Militarization of space now openly claimed by Russia.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Which is actually a pretty good blog. They just aren't above a joke or Onion style post occasionally.

And why I would still want to talk about the possibilities.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kuhl

It was the 80s. It was canceled after successfully destroying a satellite in a live test.

G,day mate you beat me to the draw
i remember reading about the test some time between 78 and 84 .
think they got the bird up to about 86,000 feet let loose and hit the sat. For a six
the article was in the Australian Pacific Defence Reporter
crikey mate i must be getting old
mind remembers the events but not all the details

think i need a beer

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I doubt if they have nukes up there. That should be detectable from the ground. Although there are nuclear powered satellites up there, maybe they are a front for an actual nuclear powered weapon. Not a bomb, maybe some sort of Lazar technology.

If our government doesn't have any sophisticated weaponry in space, I would be very disappointed in them. We need to get rid of them in that case and get some people that will put it up there.

I've always had my suspicions about the illegal activity going on in the deepest reaches of space, what with the alien smugglers and whatnot, and this simply confirms these suspicions. Thanks internet. Seriously though, no treaty is going to stop the development of space-based weapons systems, mostly because the potential military advantage is tremendous. It could be difficult for one nation to prove that another was pursuing the militarization of space, at least to the point that they could do something about it. Then there are the political considerations. Then of course there is the possibility that the US might not call out a nation like Russia, if they were pursuing such a course, because Russia could be staying quiet about what they know regarding US programs. So there would be many possibilities. I think that there would be very few nations who would invest the money necessary to pursue the militarization of space, because this is kind of pointless given the nuclear deterrent. So while space-based weapons could confer a great military advantage, it would depend on a particular situation. I think that the most logical course of action would be space-based defensive systems, as opposed to offensive or first-strike systems.

a reply to: pronto

They did launch tests, and capture tests over five years. For the live test, they used a dying weather satellite. It was out of fuel, so instead of letting it burn up, they used it for the test.

The launch aircraft climbed normally, then accelerated, and pitched up into about a 45 degree climb and zoom climbed as high as it could, achieving a lock on the satellite during the climb, and launched just before topping out in the climb. The missile went directly for the satellite and scored a direct hit.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pronto

They did launch tests, and capture tests over five years. For the live test, they used a dying weather satellite. It was out of fuel, so instead of letting it burn up, they used it for the test.

The launch aircraft climbed normally, then accelerated, and pitched up into about a 45 degree climb and zoom climbed as high as it could, achieving a lock on the satellite during the climb, and launched just before topping out in the climb. The missile went directly for the satellite and scored a direct hit.

G,day Zapper
rgr that. Thanks for your promp reply mate

My guess for x-37 mission was a complete physical swap-out of hostile satellite with an emulator.