US Satellites Dodging Chinese Missile Debris 331
GSGKT writes "Today's Washington Times runs a story about the increasing problem with space junk orbiting the earth. Debris from the anti-satellite missile test by the Chinese military last year threatens the integrity of more than 800 operating satellites, half of them belonging to the US. Two orbiting U.S. spacecraft were forced to change course to avoid being damaged soon after the incident. Air Force Brig. Gen. Ted Kresge, director of air, space and information operations at the Air Force Space Command in Colorado, estimates that
"essentially (Chinese anti-satellite tests) increase the amount of space debris orbiting the Earth by about 20 percent", and the debris might threaten spacecraft for up to 100 years."
SanctionThem? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's left, political pressure? Because of how much China listens to political pressure concerning their own policies? Military pressure?
I do not see it.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe that's what the chinese wanted (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm going out on a limb here, but I will assume this is code for 2 spy satellites.
In that case, since the US has many more spy satellites than the chinese, is this just their way of levelling things out a bit?
Yes, it makes space less accessible, but when you're behind your "competitor" then they have more to lose than you do. Sadly this kind of logic has an attraction to the less responsible elements present in some governments.
Re:That's a laugh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember who bought up all the steel reserves and is now slowly selling it back to the US? Have you ever been inside ANY manufacturing plant...at all..ever?
US industry would SHUT DOWN ENTIRELY if china pulled the plugs, or be cripplingly disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world if they decided to place punitive tarrifs. And if you think this is limited to crappy dvd players and laser pointers, do not forget that factory farms that are responsible for your daily food run off harvesters and harvester parts made primarily from components from china.
Do you have any idea how the world around you works at all?
they're being smart (Score:2, Insightful)
After all the countries the US has invaded recently when they don't behave according to US wishes, any nation NOT preparing to defend themselves from the USA is being foolish. The US is seen as a bigger threat to world peace than any other nation right now, and it is only prudent to prepare to defend yourself.
The US is telling lies (Score:1, Insightful)
One wonders whether the US has taken down all "space junk" it has created since it first launched satellites. Of course not . But here we are blaming the Chinese!
Space junk has been a problem since the sixties. Let's be real. The US is always engaged is an attitude of self righteousness which is wrong.
I urge the Chinese to move forward with their plans and "catch up" with the US if in fields they are behind. The US should understand that space is no-longer its domain alone. There are other players that are catching up fast.
Re:Possible outcome. (Score:4, Insightful)
The US military is completely dependant on their technology and the rest of the world knows it. Do their cruise missiles even work without GPS?
Any war by the US against a significantly developed nation runs the risk of rendering space completely useless for the next century. Think about the collateral damage from such a war taking out weather/TV/communications on top of the GPS which would almost certainly be targeted on purpose. The economic damage from that stupidity would be huge.
Letting the Americans know that was most likely a major reason behind the missile test in the first place and it's also why the Americans won't retaliate.
Re:SanctionThem? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the US economy decelerating and the loss of confidence in the US dollar, the US can't afford to stop trading with China. This move would essentially crash the global economy, and the US has the most to lose due to its massive foreign debt.
Most people don't realise just how rotten the American economic policy is. Back in 71, Nixon realised that the US could no longer finance the Vietnam war without printing money like mad. But the gold standard prevented the Fed from doing that, so he unilaterally cancelled the Bretton Woods system that made the US dollar convertible to gold. This was a total surprise, because he neglected to consult international bankers, and became known as the Nixon Shock. So from that moment on, the US effectively started printing gold. Of course this move didn't fool the bankers around the world, so the Fed had to raise interest rates to 21%/year to convince them to carry on using dollars. Over many years, the markets sort of returned to normal, despite the fact that the US debt had risen to unprecedented levels.
In 2006, the Fed was printing so much money that it stopped publishing the M3 money supply data in order to hide this fact. So now no one really knows how much money the Fed prints. We just estimate that the US foreign debt grows at the rate of $3 billion per day, mostly due to overseas military spending and interest on the already existing debt. This is despite the fact that the US is creating money out of thin air to partially cover this debt. A consequence is that the dollar has fallen in value about 15% in the last year against the Euro.
It bothers me a lot when the Fed governors propose what they call "financial incentive packages". These are usually composed of tax rebates and the central banks injecting money into the markets. Again, it's more money that was created out of thin air, and the tax rebates reduce the government's capacity to cover that money or to cover the debt. It's a temporary fix to the longstanding lack of financial discipline.
The general population typically doesn't care, and this includes Slashdot readers. They think that economics is awfully boring and complicated, and that the government is capable of taking care of policy. But the opposite is happening, and the US debt is getting out of control. This spending obviously makes politicians and contractors a lot of money, so they'll keep doing it until the economy crashes.
Re:Weapons (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
"We didn't attack your satellites, we attacked our own (*cough*and used it to create a floating fragmentation grenade*cough*)"
Re:Space Invaders (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SanctionThem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything that is already in orbit before you get there is your responsibility to avoid.
So if your satellite blows up because someone "new junk" damages it then that countries/entities responsibly for the damage to the satellite and future damage from the consequential debris from it.
When it comes to collecting against governments there are tons of ways to collect if they have the money. The most likely being deduction or increase of trade deficits. And the companies in return get a big fat deduction on their taxes.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does point out a problem with space warfare though. With current technologies or anything resembling them, there's only going to be one battle and a short one at that. After a few dozen satellite destructions, there will likely be so much junk in orbit that near earth satellite lifetimes will be measured in weeks and manned spaceflight will be ill advised for decades or maybe centuries.
Re:Weapons (Score:3, Insightful)
It basically points out that it would be pretty stupid to have everything reply on delicate electronics in space, and sorry, it's not that easy to beat the US military, no matter how unpopular its presidents actions may be.
"The US has no weapon systems that are GPS guided and never has, precisely because it is vulnerable. The Chinese may have just now gotten around to developing anti-satellite technology, but the Soviet Union had it ages ago.
The core guidance package of US weapon systems is extremely high precision inertial navigation (all systems described as "GPS-guided" are actually inertial -- the media is a bit stupid about these things, as GPS is an optional untrusted overlay on inertial navigation systems). Some intelligent terrain following weapons also use optical geo-referencing. As a matter of policy going back to the Soviet Union days, the US military machine views satellite systems as "nice to have" but its infrastructure is pervasively designed to operate under the presumption that there are no satellites in orbit. The vulnerability of the US military to massive system outages is greatly overstated; the Soviet Union was a much bigger threat on this scale than the Chinese are, and the US military has always been pretty religious about designing systems whose functionality was robust and in the face of rapidly degrading military infrastructure and relatively decentralized. It is easy to forget it, but the Chinese have nothing on the old Soviet Union in terms of technology and force numbers, and that was the doctrinal enemy of much of the modern US military."
Re:Weapons (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Possible outcome. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, many great statements have always followed that opening.
Consider that GPS, when functional, is used to seed initial starting positions, but inertial nav packs are used to provide guidance. Other back up systems include other inertial nav packs, stationary fixes, and celestial navigation.
Consider that the GPS system can be knocked out. But, it's pretty damned hard to change the known locations of fixed locations, its damn near impossible to block good old centuries proved navigation by heavenly objects (unless the Chinese have an unknown deal with Klingons and Vogons) and with modern time keeping and the ability to shoot the stars with computer, it is surprising accurate.
Had you involved yourself at all with your country's military, beyond letting the press inform you, you'd have never made this mistake.
But, you can go on with your, "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious."
Pullllease, "I heard that..."
Re:The US is telling lies (Score:2, Insightful)
Still, china's space administration will learn fast the first time one of their trillion-dollar launches gets perforated. Sure, people talk about "leveling the playing field", along with the rest of the unjustified anti-American rhetoric floating around Slashdot like so many pieces of space junk. That doesn't change the fact that China's actions in this regard were irrational and self-defeating, and an example of brinksmanship worthy of the old Soviet Union. Nobody that has a near-space presence is at all happy with their stupidity. This little game of theirs is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money, if nothing else because extra maneuvering uses fuel and shortens operating lifetimes.
If China wants a level playing field (of course, they have no intention of settling for that, they want superiority, period) let them put more satellites into orbit, let them utilize near-space rather than make it more dangerous for everyone including themselves.
In the modern world, there's always going to be at least one Superpower, at least one nation that will divert a substantial portion of its industrial output to its military. Germany did that. The United States too. Then Russia. China is doing it as we speak. And all the fools who think the "giant American military" (which, I might add, suffered substantial reductions from the Cold War days and is nowhere near as big and powerful as it once was) is such an imminent threat to everyone, need to ask themselves the following questions:
Who do you want to have that power? Who is mostly likely to hurt other countries and peoples when they have it? Who has a history of true imperialism?
These are not trivial questions, they deserve careful consideration, and anyone who automatically answers "The United States" is an uninformed idiot.
New Industry? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Will clear a path x miles out for n passes for $$$."
I suppose getting clearance might be difficult, since any vehicle that has the capability of maintaining a precise orbit while collecting/colliding with space junk would probably be a great platform for cleaning up other items as well.
Re:SanctionThem? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's backwards. The US has the least to lose, because a debt represents a good that we consumed but have not yet paid for. The first order of business in an economic collapse is to freeze or otherwise abate all foreign debts.
Either that, or we would just fail to make the payments. That would crash the value of all foreign debts, and so the holders would be lucky to get ten cents on the dollar by selling their paper to speculators (who are betting that we'll pull out of it).
This is why China dearly wants to avoid harming our economy. When somebody owes you an entire year of their salary, and is so far making payments on time, you don't knock them out of a job!
Indeed, in the long run, US foreign debts guarantee that other countries align their interests with our own, and look out for our well-being as one would keep an eye on one's best milk cow.
Re:SanctionThem? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true to a certain extent; with America owing such a huge amount, nobody's really keen to do anything that would force them to default. However... if America ever did default, that would have consequences that lasted far longer than the ensuing world depression. Nobody would ever be willing to lend American governments money on such generous terms again. Right now US governments have as good a credit rating as exists in the world; lenders know that, come what may, Washington's word is good on any bond. That means that when America wants to raise money for a rocket project or a fleet of aircraft carriers or a great civil engineering work, they can get it. If America once defaults on a loan, that all changes, and it will take a long, long time to rebuild that good reputation.
Re:SanctionThem? (Score:4, Insightful)
That would essentially mean that the end of all trading. So, the US would have to revert to a self-sustaining economy. US consumes the most resources in the planet per human being and that is not really feaseable.
That would lead to imports crashing as well. Then, prices would go up and cause inflation. Then, everything will be worth less and less and foreign buyers will just buy up everything - companies, technology etc. Our stuff will also be sold on ten cents to the dollar out there.
That is until the Chinese economy is the largest in the world which might be in 10-15 years.
It's only best milk cow as long as the milk flows.
I've seen so people many buy shit they can't afford, live in the moment, default on loans and then file bankruptcy which absolves them of all responsibility since somebody somewhere will bear the burden of it all. I think you're suggesting a similar approach to the economy. I am skeptical of this approach.