3 ms·

Actual systems usually hit the target with a single projectile, not a cloud of junk.

by wumpus 4y ago

mlyle 4y ago
Sure. The author is positing a dumb "shotgun" system for blanket space denial instead of a system intended to kill a single satellite. Just putting a lot of crap in LEO is good enough for denial. Dumb boxes that can maneuver and choose when to become a pile of crap are even better.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  But this kind of denial works the same for all parties' sats. Kind of a mutually assured destruction. I'm sure targeted options will be favoured by most parties.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > But this kind of denial works the same for all parties' sats. Kind of a mutually assured destruction. Yah. Slightly favors your own satellites in the odds, but not wonderfully so. At the same time, if you're facing an adversary which depends upon LEO much, much more... this might be an attractive strategy.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > author is positing a dumb "shotgun" system for blanket space denial instead of a system intended to kill a single satellite Fighter jets use missiles, not flak. Above certain velocities and a certain degree of freedom in the third dimension, shotguns disperse uselessly more than hit anything. At the point you're getting close enough to make a hit probable you're already most of the way towards a direct strike anyway.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Fighter jets use missiles, not flak. Do you think the missiles go and touch the opposing fighter jet? Hit-to-kill systems exist, but most missiles maneuver, get as much of an intersecting path as they can, and then explode to kill the target with fragments. > At the point you're getting close enough to make a hit probable you're already most of the way towards a direct strike anyway. Here, you don't select for the highest probability of kill on a certain pass, but instead the highest probability of damage integrated over many orbits. You also don't select for the highest probability of killing a given SV, but of killing satellites in a given constellation with closely related orbits.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > maneuver, get as much of an intersecting path as they can, and then explode. Which is the "getting close enough to make a hit probable" I described. > don't select for the highest probability of killing a given SV, but of killing satellites in a given constellation with closely related orbits I get the hypothesis. But if you run the orbital math, interaction is vanishingly unlikely. Kessler syndrome is triggered by massive orbital objects breaking up and creating a domino effect at high altitudes, where orbital decay is minimal on human timeframes. Kessler concerns were raised with respect to Starlink, but I haven't seen anyone balance the math for massive numbers of small objects. Even for the classic case, when you actually run simulations, most objects don't interact.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        > But if you run the orbital math, interaction is vanishingly unlikely. E.g. a Falcon 9 can put 14 tonnes into a higher LEO. Assume you fill it 90% with 1cm diameter tungsten spheres, and the rest with an optimized dispersal system. That's 1.26 million spheres slowly decaying through your target orbit, and you can end up with a favorable initial phase, altitude, and inclination. You'd be tripling the amount of debris of that scale in orbit in one launch, in a way that's disproportionately targeted at a specific constellation. (Probably 1cm diam is still excessively large. Also, when we talk about the original idea, you could have many smaller, even more optimized shots at individual spacecraft in the constellation).
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > 1.26 million spheres slowly decaying through your target orbit, and you can end up with a favorable initial phase, altitude, and inclination Three degrees of freedom are deceiving. Millions of projectiles sounds like a lot. It’s not. You could do this hundreds of thousands of times in LEO and thousands in MEO and still barely change a single satellite’s collision odds.

Actual systems usually hit the target with a single projectile, not a cloud of junk.

by wumpus 4y ago

Actual systems usually hit the target with a single projectile, not a cloud of junk.

Sure. The author is positing a dumb "shotgun" system for blanket space denial instead of a system intended to kill a single satellite. Just putting a lot of crap in LEO is good enough for denial. Dumb boxes that can maneuver and choose when to become a pile of crap are even better.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
But this kind of denial works the same for all parties' sats. Kind of a mutually assured destruction. I'm sure targeted options will be favoured by most parties.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > But this kind of denial works the same for all parties' sats. Kind of a mutually assured destruction. Yah. Slightly favors your own satellites in the odds, but not wonderfully so. At the same time, if you're facing an adversary which depends upon LEO much, much more... this might be an attractive strategy.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> author is positing a dumb "shotgun" system for blanket space denial instead of a system intended to kill a single satellite Fighter jets use missiles, not flak. Above certain velocities and a certain degree of freedom in the third dimension, shotguns disperse uselessly more than hit anything. At the point you're getting close enough to make a hit probable you're already most of the way towards a direct strike anyway.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Fighter jets use missiles, not flak. Do you think the missiles go and touch the opposing fighter jet? Hit-to-kill systems exist, but most missiles maneuver, get as much of an intersecting path as they can, and then explode to kill the target with fragments. > At the point you're getting close enough to make a hit probable you're already most of the way towards a direct strike anyway. Here, you don't select for the highest probability of kill on a certain pass, but instead the highest probability of damage integrated over many orbits. You also don't select for the highest probability of killing a given SV, but of killing satellites in a given constellation with closely related orbits.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > maneuver, get as much of an intersecting path as they can, and then explode. Which is the "getting close enough to make a hit probable" I described. > don't select for the highest probability of killing a given SV, but of killing satellites in a given constellation with closely related orbits I get the hypothesis. But if you run the orbital math, interaction is vanishingly unlikely. Kessler syndrome is triggered by massive orbital objects breaking up and creating a domino effect at high altitudes, where orbital decay is minimal on human timeframes. Kessler concerns were raised with respect to Starlink, but I haven't seen anyone balance the math for massive numbers of small objects. Even for the classic case, when you actually run simulations, most objects don't interact.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > But if you run the orbital math, interaction is vanishingly unlikely. E.g. a Falcon 9 can put 14 tonnes into a higher LEO. Assume you fill it 90% with 1cm diameter tungsten spheres, and the rest with an optimized dispersal system. That's 1.26 million spheres slowly decaying through your target orbit, and you can end up with a favorable initial phase, altitude, and inclination. You'd be tripling the amount of debris of that scale in orbit in one launch, in a way that's disproportionately targeted at a specific constellation. (Probably 1cm diam is still excessively large. Also, when we talk about the original idea, you could have many smaller, even more optimized shots at individual spacecraft in the constellation).
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > 1.26 million spheres slowly decaying through your target orbit, and you can end up with a favorable initial phase, altitude, and inclination Three degrees of freedom are deceiving. Millions of projectiles sounds like a lot. It’s not. You could do this hundreds of thousands of times in LEO and thousands in MEO and still barely change a single satellite’s collision odds.