Space exploration and technology

[LETHALFORCE]

New Shenlong View: On December 12, 2007 another Chinese web poster offered this computer generated rendering of the Shenlong with a vertical stabilizer, using a curious “trapeze” suspension from an H-6 bomber. It cannot be confirmed that this will be the final configuration for an H-6 launching of the Shenlong. Source: Chinese Interent

Within 24 hours of the posting of the initial photo, more apparent details had emerged on Chinese military issue websites. While interesting, much of this data cannot be confirmed in the absence of any official Chinese government, military or corporate disclosures. Nevertheless, various posters have suggested that the Shenlong space craft is a program funded by the famous “863 Program” for dual-use high-technology research established in 1986 to advance China’s military modernization. The Shenlong carries the program number “863-706,” and as such, is likely a PLA-priority program. Other posters revealed that the No. 611 Design Institute usually associated with the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation was involved in some design and testing aspects of the Shenlong. Another poster revealed an article from mid-October 2007 claiming to show the digital control center created by the 611 Institute to test the Shenlong. Mark Wade has noted that the 611 Institute may have gained insights regarding space planes from cooperative programs with France during the 1980s, which was developing the Hermes space plane.[2]

Possible 611 Institute Shenlong Control Center: One Chinese web poster states that this facility was created by the 611 Institute to conduct the test flights of the Shenlong. Source: Chinese Internet

Another interesting aspect of the Shenlong program is that it provides a rare example of how a state and military funded program is assisted by Chinese technical universities. One web poser revealed that the Nanjing University for Astronautics and Aeronautics (NUAA) was likely involved in devising early digital “computer-aided-design” (CAD) for the spacecraft, which likely used a version of the French Dassault CATIA design software, used throughout China’s military industries. NUAA researchers may have also led the design of the control computer and re-entry control system. Northwest University, which also does extensive 863 Program funded research, is said to have helped design the INS/GPS (Inertial Navigation System/Global Positioning Navigation Satellite) control system for the 863-706 program. The Harbin Technical University, a key center for PLA-funded military-technical research, is said to have helped design composite structures for the Shenlong.

However, these websites were not clear regarding the status of the Shenlong program. It appears that much of the design work took place between 2000 and 2004. One Internet source indicates the original December 11 picture may have been taken in late 2005, but this cannot be confirmed. The existence of the 611 Institute run test facility might indicate that some degree of flight testing has occurred. In early 2007 a French publication noted that Western intelligence agencies were very interested in the first test flight of a “secret super-scramjet demonstrator” which was tested in late 2006 and landed in the Indian Ocean.[3] Indeed, China is pursuing the development of air-breathing hypersonic vehicles,[4] but it is also possible this may have been a test of the Shenlong.

These same Chinese websites also did not offer details regarding the performance of the Shenlong. Even if launched from a new H-6K bomber, which reportedly will be powered by Russian D-30K turbofans and capable of higher launch altitudes, the Shenlong does not appear to be large enough to reach sustained Low Earth Orbit (LEO) flight. As such, it may only be capable of short-duration LEO flight over Chinese territory, which would be consistent with a technology test and validation mission. The Shenlong would also likely help China with the development of hypersonic aircraft. The initial photo of the Shenlong does not indicate that it can carry a payload other than its motor, liquid fuel and its guidance system. That said, the Shenlong is broadly similar to U.S. and other unmanned space planes designed to test new technologies. These would include the U.S. Orbital Sciences X-34, Boeing X-37 and Japan’s HOPE-X. A larger version presumably would be able to carry a payload and be capable of sustained LEO flight.

China’s Interest In Space Planes

China’s interest in space planes began in earnest with the arrival of Dr. Qian Xueshen, who was the co-founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology and made enormous contributions to early U.S. rocket programs. But in 1950 he was suspected of spying for China, lost his security clearances, put under house arrest, and then deported to China in 1955 as part of post Korean War prisoner exchanges. Controversy has since raged over whether Qian’s prosecution was justified, or an example of McCarthy-era paranoia causing a travesty of U.S. justice.[5] But on his return, Qian became a key ally of Mao Zedong and led the creation of China’s modern missile and aerospace sector. The release of the Shenlong picture occurred on his 96th birthday, and was thus likely intended as an unofficial tribute to Qian’s profound contributions to China’s missile forces, missile defense and anti-satellite programs, and broad manned and unmanned space capabilities.[6] It was Qian’s 1949 concept for a space plane that formed the basis for the U.S. Air Force’s “Dynasoar” military space plane concept of the early 1960s,[7] which led to the U.S. Space Shuttle. Qian also proposed another space plane concept in the late 1970s that closely resembled the Dynasoar.

Spacecraft expert Mark Wade has noted that in 1988 Chinese designers proposed three space plane concepts. The Chang Cheng 1 was proposed by what is now the Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight technology, and was a 2/3 shuttle-size space plane atop three large boosters. What is now the China Academy of Launch Technology proposed a much smaller space place atop Long-March size booster. Finally, the 601 Institute, connected to the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, proposed a small space plane atop an air-breathing hypersonic launcher. Only the later would have involved a truly reusable space access system, but all were deemed beyond China’s capabilities. But had they been implemented these proposals would have resulted in space planes flying in this decade.[8]

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Military Potential of Unmanned Space Platforms

The Shenlong could validate technologies and form the basis for a range of unmanned and manned space vehicles, which both could serve civil-commercial as well as military missions. However, it appears be sufficient Chinese literature and statements to justify concern that China’s space planes are being developed for military missions in space and to attack targets on Earth. In his recent review of Chinese literature on Chinese military views toward space warfare, Dr. Larry Wortzel noted that China was exploring a list of potential space weapons, which included “space planes that can transit and fight ‘up or down’ in the upper atmosphere or space.”[14]

In May 2002 Dr. Zhuang Fenggan gave an interview to the Beijing Youth Daily in which he revealed new information on China’s space plane plans. In this article Zhuang suggested that a space plane was intended to be a “space combat weapons platform” and serve “dual use” missions. He also noted that a mere “space shuttle” did not meet China’s needs, which required a space plane that could move “freely” between space and the upper atmosphere. Zhuang also identified a number of technologies China would have to master for its space plane, to include hypersonic, high mobility, and advanced materials. But it is also curious that Zhuang would identify “high stealth” and “precision strike” technologies as important for China’s space plane.[15]

n 2005 three Chinese researchers from the Center for Precision Guidance Technology of the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Aeronautics indicated that China may have already been developing a space capability for attacking targets on Earth. In one article they noted, “The greatest advantage of a space-based ground attack weapon system is its high speed and short reentry time. It is extremely difficult for the enemy to intercept such a weapon.”[16] While this article does not identify Chinese space plane or space shuttles as a potential space based “ground attack weapon,” one cannot discount that China may be designing its unmanned or manned space plane for this purpose.

Space Bomber Concept

The concept of a space bomber is not new. During World War Two Germany’s Dr. Eugene Albert Sanger proposed a 100 ton rocket powered bomber that would skip atop the upper atmosphere to attack the United States.[17] There has also been recent U.S. debate over making greater military use of space. In 1999 U.S. Congress created The Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, which was led by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In its February 2001 report the “Space Commission” concluded:

“The nation’s vital interests depend increasingly on the capability of its military professionals to develop, acquire and operate systems capable of sustained space combat operations…It is also possible to project power though and from space in response to events anywhere in the world. Unlike weapons from aircraft, land forces or ships, space missions initiated from earth or space could be carried out with little transit, information or weather delay. Having this capability would give the U.S. a much stronger deterrent, and in combat, an extraordinary military advantage.”[18]

After he took office as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld tried to advance the goal of developing a sub-orbital hypersonic bomber that could reduce the response time for U.S. strikes anywhere on the Earth to a few hours. But from the partisan atmosphere that greeted the Commission, to Congressional opposition to the hypersonic bomber, and then the change in national priorities that followed the September 11, 2001 attacks, Rumsfeld’s ambition for such a hypersonic or space combat platform has not been realized.[19] To compensate, the Department of Defense has also proposed outfitting intercontinental ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads, which has also been opposed by the Congress. But following China’s 2007 successful ASAT demonstration the Bush Administration has sought additional funding for programs designed to protect U.S. space assets, as well as new funding for a hypersonic strike aircraft.[20]

Implications for the United States

China appears to have made significant progress toward the development of an unmanned trans-atmospheric vehicle. While it has obvious commercial and scientific uses, it is also clear that much of the purpose behind the development of this craft is military. The comments of Chinese officials indicate that their rocket powered space plane program may be a reaction to U.S. and Indian ambitions to develop hypersonic transports and bombers. But the comments of some of these officials plus those of Chinese military academics indicate that a space plane may also form the basis for a space combat platform. This space combat platform may be intended to attack targets on Earth or it could carry out counter-space combat missions. In addition, China is aggressively pursuing air-breathing hypersonic propulsion technologies, which may provide another avenue to developing very rapid long-range “deep strike” weapons.

China’s successful test of a direct-ascent anti-satellite interceptor on January 11, 2007, following two or three previous tests starting in late 2005, have provided one warning of China’s intention to build a robust military space combat capability. The development of the Shenlong should be viewed as a second warning of China’s commitment to building combat capabilities in space. The Shenlong program may also indicate that China intends to field a stealthy “space bomber” within the next decade. China’s government has refused to discuss its ASAT test in any detail and shows no willingness to reveal its larger plans to develop military space combat capabilities. Meanwhile, the United States, which decided in the late 1980s not to deploy its own anti-satellite interceptor, today lacks a defense against China’s ASATs and cannot deter China with corresponding space combat systems.

As such, it is critical that the U.S. proceed with current programs to protect U.S. military and civil space assets. In addition, the U.S. must now develop a range of capabilities necessary to deter Chinese military attacks in space or from space. This may require reconsideration of the decision to retire the U.S. Space Shuttle fleet in 2010. It may instead now be necessary to consider retaining one or two Shuttles and to develop defensive and offensive payloads for them, until a less expensive and perhaps smaller unmanned or manned space plane can be developed. Such a new multi-role space plane could be based on an existing air-launched rocket-powered experimental space plane, or be based on a hypersonic platform with the ability to go in and out of space. But instead of leading the world with this technology, the politics of Washington and the War on Terror may be putting the U.S. in a position of having to catch up to China.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Kehler: Spherical Battlespace Is New Theater Of Operations

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Kehler_Spherical_Battlespace_Is_New_Theater_Of_Operations_999.html

Kehler: Spherical Battlespace Is New Theater Of Operations


by Capt. Ben Sakrisson
Air University Public Affairs
Colorado Springs CO (AFNS) Apr 04, 2009
The world is no longer flat and information is no longer static. Neither can military operations confine focus to one area of a conflict while remaining oblivious to interconnections with the larger picture. It is time the view of the battlefield is turned upside-down.

This is the message of the commander of Air Force Space Command.

Speaking before a crowded conference hall here March 31 at the 25th National Space Symposium, Gen. C. Robert Kehler laid out his vision of the redefined theater of operations - the spherical area of operations.

"I am going to define that as an area starting at the geostationary distances from the earth and extending down," General Kehler said.

"I think for far too long we have looked at our conception of future battlespace by standing on the ground and looking up. I think that might be the wrong way to look."

While the concept of always seeking the high ground is as old as military doctrine itself, seeking to understand this newly defined area is a daunting task.

"The spherical battlespace is constantly changing as on-orbit objects transverse across a volume that is 6,000 times larger than the airspace of the earth below," General Kehler said.

The seemingly trivial decision of what domain to cover, in fact, results in a great degree of study and debate on the extent of a given space that should be covered by a single asset.

"In our headquarters, we're combing through the different layers of space, high altitude, air and terrestrial to better understand how a degree of adequate redundancy and complementing capability can be achieved to preclude an overinvestment in one domain which creates vulnerability for our operating forces," said Army Lt. Gen. Kevin T. Campbell, commanding general of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command and commander of Joint Functional Component Command-Integrated Missile Defense of U.S. Strategic Command.

While the connection between space and cyberspace may be unclear to many outside of these career fields, to those within the space community, the connection is clear.

"Nearly 100 percent of the product from space is information," said Col. Sean D. McClung, the director of Air University's National Space Studies Center.

To this end, the vital cyberspace link to troops in the field is connected via space assets.

"Space capabilities provide intelligence that would otherwise be lost, warnings that would otherwise be undetected, and communications that would otherwise be impossible," General Kehler said.

Perhaps one of the most difficult pieces of the puzzle to get right, though, is the determination of how many assets are required from private industry at a given point in time and how to balance the need for increased bandwidth in a contingency against the need for operational security.

"You have to have a way to talk about capacity reallocation and reprioritization. When you get into a real hot battle what happens is, unless you have already planned it, there is no capacity," said Richard DalBello, vice president of legal and government affairs at Intelsat General Corporation, the largest provider of satellite services in the world.

"If this stuff is not worked out in advance, it is not going to be worked out in a conflict."

Likewise, with respect to space-based assets, the ability to determine with certainty and react in a timely manner to threats in their orbital paths is still in its infancy.

"Straight-line thinking no longer works; objects are always in motion," General Kehler said. He further advocated for better situational awareness in both space and cyberspace.

The effort to build a national space situational awareness, or SSA, architecture is underway, though it is not yet up to full operational capability.

Currently, "we have space situational awareness, (but) it is not as good as we would like it to be," said Col. Dustin A. Tyson, the chief of the Space Control Division at the Pentagon's National Security Space Office.

The future goal with the development of a national SSA architecture, according to Colonel Tyson, is to "evolve SSA from what we have a tendency to do today, forensic, to predictive knowledge."

Once this critical process is complete, the military will be one step closer to having advanced warnings of possible collisions in space rather than investigating the cause in the aftermath. In the spherical area of operations, that determination is made at 11,000 meters per second.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

India wants military space program to defend its satellites

Nation & World | India wants military space program to defend its satellites | Seattle Times Newspaper

India wants military space program to defend its satellites

By GAVIN RABINOWITZ
The Associated Press
NEW DELHI — India said that it needs a military space program to defend its satellites from threats like China's newly revealed ability to shoot down targets in orbit.

The comments by India's army chief raise the possibility of a regional race that could accelerate the militarization of space and heighten tensions between the Asian giants, which have been enjoying their warmest ties in decades.

India urgently needs to "optimize space applications for military purposes," Gen. Deepak Kapoor said Monday at a conference in New Delhi on using space for military purposes.

He noted that "the Chinese space program is expanding at an exponentially rapid pace in both offensive and defensive content." His remarks were first reported by The Indian Express newspaper and confirmed by the Defense Ministry's spokesman on Tuesday.

China destroyed one of its own defunct weather satellites with a ballistic missile in January, becoming the third country, after Russia and the U.S., to shoot down an object in orbit.

In February the United States shot down a satellite that it said posed a threat as it fell to Earth. Kapoor did not mention that, singling out China in a statement analysts said was designed to send a clear message to Beijing.

"In an unsubtle way this is related to China," said Ashok Mehta, a retired Indian army general and leading strategic analyst.

Kapoor said that while militarization of space by India was at "a comparatively nascent stage," there was an urgent need for a military space command for "persistent surveillance and rapid response."

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Anil Kumar Mathur said, "We are not talking about deploying weapons, but about self-defense." Neither man elaborated on their remarks.

The Indian military does not have its own dedicated spy satellites and uses civilian ones to gather imagery and other intelligence. India has an advanced civilian space program and frequently launches both types of satellites for other countries, including an Israeli spy satellite in January.

Other Indian generals speaking at the conference said a military space race was almost certain.

"With time we will get sucked into a military race to protect our space assets, and inevitably there will be a military contest in space," the Indian Express newspaper quoted Lt. Gen. H.S. Lidder as saying.



Ties between India and China — which together have one-third of the world's population — are at their closest since China defeated India in a brief 1962 border war. Last year, trade between India and China grew to $37 billion, and their two armies conducted their first joint military exercise.

But the two nations remain sharply divided over territorial claims dating back to the war. China claims India's northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh and occupies a chunk of territory in Kashmir that India regards as its own.

Talks on the disputed border have gone nowhere, and Kapoor's "statement is in relation to what is happening on the border dispute and the Chinese taking an uncompromising position," Mehta said.

This, along with China's heavy military spending and a growing rivalry for regional influence, has alarmed the Indian military, which has been increasingly gearing up for possible conflict.

India has announced plans to have aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines at sea in the next decade and recently tested nuclear-capable missiles that put China's major cities well in range. It is also reopening air force bases near the Chinese border.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Let The Planet Hunt Begin


Let The Planet Hunt Begin


Kepler will hunt for planets by looking for periodic dips in the brightness of stars - events that occur when orbiting planets cross in front of their stars and partially block the light.
by Staff Writers
Moffett Field CA (SPX) May 14, 2009
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has begun its search for other Earth-like worlds. The mission, which launched from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on March 6, will spend the next three-and-a-half years staring at more than 100,000 stars for telltale signs of planets.
Kepler has the unique ability to find planets as small as Earth that orbit sun-like stars at distances where temperatures are right for possible lakes and oceans.

"Now the fun begins," said William Borucki, Kepler science principal investigator at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are all really excited to start sorting through the data and discovering the planets."

Scientists and engineers have spent the last two months checking out and calibrating the Kepler spacecraft. Data have been collected to characterize the imaging performance as well as the noise level in the measurement electronics. The scientists have constructed the list of targets for the start of the planet search, and this information has been loaded onto the spacecraft.

"If Kepler got into a staring contest, it would win," said James Fanson, Kepler project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

"The spacecraft is ready to stare intently at the same stars for several years so that it can precisely measure the slightest changes in their brightness caused by planets." Kepler will hunt for planets by looking for periodic dips in the brightness of stars - events that occur when orbiting planets cross in front of their stars and partially block the light.

The mission's first finds are expected to be large, gas planets situated close to their stars. Such discoveries could be announced as early as next year.

Kepler is a NASA Discovery mission. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., is the home organization of the science principal investigator, and is responsible for the ground system development, mission operations and science data analysis. JPL manages the Kepler mission development. Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp. of Boulder, Colo., is responsible for developing the Kepler flight system and supporting mission operations.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

India's manned space mission will have IAF men

India's manned space mission will have IAF men- ET Cetera-News By Industry-News-The Economic Times

India's manned space mission will have IAF men

NEW DELHI: When India's first manned mission to space takes off, possibly in 2017, it will have Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel on
board.

"Let me promise you one thing, if there is a (Indian) man on moon (read space), it will be from the Indian Air Force," IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major told reporters here.

According to sources, the IAF is to train two of its personnel for the mission, in collaboration with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). The proposed manned mission will follow India's successful lunar probe launch last year.

Major added that the IAF's Institute for Aerospace Medicine is working closely with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) on the project.

The mission is likely to carry a two-member IAF crew. India's Squadron Leader Rakesh Sharma, who was part of the joint space programme between India and the erstwhile Soviet Union in 1984, was the first Indian to go into space.

Though ISRO wanted one of its scientists on the mission along with an IAF pilot, the air force proposed that both should be IAF personnel.

"The crew will consist of two members. We had a meeting with the ISRO scientists and they insisted on sending one scientist and one air force pilot, but we have proposed to depute one of our engineers also with them for training till the mission happens," a senior IAF official said requesting anonymity.

Under the ambitious $2.5 billion plan, India's space agency has proposed to put two people into space orbit at 274 km above the earth for seven days.

If the mission takes off, India will be the fourth country - after the US, Russia and China - to send a manned mission to space. India is not the only Asian country in the new space race - Iran recently announced it will attempt a manned space flight by 2021.

Dismissing the criticism of the huge costs involved in the mission, another senior IAF official listed its military advantages. He said it will help India acquire Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capability.

"To place a spacecraft in orbit, we will require a bigger rocket booster. This large rocket booster will help India acquire ICBM capability," the senior official added.

He also said it would boost the country's reconnaisance capability. "To be in constant touch with the astronauts as they revolve around the earth, we will need to interlink our satellites, which in turn will boost our reconnaissance capability. Presently, we are able to get 15 minutes' feed daily from our satellites. The space mission will give us 90 minutes' feed," he said.

The decision to send astronauts into space follows the launch last October of India's first unmanned lunar mission, Chandrayaan-1, which signalled the country's entry into an elite club of nations that have reached the moon. Chandrayaan-1 is now orbiting the moon to compile a 3-D map of its surface, among other things. India is planning to launch its second unmanned lunar mission - Chandrayaan-2 - in 2011.

India's decision to go for a manned mission into space comes in the wake of China making great strides in its space pursuits. China completed its first space walk last year, and also shot down one of its own satellites in 2007.

 

[p2prada]

Well there was a talk of a failed fusion bomb experiment during the Pokhran tests. If anyone has the article about it kindly post it. The fourth and final one was supposed to be a fusion bomb technology.

Yes, the expected yield was 250Kilotons. But, what we got was 45Kilotons. Or that's how the story goes.

 

[SATISH]

P2P...Dont we already have a 250kt plutonium based fission bomb? Then why should we go for a low yield Fusion bomb?...There is something fishy and I smell it.

 

[SATISH]

45 KT is not a tactical nuke. It is a full fledged nuke. Tactical nukes are single digit Kt nukes not 45 Kt.

 

[p2prada]

P2P...Dont we already have a 250kt plutonium based fission bomb? Then why should we go for a low yield Fusion bomb?...There is something fishy and I smell it.

250kt Atomic Bomb?? I doubt it. We have to achieve our targets of Minimum Credible Deterrence quickly. So, we will focus on employing 20kt to 100 kt bombs until we reach the target and disperse all the missile warheads.

Maybe after that, we may focus on building much larger yields.

Our H-bomb capabilities is completely under wraps. Zero information. Even the H bomb tests are based on merely speculations through seismic data. Some analysts say, it was just a very big atomic bomb.

Secondly, we do not have effective delivery systems like ICBMs to carry a 20 ton payload etc. Our Agni series carry upto 1 ton. So, even our H-bomb will be of lower yields than the US and Russian warheads.

250kt is too powerful as of now. 500kt is the limit for fission weapons(atomic bomb).

But, US, Russia etc have H-bomb warheads with yields of more than 1Megaton. In tests, USSR once detonated a H bomb of 50 Megatons(it was downgraded from 100Mt to prevent massive fallout).

During Pokhran II, our highest yield was 15kt after the H-bomb. The other tests were all less than 1kt and were experimental designs.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

250kt Atomic Bomb?? I doubt it. We have to achieve our targets of Minimum Credible Deterrence quickly. So, we will focus on employing 20kt to 100 kt bombs until we reach the target and disperse all the missile warheads.

Maybe after that, we may focus on building much larger yields.

Our H-bomb capabilities is completely under wraps. Zero information. Even the H bomb tests are based on merely speculations through seismic data. Some analysts say, it was just a very big atomic bomb.

Secondly, we do not have effective delivery systems like ICBMs to carry a 20 ton payload etc. Our Agni series carry upto 1 ton. So, even our H-bomb will be of lower yields than the US and Russian warheads.

250kt is too powerful as of now. 500kt is the limit for fission weapons(atomic bomb).

But, US, Russia etc have H-bomb warheads with yields of more than 1Megaton. In tests, USSR once detonated a H bomb of 50 Megatons(it was downgraded from 100Mt to prevent massive fallout).

During Pokhran II, our highest yield was 15kt after the H-bomb. The other tests were all less than 1kt and were experimental designs.

AGNI 2 is reported to be 200KT

Agni - India Missile Special Weapons Delivery Systems

but rather than focusing on yield we should focus on producing more MIRV AGNI3'S

 

[SATISH]

AGNI 2 is reported to be 200KT

Agni - India Missile Special Weapons Delivery Systems

but rather than focusing on yield we should focus on producing more MIRV AGNI3'S

Well I am with you in this sir. More MIRV less chance for intercept.

 

[p2prada]

AGNI 2 is reported to be 200KT

Agni - India Missile Special Weapons Delivery Systems

but rather than focusing on yield we should focus on producing more MIRV AGNI3'S

That's right. But, it does not mention the weight of the warhead or the nature of the warhead. 200KT just indicates the nuke's yield is equal to 200,000 tons of TNT. The weight Agni I and II can carry is 1 ton. So, an equivalent A-bomb weighing 1 ton will have a lower yield than a H-bomb weighing 1 ton. Anyways these are only official figures.

@Satish
The H bomb tested in Pokhran was 200KT and not 250KT. It was downgraded to 45KT to reduce seismic activity. Success or failure is speculation. Officials say it was a success.

 

[p2prada]

Agni Series.Past, Present and Future

 

[LETHALFORCE]

That's right. But, it does not mention the weight of the warhead or the nature of the warhead. 200KT just indicates the nuke's yield is equal to 200,000 tons of TNT. The weight Agni I and II can carry is 1 ton. So, an equivalent A-bomb weighing 1 ton will have a lower yield than a H-bomb weighing 1 ton. Anyways these are only official figures.

@Satish
The H bomb tested in Pokhran was 200KT and not 250KT. It was downgraded to 45KT to reduce seismic activity. Success or failure is speculation. Officials say it was a success.

15KT was enough to take out nagasaki and hiroshima so 200kt should be sufficient,nice to be able to choose if we should go with the nuke or the hydrogen bomb.

 

[p2prada]

LF: The bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a Uranium core(little boy) while fat man dropped on Nagasaki had a Plutonium core. The Plutonium version was more powerful.

Pak cities, except Karachi, are quite small. A 50KT bomb is enough.

The 200KT on Agni is only a speculation. It could be more or less. The 1 ton payload is more accurate. Future versions of atomic bombs can have increased yields while weighing only 1 ton because of better designs and better trigger mechanisms.

 

[Sridhar]

We don't need 200KT as a single device, since the power of it diminishes by the square of the distance . A payload of 1 ton with multiple smaller MIRV can disperse to greater area and can inflict greater damage to multiple targets and can be effective against ABM systems.

 

[Known_Unknown]

'Neutron bomb capability exists'

Neutron bomb capability exists

Interview with Dr. Anil Kakodkar.

Dr. Anil Kakodkar took charge as Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, and Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), on December 1. This former Director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Trombay, succeeded Dr. R. Chidambaram to these posts. Dr. Kakodkar, 57, obtained a B.E. degree in mechanical engineering from Bombay University and an M.Sc. from Nottingham University in the U.K. In 1963-64 he underwent training in nuclear science and technology with the then Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay.

Associated with research and development related to nuclear reactors since 1964, he was involved in India's first Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) experiment of May 1974. He played an important role in the five nuclear tests conducted in Ma y 1998. He played a key role in the design and construction of Dhruva, the 100 MW high flux reactor at Trombay and the development of indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) system. His work in the rehabilitation of the two reactors at Kalpakkam and the first unit at Rawatbhatta, which at one stage were on the verge of being written off, are examples of his engineering capability. He has built teams of specialised engineers and scientists in the reactor engineering programme.

His dream project is to build the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) that uses thorium-uranium 233 as primary energy source with plutonium as the driver fuel. The unique reactor system, with simplified but safe technology, will generate 75 per cent o f electricity from thorium.

T.S. Subramanian met Dr. Kakodkar for an interview at Trombay. Excerpts:

You have stated that India's nuclear energy programme has come of age. Could you elaborate on this?

Any research and development (R&D) programme must ultimately lead to technological benefit to the society. In our atomic energy programme, as a result of the R&D that has been done at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and other institutions, and R &D contributions from industry in manufacturing technology, we have today the PHWR programme which is in a successful commercial domain. We are able to build our own nuclear power reactors, manufacture all the essential nuclear inputs such as heavy water , zirconium alloy components and nuclear fuel. The PHWRs are operating at a high capacity factor. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited has been making considerable profits. It is a demonstration of the successful migration of technology from th e laboratory to the industry. So there is a degree of maturity in the DAE.

Obviously, if the nuclear power programme has to grow, there should be more and more PHWRs, with larger unit sizes too. Right now we are building 220 MW PHWRs. At Tarapur we have started construction of 500 MW PHWRs. We should take up more reactors for c onstruction and the 500 MW reactor programme should get considerable acceleration.

This programme is no longer limited by technology. It is a question of creating more investments, and more projects, and megawatt capacity would follow. This is important because nuclear electricity generation today forms only a low fraction of the total electricity generated in the country. We should take it to a reasonably higher fraction because this is a future energy source. Once we take the nuclear power capacity (generation) to 7,000 or 8,000 MWe level, the internal surplus generation will be abl e to support a substantial capacity-building programme. We must have a programme where work is going on simultaneosuly at several sites. Also the technology development to support the PHWR programme has to continue because the technology is never static.

Will the construction of the 500 MW Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) begin at Kalpakkam soon?

We are almost ready. The second stage of our nuclear power programme, that is, the construction of the Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs), should reach a commercial deployment stage as we have with the first stage PHWRs today. This is the key to exploiting the full potential of our nuclear energy resources and enlarging the nuclear power generation capacity. The Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) at Kalpakkam has done extremely well and all its technological objectives have been met. The Indira Gandhi Centre fo r Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam has done a lot of technological development work in building the full-size components for the PFBR. So they are poised to take up the construction of the PFBR. On the basis of that experience, we should be in a posi tion to start construction of a series of FBRs in India. This will be the second stage of our nuclear electricity programme.

As the FBR programme starts, we have to think of further advancement in terms of faster doubling time. The PFBR will constitute the reactor technology and we have to advance in fuel cycle technology. That is a major programme which will go on for some ti me at the IGCAR.

The third stage of our nuclear electricity programme will use thorium as fuel. Here also there will be several stages of evolutions in the thorium utilisation programme. The ultimate objective of this will be to build a pure thorium-uranium 233 based rea ctor. The AHWRs will form only the first phase of the third stage. The idea here is that we should move towards thorium utilisation on a very substantial scale, using the heavy water technology that we have. The AHWR is designed to get a large fraction o f energy output from thorium. It incorporates several advanced safety features which characterise innovative reactor designs worldwide.

What are the technological challenges that you will have to overcome in building AHWRs?

The main objective of the AHWRs is to achieve a larger degree of safety through the use of what is known as passive safety systems. For example, with, natural circulation of water, safety is no longer dependent on active components such as pumps, which m ay fail. Passive systems depend on physical principles and you thus get a large safety advantage.

In the AHWR, energy extraction from the core is through passive means. Residual heat removal is through passive means. Containment heat removal and containment circulation are both by passive means. There are several other such features.

The AHWR would be economically advantageous too. We are building into it features which will lower its capital cost. This is because there is no active equipment, or there are just one or two, which require nuclear classification. We have eliminated most of the costly equipment that require nuclear classification.

You do require some active components to back up, but they are all conventional equipment. You can buy them in the market and they are cheap. Using factory assembled coolant channels, we expect to do the coolant channel replacement work quite fast. In on e normal shutdown of the reactor, you can replace the coolant channels. This is the kind of capability we are trying to build. This is the second objective.

The third and the most important objective is to demonstrate large-scale generation of electricity from thorium. So the reactor will be in a self-sustaining mode as far as the uranium 233-thorium cycle is concerned. Whatever uranium-233 is consumed for e lectricity generation, the same amount of uranium-233 will be produced in the reactor. Of course it will require a certain amount of plutonium as a kind of driver fuel. That is why it (the AHWR) forms the first phase of the third stage...

We are defining the road map for shaping the third stage. There are several elements in it: the technologies that will go into the uranium-233 fuel cycle, that is, the fuel cycle technology; the reactor technology, and so on. For some time, the FBRs and the thorium reactors will be in a tandem mode. You breed fuel and you support more thorium capacity. Afterwards it will go into pure thorium mode.

While this is going on, we probably have to look for technologies that will make the third stage more efficient. There is a possibility that accelerator driven sub-critical systems can achieve that objective.

Are breeder reactors relevant when people talk about accelerator driven sub-critical systems?

Breeder reactors are more relevant in the sense that the technology development for them is way ahead of the technology development for accelerator driven systems...

In the accelerator driven systems, the advantage is that you get a variety of characteristics. Conceptually, it is a variation of the AHWR core coupled with a fast driver core and spallation source driven by an accelerator. We can, on the one side, have a thorium-uranium 233 fuel cycle with better doubling time. On the other side, we can incinerate the long-lived waste in the same system. So it will become a kind of self-consistent system where you can breed more fuel than you consume and incinerate mos t of the long-lived waste. This is a major advantage... This is an area where a lot of work is required to be done for a long time, for 15 to 20 years. This is a major technological challenge which is important for us. This is factored into our strategy for shaping the third stage of our nuclear power programme of thorium utilisation.

What will be the scale of import of light water reactors to reach the goal of generating 20,000 MW of nuclear electricity by 2020? Russia's Deputy Minister for Atomic Energy E.A. Reshetnikov who visited the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station in September was keen to sell six VVER-1000 reactors to India including two that are to be built at Kudankulam. Will India buy light water reactors from France or Canada?

The share of nuclear electricity in the overall electricity generation in the country should go up. Nuclear power technology is environmentally very benign. It does not emit greenhouse gases. It is a source of bulk power generation and thus there is a ne ed to increase its share. From that point of view, the imported systems are welcome as an additionality over and above the domestic programme. At this moment it will be difficult for me to say how many they will be... We can accommodate a fairly large sh are of such capacity. For example, accommodating 6,000 MWe or 7,000 MWe of light water reactor capacity or even more should not be a problem. As far as we are concerned, we will welcome it then.

Why have no new sites been identified for building PHWRs ? Why are PHWRs being bunched at the existing sites?

There is a committee looking at probable sites. The important consideration is that if there is a site, depending on its chacteristics, it can accommodate a certain capacity. So we must make full use of that site's potential. If you put multiple units at the same site, you get economic advantage. That is why we are adding more units at the same site. But there are sites which have been looked at in the past. It is necessary to look at all of them again in the present context because we have to see what are the conditions that obtain today, and also identify new sites. At the moment it appears to me that it is more urgent for us to open new projects at the existing sites. While we do that, we should define additional sites where work can be taken up in future.

Have we reprocessed enough plutonium to operate the planned FBRs?

We have to adjust the reprocessing capacity in tune with the requirements of the FBR programme. As the requirements increase, we will increase the reprocessing capacity. I don't envisage any serious problem on this front.

The three sub-kiloton nuclear devices that India exploded at Pokhran in May 1998 have given the country the capability to do sub-critical tests. Are any sub-critical tests planned?

That really depends on the government's decision. As far as R&D work is concerned, it is an ongoing process.

Are facilities in place to conduct sub-critical tests ?

No comment.

What led to the nuclear tests of May 1998? Was it because India could not keep the nuclear option open indefinitely? Was it because the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was to be wrapped up, and there would be pressure on India to accede to the CTBT? Wa s there pressure from the nuclear scientists in the country to go for the tests?

No, no. The question is... The scientific community has to respond to national needs. So once the decision was made, it was implemented. The fact is that it was well known that nuclear weapons existed in our neighbourhood, and also the way the CTBT discu ssions went on... there was a deadline. So it was perhaps necessary, essential for national security requirements, that this option was exercised. That is what must have been at the back of the government's decision.

How advanced is India in the matter of nuclear weaponisation? A former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr.P.K. Iyengar, says that the process of weaponisation must continue, leading to the development of neutron bombs and testing them.

The development work must continue. It is an ongoing process. What was the objective of these nuclear tests? It was to have a credible, minimum nuclear deterrent. For that purpose, what you really require (is weapons) from several kilotons to a couple of hundred kilotons range. These weapons must be compact, lightweight and compatible with the delivery vehicles. This has been the basis of configuring the five tests, and I think we have sufficient information on the basis of these five tests to build a c redible, minimum nuclear deterrent.

Now, the neutron bomb is strictly a tactical weapon. There is no problem about the capability of building a neutron bomb.

The capability of building a neutron bomb in our country?

That capability exists. At this moment we are talking about this credible deterrent that can be established based on the five tests done. If you are talking about a credible deterrent, then I think that whatever has been done is sufficient.

Are you convinced that we need not explode more nuclear devices, thermo-nuclear bombs with bigger yields?

I will not put it the way you are putting it. The 45-kiloton thermo-nuclear test that we did was in a configuration which allows us to easily go up to 200 kiloton. So far as thermo-nuclear technology is concerned, there is no doubt that we have the full capability.

A thermo-nuclear device is popularly called the hydrogen bomb. According to a top DAE scientist, the hydrogen bomb and the neutron bomb are the same. Is there any difference between them?

A thermo-nuclear bomb or hydrogen bomb is a two-stage weapon, which consists of the primary which is based on fission or boosted fission system, and the secondary is where the radiation implosion is used to get a large yield. So any thermo-nuclear weapon will have a certain amount of energy coming in the form of fission, and a certain amount of energy coming in the form of fusion.

In a neutron bomb, the fusion energy is maximised. With minimum fission energy, you get maximum fusion energy. So you end up getting a much larger neutron output and so it can create much more damage by radiation. That is the difference.

But the neutron bomb is usually a small yield weapon and it is more useful as a tactical weapon.

Scientist S.K. Sikka of the BARC has been quoted as saying that computer simulation (of nuclear tests) is extremely expensive even in the United States and that therefore that country had no alternative but to do the real tests.

Yes, in those days, a long time ago.

Is it less expensive now?

It is a question of availability of computing power. When the computing power that was available was small, it was probably easier to carry out the tests, in relative terms. The computing power that is available now is much higher. So you can get a lot o f information through simulation. To that extent, the number of tests that we need to carry out comes down.

Can we do computer simulation?

We certainly have some capability. We are continuously improving on it.

Are there moves afoot to split the BARC into a nuclear-weapons facility and a non-weapons facility...

There is no question of doing that. The strength of the BARC lies in its multi-disciplinary character. It is because of that we are able to run our programmes in nuclear power; national security; several aspects of isotope and radiation technology in the area of food, agriculture, health and industrial support; in the area of nuclear desalination and so forth, which is important. The BARC has a strong basic research component in physics, chemistry and biology. It has a strong technology application comp onent in electricity generation; in food security in terms of better agricultural mutants and prevention of food spoilage through radiation processing; and in health in diagnostics, that is, imaging of different body organs and radiation therapy for canc er patients. We have programmes in the area of water. We are building a 6,300-cubic-metres-a-day nuclear desalination demonstration project plant at Kalpakkam.

We give support to industry in terms of monitoring the performance of petrochemical equipment, leakage of oil pipelines, etc., using radiation technology. Even computer floppies can be treated by radiation. The BARC has the unique capability of doing all this. That comes about by its multi-disciplinary character. That has to be preserved.

How advanced is India in storing solid wastes?

We are one of the few countries that have this full capability, in the sense that we not only carry out the immobilisation of the radioactive waste in a vitrified matrix but we have the facility for interim storage of the overpacks that contain this vitr ified waste in a surveillance mode.

What does it mean?

You first concentrate the waste. You immobilise it in vitrified mass, special glass which cannot leach out. You encapsulate this vitrified mass in a metal container. This is put in another metal container and this is called overpack. This overpack is kep t in a specially engineered facility and its construction is such that there will be continuous circulation of air around this overpack. This is done by natural circulation. There are no pumps, just a chimney. It is based on physical principles so that y ou will always have natural circulation of air and so it cools. The temperature is kept under limits.

You keep monitoring the temperature and the radioactivity so that if there is any rupture, you will immediately come to know about it. You can isolate it and repair it. As time passes, 30 years or 40 years down the line, the activity decays. The heat gen eration comes down. You also confirm the integrity of the isolation, the container, the barriers to radiation. That is why it is called Solid Storage under Surveillance Facility.

 

[p2prada]

We don't need 200KT as a single device, since the power of it diminishes by the square of the distance . A payload of 1 ton with multiple smaller MIRV can disperse to greater area and can inflict greater damage to multiple targets and can be effective against ABM systems.

As of date, we do not have MIRV. Agni III still has to be completely tested.
So, we can focus on firing a salvo of 20KT warhead equipped missiles at a single large target like Lahore or Karachi. Even this will help flooding the enemies EW systems on a localized area cause they have to act against 4 or 5 missiles coming in at once.

 

[Sharp]

Our naughty neighbours know this.