Space 2000 pp 89-117 | Cite as

The Orbital High Ground

Weather Watching, Spying, and Star Wars
  • Harry L. Shipman


An orbiting satellite can photograph, send radio signals to, or shoot at objects anywhere on the part of the earth that the satellite can see. This unique vantage point not only is the key to the communications satellite industry but also offers a number of other practical applications. Anyone in the world who can receive TV signals from anywhere, even people in the boonies who can pick up only the tiniest TV stations, can see satellite pictures of the earth on their evening weather forecasts. These pictures and other global weather data are a key part of weather forecasting, not just visual trimmings added to the evening news. Satellite-based navigation systems can pinpoint the location of any military or civilian vehicle in the part of the world that the satellite sees—half the globe from geosynchronous orbit.


Weather Forecast Geosynchronous Orbit Reagan Administration Ballistic Missile Weather Satellite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

Chapter 05

  1. 1.
    Yes, it checks. NOAA’s weather data for 1980 give twenty-nine days with more than a tenth of an inch of rain for the 330 days in all months of the year excluding August at the University of Arizona station in Tucson.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. A. Kerr, “Pity the Poor Weatherman,” Science 228, (10 May 1985):704–706;ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2a.
    see also R. A. Kerr, “Forecasting the Weather a Bit Better,” Science 228, (5 April 1985):40–41;ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 2b.
    R. A. Kerr, “Weather Satellites Coming of Age,” Science 229, (19 July 1985):255–257.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 3.
    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Civilian Space Policy and Applications (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1982), 341–342.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    For the purposes of this example, I’m assuming that it costs the utility 5 cents to generate each kilowatt hour. The actual cost of electricity varies from one part of the country to another but is really somewhat higher because you have to add the cost of transmission and billing. A 10% saving is a saving of 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour, which (when multiplied by America’s use of 600 kilowatt hours per year) adds up to $3 billion.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    W. L. Smith, W. P. Bishop, V. F. Dvorak, C. M. Hayden, J. H. McElroy, F. R. Mosher, V. J. Oliver, J. F. Purdom, and D. Q. Wark, “The Meteorological Satellite: Overview of 25 Years of Operation,” Science 231, (31 January 1986):455–462.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 6.
    M. Mitchell Waldrop, “A Silver Lining for the Weather Satellites,” Science, 226, (14 December 1984): 1289–1291.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 7.
    Perry’s testimony and the suggestion that the Iranian rescue mission could have been saved by satellite navigation are contained in Thomas Karas, The New High Ground: Systems and Weapons of Space Age War (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), 124–126.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Satellite Programs Briefing (August 1983) (Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, 1983), 26–27, 70–71.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    The Doppler effect is a technical name for an effect that causes the frequency of a signal to change, depending on whether the source of the signal is moving toward or away from you. Listen to the siren on a police car, or the whistle on a train, and you will notice the musical pitch drop when the vehicle passes you (if you have a musical ear), because the frequency is boosted by the Doppler effect when the siren moves toward you and is lowered by this effect when the siren moves away from you. Don’t worry: you don’t need to understand the details (I hope) in order to get my main point either here or elsewhere.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    Robert Nichols, “Rescue from Space: Search and Rescue Satellites,” STV 3, no. 9 (September 1985):54–59.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    General Advisory Committee [to the President] on Arms Control and Disarmament, “A Quarter Century of Soviet Compliance Practices under Arms Control Commitments,” in W. C. Potter, ed., Verification and Arms Control (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, Lexington Books, 1985), 239–250.Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    B. D. Blair and G. D. Brewer, “Verifying SALT Agreements,” in W. C. Potter, ed., Verification and SALT: The Challenge of Strategic Deception (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980), 9.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    D. A. Wilkening, “Monitoring Bombers and Cruise Missiles,” in Potter, Verification and Arms Control, 110–111.Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    B. G. Blair and G. D. Brewer, “Verifying SALT Agreements,” in Potter, Verification and SALT, 19.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    J. Richelson, “Technical Collection and Arms Control,” in Potter, Verification and Arms Control, 169–216. This is a good summary of satellite capabilities.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Blair and Brewer, 16.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    Department of Defense Appropriations for J983, Part 5, 16; Department of Defense Appropriations for 1984, Part 8, 337; House Committee on Armed Services, Department of Energy National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1984 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984), 383–384.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    J. Richelson, 190–197.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    Ronald Reagan, quoted in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ballistic Missile Defense Technologies, OTA-ISC-254 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1985), 297–299.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ballistic Missile Defense Technologies; Jeff Hecht, Beam Weapons (New York: Plenum Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    G. Yonas, “Strategic Defense Initiative: The Politics and Science of Weapons in Space,” Physics Today (June 1985):24–32; Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, “The Strategic Defense Initiative: Perception vs. Reality,” 34–45.Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    Hecht, 353, based on U.S. Defense Department data.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    Most of these numbers are from D. Walker, J. Bruce, and D. Cook, “SDI: Progress and Challenges,” unclassified staff report submitted to Senator William Proxmire, Senator J. Bennett Johnston, and Senator Lawton Chiles, 17 March 1986. I obtained a copy from Senator Proxmire’s office. The FY 1987 appropriation is taken from the New York Times, (31 October 1986).Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    Reagan’s speech is quoted in “Excerpts from Reagan’s Speech at Jersey School,” The New York Times, (20 June 1986):A8.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    J. E. Cushman, Jr., “Weinberger Terms Missile Defense Test a Success,” The New York Times, (2 July 1986):A8.Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ballistic Missile Defense, 286–289.Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    Quoted by Robert Scheer in The Los Angeles Times, (22 September 1985):1, 14.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    Walker, Bruce, and Cook, 12 (emphasis in the original).Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    Quoted in Mark Crawford, “In Defense of ‘Star Wars,’” Science 228, (3 May 1985):563.Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    Freeman Dyson, Weapons and Hope (New York: Harper & Row, 1984), especially Chap. 22.Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ballistic Missile Defense, 223.Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    The list is modified slightly from Hecht, 86.Google Scholar
  35. 33.
    M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Resolving the Star Wars Software Dilemma,” Science 232, (9 May 1986):710–713.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 34.
    This list is largely taken from Jeremy J. Stone, “The Four Faces of Star Wars: Anatomy of a Debate,” FAS Public Interest Report 38, no. 3 (March 1985): 1, 3, 6–9, and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ballistic Missile Defense, 5.Google Scholar
  37. 35.
    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ballistic Missile Defense, 59–61.Google Scholar
  38. 36.
    See Paul B. Stares, The Militarization of Space: U.S. Policy, 1945–1984 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985); U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Anti-Satellite Weapons, Countermeasures, and Arms Control, OTA-ISC-281 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office) 52, 91–102.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Harry L. Shipman 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry L. Shipman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations