The US military launched 500M needles into space (2019)(todayifoundout.com)
todayifoundout.com
The US military launched 500M needles into space (2019)
https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2019/10/that-time-the-u-s-military-launched-a-half-a-billion-needles-to-space-for-reasons/
144 comments
WW3 will likely make a mess of orbit, particularly LEO. However most of the debris that intersects LEO will decay in the order of years to tens of years. After the war (assuming anybody is in any shape to be sending stuff to space in the first place) I think communication satellites in LEO will become the norm (moreso than it already is becoming.) This would be the obvious response to higher orbits being ruined by debris.
But such a war would be very bad in many ways, and if this happens I don't think worrying about space will be high on your list of personal priorities.
But such a war would be very bad in many ways, and if this happens I don't think worrying about space will be high on your list of personal priorities.
WWIII will not happen the way you think, it's already happening to some extent.
The difference with before is that the EU is largely pacified, the middle east only cares about Allah or not Allah, Russia cant invade its own backyard and is running out of teenagers to butcher.
This leaves the US, India and China as the trifecta of dangerous war machines. China I think will prefer to lead internal struggles against common cold variants to "win" victories and softly annoys the two others to keep them at bay - the party doesnt care about the country, only its own survival, India has only an interest in border conflicts with China and doesnt have the ability to succeed at any serious escalation of violence so will always avoid them, and stay unaligned with the US.
The US, you included as it s mostly americans proposing ideas of "world war" out of nostalgia for their golden past, has lost enough goodwill to be left alone before it can escalate, but is still trying hard to destabilize China - which means they care less about peace than removing the single party which annoys them to no end.
I dont think we'll fall in the american trap, but who knows, the military complex pressure is so high they have to fire all these guns at some points to build new ones. Hope they stay at invading poor countries all around that have no chance to defend themselves.
The difference with before is that the EU is largely pacified, the middle east only cares about Allah or not Allah, Russia cant invade its own backyard and is running out of teenagers to butcher.
This leaves the US, India and China as the trifecta of dangerous war machines. China I think will prefer to lead internal struggles against common cold variants to "win" victories and softly annoys the two others to keep them at bay - the party doesnt care about the country, only its own survival, India has only an interest in border conflicts with China and doesnt have the ability to succeed at any serious escalation of violence so will always avoid them, and stay unaligned with the US.
The US, you included as it s mostly americans proposing ideas of "world war" out of nostalgia for their golden past, has lost enough goodwill to be left alone before it can escalate, but is still trying hard to destabilize China - which means they care less about peace than removing the single party which annoys them to no end.
I dont think we'll fall in the american trap, but who knows, the military complex pressure is so high they have to fire all these guns at some points to build new ones. Hope they stay at invading poor countries all around that have no chance to defend themselves.
I would love to see the following... I think Ill try a short story about:
---
In preparation for a global war, a plan was put in place, in accordance with Continuity of Government ; Project Celestial Constellation.
A global network of subterranian launch facilities. Massive in scale. Their purpose: to re-spawn orbital assets as required to maintain Total Global Awareness in the event of Planetary Cataclysms.
There are four classifications of facility, each with a specific mission to re-establish, maintain and defend the Communications Constellation.
One facility is to clear orbital debris. One is to launch replacement communication constellations. and one serves to defend against orbital attacks against these assets.
The worst part.... the rebels are attacking the re-spawns as they launch. We have lost nearly 100 this year alone...
---
In preparation for a global war, a plan was put in place, in accordance with Continuity of Government ; Project Celestial Constellation.
A global network of subterranian launch facilities. Massive in scale. Their purpose: to re-spawn orbital assets as required to maintain Total Global Awareness in the event of Planetary Cataclysms.
There are four classifications of facility, each with a specific mission to re-establish, maintain and defend the Communications Constellation.
One facility is to clear orbital debris. One is to launch replacement communication constellations. and one serves to defend against orbital attacks against these assets.
The worst part.... the rebels are attacking the re-spawns as they launch. We have lost nearly 100 this year alone...
LEO is too susceptible to interference (of the physical, not radio, kind) for any serious digital communications infrastructure to be placed there. I could see laser-based swarms of comms satellites being used (cubesat size, not starlink size), but I don't think the economics are there quite yet.
It's not clear what exactly you mean by physical interference, but either way I think you're mistaken. Starlink is already proving the viability of launching huge constellations of fairly large (a ton or so) LEO satellites. If you're talking about debris grounding these constellations, that's a problem that resolves itself given enough time, as that debris deorbits naturally.
If you're talking about intentional physical interference, aka anti-satellite weapons, the solution to that is having the ability to rapidly replenish the constellation (SpaceX is good at this, and with Starship they'll be even better at it; hundreds of replacement satellites with a single launch.) In the event of a war, a constellation could be kept operational through the brute force of launching more satellites faster than they're destroyed. Of course this will make a huge mess, but that's what wars do.
Anyway, they're going forward with this already. The National Defense Space Architecture calls for a very large constellation of LEO communication satellites forming a mesh network using inter-satellite laser links. Starlink is likely dual-use technology and has been intended as such from the start.
If you're talking about intentional physical interference, aka anti-satellite weapons, the solution to that is having the ability to rapidly replenish the constellation (SpaceX is good at this, and with Starship they'll be even better at it; hundreds of replacement satellites with a single launch.) In the event of a war, a constellation could be kept operational through the brute force of launching more satellites faster than they're destroyed. Of course this will make a huge mess, but that's what wars do.
Anyway, they're going forward with this already. The National Defense Space Architecture calls for a very large constellation of LEO communication satellites forming a mesh network using inter-satellite laser links. Starlink is likely dual-use technology and has been intended as such from the start.
If you can launch hundreds of useful satellites with a single launch, you can also launch thousands of satellite killers for the same price. A simple short-lived satellite with some sensors, minor maneuvering capabilities, and the ability to turn into a debris cloud on a close pass should be quite effective when deployed in huge numbers. The economies of scale favor destruction if you really don't care about the consequences.
A satellite killer would need the ability to rendezvous with a target. You're not getting that level of capability for the same price as a box with a radio.
You only need to throw a cloud of junk into its orbit. Seems like a big easy target.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
I'm sure targeted options will be favoured by most parties.
> 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.
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.
I think things like orbital decay and coverage per satellite are the more serious concerns.
I mean, LEO is still harder to reach out to than almost anywhere on Earth.
The main deterrent to attacking our assets in LEO or on Earth is that such an act would at least have some serious political fallout, and potentially start a war depending on how annoying it is.
I mean, LEO is still harder to reach out to than almost anywhere on Earth.
The main deterrent to attacking our assets in LEO or on Earth is that such an act would at least have some serious political fallout, and potentially start a war depending on how annoying it is.
Having thousands of boost-phase interceptors already in LEO actually puts a real damper on anybody trying to do something about it, the economics of the game favor whoever implements such a system first. They will be able to use large rockets to efficiently launch huge numbers of satellites, while the boost-phase interceptors in LEO (constantly replenished via that capability) prevent the enemy from doing the same.
Big picture, even if Russia and/or China managed to turn LEO into an impenetrable barrier of debris before the war was lost for them anyway, what would they actually have accomplished? The satellites that previously acted as America's shield would now be debris that would continue to shield America, and America would still have Aegis BMD around the world. Symmetrical war with America is beyond stupid, there is no balance, no fair fight. The purpose of these systems is to ensure that it stays this way, so that nobody tries in the first place.
Big picture, even if Russia and/or China managed to turn LEO into an impenetrable barrier of debris before the war was lost for them anyway, what would they actually have accomplished? The satellites that previously acted as America's shield would now be debris that would continue to shield America, and America would still have Aegis BMD around the world. Symmetrical war with America is beyond stupid, there is no balance, no fair fight. The purpose of these systems is to ensure that it stays this way, so that nobody tries in the first place.
Boost-phase interceptors would be big expensive weapons systems. Because they have only a few minutes to hit before the target deploys the payload, they would have to expend lots of delta-v to guarantee intercept. Deploying such large-scale missile defense systems would be obvious to everyone. By the usual cold war calculus, such attempts would likely trigger a nuclear war. If you attempt to neutralize enemy nuclear deterrent, you are announcing your first strike intentions to everyone.
As for why, maybe the reason wouldn't even involve America that much. Maybe China decides to take Taiwan, and to prevent America from interfering, they choose to destroy LEO for everyone. Maybe it would be an acceptable sacrifice for them, as they are more interested in controlling their neighborhood than projecting power to faraway places.
As for why, maybe the reason wouldn't even involve America that much. Maybe China decides to take Taiwan, and to prevent America from interfering, they choose to destroy LEO for everyone. Maybe it would be an acceptable sacrifice for them, as they are more interested in controlling their neighborhood than projecting power to faraway places.
> Boost-phase interceptors would be big expensive weapons systems
Not very big actually, not if the interceptors are placed in LEO. They're a hell of a lot smaller and cheaper than the missiles they're meant to intercept. The kill vehicles themselves are only a few kilograms, very small and light weight. For such light-weight interceptors positioned in LEO, you don't need much booster to get the job done. You can get away with a booster much smaller than an SM-3.
> Because they have only a few minutes to hit before the target deploys the payload, they would have to expend lots of delta-v to guarantee intercept
The more you have, the less delta-v they need. That's why Brilliant Pebbles proposed thousands if not tens of thousands of them. Launching such a huge number of interceptors would be possible with Falcon 9, but Starship would be much better at it.
> Maybe China decides to take Taiwan
Maybe they would, but they would have to be insane to start a symmetric war with America itself. And that's the whole point.
> Deploying such large-scale missile defense systems would be obvious to everyone.
If you've been paying attention, you'll have noticed that China and Russia haven't been very secret about their interest in countering Starlink. It's not because they're afraid the US might give uncensorable internet to Chinese and Russian people, as I've seen some on HN speculate. They obviously perceive the strategic threat already. Besides starting the war first, there's not a whole lot they can do about it. If they start the war first, start it now, they'll probably kill a lot more Americans than if they wait and do it later. But that doesn't matter because they'd still all die, so they aren't going to do it. Neither China nor Russia has a BMD system that could prevent America from killing them all.
Not very big actually, not if the interceptors are placed in LEO. They're a hell of a lot smaller and cheaper than the missiles they're meant to intercept. The kill vehicles themselves are only a few kilograms, very small and light weight. For such light-weight interceptors positioned in LEO, you don't need much booster to get the job done. You can get away with a booster much smaller than an SM-3.
> Because they have only a few minutes to hit before the target deploys the payload, they would have to expend lots of delta-v to guarantee intercept
The more you have, the less delta-v they need. That's why Brilliant Pebbles proposed thousands if not tens of thousands of them. Launching such a huge number of interceptors would be possible with Falcon 9, but Starship would be much better at it.
> Maybe China decides to take Taiwan
Maybe they would, but they would have to be insane to start a symmetric war with America itself. And that's the whole point.
> Deploying such large-scale missile defense systems would be obvious to everyone.
If you've been paying attention, you'll have noticed that China and Russia haven't been very secret about their interest in countering Starlink. It's not because they're afraid the US might give uncensorable internet to Chinese and Russian people, as I've seen some on HN speculate. They obviously perceive the strategic threat already. Besides starting the war first, there's not a whole lot they can do about it. If they start the war first, start it now, they'll probably kill a lot more Americans than if they wait and do it later. But that doesn't matter because they'd still all die, so they aren't going to do it. Neither China nor Russia has a BMD system that could prevent America from killing them all.
I think as far as operational capabilities go, all BPI stuff is just not there (at least from public info) and at best, starlink would only be good a large scale detection, target aquisition and tracking:
[0]"While boost-phase defense has been advocated as the most efficient way to deal with fractionated payloads and exoatmospheric (midcourse) penetration aids, it is extremely sensitive to assumptions about threat booster characteristics. Over time, boost-phase defense tends to be renamed ascent-phase defense when the kinematic realities set in. In fact, ascent-phase defense is code for engagement in the postboost or early midcourse phases of flight.
The limitations and complications of a surface-based boost-phase defense lie primarily in the concepts of operations (CONOPS), policy, time, and geography. Since the timelines for engagement in the boost-phase are extremely short, the on-site commander must have authorization from the National Command Authority to launch an interceptor immediately after a threat missile has been detected.1 Also, access must be gained to countries adjacent to the threat country in order to position a boost-phase system close enough, and at the correct geometries, to successfully engage the threat missile. Finally, boost-phase systems are only effective against countries that do not have large enough landmasses to allow them to launch missiles from deep within their territory.
The airborne laser is designed to deliver energy at the speed of light to perform the boost-phase intercept mission. Space-based lasers were also pursued in the past. Virtually no fly-out time is involved, and the beam agility is a function only of how fast the pointing optics can be repositioned. While laser weapons sound like the obvious answer, the energy that a laser can deliver on a target is limited by the power available and the aperture of the device. Atmospheric effects disturb the beam. Much has been accomplished in advancing the pointing and tracking capabilities and the adaptive optics to maintain beam quality, but some fundamental limitations remain."
[0] https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/13189/chapter/4
[0]"While boost-phase defense has been advocated as the most efficient way to deal with fractionated payloads and exoatmospheric (midcourse) penetration aids, it is extremely sensitive to assumptions about threat booster characteristics. Over time, boost-phase defense tends to be renamed ascent-phase defense when the kinematic realities set in. In fact, ascent-phase defense is code for engagement in the postboost or early midcourse phases of flight.
The limitations and complications of a surface-based boost-phase defense lie primarily in the concepts of operations (CONOPS), policy, time, and geography. Since the timelines for engagement in the boost-phase are extremely short, the on-site commander must have authorization from the National Command Authority to launch an interceptor immediately after a threat missile has been detected.1 Also, access must be gained to countries adjacent to the threat country in order to position a boost-phase system close enough, and at the correct geometries, to successfully engage the threat missile. Finally, boost-phase systems are only effective against countries that do not have large enough landmasses to allow them to launch missiles from deep within their territory.
The airborne laser is designed to deliver energy at the speed of light to perform the boost-phase intercept mission. Space-based lasers were also pursued in the past. Virtually no fly-out time is involved, and the beam agility is a function only of how fast the pointing optics can be repositioned. While laser weapons sound like the obvious answer, the energy that a laser can deliver on a target is limited by the power available and the aperture of the device. Atmospheric effects disturb the beam. Much has been accomplished in advancing the pointing and tracking capabilities and the adaptive optics to maintain beam quality, but some fundamental limitations remain."
[0] https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/13189/chapter/4
The part of this document that you're quoting is talking about the limitations of land/sea based boost-phase interceptors. Scroll down to the Space-Based Interceptors section. I don't think there's much substance here.. It talks about kill vehicle size (see: LEAP), and mentions that coverage depends on the number of interceptors and the inclination of their orbits (no kidding.)
The section i quote referrers to space based lasers too. I also haven't see anywhere publicly on any actual space based kinetic system even in testing for BPI usuage (which would still face the same kinematic issues with land and sea based system).
I read in the Scientific American that a defense against lasers would be simply spinning the target, which would require the attack laser to have much more power. The target can be made shiny, and can be coated with an ablative material.
Yeah, I'd factor that into major limitations with the space based laser systems. Only think I can think of that could work around that is if one used an array of lasers that could constructively interfere during boost phase that could cause some kind of major turbulence at the point of intersection (maybe along the lines of the laser collisions here[0]:
"Fülöp and colleagues argue that the energy problem could be overcome by splitting the laser pulse into two equal-energy pulses, which then hit the target simultaneously at different, precisely calculated angles of incidence (see figure). Through simulations, the team showed that when the laser pulses collide, a standing wave forms inside the solid target that increases the peak electric field. With the same pulse intensity used in previous experiments, their calculations suggest that the technique can double the energy of the proton beam and produce five times as many protons — all with far more flexible control parameters than required before.").
[0] https://physicsworld.com/a/laser-collisions-could-boost-prot...
"Fülöp and colleagues argue that the energy problem could be overcome by splitting the laser pulse into two equal-energy pulses, which then hit the target simultaneously at different, precisely calculated angles of incidence (see figure). Through simulations, the team showed that when the laser pulses collide, a standing wave forms inside the solid target that increases the peak electric field. With the same pulse intensity used in previous experiments, their calculations suggest that the technique can double the energy of the proton beam and produce five times as many protons — all with far more flexible control parameters than required before.").
[0] https://physicsworld.com/a/laser-collisions-could-boost-prot...
You mean the completely failed Brilliant Pebbles concept?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles
"Completely failed" as in nobody could possibly launch a constellation that large in the 80s and 90s, yes. The economics of massive constellations have changed, one already has thousands of satellites in orbit.
Look up SDA and the National Defense Space Architecture. They're talking about thousands of satellites in LEO. They call it pLEO (proliferated LEO.)
Look up SDA and the National Defense Space Architecture. They're talking about thousands of satellites in LEO. They call it pLEO (proliferated LEO.)
I've been watching SDA from the start as it's possible it will give us a high bandwidth connection to the South Pole Telescope. Meaning we don't have to wait for summer to fly the data from the EHT annual observation to civilization.
As for Brilliant Pebbles, that's one reason it's a total failure, but not the only one.
As for Brilliant Pebbles, that's one reason it's a total failure, but not the only one.
would you care to share the other reasons thst you feel Brilliant Pebbles is a total failure?
I don't know, destruction is almost always easier than construction. And China demonstrated an anti-satellite laser already.
Starlink 1 is 150kg, Starlink 1.5 is thought to be ~ 220kg.
Starlink 2 appears to be more than a metric ton, but none have been launched.
Starlink 2 appears to be more than a metric ton, but none have been launched.
The Biden administration appears to have put the full blown militarization of space on ice for now (at least delaying the Mike Pompeo calls the "Strategic Defense Initiative of our time, the SDI 2.0"[1]), but there are still a number of demonstrations[2] going forward with Starlink funded by the Space Development Agency started by Elon's pal Michael D. Griffin[3].
This has been pretty hush hush, but voters should know what they're getting in the midterms if they support this. In my opinion it will indeed lead to WWIII. I think Elon knows that but justifies it by thinking he needs the military industrial complex funding for Mars.
[1] https://www.hudson.org/research/17482-nuclear-weapons-china-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career
This has been pretty hush hush, but voters should know what they're getting in the midterms if they support this. In my opinion it will indeed lead to WWIII. I think Elon knows that but justifies it by thinking he needs the military industrial complex funding for Mars.
[1] https://www.hudson.org/research/17482-nuclear-weapons-china-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career
LEO has low latency though, which is important. Communications via satellite in higher orbits suck. Ever dealt with 600ms ping times? I have, you get used to it, but I'm glad to be on ground based internet now, things just feel faster. (and the web is still slow)
This will really go out of hand when WW3 starts and all the intelligence gathering satellites will become targets. Not that it's the most important thing in a global war, but we might also successfully block all exit paths from this planet with large amounts of very fast and deadly debris.
WW3 almost certainly also means no more communications satellites and no more weather satellites, in addition to no more humans in space.
It would likely also mean nuclear winter and many other bad things, but permanently denying use of satellites is likely the first global cost of WW3.
It would likely also mean nuclear winter and many other bad things, but permanently denying use of satellites is likely the first global cost of WW3.
Nuclear Winter has been generally discredited by modern modelling. The whole premise was likely politically motivated by scientists who wanted to make nuclear war less likely to occur, by dissuading politicians with this yarn. (A true noble lie.) Criticism of the hypothesis was muted by few scientists wanting to risk the perception of supporting nuclear war.
As for "permanently denying use of satellites", this is only partially true. High orbits would be fucked for millennia, but LEO would mostly clear up before the century is out. I know that seems 'forever', but it isn't. Also, depending on the severity of the debris, interplanetary exploration would not necessarily be out of the picture; if the debris is severe enough that a GSO satellite has a 99% chance of being destroyed within a year, then that orbit is as good as ruined. But if you only plan to pass through that region for a few hours, not spend a whole year there, you might be able to do that if you can tolerate some risk. It'd be like running across a highway, except the cars move faster than bullets and won't brake for you. If you hang out in the middle of the road you are certain to get hit. If you time it right and run across, you have a chance of getting through.
As for "permanently denying use of satellites", this is only partially true. High orbits would be fucked for millennia, but LEO would mostly clear up before the century is out. I know that seems 'forever', but it isn't. Also, depending on the severity of the debris, interplanetary exploration would not necessarily be out of the picture; if the debris is severe enough that a GSO satellite has a 99% chance of being destroyed within a year, then that orbit is as good as ruined. But if you only plan to pass through that region for a few hours, not spend a whole year there, you might be able to do that if you can tolerate some risk. It'd be like running across a highway, except the cars move faster than bullets and won't brake for you. If you hang out in the middle of the road you are certain to get hit. If you time it right and run across, you have a chance of getting through.
If you go back a bit farther, I think you'll find the work on nuclear winter actually came out of work done at Cornell to try to model the result of a large object impacting the earth 65 million years ago to kill off the dinosaurs. Amazingly enough, one of the hardest parts of the dinosaur extinction work was figuring out how a localized impact like that could kill enough things to cause an extinction, and that part came from the atmospheric modelers. After doing that modeling work, they realized the parallels with a nuclear conflict and produced the nuclear winter projections.
I think there's little doubt that tons of soot and ash in the upper atmosphere can cause periods of global cooling. The problem with the nuclear winter hypothesis is in the link between nuclear war and tons of soot in the stratosphere. These nuclear winter models make a lot of assumptions about the likelihood of a modern cities turning into firestorms and the amount of soot they would generate, the amount of soot lifted into the stratosphere by the fireball, and the amount of soot that stays there instead of precipitating out.
Then it turned out everything was cooked, not frozen.
The article briefly mentions it... not sure how many per 'clump' though:
> "Going back to the needles, in case you’re wondering, despite the planned obsolescence, as of 2019, a few dozen clumps of them remain in orbit and are closely tracked..."
> "Going back to the needles, in case you’re wondering, despite the planned obsolescence, as of 2019, a few dozen clumps of them remain in orbit and are closely tracked..."
I assume static charge is what clumped them. I assume too that is why the initial launch "failed to disperse".
Does anyone actually believe in that? Surely most space debris doesn't form a stable orbit, but falls back to earth after a few collisions.
Objects in orbit are primarily cleared by atmospheric drag, with two major variables: height of perigee (lower causes more drag) and object mass (lighter objects are slowed more). Following an impact, some of the debris will be cleared quickly, but some will not.
"On 11 January 2007, China conducted an anti-satellite missile test in which one of their FY-1C weather satellites was chosen as the target. The collision occurred at an altitude of 865 kilometres, when the satellite with a mass of 750 kilograms was struck in a head-on-collision by a kinetic payload traveling with a speed of 8 km/s (18,000 mph) in the opposite direction. The resulting debris orbits the Earth with a mean altitude above 850 kilometres, and will likely remain in orbit for decades or centuries.[18]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Anti-satellit...)
Kessler syndrome requires the rate of debris creation be greater than the rate of clearing and the rate of clearing in higher orbits is very slow.
https://amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2012/Orbital_Debris/NIK...
"On 11 January 2007, China conducted an anti-satellite missile test in which one of their FY-1C weather satellites was chosen as the target. The collision occurred at an altitude of 865 kilometres, when the satellite with a mass of 750 kilograms was struck in a head-on-collision by a kinetic payload traveling with a speed of 8 km/s (18,000 mph) in the opposite direction. The resulting debris orbits the Earth with a mean altitude above 850 kilometres, and will likely remain in orbit for decades or centuries.[18]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Anti-satellit...)
Kessler syndrome requires the rate of debris creation be greater than the rate of clearing and the rate of clearing in higher orbits is very slow.
https://amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2012/Orbital_Debris/NIK...
It's not the object's mass that you care about, but its ballistic coefficient [1]. An object which is very heavy, but also very big, will deorbit just as quickly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient
> will likely remain in orbit for decades or centuries
How much debris though? If I put orange juice in my coffee mug, after a few runs through the dishwasher there may technically be a few particles of orange juice left, but my taste buds probably won't collide with it.
How much debris though? If I put orange juice in my coffee mug, after a few runs through the dishwasher there may technically be a few particles of orange juice left, but my taste buds probably won't collide with it.
I'm not sure the analogy holds - again, most of this debris would be occupying a relatively narrow region of space surrounding Earth, and it wouldn't simply decay after a few orbits. Thinking of kessler syndrome as some impenetrable shell of bullets misses the forest for the trees, i think. It doesn't take much debris to render a region of space unsafe for humans or multi-million dollar satellites.
To attempt extend your analogy: you might be confident that most of the juice was washed out of the mug after a few cycles set to scour, but if you are deathly allergic to any exposure to oranges, what's your risk tolerance?
Make sure you clean the dishwasher trap, as well. :)
To attempt extend your analogy: you might be confident that most of the juice was washed out of the mug after a few cycles set to scour, but if you are deathly allergic to any exposure to oranges, what's your risk tolerance?
Make sure you clean the dishwasher trap, as well. :)
> what's your risk tolerance?
That's the key question the whole matter hangs on, but there's no objective answer for it. Neil Armstrong privately estimated his chance for successfully returning to earth at 90%. That's alarmingly low! That's barely safer than Russian roulette.
Determining how much risk can be tolerated means figuring out how badly you want the thing. The more you want something, the more risk you can tolerate. Satellites are extremely important to our society, so governments would continue launching the satellites they value most, even if the expected lifespan of the satellite due to space debris was very short.
Of course, superfluous and casual use of space would grind to a halt. One of many casualties of war.
That's the key question the whole matter hangs on, but there's no objective answer for it. Neil Armstrong privately estimated his chance for successfully returning to earth at 90%. That's alarmingly low! That's barely safer than Russian roulette.
Determining how much risk can be tolerated means figuring out how badly you want the thing. The more you want something, the more risk you can tolerate. Satellites are extremely important to our society, so governments would continue launching the satellites they value most, even if the expected lifespan of the satellite due to space debris was very short.
Of course, superfluous and casual use of space would grind to a halt. One of many casualties of war.
Armchair astonomer here. If the bodies involved in the collision are already in stable orbits around earth, most of the debris from the collision will remain relatively true to its orbit prior to impact, though the force of the collision will spread the debris apart over time. Any orbits remotely close to earth will decay eventually, but that would depend on quite a few factors: it is possible small debris would remain orbiting for quite some time. The small stuff is what worries me the most - objects less than a square centimeter.
A head on collision would be incredibly violent and would disperse a large cloud of debris over a large area - some of that would fall back to earth quickly. This would be incredibly unlikely, given that most objects above Earth orbit in a relatively similar set of planes and inclinations. A more likely scenario would be two similarly inclined orbits overlapping, with the satellites or debris impacting shallowly and at relatively (to orbital velocities, that is) low energy. It wouldn't take much to shred apart much of the more delicate instrumentation orbiting above our heads, which would similarly endanger more sensitive equipment, and so on.
A head on collision would be incredibly violent and would disperse a large cloud of debris over a large area - some of that would fall back to earth quickly. This would be incredibly unlikely, given that most objects above Earth orbit in a relatively similar set of planes and inclinations. A more likely scenario would be two similarly inclined orbits overlapping, with the satellites or debris impacting shallowly and at relatively (to orbital velocities, that is) low energy. It wouldn't take much to shred apart much of the more delicate instrumentation orbiting above our heads, which would similarly endanger more sensitive equipment, and so on.
How often do you think an individual piece of debris is impacting other objects? Most space debris starts as something in orbit, and if it's at a high enough altitude, most pieces do indeed stay in orbit. There is clear precedence for this.
https://swfound.org/media/6575/swf_iridium_cosmos_collision_...
"Analysis by both NASA and outside experts indicates that more than half of the Iridium debris will remain in orbit for at least 100 years, and much of the Cosmos debris will remain in orbit at least 20 to thirty years."
https://swfound.org/media/6575/swf_iridium_cosmos_collision_...
"Analysis by both NASA and outside experts indicates that more than half of the Iridium debris will remain in orbit for at least 100 years, and much of the Cosmos debris will remain in orbit at least 20 to thirty years."
That "unstable" orbit can take an awful long time...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgxWuFj7d9I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgxWuFj7d9I
[deleted]
> consider that also smack dab in the middle of this time, the United States was busy accidentally nuking Britain’s first satellite, among many, many others.
Woah... anybody have more info on that?
Edit: more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
Woah... anybody have more info on that?
Edit: more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
Finish the article. It's fully explained in the very next paragraph.
>Scientific Discoveries: The Starfish bomb contained Cd-109 as a tracer, which helped work out the seasonal mixing rate of polar and tropical air masses.
Ah, totally worth it
Ah, totally worth it
From what I'm told this is more common than one might assume. It's been some years, but it was alleged that this happened to the first Indian satellite or something of that nature.
Great article! The needles formed a passive repeater, which would be a cheap alternative to a comsat. To me, the more interesting part of the article was the history of exo-atomospheric nuclear testing and the consequences to the satellites that were operating in that era.
It's also interesting that the scientific community's objections to further launches actually had an effect. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore -- at least not with Starlink.
It's also interesting that the scientific community's objections to further launches actually had an effect. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore -- at least not with Starlink.
Echo 1 and 2 were also passive communication satellites.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo
Starlink is a private company that doesn't concern itself with the concerns of others. I don't think comparing a private corp to a gov't body should have expectations of similar results. Private corp doesn't
The FAA and FCC are government bodies that have and exercise authority over SpaceX's design, implementation and operation of Starlink.
And have done nothing but rubber stamped everything they have requested regarding Starlink. No robust discussion of affects on others has been given serious thought other than "we'll paint them flat black" as a PR spin is not serious.
I'm an astronomer who's been following the situation, and this comment of yours is entirely false.
For example, there was only one satellite painted dark, and it didn't work well enough. The next mitigation after that worked well, but not well enough.
For example, there was only one satellite painted dark, and it didn't work well enough. The next mitigation after that worked well, but not well enough.
As much as people may hate the prospect of putting that many satellites up, the service is so darn useful.
What's the alternative? Force anyone who wants to participate in the modern world to live in a city or suburb along a fiber line? Neither public nor private groups have expressed much interest in actually getting internet connectivity to everyone.
My parents live in a rural area in Northern California and only about 5 miles away from a fiber drop point. However, there are only about ten houses on their street and the local ISP and the big one that actually owns the fiber wants $10k USD a pole to bring a fiber line over to them (there's about 80 poles that would need work) plus connection and maintenance fees after that point.
Needless to say, they're _loving_ their Starlink connection.
What's the alternative? Force anyone who wants to participate in the modern world to live in a city or suburb along a fiber line? Neither public nor private groups have expressed much interest in actually getting internet connectivity to everyone.
My parents live in a rural area in Northern California and only about 5 miles away from a fiber drop point. However, there are only about ten houses on their street and the local ISP and the big one that actually owns the fiber wants $10k USD a pole to bring a fiber line over to them (there's about 80 poles that would need work) plus connection and maintenance fees after that point.
Needless to say, they're _loving_ their Starlink connection.
Cities are greener, believe it or not.
But they're not necessarily better - disease spreads much easier (as we are still having demonstrated to us), the noise is bad for your health, the air is bad for your health, the population is completely unsustainable when technology fails, at least in the US they tend to be smelly, dirty, etc.
Until the masking and restaurant restrictions were lifted, there were next to no COVID cases in town and no one around us caught it. Meanwhile, my entire friend group (20+ people) in SF all caught it at some point. I'm the only one of the group that hasn't had it.
Until the masking and restaurant restrictions were lifted, there were next to no COVID cases in town and no one around us caught it. Meanwhile, my entire friend group (20+ people) in SF all caught it at some point. I'm the only one of the group that hasn't had it.
Source?
Lots of discussion around this if you look around, this is the first I found that wasn't a news publication: https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels...
Logically, it makes sense: while you need to get a lot of things into the city, you can do that at scale in ways that are efficient (like trains, boats, etc..).
Also, if you live in a city, you're probably taking up much less of a footprint. Individual houses are really inefficient. Nevermind driving everywhere! :)
Logically, it makes sense: while you need to get a lot of things into the city, you can do that at scale in ways that are efficient (like trains, boats, etc..).
Also, if you live in a city, you're probably taking up much less of a footprint. Individual houses are really inefficient. Nevermind driving everywhere! :)
I would be interested in seeing actual numbers of people that are positvely benefitting from Starlink in the manner you are describing. Remote locations in Africa numbers just don't seem like a very high number of actual users. I will be most pleasantly surprised if that's where large numbers of users are found. However, I'm guessing users are mainly all techno nerds looking to escape evilCoMonopolyISP. A segment will probably be US based far reaches remote type users. After that, it's a whole lot of stuff in space to benefit a very small number just so other people can point at potential uses
Starlink has 400,000 active paying subscribers at the moment, worldwide, as of a few weeks ago. The customer count is a pretty good indicator of those who find it useful. It's not going to match completely as there are some who will buy it for a backup connection, but that's going to be a small minority.
Sorry, you think I was making a comment in support of Starlink? What are you saying is false? Do you think that I believe Starlink's PR spin (what is confusing about those words?) to paint satellites black would fix the problem they created? Do you think that I belive the FAA/FCC have told SpaceX that they could no longer go ahead with their plans until a solution was in place? Where's the disconnect?
They rubber stamped them because there aren't any real problems... And they did try painting them black, not a PR spin, and it didn't work out so now they're equipped with sunshades and that does work, with independent scientific studies showing it to boot.
You guys read way too much propaganda. Please do a modicum of research first rather than jumping to outrage. It's getting unendingly frustrating.
You guys read way too much propaganda. Please do a modicum of research first rather than jumping to outrage. It's getting unendingly frustrating.
[deleted]
Perhaps the Starlink team didnt use Vantablack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack) to hide their existence? Maybe Surrey NanoSystems could help out or there again maybe scientists would end up spotting numerous black holes much like they thought they had discovered something more interesting than an impatient scientist! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peryton_(astronomy)
This is still consigned to coverup/conspiracy theory but these Ionosphere Heaters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater) have the ability to heat up the Ionosphere creating something akin to the bulge on a balloon or car tyre wall where the upper atmosphere pushes out into space.
This has two effects, it push's atmosphere into the low earth orbiting satellites path aking to driving through a sudden bank of fog, only this bulge of atmosphere can bring LEOB satellites down as they are not designed to go through atmosphere.
It also affects the Jet Stream winds in the upper atmosphere circulating the planet which in turn affects the weather of continents, its less predictable but its an alternative to the very localised and resource hungry cloud seeding.
The BBC Horizon program did a episode on "Space Weather" and in the last 5mins of the episode they focused on the EISCAT heater near Tromsø in Norway. In the episode the operator/scientist explained what it does to the upper atmosphere, which is explained above. Obviously this also has military applications because any LEOB satellite can be bought down if these IH's are on a ship somewhere in the middle of an ocean away from prying eyes!
This is still consigned to coverup/conspiracy theory but these Ionosphere Heaters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater) have the ability to heat up the Ionosphere creating something akin to the bulge on a balloon or car tyre wall where the upper atmosphere pushes out into space.
This has two effects, it push's atmosphere into the low earth orbiting satellites path aking to driving through a sudden bank of fog, only this bulge of atmosphere can bring LEOB satellites down as they are not designed to go through atmosphere.
It also affects the Jet Stream winds in the upper atmosphere circulating the planet which in turn affects the weather of continents, its less predictable but its an alternative to the very localised and resource hungry cloud seeding.
The BBC Horizon program did a episode on "Space Weather" and in the last 5mins of the episode they focused on the EISCAT heater near Tromsø in Norway. In the episode the operator/scientist explained what it does to the upper atmosphere, which is explained above. Obviously this also has military applications because any LEOB satellite can be bought down if these IH's are on a ship somewhere in the middle of an ocean away from prying eyes!
> there again maybe scientists would end up spotting numerous black holes
I work on radio astronomy and black holes, and no, that wouldn't happen.
I mean, you probably think it's a good joke, and it may be for the general public. But it doesn't make any sense to an astronomer at any wavelength.
There have been a few "stealth satellites" launched, and it's an interesting problem to detect them without spending a ton of money.
I work on radio astronomy and black holes, and no, that wouldn't happen.
I mean, you probably think it's a good joke, and it may be for the general public. But it doesn't make any sense to an astronomer at any wavelength.
There have been a few "stealth satellites" launched, and it's an interesting problem to detect them without spending a ton of money.
The fact that they called out Vantablack didn't strike you as being tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek? You really sound like someone is grabbing a raw nerve with you and unable to see we're on your side poking fun.
I said:
> I mean, you probably think it's a good joke,
That means I thought it was intended to be a joke.
Can you suggest wording that I can use next time that is less confusing?
BTW when the first "they're going to try to make the satellites darker" thing came up, a million redditers seriously mentioned Vantablack. That's not the thing that makes it an obvious joke.
> I mean, you probably think it's a good joke,
That means I thought it was intended to be a joke.
Can you suggest wording that I can use next time that is less confusing?
BTW when the first "they're going to try to make the satellites darker" thing came up, a million redditers seriously mentioned Vantablack. That's not the thing that makes it an obvious joke.
> I mean, you probably think it's a good joke, and it may be for the general public. But it doesn't make any sense to an astronomer at any wavelength.
There wouldnt be any wavelengths with a black hole, not even a lead balloon.
There wouldnt be any wavelengths with a black hole, not even a lead balloon.
Many governments are currently regulating Starlink operations in their countries. The while the FAA and NASA have an outsized role, the US alone isn’t enough to make Starlink commercially viable.
You personally may not benefit, but LEO internet constellations really do solve a major issue for many people.
You personally may not benefit, but LEO internet constellations really do solve a major issue for many people.
It's not the ground based operations that get me, it's those on the ground looking up seeing nothing but Starlink
It’s straightforward to kill Starlink, just solve the “last mile” internet access problem and they fail.
The idea we could setup mail service to everyone then wire up electricity and finally landlines to effectively every home in a vastly poor societies but can’t solve the internet issue without satellites is disgraceful.
The idea we could setup mail service to everyone then wire up electricity and finally landlines to effectively every home in a vastly poor societies but can’t solve the internet issue without satellites is disgraceful.
Yes, last mile is so easily solved, the best solution is launching the largest ever artificial satellite constellation the species has ever created. Just so people can update their status.
Last mile is just a question of spending money. Apparently the cheapest solution for low density areas is launching satellites so people can do remote work etc, but it’s not the only solution or even a particularly great one.
Except what you just said applies to no one. There is no one in that situation.
America is unconcerned with the opinions of other countries (I don't blame them the reality is that might makes right) and I really don't see what the rest of the world can do to stop Starlink launches that wouldn't involve WW3.
But I'm sure that if it all goes tits up the US will fix it all and humbly apologize.
But I'm sure that if it all goes tits up the US will fix it all and humbly apologize.
There's a treaty that everyone signed, and it says Starlink launches are fine as long as the country they launch from says OK. China can OK Chinese launches. Satellites aren't supposed to interfere with each other, but that's not strictly defined. You aren't supposed to create debris, but the standard for that isn't strict at all.
There's a good discussion going on about extending that treaty: stricter rules on deorbiting failed satellites and stages, light pollution, excessive numbers of satellites in narrow orbital bands, and so on.
There's a good discussion going on about extending that treaty: stricter rules on deorbiting failed satellites and stages, light pollution, excessive numbers of satellites in narrow orbital bands, and so on.
Starlink satellites are dependent on Hall-effect thrusters to maintain orbit, so the constellation will quickly burn up if Star link fails.
Don't forget the ITU, that's where the regulation starts.
It should, when it comes to space.
There is nothing private about space
There is nothing private about space
Mostly, but we have no idea (confirmed) what the Air Force's space plane does. We know it exists, we can track it while in orbit, but what it does do while there is not public. Also, the software and other capabilities of a lot of satellites are inferred but not 100% known.
So these birds are privately doing things in a public, ahem, space.
So these birds are privately doing things in a public, ahem, space.
It's nothing new. There were numerous classifieds Shuttle missions 30+ years ago that are still classified. People have more or less figured out what these missions were, but they're still classified and and a lot of the details still aren't known.
Interesting anecdote from one of them (STS-27):
> The day after Atlantis landed, the 1988 Armenian earthquake killed tens of thousands in the Soviet Union. At an astronaut meeting Gibson said, "I know many of you may have been very curious about our classified payload. While I can't go into its design features, I can say Armenia was its first target!" As military astronauts laughed and civilians cringed, Gibson continued, "And we only had the weapon set on stun!"
(Turns out it was actually a synthetic aperture radar recon satellite, not an earthquake machine.)
Interesting anecdote from one of them (STS-27):
> The day after Atlantis landed, the 1988 Armenian earthquake killed tens of thousands in the Soviet Union. At an astronaut meeting Gibson said, "I know many of you may have been very curious about our classified payload. While I can't go into its design features, I can say Armenia was its first target!" As military astronauts laughed and civilians cringed, Gibson continued, "And we only had the weapon set on stun!"
(Turns out it was actually a synthetic aperture radar recon satellite, not an earthquake machine.)
Is that the one that was up for over a year?
https://www.livescience.com/x37b-secret-space-plane-facts.ht...
https://www.livescience.com/x37b-secret-space-plane-facts.ht...
Yes. They park it up there so it won't sit in a hangar decaying, obviously useless.
just buy your own planet bro
/s
/s
These hot takes are horrible. The safety of the space environment is ABSOLUTELY Starlink's concern. If it becomes unsafe their business case is destroyed.
>would have to rely on the mood of said ionosphere.
From launching needles into space to HAARP, lots of study in making the ionosphere more dependable.
HAARP was fun fodder for consipiracy types back in the 90s. Even the wikipedia article doesn't touch but a fraction of the stories I've heard of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_Active_Auroral_...
From launching needles into space to HAARP, lots of study in making the ionosphere more dependable.
HAARP was fun fodder for consipiracy types back in the 90s. Even the wikipedia article doesn't touch but a fraction of the stories I've heard of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_Active_Auroral_...
The weather control theory is still very prevalent.
The idea that HAARP caused the massive flooding of the Mississipi in the 90s by causing the jet stream to move is still held strongly today.
Supposedly Mr. Trump asked about weather control when in office and supposedly was disappointed there was supposedly none.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/10/donald-trump...
The guardian's commentary tries to ridicule Trump but he makes sense.
If you can make tsunamis with bombs and can stop hail by bombing the clouds when they are still forming maybe there could be a way to stop/create hurricanes. No harm in asking.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/10/donald-trump...
The guardian's commentary tries to ridicule Trump but he makes sense.
If you can make tsunamis with bombs and can stop hail by bombing the clouds when they are still forming maybe there could be a way to stop/create hurricanes. No harm in asking.
The problem with "stopping hurricanes" is that even if we figured out a way to interrupt their formation, hurricanes ultimately stem from the temperature gradient between the ocean at low latitudes and at high latitudes - a hurricane carries heat away from the equator, warming the high latitudes and cooling the lower ones. If you somehow interrupt that process, the gradient just gets steeper with even more potential energy available, leading to a bigger, more destructive hurricane later on.
A lot of the proposed approaches involve deliberately stirring water in ways that disrupt this surface temp gradient. E.g. stirring water vertically, pulling up colder water from below.
But given the massive amounts of energy hurricanes release, it would seem that a similarly massive amount of energy would be needed to move enough water to have an effect.
> But given the massive amounts of energy hurricanes release, it would seem that a similarly massive amount of energy ...
Cooling-- moving heat from one place to another-- doesn't need to be so energy intensive. And it doesn't necessarily require active energy input. Anything that just improves vertical mixing will cool the surface water.
E.g. the Salter Sink is a clever passive tube and valve arrangement that uses wave action to defeat thermoclines that otherwise prevent mixing.
Cooling-- moving heat from one place to another-- doesn't need to be so energy intensive. And it doesn't necessarily require active energy input. Anything that just improves vertical mixing will cool the surface water.
E.g. the Salter Sink is a clever passive tube and valve arrangement that uses wave action to defeat thermoclines that otherwise prevent mixing.
[deleted]
Can you point out a source that discusses this? I've never heard of it before.
No, the idea doesn't make sense, because the energy released by a hurricane is a factor of ten thousand times that released by a nuclear bomb. The most you could do is maybe redirect that energy because it has to be released somehow. Maybe you could change the path but it's a chaotic system, you might change the path for the worse.
They handed it over to the scientists.
[deleted]
Curious: what happened to them?
Sure, at this point none should still be in orbit because LEO has too much drag. But did they definitely burn up on re-entry? Or did the American Government cover the planet in a fine layer of tiny needles?
Sure, at this point none should still be in orbit because LEO has too much drag. But did they definitely burn up on re-entry? Or did the American Government cover the planet in a fine layer of tiny needles?
After digging a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford
> The needles were placed in medium Earth orbit at an altitude of between 3,500 and 3,800 kilometres (2,200–2,400 mi) at inclinations of 96 and 87 degrees.
This is problematic as they are MEO not LEO.
From https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm - this is off their chart (which goes to 900km and 1000 years).
Likewise, https://www.lizard-tail.com/isana/lab/orbital_decay/ only goes up to 500km.
https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=37 for a tracker.
> The needles were placed in medium Earth orbit at an altitude of between 3,500 and 3,800 kilometres (2,200–2,400 mi) at inclinations of 96 and 87 degrees.
This is problematic as they are MEO not LEO.
From https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm - this is off their chart (which goes to 900km and 1000 years).
Likewise, https://www.lizard-tail.com/isana/lab/orbital_decay/ only goes up to 500km.
https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=37 for a tracker.
I can't decide if they would burn up or not — while referred to as needles, they sound more like very fine wires.
Would these short, fine wires fall fast enough to burn up? Or would they more or less float to the ground?
Would these short, fine wires fall fast enough to burn up? Or would they more or less float to the ground?
Still there, look for SATIDs in the 2360s.
Those are the clumps large enough to be seen by radar. The needles that successfully deployed came down in 3 years.
https://www.wired.com/2013/08/project-west-ford/
> On May 9, 1963, a second West Ford launch successfully dispersed its spindly cargo approximately 3,500 kilometers above the Earth, along an orbit that crossed the North and South Pole. Voice transmissions were successfully relayed between California and Massachusetts, and the technical aspects of the experiment were declared a success. As the dipole needles continued to disperse, the transmissions fell off considerably, although the experiment proved the strategy could work in principle.
The successful MEO are still there - https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=37
> On May 9, 1963, a second West Ford launch successfully dispersed its spindly cargo approximately 3,500 kilometers above the Earth, along an orbit that crossed the North and South Pole. Voice transmissions were successfully relayed between California and Massachusetts, and the technical aspects of the experiment were declared a success. As the dipole needles continued to disperse, the transmissions fell off considerably, although the experiment proved the strategy could work in principle.
The successful MEO are still there - https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=37
As I said, those are the clumps. The individual needles can't be seen by radar and have a high enough surface to mass ratio that they deorbited in 3 years instead of centuries.
Occasionally NASA will do surveys of smaller objects, but I'm not sure how they would be able to tell if they're still up there since they're not regularly tracked- it's more like 'we scanned volume x and found y objects smaller than we usually track so we think there are z small objects up there overall'.
Overall one of the more interesting bits of the 'hold my beer' phase of space exploration.
Overall one of the more interesting bits of the 'hold my beer' phase of space exploration.
Isn't that done by an Air Force radar at... Westford? I didn't think NASA had a radar for that purpose.
The radar at Westford is a tracking dish, I think they used one of the bigger phased arrays for the survey I'm thinking of.
I didn't know NASA had a phased array suitable for such surveys, but of course it's not really my gig -- astronomer, we don't transmit much! I mainly know about the Westford dish because it's used for VLBI and VGOS.
I looked for a big NASA phased array, and couldn't find one other than the SOAR proposal. I couldn't figure out if it was actually built or not.
Seriously, I'm interested in the details.
I looked for a big NASA phased array, and couldn't find one other than the SOAR proposal. I couldn't figure out if it was actually built or not.
Seriously, I'm interested in the details.
[deleted]
This is a link to the original post: https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2019/10/that-time-t...
written by Melissa Blevins https://www.linkedin.com/in/blevinsmelissa/
written by Melissa Blevins https://www.linkedin.com/in/blevinsmelissa/
Changed above from https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/us-military-la.... Thanks!
I wonder if those needle clumps that remain in orbit are still useful for communication? The article mentioned that a nuke launch damaged some satellites at the time. Wouldn't needles also have the advantage that they have no circuits that could be fried from EMPs or radiation? I'm not sure to what extent you can shield satellites today - but it is something to think about.
No, the clumps were an accident and are useless for communication.
The first telecommunications satellite was a balloon in orbit that signals were bounced off of. That would be safe from EMP. But it's not really useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_satellite
The first telecommunications satellite was a balloon in orbit that signals were bounced off of. That would be safe from EMP. But it's not really useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_satellite
"Presumably it would have been even worse had everyone realized the United States had, a few years before this, planned to nuke the moon, more or less just because they could…"
Do have to say, that was a glorious era of scientific tomfoolery.
Do have to say, that was a glorious era of scientific tomfoolery.
It was glorious, I think because no one knew what the hell they were doing — or rather, rockets enabled this brave new world where nothing had yet been done.
For example, the time they exploded 11,000 gallons of water 80 miles up.
"Three more flights with dummy upper stages followed over the next 17 months, which were all completely or mostly successful. Two of them had the S-IV filled with water and detonated at high altitude after stage separation to form an ice cloud that was then photographed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_I#Saturn_emerges
For example, the time they exploded 11,000 gallons of water 80 miles up.
"Three more flights with dummy upper stages followed over the next 17 months, which were all completely or mostly successful. Two of them had the S-IV filled with water and detonated at high altitude after stage separation to form an ice cloud that was then photographed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_I#Saturn_emerges
My favorite has always been scientifically promoted medicinal use of leeches.
Nuking the moon was relatively mild compared to the proposed Project Orion.
[deleted]
great article! I loved the tidbits at the bottom too. found a good list of wake up songs from nasa here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/s...
Come for the needles, stay for the Space DJs.
[deleted]
If I had to determine whether a planet was hostile, "fired 500 million needles into space" would be pretty freakin high up on my criteria
[deleted]
[deleted]
>Today in our digital world, of course, a similar electromagnetic pulse would have much more catastrophic effects, especially if near more populated centers, potentially even revealing the Lizard people’s Matrix, which would be catastrophic to our Draconian overlords’ (may they reign forever) plans…
I loved this joke they threw in there
I loved this joke they threw in there
I also enjoyed the phrasing:
> To begin with, the ionosphere’s composition changes most drastically at night, primarily because, of course, the Sun goes missing for a bit.
I can imagine Bertie Wooster saying this.
> To begin with, the ionosphere’s composition changes most drastically at night, primarily because, of course, the Sun goes missing for a bit.
I can imagine Bertie Wooster saying this.
[deleted]
half a billion needles put in orbit without consultation? pricks.
All those needles, and not a single moral compass.
I skipped the article and found the Wikipedia page, which satisfied my curiosity from the headline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford
Yep, that's a very interesting Wikipedia article.
One thing that surprised me is that most of the needles reentered within 3 years. They have a pretty large surface area per unit mass, so the effects of the very thin atmosphere up there is maximized.
Normally a satellite at 3,500 km would take centuries to decay.
There are some clumps of needles still up there. One not-well-understood thing is how many small clumps remain -- the clumps which are too small to be seen on radar.
One thing that surprised me is that most of the needles reentered within 3 years. They have a pretty large surface area per unit mass, so the effects of the very thin atmosphere up there is maximized.
Normally a satellite at 3,500 km would take centuries to decay.
There are some clumps of needles still up there. One not-well-understood thing is how many small clumps remain -- the clumps which are too small to be seen on radar.
[deleted](1)
Purposely injecting debris into orbit, even if it's at a low orbit, seems not good!