• Forum
• SITREP
• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security

• Space

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Public Eye

Satellite Shootdown BAD IDEA

By J. Mason

Paul Carroll's posting of Theresa Hitchens' commentary on the Pentagon's plan to shoot down an errant intelligence satellite hits the nail right on the head. This action is not only unnecessary (over the decades many space objects including the large Skylab manned space station have re-entered the atmosphere and no one on Earth has ever been hit by the resulting de-orbiting debris), but it is illogical. America relies on its civilian and military fleet of orbiting satellites to perform not only military surveillance and reconnaissance functions but scientific, earth resource assessment, weather forecasting, and other very valuable tasks.

We have more objects in space than any other nation and it is counterproductive to intercept the errant U.S. spy satellite. The explosive encounter will create a cloud of debris that rivals or perhaps even surpasses that caused by the recent Chinese government's test of their anti-satellite intercept technology. In effect, the U.S. intercept mission will serve as yet another ASAT test (continuing a series of such experiments performed by both America and Russia in the Eighties). And almost every neutral observer recognizes that this only serves to increase the space debris problem--a situation that will threaten American orbital assets more than any other spacefaring nation. Although the Space Shuttle has landed, the debris created by this violent space collision will provide additional concerns for future shuttle missions as well as other manned orbital missions (including possibly the International Space Station).

And there are other serious concerns that argue against such an intercept. Although NORAD tracks most of the objects orbiting our planet, there is the possibility that the intercept will fail and that possibly other orbiting systems will be affected. The test may accidentally or intentionally impact (directly or indirectly by creating a swarm of debris) another nation's satellite or satellites. Imagine the damage to international peace, if such an intercept accidentally destroyed or damaged a Russian or Chinese military satellite. It might trigger an open (or covert) anti-satellite conflict!

While everyone has confidence in the expertise and accuracy of our military, this planned intercept is by no means a sure thing. The repercussions of promoting the mindset that space kinetic and intercept testing (disguised as an attempt to prevent deadly debris from hitting Earth--a mostly incredible claim) is a routine military activity sends the wrong message to the international community. America could unintentionally trigger a space missile intercept testing regime that can really have the worst impact on our own nation--since we have the most assets in Earth orbit we have the most to lose from this kind of "it's just another space military test" mindset. In the longer term, nations like India and Pakistan might not be able to verify each other's nuclear missile status if they are also engaged in routinely testing space intercept technology (and thereby secretly trying to destroy their opponent's "eye-in-the-sky"). This could have serious implications for regional and perhaps even strategic nuclear deterrence.

Of course there is the possibility that the planned justification for shooting down the spy satellite--to destroy the hydrazine fuel and protect the populace below--is a cover for the actual rationale for launching the mission: to ensure that no resulting debris from the billion dollar satellite can be recovered and studied by other nations. Surely a military that prides itself on its development of a global strike capability ought to be able to effectively track and monitor this debris while publicly announcing that our government considers recovery of any de-orbited material as an act of espionage (combined with a promise of monetary reward for any government or individual that returns the material to the closest American embassy within 24 hours of its retrieval).

Once again, this whole affair points to one of the major flaws in humankind's utilization of outer space. Fifty-plus years after the launching of the first satellite (Sputnik, October 1957), the nations of the world have invested multibillions of dollars in the construction, launch, and upkeep of orbiting space assets--some in "temporary" low Earth orbit and many others in more permanent (long-lived) higher orbits including geosynchronous orbit. We've visited the Moon several times and sent probes to all nine planets and into the heliopause beyond the boundaries of our solar system. But, we still have not devised a system for routinely servicing, refueling, or re-boosting objects into higher orbits to prevent re-entry into the atmosphere. These so-called "space tugs" have been written about for decades. But, it is wasteful, and illogical for NASA and other space agencies not to have invested significant funding into the development of such orbital maintenance platforms. Imagine how many space assets (the Mir space station, Skylab, Apollo command modules, not to mention ultrasecret intelligence satellites and countless other strategically (and historically) significant objects) could have been salvaged over the last few decades IF mankind had developed this technology. Not to mention how much of our planet's treasure (i.e. money) could have been saved by reinvesting in/salvaging already orbiting systems Of course, another necessary step would be the establishment of space-based platforms in high orbit or at the Lagrange points between the Earth and moon. But even without this large investment, a more modest space tug development program could have saved America and other nations a great deal of money--not to mention the sweat and worry adversely impacting America's intelligence-gathering agencies right now as the Pentagon finalizes its plan to shoot down the errant satellite.

Therefore it is clear that any reasonable, thinking person has got to conclude that for a wide variety of reasons (strategic stability, practicality, international peace, as well as ensuring the protection of current space assets) that this satellite shootdown plan is in the military's own terminology--FUBAR. In other words, NOT a good idea.

Jeffrey Mason
Space & Defense Research Analyst