The Air Force is putting 'tremendous emphasis' on preparing for war in space

a reply to: Zaphod58

should we even get into the MISTY satellites ...

a reply to: penroc3

I really wonder if that canceled when they said.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

did we skip asteroid?

or you just using what fits you speculation?

a reply to: Zaphod58

it is interesting some of the stealth features they used. but was still observed by amatures(the first launch that is).


im not surprised at the lack of knowledge of in the general public about new satellite stuff and even less so of ASAT techniques.

look how long corona satellites took to come to the public

originally posted by: rickymouse
We're supposed to have a Chinese space station coming down pretty quick, why doesn't the US go up there and blast it into smaller pieces so it doesn't hit someone's house. www.theguardian.com...

I wonder if my house insurance will pay for damage a chunk will cause if it crashes through my roof?

You can't do that! Well, you could, but you really shouldn't.

If we screw up enough in near earth orbit, and wind up with enough small chunks of debris floating around up there, it could render conventional spaceflight impossible until you fixed it, or it fixed itself. Possibly hundreds of years even. A paint chip travelling at 20,000mph packs a hefty punch. Didn't a paint chip crack the windshield of one of the shuttles?

Someone might be able to hit it on reentry though.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Which is were it gets interesting if we start having satellite warfare. The clean-up will be immense; not to mention the dangers of falling pieces that don't completely burn up in the atmosphere.

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: Zaphod58
We cant be sure there wont be a invasion from Andromeda stopping by tomorrow. Should we arm against that possibility as well?

We have to draw the line somewhere. I dont think investing in a contigency against satellites capable of defeating kinetic kill vehicles is quite neccessary at this point. There is like a thousand other more important things the US should focus its limited defense ressources on. Aegis BMD, GMD and who knows what on the black side will be covering ASAT until at least the 2030s...

the Systems alliance wont attack us from Andromeda. We are a peaceful world with crap tech.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: rickymouse
We're supposed to have a Chinese space station coming down pretty quick, why doesn't the US go up there and blast it into smaller pieces so it doesn't hit someone's house. www.theguardian.com...

I wonder if my house insurance will pay for damage a chunk will cause if it crashes through my roof?

You can't do that! Well, you could, but you really shouldn't.

If we screw up enough in near earth orbit, and wind up with enough small chunks of debris floating around up there, it could render conventional spaceflight impossible until you fixed it, or it fixed itself. Possibly hundreds of years even. A paint chip travelling at 20,000mph packs a hefty punch. Didn't a paint chip crack the windshield of one of the shuttles?

Someone might be able to hit it on reentry though.

That area is so full of junk now from us putting it up there that I doubt if they would even notice a little more. It won't be long before there will no longer be satelites in orbit, too much junk up there. Not only is the junk we put there, there are tidbits from space too. So, if it squashes you and your family like a bug, at least I know you wanted that way.

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Azureblue
Kerry Cassidy of project camelot has talked about the secret space race for many years.

Her whistle blowers tell her there are various types of ETs who are supporting various earth bound forces and are using them as their proxies forces fighting for control of the earth.

Oh no you didnt....

Take this ET talk out of here, apart from some of the crap Astr0 spouted its a forum mainly based on Aircraft Projects.

I guess you wouldn't want to hear then about how this all ties in to the Bible prophecies of the rapture and the Lord's final return, and how they could possibly say "it was aliens who took them and we have to fight against them when they come again". ok, I won't mention it then.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

That's one of the more asinine analogies I've heard in awhile. But sure,you're absolutely right, no need to worry about armored satellites or anything. Our ASAT capabilities are just fine.

It was a satirical exaggeration to make a point.
But please explain to me how you want to armor an object moving at ~ 7 km/s.
Launch a kill vehicle in anything close to retrograde orbit and you get a combined impact velocity more than 10 times greater than an modern KEP. There is no material in the world that can withstand an impact like that.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Zaphod58

should we even get into the MISTY satellites ...

Which would be a detection problem, once you know where it is you can kill it just as well.

a reply to: mightmight

i can't recall now if it was MISTY that used an inflatable stealth 'shield' like a balloon covering it in places that would make it easier to detect.

stealth isnt just for aircraft.


i wonder what if any active methods a satellite could use to avoid detection .

a reply to: penroc3
Yes but ist only a detection problem. Intercepting them is no more difficult than regular satellites once you have detected them.

Satellites are different from aircraft as far as they can’t maneuver freely. Once you established the orbit, you can predict its position in time and space with pinpoint accuracy, making it very easy to intercept, stealth 'shield' or not. This is probably also the reason why they didn’t expand the Misty program. Once detected is no different than regular satellite, just way more expensive. Could be that Russia/China had far less of a problem finding them than anticipated. Or they just acquired Information on the orbits through intelligence assets.

Of course the satellite might be able to (somewhat) change its orbit, but it usually doesn’t carry enough propellant to do that very often. And it’s not something you'd do on a hunch just because someone launched something resembling a kill vehicle. Intercept would occur in a matter of minutes if done right, Long before you'd be able to cut through the red tape and initiate an emergency burn - which may not even be enough to avoid interception if the kill vehicle is maneuverable enough.

a reply to: mightmight

i think that new sats are more free to move around in different orbits due to better propulsion systems.

and with automated helper/repair satellites that can refuel be it with chemical or some form of electrical sources or maybe even ground based power systems that can beam it like a MASER or what ever could be a solution to getting power to a ion drive or such things

but as far as detection goes, if i were russia and i knew were a secret facility of mine was i would keep some high power telescopes aimed up at the sky at various azimuths to see if anything new shows up

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: mightmight

i think that new sats are more free to move around in different orbits due to better propulsion systems.

Probably yes, but more free is quite relative. They are still not able to change orbit every Tuesday to avoid detection. And realistically speaking, enhanced maneuverability will go towards extending the service life of those satellites, not frequent orbit changes. These things are expensive as hell, they'd think twice before putting them in a new orbit and gladly leave them up for longer instead.

and with automated helper/repair satellites that can refuel be it with chemical or some form of electrical sources or maybe even ground based power systems that can beam it like a MASER or whatever could be a solution to getting power to a ion drive or such things

It could be, but this isn’t something we will see in an operational capacity for the foreseeable future. Which was the entire point of the discussion i had with Zaphod; IMO the US is in a very good position on ASAT assets, they dont need to waste billions upon billions to acquire a second, third or even fourth solution for the problem. Yes, this will change going forward and towards the turn of the century new system will be needed, but not today or tomorrow.


but as far as detection goes, if i were russia and i knew were a secret facility of mine was i would keep some high power telescopes aimed up at the sky at various azimuths to see if anything new shows up

a reply to: mightmight

the billions have been spent many times over. some NRO sats cost a few billion by the time its on orbit.


There are a few things i have seen that looked like a normal satellites make some pretty crazy jumps or even look like they are about to intercept each other only to dance around each other and head back the way they came, doing a 180 and i doubt that the sats have enough mass to cause another satellite to orbit it.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: mightmight
the billions have been spent many times over. some NRO sats cost a few billion by the time its on orbit.

Yes but its no reason to waste 10-20 billion for yet another ASAT solution.

There are a few things i have seen that looked like a normal satellites make some pretty crazy jumps or even look like they are about to intercept each other only to dance around each other and head back the way they came, doing a 180 and i doubt that the sats have enough mass to cause another satellite to orbit it.

I don't doubt what you saw, but lack of reference points might distort observations, especially at night. Whatever those things were, there were most likley not orbital vehicles. Doesnt mean there isnt an boost glide thing outthere though. That might look pretty crazy too, bouncing off the atmosphere and all.
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: rickymouse
We're supposed to have a Chinese space station coming down pretty quick, why doesn't the US go up there and blast it into smaller pieces so it doesn't hit someone's house. www.theguardian.com...

I wonder if my house insurance will pay for damage a chunk will cause if it crashes through my roof?

You can't do that! Well, you could, but you really shouldn't.

If we screw up enough in near earth orbit, and wind up with enough small chunks of debris floating around up there, it could render conventional spaceflight impossible until you fixed it, or it fixed itself. Possibly hundreds of years even. A paint chip travelling at 20,000mph packs a hefty punch. Didn't a paint chip crack the windshield of one of the shuttles?

Someone might be able to hit it on reentry though.

That area is so full of junk now from us putting it up there that I doubt if they would even notice a little more. It won't be long before there will no longer be satelites in orbit, too much junk up there. Not only is the junk we put there, there are tidbits from space too. So, if it squashes you and your family like a bug, at least I know you wanted that way.

I didn't say that, I just don't think taking the chance of destroying humanity's ability to get into orbit is worth 'blasting' a busted space station 'into smaller pieces' while it's still in orbit. There are other ways of dealing with such things, as if anyone will. Don't take that to mean that I don't care. It would really suck to have that thing fall on my house, surely. It would also really suck if we couldn't get back into space for fifty years. Just because the people who could take care of it the right way won't do that, doesn't mean I don't care about falling space debris.

one of two way US or them will take each other out in space.
small rail gun, blamed on space debris!
it them quickly moves away!

or small drone with high power shap't charge.
made to look like a meteorite hit.

I think it would be strategically very unsound for the US (and possibly others) not to have developed the capability to operate in at least near space, and perhaps further, long ago. Therefore, I strongly suspect that this capability have existed for some time now, both manned and unmanned, using platforms that are highly classified and difficult to observe.

It would be very strange not to pursue such a capability, in my humble opinion, especially if you gradually came to the realization that other technologies you were pursuing would also let you operate outside of the atmosphere with relative impunity and within a reasonable budget.

If you could, why would you not?

I can't prove anything, of course, which is how it goes with these kind of things.
I highly suspect, however, that the private drive into space will make it painfully obvious very soon that the space race never really ended.

Mere speculation, of course.

BT

Haven't we been 'doing space' for a while now? I know the USAF has been going after the whole 'Network-Centric Warfare' thing for a hot minute. Wasn't some of the JEFX exercises in 98'-2006ish live-action scenarios utilizing some of the really amazing capabilities our satellite (allegedly) have? Haven't we also been working on spreading the fun stuff out among other facilities and weapons platforms (i.e. Stryker, F-18, F-35) to help counter anti-satellite warfare by spreading the network links to other platforms? Some of the early presentations from the ARL/Ronald Meyers and some other JEFX stuff I've read lead me to believe that we've been working very hard to spread it far and wide to as many platforms as possible. I would assume it was a wake up call when the Russians went all crashy crashy on the Iridium 33. Its all very strange that lots of previously speculated capabilities have been hitting the news lately, and then the Russians release a crappy COD cutscene showing Florida being nuked. I would imagine the folks at USAF Material Command were not amused, just as the Russians weren't too pleased when they learned exactly what they were helping us launch into space.