Question about satellites

[mikeo80]

As we on the East Coast of the USA get ready for a visit from Irene, it brought an interesting question to mind.

I know from reading the V1 rule book, the nuclear exchange knocked out most scientific research areas. However military command posts survived.

During the exchange, was there an anti satellite effort by either side to deny "the high ground" to the other side

Being able to see what your advisary is doing during a military discussion is invaluable. (OT Desert Storm comes to mind)

Communications sats would also be a high priority. There was a sentence in V-1 that said that the military had the majority control of any surviving telecommunication networks.

My $0.02

Mike

[dragoon500ly]

The module "Satellite Down" mentions that "during the height of the war, just about every satellite on both sides, was knocked down or rendered worthless junk."

My own take, is that within the period 1995-1997, ASAT weapons knocked out most of the network.

[Mahatatain]

My own take on it is that there could well be one or two military comms satellites still operational that give patchy comms around the world to those who have the right gear to use them.

[Mohoender]

I think that this source is reliable and it accounted for about 4000 satellite launchs by 1998. Therefore, I would expect to find something like 3500-4000 satellites around earth by 1995 with roughly 50-60% of them in working conditions.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980202e.html

By 1988 the US ASAT program was cancelled but in T2K, I would expect it to be revived with the threat of war. If indeed it was pursued, I would expect the deployment to be about 200 missiles as by 1988, the USAF intended to deploy 112 missiles with 20 aircrafts (according to wiki). IMO USSR would have deployed, at most, the same number of missile with Mig-31.

I don't expect this to be enough to destroy the entire network but it would be largely enough to seriously damage the spy sattelite network, GPS and Glonass. Then, more satellites would be put out of commission during the exchange (EMP from high altitude burst). Last, more will have simply fallen into disrepair. Glonass had been completed in 1995 (24 satellites) and had fallen to 6 working sattelites by 2001. Satellites networks would have suffer more from the end of launches than from direct attack IMO.

Anyway, by 2000, most of the satellite networks would be seriously damaged with more being destroy every year. By 2010 all pre-twilight sattelites will be virtually gone except for a few lucky ones (lifespan being 15 years on the average and 20 for commsat).

Result of this:
Starting in 1995, spy satellites would progressively be destroyed. By 1997 spy satellites network would be seriously down and gone by the year 2000.
By 1997, using a smart weapon will have become almost impossible except with ground teams. Still communicate with such a team by 2000 would have become a very hard task.
By 1997, both GPS and GLONASS would have become increasingly unreliable and coverage by 2000 would be more than limited, at best.
By 2000, getting a reliable weather cast would be quite difficult. And not knowing for sure what weather you can count on during your next offensive is a bit of a problem.
By 2000, military communications would have taken over most of the civilian systems. Communications would be increasingly difficult and comm security would be geopardized. For my part, I would not be surprised to see pigeons and cable phone taking over part of the job.

If France remains indeed out of the conflict it will gain from this its most important advantage. Kourou (French Guyana) has not been destroyed, it has some rockets in storage and can manage to build more (especially with Belgium on its side). Therefore, France can still launch some satellites and maintain/repair some of its network. that should rate high in Paris priority.
This could allow for limited survelliance capabilities (Helios), for the survival of a very important system we usually forget about (Argos), for some communication (Syracuse), for the last fairly reliable weather surveillance system (Meteosat). I don't include radio and TV (Eutelsat) as this system would probably be neglected. As I said, this would grant an important advantage to France (may be not in 2000 but probalby as early as 2002-2003) but I would also expect Paris to sale some of the information it gets from this to NATO and may be to the Warsaw Pact. About Argos, I would expect Paris to have kept the system available, at least to NATO, allowing for many pilots and sailors to survive. Anyway, it would be a major advantage in global relation.

[Mohoender]

I didn't know about this system but I would also expect France to do its best to maintain the Cospas-Sarsat system (In fact, it appears that what I thought about Argos, in fact, concerned this system) that had resulted from a collaboration between USA, Canada, USSR and France (1979-1988 and thank you wiki). I would, then, expect France to still grant access to this system to all. Just because it makes sense at a diplomatic level.

[Rainbow Six]

Guys, might be worth looking at this thread as well...

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=2429

Cheers

[James Langham]

I didn't know about this system but I would also expect France to do its best to maintain the Cospas-Sarsat system (In fact, it appears that what I thought about Argos, in fact, concerned this system) that had resulted from a collaboration between USA, Canada, USSR and France (1979-1988 and thank you wiki). I would, then, expect France to still grant access to this system to all. Just because it makes sense at a diplomatic level.

EMP will also have a significant effect.

[Mohoender]

EMP will also have a significant effect.

I didn't say otherwise. Hoiwever, from what I have read, this should remain limited. Nevertheless what I assume comes from the fact that France retain the ability to replace destroyed satellites. EMP shouldn't bother France that much. With its infrastructures fairly in shape, it must be able to replace the damaged electronic as soon as the exchange dries up.

[James Langham]

I didn't say otherwise. Hoiwever, from what I have read, this should remain limited. Nevertheless what I assume comes from the fact that France retain the ability to replace destroyed satellites. EMP shouldn't bother France that much. With its infrastructures fairly in shape, it must be able to replace the damaged electronic as soon as the exchange dries up.

Both US and USSR will want to (and initially will have the capability to) take down French satellites. Also an airburst to induce EMP in France remains a high priority. French launches will not be easy either - getting the satellite to central Africa won't be easy (assuming that the facilities remain intact - a small nuke will soon stop that even if local conditions don't).

[natehale1971]

Both US and USSR will want to (and initially will have the capability to) take down French satellites. Also an airburst to induce EMP in France remains a high priority. French launches will not be easy either - getting the satellite to central Africa won't be easy (assuming that the facilities remain intact - a small nuke will soon stop that even if local conditions don't).

Also both sides would be taking out each other's sats and other nations sats to make sure that they can't be 'hijacked' and used by the other side. Someome brought up that civilian sats getting used for military purposes, the same thing kind of goes along with it.

[ArmySGT.]

Also both sides would be taking out each other's sats and other nations sats to make sure that they can't be 'hijacked' and used by the other side. Someome brought up that civilian sats getting used for military purposes, the same thing kind of goes along with it.

The DoD purchased "Iridium" Satellite phone network.

[Graebarde]

French launches will not be easy either - getting the satellite to central Africa won't be easy (assuming that the facilities remain intact - a small nuke will soon stop that even if local conditions don't).

The French launch facilities are in South America I think, NOT Africa, not that it makes a difference to the ease of getting them to the launch.

[natehale1971]

i've been doing some reading on Sats... namely to help with my extensive timeline for my t2k campaign, so i can put when manned and unmanned space missions occured.

I've been reading about the Graveyard Orbit... that when a sat is reaching the end of it's operational life, it fires up it's manevering rockets to put itself into the graveyard orbit to keep down the amount of space junk in operational orbits. it's made me wonder about the possiblity that the graveyard orbit could have been used for covert survellience and communications sats to be put up and avoid being spotted by enemy anti-sat weapons.

From what i've read the Graveyard Oribt is higher than thsoe orbits that woul have allowed for the sat to burn up on re-entry. and would more than likely be out of the range of anti-sat weapons.

Or am I getting this info wrong what are the upper limits of anti-sat weapons that can be launched from our fighters or ICBMs

[ArmySGT.]

The French launch facilities are in South America I think, NOT Africa, not that it makes a difference to the ease of getting them to the launch.

French Guyana. North East side of the South American Continent. An equatorial country.

[Mohoender]

Both US and USSR will want to (and initially will have the capability to) take down French satellites. Also an airburst to induce EMP in France remains a high priority. French launches will not be easy either - getting the satellite to central Africa won't be easy (assuming that the facilities remain intact - a small nuke will soon stop that even if local conditions don't).

Lets assume this assumption is true.
What ASAT capabilities of both US and USSR would be by 1995
What further ASAT capabilities would be added between 1995 and 1997

I have given my own take on that but I would love to see your ideas on it. I can agree with whatever you all say but not until I know what you think these capabilities are.

By 1988, US ASAT program has been cancelled (15 missile inculding 5 used for trial) and USSR has cancelled its old ASAT program and replaced it by a ASAT missile program similar to the one cancelled by US. However, it only produced 6 missiles (at most and we are not even sure they worked). Was this still the case in T2K If no, what further developments have been made If yes, when did the programs were started over again and accelerated, changed and what did they produce

At the time you had about 2000 working satellites in orbit. Won't they launch a few more with the perspective of war If you assume US has not cancelled its ASAT program and fielded 112 missiles by 1995 and if you assume that an EMP burst destroy satellite in a radious of 80km (that is the figure I came up with from my reading but I can be wrong), how many satellite can they put down Won't they focus on a certain type of satellite

Please, I want more than one thinking on all these questions.