Talk:Anti-satellite weapon

message: I suppose it would be off-topic to discuss the hazards of anti-satellite weapons such as the EMP shockwave amplified by the atmosphere (in greater detail) when using nuclear weapons in near-Earth space, or the plume of debris left by exploding missile shells and their targets left in orbit. I'd like to hear other peoples' view, though, because it's a bit of a reach. Oceanhahn 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some discussion at High altitude nuclear explosion about using nuclear weapons in space. In all, it's not especially dangerous to those of us on the ground. I suppose the altitude of the satellite in question is important, but really, the radiation, and certainly not any of the other blast effects, aren't going to reach us. Satellite chunks falling from the sky are problematic, but most satellites are less than a ton or two and wouldn't provide much of a problem. They'd break up into much smaller pieces on reentry, and are of course only 30% likely to hit land. Debris in orbit is much more of a problem, of course, but near earth orbit is chock full of debris anyways. One satellite isn't going to pose a great threat to anyone. If there were a sustained campaign against satellites, there would be far greater havoc on the ground than in orbit. Remember also that the debris itself is subject to reentry. ... aa:talk 19:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hazards

message: This page could probably use some references if someone has the time/inclination.--Will.i.am 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Shouldn't this article mention Starfire Optical Range's research? 89.180.130.194 20:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starfire Optical Range 

message: This could be added on a new article instead of putting it here. Might be an long article.-- Walter Humala Godsave him! (wanna Talk?) 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China Developing Anti-Satellite Technology 

message: This was a very good read, but I found that it would benefit greatly from a contents section like many Wikis have.
And obviously break the article into sections...
Ifpk454 06:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format for Clarity 

message: The new section on the Chinese missile launch suffers from recentism. There is nothing historically important in this launching, in relevance to this article. The technology and capabilities have been around for 20 years. It does not warrant it's own section. Significant enough to add to the article? Yes! Significant for its own separate section? No! Do not be so quick to justify its notability simply due to a news-crazed and sensationalistic network trying to catch viewers. ~ UBeR 01:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is at least 2 active US space weapon program (both by lockheed martin) at the time of china's ASAT test. US had and are developing space weapon(or defenses as they put it) so what china did was just being the 1st to lanuch a test in 21st century; in PRC opinion, it might have seen US and Russia had already demostrated their capability, hence they were just playing catch up to show they are "up there" with the leading nations. on defensenews, an analyst opinioned that the GPS is quite safe from this ASAT since there are backup system and they operate very far away from earth, and the ASAT china used is design more to take out spysat, such as those ROC-Taiwan is using to spy on China. as there is usually no redundancy spysat to get back online quickly, it could have a serious effect on intelligence during short hostility. i agree on it being sensationalized; it is quite a big thing "now", and maybe we can keep it around abit until it settledown. Akinkhoo 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't all the US tests been either outright failures or ridiculous charades, with the targets emitting homing signals rather than counter-measures?  Isn't hitting a real target more than the USA has managed during the last 24 years?  If so, I think that would make the Chinese efforts notable.  --  Geo Swan 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually both the USA and Russia have successfully done the same thing China did, except they did it over 20 years ago. One reason (I would argue the main reason) they stopped was because of the space pollution it caused. ~ UBeR 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on China

message: Is there any anti-ASAT weapon that satelites can use to defend against ASAT weapons? Any article for that? Frap (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti ASAT? 

message: "Especially when the US knew of the eventual outcome of the defunct satellite at least 1 year in advance which lead some to ask, 'why choose this time to destroy the satellite and not earlier.'"
I think that this should be edited to present a more neutral tone.  Isn't the reason for the intercept being delayed until just before re-entry to ensure that all the debris re-enters and does no become a space hazard?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.117.107 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that is a valid question. we don't know about the condition of said satellite until now, the military didn't refute the delay was for it to enter a given orbit neither. the satellite maybe in the same orbit for the past year, do you have the fact to back the claim that the orbital delay was recent? because i found no source on this. Akinkhoo (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political bias? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anti-satellite weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102073340/http://www.russianspaceweb.com:80/is.html to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219104728/http://hosted.ap.org:80/dynamic/stories/D/DEAD_SATELLITE?SITE=ORLAG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEAD_SATELLITE?SITE=ORLAG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-satellite weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0%2C22049%2C23251796-5001028%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150401012035/http://www.defencenow.com/news/343/india-contemplates-anti-satellite-vehicle-integration-with-agni-iii-ballistic-missile.html to http://www.defencenow.com/news/343/india-contemplates-anti-satellite-vehicle-integration-with-agni-iii-ballistic-missile.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-satellite weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917165913/http://astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-satellite weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171222051723/https://www.strategicfront.org/india-needs-demonstrate-asat-capability-publicly/ to https://www.strategicfront.org/india-needs-demonstrate-asat-capability-publicly/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I have had content about the debris effect removed (at least) twice together with references.  The first unsummarised by an anon IP,  by  was summarized by an allegation of pure (i.e. 100%) speculative content which is untrue.  Due to 3-RR rules I am unable to restore it without become involved in an edit war.  I would like suggestions to restore same or similar and seek consensus on such a matter in the first instance with intention for mediation if necessary.  I intend to tag the section for neutrality because of this and other content present.  The debris effect of the satellite destruction is important and I propose content about it is restored.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The (Bare URL) source I just tagged with a reference name of "ndtv1" includes the following quote from G Madhavan Nair, former chairman of India Space Research Organisation (ISRO).: "India's test done at an altitude of 300 km may not leave space debris for too long,".  I would be observe  G Madhavan Nair may or may not be neutral in this regard; however he would reasonably be assumed to be an authority on the subject and he has not provided certain reassurance there will not be a space debris issue.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * I will currently comment that the article currently promotes the (potentially biased) view of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs that ensures resulting debris would fall to earth within weeks (which I agree is probable but I all am looking for people to commit their life savings, assets and pensions on) as opposed to the other reuters source that has the headline U.S. studying India anti-satellite weapons test, warns of space debris and indicates 250+ pieces of space debris which would be would be monitored issuing “close-approach notifications as required until the debris enters the Earth’s atmosphere.  I believe the article is currently biased in this respect.  Possible Indian Ministry of External Affairs or related COI? Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

text: *:, I don't think its COI, probably just nationalistic POV editing. Patrick Shanahan initially warned about space debris, but the State Department's statement was more neutral on the topic. We should mention both, but the article currently only talks about the latter. —Gazoth (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * One could argue I've got a POV about ASAs causing space debris ... but I've hoping someone will can be bothered do some non POV editing on this soon.  If it isn't done by the time current is removed without a solid explanation here then a POV notice goes up on the section.  I've have content removed twice and two well sourced references binned so its perhaps inappropriate for me to persist until things stabilise. I've actually removed the article from my watchlist as too distractional to RL and other stuff.  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

text: *:, I have added some neutral opinions and Patrick Shanahan's original statement to the article. I did not restore Business Insider's statement about India's position in IADC being undermined by the ASAT test since it seems to be an outlier and no other article has mentioned it. However, the concerns about some debris moving to higher orbit was repeated and I have mentioned it with attribution. If you still have NPOV concerns, let me know. —Gazoth (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * @ Reading it through (without checking the double sources but they are similar to what I have read),  seems to give a excellently balanced content even managing to touch on the risk of fragments getting to higher orbit without over stating such concerns.  Seems very nicely put if I may say so.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space debris effect of India ASAT test 

message: The sections "Recent ASATs" and "ASAT development" should be merged in my opinion. There are two sections with info about India & Russia. If the merge is not agreed to, then the Russia & India material be merged into "Recent ASATs" and only Israel remain in "ASAT development". Looking for views on this? AshLin (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge two sections 

message: In the Limits of ASATs section, there is a discussion of the problems of intercepts that is either wrong or misleading.
"Although satellites have been successfully intercepted at low orbiting altitudes, the tracking of military satellites for a length of time would be less accurate than previous commercial or defective intercepts that did not employ any defensive measure like simple inclination changes. Depending on the level of tracking capabilities, the interceptor would have to pre-determine the point of impact while compensating for the satellite's lateral movement and the time for the interceptor to climb and move; U.S. intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) satellites orbit at about 800 km (500 mi) high and move at 7.5 km/s (4.7 mi/s), so a Chinese Intermediate-range ballistic missile would need to compensate for 1350 km (840 mi) of movement in the three minutes it takes to boost to that altitude"
Here's the thing: any launch is going to made against a target that is being tracked and whose current orbital elements are known. Thus, at the moment of launch, the interceptor knows exactly where the target will be at the computed moment of impact.
Thus, the ASAT system only needs to compensate for target maneuvers that happen after launch. And those are limited to the onboard delta-V, which is at most going to be in the hundreds of meters per second range (fuel is limited). Even if we assume a generous 500 m/s delta-V and that the satellite is commanded to change its orbit at the moment of launch (and can do it instantly!), in the 200 seconds before intercept the target can only change its position by 100km, not 1350km.
Furthermore, even this is misleading because you have to assume that the interceptor is being guided (either onboard or from the ground), so as soon as the target maneuvers, the interceptor can respond, and the earlier the target dodges, the longer it has to correct, and the smaller the correction has to be. And on top of that, the target has to know (or be told) that it is being attacked.
For this reason, the best defense strategy is probably to "jink" just before intercept. But the effectiveness of this will be marginal, because the interceptors are purposefully designed to be able to do large lateral delta-v changes, whereas for the target this ability is not their primary capability.
I do not make any claim to expertise in this area, so I do not feel qualified to edit the page, but I would suggest the above section be deleted and the surrounding sections be combined and expanded a bit. The important point (to my mind) is that even if you can knock out the ISR satellite, it doesn't help you all that much. You probably get more bang for your buck elsewhere.
Regardless of what the page maintainers decide, I would like to thank you for your time and effort in working on the page.
Madoverlord (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The part about tracking being inaccurate for military satellites seems to be original research. The part that follows depends on the assumption that China is unable to track military satellites. The reference used for that paragraph was only highlighting the importance of tracking satellites, but it seems to have been modified to mean something else here. —Gazoth (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad or misleading physics? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion