Has Russia Tested its Hunter Killer Satellite again ?

a reply to: Mantiss2021

I think they are working on the likes of inflatable stations and orbital hotels(Bigelow Aerospace).

Design stages anyway.

Makes sense.

40 years ago i imagine material science may not quite have been there all the same.

But in the future inflatable stations may well become an actual thing as far as I'm led to believe.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: andy06shake

We were developing a "mini-sat" and various configurations, to be deployed using the US Space Shuttle (STS) "Get-Away-Special" (G.A.S.) experimental support system.


For our purposes, coated Mylar was more than sufficient in terms of strength, since the structurewas not requiredto be load-bearing on-orbit; much like the early ECHO satellites, it's only purpose was to reflect radio communications.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

I loved watching the shuttles launch.

Spin the bottle through safety-wise.

Just too many things that can and did go wrong.

Although comparatively speaking 135 space missions and 2 failures is not bad.

What do you think of Starship?

All those engines baffle me, to many point of failure.

Its like an old Soviet design as opposed to what NASA chooses to field.

Sure they know better than me all the same. LoL

A little inebriated my end now so if i digress, it will be that. LoL

a reply to: andy06shake

Starship is this generation's Saturn V. Big, scary, magnificent, and the "next step" to the stars.

During the Space Race days, the US had a "can do" attitude (largely the result of winning WWII), and was ready to absorb the risks engendered by bold dreams.

We're far more risk averse now.


What will be the impact if/when a Starship detonates on launch, with her full crew on board?


Will we be able to "Stay Calm, and Carry On"?

a reply to: Mantiss2021

What will be the impact if/when a Starship detonates on launch, with her full crew on board?

Depending on where she goes pop, i think in the event of an emergency, even on the launch pad, and/or during ascent, the crew module is ""supposed"" to separate from the launch vehicle and boost off to safety.

Will we be able to "Stay Calm, and Carry On"?

Aye right, not if I'm on board the thing that's for sure.

But NASA did even after the likes of Apollo 1.

Such is the nature of the endeavor and industry is it not

originally posted by: gortex
It's reported that astronauts onboard the ISS were forced to take shelter in the docked Starliner spacecraft on Thursday following the unexplained break up of a Russian satellite on Wednesday which was declared dead in 2022 , Russia drew condemnation when it tested the technology a few years ago but following the announcement from the Pentagon last month that a Cosmos satellite had been launched on May 16 that reached an orbit that essentially lets it stalk U.S. spy satellites it seems these two events may well be connected.

The ISS's nine crew members — including the Boeing Starliner's stranded Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams — took cover for about an hour last night (June 27) shortly after 9 p.m. EDT (0100 GMT).

The astronauts took the precautionary measure following the breakup of the Resurs-P1 Russian Earth observation satellite, which shattered into more than 100 pieces near the space station on Wednesday (June 26).

"Mission Control continued to monitor the path of the debris, and after about an hour, the crew was cleared to exit their spacecraft and the station resumed normal operations," NASA said on the social platform X.

Obit-monitoring company LeoLabs first noticed the Resurs-P1 satellite, declared dead since 2022, breaking apart when it spotted a "debris-generating event in Low Earth Orbit" on June 26, according to a post on X. The U.S. Space Command said there were "no immediate threats" to other satellites. The exact cause of the satellite's breakup remains unknown.
www.livescience.com...

No, this was not a hunter-killer satellite. It was in the wrong orbit to be a hunter-killer. These satellites almost always have a lot of hypergolic liquid rocket fuel on board. When hypergolic fuels combine, they spontaneously react and liberate large amounts of energy. A common failure mode is when a check valve that is supposed to prevent one of the fuels from going back up the fuel line to the other fuel tank fails, the two fuels combine in one of the fuel tanks instead of the rocket motor and it blows everything to hell. It had to have been a very energetic event like that to blow the whole thing to smithereens.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3
a reply to: Mantiss2021

We need to keep the emergency escape towers on the capsules. Once in orbit, they can be remotely controlled with small engines to large objects to the deorbited. Just stick the tower to them, point the engines retrograde and fire the emergency escape rockets. Down comes part of the mess.

Not quite that simple.

The Tsiolkovsy equation, which governs the mass/fuel limitations which determine what can be included as payload using current launch technology, makes it prohibitive to include the additional fuel, avionics, and necessary "docking infrastructure" this idea would require.

You are saying it is cost prohibitive to add a mictosat with an ion thruster and a foam block with a pack of super glue on the exposed side to the escape tower? I don't think so.

a reply to: gortex

Genius.

Wanna fill boots with millennials and Gen Z? Just tell them Russia's "hunter killer" satellites are going to blow up their WiFi and then stage an actual event to twist the blade.

Recruitment would skyrocket.

a reply to: VariedcodeSole

Technically Wi-Fi is for local wireless networking and does not use satellites.

Although it can be part of a network that gets its internet connectivity from a satellite service, Starlink being one of them.

a reply to: andy06shake

Gee, thanks.

I never knew that.🙄smh.

a reply to: VariedcodeSole

Glad to have been of assistance.

My point being that the loss of satellites would not completely cripple the internet.

The majority of global internet traffic is carried by undersea fiber-optic cables.

And Wi-Fi uses local routers connected to cellular networks which use towers to provide mobile internet access.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: VariedcodeSole

Glad to have been of assistance.

My point being that the loss of satellites would not completely cripple the internet.

The majority of global internet traffic is carried by undersea fiber-optic cables.

And Wi-Fi uses local routers connected to cellular networks which use towers to provide mobile internet access.

Oh my God..... you're still going!! Lol

I'm still between you being pretentious, or presumptive. Probably a little of both.

Anything else you'd like to add?

a reply to: VariedcodeSole

Just that you fail to be able to show any sort of manners.

As to what you are between i would not care to speculate.

Anyhoo you have yourself a nice day now that you understand taking out the satellites would shut down the internet.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: VariedcodeSole

Anyhoo you have yourself a nice day now that you understand taking out the satellites would shut down the internet.

Manners......lol, that's rich coming from you.

Okay so which is it? They wouldn't or they would? Lol. You see, your above statement is a typo whereas my initial comment was meant as an insult to Gen Z's intelligence. Just the mere mention of losing "connectivity" would set them ablaze. Lol. But that went over your head.

So it's presumptive then, with hints of pretentiousness and a dash of twat.

Your so adamant about "correcting" people, (deny ignorance and a that lol) that the intent was lost on you.

Next time, check in. A better approach would be, do you know that WiFi (I was using WiFi as a generalization) is derived locally? To which I would have said, "Yes, I know that. What's your point?"

Instead, you decided that I'm ignorant and I need an insulting lesson in telecommunications.

But by all means, carry on. Lol

a reply to: VariedcodeSole

I did not imply anything of the sorts.

But good luck with the projection and poor manners.

Again you have a nice day.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Bluntone22

Those are low earth orbit and far smaller satellites. They’re designed to fall and burn up on reentry if they fail.

Gravity has more of an impact on inner space and will just pull them.

I”d like umbrella’s shape haarp satellites…very better than indie laser weapon on i don’t remeber what cruise ship