5 ms·

Surely if you wanted to take down an enemy satellite there would be easier ways than sending a robot arm satellite out after it.

dylan604 5y ago
other methods kind of leaves a mess that pisses off other people.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
Every modern army is completely reliant on military satellites. I think the idea is a surgical strike that doesn't leave space clogged up with debris for the next few hundred years.
rtkwe 5y ago
Just blowing them up creates debris that are a risk to your own satellites and has more chance of reprisals from other nations because it's a more broadly destructive and you might hit other satellites. Selectively deorbiting enemy satellites is a much cleaner way, like the difference between carpet bombing and a GPS/laser guided precision bombing. In space there's an incentive to be careful about widespread destruction because the debris spread out over time and fall through lower orbits risking a lot of other satellites that weren't the target.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  GPS laser guided precision bombing, like with drone strikes? With teams of highly trained people at every step of the decision? When actual numbers were leaked about use of drones and "precision" bombing by the US, arguably the most competent, rigorously trained, elite military on the planet, directly answerable to elected leadership, the rate of "bystander" to "target" kills was 5 to 1. Biden bombed a car full of children during his Afghanistan debacle. Oops. It's probably not a good idea for non space agency leaders, military or otherwise, to have tools that physically interact with stuff in space. There's not an institution on the planet competent and responsible enough to avoid unintended catastrophe once military conflict escalates to orbit.
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    The strikes are pretty accurate, the use of them and the planning behind it is where the unintended deaths come from, the weapons go where they're pointed they're just wielded by people who don't care about the people directly nearby or getting it wrong. The analogy holds for the various types of anti-satellite weapons, among them this is a very precise tool. > It's probably not a good idea for non space agency leaders, military or otherwise, to have tools that physically interact with stuff in space. There's not an institution on the planet competent and responsible enough to avoid unintended catastrophe once military conflict escalates to orbit. I think the technological cat is out of the proverbial bag on this one.
wsinks 5y ago
As a non-destructive method, a robot arm satellite actually seems pretty effective. If you destroy the satellite, a bunch of debris gets sent out in that orbit and others nearby, poisoning those orbits. I'm curious, what other non-destructive methods are there?
- imglorp 5y ago
  You could give it a retrograde kick so it descends into atmospheric drag. You can instead refuel it or attach a new maneuvering unit to revitalize its mission.

dylan604 5y ago

other methods kind of leaves a mess that pisses off other people.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

Every modern army is completely reliant on military satellites. I think the idea is a surgical strike that doesn't leave space clogged up with debris for the next few hundred years.

rtkwe 5y ago

Just blowing them up creates debris that are a risk to your own satellites and has more chance of reprisals from other nations because it's a more broadly destructive and you might hit other satellites. Selectively deorbiting enemy satellites is a much cleaner way, like the difference between carpet bombing and a GPS/laser guided precision bombing. In space there's an incentive to be careful about widespread destruction because the debris spread out over time and fall through lower orbits risking a lot of other satellites that weren't the target.

robbedpeter 5y ago
GPS laser guided precision bombing, like with drone strikes? With teams of highly trained people at every step of the decision? When actual numbers were leaked about use of drones and "precision" bombing by the US, arguably the most competent, rigorously trained, elite military on the planet, directly answerable to elected leadership, the rate of "bystander" to "target" kills was 5 to 1. Biden bombed a car full of children during his Afghanistan debacle. Oops. It's probably not a good idea for non space agency leaders, military or otherwise, to have tools that physically interact with stuff in space. There's not an institution on the planet competent and responsible enough to avoid unintended catastrophe once military conflict escalates to orbit.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  The strikes are pretty accurate, the use of them and the planning behind it is where the unintended deaths come from, the weapons go where they're pointed they're just wielded by people who don't care about the people directly nearby or getting it wrong. The analogy holds for the various types of anti-satellite weapons, among them this is a very precise tool. > It's probably not a good idea for non space agency leaders, military or otherwise, to have tools that physically interact with stuff in space. There's not an institution on the planet competent and responsible enough to avoid unintended catastrophe once military conflict escalates to orbit. I think the technological cat is out of the proverbial bag on this one.

wsinks 5y ago

As a non-destructive method, a robot arm satellite actually seems pretty effective. If you destroy the satellite, a bunch of debris gets sent out in that orbit and others nearby, poisoning those orbits. I'm curious, what other non-destructive methods are there?

imglorp 5y ago
You could give it a retrograde kick so it descends into atmospheric drag. You can instead refuel it or attach a new maneuvering unit to revitalize its mission.