4 ms·
I am very curious as to how much truth there is behind the statement "unregulated nature of space" and especially curious, if true, how long it will be before g
by killnine 15y ago
I am very curious as to how much truth there is behind the statement "unregulated nature of space" and especially curious, if true, how long it will be before governments start attempting to
- icegreentea 15y agoFor all it worth, right now most anti-satellite weapons are limited to low earth orbit (useful for knocking out satellites looking at stuff you don't want). Most communications satellites will be a much higher altitude. While there is no fundamental reason why governments couldn't create ASAT weapons to reach higher altitudes, the costs go on significantly. Previous (like cold war era) attempts at high altitude weapons pretty much just strapped a big nuke to a full out launch vehicle. For reference, the weapon used by the US in their ASAT kill in 2006 was made using a modified ballistic defense missile (the SM-3). Your Aegis equipped warships can carry a -lot- of them. Anyhow, it'd be far easier for governments to attempt to regulate the receivers and transmitters than to shoot down the satellite. Also, it would be easier for them to deny launch privileges than wait till after they launch. They might not own space, but they own their airspace.
- lunarscape 15y agoI'm not familiar with the area but aren't anti-satellite weapons forbidden under certain treaties, similar to how nuclear weapons in space are banned? The US spun their test as preventing damage from a bad satellite and the Chinese said something similar.
- icegreentea 15y agoNope. The Outer Space Treaty forbids many things, but does not forbid anti-satellite weapons, especially if those weapons are not based on orbit. In fact, the Outer Space Treaty does not even forbid conventional weapons in orbit. It basically only bans WMDs in space, and forbids military use of other celestial bodies (nothing about space itself). Anti-satellite weapons were largely held in check by technical issues, cost, as well as avoiding escalation/arms race. The recent weapons test are an example of that. Once you start actively developing these weapons again, everyone else who can will follow to protect their interests. Both of their spins are largely for PR, not legal/treaty reasons.
- lunarscape 15y agoWow, that's really interesting. It's also kind of frightening as well. I wonder if in the future Kessler Syndrome will be considered a viable doomsday-like scenario.
- caf 15y agoThe other thing that has put a brake on too much ASAT exuberance is the large amount of long-lived debris that kinetic ASAT kills create. It wouldn't take many kinetic ASAT shots before LEO was entirely unuseable for years to come, an outcome which (so far) has been sobering for all concerned.
- JumpCrisscross 15y agoComsats are generally in LEO. A higher LEO than spy sats, perhaps, but well within the range of anti-satellite systems.
- ramidarigaz 15y agoComsats are generally in GEO.
- nitrogen 15y agoWould it be possible to build a comsat network in LEO for reduced latency, kind of like the Synapse network in Antitrust?
- JumpCrisscross 15y agoThere are several comsat constellations in LEO. The most famous one is Iridium's.