consider that there are subtly different parameters to those events, and thus because "space is big" substantially different outcomes to the boom.
Certainly both Russia and China have reasons NOT to like "orbital internet satellites" that might be available to certain portions of their populations, and oddly, that makes things start to make sense in a lot of ways.
I don't know that the orbit of this target was appropriate for cleaning out the starlinks and (whatever future constellations) are deployed for the internet. It does however fit the model if you will.
As for "cleaning up" what is already out there. Think using a dyson stick vacuum to clean up the plastic in the oceans. That is gonna take some time and a shitton of technology.
Given the vast areas involved, cleaning up orbits is probably an impossibility.
Plastic waste in the oceans is a far more doable task in comparison, and that’s proving to be an enormous challenge, despite being vastly more accessible, being actually on earth and in an environment we can reasonably function.
Cleaning an orbit of random bits of high speed debris just isn’t feasible. You might be able to get a few chunks cleaned up, but not the shrapnel crated by this.
All satellites should be able up be safely deorbited. It’s the only way we’ll ever get rid of them. It should be a mandatory part of the design.
The problem is it’s very much chaos. The rules are only as good as the ability to enforce them and without cooperation that’s not going to happen.
"Given the vast areas involved, cleaning up orbits is probably an impossibility."
It's not the vast "area" that is the problem...it's the vast "volume" of space (around the Earth, used for satellites) that all these debris fields will be inhabiting...
Satellites can orbit from about 150 km (93 miles) above the surface of the Earth, with many satellites orbiting between 160 km and 2000 km altitude...
THAT is a lot of space !
Higher altitude volume: = 4.18879×10^18 cubic metres
Lower altitude volume: = 1.76715×10^15 cubic metres
Actual volume is 4.1870229 10^18 cubic metres
Notes:
The highest altitude of an Earth orbiting satellite is constrained by Earths "sphere of influence" with a radius of 924,000km (measured from the centre of the Earth). For reference, the Moon is about 384,000 km away.
I'm counting on the development of some sort of shield technology for space craft LONG before some comes up with a cost-effective way of cleaning up the mess. Besides, shields would deal with bits of junk in space as well (which DOES EXIST, there is a lot more than the planets circling old Sol!)
Yes, you should have been there to see the way the Old Ones really polluted the inner solar orbits. Their scientists were always complaining that the space inside their orbits. on what we call Saturn and Jupiter, would just become one massive asteroid field and completely unusable.
It was really only luck that meant that 3 substantial rocky planets formed to gather in most of the mess, along with the remains of the solar monitoring station close to the sun and leaving just a narrow belt of asteroids.
> repair and replace bills arrive in Moscow
So you're going to sue the Russian government? You and what army?...
That's political and legal nonsense: First of all it's not like there aren't already heaps of rogue debris up there, and you'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt it's a fragment of this specific satellite which hit you before making any claim. Second, that's what insurances are for. Last, suing people only works if they cooperate. I'm pretty sure the Russian Army won't, and there isn't much you can do about it. You don't seriously expect your country (whichever it is) to start a war just because you pretend your satellite was destroyed by some allegedly Russian debris?...
Has anyone thought to ask exactly what sort of Soviet satellite it was?
Being unplanned, unannounced and hugely dangerous to alot of satellites nearby has to make you wonder what exactly was on the now large cloud of metal fragments that meant it really ought to be dealt with in such a way that it couldn't come down and leave traceable chunks?
I mean, perhaps the movies aren't too far fetched (I'm thinking Space cowboys here, rather than Armageddon) and it had something which really shouldn't be left alone anymore without creating bigger issues... Just wondering.
I mean... Its not like they haven't already had guns in space, a nuke armed satellite has also been rumoured for long enough that it wouldn't surprise anymore.
(I am also aware this opinion is close to tinfoil hat territory, and I'm still not saying it justifies making such a mess of things, it just might explain why such a measure was taken).
The BBC website says:
"On Monday, Russia carried out the A-Sat test from Plesetsk Cosmodrome, about 800km (500 miles) north of Moscow. The missile destroyed an old Soviet spy satellite, called Kosmos 1408, that was once part of Russia's Tselina radio signal surveillance programme."
"Kosmos 1408 was an electronic and signals intelligence (ELINT) satellite operated by the Soviet Union. It was launched into low Earth orbit on 16 September 1982, replacing Kosmos 1378."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_1408
If that were the case, they could have at least told other countries and perhaps even discussed what to do with it.
Considering the value of that altitude of orbit, ither countries may even have been willing to help.
No, this was a bizarre show of 'force' that wasn't necessary and was high irresponsible. Par for the course for the Russia of today.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
