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

RE: [ufodiscussion] "Parasitic" Weapon Eyed For Space

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 2 , Jun 4, 2006
      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.


      Love and Light.


      "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

      • 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


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

      b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

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


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