4 ms·

I think this is another one of those (sub) threads based on a false premise. Shielding on spacecraft and the ISS is totally a thing, because there is a clever w

I think this is another one of those (sub) threads based on a false premise. Shielding on spacecraft and the ISS is totally a thing, because there is a clever way to make practical armor that is light weight. The keyword is "Whipple shield". "There are over 100 shield configurations on the International Space Station alone"

BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
Whipple shields might succeed in protecting the important parts of the spacecraft, but the kinetic energy of the projectile is still getting absorbed no matter how great your armor is -- and if a spacecraft lacks the propulsion needed to correct its orbit afterward, then there's nothing it can do to defend itself. What good is being intact if your orbit has been irreparably destabilized? (Apart from giving crew some time to abandon a station via their "lifeboats".)
jacquesm 5y ago
And none of those aim to shield the ISS from an anti-satellite weapon. It probably wouldn't even slow it down. Note the title of this article and that's just the debris of the hit, not the actual hit itself.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  What are you alluding to? You think a "weapon" or its byproducts travels much faster than regular debris? Or is more massive? I assumed the size of the cloud, the quantity and dispersion, is what's making them shelter. This from the article: "It is standard space station procedure for astronauts to pile into their vehicles in case of any kind of emergency in case they need to evacuate the space station." ...suggests there could be factors other than the direct vulnerability of the people.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Yes, 'the other factors' are that they are potentially entering a debris field with unknown composition. That alone warrants precautions. A weapon aimed at ISS would presumably be tailored to that particular application, but at orbital velocities a retrograde projectile would destroy the ISS quite efficiently, even if it had a modest mass. Compared to that this debris cloud is a walk in the proverbial park.

BHSPitMonkey 5y ago

Whipple shields might succeed in protecting the important parts of the spacecraft, but the kinetic energy of the projectile is still getting absorbed no matter how great your armor is -- and if a spacecraft lacks the propulsion needed to correct its orbit afterward, then there's nothing it can do to defend itself. What good is being intact if your orbit has been irreparably destabilized? (Apart from giving crew some time to abandon a station via their "lifeboats".)

jacquesm 5y ago

And none of those aim to shield the ISS from an anti-satellite weapon. It probably wouldn't even slow it down. Note the title of this article and that's just the debris of the hit, not the actual hit itself.

perl4ever 5y ago
What are you alluding to? You think a "weapon" or its byproducts travels much faster than regular debris? Or is more massive? I assumed the size of the cloud, the quantity and dispersion, is what's making them shelter. This from the article: "It is standard space station procedure for astronauts to pile into their vehicles in case of any kind of emergency in case they need to evacuate the space station." ...suggests there could be factors other than the direct vulnerability of the people.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Yes, 'the other factors' are that they are potentially entering a debris field with unknown composition. That alone warrants precautions. A weapon aimed at ISS would presumably be tailored to that particular application, but at orbital velocities a retrograde projectile would destroy the ISS quite efficiently, even if it had a modest mass. Compared to that this debris cloud is a walk in the proverbial park.