Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News China destroys satellite with missile

  1. Jan 18, 2007 #1
    Freedom!

    Hurray! Our president is bringing us freedom!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/w...&en=f9cca6749a53bb61&ei=5094&partner=homepage
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 18, 2007 #2

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What do you want to do? Run about the streets screaming "hypocrisy"?

    I'd be very surprised to hear that the US doesn't possess this capability. From what I've read or heard before, low orbit reconsats are easy prey to a slightly modified F-15 or F-22.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2007
  4. Jan 18, 2007 #3
    USA has had the capability since the '80's, as you'd know if you'd read a mere five lines into the quoted article. It's implementing the capability that counts.
     
  5. Jan 18, 2007 #4

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm with Gokul43201 -- you don't appear to have made any point at all.
     
  6. Jan 18, 2007 #5
    No point? China is developing anti-satellite weapons, and the neocons will follow in kind, because it is their American "freedom" to spend hundreds of billions on a new arms race whether anyone likes it or not. What's not to be concerned about?
     
  7. Jan 19, 2007 #6

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    None of this, of course, appeared in the opening post. :tongue:

    Hrm, you have literally quoted a statement of fact in the OP, and then you misquoted it here. Okay, so what? Facts are just facts (and misquotes are just dumb); they do not constitute a point.
     
  8. Jan 19, 2007 #7

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh, my mistake, I missed this. I guess you were making a point after all. I'm glad you're happy, but I think you misunderstood the article; it doesn't say he's bring us freedom. It says that the government intend to preserve what freedom we already have.
     
  9. Jan 19, 2007 #8
    No, Bush doesn't say he's preserving our freedom, he says he's excercing his freedom, specifically "freedom of action", which is his personal euphemism for "freedom to fulfill whatever multibilliondollar harebrained scheme I think up."
     
  10. Jan 19, 2007 #9

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You're reading the same article I am, right?

    the United States would “preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space”

    the United States would “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.”​

    I don't see this in the article either.


    I doubt that you opened this thread as an exercise in reading comprehension, so I'll ask again: what is your point?
     
  11. Jan 19, 2007 #10
    Rach, all you ever do is hype things up. Get a life.
     
  12. Jan 19, 2007 #11

    verty

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    He wants to preserve the freedom to deny freedom.
     
  13. Jan 22, 2007 #12
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003531646_chinasat190.html [Broken]

    We have spent $ billions trying to hit an incoming nuclear weapon, you know, the old hit a bullet with a bullet quasi technology. Now China spends a fraction of that amount and shows that they can knock out our surveillance satellites as well as our GPS system. Most of our advanced weapons use GPS for targeting.

    This is interesting, the Chinese can now stop us from starting a war unless we do it strictly low tech. We can however clean up the mess with Chinese made Hoover vacuum cleaners.:rolleyes: Some car owners might even have to learn how to read a road map again.

    It really irks me that I can not come up with a significant list of useful products that are not made in China. We do still make Crayons and playdough, but so does China.

    Perhaps American corporations have given the Chinese a bit too much of our technology. In years to come I doubt that we will see that there was any benefit in giving China our jobs and our factories so that we could maintain a faux appearance of prosperity.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  14. Jan 23, 2007 #13

    verty

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Why does it worry you that China produces so much? If it didn't, I suspect you would need to pay more for it.
     
  15. Jan 23, 2007 #14

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Jan 23, 2007 #15

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Last edited: Jan 23, 2007
  17. Jan 23, 2007 #16

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Not quite. They can hit our low orbiting satellites provided we maneuver them to make them easier to hit. They can't hit a GPS because GPS satellites have too high of an orbit.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  18. Jan 23, 2007 #17
    Bob
    What would make you think that they can't go higher? If not now, at the rate they are absorbing our technology, they will in the near future.
     
  19. Jan 23, 2007 #18
    That is also what the Romans suspected. China has our industrial base in a strangle hold and everyone looks the other way because we can buy a cheap microwave oven. And it is not just that, China is using our technology for military advancement. Plus they are producing more engineers than we are.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2007
  20. Jan 23, 2007 #19
    http://www.havelaptopwilltravel.com/future-chinese-gps-system-cant-be-jammed/

    Now we add this:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10472-chinas-satellite-navigation-plans-threaten-galileo.html

    They use the technology of the west to build systems and products that compete with our own. They produce it cheaper, we buy from them. It has gone on that way for far too long.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2007
  21. Jan 23, 2007 #20

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You don't think it is a more than significant technological leap to go from shooting down weather satellites orbiting directly overhead at an altitude of 500 miles to taking out GPS satellites orbitting somewhere at an altitude of over 10,000 miles? Do you anticipate the US technology to remain stagnant during the time it would take to make this transition?
     
  22. Jan 23, 2007 #21

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    How are either the Chinese (or the Europeans) going to make money on navigation satellites when the US makes navigation data available for free?

    In fact, pressure from foreign competitors is what motivated the US to remove the 'selective availability' from the data they did provide. It would reduce the chance of other countries going through the expense of developing their own satellite constellation, meaning the US could still reinstate selective availability in an emergency (and it would have to be a huge emergency).

    The remote chance of having navigation data taken away might provide some room for someone to provide guaranteed navigation data for a fee, but it seems to me that relying on a Chinese nav constellation built for the military would have the same risk as relying on a US nav constellation built for the military. Either one could be taken away.
     
  23. Jan 23, 2007 #22

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I'm sure they can go higher.

    The problem with hitting high altitude satellites is that it's hard to launch directly into a high altitude orbit. The typical method is to launch into a low orbiting parking orbit and then boosting the satellite into the target orbit (via a Hohman Transfer, for example).

    The problem is further complicated by needing to launch your ASAT into an orbit that matches the target satellite. That means a major satellite maneuver after launch or waiting the until the orbital plane of the target satellite happens to be directly over the launch site. Ground launched ASATs leave a lot to be desired. For high altitude satellites, you have to boost your satellite anyway, so you might as well combine the orbit plane change with your orbit boost, but that still puts some strict constraints on when you boost your satellite. You have to time your maneuvers so you wind up in the same orbit plane and wind up intersecting the target satellite and, unless you're going to leave a whole lot to faith, you have to be able to see your own ASAT to control it.

    Rather than developing or absorbing technology, the only way to streamline the process is to discover or absorb some new laws of physics.

    If a foreign country can detect your satellite launches and has a more effective method of destroying low orbiting satellites than you, then your ASAT might never live long enough to reach the higher orbit. You have to make sure your enemy doesn't know the satellite you just launched is an ASAT until it's too late to do anything about it.

    Which gets back to the original post. A treaty banning ASATs isn't worth much unless you can verify the other country doesn't have ASATs. About the only reliable verification is to allow the other country to inspect every satellite prior to launch and that's not going to happen. Without verification, any treaty is really just saying 'Let's trust each other'. If you really trust the other country, you could do that without a treaty.
     
  24. Jan 23, 2007 #23
    The free data is irrelevant ,I am talking about the Chinese marketing the hardware for GPS. ie hand held and automotive. As a matter of fact they already are. edit: And when their systems start selling for a fraction the cost of ours they will have taken over yet another US industry.

    http://www.made-in-china.com/produc...code=0&word=GPS&comProvince=nolimit&x=26&y=15
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2007
  25. Jan 23, 2007 #24

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    So what does that have to do with China setting up a GPS-like satellite navigation system? :confused: That article makes no sense and the idea of China (or Europe) spending billions to create a product to sell against a competitor who provides a better one for free doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2007
  26. Jan 24, 2007 #25

    Once again since you apparently missed it, I was primarily talking about the hand held and automotive units. That is where the money is in GPS. The process of setting up their own systems is currently underway in both Europe and China. The Chinese hold an interest in the European system that gives them access to their data.

    The Chinese are already making cheaper GPS devices that use our satellite free data feed. Yet they are adding another layer of control by deploying their own satellites. Essentially in a few years they will have taken over yet another US industry. If that is OK with you that is just fine and dandy.:rolleyes:

    From a military point of view, if the Chinese system uses a radio frequency close enough to ours, we will not be able to jam theirs without jamming our own, and possibly the Galileo system too. As I look again at the situation it seems that there would be no need for them to want to destroy our GPS satellites., which relates back to the OP.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2007
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook