By the same token, an incoming ballistic missile is yet another problem, but it’s good that the US Navy has demonstrated the ability to hit a satellite.

Technically, conventional weapons have been sent into space ever since astronauts starting bringing survival kits with them (most contained a pistol). The Russians experimented with cannons on some of their early stations (the experiments were, for the most part, unsuccessful).

Wasn’t there a space law / treaty that banned this kind of thing?

Ok, they’ve used the excuse of the hydrazine but c’mon who believes that was the _real_ or main reason for this? Not me – & more importantly I don’t think China or Russia either…

I don’t like where this may be leading us all.

I’ve got mixed feelings about this & don’t really know whether to congratulate the folks involved for achieving an impressive technological feat with such good execution and accuracy or condemn them for the further militarisation of space and the negative implications this has – diplomatically and for space usage & exploration generally. :-~

I am glad of one thing though – at least unlike in ‘Futurama’ they didn’t miss the real target and blow up Hubble by mistake!

Hosts on a hip-hop radio station discussed this event.
They questioned the cost of the task, amongst other things.

But one thing that stood out was a question that I can only hope was made in jest.
They wondered why the Atlantis could’ve have swept by the sattelite and pick it up on the way home.

I can imagine the less informed listeners might take this seriously.
Think you can make a blog entry covering this and other issues in the aftermath of this event?

Oh yes, the vido doesn’t play for me. It turns into one of those “This page cannot be displayed”.
Was the video taken down, or is my computer being stubborn?

It looks like they fired another missile to go parallel to the one targeting the satellite but with a camera, because it’s ascending too.

Thanks

The satellite interception problem is tough in a different way. The target course and schedule is fully known, but the energy requirements are far higher and the calculation times are much shorter in the terminal mode.

There is a good write up on the problem at http://www.egwald.com/optimalcontrol/missileintercept.php
(If you like math).

Konan

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/21/688746.aspx

Actually, the amazing thing is not the shootdown of an object in low Earth orbit – after all, the Chinese can do it. Probably Russia also and anybody else that want to spend the R[&]D money.

Both the Soviet Union and the USA tested ASAT more than 20 years ago. The USA once, in 1985; the Soviets before that (the USA program, apparently cancelled a few years later, was a panic-ish response to the Soviet test(s?)).

The bigger of the two Chinas is simply the third and latest country to have tested an ASAT.

As others have pointed out, it’s not difficult to destroy a satellite. You know, with the help of Newton, exactly where the fecking thing is going to be at any given time. “All” you have to do is put something else in the same place at the same time.

Destroying an incoming missile/warhead (ABM) is very different. You haven’t got much warning, the “best” are built to maneuver (albeit limited), they deploy decoys and other countermeasures, and for the most part you only get one chance.

Remember when shooting a primitive target like a Scud by a Patriot missile was a big deal? This is several orders of magnitude above that in difficulty.

You can’t compare this to a Scud. Nobody announces when they fire a Scud, to destroy one you depend on a warning system to detect the missile. Once detected you only have a narrow time frame to put your pants on aim and fire.