Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Pegasus
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.055620.13873@amd.com>
Date: 16 Apr 91 17:25:38 GMT
References: <1991Mar30.020340.27985@amd.com> <1991Apr12.055442.14741@amd.com> <1991Apr13.014851.22702@amd.com> <1991Apr16.041607.28295@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 30
Approved: military@amd.com


From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)


>From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice)
>>[scaled-down Pegasus as shipboard satellite launcher]
>How far could one go with this sort of thing before concerns would be
>raised about such a vehicle having a ASAT capability and therefore being
>regulated by the ABM treaty?

Um, antisatellite weapons are *not* regulated by the ABM treaty.  There
has been talk of limits on antisatellite systems, but none have yet come
about.

In general, anything that can put a satellite into orbit can function as
the launcher for a Soviet-style orbital antisatellite system.  All you
need is a maneuverable satellite with homing system and a warhead.  Also
in general, anything that can put X kg into orbit can put several times X kg
into a suborbital trajectory intersecting a given low orbit, resulting in
an antisatellite system resembling the old US one.  All you need is some
sort of homing interceptor that can find the target and maneuver to hit it
despite a very high closing rate.

If you want to restrict antisatellite systems, the crucial parts are the
homing head and maneuvering system, not the launcher.  A portable space
launcher is a useful component of such a system, but not a particularly
crucial one.
-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry