[AgentR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')he "accident" theory suggests that (1) either no one could predict the collision or (2) that those in charge of modelling satellite orbits somehow "missed" this collsion.

[Plantagenet]

Its interesting to contrast the recent collisions of submarines and satellites.

Submarines are designed to be stealthy and are operated to remain hidden. Submarines often try to follow other subs "stealthily." They are operated by human commanders. Accidental collisions are not uncommon.

Satellites are impossible to hide---they are easily tracked with modern ground stations. Their paths are controlled by gravity and orbital mechanics and are 100% predictable so that their velocities are known to within millionths of meter per second and their positions are known to within centimeters at all times. Computer models are run to show their locations for months and years into the future, and then updated and rechecked with new tracking data. Accidental unforeseen collisions are impossible

[Plantagenet]

Hi Agent R:

Please allow me try to explain this to you using something I bet you are familiar with. Have you ever used a handheld GPS unit? Do you know how they work?

The little GPS locaters you buy at Wal-Mart work because they receive signals from GPS satellites, and they trangulate your position based on the timing of signals from multiple satellites. But in order for this to work, the position of all the satellites themselves that your GPS unit is receiving must be known very very accurately, even though they are moving very rapidly. Thats where the patents and the models of orbital mechanics comes in----thats why, right now, technical people in the EU and Russia and the US have put a great deal of effort into models that calculate centimeter-scale resolution for the locations of satellites. That information is used millions and millions of times by handheld GPS units to the get the rapid positions with ca. 5 m accuracy people now use in cars, boats, hikes, etc. The military actually degrades the GPS signal to reduce the accuracy of the handheld units.....the positions of the satellites is known that well.

But it gets better. Scientific and commercial grade GPS surveying units use mathematical tricks to get around the military degrading of the GPS signal, and so can obtain positioning resolution of millimeters....about 100 times better then the cheap units the general public uses.....AND again, this kind of amazing accuracy only works because the mathematical models of the locations of the satellites are VERY accurate.

I've personally spent quite a bit of time setting up scientific GPS receivers and hauling batteries to power them in remote areas of Alaska to measure plate tectonic motions---the technology works very well, and its all based on the precise location of satellites.

Its a simple fact that the positions of satellites and their velocities are precisely known, and its a simple fact that models exist that can project their positions for years into the future. Millions of people unwittingly use this technology in their GPS units. Its a simple fact that EVERY single potential close encounter between two satellites is identified years in advance, and the models said this one wasn't even going to be a close encounter.

[dunewalker]

Ok, here's another possibility that nobody has addressed here yet. What if somebody hacked into the Iridium satellite controls and nudged its course? Anyone from a rival communications company, Iran, Russia, teenage hacker, you name the villain. I have no links or knowledge of how this might happen, just suggesting it for further analysis.

[AgentR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'H')i Agent R:

[AgentR]

PS. I also asked if Socrates warrants its reports for use in navigation? Or do they disclaim liability?

[evilgenius]

Now maybe we can discuss what it means if the Russians did do this on purpose. I think either it means they are sending a message or that they have decided that a first strike option is definitely on the table when it comes to confronting the West. The message scenario is scary enough. If it means that the first strike option is on the table then this obscure, maybe it is - maybe it isn't warning is about all the warning we are likely to get.

[AgentR]

Ok, I'm game to THAT one.

I think I have three possibilities in mind.

1.) Its a psych test to see how Obama will react (previous poster mentioned this)

2.) A commercial competitor to Iridium putting on a bit of gangland squeeze by commandeering an idling anti-satellite weapon already in orbit. If there are old Russian anti-satellite weapons in orbit, I would not be at all surprised if codes and procedures were in the hands of private entities.

3.) A slow-nudge form of warfare, an opening shot in an orbital war intended to be fought out very slowly, leaving progressively more and more debris in LEO. If the objective is to end up with a very wide dispersal of debris, how would one counter such a strategic objective? How do you respond to a war fought at the pace of one shot every six months in which no one dies, with no blood soaked pictures to show on TV ?

That said, I just don't see how #1 or #3 provide much in the way of value to the Russians. In the case of #1, they know we are over-committed anyway and won't respond, in which case to burn an expensive weapon to blow up a piece of cheese is weird. And #3 is even weirder since the Russians generally like that orbital real estate too. #2 is in character, though whether frightening or uninteresting largely depends on whether you think a particular commercial interest has command capabilities for just the one weapon, or dozens.

[Ferretlover]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', '3').) A slow-nudge form of warfare, an opening shot in an orbital war intended to be fought out very slowly, leaving progressively more and more debris in LEO.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ferretlover', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ')') A slow-nudge form of warfare, an opening shot in an orbital war intended to be fought out very slowly, leaving progressively more and more debris in LEO.

[Tanada]

If you want to do a denial of LEO attack and you have the technology to put a sat in orbit its not that hard, you do it by launching for example a cylendrical tank filled with completely dry sand. Once in a stable orbit you spin the tank to a modest RPM and then open two valves on opposite sides. The sand bleeds out through the valves under centerfugal force and creates a very large low density cloud. If you have your weapon orbiting the opposite direction most other sats are in the fine sand particles act like a media blaster and destroy the solar arrays they need to power them. Inside of two days all the sats in that orbit are out of power and useless.

Of course if you do that everyone will know who did it because everyone with the abillity tracks launches and will know whose sat did the attack. Better make sure its worth the trouble, like the day WW III starts, before you set off your weapon.

[Plantagenet]

This wasn't a denial of LEO attack. It was an attack on a single satellite.

Unless it was an "accident" (which I guess means one of the satellites made an illegal left turn while the other ran a stoplight!)

[eastbay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')his wasn't a denial of LEO attack. It was an attack on a single satellite.

Unless it was an "accident" (which I guess means one of the satellites made an illegal left turn while the other ran a stoplight!)

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')his wasn't a denial of LEO attack. It was an attack on a single satellite.

Unless it was an "accident" (which I guess means one of the satellites made an illegal left turn while the other ran a stoplight!)

[AgentR]

There is another possibility that would meet your orbit change scenario. Micrometeorite impact on the dead Russian satellite. It being dead, it would not have reported any loss of function when struck.

This possibility accounts for the apparent valueless nature of the target, the negative impact on Russian orbital interests, and the supposed variance between the predicted orbit and the actual orbit.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is another possibility that would meet your orbit change scenario. Micrometeorite impact on the dead Russian satellite. It being dead, it would not have reported any loss of function when struck.

This possibility accounts for .... variance between the predicted orbit and the actual orbit.

[AgentR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')hen when it suddenly kills another satellite far from where it is supposed to be, the Russians have the perfect "alibi."

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')hen when it suddenly kills another satellite far from where it is supposed to be, the Russians have the perfect "alibi."

[evilgenius]

I think it is important to make the point that the value of the Iridium sat was irrelevant. If the Russians clocked it they did it as a test. It makes sense that they would find something that would be forgotten about rather quickly to test their old capabilities on. The question I was asking is if they did test their stuff in this manner does it mean that they have adopted a first strike stance or that they might at least be considering it? It make sense to me because I think that if they decide they are going to go first, what, over oil, the ME, then they will have to take out the command and control that flies overhead.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', 'I') think it is important to make the point that the value of the Iridium sat was irrelevant. If the Russians clocked it they did it as a test. It makes sense that they would find something that would be forgotten about rather quickly to test their old capabilities on. The question I was asking is if they did test their stuff in this manner does it mean that they have adopted a first strike stance or that they might at least be considering it? It make sense to me because I think that if they decide they are going to go first, what, over oil, the ME, then they will have to take out the command and control that flies overhead.