Conference 7.286::space

    say one more article about it, said that AW 9/feb/87 had an article
    about it but said it was the fourth stage, they also said that one
    of the recon sat fail to send its package back to earh an it was
    blown up to prevent the american from getting it, I wonder how they
    though we would be able to get it?
    jb
    

    	The Space Shuttle (when it gets back into space again, naturally).
    
    	The Soviets have always feared its satellite retrieval
    capabilities, among other aspects.
    
    	Larry
    

    I'm not sure, if it was in a low orbit(as most  recon are) then its orbit
    would most likly have decayed before the next possible Shuttle, 
    
    the only other thing I could think of, the unit is design for reentry
    and it is possible it may not burn up  in an uncontroled reentry
    and we could then have  a fox hunt winner takes all (if it came down
    in friendly waters)
    
    will have to wait till I get home an see what AW has to say
    jb
    

    	By any chance would the United States happen to have a "satellite
    grabber" - an automated satellite which prowls around in Earth's
    orbit, ready to capture any interesting Soviet (or other "unfriendly")
    satellites, place them in a compartment, and either wait for a Space 
    Shuttle to pick them up, or return to Earth by itself?  Is such a thing 
    possible/practical?
    
    	Larry 
    

    I have heard discussion concerning the use of a robot probe that
    would be able to attain the 23,000 mile geosync orbit altitude for
    the purpose of bringing disabled sats down to shuttle orbital altitude
    such that they could be repaired or returned to earth.  Such a probe
    would work fine for what you suggest.
    
    jim
    

    Most of the Soviet low altitude photo recon sats are based on the
    Vostok design. The reentry capsule of a Vostok could survive reentry
    after orbit decay, so there would have been a reasonable chance
    of recovery by 'unfriendly' forces.
    
    gary

    	It's amazing how the Soviets still use designs that date back
    to the early days of the Space Age!
    
    	Larry
    

    If it aint broke, don't fix it....
    
    This is one of the major differences between the US and Soviet space
    program. One side likes to reuse existing technology, sometimes
    pushing it beyond its envelope and the other like to develope new
    technology even when existing technology will suffice. Both approaches
    have their problems.
    
    gary

Re .1:

Blown up from without or within?

If the latter, it ought to provide (further?) proof that you don't want
to drag a Russian satellite inside a shuttle cargo bay without asking
permission.

Although, if a positive radio signal is required as a failsafe method
of preventing unwanted self-destruction, then jamming until you can
cover the bird with Reynold's Wrap might do.

Re .5:

Judging from the above, it might be interesting to watch for a robot
that can deorbit its cargo without placing it in a shuttle.
				/AHM

    AW did not add much  to the destruction of the spy sat  
    but the remote control does not have to be from a radio signal the bird
    could have AI or simple detectors to check or any nearby object,
    is there anyone near me, pooof....  I have heard rumors that recon
    sat  are protect by such system also mil com sat are rumored to
    have defense against  sat killers form getting to them, thus space
    salvaging could be a dangerous job. 
    
     As for the tanks, that is a nice idea of using then as stroage
    tanks, nice to be able to use them as fuel tanks for a mission to
    Mars  or just to get home etc
    
    As to the failed launch, it was suposed to be a communications sat
    but not much on it as the CCCP are keeping it quite as not to scare
    away customers, most likly a geo bird.
    

The target satellite might be equipped with a relatively simple proximity
fuze, set to detonate a small warhead if anything gets within x feet.  This
would be completely autonomous and hard to spoof.  Or, they could be
equipped with active defenses, such as small long-wave IR-homing or
millimeter-wave-homing missiles, again set to fire at co-orbital bodies
within a certain range. 

Also, a grabsat would have to enter the same orbit as the target, for at
least part of one revolution.  This would certainly flag Soviet space 
surveillance and possibly the anti-sat laser at Sary Shagan (sp?) could be
used against the grabsat?  (provided the grab was attempted over the
eastern hemisphere.) 

An easier way to get our hands on at least the recon data would be to figure 
a way to initiate separation and re-entry of the recovery capsule, and 
direct it to land in the US.  Then we take it to Fort Detrick to open it 
up, because our vodka-drinking buddies might have put a CBW toxin inside 
the capsule as a precaution.

What do you suppose we'd find in a Soviet reconsat?  Zeiss lenses, Fuji 
film, and some Intel M8086s, I guess.  It probably wouldn't be worth the 
effort.

The Soviets have been on the propaganda bandwagon for years about the 
shuttle being used as a grabsat.  They'd NEVER try such a thing with their 
shuttle, however.  Just ask Phil Donahue or Ted Turner.

    	What about this anti-sat laser at "Sary Shagan"?
    
    	BTW - I like grabsat.  I think their purpose if nothing else
    could be to intimidate Soviet military satellites.  They do, of
    course, have many civilian uses as well.
    
    	Larry
    

    The Soviets have been testing a giant chemical laser at their Sary
    Shagan (I think that's the spelling) test site in central Asia for
    years.  The CIA feels that, since it isn't as elegant as something
    Hughes would design (Aircraft, not Gary), it can't be an operational
    device.  The DIA and the Air Force say that test rig or no test
    rig, it's powerful enough to damage a satellite in LEO.
    
    I'll try to find some solid references to this. 

    that is a new laser site , there was strong rumors that they have
    been able to blind our survalance sat for many years now even to
    the point of doing damage to delicate electronic sensors but the
    Sary Shagan seems to be a bigger unit from your description.
    
    The equipment used in the spy sat would most likly be made in
    japan etc, but what they consider important to photo or elctronicly
    listen to would be worth it                         
    
    but even in the us our sat are no all us design, one of the partical 
    acellerator design to be used in SDI is a Soviet design that got them
    the Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago
                       
    However we may think to hightly of ourself, they could have destroyed
    it just to keep it from doing damage, as it could have made it threw
    the orbit decay , and who needs a footfall
    

    I think it would be more interesting to find out what they were
    photographing than how. The only likely piece of technology information
    would be resolution capability (assuming no major secret breakthrough
    by the Soviets).
    
    I do recall something about a large ground based Soviet laser, prob
    in an old AW&ST. 
    
    gary

Aviation Week first broke the story in 1977, when it published an interview 
with Gen. George Keegan, the retiring head of Air Force Intelligence.  
They continued to update the story until late 1984, when Military Editor 
Clarence Robinson left the mag. and a lot of their sources dried up.  
Another account is offered in David Baker's book, _The Shape of Wars to 
Come_, (Stein & Day, 1982).

Baker described the Soviet directed energy test site at Saryshagan (one
word), an isolated (!) area about 60km from the Soviet underground nuke
test site at Semipalatinsk (sp?).  The pulsed oxygen-iodine laser which I
alluded to earlier operates in the visible light portion of the spectrum,
and has been tested against objects in the atmosphere.  It may have enough
power to operate as a true anti-sat weapon; it certainly has enough power
to craze the optics of an observation satellite, and probably damage many
of the electronic systems on board any type of bird.

Also mentioned as being tested at Saryshagan are magnethydrodynamic
generators driven by liquid rocket engines, and particle beam generators 
which are powered by electricity generated by small underground nuclear 
explosions. 
    
    Sorry to have diverged so far from the base note!

yes back off track again but why not, it is an interesting road to travel
    You can do a good guess as to what they are taking pic of by ploting
    the Aperigee and Perigee, when the sat dips you can plot its low
    point and look for other clues like local Noon for best light
    mid afternoon for good shadows pic etc, typical they only make
    about 15 trips per day around the earth and most points at best picture
    taking time can be ruled out, for example one drop down to take
    good pictures of the Falkland Is area when that was heating up
    the problem is geting good elementset and updates, several
    interesting article have been written on how to do it with 
    visulal observations over several nights