Russia's OPERATIONAL Star Wars Defense System
NAME "Robert E. McElwaine"
From "NAME \"Robert E. McElwaine\"" <MCE...@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STAR WARS DEFENSE SYSTEM
In February 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin
proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global
defense shield (with "Star Wars"-type weapons) BASED ON
RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGY.
Some people might wonder what the "backward" Russians
could possibly have that would be of value for the S.D.I.
research and development program.
The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started
deploying an OPERATIONAL "Star Wars" defense system in
September 1977, and it has greatly grown and improved since
that time. It is a SPACE TRIAD built around CHARGED-PARTICLE
BEAM and NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS.
In this article I will describe the Russian system as it
developed from 1977 to 1983, and give several examples of how
it was used during that period. But first I will try to
convince readers of the credibility of my main source of
information about it.
My main source is articles published in a weekly
legislative newspaper, WISCONSIN REPORT (WR), of Brookfield,
Wisconsin, (P.O. Box 45, zip 53005), written by the late Dr.
Peter David Beter, a well-respected Washington, DC attorney,
Doctor of Jurisprudence, and expert and consultant in
international law, finance, and intelligence, who received
much of his information from associates in the CIA and other
intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved of
many of the things happening or being planned behind the
scenes. They believed that at least limited public exposure
might delay and ultimately prevent the worst of those things,
such as NUCLEAR WAR and NATIONAL DICTATORSHIP, from taking
place.
Dr. Beter started appearing on local radio and TV talk
shows, but soon found himself being BANNED from them, as a
result of government THREATS to cancel broadcast licenses.
So he started producing monthly one-hour cassette tapes and
sending them to a growing list of subscribers. From June 21,
1975 until November 3, 1982 he recorded eighty "Dr. Beter
Audio Letters" plus eight "Audio Books" and three special
topic tapes. On September 1, 1977 Wisconsin Report started
publishing transcripts of those tapes.
Based on information from his sources, Dr. Beter
PREDICTED the bombing of the Marines in Beirut A FULL YEAR
BEFORE IT HAPPENED, WARNING that the U.S. Pentagon and the
Israeli Mossad were CONSPIRING TO DELIBERATELY ARRANGE IT in
order to try to get Americans angry at the Arabs and generate
public support for PLANNED military action against them. He
reported the impending assassination of Anwar Saddat of Egypt
SIX DAYS BEFORE IT HAPPENED. And Dr. Beter predicted what he
called the "retirement" of Leonid Brezhnev one week before
Brezhnev officially "died" (note that the word "retirement"
was used for the TERMINATION OF REPLICANTS in the 1982 movie
"Blade Runner"), and his quick replacement with Andropov
which occurred only three days after the "death" of Brezhnev,
to the surprise of all government and media analysts.
Subscription application and renewal forms for Dr. Beter's
tapes would usually say, "Subscribe to the Dr. Beter Audio
Letter and watch the news start making sense."
RUSSIA'S SPACE TRIAD OF STAR WARS WEAPONS
In September 1977 the Russians started launching MANNED
killer satellites, called "COSMOS INTERCEPTORS", armed with
CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons, into earth orbit, (12-15-77
WR). By April 1978 there were about THREE DOZEN of them, and
they had FINISHED DESTROYING all American spy and early
warning satellites, (5-18-78 WR).
On September 27, 1977, in what Dr. Beter called "THE
BATTLE OF THE HARVEST MOON", a Cosmos Interceptor in Earth
orbit used a NEUTRON-PARTICLE BEAM to wipe out a secret
American laser-beam base nearing operational status in
Copernicus Crater on the Moon, (11-3-77 WR). The Russians
quickly deployed their own military bases on the Moon, the
second leg of their space triad, starting on October 4, 1977,
with seven EXTREMELY POWERFUL charged-particle beam weapons
BASES on the near side of the Moon and three support bases on
the far side, (2-9-78 WR).
The first test of the Moon base weapons occurred on
November 19, 1977, ironically at about the same time as the
release of the first "Star Wars" movie with its "death star"
weapon. The Russians were aiming at the eye of a cyclone
near India. But they miscalculated the deflection of the
beam by the Earth's magnetic field, and the beam struck the
ocean too close to the shore causing a TIDAL WAVE that killed
many people, (2-9-78 WR). A blast of charged-particle beams
from two or more of the Russian Moon bases fired in quick
succession would create the DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT OF A HYDROGEN
BOMB on its target.
The third leg of Russia's triad of space weapons is the
"COSMOSPHERES". The first-generation Cosmospheres were
weapons platforms that were ELECTRO-GRAVITIC (could hover
against gravity), ATOMIC POWERED, horizontally positioned by
rocket thrusters, somehow invisible to radar beyond about 40
miles (perhaps from a radar-absorbing coating), armed with
CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons (at least a hundred times less
powerful than those in the Moon bases), equipped with
"PSYCHO-ENERGETIC RANGE FINDING" (PRF) which tunes in to the
actual ATOMIC SIGNATURE of a target or object and canNOT be
jammed, and some of them were also armed with microwave
BRAIN-SCRAMBLING equipment.
In late 1977 and early 1978, there was a strange rash of
giant AIR BOOMS along the east coast of the United States and
elsewhere. These air booms were NEVER satisfactorily
explained, by either the government, the scientific
establishment, or the news media. They could NOT be
positively identified with any particular Super Sonic
Transport plane (SST) or other aircraft, and indeed they were
MUCH LOUDER than aircraft sonic booms. The giant airbooms
were actually caused by Russian Cosmospheres firing CHARGED-
PARTICLE BEAMS down into the atmosphere in a DEFOCUSED MODE
(spread out) for the purpose of announcing their presence to
the WAR-MONGERS in the United States Pentagon, (2-9-78 WR).
The main purpose of any "Star Wars" defense system is to
protect a country against nuclear attack. During the weekend
of January 20, 1980, Russian Cosmospheres accomplished such a
mission. A NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE against Russia by the then
BOLSHEVIK-CONTROLLED United States was being started with a
total of 82 special secret aircraft that can sneak up to a
country's shoreline under water, surface, change
configuration, take off, and fly at treetop level to their
targets. Dr. Beter describes part of the action in his Audio
Letter #53, recorded on January 21, 1980: "At that point the
real action got under way, in the Caspian Sea and off
northern Norway. The Subcraft, with Israeli pilots, were on
their way. They were traveling under water on the first legs
of their attack missions....
"Late Saturday night, Washington time, a coded signal was
flashed to the Subcraft to continue as planned. By that
time, the northern contingent of Subcraft were in the White
Sea. The southern contingent had reached the north end of
the Caspian Sea. It was already daylight, Sunday morning,
the 20th, for the Subcraft contingents. Their orders were to
wait out the day under water, out of sight; then, after
nightfall, they were to continue their steady approach to get
close to their targets. The Subcraft were maintaining strict
radio silence. They were also deep enough under water to be
invisible from the air to either the eye or radar, yet they
were also hugging the shoreline in water too shallow for
Russian sonar to pick them up. And their infrared signatures
were negligible as the result of extensive development. In
short, by the standards of Western technology, they were
undetectable. But in AUDIO LETTER No. 42 I revealed Russia's
master secret weapon. It is called "Psycho-energetic Range
Finding" or PRF. It is unlike sonar and similar techniques.
PRF tunes in to the actual atomic signature of a target, and
there is no method known by which PRF can be jammed.
"By deploying their Navy to the Arabian Sea, the
Russians are pretending to be fooled by the Bolshevik
distraction with the aircraft carriers. In this way they
encouraged the Bolsheviks to launch the Subcraft toward their
targets. They waited until the Subcraft were far away from
their bases and out of sight of the Bolsheviks, who are
directing the American first-strike operation. But the whole
time they were being tracked by Cosmospheres overhead using
PRF, and shortly after 1:00 A.M. yesterday morning Eastern
Standard Time the Cosmospheres began firing their Charged
Particle Beam Weapons. There were 10 Subcraft in the White
Sea. Each disappeared in a blinding blue white water spout
of steam, smoke, and fire. In the north end of the Caspian
there were 19 Subcraft--they, too, met the same fate.", (2-7-
80 WR).
The 3rd-generation Russian JUMBO COSMOSPHERES were first
deployed in April 1981, in parallel with the first U.S. Space
Shuttle mission. They significantly interfered with that
MILITARY mission, in ways which were successfully covered up
by NASA using techniques similar to those shown in the movie
"Capricorn I", (5-7-81, 5-14-81, and 5-21-81 WR).
Jumbo Cosmospheres are much larger than the 1st-
generation models, and use ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION instead
of rocket thrusters to move around.
For about two years after Dr. Beter stopped recording
his Audio Letters in November 1982 (because of heart
trouble), his distributor, Audio Books, Inc., published some
newsletters titled "NewsALERT", using information passed on
to them by Dr. Beter or received directly from his sources.
A special supplementary issue, dated March 26, 1984,
describes how Russian Jumbo Cosmospheres captured two
communication satellites right after launch from U.S. Space
Shuttle Mission #10, found anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles
mounted on one of them, and dumped both satellites into
useless orbits. NASA had fun TRYING to explain two-in-a-row
failures of a highly reliable PAM-D satellite booster.
Russia's offer to share their "Star Wars" defense system
with the rest of the world might also extend to SCIENTIFIC
SPACE EXPLORATION. For example, the United States is
planning to send two unmanned flyby and sample-return space
missions to a comet. These missions would cost BILLIONS of
dollars, take fifteen years from now to complete, and could
FAIL in DOZENS of ways. A Russian Jumbo Cosmosphere could
complete a MANNED version of such a mission in a matter of
MONTHS, if they have not already done so, since these
Cosmospheres can accelerate continuously.
Note that the United States has announced a deal to
purchase at least one SPACE REACTOR from Russia. Now you
know what the Russians originally developed and used them
for.
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
Sean J. Roc D'Arcy
From bphd...@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
[ mod note -- I don't know how the original article leaked through, but
Sean's article here is very well written, so I'm letting it out
Steve]
In article <BusAD...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, MCE...@cnsvax.uwec.edu (NAME "Robert E. McElwaine") writes...
>
>From "NAME \"Robert E. McElwaine\"" <MCE...@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
>
> RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STAR WARS DEFENSE SYSTEM
>
My first reaction upon reading this, was that is was some sort of a fiction
story. Then I noticed an abundance of capitalized words and thought that
maybe if I read only them, than I would understand the secret coded
message. I wrote a brief letter to its author, and he instists that it is
a serious work.
After showing it to three of my colleagues, they pointed out that all of
these facts seem to come from 1970-early 1980 science fiction thrillers.
I have wondered if the reason the Wisconsin Reports were cut off was more
due to plagiarizing fiction than government ban.
> The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started
> deploying an OPERATIONAL "Star Wars" defense system in
> September 1977, and it has greatly grown and improved since
> that time. It is a SPACE TRIAD built around CHARGED-PARTICLE
> BEAM and NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS.
Wow, now this seems just totally incredible. The fact that the author
claims a BS in Physics and Astronomy is even more amazing. Which Sci-fi to
base the weapon on I am not sure. Could someone define exactly how these
weapons work? Neutron collision could be an interesting concept, but then
why also develop a charged-particle beam weapon? Of course if one excludes
Neutrons all the remaining basic particles are charged...
>
> My main source is articles published in a weekly
> legislative newspaper, WISCONSIN REPORT (WR), of Brookfield,
> Wisconsin, (P.O. Box 45, zip 53005), written by the late Dr.
> Peter David Beter, a well-respected Washington, DC attorney,
> Doctor of Jurisprudence, and expert and consultant in
> international law, finance, and intelligence, who received
> much of his information from associates in the CIA and other
> intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved of
> many of the things happening or being planned behind the
> scenes.
This man managed to work for and keep contacts in the CIA and still
distribute this "secret" information? My first part of the rebuttle is
that it would be hard to believe, if not impossible, that if these people
were truely concerned with their objective of exposure, that they would not
have leaked information directly to a network television or a large news
wire. It has happened before that some pretty good information has been
leaked.
> They believed that at least limited public exposure
> might delay and ultimately prevent the worst of those things,
> such as NUCLEAR WAR and NATIONAL DICTATORSHIP, from taking
> place.
How would eliminating the weapons you meantioned, actually decrese the odds
of a nuclear war? Such weapons would actually limit the possibility of
such a war.
> And Dr. Beter predicted what he
> called the "retirement" of Leonid Brezhnev one week before
> Brezhnev officially "died" (note that the word "retirement"
> was used for the TERMINATION OF REPLICANTS in the 1982 movie
> "Blade Runner"), and his quick replacement with Andropov
> which occurred only three days after the "death" of Brezhnev,
Ah, he we already are beginning to confuse fact and fiction. And what is
so unusual about the three day replacement. If our President dies we would
replace him the next day. Most systems are set up to do so.
> RUSSIA'S SPACE TRIAD OF STAR WARS WEAPONS
>
> In September 1977 the Russians started launching MANNED
> killer satellites, called "COSMOS INTERCEPTORS", armed with
> CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons, into earth orbit, (12-15-77
> WR). By April 1978 there were about THREE DOZEN of them, and
> they had FINISHED DESTROYING all American spy and early
> warning satellites, (5-18-78 WR).
How interesting. Since I know for a fact that there were quite a few more
than zero "spy" satalites in orbit in 1980, this who statement can be blown
out. I won't even bother to argue the scientific abilities.
> On September 27, 1977, in what Dr. Beter called "THE
> BATTLE OF THE HARVEST MOON", a Cosmos Interceptor in Earth
> orbit used a NEUTRON-PARTICLE BEAM to wipe out a secret
> American laser-beam base nearing operational status in
> Copernicus Crater on the Moon, (11-3-77 WR).
If this was an original bit of fiction I would suggest writing a book. As
of present we are trying to find out which fiction book this comes from.
One bit of real world evidence against this based on logistics is; why
would anyone need to use such a weapon from a satelite, when they could use
a much more powerful version from the ground and still hit it?
> The Russians
> quickly deployed their own military bases on the Moon, the
> second leg of their space triad, starting on October 4, 1977,
> with seven EXTREMELY POWERFUL charged-particle beam weapons
> BASES on the near side of the Moon and three support bases on
> the far side, (2-9-78 WR).
Not bad for a country that has never had a man walk on the moon. They must
have incredible robotics. My last visit to the observatory showed
absolutely nothing on the moon, unless of course these bases are disguised
as moon rocks or the like. Since the author is a physics major I assume he
must have overlooked the cost of such a fantasy. The old USSR never had the
money to undertake such a mission, even if such technology already existed.
> The first test of the Moon base weapons occurred on
> November 19, 1977, ironically at about the same time as the
> release of the first "Star Wars" movie with its "death star"
> weapon.
Of course it did, where do you think Dr. Beter got the idea?
> The Russians were aiming at the eye of a cyclone
> near India. But they miscalculated the deflection of the
> beam by the Earth's magnetic field, and the beam struck the
> ocean too close to the shore causing a TIDAL WAVE that killed
> many people, (2-9-78 WR).
Interesting. Why fire at the eye of a cyclone? Now you mean to tell me
they could track from space and predict the movements of a cyclone (which
maybe he means hurricane), yet they could not calculate the earths
magnetics field? Now if this was a neutron beam weapon there would be NO
negliable effect from the earth's magnetic field.
> A blast of charged-particle beams
> from two or more of the Russian Moon bases fired in quick
> succession would create the DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT OF A HYDROGEN
> BOMB on its target.
Wrong. A beam of charged-particles theoretically has little disemination
of power upon impact. You might be able to boil some water for tea though.
> The third leg of Russia's triad of space weapons is the
> "COSMOSPHERES". The first-generation Cosmospheres were
> weapons platforms that were ELECTRO-GRAVITIC (could hover
> against gravity), ATOMIC POWERED, horizontally positioned by
A neat drive system right out of star wars. And what were they particles
used to calculate all this.
> rocket thrusters, somehow invisible to radar beyond about 40
> miles (perhaps from a radar-absorbing coating), armed with
> CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons (at least a hundred times less
> powerful than those in the Moon bases), equipped with
> "PSYCHO-ENERGETIC RANGE FINDING" (PRF) which tunes in to the
> actual ATOMIC SIGNATURE of a target or object and canNOT be
> jammed, and some of them were also armed with microwave
> BRAIN-SCRAMBLING equipment.
Ohh my. I really can't serious rebute this anymore. The PRF doesn't even
have the correct grammatical makeup. And the atomic signature is just to
hilarious. How would one even go about such a signature on something as
simple as a bar of metal alloy? The brain-scrabmling might explain a bit a
of the Regan years, but I don't think so.
>
> UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
> IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
>
> Robert E. McElwaine
> B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-E
You mean to tell me that with the break-up of the Soviet Union none of
these facts have come to light? If the Russians had such weapons why pay
all the money to continue to develop inferior weapons like Nuclear Missle
Subs, Tanks and the like. Better yet, how did our SSNs get to patrol so
close to their cost without being vaporized?
Finally, you mean to tell me the Soviets did all this with primarily analog
computing? They simply hid all that technology from the non-military part
of their economy?
Too much,
SJRD
Frank Crary
From fcr...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
In article <Bv1Iq...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bphd...@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes:
>Wow, now this seems just totally incredible. The fact that the author
>claims a BS in Physics and Astronomy is even more amazing. Which Sci-fi to
>base the weapon on I am not sure. Could someone define exactly how these
>weapons work? Neutron collision could be an interesting concept, but then
>why also develop a charged-particle beam weapon? Of course if one excludes
>Neutrons all the remaining basic particles are charged...
Actually, neutral particle beams are a real (theoretically real, that is)
weapons system. More exactly, it would be usefull to neutralize a
charged particle beam (i.e. to eliminate the beam spreading and
the effects of the Earth's magnetic fields.) I think the idea is
to mix a proton and an electron beam, and allow recombination into
high velocity neutral hydrogen. As far as I know, however, this idea
is purely theoretical, and the article Mr. D'Arcy was replying to was
(as he points out) purely fiction. (Russian anti-satellite weapons,
however, might be a different matter...)
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
roe...@vxcrna.cern.ch
From roe...@vxcrna.cern.ch
In article <BvAsD...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, fcr...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> [...]
> Actually, neutral particle beams are a real (theoretically real, that is)
> weapons system. More exactly, it would be usefull to neutralize a
> charged particle beam (i.e. to eliminate the beam spreading and
> the effects of the Earth's magnetic fields.) I think the idea is
> to mix a proton and an electron beam, and allow recombination into
> high velocity neutral hydrogen. As far as I know, however, this idea
> is purely theoretical, and the article Mr. D'Arcy was replying to was
> (as he points out) purely fiction. (Russian anti-satellite weapons,
> however, might be a different matter...)
Neutral beams are alive and well; I sometimes get called in to work
on one. I don't think there are any neutral-beam weapons systems yet,
but if you recall, one of the recent shuttle missions had an accelerator
on board with which they fired ions around -- to study the "aurora
borealis" or some such.
Firing protons and electrons collinearly and hoping they reassociate
doesn't work at any useful energy. If you pass low energy protons
(keV range) through a gas it will tend to neutralize by picking up
electrons, but this drops off as you get into the MeV range.
What we use are H- ions: hydrogen with an extra electron. These are
hard to produce, but once made are as easy to accelerate as any ion.
There are three ways to neutralize H-: passing it through a gas,
passing it through a plasma, and using lasers to photodissociate the
extra electron. At our energy range (2 MeV) the first two have
efficiencies of about 50% and 70% (respectively); photodissociation
approaches 100% efficiency.
Last I checked, "Star Wars"-related research was still going on on
this, particularly the H- source. I've seen some of their (non-
classified) papers on this; personally, I think they've a ways to go.
The tokamak fusion folks are also interested in neutral beams (as a
way of dumping energy into the plasma from outside the "bottle"), but
their design constraints are rather different.
Just to throw some numbers on the table, our H- source (civillian,
of course, but not to shabby) produces tens of milliamps of H-. Our
two-meter RFQ accelerates these ions to 2 MeV. 1 mA at 1 MeV = 1 kW.
Higher current sources look very difficult. Higher energy accelerators
are trivial, but get awfully big for launch awfully fast.
--
Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: roe...@cern.ch or roe...@caltech.edu | work: +41 22 767 31 80
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44
--
"Sorry, baby, I can't take you to the pizza joint tonight, I've got to go
back to the lab and split the atom." -- Ayn Rand, "What is Romanticism?"
Paul Dietz
From di...@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
In article <BvAsD...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcr...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> Actually, neutral particle beams are a real (theoretically real, that is)
> weapons system. More exactly, it would be usefull to neutralize a
> charged particle beam (i.e. to eliminate the beam spreading and
> the effects of the Earth's magnetic fields.) I think the idea is
> to mix a proton and an electron beam, and allow recombination into
> high velocity neutral hydrogen. As far as I know, however, this idea
> is purely theoretical, ...
Au contraire! Neutral particle beams are in everyday use for fusion
research, at the megawatt level. Frank has the idea a bit wrong,
though. The usual technique is to accelerate a beam of negative ions,
then strip off some of the electrons by passing the beam through some
sort of material (thin foil, say). NPBs are used in fusion to heat
plasmas, as they can penetrate through magnetic fields into the core
of the plasma before being dissociated.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Sean J. Roc D'Arcy
From bphd...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
>is purely theoretical, and the article Mr. D'Arcy was replying to was
>(as he points out) purely fiction. (Russian anti-satellite weapons,
>however, might be a different matter...)
Actually, the concept of anti-satellite weapons has been around a while.
Does anyone know if any where ever developed and furthermore ever deployed?
I don't know if the cost would be worth it, but the destruction of some
of the satellites used by Communication and Positioning systems, not to
mention weather and intelligence gathering, might be quite desirable in a
large conflict.
SJRD
Gavin Adams
From Gavin Adams <gavin...@lso.mts.dec.com>
In article <BvAsD...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Frank Crary,
fcr...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU writes:
>Actually, neutral particle beams are a real (theoretically real, that is)
>weapons system. More exactly, it would be usefull to neutralize a
>charged particle beam (i.e. to eliminate the beam spreading and
>the effects of the Earth's magnetic fields.) I think the idea is
>to mix a proton and an electron beam, and allow recombination into
>high velocity neutral hydrogen. As far as I know, however, this idea
>is purely theoretical, and the article Mr. D'Arcy was replying to was
>(as he points out) purely fiction. (Russian anti-satellite weapons,
>however, might be a different matter...)
>
> Frank Crary
> CU Boulder
Neutral particle beams (NPB) are real, at least in accelerator research. A
lab I used to work for was doing particle accelerator research, with our main
project being an NPB accelerator. Using such a device as a discriminator for
incoming ballistic warheads, it would feed data to ground ABM sites.
Of course, with budget cuts, this is becoming a "technology base", and
probably won't be deployed.
--- Gavin
Visualize Whirled Peas!
Don Palmrose
From d...@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
In article <BvE5L...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, bphd...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes:
>
> Actually, the concept of anti-satellite weapons has been around a while.
> Does anyone know if any where ever developed and furthermore ever deployed?
> I don't know if the cost would be worth it, but the destruction of some
> of the satellites used by Communication and Positioning systems, not to
> mention weather and intelligence gathering, might be quite desirable in a
> large conflict.
>
> SJRD
>
>
>
Both the US and the former Soviet Union had performed actual test of anti-
satellite system.
The Soviet system was a payload placed in low earth orbit and maneuvered to a
certain distance from the target satellite. A charge would then be set off
sending a pattern of shot at the target destroying it. If you haven't seen
the parallel, it basically was a "space shotgun". If I remember correctly
the system was tested in the early to mid 1980's.
The US system was different. It involved a rocket strapped to the bottom of
a F-15. The pilot would deliver the weapon to a pre-determined spot and time
where the enemy satellite was going over. The missile would be launched and
directed to the oncoming satellite for a (I believe) direct skin-to-skin
contact or near enough to set off a proximity fuse sending metal fragments
into the satellite to destroy it. Basically, a large AAW missile for low
earth orbit. Clancy's second book, _Red Storm Rising_, describes how it would
be used in greater detail than what I just wrote.
As far as their current operational status, I don't think either are useable
due to the recent arm-control treaties. Its not a good thing to monitor the
treaties from space if the other side keeps destroying your survelliance
satellites ;-) Thus, I think each side agreed to ban their use. If I am
mistaken, please let me know the real details.
Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Shane D. Deichman
From deic...@nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman)
Yes, Anti-Satellite weapons (ASATs) have been around for some time
(as Mr. D'Arcy pointed out). The Soviets had a system which would go
into a near-synchronous orbit with the target satellite, then detonate
once it got into range. Of course, this took some time (since it usually
took a few orbits before it could get close enough) and gave the satellite
a chance to "outmaneuver" the incoming ASAT (granted, this took quite a
lot of the energy the sats carried, but survival outweighs longevity...).
The U.S. flirted with a direct-fire missile launched from an F-15 during
the 1980s, but that effort was scrapped due to Congressional pressures
and public disapproval.
I suspect the Russians have maintained much of the Soviets' vaunted ASAT
capabilities, but with their budget crunch I don't think that ASATs are
very high on the agenda. As for a quick and dirty way to rid yourself (and
your enemy) of a constellation of comm sats, a few exoatmospheric blasts
with some nukes could do the job nicely.... :-)
-shane
Donald A Shaffer
From dsha...@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Donald A Shaffer)
I do know that the russians have an actual working ASAT missile that they
shot and destroyed some target sattelites. Basically, it gets near the
satellite and explodes itself, showereing the satelite with shrapnel. I think
we have some mothballed somewhere.
Tom Clancy's _Red_Storm_Rising_ showed them being used. Plus I think I
remember reading it in "Air Force" magazine, soviet almanac edition.
Frank Crary
From fcr...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
In article <BvE5L...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bphd...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes:
>Actually, the concept of anti-satellite weapons has been around a while.
>Does anyone know if any where ever developed and furthermore ever deployed?
The Soviets built and tested an anti-satellite weapon in the early
1970s. It was a "killer satellite" launched into an orbit close to
that of the target. It would then close under its own power and,
once close enough, detonate. I'm not sure how usefull this would have
been: It certainly could have reached polar-orbiting satellites in
a Low Earth Orbit (recon sats and possiblly the NavStar/GPS system.)
However, the launch vehicle it was tested on could not have put it
into a geostationary orbit or even a equatorial Low Earth orbit (when
launched from any of the Soviet launch complexes...) _Possibly_
they could have placed the killer satellite onto a large launch vehicle
and reached these orbits, but this would be an untested configuration.
For political reasons, they stopped testing the system. However, since
the tests were sucessful, it's quite possible they simply deployed it.
The United States build a intercepter system around 1980. It was a
large missile launched from a F-15. The F-15 would fly to the launch
position at high altitude, refuel in mid-air, go into its steepest
possible climb on afterburners, maintain this until it was almost out
of fuel, launch the missile, and re-fuel again. The missle would
reach a Low Earth orbit (or any inclination) and had an IR homing
system to track and intercept the target satellite. Work on this
system was terminated for political reasons after (I believe) two
sucessful tests.
>I don't know if the cost would be worth it, but the destruction of some
>of the satellites used by Communication and Positioning systems, not to
>mention weather and intelligence gathering, might be quite desirable in a
>large conflict.
Neither of the existing systems could reach most of these targets
but such a weapon would be quite feasible, nor is the technology all that
difficult: A Scud B missile, with an improved guidance system, could
reach the Low Earth recon satellites. The Russians (or CIS), Chinese,
Japanese and the United States could build an anti-satellite system
able to range geostationary orbit, without even requiring a major
research and development effort.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Daniel Shoham
From Daniel Shoham <sho...@ll.mit.edu>
In article <BvFz...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> you write:
>
>Both the US and the former Soviet Union had performed actual test of anti-
>satellite system.
>
>The Soviet system was a payload placed in low earth orbit and maneuvered to a
>certain distance from the target satellite. A charge would then be set off
>sending a pattern of shot at the target destroying it. If you haven't seen
>the parallel, it basically was a "space shotgun". If I remember correctly
>the system was tested in the early to mid 1980's.
>
>The US system was different. It involved a rocket strapped to the bottom of
>a F-15. The pilot would deliver the weapon to a pre-determined spot and time
>where the enemy satellite was going over. The missile would be launched and
>directed to the oncoming satellite for a (I believe) direct skin-to-skin
>contact or near enough to set off a proximity fuse sending metal fragments
>into the satellite to destroy it. Basically, a large AAW missile for low
>earth orbit. Clancy's second book, _Red Storm Rising_, describes how it would
>be used in greater detail than what I just wrote.
Don is correct. In addition, while not a design objective, the U.S. Space
Shuttle is capable of anti-satellite action. (Heck, it can even steal 'em).
>As far as their current operational status, I don't think either are useable
>due to the recent arm-control treaties. Its not a good thing to monitor the
>treaties from space if the other side keeps destroying your survelliance
>satellites ;-) Thus, I think each side agreed to ban their use. If I am
>mistaken, please let me know the real details.
The US system is in mothball (i.e. it works but is not deployed). The Soviet
system - who knows?
>
>Don Palmrose
Dan Shoham
sho...@ll.mit.edu
Dennis Newkirk
From den...@comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
In article <BvFz...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> d...@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>
>The Soviet system was a payload placed in low earth orbit and maneuvered to a
>certain distance from the target satellite.....
>If I remember correctly
>the system was tested in the early to mid 1980's.
The Russian press also has reported that the Polyot 1 and 2 (11/1/63 and
4/12/64) were tests of a ASAT system apparently built in response to
early US projects...I can't recall the name of the old air launched ASAT
missile project.
>The US system was different. It involved a rocket strapped to the bottom of
>a F-15.
I recall reading that the remaining missiles are still in storage. About
a year ago there were still reports of creating a _new_ ground launched
ASAT project from the Navy/Army/etc., but I haven't read anything about it
for a long time.
Also, didn't Av. Week run a photo of a MiG-31? sporting a ASAT missle also
about a month ago.
Dennis Newkirk (den...@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
Eric J. Raiten
From e...@cco.caltech.edu (Eric J. Raiten)
d...@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>From d...@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
>In article <BvE5L...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, bphd...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes:
>>
>> Actually, the concept of anti-satellite weapons has been around a while.
>> Does anyone know if any where ever developed and furthermore ever deployed?
>> I don't know if the cost would be worth it, but the destruction of some
>> of the satellites used by Communication and Positioning systems, not to
>> mention weather and intelligence gathering, might be quite desirable in a
>> large conflict.
>>
>> SJRD
>>
>>
>>
>Both the US and the former Soviet Union had performed actual test of anti-
>satellite system.
>The Soviet system was a payload placed in low earth orbit and maneuvered to a
>certain distance from the target satellite. A charge would then be set off
>sending a pattern of shot at the target destroying it. If you haven't seen
>the parallel, it basically was a "space shotgun". If I remember correctly
>the system was tested in the early to mid 1980's.
Actually, the Soviet system was first tested in the late 1960's. Your
description of it as a coorbital system is esseentially correct, however.
Terminal guidance was either by radar or by IR, though the latter was NEVER
successful in its tests. Also, all the tests were in a narrow range of
orbital altitudes (between 500 and 1500 km) and inclinations (60-65 degrees).
It is a curious fact almost no US satellite systems use this combination
of altitude and inclination (the lone exception I believe is the Transit
system, a now obsolete navigation system used primarily by the Navy). Some
experts have suggested that the system is really directed against Chinese
satellites, though that conclusions is widely questioned.
>The US system was different. It involved a rocket strapped to the bottom of
>a F-15. The pilot would deliver the weapon to a pre-determined spot and time
>where the enemy satellite was going over. The missile would be launched and
>directed to the oncoming satellite for a (I believe) direct skin-to-skin
>contact or near enough to set off a proximity fuse sending metal fragments
>into the satellite to destroy it. Basically, a large AAW missile for low
>earth orbit. Clancy's second book, _Red Storm Rising_, describes how it would
>be used in greater detail than what I just wrote.
>As far as their current operational status, I don't think either are useable
>due to the recent arm-control treaties. Its not a good thing to monitor the
>treaties from space if the other side keeps destroying your survelliance
>satellites ;-) Thus, I think each side agreed to ban their use. If I am
>mistaken, please let me know the real details.
There is no treaty against ASATs, or to be more precise, against their
testing. SALT (and presumably START) had provisions prohibiting interference
with "National Technical Means" (i.e., recon satellites), but that did not
affect testing and development. There were talks in the mid 80's on just
such a treaty, but they fell through and presumably now would not be
necessary.
>Don Palmrose
>"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."
Eric Raiten.
Arthur Sparrendahl
From d89...@nada.kth.se (Arthur Sparrendahl)
In article <BvCCA...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, di...@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
|>
|> From di...@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
|>
|> In article <BvAsD...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcr...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> ...The usual technique is to accelerate a beam of negative ions,
|> then strip off some of the electrons by passing the beam through some
|> sort of material (thin foil, say)...
|> Paul F. Dietz
|> di...@cs.rochester.edu
There jas been a lot of talk about *neutron* beams for industrial
use lately. How are they accelerated? I didn't actually understand
the process but I think they accelerasted protons and passed the
proton beam through a beryllium foil. Anyone know anything about
this?
Arthur Sparrendahl
T.M.Haddock
From hh...@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
In article <BvFz...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, d...@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
|> The US system was different. It involved a rocket strapped to the bottom of
|> a F-15. The pilot would deliver the weapon to a pre-determined spot and time
|> where the enemy satellite was going over. The missile would be launched and
|> directed to the oncoming satellite for a (I believe) direct skin-to-skin
|> contact or near enough to set off a proximity fuse sending metal fragments
|> into the satellite to destroy it. Basically, a large AAW missile for low
|> earth orbit. Clancy's second book, _Red Storm Rising_, describes how it would
|> be used in greater detail than what I just wrote.
The ASAT is indeed taken to high altitue by an F-15 to a pre-determined
point in space appropriate to intercept the desired target satellite.
Esstenially, after take off, the aircraft is directed by ground control
until after launch. The pilot is just along for the ride and to bring
the F-15 back after launch. After reaching the pre-determined point,
the F-15 executes a sharp dive and pull-up manuvuer. This provides
extra energy to slingshot the rocket up and away from the F-15. The
rocket is released, is flung away, and the rocket motor fires shortly
afterwards. The rocket climbs to the desired orbit and releases the
the "warhead" on a "head-on" collision course with the target satellite.
The "warhead" acquires and tracks the target satellite and manuveurs to
strike the target. There are NO explosives. Though only roughly the
size of a 2 gal can of paint, it is traveling at several miles per sec!
No proximaty fuzes or such, it is required to actually hit its target.
Amusing tale - when the ASAT was first tested against a real satellite,
an old weather/geological OSCAR type, the Air Force forgot to tell the
OSCAR's ground operators. Boy, you should have heard the fuss when ol'
OSCAR stop responding quite suddenly.
|> As far as their current operational status, I don't think either are useable
|> due to the recent arm-control treaties. Its not a good thing to monitor the
|> treaties from space if the other side keeps destroying your survelliance
|> satellites ;-) Thus, I think each side agreed to ban their use. If I am
|> mistaken, please let me know the real details.
Congress has banned the use of ASAT and others as a part of SALT II or START.
And/or I think they don't allow any budget for it either.
TMH
Don Palmrose
From d...@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
They are called "neutron generators". They create a beam of neutrons
by accelerating hydrogen ions into a lithium target (I'm not 100% sure of the
target material and I don't have my references handy). You maybe right
about the beryllium foil since it also has a low atomic number - 4. Shielding
around the target stops those neutrons not going in the right direction. The
neutrons come off the target with 14 MeV of kinetic energy. So appropriate
thicknesses of poly sheets/blocks can be placed in the beam path to scatter
the neutrons down to the desired energy level for the application of interest.
Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."
Paul Dietz
From di...@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
In article <BvnF7...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> d89...@nada.kth.se (Arthur Sparrendahl) writes:
> There has been a lot of talk about *neutron* beams for industrial
> use lately. How are they accelerated? I didn't actually understand
> the process but I think they accelerasted protons and passed the
> proton beam through a beryllium foil. Anyone know anything about
> this?
This is a different matter entirely. The protons react with beryllium
nuclei, causing emission of neutrons. It is a quite inefficient
process (most of the protons stop without undergoing nuclear reactors,
unless they are very energetic), and the neutrons come spraying out
with a large spread of tranverse momentum: not useful as a beam
weapon.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Frank Crary
From fcr...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
In article <BvnEt...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> e...@cco.caltech.edu (Eric J. Raiten) writes:
> Actually, the Soviet system was first tested in the late 1960's. Your
>description of it as a coorbital system is esseentially correct, however.
>Terminal guidance was either by radar or by IR, though the latter was NEVER
>successful in its tests. Also, all the tests were in a narrow range of
>orbital altitudes (between 500 and 1500 km) and inclinations (60-65 degrees).
>It is a curious fact almost no US satellite systems use this combination
>of altitude and inclination (the lone exception I believe is the Transit
>system, a now obsolete navigation system used primarily by the Navy). Some
>experts have suggested that the system is really directed against Chinese
>satellites, though that conclusions is widely questioned.
With good reason: There shouldn't be much supprise at the Soviets doing
tests in low, 60-65 deg inclination orbits. These are the easiest
orbits to reach from the main Soviet launch site. By testing in
these orbits, they didn't have to waste a "big" rocket like a Proton.
The real question should be, is this system limited to only the
orbits in which it was tested? Or could it be placed on a larger launch
vehicle and reach more relevant orbits?
Frank Crary
CU Boulder