To Kill a Crashing Bird

I was supposed to write some travel entry--significant since it had been 18 years since I last went to that place--but the photos aren't available yet.

-oOo-

With the nation's penchant of getting preoccupied solely on the current political circus, Filipinos might be blissfully unaware that the United States and China had started war in outer space. Of course I'm exaggerating. Or am I? Allow this writer, whose education in world politics consisted mostly of reading Tom Clancy, to comment on a recent development just above the earth's atmosphere.

More than a year ago, on December 14, 2006, a US satellite, supposedly a spy satellite (a "bird" in Clancy slang), lost communications shortly after entering orbit. It was calculated to crash back to Earth in a little more than a year.

Weeks later, on January 11, 2007, China successfully tested its anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities when it shattered its own defunct weather satellite with a ground-based ballistic missile in a kinetic strike (meaning, no explosives were used, the high-speed impact itself provided the destructive energy). The secrecy of the test and the resulting orbiting debris field that until now is a concern for space mission planners provided fodder for a US-led international criticism.

One year later, the spy satellite, known as USA-193 or NROL-21, was almost due for its fiery plunge to the ground. Around this time, the United States floated around its plan to shoot down the bird, citing the chance that the hydrazine fuel tank of the bus-sized object may survive re-entry and pose a hazard to people over an area of two football fields. While hundreds of satellites have made planned or unplanned deorbits, they all have almost empty fuel tanks. In this particular case, since the bird had no contact with controllers so early in its mission, the hydrazine was never used up in orbital maneuvers--the fuel tank was still full.

The plan was to modify the software of the ship-based AEGIS missile defense system to better recognize and track the falling satellite. The range of AEGIS could reach the edge of space, but the bird was moving faster than the ballistic missiles AEGIS was originally designed for, so tracking the falling object might be problematic. A modified SM-3 missile, the type recently used in missile defense tests, would be launched from a ship to destroy the satellite via a kinetic strike. A successful hit should destroy the fuel tank, and the satellite fragments should be too small to survive re-entry or pose significant damage. Striking at low altitude would ensure that most of the debris would fall to back to earth within weeks, compared to the Chinese high-altitude ASAT test. Three cruisers would be positioned in the Northern Pacific to provide three chances of interception.

On February 21, 2007, amidst an ongoing lunar eclipse and earlier concerns on bad weather, the shootdown pushed through with spectacular results at the first attempt and with a video to boot that showed a brilliant explosion indicating possible destruction of the tank and dissipation of the hydrazine fuel. The US government had been harping about its transparency regarding the shootdown, wherein the public had been informed before, during and after the event. In an apparent diplomatic one-upmanship, they were willing to share with China information on the strike.

Critics, however, doubted the reasons behind the shootdown. The probability that the satellite would crash on a populated area was very low (only 3 percent, if I wasn't mistaken). Cynics wonder why the United States suddenly became concerned about the potential human tragedy. Perhaps there was classified information or technology that the US would not want to be in the hands of other countries. Others pointed out the $60 million price tag. Surely it could be cheaper, although more complex, to just evacuate an entire city if things ever came to that. The shootdown could also legitimize the Chinese ASAT test and spark an arms race in outer space (as if there is currently none).

Technically speaking, the shootdown isn't good enough to be bragged around as an ASAT capability. The bird was destroyed at an altitude of only 247 km. No satellite could sustain an orbit that low because it would encounter significant atmospheric drag. The Chinese ASAT test, on the other hand, was aimed at a satellite 865 km high up there. What the activity demonstrated though is the capability of AEGIS to accomplish objectives beyond its original air and missile defense purpose. With a successful hit at first attempt, AEGIS surely works as advertised and even more! Russia indeed has valid worries that the Americans were actually flexing its missile defense muscles. No doubt valuable data for a variety of, at the very least, military purposes had been gleamed from this activity. I would also think that planning may have started a year ago, when the bird was determined to crash with a full load of hydrazine, but if the government was to be believed that planning began only in January, then the speed in implementing modifications on existing systems when the need arises could prove to be a crucial tactical factor.

What's with the suggestion of using the space shuttle to scoop out the bird? At such a low altitude, the shuttle would be in danger of encountering drag and falling back to earth earlier than scheduled. The shuttle Atlantis was actually on a mission to the International Space Station during those times, and only when it had landed back at Florida did the shootdown commence.

As for a new Cold War where outer space is the new battlefield, I've been hearing of analysis that the Chinese have noticed US dependence on satellites in warfare: reconnaisance, communication and navigation. And if Reagan's plan pushes through, the future might see orbiting defensive and offensive platforms. It does follow that China would endeavor to counter this American capability via ASAT weapons. With no direct casualties, destroying satellites seems to be a politically correct tactic in future wars. The US is also trying to be one step ahead with their research on satellite protection and even self-repairing satellites.

I think, though, that China would rather compete in economic terms, as it had done so throughout history. If I may wager, it would be a United States, in some form of desperation, which would initiate a military attack against China. This is where the Chinese ASAT capability comes in: destruction of the navigation then communication then reconnaisance satellites may stop a conventional attack. To continue the offense or to push things further with unconventional means would prove to be messy, and hopefully the Americans would come to their senses before that happens.

Maybe I've been reading too many Clancy novels, watching too many action movies or playing too many computer games to have thought of these things. After all, these are just speculations and shouldn't be taken seriously at present. If there's any mention of the jostling among the superpowers in local politics, it is again connected to the NBN scam, wherein the President is being accused of giving the Chinese territorial and economic concessions, among others, in exchange for paltry loans and projects. If the public has been numb to appeal on morals, then an appeal to nationalism might do the trick.

If it were not for a news article buried in Philstar, I wouldn't be aware of this shootdown. There was no mention of this event in the Philippine blogs I frequent save for one. Both actually connected it to an earlier fallen spacecraft, Skylab. This space station flew and fell in the '70s, the decade before I was born. Back then, the Philippines had been included among its probable crash locations, causing a stir among the population. Its remnants eventually crashed somewhere in Australia, but the stir in the Philippines must be considerable enough that people here do remember it.

(Photos from Wikipedia, which in turn must have sourced it from the US government)

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE ENTRY COLLAPSE ENTRY

A Tale of Two Political Scandals

The first political scandal is obvious enough because it's all in the news. Since it's a little too early to be conclusive about this particular episode in the never-ending thriller of Philippine Politics (I normally do not write commentaries early in the game, it's just that the second political scandal pushed me to blog now), there's not much I can do besides making fun of the cover photo in Philstar last February 8.

Maybe I'll just share what I have commented in Philstar.com last February 8 and 9. It was largely uncontested by even the rabid ones so I guess it has passed a moderate litmus test (or maybe, even if a couple considered it "comprehensive," most just ignored my very long comment). Here it is, slightly edited for Highway Drift standards:

Okay opposition, I'll help you with this, because I also like to have some change in the country... Why does it seem you can't win "fence-sitters" (your term) and some moderate pro-GMA to your side, when as far as I know, with the clumsiness and spinelessness of the administration, you should already have done so by the previous years? Let me enumerate my observations so far:

1. You are still operating under the personality-based politics we have in the country wherein personal attacks are given premium. You rely too much on witnesses. This explains the penchant for labeling those on the other side as paid hacks while ignoring some doubtful aspects of your witnesses. This also explains the perception that the opposition is just the same as the power-hungry people in Malacañang.

2. You rely too much on media, especially broadcast media. What if the administration finally decides to gag the media once and for all? You could turn to the Internet, but as far as I know you don't have the same clout here as you have with broadcast media. In fact, the clout you developed in media has turned some people off and explains the perception that media is already biased.

3. You can be as closed-minded with morality as the government can be closed-minded with the economy. Close-mindedness is a turn-off, but your disadvantage here is that you can't enforce your close-mindedness with military might. Perhaps you have rebel military factions with you, but using them would only undermine the morality card you're playing.

4. You are not original. Spark another EDSA uprising? Force the government to declare some sort of martial law? The problem with lack of originality is that your moves are anticipated.

5. You are unwilling to fight the government on its own terms, the courts for example. Why? Are you incapable? Is it because, like in no. 1, you already dismiss the courts as under government payroll?

6. You lack a great leader to unify all of you and address these observations of mine as well as other possible weaknesses that a truly competent leader can detect. You lack a leader that will make the leader of the other side puny in comparison.

-oOo-

The other political scandal is somewhat closer to my heart because it involves my college alma mater, and somehow it tangentially concerns things I was involved in back then.

There's a common wisecrack among Ateneans that happenings in the national political scene are reflected within the Sanggunian, the university student government, also called Sanggu for short. For instance, during the Erap Impeachment and EDSA 2, the Sanggu president was also ousted by impeachment (due to corruption, if I remember correctly). On and off talks of constitutional change this decade have resulted to a new constitution for the student body last 2005 (I was part of that years-long effort which was challenged by a lack of voters in plebiscites as well as the yearly change in leadership). Actually talks on changing the Philippine constitution has continued, and in Sanggu yet another proposal for a constitutional commission is in the offing.

Now, with the ouster of De Venecia as House Speaker as well as the Lozada misadventure threatening the Arroyo presidency, Sanggu has pulled another equally shocking scandal with the belated discovery that Karl Satinitigan, this year's Sanggu president, was actually not enrolled for the second semester! (Read all about it in the theguidon.com, the student publication's online edition.) It's like discovering that since 2004, Her Excellency was no longer a Filipino citizen--but Chinese! (Though, in her case, that would explain everything, hehe.)

Well, since this is "just" a student council, we could say it's a good practice for coping with extraordinary measures, especially with the things happening in the national scene. However, the rude shock of knowing that the student government has been rendered rudderless hit Ateneans at the worst possible time. And I'm just referring to Ateneo-scale proportions.

First of all, a shadowy opposition group calling themselves "The Gadfly Society" (inspired by the original gadfly Socrates) had surfaced this year to anonymously lambaste (in their blog gadflysociety.blogspot.com as well as spam email) the Sanggu as well as the student body and the university in general on their "failings" in fulfilling an "Atenean social duty" (in the Liberation Theology sense, perhaps). Their style has far from impressed me (refer to my Philstar comment above) but they do have valid points. As far as I'm concerned, though the are enjoying the political fallout and basking in renewed notoriety, they apparently have no hand in this expose; because, if they do, Karl would have been out by the start of the sem. It's a stretch of imagination that they have kept secret this knowledge. At the very least, perhaps we could give them credit for smelling Sanggu's bleeding wound this school year and becoming emboldened just as leftist groups get emboldened at the time of scandal-laden administrations.

Secondly, Karl has recently been mentioned in blogs due to his statement regarding the Manila Peninsula Siege. I must agree that his statement could be written better, but, personally, it's pathetic how some in the opposition (U know who U are), in an apparently desperate move, would (under guise of education via reality) pick on a student-written position letter that had the misfortune of taking a neutral stand regarding the siege (see again my Philstar comment above). It's even more pathetic how they use the letter to further whatever is their stereotype of the Ateneans, the youth or the elite. In light of this incident, I guess they would snicker in a feeling of vindication, but I say: what they did is still unfair and recent developments, although usable against the persons involved, will still not prove any stereotypes at all.

Rather, the issue here is what to make of actions, statements and decisions Karl had entered in official capacity, when he was already ineligible all along, like the one mentioned above. I guess this is another job for the Student Judicial Court (SJC). I'm actually impressed that they seem to be a competent body at these trying times. It is their investigation that has made sense of things. On the other hand, the Gadfly or The Guidon, if they are truly worth their salt, should have come up with the expose way before the court.

In the aftermath of this turmoil, continuing scandal has been fuelled by the statement of the acting president, the former vice president Cabreira. The general impression is that the remaining officials are suddenly putting the blame on Carl while washing their hands of any fault. There are accusations that Cabreira is just a mere puppet of a rival party's presidential contender for the coming elections. "ROTC Corps Commander, Sir! What is happening to our campus?" Karl may have already asked this as he is wheeled to the hospital due to backstab wounds, and he suddenly understood what De Venecia is going through.

So much for long-winded official statements, at the end of Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor, immediately after a horrific attack killed off almost the entire government leadership, Jack Ryan's first words after being sworn as president are simply "let's get to work." But that's fantasy US politics. What we have here is authentic Philippine politics, and you can't get more Philippine politics than this!

Wait, actually, there's more!

A recent comment in The Guidon article linked above from someone who dreams of being a Jun Lozada points a very serious blaming finger on a wide range of university personalities and groups. Actually, I like this Guidon "witness" more than the real Lozada because of the all-out testimony; s/he even linked a campus opposition figure to the Gadfly. What I find bothersome is that s/he had pointed the complicity of the Office of the Associate Dean for Student Affairs (ADSA) and the Office for Student Activities (OSA) to keep secret an earlier issue regarding resignation of Sanggu officers. If this is proven to be true and dots are connected, then all the Sanggu officers involved in this conspiracy are impeachable for betrayal of public trust and violation of the constitution! (Though they're lucky the semester is almost over.) This could also possibly answer in the worst possible way my initial question on why the school administration did not issue notifications on Karl's enrollment status in the first place. (Too few have been asking this. Are most afraid they'd hear exactly wannabe Lozada's kind of answer?) My own unpleasant experiences back in freshman year come to mind (but those are for another post, though I can't promise to write about it).

At this point, this issue is still developing, and I've realized I've just churned out no more than a narrative with commentary. For cutting-edge opinion, I guess it's better to refer to the people who are closer to the action:

• I like how her personal take on things somehow connects the two political scandals.
• Good take on the issue, as expected from an Atenean Political Science major. I was already a senior when I noticed the growing similarity of the school council politics to that of the Philippine government. Before, I perceived the Sanggunian as more of a corporate management team, and the politics involved as more of office politics. Or was I just naive to think that there's actually a difference in the first place?
• Tatot Quiblat delivers with a great take on leadership in the general sense. If he's still with OSA though, I'd like to hear his side on the grave allegations against OSA.

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE ENTRY COLLAPSE ENTRY