7 ms·

From 3 years ago: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22941/russia-has-four-potential-killer-satellites-in-orbit-at-least-that-we-know-about https://www.thedr

From 3 years ago: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22941/russia-has-four-potential-killer-satellites-in-orbit-at-least-that-we-know-about https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22941/russia-has-four-... Russia Has Four Potential "Killer Satellites" In Orbit, At Least That We Know About > The problem is that any satellite that can maneuver itself very close to another one, and may have small arms or probes to physically interact with its target, is inherently capable of being a weapon. Any such repair system could easily smash sensitive optics and other components, or simply slam into the target, acting as a kinetic weapon The future of space warfare, as it's currently understood, will involve: 1- Satellites attacking other satellites with: 1a- robotic arms 1b- small projectiles 1c- jamming device 1d- lasers 2- missiles fired from the atmosphere 3- jamming stations on the ground (https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/space-force-first-weapon-satellite-jammer/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/space-force-first-...) More generally, space isn't safe for blue team anymore. Russia and China have aggressive ambitions to be able to dominate space and aren't restrained by any code of ethics, something China is also doing in artificial intelligence research (not bothering with "frameworks" and "guiding principles for responsible AI"). Most experts agree that space will become another area of strategic competition where the major powers deter each other with mutual destruction doctrines, because the loss of global satellite communications, weather satellites and positioning systems, and the potential creation of millions of orbital debris that would result from a confrontation would be too dire to credibly contemplate.

xwdv 5y ago
Personally I believe the US is still capable of being extremely unethical as well, we just have to find ways to cover it up. So really we’re not at too much of a disadvantage.
Retric 5y ago
The deltaV requirements for matching orbits with another satellite are seriously prohibitive. It’s vastly easier to simply launch a projectile on a collision course. Further, it’s even easier to launch up and into the path of a satellite than reach orbit. Especially if you’re launching from an aircraft in a large parabolic arch. Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT Critically launching from aircraft to orbit is not that helpful, but if you don’t need to orbit it makes a huge difference.
- beerandt 5y ago
  >matching orbits You don't need to match orbits, for kinetic satellite weapons. You just need to change to an orbit that directly intersects, or comes close enough to it at some point to launch a daughter projectile. For a kinetic vehicle, matching orbits actually decreases the net kill energy. You want a head-on train wreck, not a following-too-close fender bender.
  - Retric 5y ago
    I don’t disagree, I was referring to why this was a bad idea: “The problem is that any satellite that can maneuver itself very close to another one, and may have small arms or probes to physically interact with its target, is inherently capable of being a weapon.” If your anti satellite weapon is in orbit you just wasted a lot of energy getting it there.
jacquesm 5y ago
> Russia Has Four Potential "Killer Satellites" In Orbit, At Least That We Know About As opposed to the operational ASAT system that the United States operates? > space isn't safe for blue team anymore 'Blue Team' that's the good guys, right? Besides the fact that space is inherently unsafe, it is the United States that has taken the lead in the militarization of space. Heck the US Space Force even has a website: https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/ , I'd assume they have some actual capabilities as well. > something China is also doing in artificial intelligence research (not bothering with "frameworks" and "guiding principles for responsible AI") Which of course doesn't happen anywhere else. Really, I think your comment could use some balance. From the point of view of an inhabitant of a small nation that does not have its own space capability it sure looks like the United States is a very large part of the problem.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  It's one thing to push back on the central premise - 'We cannot trust Blue team', but entirely delusional to also not take a deeper look at the situation of our adversaries and what exactly are they upto. If anything is unbalanced, it's your comment.
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
    What, raising an objection without providing a full "both sides are bad" article is somehow something to be shamed about?
- azernik 5y ago
  The establishment of "Space Force" is overblown as a story... but in ways that support your point. It's basically a rebranding of an existing organization called US Air Force Space Command, which controls all military orbital launches and most military satellites (I believe NRO is its own separate thing). They just wanted it to be less specifically tied to the Air Force, and for its chief to be on equal footing to a service chief.
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
tsimionescu 5y ago
> Russia and China have aggressive ambitions to be able to dominate space and aren't restrained by any code of ethics, something China is also doing in artificial intelligence research (not bothering with "frameworks" and "guiding principles for responsible AI"). Are you implying that the US military has a code of ethics it follows more than Russia or China? I would advise you to read up on the recent history of latin America and the Middle East if you believe such fantasies.
- knownjorbist 5y ago
  Speak to anyone involved on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Strikes on valid targets were routinely frustrated by the chain of command worried about collateral damage. That's not to say there are examples that where it happened anyways(you'll link me the Kunduz hospital airstrike as an example). Contrast with the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan, or their more recent contributions to the Syrian Civil War. Collateral damage is _not_ a consideration when they decide to go kinetic. Barrel bombing civilians _is the point_.
ekianjo 5y ago
> More generally, space isn't safe for blue team anymore. SpaceX bringing massive capabilities of orbital launch makes blue team stronger than ever. There's no competition anymore.
stemc43 5y ago
> and aren't restrained by any code of ethics give ... me ... a break. are you seriously implying US (aka blue team) are good guys and have some higher standards?
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Especially funny in this context as recent efforts to created a code of conduct for space have largely been rejected by the US in favour of the unstructured status quo.
  - splitstud 5y ago
    I sure wish we had a code of conduct for space that could be ignored like the rules regarding sea and air.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    It does have a point - a structured code of conduct would restrict USA more than others because they would at least try to cover up any violations and at least openly try to follow them for internal political reasons, while the potential adversaries do have the practical capability to just flount the restrictions whenever suitable, as internal political battles or budget allocation will not risk exposing such violations like USA did - if they had something like the equivalent of Nixon's Pentagon Papers event, they would just execute everyone involved and it would not get published. Things like USA-USSR nuclear disarmament treaties only worked because they included mechanisms for strict verification by the other side. For not developing space arms, you would have to rely on trust, and (as the article mentions) international trust is in very short supply.
    - SiempreViernes 5y ago
      Why would you have to rely on trust? As the nuclear treaties show, its perfectly possible to include verification as part of the treaty. No, the true reason too many in the USG sees a code of conduct as undesirable is that they believe the US is so far ahead its dominance would be restricted if it had pledged to no do whatever the fuck it wants in space. And because opposition is grounded in maintaining dominance, something that's not yet entirely edible in today's political climate, they cannot muster more persuasive arguments than "we can't have common rules because then the US would have to follow them but the others wouldn't". This is obvious trash: if the opposition breaks the treaty the US would not respect it either, and in any case the US has not shown hesitancy to withdraw from treaties even without violations as of late.

xwdv 5y ago

Personally I believe the US is still capable of being extremely unethical as well, we just have to find ways to cover it up. So really we’re not at too much of a disadvantage.

Retric 5y ago

The deltaV requirements for matching orbits with another satellite are seriously prohibitive. It’s vastly easier to simply launch a projectile on a collision course. Further, it’s even easier to launch up and into the path of a satellite than reach orbit. Especially if you’re launching from an aircraft in a large parabolic arch. Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT Critically launching from aircraft to orbit is not that helpful, but if you don’t need to orbit it makes a huge difference.

beerandt 5y ago
>matching orbits You don't need to match orbits, for kinetic satellite weapons. You just need to change to an orbit that directly intersects, or comes close enough to it at some point to launch a daughter projectile. For a kinetic vehicle, matching orbits actually decreases the net kill energy. You want a head-on train wreck, not a following-too-close fender bender.
- Retric 5y ago
  I don’t disagree, I was referring to why this was a bad idea: “The problem is that any satellite that can maneuver itself very close to another one, and may have small arms or probes to physically interact with its target, is inherently capable of being a weapon.” If your anti satellite weapon is in orbit you just wasted a lot of energy getting it there.

jacquesm 5y ago

> Russia Has Four Potential "Killer Satellites" In Orbit, At Least That We Know About As opposed to the operational ASAT system that the United States operates? > space isn't safe for blue team anymore 'Blue Team' that's the good guys, right? Besides the fact that space is inherently unsafe, it is the United States that has taken the lead in the militarization of space. Heck the US Space Force even has a website: https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/ , I'd assume they have some actual capabilities as well. > something China is also doing in artificial intelligence research (not bothering with "frameworks" and "guiding principles for responsible AI") Which of course doesn't happen anywhere else. Really, I think your comment could use some balance. From the point of view of an inhabitant of a small nation that does not have its own space capability it sure looks like the United States is a very large part of the problem.

systemvoltage 5y ago
It's one thing to push back on the central premise - 'We cannot trust Blue team', but entirely delusional to also not take a deeper look at the situation of our adversaries and what exactly are they upto. If anything is unbalanced, it's your comment.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  What, raising an objection without providing a full "both sides are bad" article is somehow something to be shamed about?
azernik 5y ago
The establishment of "Space Force" is overblown as a story... but in ways that support your point. It's basically a rebranding of an existing organization called US Air Force Space Command, which controls all military orbital launches and most military satellites (I believe NRO is its own separate thing). They just wanted it to be less specifically tied to the Air Force, and for its chief to be on equal footing to a service chief.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago

tsimionescu 5y ago

> Russia and China have aggressive ambitions to be able to dominate space and aren't restrained by any code of ethics, something China is also doing in artificial intelligence research (not bothering with "frameworks" and "guiding principles for responsible AI"). Are you implying that the US military has a code of ethics it follows more than Russia or China? I would advise you to read up on the recent history of latin America and the Middle East if you believe such fantasies.

knownjorbist 5y ago
Speak to anyone involved on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Strikes on valid targets were routinely frustrated by the chain of command worried about collateral damage. That's not to say there are examples that where it happened anyways(you'll link me the Kunduz hospital airstrike as an example). Contrast with the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan, or their more recent contributions to the Syrian Civil War. Collateral damage is _not_ a consideration when they decide to go kinetic. Barrel bombing civilians _is the point_.

ekianjo 5y ago

> More generally, space isn't safe for blue team anymore. SpaceX bringing massive capabilities of orbital launch makes blue team stronger than ever. There's no competition anymore.

stemc43 5y ago

> and aren't restrained by any code of ethics give ... me ... a break. are you seriously implying US (aka blue team) are good guys and have some higher standards?

SiempreViernes 5y ago
Especially funny in this context as recent efforts to created a code of conduct for space have largely been rejected by the US in favour of the unstructured status quo.
- splitstud 5y ago
  I sure wish we had a code of conduct for space that could be ignored like the rules regarding sea and air.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  It does have a point - a structured code of conduct would restrict USA more than others because they would at least try to cover up any violations and at least openly try to follow them for internal political reasons, while the potential adversaries do have the practical capability to just flount the restrictions whenever suitable, as internal political battles or budget allocation will not risk exposing such violations like USA did - if they had something like the equivalent of Nixon's Pentagon Papers event, they would just execute everyone involved and it would not get published. Things like USA-USSR nuclear disarmament treaties only worked because they included mechanisms for strict verification by the other side. For not developing space arms, you would have to rely on trust, and (as the article mentions) international trust is in very short supply.
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
    Why would you have to rely on trust? As the nuclear treaties show, its perfectly possible to include verification as part of the treaty. No, the true reason too many in the USG sees a code of conduct as undesirable is that they believe the US is so far ahead its dominance would be restricted if it had pledged to no do whatever the fuck it wants in space. And because opposition is grounded in maintaining dominance, something that's not yet entirely edible in today's political climate, they cannot muster more persuasive arguments than "we can't have common rules because then the US would have to follow them but the others wouldn't". This is obvious trash: if the opposition breaks the treaty the US would not respect it either, and in any case the US has not shown hesitancy to withdraw from treaties even without violations as of late.