Object 2014-28E Space junk or Russian satellite killer?

snoopdoggydog

Expert Member
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
1
It is a tale that could have come from the cold war. A mysterious object launched by the Russian military is being tracked by western space agencies, stoking fears over the revival of a defunct Kremlin project to destroy satellites.

For the past few weeks, amateur astronomers and satellite-trackers in Russia and the west have followed the unusual manoeuvres of Object 2014-28E, watching it guide itself towards other Russian space objects. The pattern appeared to culminate last weekend in a rendezvous with the remains of the rocket stage that launched it.

The object had originally been classed as space debris, propelled into orbit as part of a Russian rocket launch in May to add three Rodnik communications satellites to an existing military constellation. The US military is now tracking it under the Norad designation 39765.

Its purpose is unknown, and could be civilian: a project to hoover up space junk, for example. Or a vehicle to repair or refuel existing satellites. But interest has been piqued because Russia did not declare its launch – and by the object’s peculiar, and very active, precision movements across the skies.

Russia officially mothballed its anti-satellite weaponry programme – Istrebitel Sputnikov or satellite killer – after the fall of the iron curtain, though its expertise has not entirely disappeared. Indeed, military officials have publicly stated in the past that they would restart research in the event of a deterioration in relations with the US over anti-missile defence treaties. In 2010, Oleg Ostapenko, commander of Russia’s space forces, and now head of its space agency, said Russia was again developing “inspection” and “strike” satellites.

Moscow’s ministry of defence did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Whatever it is, [Object 2014-28E] looks experimental,” said Patricia Lewis, research director at think-tank Chatham House and an expert in space security. “It could have a number of functions, some civilian and some military. One possibility is for some kind of grabber bar. Another would be kinetic pellets which shoot out at another satellite. Or possibly there could be a satellite-to-satellite cyber attack or jamming.”

In a week when the European Space Agency’s Rosetta spacecraft landed a probe on a comet, the peregrinations of 2014-28E could seem insignificant, but they highlight an area of growing – if so far little publicised – concern for defence strategists: the weaponisation of space.

Having the ability to destroy or degrade an opponent’s satellite communications has been regarded as a powerful military capability since the space race began but, after the collapse of the iron curtain, many of the secret research projects Soviet and US engineers were working on were quietly shelved. In the past few years, however, interest in space weapons has revived.

“It would be odd if space were to remain the one area that [militaries] don’t get their hands on,” says Ms Lewis. Cyber attacks on satellites are already a reality, she points out: last week, hackers linked to the Chinese government infiltrated US federal weather satellites.

Russia has in the past been at the forefront of efforts to try to secure an international treaty to prevent weapons being deployed in space, but its efforts have fallen on stony ground.

Amid rapid advances by other foreign powers, and the recent deterioration in relations between Moscow and the west, plans to revive the IS programme would make strategic sense, said one Russian military expert.

As far back as 2007, the Chinese showed they had the ability to shoot down satellites with rockets and in 2008 the US demonstrated it had the same capability.

More recently, in May this year, a Chinese satellite known as Shijian 15 began to exhibit unusual propulsion capabilities and eventually intercepted another Chinese satellite, Shijian 7.

“The experiment was linked to the possible use of a remote capture arm and close proximity operations,” said Max White, a member of the Kettering group of astronomers, which made a name for itself in the 1960s by pinpointing the location of Soviet spy satellite launches. “Both can have peaceful as well as military nuances, with the former for refuelling in space, and the latter for disabling an active payload belonging to a foreign nation, potentially without causing a debris cloud.

“Whether the Russians feel they need to demonstrate such capability is a matter for debate,” Mr White added. He, too, has been following the activities of object 2014-28E.

In a signal of international sensitivities over the prospect of anti-satellite technologies being rapidly developed, a Chinese missile test this year drew an unusually fiery response from the Pentagon. US authorities said they had “high confidence” that a July launch was a test for a ground-based weapon to strike a satellite, accusing the Chinese of “destabilising actions”. China’s test was later also condemned by the EU.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/cdd0bdb6-6c27-11e4-990f-00144feabdc0.html
 
Ag shame. Where is it then, why did they not use it? Riiiiight!

probably the idea was bad and the Russians thought lets not waste our cash on it.......

The first launch was in 1988 , but it came about right before the fall of the Soviet Union, so there was very little chance to continue due to the changes that took place within Russia through the 90's.

Its first flight was actually quite succesful, with some impressive automated systems.

Even though the program was delayed by several years, Buran was the first space shuttle to perform an unmanned flight, including landing in fully automatic mode. The Buran automated launch sequence performed as specified, and the Energia rocket lifted the vehicle into a temporary orbit before the orbiter separated as programmed. After boosting itself to a higher orbit and completing two revolutions around the Earth, ODU (engine control system) engines fired automatically to begin the descent into the atmosphere. Exactly 206 minutes[10] into the mission, the Buran orbiter landed, having lost only eight of its 38,000 thermal tiles over the course of the flight.[11] The automated landing took place on a runway at Baikonur Cosmodrome where, despite a lateral wind speed of 61.2 kilometres per hour (38.0 mph), it landed only 3 metres (9.8 ft) laterally and 10 metres (33 ft) longitudinally from the target mark.[10] Specifically, as Buran approached Baikonur Cosmodrome and started landing, spacecraft sensors detected the strong crosswind and "the robotic system sent the huge machine for another rectangular traffic pattern approach, successfully landing the spacecraft on a second try."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

It also employed a safer, better launch system than NASA shuttles as well as being capable of carrying a 95 ton payload as opposed to the 29 ton payload of NASA shuttles.

Inside, the Buran carried many components that performed the same functions as those of its American equivalents. Both ships employed hydrogen fuel cells to produce electricity and burned hydrazine to power onboard hydraulic systems. Still, Soviet engineers designed most of these mechanisms from scratch with only a general idea of how the American equivalents worked.

Most importantly, the Soviet engineers built an entirely new launch system for Buran. Instead of two relatively simple (but, as it turned out after the Challenger disaster, deadly unreliable) solid-rocket boosters, on the first stage, the Soviets employed four liquid-propellant rockets. Their legacy lives on today in the Russian–Ukrainian Zenit launcher.

The Buran engineers also used four main engines (instead of the shuttle's three) designed to provide most of the thrust during a ride to orbit. They placed these engines into a separate rocket stage, rather than on the winged orbiter itself, as was the case with the shuttle. This approach meant that the Soviet system would lose its main engines after each flight instead of returning them to Earth with the orbiter, making it less reusable. On the other hand, it meant that almost any conceivable cargo up to 95 tons, be it a space battle station, a lunar base module, or a Martian expeditionary vehicle, could be attached to the Buran's launch system. By contrast, the maximum payload of the space shuttle was limited by the 29-ton capacity of the orbiter's cargo bay.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...ctually-build-a-better-space-shuttle-16176311
 
Buran was one of the greatest achievements of the USSR. Started out as a clone of the Space Shuttle but eventually became far more. Such a shame it was never used - the USA should have bought it off the Russians after the fall of the USSR.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X