5 ms·

>I wonder if we can do something now that we know the source. Russia signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) in 1967, this may be a treaty violation of this o

>I wonder if we can do something now that we know the source. Russia signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) in 1967, this may be a treaty violation of this or other treaties, something like that or retaliation regarding it may be possible. You can hack the satellite, or use other electronic warfare options to jam or interfere with it's operations. You can shoot it down with a missile. The X-37B is in space right now and interfering with space assets is a pretty obvious possibility for why it exists at all, but it's secret so nobody says these things.

whizzter 5mo ago
If you start shooting down stuff in orbit, it'll invite retaliation, but even without retaliation there's a huge risk of a Kessler syndrome (especially with all the stuff that SpaceX has put into orbit in recent years).
- Aerroon 5mo ago
  I've thought about this before - do you actually need to "shoot it down" (make it explode)? What if you just nudge it a little and either make it spin or change its orbit? If your missile can reach the satellite then these seem like things that should be possible, no?
  - Cthulhu_ 5mo ago
    Depends, if you nudge it only a little, its own onboard stabilizers / thrusters should be able to correct it. It'd have to be more than its own systems can correct for.
    - speed_spread 5mo ago
      Nudge it long enough to deplete it's fuel reserves? Or just wrap the emitting antenna in tin foil...
    - sroussey 5mo ago
      There are tug boat style satellites now, one could grab it and force it to Earth.
  - colechristensen 5mo ago
    A missile intercept for explosions or a kinetic destruction the relative velocity will be measured in kilometers per second. A little nudge doesn't do much, it's still a satellite in a substantially similar orbit. Any sort of nudge requires intercept, go up there and match its velocity so you can grab it and push. And still you have to push on it a whole lot to make a meaningful difference. Spin it up? You'd have to do enough to exhaust it's fuel it uses to orient itself. You're sort of saying if you can chuck an apple hitting a car on the highway, surely you can tow it away to get it off the road. They're significantly different problems.
    - Aerroon 5mo ago
      An apple at highway speeds can break the windshield and make the car undriveable. People throwing things from highway overpasses is a serious (and deadly) problem. >A missile intercept for explosions or a kinetic destruction the relative velocity will be measured in kilometers per second. The satellite will also be going kilometers per second. You have to almost match the orbital velocity to have a chance of hitting it anyway.
      - colechristensen 5mo ago
        To the contrary, for the 1 satellite missile strike we have public information on, not only did it not catch up to the orbital velocity for intercept, it hit it head on (going the other direction) adding to the relative velocity. A satellite with an ~8 km/s orbital velocity was struck head on by a missile adding to that by ~2 km/s for a total just under 10 km/s. It is indeed not that hard to intercept something in orbit. Because the orbits don't change and can be predicted to high precision months in the future.
        Aerroon 5mo ago
        I see. I'm actually more impressed by a head on intercept for the current anti-satellite missiles and that definitely makes the idea unworkable.
- db48x 5mo ago
  No, Kessler syndrome is pretty unlikely in this case. All of the guilty satellites are in Molniya orbits. Debris from destroying them would not greatly effect geosynchronous orbit or the low earth orbits used by Starlink.
- LiamPowell 5mo ago
  > especially with all the stuff that SpaceX has put into orbit in recent years I've heard this repeated a lot but I've never seen anyone do the maths. StarLink satellites are all in very low orbits, so intuitively it seems like most debris from a collision would just end up deorbiting.
  - gpm 5mo ago
    90% of starlink satellites are >400km in altitude. They aren't in very low earth orbits where that intuition even might be correct. They're above the space station. I've definitely seen math done - though I'd have to dig it up again. I think in FAA filings.
    - throwaway2037 4mo ago
      I agree with part of your response. The best sources that I can find say that Starlink sats orbit around 550 km above Earth. By all accounts, this distance is well within Low Earth Orbit definitions. However, you used the term "very low earth orbits". I never heard before and needed to research it. It is a neologism from 2017 and does not seem to have a precise definition. Most uses indicate less than 450 km above Earth. The International Space Station flies around 400 km above Earth.
  - wiml 5mo ago
    LEO is crowded enough (mostly with Starlink) that satellites have to actively maneuver to avoid collisions [1]. There's research [2] arguing that we're probably already in runaway territory in some orbits — that is, debris from 1 collision likely produces more than one secondary collision — we're just way over on the left of the hockey stick curve. A bit of bad luck, or two megaconstellations that don't perfectly coordinate their operations with each other, could move us to the right pretty quickly. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09643 https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09643 [2] https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/305/SDC9-paper305.pdf https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/3...
- ajsnigrutin 5mo ago
  If you americans start shooting down russian stuff, russians start shooting down american stuff, and there's only chinese stuff left.
nutjob2 5mo ago
> You can shoot it down with a missile. Obviously a bad idea, but frying it with some sort of high powered electromagnetic pulse would seem the smartest option with plausible deniability. I wonder if the US already has such weapons in orbit.
- raverbashing 5mo ago
  Kessler event oops, you know. I guess I know someone with several disposable satellites, I wonder if they could be bothered (but I guess not)
- stef25 5mo ago
  > frying it with some sort of high powered electromagnetic pulse would seem the smartest option with plausible deniability Realistically, how many people could do this ?
  - picofarad 5mo ago
    If you gave me a million dollars, I could do it. Someone else would have to aim it, but it shouldn't be that hard to do.
    - mkj 5mo ago
      From what distance? I would have thought $1M wouldn't go far
  - thesuitonym 5mo ago
    This is not something individuals should be doing.
    - jldugger 5mo ago
      But it's also not really plausibly deniable if there's only one actor with the means and motive to do it.
- M95D 5mo ago
JoachimS 5mo ago
So Russia may be in violation of a treaty, treaties. I'm shocked.
- preisschild 5mo ago
  They were in violation of the INF treaty too years before the US pulled out...
  - yehat 5mo ago
    source? trust me bro?
    - the_why_of_y 5mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_9M729 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_9M729
      - yehat 5mo ago
        A claim and "is believed" is not a fact. A fact is that many years prior introduction of that missile (no evidence of being mid-range), the US blocked all discussions about their heavy attack drones which effectively serve the same tasks as mid-range missiles. And the very ridiculous explanation about their mid-range missiles they claimed were built for training purposes, a.k.a "target-missiles". Then it came the question about MK-41 launcher of otherwise air or naval borne Tomahawks, which turned it immediately into a subject of INF (and thus forbidden). The fact that the Russians openly introduced the named missile (9M729), which nobody has seen or have proven has a range more than 500km, AND invited US to a demonstration and inspection of that missile, which US declined, because of course they had other plans ongoing and have already stated they want to leave INF. More can be added, but please stand the high-ground of a real research on that topic, before repeating the hollow US narrative. A dangerous one as always.
        the_why_of_y 5mo ago
pelorat 5mo ago
Like the USA, I don't think Russia codifies treaties into law. Like in the USA, treaties for Russia are mere suggestions used as a geopolitical tool until inconvenient.
- throwaway2037 4mo ago
  This does not follow my understand of treaties signed and ratified by the US. > Domestic Enforcement: If the treaty is self-executing, its provisions automatically become part of federal law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. If it is non-self-executing, Congress must draft and pass implementing legislation to establish domestic enforcement. I know much less about treaties signed and ratified by Russia, but I found this: > Russia codifies international treaties into domestic law through the formal ratification process. Under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, ratified treaties are considered an integral part of the Russian legal system, provided they do not conflict with domestic constitutional principles.

whizzter 5mo ago

If you start shooting down stuff in orbit, it'll invite retaliation, but even without retaliation there's a huge risk of a Kessler syndrome (especially with all the stuff that SpaceX has put into orbit in recent years).

Aerroon 5mo ago
I've thought about this before - do you actually need to "shoot it down" (make it explode)? What if you just nudge it a little and either make it spin or change its orbit? If your missile can reach the satellite then these seem like things that should be possible, no?
- Cthulhu_ 5mo ago
  Depends, if you nudge it only a little, its own onboard stabilizers / thrusters should be able to correct it. It'd have to be more than its own systems can correct for.
  - speed_spread 5mo ago
    Nudge it long enough to deplete it's fuel reserves? Or just wrap the emitting antenna in tin foil...
  - sroussey 5mo ago
    There are tug boat style satellites now, one could grab it and force it to Earth.
- colechristensen 5mo ago
  A missile intercept for explosions or a kinetic destruction the relative velocity will be measured in kilometers per second. A little nudge doesn't do much, it's still a satellite in a substantially similar orbit. Any sort of nudge requires intercept, go up there and match its velocity so you can grab it and push. And still you have to push on it a whole lot to make a meaningful difference. Spin it up? You'd have to do enough to exhaust it's fuel it uses to orient itself. You're sort of saying if you can chuck an apple hitting a car on the highway, surely you can tow it away to get it off the road. They're significantly different problems.
  - Aerroon 5mo ago
    An apple at highway speeds can break the windshield and make the car undriveable. People throwing things from highway overpasses is a serious (and deadly) problem. >A missile intercept for explosions or a kinetic destruction the relative velocity will be measured in kilometers per second. The satellite will also be going kilometers per second. You have to almost match the orbital velocity to have a chance of hitting it anyway.
    - colechristensen 5mo ago
      To the contrary, for the 1 satellite missile strike we have public information on, not only did it not catch up to the orbital velocity for intercept, it hit it head on (going the other direction) adding to the relative velocity. A satellite with an ~8 km/s orbital velocity was struck head on by a missile adding to that by ~2 km/s for a total just under 10 km/s. It is indeed not that hard to intercept something in orbit. Because the orbits don't change and can be predicted to high precision months in the future.
      - Aerroon 5mo ago
        I see. I'm actually more impressed by a head on intercept for the current anti-satellite missiles and that definitely makes the idea unworkable.
db48x 5mo ago
No, Kessler syndrome is pretty unlikely in this case. All of the guilty satellites are in Molniya orbits. Debris from destroying them would not greatly effect geosynchronous orbit or the low earth orbits used by Starlink.
LiamPowell 5mo ago
> especially with all the stuff that SpaceX has put into orbit in recent years I've heard this repeated a lot but I've never seen anyone do the maths. StarLink satellites are all in very low orbits, so intuitively it seems like most debris from a collision would just end up deorbiting.
- gpm 5mo ago
  90% of starlink satellites are >400km in altitude. They aren't in very low earth orbits where that intuition even might be correct. They're above the space station. I've definitely seen math done - though I'd have to dig it up again. I think in FAA filings.
  - throwaway2037 4mo ago
    I agree with part of your response. The best sources that I can find say that Starlink sats orbit around 550 km above Earth. By all accounts, this distance is well within Low Earth Orbit definitions. However, you used the term "very low earth orbits". I never heard before and needed to research it. It is a neologism from 2017 and does not seem to have a precise definition. Most uses indicate less than 450 km above Earth. The International Space Station flies around 400 km above Earth.
- wiml 5mo ago
  LEO is crowded enough (mostly with Starlink) that satellites have to actively maneuver to avoid collisions [1]. There's research [2] arguing that we're probably already in runaway territory in some orbits — that is, debris from 1 collision likely produces more than one secondary collision — we're just way over on the left of the hockey stick curve. A bit of bad luck, or two megaconstellations that don't perfectly coordinate their operations with each other, could move us to the right pretty quickly. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09643 https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09643 [2] https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/305/SDC9-paper305.pdf https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/3...
ajsnigrutin 5mo ago
If you americans start shooting down russian stuff, russians start shooting down american stuff, and there's only chinese stuff left.

nutjob2 5mo ago

> You can shoot it down with a missile. Obviously a bad idea, but frying it with some sort of high powered electromagnetic pulse would seem the smartest option with plausible deniability. I wonder if the US already has such weapons in orbit.

raverbashing 5mo ago
Kessler event oops, you know. I guess I know someone with several disposable satellites, I wonder if they could be bothered (but I guess not)
stef25 5mo ago
> frying it with some sort of high powered electromagnetic pulse would seem the smartest option with plausible deniability Realistically, how many people could do this ?
- picofarad 5mo ago
  If you gave me a million dollars, I could do it. Someone else would have to aim it, but it shouldn't be that hard to do.
  - mkj 5mo ago
    From what distance? I would have thought $1M wouldn't go far
- thesuitonym 5mo ago
  This is not something individuals should be doing.
  - jldugger 5mo ago
    But it's also not really plausibly deniable if there's only one actor with the means and motive to do it.
M95D 5mo ago

JoachimS 5mo ago

So Russia may be in violation of a treaty, treaties. I'm shocked.

preisschild 5mo ago
They were in violation of the INF treaty too years before the US pulled out...
- yehat 5mo ago
  source? trust me bro?
  - the_why_of_y 5mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_9M729 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_9M729
    - yehat 5mo ago
      A claim and "is believed" is not a fact. A fact is that many years prior introduction of that missile (no evidence of being mid-range), the US blocked all discussions about their heavy attack drones which effectively serve the same tasks as mid-range missiles. And the very ridiculous explanation about their mid-range missiles they claimed were built for training purposes, a.k.a "target-missiles". Then it came the question about MK-41 launcher of otherwise air or naval borne Tomahawks, which turned it immediately into a subject of INF (and thus forbidden). The fact that the Russians openly introduced the named missile (9M729), which nobody has seen or have proven has a range more than 500km, AND invited US to a demonstration and inspection of that missile, which US declined, because of course they had other plans ongoing and have already stated they want to leave INF. More can be added, but please stand the high-ground of a real research on that topic, before repeating the hollow US narrative. A dangerous one as always.
      - the_why_of_y 5mo ago

pelorat 5mo ago

Like the USA, I don't think Russia codifies treaties into law. Like in the USA, treaties for Russia are mere suggestions used as a geopolitical tool until inconvenient.

throwaway2037 4mo ago
This does not follow my understand of treaties signed and ratified by the US. > Domestic Enforcement: If the treaty is self-executing, its provisions automatically become part of federal law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. If it is non-self-executing, Congress must draft and pass implementing legislation to establish domestic enforcement. I know much less about treaties signed and ratified by Russia, but I found this: > Russia codifies international treaties into domestic law through the formal ratification process. Under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, ratified treaties are considered an integral part of the Russian legal system, provided they do not conflict with domestic constitutional principles.