Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon

[Larry Jacks]

From this article (http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_space_story.jsp?id=news/CHI01177.xml) in Aviation Now (Aviation Week & Space Technology):

U. S. intelligence agencies believe China performed a successful anti-satellite (asat) weapons test at more than 500 mi. altitude Jan. 11 destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile.

The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA and other government organizations have a full court press underway to obtain data on the alleged test, Aviation Week & Space Technology will report in its Jan. 22 issue.

If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military capability.

Neither the Office of the U. S. Secretary of Defense nor Air Force Space Command would comment on the attack, which followed by several months the alleged illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser.

China's growing military space capability is one major reason the Bush Administration last year formed the nation's first new National Space Policy in ten years, Aviation Week will report.

"The policy is designed to ensure that our space capabilities are protected in a time of increasing challenges and threats," says Robert G. Joseph, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the U. S. State Dept. " This is imperative because space capabilities are vital to our national security and to our economic well being," Joseph said in an address on the new space policy at the National Press Club in Washington D. C.

Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center.

The attack is believe to have occurred as the weather satellite flew at 530 mi. altitude 4 deg. west of Xichang located in Sichuan province. Xichang is a major Chinese space launch center.

Although intelligence agencies must complete confirmation of the test, the attack is believed to have occurred at about 5:28 p.m. EST Jan. 11. U. S. intelligence agencies had been expecting some sort of test that day, sources said.

To hear some people, it's only the US that is "militarizing space." Tain't so.

[Doodler]

Oh...Em...Gee... :eek:

[MaDeR]

Nice, nice. When and where first orbital laser? :surprised

[Larry Jacks]

Nice, nice. When and where first orbital laser?

I don't know about an orbital laser, but the above linked article did say this:

Neither the Office of the U. S. Secretary of Defense nor Air Force Space Command would comment on the attack, which followed by several months the alleged illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser.

The US wants a space based laser but so far it doesn't seem likely one will be funded any time soon. There's a large model (more of a wet dream) of a space based laser hanging inside the Air Force Space Command building. That seems to be about the extent of it.

[Nicolas]

Someone pleeeeaaaaase think of the space debris!

[Torsten]

Nice going China. Finally figured out how to elegantly guide a device to a specific location in space to turn one piece of space junk into hundreds. They can be really proud of that achievement. /sarcasm

[MaDeR]

To hear some people, it's only the US that is "militarizing space." Tain't so.
I think that goal of China is simple - to assure that Bush sign proper treaties about that kind of weapons in space. Wonder why USA don't want to do that... ;)

[Larry Jacks]

I think that goal of China is simple - to assure that Bush sign proper treaties about that kind of weapons in space. Wonder why USA don't want to do that..

A treaty is just a piece of paper to be discarded when inconvienent. I doubt the Chinese would spend all that money to develop an ASAT capability with the goal of getting a signature on a piece of paper. More likely, this is another weapon in their inventory to be used when they see fit.

As for the debris, preliminary indications seem to indicate hundreds of trackable pieces and probably thousands of pieces too small to consistently track. Some estimates are that the larger pieces will stay in orbit for 10 years or more.

[Doodler]

I sincerely doubt this represents an immediate threat to US space interests. Lets face it, China can hate us all they want, but they're economically dependent on us, like it or not. This feels more like something to put in the face of the Indians and Japanese. Nations immediately bordering China, with various conflicting interests with China, that might not be so ruthless in response to an orbital attack.

[joema]

Here's a good article discussing history and utility of ASAT weapons: http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/blunt_arrows.htm

Several planned or currently operational U.S. missile defense systems probably have (or will have) significant ASAT capability: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/asat-capabilities-of-us-missile-defense-systems.html

[Zephyrus]

There's also an article on news@nature about the potential hazard posed by this test.
Here's the link: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070115/full/070115-14.html

[publiusr]

I sincerely doubt this represents an immediate threat to US space interests. Lets face it, China can hate us all they want, but they're economically dependent on us, like it or not.


That's why --during an extended, elevated stand-off--you time your attack during a meteor shower to mask the loss of both mil-sats.

We attacked you?

prove it.

[Doodler]

That's why --during an extended, elevated stand-off--you time your attack during a meteor shower to mask the loss of both mil-sats.

We attacked you?

prove it.

Dunno, most meteor showers seem to go off without a hitch in orbit. Unless you're thinking about a major buncha rocks passing through, in which case, its moot, because they'll be shaking in their boots over the integrity of their orbital hardware like us.

[publiusr]

You know that and I know that--but it still gives them "plausable deniability"

One more reason I like Space Based Laser? It's kill is cleaner depending on the hit. Fused boards and a melted component will bead/adhere to the main bus and not go flying all over as in kinetic strikes.

[Doodler]

You know that and I know that--but it still gives them "plausable deniability"

One more reason I like Space Based Laser? It's kill is cleaner depending on the hit. Fused boards and a melted component will bead/adhere to the main bus and not go flying all over as in kinetic strikes.


Meh, just EMP it and leave it where it is. The ideal solution is to disable it in place so it's not a threat to the targeter. Lasers can always hit fueltanks or other on board combustables, and you've got debris splatter.

[publiusr]

Yes--but with enough power--you can snipe at ground targets.

Then who needs carriers fighters, bases, etc.?

No wonder the military hates space.

[peteshimmon]

Surely much of the debris will have lost
orbital velocity?

[Sleepy_Sentry]

I haven't been keeping up on my space history, so please forgive me, but has the US developed any space weapons yet that can blow up satellites? I heard somewhere that the US did develop the same thing China tested last week in the 1970s, but I have been unable to verify that claim.

[Launch window]

Most of the USA's space weapons you see today have been around as concept or in practical tests for some time and the US hasn't built a new ICBM for decades. High altitude Nukes were detonated over the Pacific but once the public got word that nuclear tests and their fallout had entered the USA's 'food-chain' the green people started to get worried. Russians had their own cold war plans awell one of which was a Salyut space station which was to be manned with a gun and used to shoot satellites. During the 80s the US airforce tested an ASAT missile fired from an F15 to try to strike down a research satellite. Some argue GW's current missile defence plans are nothing more than the dusted off blueprints from Reagan's loved Starwars program, although its still debated how effective this missile shield will ever be.

[MaDeR]

is just a piece of paper to be discarded when inconvienent.
This is why USA says (http://www.space.com/news/070119_china_asat_response.html) that any new treaty is necessary? I see that little thing called "reputation" means for you nothing. And are you suggest that all peacy treaties, ban on nuclear weapon testing etc. are worthless? You must live on interesting, if not paranoidal, world. Good that is not my world.

I doubt the Chinese would spend all that money to develop an ASAT capability with the goal of getting a signature on a piece of paper. More likely, this is another weapon in their inventory to be used when they see fit.
Or simply both possibilities. You would be surprised how sometimes piece of paper can be powerful.

[Argos]

Surely much of the debris will have lost
orbital velocity?

I´d guestimate that at least half of the satllite mass will be deorbited in the next days.

[Doodler]

Or simply both possibilities. You would be surprised how sometimes piece of paper can be powerful.

Meaningful consequences are the key. What would be the meaningful consequence of failure to comply?

[Disinfo Agent]

A treaty is just a piece of paper to be discarded when inconvienent.You got the whole idea wrong. :D

[MaDeR]

Meaningful consequences are the key. What would be the meaningful consequence of failure to comply?
Depends of circumstances. You must provide concrete example, not general question.

I infer that in your opinion banning ASAT weapons would be useless?

[djellison]

From BBC News :
"While the US may be unhappy about China's actions, the Washington administration has recently opposed international calls to end such tests.

It revised US space policy last October to state that Washington had the right to freedom of action in space, and the US is known to be researching such "satellite-killing" weapons itself. "

The criticism from the US does bring to mind the words pot and kettle.

Doug

[The Supreme Canuck]

Meaningful consequences are the key. What would be the meaningful consequence of failure to comply?

Depends of circumstances. You must provide concrete example, not general question.

I infer that in your opinion banning ASAT weapons would be useless?

Before this goes much further, I'm going to try to explain what's going on with this argument. What we have here is a dispute between two of the big schools of thought in the field of International Relations. MaDeR is representing the Liberal (or Second Image) viewpoint, while Doodler is representing the Realist (or Third Image) viewpoint. Note that "Liberal" and "Realist" are the actual names and that I am not making a value judgement.

The Liberal perspective basically says that nations can be constrained by agreements an that by educating and improving governments, war can be eliminated entirely. Treaties are usually held to because both parties benefit, even if there is a short-term benefit to abandoning the treaty and invoking retaliation.

The Realist perspective says that nations always rationally seek what is in their best interest, not nescessarily what is in the interest of humanity as a whole. Treaties can only be binding if there is force to back them up. Since there is no world government, nations themselves must provide this force. For Realists, peace cannot be achieved without radically altering the structure of the international system; treaties alone will not do. It's all about minimizing the occurance of conflict through balance of power politics.

This is a fundamental and long-running debate in IR. I don't think we're going to solve it here. Might be a good idea to steer clear from it, just in case tempers start to flare. It is politics, after all.

[galacsi]

Is China agreing they have made such a test , or denying it ?

Is it real ? As oppose to BS from US Military . Because we have an exploded old satellite and what other evidence ?

[ClarksonN]

Some guys from China on another board were saying that the talk of space debris was simply propaganda designed to make the test look bad on China.

Yet one cant deny that this is both a very inpolite move, and potentially dangerous:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10999-antisatellite-test-generates-dangerous-space-debris.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1580595,00.html

[Doodler]

The Realist perspective says that nations always rationally seek what is in their best interest, not nescessarily what is in the interest of humanity as a whole. Treaties can only be binding if there is force to back them up. Since there is no world government, nations themselves must provide this force. For Realists, peace cannot be achieved without radically altering the structure of the international system; treaties alone will not do. It's all about minimizing the occurance of conflict through balance of power politics.

Ok, now that I'm feeling a little exposed, having been read like a book...

A few notes on Doodler's Realism.

1) Force isn't necessarily military all the time (I happen to like it because its the most return for applied effort). Economic and diplomatic consequences are just peachy keen by me when applied appropriately and intelligently.

2) Its not that I don't trust anyone, but there's a force in life called "due dilligence". The benefit of the doubt lasts until the background check is complete. I believe it was best said by Reagan to Gorbachev, "We trust, but we verify".

The thing that scares me about some of these treaties is that they're founded almost entirely on fear of losing face. Without actual consequences, you get the kind of response to such courtesy treaties that the world did when the US antiballistic missile system was announced. These can be discarded on a whim at the will of a leader who doesn't care about the world's opinion.

Specific to the conversation, and to answer MaDeR, there was a ban, it was a piece of paper, and its power was illusory. What was the consequence of non-compliance? A few modestly harsh condemnations? Somehow, I don't think certain members of the US leadership were overly impressed.

As far as I'm concerned, another space weapon ban written similarly would be the same breed of jetwash. Its a fluff piece designed for public relations and the ability to say "Look, we did something". Its got all the weight of toilet paper in terms of what it will actually regulate without some kind of real penalty for non-compliance.

Make it worth their while not to do something, or make the prospect of doing it terrifying.

And yes, I mean if the world doesn't want anyone developing space weapons, I'm inviting the world to propose something that makes going forward with the development of them utterly terrifying to the US. Call me crazy, but I lived to see the end of one arms race, I really don't need a reminder.

[joema]

...has the US developed any space weapons yet that can blow up satellites? I heard somewhere that the US did develop the same thing China tested last week in the 1970s, but I have been unable to verify that claim.
The US had an operational anti-satellite beginning about 1963 with a modified Nike-Zeus, called "Project 505": http://www.paineless.id.au/missiles/NikeZeus.html

The 2nd US operational anti-satellite system used a Thor missile; it was called "Program 437". Both systems used ground-launched missiles armed with nuclear warheads: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proam437.htm

In the late 1970s, the US developed a kinetic (non-nuclear) air-launched anti-satellite weapon. It was manufactured by Vought, called the Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle (ALMV), and launched from an F-15 fighter plane. The system was fully developed and initial plans were for 100 missiles. However I don't think it was ever officially declared operational. The program was terminated in 1988, citing high costs and limited capability: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/almv.htm

The current operational US National Missile Defense, using ground-launched interceptors based in Alaska, probably has significant ASAT capability. The official name is Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD): http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/gmd/index.html

The Navy sea-launched Aegis/LEAP (sometimes called Navy Theater Wide, now Sea-Based Midcourse Defense) is another anti-missile system with probable anti-satellite capability. It's not yet operational, don't know the current timeframe.

The Boeing Airborne Laser (ABL) is another anti-missile system with likely anti-satellite capability. It was originally planned to be operational by 2008, but development difficulties have delayed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser

The bottom line is most exoatmospheric anti-missile systems inherently have some anti-satellite capability, even if that's not their main design purpose.

History and utility of ASAT weapons: http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/blunt_arrows.htm

Summary of several U.S. missile defense systems with probable ASAT capability: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/asat-capabilities-of-us-missile-defense-systems.html

[Larry Jacks]

ASATs typically come in two flavors - direct ascent and co-orbital. They can also use either kinetic energy (direct impact), exploding warhead, or a nuclear detonation to take out the target. The direct ascent variety never needs to achieve orbit. They simply have to be able to climb high enough to intercept the target satellite and hit it with enough kinetic energy to destroy it or to detonate a weapon. Truth be told, any IRBM with a nuclear warhead could be used as a type of direct ascent ASAT if it is accurate enough, but the EMP effects could well do massive damage to the launching country's infrastructure.

I haven't been keeping up on my space history, so please forgive me, but has the US developed any space weapons yet that can blow up satellites? I heard somewhere that the US did develop the same thing China tested last week in the 1970s, but I have been unable to verify that claim.

As other posters have noted, the US has at times tested ASAT weapons. However, none are currently operational. Our last ASAT test was in 1985 when a direct ascent ASAT that used direct impact was launched against an old satellite that was successfully destroyed.

The old Soviet Union had an operational co-orbital ASAT for many years but, to the best of my knowledge, it has been abandoned. The last test for it was back in the 1980s. Their ASAT used an exploding warhead and shrapnel to destroy the target.

The bottom line is most exoatmospheric anti-missile systems inherently have some anti-satellite capability, even if that's not their main design purpose.

The new ABM weapons being developed can potentially have some ASAT capability. I don't know if the Navy missiles launched from an Aegis cruiser can get high enough to destroy most satellites of interest but I'm reasonably sure the ground based missiles being fielded in Alaska and California can. To be an effective ASAT, you have to be able to reach the target's altitude. The most militarily interesting satellites are typically in orbits over 400 kilometers high.

Surely much of the debris will have lost orbital velocity?

According to my just retired work partner (who had a Ph.D in astroengineering), satellites are fragile enough that the impact would cause the target to break into hundreds, even thousands of pieces. Some of the pieces would lose enough energy to reenter but many will be up there for 10 years or more. It depends on many factors, such as the altitude, the mass and surface area of the pieces, and the relative mass and impact angle between the intercepter and the target.

As for my earlier remark about treaties being little more than pieces of paper, I cite the examples of the Munich Pact and the non-aggression treaty between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Both were used to buy time until they could be ignored. Personally, I put very little faith in diplomatic agreements.

[joema]

...As other posters have noted, the US has at times tested ASAT weapons. However, none are currently operational...
Note that although the US Ground-Based Midcourse Defense isn't a purpose-built ASAT system, it is now operational and could probably intercept satellites if so ordered. The booster achieves about 19,000 ft/sec (5.9 km/sec). Not sure what the altitude limit is, but it would be pretty high.

http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.23/system_detail.asp

[The Supreme Canuck]

Ok, now that I'm feeling a little exposed, having been read like a book...

Sorry about that. I don't often get to say things within my area of expertise on BAUT, so I jumped at the chance.

[MaDeR]

MaDeR is representing the Liberal (or Second Image) viewpoint, while Doodler is representing the Realist (or Third Image) viewpoint.
I wonder what is First Image viewpoint.

(Description of Second Image)
Do not hold horses. Call me idealistic idiot. Go ahead.

(Description of Thrid Image)Treaties can only be binding if there is force to back them up.
Force, mutual benefit, anything that works will be fine for me.

Is China agreing they have made such a test , or denying it ?
They say no word about this test, only general BS about non-militarizing space. I imagine that if these accusations about ASAT test was false, then China would protests, screams and demand blood and Pokemons from liars.

Some guys from China on another board were saying that the talk of space debris was simply propaganda designed to make the test look bad on China.
Yeah, because laws of physics are not applicable to Great Chinese Nation... :D

[peteshimmon]

All this takes me back 40 years to when I had
a heavyweight Sunday paper delivered so I had
some alternative to the family tabloid. The
first one had an article about anti ballistic
missiles. First I heard about Sprint missiles
although a small book I had described Nike Zeus.
Fascinating! Five years passed and a colour
suppliment showed the first operational base
for the system. Thirty nuclear tipped missiles
ready to go! Another few years and a treaty
comes between the Soviet Union and the USA. And
the Pentagon cannot decommision the base fast
enougth! I remember a documentary describing how
Khrushchev confided with Eisenhower how his
military kept proposing very expensive systems
and they had to accept most or appear reckless
with security! And Eisenhower went on to warn
against the Military/Industrial complex.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I wonder what is First Image viewpoint.

Well... the First Image describes individuals rather than states or the international system as the most important actors.


Do not hold horses. Call me idealistic idiot. Go ahead.

Not my intention. I just saw that the debate was getting heated and stepped in to calm the waters since the topic was rather political. Sorry if it came off as patronizing.

[MaDeR]

Very interesting:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012207E

[Doodler]

Not my intention. I just saw that the debate was getting heated and stepped in to calm the waters since the topic was rather political. Sorry if it came off as patronizing.

Speaking for myself, I wasn't looking for a fisticuffs, just standing by the belief that this didn't seem to be something that could be won through a simple courtesy treaty. Not to say those don't work, but there's usually some level of trust between the component parties of such agreements.

Call me blind, but I just don't see it here.

[Damburger]

Given the stated intention of the US to establish a monopoly of force in space, this is hardly a shocking development. If I were running China, I wouldn't have done anything different. The Chinese are just trying to make sure they won't have their access to space restricted by the Americans. I don't consider this move threatening at all.

[gwiz]

Surely much of the debris will have lost orbital velocity?

According to my just retired work partner (who had a Ph.D in astroengineering), satellites are fragile enough that the impact would cause the target to break into hundreds, even thousands of pieces. Some of the pieces would lose enough energy to reenter but many will be up there for 10 years or more. It depends on many factors, such as the altitude, the mass and surface area of the pieces, and the relative mass and impact angle between the intercepter and the target.

Apparently a lot of the debris has gained velocity and gone into higher orbits. Not sure if this was due to an explosive warhead or a kinetic intercept from behind.

[Larry Jacks]

Given the stated intention of the US to establish a monopoly of force in space, this is hardly a shocking development.

That's a gross mischaracterization of US policy. We're heavily dependent on space for our military and intend to protect our access to space. That doesn't mean we're trying to achieve a monopoly. If an opponent tries to use their space assets against US or allied forces, our policy is to do what we can to disrupt their operations. In essense, that's no different than stopping resupply ships or truck convoys. Would you make the claim that the US is trying to monopolize the oceans or roads?

Some people put a lot of faith in arms agreements and treaties. From my perspective and that of history, that's naive. Arms agreements only have meaning if all sides actually stick to them. In the past, this has hardly been the case.


Here's a famous quote from someone who put too much faith in a signed piece of paper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement).

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.

Neville Chamberlain

Eleven months later, Hitler invaded Poland and World War II began. Oh, if Stalin were still around, you could ask him about the value of treaties, too.

[Doodler]

Given the stated intention of the US to establish a monopoly of force in space, this is hardly a shocking development. If I were running China, I wouldn't have done anything different. The Chinese are just trying to make sure they won't have their access to space restricted by the Americans. I don't consider this move threatening at all.

Interesting. I remember that policy statement a while back, I don't recall the concept of a sole monopoly being mentioned, simply the ability to prevent our access from being restricted.

[Doodler]

Got a question for those of you aiming the blame cannon with the US in their sights.

Have any of you thought your knee jerks through enough to consider that space weapon systems don't just pop up overnight, or over the course of a year or so? If anyone thinks this test is a specific response to that policy statement a few months back, get some perspective. The necessary support technology to deploy this system, if its reached even a testable level of operational capability now, has been cooking for a while in ground tests, simulation and development. This thing is easily pre-dating the Bush memo, probably more closely related to the relative successes the US has had with the development of its ABM defense system, trying to get one up on the US from that perspective, than anything to do with stated ambitions for space weaponry of our own.

[Damburger]

Interesting. I remember that policy statement a while back, I don't recall the concept of a sole monopoly being mentioned, simply the ability to prevent our access from being restricted.

Here is the washington post on the subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484_pf.html

President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."

This is pretty much outright saying that the US wants to control China's access to space. Aggressive statements don't sound so aggressive when its your nation issuing them.

[Argos]

Apparently a lot of the debris has gained velocity and gone into higher orbits. Not sure if this was due to an explosive warhead or a kinetic intercept from behind.

There´s no doubt about the nature of the impact. The use of a warhead in space would have set a dangerous precedent. And btw, the Chinese didn´t test a 'anti-satellite weapon'. They´ve tested a method to take out a satellite using a rocket.

[Larry Jacks]

Apparently a lot of the debris has gained velocity and gone into higher orbits. Not sure if this was due to an explosive warhead or a kinetic intercept from behind.

There´s no doubt about the nature of the impact. The use of a warhead in space would have set a dangerous precedent. And btw, the Chinese didn´t test a 'anti-satellite weapon'. They´ve tested a method to take out a satellite using a rocket.

If the reports of debris pieces ending up in higher orbits than the target are accurate (and I think they are), then that indicates the interceptor must have struct the target somewhat from below as opposed to a direct head-on impact.

Warheads on an ASAT are nothing new. The Soviet Union's co-orbital ASAT program of the 1970s and 80s used a warhead. They tested it many times.

The Chinese test was most definitely an ASAT weapon. Killing a satellite is a non-trivial task. It was a deliberate operation to destroy the target with equipment made for the purpose, not merely "take out a satellite using a rocket".

[Blob]

Hum
it was just an impactor.

Latitude=28.27162 Longitude=102.00292

Here is an image of the Xichang Space Centre, and another which strangely has been censored by google...

[Doodler]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16757285/

Heads up, China's confirmed the test. It happened.

[NEOWatcher]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16757285/

Heads up, China's confirmed the test. It happened.

Asked about the danger posed by satellite fragments, Liu said he was not in a position to give an immediate response. “This is a highly technical question,” he said.
:eh:
Or more likely: "If we told you anything about size and trajectories, it would reveal more about what we did."
I see a lot of double talk being made at this time... But; I won't get into it because it could get too political.

[Doodler]

"If we told you anything about size and trajectories, it would reveal more about what we did."

Naturally.

[Blob]

Hum,
the size, orbit and trajectories can `easily` be guessed/worked out.

If i have some spare time from playing Quake, i`ll see if any large fragments are due to re-enter the Earths atmosphere.

[Blob]

Hum,
simpler than i thought...

Debris (1999-025E) from the Chinese Feng Yun (Wind and Cloud) 1C polar orbit weather satellite that was launched in May, 1999, is predicted to re-enter the Earth atmosphere around noon on the 4th February 2007, ± 12 hours.

(Recap: The satellite was destroyed by an anti-satellite system launched from the Xichang Space Centre on 11 January, when it was passing 865km overhead.)

This piece of debris has currently the lowest orbit (orbit inclined at 99.443 degrees); other pieces (at least 33) have been scattered into an orbit as high as 3499 x 845 km, with orbits inclined as much as 100.158 degrees.

The polar satellite had originally an orbital height and inclination of 860 x 882 km, 98.6degrees.

TLE Data

FENGYUN 1C DEB
1 29716U 99025E 07024.49494127 .01363722 33951-5 74796-3 0 192
2 29716 099.4426 017.3279 0364082 273.4912 082.4608 15.51951446 1719
1 29716U 99025E 07023.91433350 .01390212 33879-5 85396-3 0 178
2 29716 099.4450 016.5605 0366117 274.6917 081.2592 15.50458593 1622
1 29716U 99025E 07023.91433388 .01388963 33879-5 85566-3 0 189
2 29716 099.4451 016.5607 0366017 274.6927 081.2501 15.50454943 1620
1 29716U 99025E 07023.52695506 .01394895 33843-5 84444-3 0 162
2 29716 099.4442 016.0514 0371283 275.8180 080.0741 15.49414372 1563
1 29716U 99025E 07022.94540536 .01412604 33792-5 87485-3 0 158
2 29716 099.4442 015.2907 0377187 278.0657 077.7892 15.47858472 1474

[gwiz]

Here's (http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/IowaTom/Fengyun1Corbits.jpg) a nice visualisation of the orbital data. The pictures are a stereo pair, if you have a dual lens viewer handy or can manage the cross-eyed trick without a viewer. The orbit/blob labelled Fengyun 1C is where the original satellite would be without the impact.

[Blob]

Hum,
nice image,

Yes, according to my calculations, at around noon the original satellite position would have been over Antarctica (142° west 73° south); the first piece of Fengyun 1C debris due to renter has a very similar orbit.

[Captain Kidd]

radar is tracking at least 525 pieces of debris from the collision -- each at least the size of a baseball.
There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller ones.
...
"We've already seen in the range of 500 to 600 events where some piece of debris from this one event was coming within 5 kilometers [about 3 miles] of some payload," said Kelso.
...
But the ring of debris from the Chinese debris has already spread out enough that the station passes through it twice on every 90-minute orbit of the earth.From ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2841745), 02/01/07

[Doodler]

Blowing up satellites is bad, m'kay?

When that junk starts deorbiting, its going to be fun.

[Launch window]

US Debates Response To Chinese Anti-Satellite Test
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Debates_Response_To_Chinese_Anti_Satellite_Test _999.html

[Larry Jacks]

From AviationNow: China Asat Test Called Worst Single Debris Event Ever (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw021207p2.xml)

Chinese delegates will have some explaining to do in Vienna later this month, when they sit down with representatives of other spacefaring nations to adopt international guidelines designed to mitigate the growing problem of man-made space debris in Earth orbit.

The document drafted by a technical subcommittee of the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is aimed at preventing the sort of accidental events that have gradually engulfed Earth in a cloud of potentially destructive high-speed debris since the flight of Sputnik 1 kicked off orbital spaceflight a half-century ago. Chinese experts helped draft the document.

But China's Jan. 11 test of a primitive anti-satellite weapon against an aging weather satellite boosted the population of trackable debris by more than 900 objects--an instantaneous 10% increase in the 50-year figure--that threaten all spacecraft flying below about 2,000 km. (1,243 mi.).

"We still await a complete explanation from China as to how this ASAT test squares with its professed desire to seek only peaceful uses of space," says a U.S. State Dept. official, presenting the official U.S. government position on the test.

The test impact over the Chinese launch site at Xichang came with the target--the Feng Yun 1C weather satellite--in polar orbit at an altitude of 537 mi. (AW&ST Jan. 22, p. 24). The satellite and the missile-launched Asat weapon shattered into thousands of pieces that were thrown into a wide range of orbits ranging in altitude from 3,800 km. on the high end down to about 200 km. at the lowest, according to Nicholas Johnson, NASA's chief scientist for orbital debris and a longtime expert in the field.

"This is by far the worst satellite fragmentation in the history of the space age, in the past 50 years," he says.

As of last week, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network (SSN) in Colorado Springs had cataloged 647 of the 900+ items its sensors were tracking. On average, those objects must be at least 10 cm. (3.9 in.) in diameter to be tracked from the ground, although smaller objects can be pinpointed with the two radars at the Haystack Observatory in Tyngsboro, Mass., operated by MIT Lincoln Laboratory for the Defense Dept., and with other systems in the SSN.

One of the reasons why they have not been able to catalog all of the pieces yet is that you have to be sure each of your element sets consistently define the orbit of the same piece each time. Many of the pieces are too small to reliabily track with more space surveillance sensors, meaning it's hard to define good element sets because of too few dispersed observations.

[Doodler]

Poetic justice would be some of that debris striking a future Shenzhou flight.

[Launch window]

Poetic justice would be some of that debris striking a future Shenzhou flight.

I'd never want that to happen, as much as you disagree with this military ASAT test astronauts or taikonauts have little say in a nations foreign policy and nobody really wished to see people like Yuri, Glenn or Valentina killed even during the height of the cold war.

On a related note
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1853654.htm
US vice president, Dick Cheney, and Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, have agreed on the need to closely monitor China's military capacity in space

[Doodler]

I'd never want that to happen, as much as you disagree with this military ASAT test astronauts or taikonauts have little say in a nations foreign policy and nobody really wished to see people like Yuri, Glenn or Valentina killed even during the height of the cold war.

Hehe, if you say so. You wear the uniform, you get to play damage sponge for the people you salute. Can't take the heat, don't wear the uniform. They don't make policy, but they do have the privelige of being said policy's first victims.

As for tragedies striking adversaries with whom you're competing, anything that puts them behind puts you ahead. No one would have said it openly that they would have like to see a Cosmonaut fail, you can bet there were some honest sighs of relief when N-1 when kaboom. The pressure on NASA to "beat the Russians" died that day, and I sincerely doubt anyone missed it. I also don't recall too many tears shed over the Cosmonauts lost when an undocking mishap vented their capsule's atmosphere into space, leaving them the first victims of the void. You didn't celebrate, maybe, at least when the cameras were looking, but I have no doubts every Soviet failure made someone's day a little brighter in the US government.

The world might be kinder and gentler these days (or in Doodlervision, toothless and spineless), but the competition is still there. This test was a warning shot across the bow, if you don't see its full implications, look again, without the rose colored glasses. The gauntlet is on the ground, and I'm seriously concerned whether the US has enough backbone to pick it up. I'll really shiver if I hear anything remotely close to "peace in our time" when the inevitable power shift in DC results in a treaty to ban, at all costs, space weapon development.

[Doodler]

FYI, just to clarify. I said "hit it", not destroy it. A nice Apollo 13 analogue in LEO would serve as a sufficient lesson in orbital etiquette.

[SolusLupus]

The world might be kinder and gentler these days (or in Doodlervision, toothless and spineless), but the competition is still there.

(emphasis mine).

Jeez, Doodler, sometimes I wonder if you're just a 2-dimensional copy of an action hero gone wrong. You fit almost all the stereotypes of a gun-totin', tobacco-chewin', redneck sonuvagun that'll kill you as much as look at ya for bein' a commie, an illegal, Chinese, Japanese, Californianese, liberal son of a cow.

I'm not meaning for this to be Ad Hominem, but you really do play up to the image, don't you? ;)

[Doodler]

(emphasis mine).

Jeez, Doodler, sometimes I wonder if you're just a 2-dimensional copy of an action hero gone wrong. You fit almost all the stereotypes of a gun-totin', tobacco-chewin', redneck sonuvagun that'll kill you as much as look at ya for bein' a commie, an illegal, Chinese, Japanese, Californianese, liberal son of a cow.

I'm not meaning for this to be Ad Hominem, but you really do play up to the image, don't you? ;)

Actually, despite relations, I speak very proper English. Never touched tobacco in any form, wouldn't shed a tear over the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and have absolutely no problem dealing with people from a dozen different cultures. Heck, I get into arguements with some of my more 'redneck' friends (they define themselves as such) because their attitudes on foreign relations make me look like Kofi Annan in comparison.

That said, when it comes to international relations, I tend to call a spade a spade and deal in realities. I also prefer direct action and real consequences. The etiquette games that are played too often mask the simple truth that different cultures do not get along when their interests collide and compete.

I really hate the soundbite culture of media that mixed with political correctness in the last 17 years or so. I could go on, but then this response would get far too politic for this place.

[Nicolas]

FYI, just to clarify. I said "hit it", not destroy it. A nice Apollo 13 analogue in LEO would serve as a sufficient lesson in orbital etiquette.

I can agree on that. That said, the international feedback would be less than a chenzou 13 scenario, but it would be more poetic justice if one of their military spy satellites was wiped out by the debris.

The action was bad in that it was both a military space action and a cause of an awful lot of space debris. I don't care who did it, but an action involving those 2 elements always is a bad action IMO. Getting the recoil on a toy of their own military space program would be nicer than on an astronaut having the time of his life out there.

[Blob]

Hum,
Only Nixon could go to China - (it's an old Vulcan proverb).