6 ms·

War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever

clamprecht 11y ago
Isn't it always "closer than ever", by definition?
- lifty 11y ago
  When time is the dimension, yes.
- gtrubetskoy 11y ago
  and "closer than ever" could mean 1000 years, and still be true
- elektromekatron 11y ago
  Not after the last one.
- Nicholas_C 11y ago
  I think the author meant "closer than ever" in terms of the probability of the event of space war. As in, the probability is closer to 1 than it has ever been.
- aggie 11y ago
  Usually when someone uses the phrase 'closer than ever', they are implying that an uncertain outcome is more likely to occur than it has been in the past, not that a possible future event is temporally closer (which, as you suggest, would be a trivial statement). We are not 'closer than ever' to nuclear war, for example.
jotm 11y ago
Am I the only one who thinks this is good news? Not awesome, not even great, but good for development of space technologies. It's literally another space race if it's true, and we know how the last one turned out. As they seek to destroy stuff in space (from Earth and from space), they'll want to do it as cheap and fast as possible, and that will be picked up by civilian space companies and enthusiasts in no time. I highly doubt it will cause any big wars - but if it does, we damn well deserve it.
- washedup 11y ago
  Sure, investment in tech yes, but I would be very concerned about the massive increase in "space debris" in our lower orbits if things are getting blown apart. Enough war in space and we will need a clean-up method before people go back.
- davidy123 11y ago
  I just hope we can keep people like you (or anyone who uses the word "we" like this) away from any sort of position of responsibility.
  - adrianpike 11y ago
    I just hope we can keep people like you we Used intentionally to double down on your point, or irony?
    - davidy123 11y ago
      It was unintentional (and I dislike abuse of the word), but if "we" is a simple majority of the world's population, I suspect "we" would prefer to keep space war mongers away from responsibility.
      - jotm 11y ago
        Yeah, we would prefer. Not that it matters, since they're in power anyway...
  - themartorana 11y ago
    How's that worked out so far?
  - kinghajj 11y ago
    ...says someone who just used "we" in a too-general sense themselves!
- rrss1122 11y ago
  A space race to Mars is a fun, if monstrously wasteful economically, way for the nations to one-up each other. A space race to build weapons to destroy each other's satellites is not fun, and not good news. I don't see the higher probability of armed conflict with Russia or China as a good trade-off for development of space technologies. And going to war because "we damn well deserve it" is a terrible reason.
Fendgame 11y ago
It is a full-blown war, it had been, and they won't stop it for the public or themselves. Someone has stolen "genderless no form factor options" from the populous, and are using them against us all... There isn't much anyone can do. :-(
btbuildem 11y ago
I really hope it plays out like it did in Peace on Earth [1] 1) http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-15-171554-1 http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-15-171554-1
DrNuke 11y ago
Nuclear for space can go spectacularly well (innovative propulsion, electricity and heat generation) or horrendously bad. Propulsion is the most promising, though, for Moon and hopefully Mars colonies. More Elon Musk need to go mainstream.
fractallyte 11y ago
A war in space would be utterly disastrous for human civilization - the resulting cascade of orbital debris would confine us to Earth for a long time, not to mention destroying or disabling the satellites on which so much of our infrastructure depends. A recent edition of BBC Horizon highlighted the problems of space junk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0656dbj http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0656dbj
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I have been involved in a number of informal discussions on this topic, things like the Kessler effect effectively denying access to space is a possibility even without malicious action (all you need is an asteroid to fly close enough to bat some of the geosyncronous satellites into a crossing orbit with the rest of the LEO stuff. A number of scenarios start with just that, something happens and suddenly the space around the earth is so full of junk flying every which way that a new sort of "debris" belt prevents launching new Geo satellites or even people into orbit. At which point the country that can build a space "tank" a hardened satellite which is designed to deflect damage from collisions wins. Alternatively the ways in which things can be de-orbited can be increased. The laser idea has some good press going for it, I am partial to conductive tether tugs, but it is probably not going to be people up there taking out the trash. And of course if someone does this deliberately how much of the US' military inventory is suddenly worthless? Predator drones, cruise missiles, gps guided bombs, auto-pilot features, iridium sat phones, gps laser designators, lots and lots of stuff. Not the kind of change that leads to extended space use.
- grandalf 11y ago
  I've thought about this a lot after reading some material about satellites and thinking about the consequences. What do you think would be the best strategy for defending the current fleet? It seems like 3 "tanks" in highly elliptical orbits could provide some defense against space based attacks, but not really against ground-based lasers.
  - ChuckMcM 11y ago
    Within the orbital mechanics you can really only put two defenders on station with the satellite (one ahead and one behind in the orbit). Fortunately most of the stuff is in an equatorial orbit rather than a polar orbit so that is probably good enough for most things. One wonders if you could create "chunks" of expanded foam and push it ahead and behind. You want to add enough delta-v to move what ever is threatening you into a lower orbit (assuming from a lower orbit it will de-orbit faster). Tether tugs basically have a glob of adhesive that works in space on one end, spool out a long conductor and then energize it with a small solar panel, it provides a constant back emf against the earths magnetic field. That slows you down, you orbit lower, and then the atmosphere takes over. Of course vacuum adhesives are quite a challenge.
jfoutz 11y ago
Seems very much like MAD. I would bet there's a 30% chance that the big players have already picked off some of each other's spy satellites, but they're secret, can't admit to their existence, much less their method of demise. ASAT missiles are 30 years old now. Surely there are other systems, ground based lasers or something. But the big visible satellites? disabling gps, glonass or any of the communication satellites? That's a real bad idea. Messing with those looks a whole lot like starting world war 3. Presumably, a modern conventional world war scale war would start with cutting the fiber optic cables, and disabling the communication satellites. Step 2, eliminate all of the gps type stuff. Maybe you'd pick off the spy satellites first. Stopping communications and navigation would disrupt economies a whole lot more than tipping your hand about troop locations.
- grandalf 11y ago
  It takes significantly lower levels of tech to destroy satellites than it does to design and launch them. The big asymmetry lies in the dependency that the US has on both civilian and military satellites. The existing satellite infrastructure will not be retrofitted with armor or other defenses, so the cost of protection is in the trillions of dollars. Within 10 years all satellites will be armored and look nothing like current-day satellites... or perhaps smaller, more disposable sats will become the norm (like those launched by Planet labs). Ground-based lasers are capable of emitting pulses of energy sufficient to damage or disable many satellites.
lago 11y ago
"I have the higher ground"
- elektromekatron 11y ago
  Mastering the Ultimate High Ground - Next Steps in the Military Uses of Space http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1649.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1649.html
NovaS1X 11y ago
Whenever I read articles like this that touch on the Kessler syndrome I'm reminded of Planetes and that one day it just might be real. Fiction becomes reality.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> “We are in the process of messing up space, and most people don’t realize it because we can’t see it the way we can see fish kills, algal blooms, or acid rain,” he says. Well, if this is what he's comparing space debris to, then we're so screwed. We can't make most people notice or care about fish, acid rain, deforestation, etc. because the consequences are already too abstract - and space trash? That's gonna be an order of magnitude harder. I wish there was a good way to make people care about things that are actually important; as things are now, the general population pays attention in inverse relation to issue's actual importance.
codecamper 11y ago
What makes me the most upset is that these are not governments that are building anti-satellite weapons. These are scientists and engineers. People that know better and yet are building these weapons anyways, handing them to warmongers, all in exchange for some money. Each technologist has a choice whether or not to work on these systems. The answer should always be NO.
- drjesusphd 11y ago
  > Each technologist has a choice whether or not to work on these systems. The answer should always be NO. Thank you for putting it this way. People come up with all kinds of rationalizations to work on such things in exchange for a little more money. They need to be shamed.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Especially if the Israelis feel threatened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- joshstrange 11y ago
  > Each technologist has a choice whether or not to work on these systems. The answer should always be NO. While I agree that in theory this is true I don't think in practice this is always the case. It speaks to a larger morality issue coupled with economic/personal conditions of the professional involved. For example is it moral to develop space weapons if you are sure your enemy is/may be doing the same (see: military industrial complex)? Or what if the professional in question is threatened with career ruin if they don't comply or even have their loved ones threatened? I'm just trying to say this isn't the black and white issue some people want to make it out to be.
- trhway 11y ago
  >Each technologist has a choice whether or not to work on these systems. The answer should always be NO. The answer NO makes sense only when ALL technologists do it. Prisoner dilemma. Anyway, our technological civilization started when apes learned to use stone and stick as weapons. So, no surprise that most of the technological development is driven by weapons development. After all, Cro-Magnon had bow, and Neanderthal was physically stronger and had more peaceful spirit as result ...
acd 11y ago
make peace ! war
akeck 11y ago
An in-depth analysis: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-end-of-sanctuary-in-space-2d58fba741a https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-end-of-sanctuary-in-spa...

Isn't it always "closer than ever", by definition?

lifty 11y ago
When time is the dimension, yes.
gtrubetskoy 11y ago
and "closer than ever" could mean 1000 years, and still be true
elektromekatron 11y ago
Not after the last one.
Nicholas_C 11y ago
I think the author meant "closer than ever" in terms of the probability of the event of space war. As in, the probability is closer to 1 than it has ever been.
aggie 11y ago
Usually when someone uses the phrase 'closer than ever', they are implying that an uncertain outcome is more likely to occur than it has been in the past, not that a possible future event is temporally closer (which, as you suggest, would be a trivial statement). We are not 'closer than ever' to nuclear war, for example.

jotm 11y ago

Am I the only one who thinks this is good news? Not awesome, not even great, but good for development of space technologies. It's literally another space race if it's true, and we know how the last one turned out. As they seek to destroy stuff in space (from Earth and from space), they'll want to do it as cheap and fast as possible, and that will be picked up by civilian space companies and enthusiasts in no time. I highly doubt it will cause any big wars - but if it does, we damn well deserve it.

washedup 11y ago
Sure, investment in tech yes, but I would be very concerned about the massive increase in "space debris" in our lower orbits if things are getting blown apart. Enough war in space and we will need a clean-up method before people go back.
davidy123 11y ago
I just hope we can keep people like you (or anyone who uses the word "we" like this) away from any sort of position of responsibility.
- adrianpike 11y ago
  I just hope we can keep people like you we Used intentionally to double down on your point, or irony?
  - davidy123 11y ago
    It was unintentional (and I dislike abuse of the word), but if "we" is a simple majority of the world's population, I suspect "we" would prefer to keep space war mongers away from responsibility.
    - jotm 11y ago
      Yeah, we would prefer. Not that it matters, since they're in power anyway...
- themartorana 11y ago
  How's that worked out so far?
- kinghajj 11y ago
  ...says someone who just used "we" in a too-general sense themselves!
rrss1122 11y ago
A space race to Mars is a fun, if monstrously wasteful economically, way for the nations to one-up each other. A space race to build weapons to destroy each other's satellites is not fun, and not good news. I don't see the higher probability of armed conflict with Russia or China as a good trade-off for development of space technologies. And going to war because "we damn well deserve it" is a terrible reason.

Fendgame 11y ago

It is a full-blown war, it had been, and they won't stop it for the public or themselves. Someone has stolen "genderless no form factor options" from the populous, and are using them against us all... There isn't much anyone can do. :-(

btbuildem 11y ago

I really hope it plays out like it did in Peace on Earth [1] 1) http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-15-171554-1 http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-15-171554-1

DrNuke 11y ago

Nuclear for space can go spectacularly well (innovative propulsion, electricity and heat generation) or horrendously bad. Propulsion is the most promising, though, for Moon and hopefully Mars colonies. More Elon Musk need to go mainstream.

fractallyte 11y ago

A war in space would be utterly disastrous for human civilization - the resulting cascade of orbital debris would confine us to Earth for a long time, not to mention destroying or disabling the satellites on which so much of our infrastructure depends. A recent edition of BBC Horizon highlighted the problems of space junk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0656dbj http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0656dbj

ChuckMcM 11y ago

I have been involved in a number of informal discussions on this topic, things like the Kessler effect effectively denying access to space is a possibility even without malicious action (all you need is an asteroid to fly close enough to bat some of the geosyncronous satellites into a crossing orbit with the rest of the LEO stuff. A number of scenarios start with just that, something happens and suddenly the space around the earth is so full of junk flying every which way that a new sort of "debris" belt prevents launching new Geo satellites or even people into orbit. At which point the country that can build a space "tank" a hardened satellite which is designed to deflect damage from collisions wins. Alternatively the ways in which things can be de-orbited can be increased. The laser idea has some good press going for it, I am partial to conductive tether tugs, but it is probably not going to be people up there taking out the trash. And of course if someone does this deliberately how much of the US' military inventory is suddenly worthless? Predator drones, cruise missiles, gps guided bombs, auto-pilot features, iridium sat phones, gps laser designators, lots and lots of stuff. Not the kind of change that leads to extended space use.

grandalf 11y ago
I've thought about this a lot after reading some material about satellites and thinking about the consequences. What do you think would be the best strategy for defending the current fleet? It seems like 3 "tanks" in highly elliptical orbits could provide some defense against space based attacks, but not really against ground-based lasers.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  Within the orbital mechanics you can really only put two defenders on station with the satellite (one ahead and one behind in the orbit). Fortunately most of the stuff is in an equatorial orbit rather than a polar orbit so that is probably good enough for most things. One wonders if you could create "chunks" of expanded foam and push it ahead and behind. You want to add enough delta-v to move what ever is threatening you into a lower orbit (assuming from a lower orbit it will de-orbit faster). Tether tugs basically have a glob of adhesive that works in space on one end, spool out a long conductor and then energize it with a small solar panel, it provides a constant back emf against the earths magnetic field. That slows you down, you orbit lower, and then the atmosphere takes over. Of course vacuum adhesives are quite a challenge.

jfoutz 11y ago

Seems very much like MAD. I would bet there's a 30% chance that the big players have already picked off some of each other's spy satellites, but they're secret, can't admit to their existence, much less their method of demise. ASAT missiles are 30 years old now. Surely there are other systems, ground based lasers or something. But the big visible satellites? disabling gps, glonass or any of the communication satellites? That's a real bad idea. Messing with those looks a whole lot like starting world war 3. Presumably, a modern conventional world war scale war would start with cutting the fiber optic cables, and disabling the communication satellites. Step 2, eliminate all of the gps type stuff. Maybe you'd pick off the spy satellites first. Stopping communications and navigation would disrupt economies a whole lot more than tipping your hand about troop locations.

grandalf 11y ago
It takes significantly lower levels of tech to destroy satellites than it does to design and launch them. The big asymmetry lies in the dependency that the US has on both civilian and military satellites. The existing satellite infrastructure will not be retrofitted with armor or other defenses, so the cost of protection is in the trillions of dollars. Within 10 years all satellites will be armored and look nothing like current-day satellites... or perhaps smaller, more disposable sats will become the norm (like those launched by Planet labs). Ground-based lasers are capable of emitting pulses of energy sufficient to damage or disable many satellites.

lago 11y ago

"I have the higher ground"

elektromekatron 11y ago
Mastering the Ultimate High Ground - Next Steps in the Military Uses of Space http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1649.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1649.html

NovaS1X 11y ago

Whenever I read articles like this that touch on the Kessler syndrome I'm reminded of Planetes and that one day it just might be real. Fiction becomes reality.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> “We are in the process of messing up space, and most people don’t realize it because we can’t see it the way we can see fish kills, algal blooms, or acid rain,” he says. Well, if this is what he's comparing space debris to, then we're so screwed. We can't make most people notice or care about fish, acid rain, deforestation, etc. because the consequences are already too abstract - and space trash? That's gonna be an order of magnitude harder. I wish there was a good way to make people care about things that are actually important; as things are now, the general population pays attention in inverse relation to issue's actual importance.

codecamper 11y ago

What makes me the most upset is that these are not governments that are building anti-satellite weapons. These are scientists and engineers. People that know better and yet are building these weapons anyways, handing them to warmongers, all in exchange for some money. Each technologist has a choice whether or not to work on these systems. The answer should always be NO.

drjesusphd 11y ago
> Each technologist has a choice whether or not to work on these systems. The answer should always be NO. Thank you for putting it this way. People come up with all kinds of rationalizations to work on such things in exchange for a little more money. They need to be shamed.
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Especially if the Israelis feel threatened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joshstrange 11y ago
> Each technologist has a choice whether or not to work on these systems. The answer should always be NO. While I agree that in theory this is true I don't think in practice this is always the case. It speaks to a larger morality issue coupled with economic/personal conditions of the professional involved. For example is it moral to develop space weapons if you are sure your enemy is/may be doing the same (see: military industrial complex)? Or what if the professional in question is threatened with career ruin if they don't comply or even have their loved ones threatened? I'm just trying to say this isn't the black and white issue some people want to make it out to be.
trhway 11y ago
>Each technologist has a choice whether or not to work on these systems. The answer should always be NO. The answer NO makes sense only when ALL technologists do it. Prisoner dilemma. Anyway, our technological civilization started when apes learned to use stone and stick as weapons. So, no surprise that most of the technological development is driven by weapons development. After all, Cro-Magnon had bow, and Neanderthal was physically stronger and had more peaceful spirit as result ...

acd 11y ago

make peace ! war

akeck 11y ago

An in-depth analysis: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-end-of-sanctuary-in-space-2d58fba741a https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-end-of-sanctuary-in-spa...