From: ejr@cco.caltech.edu (Eric J. Raiten)
Subject: Re: Anti-Satellite Weapons
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:31:59 GMT


From ejr@cco.caltech.edu (Eric J. Raiten)

dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:


>From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

>In article <BvE5Lx.2pv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes:

>> 
>> Actually, the concept of anti-satellite weapons has been around a while.
>> Does anyone know if any where ever developed and furthermore ever deployed?
>> I don't know if the cost would be worth it, but the destruction of some
>> of the satellites used by Communication and Positioning systems, not to 
>> mention weather and intelligence gathering, might be quite desirable in a 
>> large conflict.
>> 
>> SJRD
>> 
>> 
>> 

>Both the US and the former Soviet Union had performed actual test of anti-
>satellite system. 

>The Soviet system was a payload placed in low earth orbit and maneuvered to a 
>certain distance from the target satellite.  A charge would then be set off 
>sending a pattern of shot at the target destroying it.  If you haven't seen 
>the parallel, it basically was a "space shotgun".  If I remember correctly 
>the system was tested in the early to mid 1980's.

    Actually, the Soviet system was first tested in the late 1960's.  Your
description of it as a coorbital system is esseentially correct, however.
Terminal guidance was either by radar or by IR, though the latter was NEVER
successful in its tests.  Also, all the tests were in a narrow range of
orbital altitudes (between 500 and 1500 km) and inclinations (60-65 degrees).
It is a curious fact almost no US satellite systems use this combination
of altitude and inclination (the lone exception I believe is the Transit
system, a now obsolete navigation system used primarily by the Navy).  Some
experts have suggested that the system is really directed against Chinese
satellites, though that conclusions is widely questioned.

>The US system was different.  It involved a rocket strapped to the bottom of
>a F-15.  The pilot would deliver the weapon to a pre-determined spot and time
>where the enemy satellite was going over.  The missile would be launched and
>directed to the oncoming satellite for a (I believe) direct skin-to-skin 
>contact or near enough to set off a proximity fuse sending metal fragments
>into the satellite to destroy it.  Basically, a large AAW missile for low
>earth orbit.  Clancy's second book, _Red Storm Rising_, describes how it would
>be used in greater detail than what I just wrote.

>As far as their current operational status, I don't think either are useable
>due to the recent arm-control treaties.  Its not a good thing to monitor the
>treaties from space if the other side keeps destroying your survelliance
>satellites ;-)   Thus, I think each side agreed to ban their use.  If I am
>mistaken, please let me know the real details.

     There is no treaty against ASATs, or to be more precise, against their
testing.  SALT (and presumably START) had provisions prohibiting interference
with "National Technical Means" (i.e., recon satellites), but that did not
affect  testing and development.  There were talks in the mid 80's on just
such a treaty, but they fell through and presumably now would not be
necessary.
>Don Palmrose
>"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."



Eric Raiten.

Newsgroups: sci.military