Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Parasitic" Weapon Eyed For Space

Expand Messages
  • Light Eye
    Dear Friends, You need to scroll down a bit to read the article. Click the link if you can t access the links. http://www.defensetech.org/ Love and Light.
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Friends,

      You need to scroll down a bit to read the article. Click the link if you can't access the links.

      http://www.defensetech.org/

      Love and Light.

      David

      "Parasitic" Weapon Eyed for Space The Air Force's cadre of space war planners has always liked to dream big. Take the current issue of Air & Space Power Journal, for instance. In it, fifteen USAF officers muse about how best to apply (and extend) the American military's superiority above the skies. Maj. Mark Steves foresees a fleet of airships, operating at the atmosphere's edge, keeping watch and relaying communications around the globe. Les Doggerel, a civilian at Air Force Space Command, looks forward to an array of cheap, "plug and play" satellites that can be launched at a moment's notice.

      But perhaps the most ambitious plan comes from ICBM combat crew commander Capt. Joseph T. Page II, who calls for launching cyberattacks on enemy satellites -- and then capturing the orbiters, or tossing them into the atmosphere, if the need arises.

      Military planners have long considered space to be the "ultimate high ground." And to defend that high ground, Air Force doctrine calls for two main strategies – defensive counterspace (protecting our satellites) and offensive counterspace (knocking out the other guys').

      Capt. Page isn't too impressed with playing defense. "It will not increase the balance in our favor but only 'hold the line' against enemy attacks,'" he writes.

      But offensive counterspace has proved tricky, with the specter of shards of broken satellites strewn in space, or crashing down to Earth. Page's suggestion: hijack an enemy orbiter's attitude control system -- which runs everything from propulsion to communications – and replace it with a "parasitic attitude control system," or PACS.
      The idea of covertly supplanting a satellite’s ACS is technologically feasible and may become a desired, mature capability when conflict arises in space…. [It] involves controlling an enemy satellite by supplanting its original ACS and negating the satellite’s mission with the PACS. [It] can control a satellite in numerous ways…

      • Depleting the satellite’s primary fuel until the satellite is drifting (denial/disruption). Once a satellite runs out of maneuvering fuel to counter drifting, it is considered dead.

      • Stressing and straining the satellite bus until body-part separation occurs from changes in angular-momentum spin rates (destruction). Assuming the satellite is three-axis stabilized, enough rotational velocity would put tremendous stress on the solar panels/deployed antennae. Application of enough stress and strain will separate the appendages, depending upon the rate of spin applied to the satellite bus.

      • Realigning... antennae for friendly-force intelligence collection by moving the directional antenna’s “footprint” away from hostile ground-station coverage areas and towards space-based signals-intelligence satellites or simply aiming the antennae into deep space, away from Earth (deception/denial)...

      • Pushing the satellite into transfer orbit for atmospheric reentry or physical capture (destruction/denial/degradation/disruption). Deliberate movement of the satellite out of its expected orbital plane would allow the PACS controller full, positive control over the satellite’s designated path. Physical capture by friendly spacecraft and crews becomes possible by bringing the satellite down to an acceptable orbital altitude. If the plan calls for its physical destruction, lowering the satellite’s altitude and speed can allow atmospheric friction to heat up and structurally weaken or burn up the satellite bus and payload. (emphasis mine)
      Now, to be clear, this is just one Captain's concept – not some official Air Force program. And other writers in the current Journal take much more sober views of the limits of U.S. space power. Retired Lt. Col. “Mel” Tomme calls B.S. on the idea of launching little, "tactical" satellites into low-earth orbit. Space and Missile Systems Center commander Lt. Gen. Michael Hamel says that the military's space capabilities have badly eroded, and that it's time to get "back to basics."

      But Page sees efforts underway now that could eventually lead to his "parasitic" space-weapon: prototype orbital tugboats, that would move satellites from one orbit to the next; small space ships designed for "proximity operations" near another satellite. Both are, in effect, physically correcting a satellite's flight. Maybe software could do a better job… Hey, a Captain can dream, can't he?

      UPDATE 4:17 PM: Via Gyre, here's a bozo Captain arguing for an orbital constellation of death.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jahnets
      Is there any questions left why they do not want us off this planet??? Egos do not belong in space poisoning and pollutting the rest of the universe. That
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Is there any questions left why they do not want us off this planet??? Egos
        do not belong in space poisoning and pollutting the rest of the universe.
        That would be like us allowing a disease to spread rampant to all countries
        rather then trying to stop it.





        Dear Friends,

        You need to scroll down a bit to read the article. Click the link if you
        can't access the links.

        http://www.defensetech.org/

        Love and Light.

        David

        "Parasitic" Weapon Eyed for Space The Air Force's cadre of space war
        planners has always liked to dream big. Take the current issue of Air &
        Space Power Journal, for instance. In it, fifteen USAF officers muse about
        how best to apply (and extend) the American military's superiority above the
        skies. Maj. Mark Steves foresees a fleet of airships, operating at the
        atmosphere's edge, keeping watch and relaying communications around the
        globe. Les Doggerel, a civilian at Air Force Space Command, looks forward to
        an array of cheap, "plug and play" satellites that can be launched at a
        moment's notice.

        But perhaps the most ambitious plan comes from ICBM combat crew
        commander Capt. Joseph T. Page II, who calls for launching cyberattacks on
        enemy satellites -- and then capturing the orbiters, or tossing them into
        the atmosphere, if the need arises.

        Military planners have long considered space to be the "ultimate high
        ground." And to defend that high ground, Air Force doctrine calls for two
        main strategies – defensive counterspace (protecting our satellites) and
        offensive counterspace (knocking out the other guys').

        Capt. Page isn't too impressed with playing defense. "It will not
        increase the balance in our favor but only 'hold the line' against enemy
        attacks,'" he writes.

        But offensive counterspace has proved tricky, with the specter of shards
        of broken satellites strewn in space, or crashing down to Earth. Page's
        suggestion: hijack an enemy orbiter's attitude control system -- which runs
        everything from propulsion to communications – and replace it with a
        "parasitic attitude control system," or PACS.
        The idea of covertly supplanting a satellite’s ACS is technologically
        feasible and may become a desired, mature capability when conflict arises in
        space…. [It] involves controlling an enemy satellite by supplanting its
        original ACS and negating the satellite’s mission with the PACS. [It] can
        control a satellite in numerous ways…

        • Depleting the satellite’s primary fuel until the satellite is drifting
        (denial/disruption). Once a satellite runs out of maneuvering fuel to
        counter drifting, it is considered dead.

        • Stressing and straining the satellite bus until body-part separation
        occurs from changes in angular-momentum spin rates (destruction). Assuming
        the satellite is three-axis stabilized, enough rotational velocity would put
        tremendous stress on the solar panels/deployed antennae. Application of
        enough stress and strain will separate the appendages, depending upon the
        rate of spin applied to the satellite bus.

        • Realigning... antennae for friendly-force intelligence collection by
        moving the directional antenna’s “footprint” away from hostile
        ground-station coverage areas and towards space-based signals-intelligence
        satellites or simply aiming the antennae into deep space, away from Earth
        (deception/denial)...

        • Pushing the satellite into transfer orbit for atmospheric reentry or
        physical capture (destruction/denial/degradation/disruption). Deliberate
        movement of the satellite out of its expected orbital plane would allow the
        PACS controller full, positive control over the satellite’s designated path.
        Physical capture by friendly spacecraft and crews becomes possible by
        bringing the satellite down to an acceptable orbital altitude. If the plan
        calls for its physical destruction, lowering the satellite’s altitude and
        speed can allow atmospheric friction to heat up and structurally weaken or
        burn up the satellite bus and payload. (emphasis mine)
        Now, to be clear, this is just one Captain's concept – not some official
        Air Force program. And other writers in the current Journal take much more
        sober views of the limits of U.S. space power. Retired Lt. Col. “Mel” Tomme
        calls B.S. on the idea of launching little, "tactical" satellites into
        low-earth orbit. Space and Missile Systems Center commander Lt. Gen. Michael
        Hamel says that the military's space capabilities have badly eroded, and
        that it's time to get "back to basics."

        But Page sees efforts underway now that could eventually lead to his
        "parasitic" space-weapon: prototype orbital tugboats, that would move
        satellites from one orbit to the next; small space ships designed for
        "proximity operations" near another satellite. Both are, in effect,
        physically correcting a satellite's flight. Maybe software could do a better
        job… Hey, a Captain can dream, can't he?

        UPDATE 4:17 PM: Via Gyre, here's a bozo Captain arguing for an orbital
        constellation of death.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        SPONSORED LINKS Extraterrestrial life Paranormal phenomena


        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        --
        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

        a.. Visit your group "ufodiscussion" on the web.

        b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        ufodiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        Service.


        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        --



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.