Pentagon Wants to Test A Space-Based Weapon in 2023

Defense officials want to test a neutral particle-beam in orbit in fiscal 2023 as part of a ramped-up effort to explore various types of space-based weaponry. They’ve asked for $304 million in the 2020 budget to develop such beams, more powerful lasers, and other new tech for next-generation missile defense.

Such weapons are needed, they say, to counter new missiles from China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. But just figuring out what might work is a difficult technical challenge.

Pentagon Wants to Test A Space-Based Weapon in 2023

The idea of an neutral particle-beam weapon in space has been around before Regan pushed the SDI or "Star Wars" program. There is some good info on the web about the weapons system.

It is hard to believe there are not weapons in space already. A neutral particle-beam would be a good one to try first. The Pentagon says they are not sure if they can make a neutral particle-beam small and light weight enough to deploy in space, but want to study it and putting lasers on satellites.

This brings to mind a thread by Zap not too long ago about a SCO reactor project.

The proposed space-based neutral particle beam would shoot an unbendable beam of hydrogen molecules at approximately 60,000 kilometers per second to disrupt the electronics and warhead of an incoming missile.

White Sands Missile Range

I read that as - Pentagon tested a space based weapon 15 years ago, and they're getting ready to tell us about it in 2023.

They already have these in orbit.

This is a comical lie.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Can you point me to some links of photos from amateurs astronomers? I can find amateur images of about everything else

Like I said it is hard to believe we don't have weapons up there already. With you calling it a comical lie I am thinking you may have some proof.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

I don't know that there is any proof, but I can't think of any technical obstacles that would prohibit it, and with the size of the black budgets, no monetary ones either. Couple that with the fact that, in modern warfare, there is a huge advantage in being able to blinddisable an adversaries satalites, and I would say it's highly probable.

I'm more of the belief it's being put out there now because Russia is making threats about renewing the arms race, and a credible threat of something like this may make them rethink their position.

a reply to: Mach2

Maybe we will find out if Kim tries to launch another missile, now that would be sending a message.

I thought there was some treaty that forbid space weapons.

It's not like anyone followed them anyway.

Russia and China sure hasn't.

a reply to: neo96

If I remember correctly the US withdrew from that treaty a year or two ago.

a reply to: neo96

The treaty only prevents nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction being placed in orbit.

Pew! Pew!

Or more like

PEW!!!!!!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: neo96

The treaty only prevents nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction being placed in orbit.

I thought we withdrew from that, must of been another timeline

The Outer Space Treaty

The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:

First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it limits the use of the moon and other celestial bodies exclusively to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for establishing military bases, installation, or fortifications; testing weapons of any kind; or conducting military maneuvers.

After the Treaty entered into force, the United States and the Soviet Union collaborated in jointly planned and manned space enterprises.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

They withdrew from the INF, which banned ground launched missiles with a range between 310-3400 miles.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

There was a Russian Scientist that got shot through the head with a particle beam... and survived. Still, probably not a good idea to be in the path of one of theses types of weapons using accelerated particles.

In the '70s, Russian scientist Anatoli Bugorski was a researcher at the Institute for High Energy Physics, working with the Soviet particle accelerator known as the Synchrotron U-70. On July 13, 1978, he popped his head into the Synchrotron to check on a malfunctioning piece of equipment when all of a sudden — zap! A safety mechanism went kaput at exactly the wrong moment, shooting a proton beam straight through his head. Although he felt no pain, Bugorski reportedly saw a flash "brighter than a thousand suns." The beam entered through the back of his head and exited through his nose. Soon after, the left side of his face swelled up like a balloon, and he was rushed to the hospital — to be treated, of course, but also to be studied, as nothing like this had ever happened before. People believed he'd be dead within a few days, at the most.

SOURCE

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Mach2

Maybe we will find out if Kim tries to launch another missile, now that would be sending a message.

I'm not saying its definitely what happened, but several of his missile tests barely got off the ground. Some conspiracy buffs suggested, at the time, that we may have affected the launches, either by hacking the control system, or by satalite weaponry.

It's not that far fetched IMO.

a reply to: seattlerat

Ouch! That is an interesting story.

I am sure it was not as damaging as a weaponized particle beam would have been.

Particle accelerators are a well-developed technology used in scientific research for decades. They use electromagnetic fields to accelerate and direct charged particles along a predetermined path, and electrostatic "lenses" to focus these streams for collisions. The cathode ray tube in many twentieth-century televisions and computer monitors is a very simple type of particle accelerator. More powerful versions include synchrotrons and cyclotrons used in nuclear research.

A particle-beam weapon is a weaponized version of this technology. It accelerates charged particles (in most cases electrons, positrons, protons, or ionized atoms, but very advanced versions can accelerate other particles such as mercury nuclei) to near-light speed and then shoots them at a target. These particles have tremendous kinetic energy which they impart to matter in the target, inducing near-instantaneous and catastrophic superheating at the surface, and when penetrating deeper, ionization effects which can be especially detrimental to electronics in the target.

Particle-beam weapon

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Mach2

Maybe we will find out if Kim tries to launch another missile, now that would be sending a message.

I'm not saying its definitely what happened, but several of his missile tests barely got off the ground. Some conspiracy buffs suggested, at the time, that we may have affected the launches, either by hacking the control system, or by satalite weaponry.

It's not that far fetched IMO.

Not too far fetched at all. I could see that happening, especially if there was no way to prove it.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Would there be collisions with atoms etc in the upper atmosphere when these weapons are tested?

Would these collisions potentially create plasma?

a reply to: RAY1990

I am sure there would be collisions with atoms, not so sure about the plasma.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

I believe that this is what the space force talk is all about.

Weaponizing space.

If the u.s.a. doesn't do it we will be left behind.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Thanks for answering, I'm just curious more than anything and I know the UK is working on such weaponry also.

I suspect some people may have witnessed the byproduct of such tests. Just a hunch, science like this is way beyond me.