6 ms·

My guess is spy. Lesser possibility nukes. Reasoning I say spy even though one commenter pointed out that there are spy satellites in orbit is that with the re

by lugg 12y ago

My guess is spy. Lesser possibility nukes. Reasoning I say spy even though one commenter pointed out that there are spy satellites in orbit is that with the reusability of the craft the cost of getting newer and better spy tech into space faster is helpful on a few levels.

arethuza 12y ago
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids the placing of nukes (or any other WMDs) in orbit around the Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty Also, I'm not sure that having a weapon in orbit would actually be any better than existing ICBMs.
- serf 12y ago
  Yeah, it does forbid nukes. Good thing it doesn't forbid Kinetic Kill Weapons. The kind of thing you need to keep in-orbit for long periods of time. No/little launch signature, dynamic positions, and a quicker response than any ICBM. (personally, I think it's a spy rig)
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    Slower response than an ICBM if you have to move it into position first, although if they were deployed (they aren't; they are completely impractical with current technology), I guess they'd be stationed to always have coverage over Russia/China/North Korea/the US anyway.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    "quicker response than any ICBM" From what I can see it would be a lot slower than most ICBMs as you have to wait until it's orbit passes over or is close to the thing you want to hit. This article seems to have details of its orbit: http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2742/x37b-orbit-found-mystery-remains http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2742/x37b-orbit-fo...
    - serf 12y ago
      Although wikipedia isn't tremendously reliable : "In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 USAF report above, a 6.1 m × 0.3 m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite). The mass of such a cylinder is itself greater than 9 tons, so it is clear that the practical applications of such a system are limited to those situations where its other characteristics provide a decisive advantage - a conventional bomb/warhead of similar weight to the tungsten rod, delivered by conventional means, provides similar destructive capability and is a far more practical method. Some other sources suggest a speed of 36,000 ft/s (11,000 m/s),[8] which for the aforementioned rod would amount to a kinetic energy equivalent to 120 tons of TNT or 0.12 kt. With 6-8 satellites on a given orbit, a target could be hit within 12–15 minutes from any given time, less than half the time taken by an ICBM and without the warning. Such a system could also be equipped with sensors to detect incoming anti-ballistic missile-type threats and relatively light protective measures to use against them (e.g. Hit-To-Kill Missiles or megawatt-class chemical laser) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment It's not the idea to have one single bombardment weapon, but many in an orbit. That's what makes it a quick reaction. A single unit could likely be a testing platform for such a system.
    - dspillett 12y ago
      Slower for a retaliatory strike, yes. But if you are hitting first and by surprise, you might be able to coordinate around this limitation. Once the object is in the right place it has the delivery speed advantage.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Slower than ICBM if the target is Earth, but if the target is massive satellite damage by spewing orbital debris then it's probably in the right place.
  - iwwr 12y ago
    Kinetic weapons would work better on an airless planet or for space combat.
    - serf 12y ago
      far range space combat perhaps, otherwise the launch should be pretty detectable as the propulsion would need to be provided by the launcher, rather than the mechanics of the orbit (unless , perhaps, a slingshot maneuver was used to propel the mass through the enemy via an indirect route)
  - MPSimmons 12y ago
    Seems like the perfect device for visiting foreign satellites and making changes.
  - Shivetya 12y ago
    with the advances in rail guns being in orbit may not be a necessity.
- iwwr 12y ago
  >I'm not sure that having a weapon in orbit would actually be any better than existing ICBMs That's kind of the point too. Suborbital ballistic missiles can reach any point on Earth. Putting them in orbit wastes energy and requires significantly larger rockets for the same payloads. Not to mention stuff in orbit is impossible to hide.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    I think the only advantage of having a weapon go into a fractional orbit (rather than being ballistic) is to sneak up on your enemy from an unexpected direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_... Having your weapon sitting in a entirely predictable permanent orbit rather defeats the purpose.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- dalke 12y ago
  I think it would be worse than an ICMB. Not only is it easier to maintain systems on the ground - though that could be what's being tested - but it takes a lot of energy to change an orbital plane and it takes time to make an orbit. Considering just the last, an orbit in LEO takes about 90 minutes. Even if the target is close to the plane's orbital trajectory, that's an average of about 45 minutes to target. An ICBM takes about 30 minutes. So I can't think of any real advantage for an orbital nuclear weapon over even a small ICBM fleet.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Decapitation strike. ICBMs are pretty easy to detect. Little tactical warheads being deorbited, not so much. There is very little you could practically do to defend against such a thing. Even if you could reliably know every time the host vehicle was going to pass overhead (unlikely) and send the relevant leaders to bunkers (impractical), that's no use -- that little warhead could have been released at any time with just enough extra fuel to go into a slightly different orbit, leaving you with no idea when a strike might happen.
    - arethuza 12y ago
      Given that the two times the world arguably came closest to nuclear wars (Cuban Missile Crisis and Able Archer 83) were, at least in part, caused by the deployment of weapons that looked like they were intended for decapitation strikes I suspect having such a weapon whirling about above our heads would do no good to overall world security. Also, it's fairly easy to work around a possible decapitation strike - have the political leaders tell the military what to do in the event they are killed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
      - nknighthb 12y ago
        Nuclear weapons in general do no good to overall world security, that doesn't seem to stop anybody. The UK's strategy is unique, and, for the same reason, probably ineffective. Nobody else uses it because nobody else is willing to leave the matter in military hands. So long as a zombie Margaret Thatcher doesn't reclaim the PM's office, I doubt anyone believes that the letters instruct the captains to do anything other than report to an ally.
- thret 12y ago
  I'm sure the USA will respect this treaty right up until they decide not to.
- lugg 12y ago
  Governments doing something forbidden. Never. /s I find these kinds of treaties idiotic. Can't do that or. Or what? Who exactly is going to do something when the world police breaks the law? The people? Yeah right.
  - grkvlt 12y ago
    Once a country starts reneging on its treaty obligations, its going to find international trade and diplomacy much harder, and it better not need money or imports...

by lugg 12y ago

arethuza 12y ago

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly forbids the placing of nukes (or any other WMDs) in orbit around the Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty Also, I'm not sure that having a weapon in orbit would actually be any better than existing ICBMs.

serf 12y ago
Yeah, it does forbid nukes. Good thing it doesn't forbid Kinetic Kill Weapons. The kind of thing you need to keep in-orbit for long periods of time. No/little launch signature, dynamic positions, and a quicker response than any ICBM. (personally, I think it's a spy rig)
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  Slower response than an ICBM if you have to move it into position first, although if they were deployed (they aren't; they are completely impractical with current technology), I guess they'd be stationed to always have coverage over Russia/China/North Korea/the US anyway.
- arethuza 12y ago
  "quicker response than any ICBM" From what I can see it would be a lot slower than most ICBMs as you have to wait until it's orbit passes over or is close to the thing you want to hit. This article seems to have details of its orbit: http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2742/x37b-orbit-found-mystery-remains http://forden.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2742/x37b-orbit-fo...
  - serf 12y ago
    Although wikipedia isn't tremendously reliable : "In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 USAF report above, a 6.1 m × 0.3 m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite). The mass of such a cylinder is itself greater than 9 tons, so it is clear that the practical applications of such a system are limited to those situations where its other characteristics provide a decisive advantage - a conventional bomb/warhead of similar weight to the tungsten rod, delivered by conventional means, provides similar destructive capability and is a far more practical method. Some other sources suggest a speed of 36,000 ft/s (11,000 m/s),[8] which for the aforementioned rod would amount to a kinetic energy equivalent to 120 tons of TNT or 0.12 kt. With 6-8 satellites on a given orbit, a target could be hit within 12–15 minutes from any given time, less than half the time taken by an ICBM and without the warning. Such a system could also be equipped with sensors to detect incoming anti-ballistic missile-type threats and relatively light protective measures to use against them (e.g. Hit-To-Kill Missiles or megawatt-class chemical laser) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment It's not the idea to have one single bombardment weapon, but many in an orbit. That's what makes it a quick reaction. A single unit could likely be a testing platform for such a system.
  - dspillett 12y ago
    Slower for a retaliatory strike, yes. But if you are hitting first and by surprise, you might be able to coordinate around this limitation. Once the object is in the right place it has the delivery speed advantage.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Slower than ICBM if the target is Earth, but if the target is massive satellite damage by spewing orbital debris then it's probably in the right place.
- iwwr 12y ago
  Kinetic weapons would work better on an airless planet or for space combat.
  - serf 12y ago
    far range space combat perhaps, otherwise the launch should be pretty detectable as the propulsion would need to be provided by the launcher, rather than the mechanics of the orbit (unless , perhaps, a slingshot maneuver was used to propel the mass through the enemy via an indirect route)
- MPSimmons 12y ago
  Seems like the perfect device for visiting foreign satellites and making changes.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  with the advances in rail guns being in orbit may not be a necessity.
iwwr 12y ago
>I'm not sure that having a weapon in orbit would actually be any better than existing ICBMs That's kind of the point too. Suborbital ballistic missiles can reach any point on Earth. Putting them in orbit wastes energy and requires significantly larger rockets for the same payloads. Not to mention stuff in orbit is impossible to hide.
- arethuza 12y ago
  I think the only advantage of having a weapon go into a fractional orbit (rather than being ballistic) is to sneak up on your enemy from an unexpected direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_... Having your weapon sitting in a entirely predictable permanent orbit rather defeats the purpose.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
dalke 12y ago
I think it would be worse than an ICMB. Not only is it easier to maintain systems on the ground - though that could be what's being tested - but it takes a lot of energy to change an orbital plane and it takes time to make an orbit. Considering just the last, an orbit in LEO takes about 90 minutes. Even if the target is close to the plane's orbital trajectory, that's an average of about 45 minutes to target. An ICBM takes about 30 minutes. So I can't think of any real advantage for an orbital nuclear weapon over even a small ICBM fleet.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  Decapitation strike. ICBMs are pretty easy to detect. Little tactical warheads being deorbited, not so much. There is very little you could practically do to defend against such a thing. Even if you could reliably know every time the host vehicle was going to pass overhead (unlikely) and send the relevant leaders to bunkers (impractical), that's no use -- that little warhead could have been released at any time with just enough extra fuel to go into a slightly different orbit, leaving you with no idea when a strike might happen.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    Given that the two times the world arguably came closest to nuclear wars (Cuban Missile Crisis and Able Archer 83) were, at least in part, caused by the deployment of weapons that looked like they were intended for decapitation strikes I suspect having such a weapon whirling about above our heads would do no good to overall world security. Also, it's fairly easy to work around a possible decapitation strike - have the political leaders tell the military what to do in the event they are killed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      Nuclear weapons in general do no good to overall world security, that doesn't seem to stop anybody. The UK's strategy is unique, and, for the same reason, probably ineffective. Nobody else uses it because nobody else is willing to leave the matter in military hands. So long as a zombie Margaret Thatcher doesn't reclaim the PM's office, I doubt anyone believes that the letters instruct the captains to do anything other than report to an ally.
thret 12y ago
I'm sure the USA will respect this treaty right up until they decide not to.
lugg 12y ago
Governments doing something forbidden. Never. /s I find these kinds of treaties idiotic. Can't do that or. Or what? Who exactly is going to do something when the world police breaks the law? The people? Yeah right.
- grkvlt 12y ago
  Once a country starts reneging on its treaty obligations, its going to find international trade and diplomacy much harder, and it better not need money or imports...