Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:

Lunar Tick wrote:
According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the
ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese
weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The
missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by ramming
it.

The USA did the same thing to one of its satellites some years
ago. I do not look forward to the day when satellites can be
readily "taken out" by high energy lasers.
Do your basic physics.

It can't be done,

Jan
The Airborne Laser says "hello"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser

You are going to kill a satellite with it?

Jan

I should perhaps add that in the unlikely case that China (or anyone else)
_did_ start knocking out another state's satellites, I think I'd have more
pressing concerns on my mind than a potential disruption to the consumer GPS
service.

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:

Lunar Tick wrote:
According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the
ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese
weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The
missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by ramming
it.

The USA did the same thing to one of its satellites some years
ago. I do not look forward to the day when satellites can be
readily "taken out" by high energy lasers.
Do your basic physics.

It can't be done,

Jan
The Airborne Laser says "hello"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser

You are going to kill a satellite with it?

Jan

Not me personally, but the U.S. military may use it to kill a
satellite. Read and learn:

http://tinyurl.com/2aj89x

Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:

Lunar Tick wrote:
According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the
ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese
weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The
missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by ramming
it.

The USA did the same thing to one of its satellites some years
ago. I do not look forward to the day when satellites can be
readily "taken out" by high energy lasers.
Do your basic physics.

It can't be done,

Jan
The Airborne Laser says "hello"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser
You are going to kill a satellite with it?

Jan
Not me personally, but the U.S. military may use it to kill a
satellite. Read and learn:

http://tinyurl.com/2aj89x

Nothing new there, and nothing of relevance for this discussion.
The airborne laser fantasy would be used against boosters
during the launch phase, not sats.

Jan

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Michel Oui <G...@example.com> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Michel Oui <G...@example.com> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

Lunar Tick wrote:
According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the
ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese
weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The
missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by ramming
it.

The USA did the same thing to one of its satellites some years
ago. I do not look forward to the day when satellites can be
readily "taken out" by high energy lasers.
Do your basic physics.

It can't be done,

Jan
The Airborne Laser says "hello"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser
You are going to kill a satellite with it?

Jan
Not me personally, but the U.S. military may use it to kill a
satellite. Read and learn:

http://tinyurl.com/2aj89x

Nothing new there, and nothing of relevance for this discussion.
The airborne laser fantasy would be used against boosters
during the launch phase, not sats.

Jan

Apparently you didn't read carefully enough

and missed this sentence among other things:

"If ABL can be developed for the anti-missile role, it would also
be able to damage satellites in low-earth orbit."

Not me personally, but the U.S. military may use it to kill a
satellite. Read and learn:

http://tinyurl.com/2aj89x
[http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/asat-capabilities-of-us-missile-defense-systems.html]

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:

Lunar Tick wrote:
According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the
ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese
weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The
missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by rammin
g
it.

The USA did the same thing to one of its satellites some years
ago. I do not look forward to the day when satellites can be
readily "taken out" by high energy lasers.
Do your basic physics.

It can't be done,

Jan
The Airborne Laser says "hello"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser
You are going to kill a satellite with it?

Jan
Not me personally, but the U.S. military may use it to kill a
satellite. Read and learn:

http://tinyurl.com/2aj89x

Nothing new there, and nothing of relevance for this discussion.
The airborne laser fantasy would be used against boosters
during the launch phase, not sats.

Jan

Apparently you didn't read carefully enough and missed this sentence
among other things:

"If ABL can be developed for the anti-missile role, it would also
be able to damage satellites in low-earth orbit."

The only slight hope is that much of the debris will disappear
in a relatively short time. Because the satellite was in a low
orbit, it is already in contact with traces of the atmosphere.

Small pieces will be braked enough to come down and burn soon.
Of the bigger pieces, some will have an altered orbit, at whose
lowest point it dives even deeper into the outer reaches of the
atmosphere and will thus be braked more rapidly.

Only few of the bigger pieces of debris will have an orbit
entirely outside or very near the original satellite orbit and
may remain up there for a long time. I wonder how long.

A piece that remains in a low orbit for a long time must be
heavy and have a stable, nearly circular orbit not much lower
than the original one.

This all reminds me of a sci-fi novel by Stanislaw Lem, in which
a layman asks a spacefarer how to recognize inhabited planets,
and the answer is that you recognize them by their garbage
rings.

Here's a link to more definitive information on the launch and
subsequent debris field. There are videos and pics.

http://celestrak.com/events/asat.asp

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
[..]

A piece that remains in a low orbit for a long time must be
heavy and have a stable, nearly circular orbit not much lower
than the original one.

This all reminds me of a sci-fi novel by Stanislaw Lem, in which
a layman asks a spacefarer how to recognize inhabited planets,
and the answer is that you recognize them by their garbage
rings.

Wouldn't that be garbage spheres or layers and not rings?

I mean, we have a lot of polar orbiting satellites, and a lot of
geostationary satellites, and some in between.

FYI: GPS satellites are in a 20.000km orbit.

Exactly - this is why this particular event will not pose a collision