4 ms·

How would space-based solar increase the risk of warfare in space more than space-based communications and geolocation infrastructure already risks it? Knocking

How would space-based solar increase the risk of warfare in space more than space-based communications and geolocation infrastructure already risks it? Knocking out GPS satellites seems like it’d be nearly as effective as knocking out power-supplying satellites. I guess maybe the difference is there is redundancy in the GPS network – taking out one satellite wouldn’t do much damage, but with power supplying satellites I presume it would.

Jeff_Brown 5y ago
There's also a symmetry concern. All parties to any conflict would be using something like GPS. But if only one has access to SBS, the others have less to lose by taking the fight into space.
- neltnerb 5y ago
  Of course, a country that can shoot down a satellite can probably already launch a nuke, if they have one. And they likely have a bunch of stuff in space as well. There are a few counterexamples, but they wouldn't be, for instance, Russia or China or the US. They'd be mad to do that over a power delivery system that they can utilize or hack.
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  The US Military can degrade GPS performance of a selected area while keeping the military encrypted accuracy at standard levels which they did during the Kargil War IIRC.
jakear 5y ago
Not all that difficult for a ground deployment to know where they are without GPS. You know (generally) where you started, what direction you’re headed, and how fast you’re going. Maps exist, and cartography is still taught. Not to mention things like astral analysis. Much harder to generate power from nothing in the middle of nowhere.
- recuter 5y ago
  Dead reckoning is not appropriate for modern warfare and may result in death. Recent example would be Russians getting lost in Ukraine because the locals changed all the road signs.
  - jakear 5y ago
    War always results in death. My claim is the differential from losing GPS is less than that of losing power.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Some weapons are GPS guided

Jeff_Brown 5y ago

There's also a symmetry concern. All parties to any conflict would be using something like GPS. But if only one has access to SBS, the others have less to lose by taking the fight into space.

neltnerb 5y ago
Of course, a country that can shoot down a satellite can probably already launch a nuke, if they have one. And they likely have a bunch of stuff in space as well. There are a few counterexamples, but they wouldn't be, for instance, Russia or China or the US. They'd be mad to do that over a power delivery system that they can utilize or hack.
JaimeThompson 5y ago
The US Military can degrade GPS performance of a selected area while keeping the military encrypted accuracy at standard levels which they did during the Kargil War IIRC.

jakear 5y ago

Not all that difficult for a ground deployment to know where they are without GPS. You know (generally) where you started, what direction you’re headed, and how fast you’re going. Maps exist, and cartography is still taught. Not to mention things like astral analysis. Much harder to generate power from nothing in the middle of nowhere.

recuter 5y ago
Dead reckoning is not appropriate for modern warfare and may result in death. Recent example would be Russians getting lost in Ukraine because the locals changed all the road signs.
- jakear 5y ago
  War always results in death. My claim is the differential from losing GPS is less than that of losing power.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Some weapons are GPS guided