UK and US say Russia fired a satellite weapon in space(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
UK and US say Russia fired a satellite weapon in space
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53518238
189 comments
the press releases mean that US and UK are both jealous of the capabilities being tested, and its a precursor to getting funding to expand X37B program.
Any time a nation complains about another nation doing something that it itself does, you shouldn't ever take it seriously at face value. Nations are regularly two-faced as a form of politics. They're not going to stop being that way just because of a moral hypocrisy.
This is exactly how Russian propaganda works: “Other countries do bad stuff too, therefore we (Russian Federation) are not so bad after all”
Have a read about Sputnik News, for example, which is considered to be “slick” propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)
Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it. I get that we are in some really dark times, but this is appalling to tolerate as Americans.
Have a read about Sputnik News, for example, which is considered to be “slick” propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)
Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it. I get that we are in some really dark times, but this is appalling to tolerate as Americans.
The classic Soviet agitprop trope is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
But it's a bit different, because it's about bringing up some completely unrelated point to distract. In this case, though, the subject matter is the same.
This isn't to say that Russia ought to be excused, or that countries that are not currently involved in militarizing space shouldn't criticize it. But if they do, shouldn't they be criticizing US, as well? And as for Americans, well, the hypocrisy there is rather obvious.
But it's a bit different, because it's about bringing up some completely unrelated point to distract. In this case, though, the subject matter is the same.
This isn't to say that Russia ought to be excused, or that countries that are not currently involved in militarizing space shouldn't criticize it. But if they do, shouldn't they be criticizing US, as well? And as for Americans, well, the hypocrisy there is rather obvious.
A lot of mainland Chinese people use a new version of exactly this. If Uyghurs are ever mentioned the first thing I hear from mainland people is "Yes but the US and Iraq" and similar statements.
For the Uighurs' sake I wish that we hadn't invaded Iraq.
Also, for all the other obvious reasons.
Also, for all the other obvious reasons.
btilly(2)
Falling for what? Nobody quoted any Russian source nor position (except you, I suppose).
If pointing out stuff that the US military readily admits it does is "Russian propaganda" I really don't know how to respond to that. The Space Force and X-37B aren't some conspiracy theory or hot take, they're official and somewhat public programs even with their own websites[0][1]. Nobody denies they're military programs either.
I've seen people throw around unfounded accusations of repeating propaganda before, but this has to be one of the more farcical ones.
[0] https://www.spaceforce.mil/
[1] http://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/index....
If pointing out stuff that the US military readily admits it does is "Russian propaganda" I really don't know how to respond to that. The Space Force and X-37B aren't some conspiracy theory or hot take, they're official and somewhat public programs even with their own websites[0][1]. Nobody denies they're military programs either.
I've seen people throw around unfounded accusations of repeating propaganda before, but this has to be one of the more farcical ones.
[0] https://www.spaceforce.mil/
[1] http://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/index....
The “Space Force” has nothing to do with militarization of space, for starters. Its conception was a rearranging and centralization of command, not an expansion in capability.
The mission as stated on Space Force website:
> The U.S. Space Force is a military service that organizes, trains, and equips space forces in order to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force. USSF responsibilities will include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
> The U.S. Space Force is a military service that organizes, trains, and equips space forces in order to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force. USSF responsibilities will include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Their "About Us" page literally starts with:
> The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.
And goes on to say:
> USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Their core mission is to develop "space power" to "present to our Combatant Commands." And we're meant to believe that Armed Forces that are developing space "Combatants" for "space power" aren't the "militarization of space?"
> The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.
And goes on to say:
> USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Their core mission is to develop "space power" to "present to our Combatant Commands." And we're meant to believe that Armed Forces that are developing space "Combatants" for "space power" aren't the "militarization of space?"
> Their core mission is to develop "space power" to "present to our Combatant Commands." And we're meant to believe that Armed Forces that are developing space "Combatants" for "space power" aren't the "militarization of space?"
Yes: military use != militarization. Let's consider hypothetical: you quoted this:
>> The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.... USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Let's invent the "US Logistics Force", a new hypothetical branch of the US Military:
> The U.S. Logistics Force (USLF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.... USLF responsibilities include developing military logistics professionals, acquiring military logistics systems, maturing the military doctrine for logistics power, and organizing logistics forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Would the existence of such a force be a militarization of transport links? Not necessarily. It could just be akin to a civilian shipping and logistics company where the drivers wear military fatigues and sometimes drive unusual 8-wheeled heavy lift trucks [1] to strange destinations.
The USSF isn't militarizing space because it's not stationing weapons up there, and the kind of stuff it does put up in space, for the most part, are the kinds of things civilian organizations have also put up there (communications, sensor, and navigation satellites).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Expanded_Mobility_Tactic...
Yes: military use != militarization. Let's consider hypothetical: you quoted this:
>> The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.... USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Let's invent the "US Logistics Force", a new hypothetical branch of the US Military:
> The U.S. Logistics Force (USLF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.... USLF responsibilities include developing military logistics professionals, acquiring military logistics systems, maturing the military doctrine for logistics power, and organizing logistics forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Would the existence of such a force be a militarization of transport links? Not necessarily. It could just be akin to a civilian shipping and logistics company where the drivers wear military fatigues and sometimes drive unusual 8-wheeled heavy lift trucks [1] to strange destinations.
The USSF isn't militarizing space because it's not stationing weapons up there, and the kind of stuff it does put up in space, for the most part, are the kinds of things civilian organizations have also put up there (communications, sensor, and navigation satellites).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Expanded_Mobility_Tactic...
[deleted]
dx87(1)
Their website is literally https://www.spaceforce.mil/
The domain name begs to differ.
This is how all geo-political moralization works, by any country. There's always an excuse, there's always an enemy to blame, and there's always someone else you can point a finger at, and justify your behaviour.
> Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it.
That is your takeaway from observing this phenomena? That we should stop giving other people a pass for behaviour we routinely engage in?
How does that make any sense?
If you want to denounce the militarization of space, this is a great place to start. But you need to approach it with a 'Yes, and', instead of a 'No, but'. One is intellectually consistent, the other is an argument of tribalism.
If your goal is demilitarization, the solution to aim towards is a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia. If your goal is to engage in tribalism, then the solution to that is to denounce Russia, with no followup.
> Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it.
That is your takeaway from observing this phenomena? That we should stop giving other people a pass for behaviour we routinely engage in?
How does that make any sense?
If you want to denounce the militarization of space, this is a great place to start. But you need to approach it with a 'Yes, and', instead of a 'No, but'. One is intellectually consistent, the other is an argument of tribalism.
If your goal is demilitarization, the solution to aim towards is a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia. If your goal is to engage in tribalism, then the solution to that is to denounce Russia, with no followup.
Whataboutism is bad even if we engage in it ourselves. See? That's pretty easy.
Great - we can move to practical questions, then.
There are currently four countries that have successfully tested anti-satellite weapons. The United States, Russia, China, and India.
If the existence of anti-satellite weapons is an existential threat to free space access, which of these four countries should dismantle their anti-satellite weapons programs? And how should that be brought about?
Edit: It should be noted that putting weapons in space is not a violation of the Outer Space Treaty[1]. Putting nuclear weapons in space would be. But, as far as I can tell, this is not a nuclear weapon. The BBC is lying through its teeth, when it claims that this is an illegal weapon.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
> The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law.
> Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space.
> It specifically limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV).
> However, the treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit, and thus some highly destructive attack tactics, such as kinetic bombardment, are still potentially allowable.
There are currently four countries that have successfully tested anti-satellite weapons. The United States, Russia, China, and India.
If the existence of anti-satellite weapons is an existential threat to free space access, which of these four countries should dismantle their anti-satellite weapons programs? And how should that be brought about?
Edit: It should be noted that putting weapons in space is not a violation of the Outer Space Treaty[1]. Putting nuclear weapons in space would be. But, as far as I can tell, this is not a nuclear weapon. The BBC is lying through its teeth, when it claims that this is an illegal weapon.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
> The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law.
> Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space.
> It specifically limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV).
> However, the treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit, and thus some highly destructive attack tactics, such as kinetic bombardment, are still potentially allowable.
Just a side note: The BBC article isn't about anti-satellite weapons generally. It's about a satellite that is itself an anti-satellite weapon. The key difference is that this is a weapon in orbit. Blowing up satellites is bad no matter where the weapon sits, but this is the difference relevant to treaty obligations.
> The key difference is that this is a weapon in orbit... but this is the difference relevant to treaty obligations.
Conventional weapons in orbit aren't illegal, and there are no treaty obligations that prohibit them.
The BBC either didn't do the most rudimentary research, or is engaging in misleading propaganda. (It is quite ironic to find that a subthread about Russian propaganda is rooted in a such a fundamental error of fact. We are well and truly in the post-truth era.)
Conventional weapons in orbit aren't illegal, and there are no treaty obligations that prohibit them.
The BBC either didn't do the most rudimentary research, or is engaging in misleading propaganda. (It is quite ironic to find that a subthread about Russian propaganda is rooted in a such a fundamental error of fact. We are well and truly in the post-truth era.)
This is exactly how ANY propaganda works.
It's always producing information to aid the narrative.
It's always producing information to aid the narrative.
Well, Russians are playing by the US book, it seems; read about Voice of America and Radio Liberty
Except when a satellite explodes because of a weapon test, it endangers commercial space activities for all of us.
You're missing the fact that Russia has been militarizing space longer than the US has... Russia is not responding to the US, the US is responding to Russia.
The ASM-135 was built in the early 80s and shot down a satellite, Bold Orion shot down a satellite in the 50s, what are you on about?
The Soviets run a whole program of satellite interceptors in the 60s:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html
It was a maneuverable satellite designed to destroy an enemy satellite by collision. They even launched a special armored satellite that could be used as a target for multiple test interceptions.
It was a maneuverable satellite designed to destroy an enemy satellite by collision. They even launched a special armored satellite that could be used as a target for multiple test interceptions.
Also the R-23M Kartech[1], test fired in 1975.
The results of the tests still remain classified. However it appears that the
follow-up Almaz station was to be equipped with a pair of interceptor missiles
rather than a cannon.
The US has only tested ground-based ASAT weapons on satellites in already decaying low orbits.
The ASM-135 was launched from an F-15, and the Bold Orion from a B-47, no?
Not that the distinction matters a jot, they have been shooting things down in space for more than 70 years; this
>You're missing the fact that Russia has been militarizing space longer than the US has
is a lie.
Not that the distinction matters a jot, they have been shooting things down in space for more than 70 years; this
>You're missing the fact that Russia has been militarizing space longer than the US has
is a lie.
1. This weapons test was also against a low orbit satellite.
2. There is no reason to believe that X-37 cannot be a space-based weapons platform.
3. Why does it matter if the weapon was fired at a satellite from the ground, or at a satellite from space? The risk factor (Kessler effect) to peaceful space exploitation is exactly the same in both scenarios, because it comes from a satellite being blown up, not from a missile being launched.
You're making distinctions without a difference. The problem is ASWs existing, not splitting hairs over where ASWs are launched from.
2. There is no reason to believe that X-37 cannot be a space-based weapons platform.
3. Why does it matter if the weapon was fired at a satellite from the ground, or at a satellite from space? The risk factor (Kessler effect) to peaceful space exploitation is exactly the same in both scenarios, because it comes from a satellite being blown up, not from a missile being launched.
You're making distinctions without a difference. The problem is ASWs existing, not splitting hairs over where ASWs are launched from.
> There is no reason to believe that X-37 cannot be a space-based weapons platform.
There is a difference between "I suspect you committed a crime" and "I have video of you committing a crime".
> Why does it matter if the weapon was fired at a satellite from the ground, or at a satellite from space?
Well, it matters because everyone said they wouldn't do this. The weaponization of space is something we said we wouldn't do.
There is a difference between "I suspect you committed a crime" and "I have video of you committing a crime".
> Why does it matter if the weapon was fired at a satellite from the ground, or at a satellite from space?
Well, it matters because everyone said they wouldn't do this. The weaponization of space is something we said we wouldn't do.
> Well, it matters because everyone said they wouldn't do this. The weaponization of space is something we said we wouldn't do.
Why does it matter? What are the first-principles reasons for why firing a missile from a satellite into a satellite is a problem, but firing a missile from an aircraft carrier into a satellite is not? It should also be noted that putting conventional weapons in orbit is not currently banned by any international treaty.
Does it make any difference, but semantics? Kessler syndrome will happen in response to either one.
Why does it matter? What are the first-principles reasons for why firing a missile from a satellite into a satellite is a problem, but firing a missile from an aircraft carrier into a satellite is not? It should also be noted that putting conventional weapons in orbit is not currently banned by any international treaty.
Does it make any difference, but semantics? Kessler syndrome will happen in response to either one.
"Rods from God"
https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-rods-from-god-kine...
You're comparing a theoretical idea (though it is a popular trope in near future science fiction) with an actual test of an existing system. I can also dream up many space weapons, that doesn't make it equivalent to building and using one.
>Air Force X-37B
The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon.
>Don't get me wrong, Russia aren't some good guy, but when you actively do a thing for tens of years and then the other guy does that thing, you have no moral high ground left to complain.
Russia tested a satellite-to-satellite weapon which is completely unprecedented militarization of space.
The US has tested ground-based anti-satellite weapons on satellites in decaying Low-Eart Orbits. The debris quickly burned up in the atmosphere.
China is the only country to have blown up a satellite beyond LEO. The debris from that will be in orbit for decades. That was an unprecedented militarization of space and not comparable with anything the US has done in the space.
You are pushing a narrative that the US is the warmonger in space and that Russia is only responding in kind. The truth is that Russia and China are far ahead of the US in weaponizing space. The US is playing catch-up.
The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon.
>Don't get me wrong, Russia aren't some good guy, but when you actively do a thing for tens of years and then the other guy does that thing, you have no moral high ground left to complain.
Russia tested a satellite-to-satellite weapon which is completely unprecedented militarization of space.
The US has tested ground-based anti-satellite weapons on satellites in decaying Low-Eart Orbits. The debris quickly burned up in the atmosphere.
China is the only country to have blown up a satellite beyond LEO. The debris from that will be in orbit for decades. That was an unprecedented militarization of space and not comparable with anything the US has done in the space.
You are pushing a narrative that the US is the warmonger in space and that Russia is only responding in kind. The truth is that Russia and China are far ahead of the US in weaponizing space. The US is playing catch-up.
> The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon.
No, but that seems a little bit disingenuous. Aircraft carriers are neither missiles nor weapons either. We can recognize things as military assets that are neither missiles nor weapons.
The X-37B is a DOD asset, operated by the military, capable of deploying weapons systems. In that way, it is part of the military capability of the US.
No, but that seems a little bit disingenuous. Aircraft carriers are neither missiles nor weapons either. We can recognize things as military assets that are neither missiles nor weapons.
The X-37B is a DOD asset, operated by the military, capable of deploying weapons systems. In that way, it is part of the military capability of the US.
Actually back in the day the Soviets were genuinely afraid of the Space Shuttle, as they though that due to it's capability for sudden orbit changes via aerodynamic surfaces. They thought it might start on an otherwise routine mission only to do a sudden orbit change that makes it fly over Moscow & nuke it with hardly any warning at all.
It is said that was also the reason they started the Buran and Energia project - while their engineers though the Space Shuttle was too complicated, expensive and dangerous (and they were right...) they also though there must be something special about it, otherwise the Americans would not build something that bad.
It is said that was also the reason they started the Buran and Energia project - while their engineers though the Space Shuttle was too complicated, expensive and dangerous (and they were right...) they also though there must be something special about it, otherwise the Americans would not build something that bad.
I am pretty sure that engineers of a country that has sent first man to orbit, built first space station, got first pictures from lunar and venus surfaces, those engineers knew very well that “sudden orbit changes via aerodynamic surfaces” can’t be done in a vacuum.
They have seen some dangers like sattelite theft and others, so they have built a vehicle with similar capacity just because you have to match the opponent, even if the idea doesn’t really work and there are more efficient ways of achieving same results.
They have seen some dangers like sattelite theft and others, so they have built a vehicle with similar capacity just because you have to match the opponent, even if the idea doesn’t really work and there are more efficient ways of achieving same results.
It appears that the study was considering the shuttle's ability to glide while re-entering. They were afraid a shuttle could launch from Vandenberg and do a maneuver similar to the shuttle's once-around abort and approach the USSR from the south (most of their early-warning systems were facing north) and possibly even return home afterwards.
It's a cute theory but you should be skeptical of the claim that this study was the motivation for the Soviet shuttle program.
It's a cute theory but you should be skeptical of the claim that this study was the motivation for the Soviet shuttle program.
The main thing necessary to understand Buran is... why the big heavy delta wings? It is clear why the US shuttle has them: Reference Mission 3A/3B, which the USAF added to the design requirements in exchange for political cover in Congress (see T.A. Heppenheimer, _The Space Shuttle Decision_). If you launch due south from Vandenberg and you need to return back to your landing site (either because of the Reference Mission or because of a Abort-Once-Around) you have to be able to move roughly 1/16 of the Earth's diameter in the atmosphere (otherwise you end up in the Pacific Ocean), and that forces you to the big heavy delta wings that sacrifices a lot of payload.
But why did the Soviets need that much cross-range? First of all their spy satellites were not generally put into polar orbits (they used shorter lived satellites that didn't need sun synchronous orbits) and second of all, one polar orbit around from Baikonur runs right over Russian land rather than the Pacific Ocean, so they had no need for all of that cross range.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that a design goal for Buran was "copy the STS, but don't do quite as many silly things" because I simply can't find a use case for that much cross range for them.
But why did the Soviets need that much cross-range? First of all their spy satellites were not generally put into polar orbits (they used shorter lived satellites that didn't need sun synchronous orbits) and second of all, one polar orbit around from Baikonur runs right over Russian land rather than the Pacific Ocean, so they had no need for all of that cross range.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that a design goal for Buran was "copy the STS, but don't do quite as many silly things" because I simply can't find a use case for that much cross range for them.
I would be willing to bet there are political considerations at play also.
The popularity of the Space Program in America has fluctuated over the years with a corresponding amount of support and funding from the government. That being said, the Space Shuttle was seen at the time as a major iteration in space technology. Moreover, it closely resembled an actual "space ship" from science fiction lore! For the first time space technology was recognizable and relatable to the American taxpayer.
They probably could have accomplished more with a less iconic design, but they would have had trouble selling it to Congress and taxpayers. For a society that's used to seeing billion-dollar metal tubes used up every several minutes before exploding into the ocean; the reusable "Space Shuttle" was a comfort investment for Americans that boosted confidence and enthusiasm for the Space Program.
The popularity of the Space Program in America has fluctuated over the years with a corresponding amount of support and funding from the government. That being said, the Space Shuttle was seen at the time as a major iteration in space technology. Moreover, it closely resembled an actual "space ship" from science fiction lore! For the first time space technology was recognizable and relatable to the American taxpayer.
They probably could have accomplished more with a less iconic design, but they would have had trouble selling it to Congress and taxpayers. For a society that's used to seeing billion-dollar metal tubes used up every several minutes before exploding into the ocean; the reusable "Space Shuttle" was a comfort investment for Americans that boosted confidence and enthusiasm for the Space Program.
I mean, the Soviet version of the B29 had extra rivet holes because one of the B29s they reverse engineered had a manufacturing mistake. Would they trust their engineers to make a close copy that wasn't exactly the same aerodynamically? I know that's in a different era of the USSR, but still.
When you encounter things you don't understand in complex engineering it's not unwise to copy them because you are either copying a harmless mistake, irrelevant appendix type feature or it's a key feature you don't yet understand.
Plus the cost overhead for a few more rivets isn't crazy; even if they're superfluous and you know it, better to spend brainpower on more complex and critical engineering.
Both Buran and Shuttle have wings to be able to return significant mass from orbit and soft land with it.
Think snagging enemy’s secret sattelite from orbit and bringing it back for research.
Think snagging enemy’s secret sattelite from orbit and bringing it back for research.
Delta wings aren't necessary for that. The Soviet's wingless first/early iteration of a Shuttle copy was designed to soft land with its 20 ton return payload by parachute, aided by retrorockets firing at the last moment.
https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/mtkvp-glushkos-o...
https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/mtkvp-glushkos-o...
The idea was to just dip your perigee a bit into the atmosphere, use the aero surface to change inclination, but not loose enough speed to put you apogee into the atmosphere as well.
Voila, you are now in completely different orbit, one that a conventional spacecraft can't achieve due to the delta-v requirements an inclination change would require.
Also once you have don this, you can put your perigee above the atmosphere by a short OMS burn.
Voila, you are now in completely different orbit, one that a conventional spacecraft can't achieve due to the delta-v requirements an inclination change would require.
Also once you have don this, you can put your perigee above the atmosphere by a short OMS burn.
It would be silly to use the X-37 as an anti-sat weapon: it's too expensive. Think of how cheaply SpaceX is putting up Starlink! A single Falcon 9 could probably put up a bunch (20? 30?) of antisat weapons that only ever raise or lower their orbits and fire .22s at their targets. The idea is to disable targets with as little debris as possible.
With larger anti-sat sats you could actually latch on to the target and de-orbit it for zero orbital debris destruction. This requires many more, much larger such devices because while it takes relatively little delta-v to raise or lower an orbit, it takes a lot more to match an arbitrary target's orbit (to which more fuel has to be added for de-orbiting).
With larger anti-sat sats you could actually latch on to the target and de-orbit it for zero orbital debris destruction. This requires many more, much larger such devices because while it takes relatively little delta-v to raise or lower an orbit, it takes a lot more to match an arbitrary target's orbit (to which more fuel has to be added for de-orbiting).
Just having a theoretical conversation now, but
> antisat weapons that only ever raise or lower their orbits and fire .22s at their targets.
raising your orbit is the hard and expensive part, it takes a lot of propellant, which generally rules out smaller vehicles, right?
And if you want to destroy a satellite, you need a lot of kinetic energy, which for a tiny projectile means lots of speed relative to the target... But since your absolute speed determines the height of your orbit, the only way to get more than ~1000 ft/s is to have your gun-sat in an opposite-direction orbit to the target, right? And isn't it the case that our satellites are all orbiting in more or less the same direction, since they launch from canaveral and have to head east to be over water?
> antisat weapons that only ever raise or lower their orbits and fire .22s at their targets.
raising your orbit is the hard and expensive part, it takes a lot of propellant, which generally rules out smaller vehicles, right?
And if you want to destroy a satellite, you need a lot of kinetic energy, which for a tiny projectile means lots of speed relative to the target... But since your absolute speed determines the height of your orbit, the only way to get more than ~1000 ft/s is to have your gun-sat in an opposite-direction orbit to the target, right? And isn't it the case that our satellites are all orbiting in more or less the same direction, since they launch from canaveral and have to head east to be over water?
You don't really need a lot of kinetic energy, it's not like satellites are armored. I'd think a pretty small kinetic energy, like a rifle bullet, would do it (depending on where it hit, obviously.) The trick is delivering that small kinetic energy...
Changing the altitude is fine, with all the electric propulsion that is available nowadays. You just need enough power and that means big deployables. The main issue is orbital plane changes, meaning that in the future, satellite-to-satellite weapons will not rendez-vous with the target but just do a quick approach while being on a different orbit and send/drop a low speed projectile to collide with the target. All this is already possible on a 100kg-class satellite.
[deleted]
The only issue is that using kinetic weapons greatly increases the risk of Kessler Syndrome; in other words premature mutually assured destruction. Kinetic space weapons are so easy to get wrong with outsized repercussions.
Otherwise raising orbit is expensive(ish) depending on whether you want a circular orbit. Matching an orbit can be expensive. If the target has auto avoidance like Starlink does then matching orbit becomes war of attrition; even getting the target to burn off its fuel is a win as it will drastically shorten its life span.
Deorbiting is relatively easy at LEO, just increasing frontal area is a cheap way to achieve it. Above LEO would normally require fuel of some amount.
Otherwise raising orbit is expensive(ish) depending on whether you want a circular orbit. Matching an orbit can be expensive. If the target has auto avoidance like Starlink does then matching orbit becomes war of attrition; even getting the target to burn off its fuel is a win as it will drastically shorten its life span.
Deorbiting is relatively easy at LEO, just increasing frontal area is a cheap way to achieve it. Above LEO would normally require fuel of some amount.
> it’s too expensive.
Can you identify a time when cost was obviously a signifcant factor in a military choice? To me it seems that cost is low in the grand scheme of things.
Can you identify a time when cost was obviously a signifcant factor in a military choice? To me it seems that cost is low in the grand scheme of things.
Cost is not no object to the military.
If they could have 1,000 asat sats, they'd want to have 1,000. Can you imagine them saying "sure, let's just have an X-37B, one, just one, it will do"? If you need these in a shooting war, 1 ain't gonna be enough. You need lots of them. You can't have lots of them if: they're big and heavy (launches are too infrequent and too expensive) or if they're too expensive (you want 1,000 but can only afford 10).
If they could have 1,000 asat sats, they'd want to have 1,000. Can you imagine them saying "sure, let's just have an X-37B, one, just one, it will do"? If you need these in a shooting war, 1 ain't gonna be enough. You need lots of them. You can't have lots of them if: they're big and heavy (launches are too infrequent and too expensive) or if they're too expensive (you want 1,000 but can only afford 10).
"The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon."
Unless you have a security clearance and are using the information from classified sources, you cannot claim this, and people should not believe this statement at all.
The X-37B is a classified US military project. There is no confirmation, either way, whether it is or isn't a weapons system, or whether it has already been used as a weapon system.
In fact, you can ask the US military point blank, is the X-37B a weapon, and you will get "no comment"
Unless you have a security clearance and are using the information from classified sources, you cannot claim this, and people should not believe this statement at all.
The X-37B is a classified US military project. There is no confirmation, either way, whether it is or isn't a weapons system, or whether it has already been used as a weapon system.
In fact, you can ask the US military point blank, is the X-37B a weapon, and you will get "no comment"
To be fair, if you asked them if it was a time machine they would probably say “no comment”.
Yup it's classified. Do you have evidence that it's a weapon?
The parent did not claim that it is a weapon, only that the statement
> The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon.
cannot be proven. In fact they went on to say
> There is no confirmation, either way, whether it is or isn't a weapons system
> The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon.
cannot be proven. In fact they went on to say
> There is no confirmation, either way, whether it is or isn't a weapons system
I think it’s naive to think the X-37 doesn’t have the capability to be used a weapon. A spacecraft able to stay in orbit for years with the ability to hide its payload from observers we must assume is carrying something onboard that can be considered a weapon.
It's overkill as an anti-sat sat. It'd be much cheaper to put up tons of anti-sat sats meant only for that purpose -- no need to reenter and land, no need for reusability, etc.
The X-37 is obviously a military device, since they're the ones using it, and it may well be meant for servicing U.S. military sats, spying on others' sats, jamming them perhaps, or outright stealing them, and, yes, maybe destroying them, but again: there's no point using the X-37 for anti-sat purposes as it's too expensive for that.
The X-37 is obviously a military device, since they're the ones using it, and it may well be meant for servicing U.S. military sats, spying on others' sats, jamming them perhaps, or outright stealing them, and, yes, maybe destroying them, but again: there's no point using the X-37 for anti-sat purposes as it's too expensive for that.
Why do we have all of this historical evidence about military purchasing and yet continued belief that current projects are all sensibly intended and operated?
I didn't say the X-37B is used sensibly. I said it's not a practical and inexpensive anti-sat weapon. It's just not comparable.
> or outright stealing them
They took a page out of Blofeld's book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Only_Live_Twice_(film)
They took a page out of Blofeld's book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Only_Live_Twice_(film)
Orbital dynamics means that literally anything in orbit could be an anti satellite weapon.
You’re technically correct, but I doubt deterrence is higher on SpaceX’s priority list than the USAF’s.
[deleted]
The first satellite caused huge concern in US, because it can be easily turned into a ICBM. To state X-37B is not a missile or weapon, is simply inconceivable for anyone who is not owning the thing.
This is precisely how most major superpowers justify their behaviors. Just because of their size and power, a lot of things can hurt other nations. It's not a matter of what one things, one has to consider their impact, and their target's tolerance.
This is precisely how most major superpowers justify their behaviors. Just because of their size and power, a lot of things can hurt other nations. It's not a matter of what one things, one has to consider their impact, and their target's tolerance.
At the end of the day, US has 3-4x more space infrastructure than CN/RU, and relatively more dependence. This gap has to be closed through whatever means even if it doesn't accommodate for best practice. Sometimes asymmetry in capabilities rationalizes pissing in the commons.
Sadly I think more and more, that we are in the point of no repair (return). Regardless being US, UK, China, Russia we are in world govern by mafia like diplomacy/politics, and with recent development in nuclear, space and Antarctica militarization ... things does not look great... unfortunately there is no planet B nor there is a good enough bunker :/ ...
My whole life I thought that things could be solved with science and reason, but it seems we need a miracle...
My whole life I thought that things could be solved with science and reason, but it seems we need a miracle...
You seem bummed out by the idea of where the world is going.
Look back at "The Future" as thought of by people in the 1950's and see how accurate they were. So don't think you will be accurate.
And if it is that bad, or worse, well you can only do so much.
Even though I am devoutly NOT religious there is a nice set of words: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference"
Good luck.
Look back at "The Future" as thought of by people in the 1950's and see how accurate they were. So don't think you will be accurate.
And if it is that bad, or worse, well you can only do so much.
Even though I am devoutly NOT religious there is a nice set of words: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference"
Good luck.
> Russia aren't some good guy
Who are the good guys?
Who are the good guys?
Once there is a clear winner, they will tell us.
USA have clearly lost every war we've fought, in my parents' lifetimes. You won't hear that on the news, however. In fact I fairly doubt this comment will be warmly received.
The historically correct answer
The Russians are the only ones who have previously launched 2 satellite to satellite weapons systems (Almaz and Polyus). They have militarized space. They are in a moral trough, and this whataboutism doesn't change anything.
Non space-based weapons are perfectly in keeping with international norms, but launching and/or testing ASATs and space-based weapons is not.
Non space-based weapons are perfectly in keeping with international norms, but launching and/or testing ASATs and space-based weapons is not.
The Space Force looks to be mostly communications and intelligence gathering, not weapons. Seems mostly designed to market what they're doing to get more people interested in working for them.
I don't disagree. I think the DOD argument for the X-37B would be to argue "its just a transportation system."
That said, given what has been reported in the press about the capabilities of the X-37B, it would seem they might have it transport a payload to sit around nearby and actively video/watch what such things are doing.
My favorite unconventional idea for an anti-satellite device is a small maneuverable can of spray paint that paints the surface of any solar panels of the satellite it "attacks" with an opaque paint. Don't create shrapnel, just take away its source of power.
That said, given what has been reported in the press about the capabilities of the X-37B, it would seem they might have it transport a payload to sit around nearby and actively video/watch what such things are doing.
My favorite unconventional idea for an anti-satellite device is a small maneuverable can of spray paint that paints the surface of any solar panels of the satellite it "attacks" with an opaque paint. Don't create shrapnel, just take away its source of power.
Project SAINT in the 1960s looked at some non-destructive ASAT techniques such as spraying paint over camera ports. The idea being that it would be a deniable, non-escalating type of attack.
However the technology required to manoeuvre that closely to the target was more sophisticated than a stand-off kinetic attack, which was also less detectable in execution.
However the technology required to manoeuvre that closely to the target was more sophisticated than a stand-off kinetic attack, which was also less detectable in execution.
Interesting, now that we have the maneuver operations covered in cube sats with ion drives, I wonder if someone will re-open that investigation.
International geopolitics isn't the Bible. He who hath lots of sin can most definitely cast a stone. And if I'm on this side, I'm damned well going to back them in pressuring those guys to not fuck up space.
I don't need to be fair to the other guy. I don't plan on it.
I don't need to be fair to the other guy. I don't plan on it.
Do we really believe a single X-37B is the only weapons-capable thing the US has in space?
Tens of years, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1
"the Ministry of the Defence Industry and its primary design bureau, OKB-1, were assigned the task of building the satellite"
"The R-7 rocket was initially designed as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by OKB-1"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1
"the Ministry of the Defence Industry and its primary design bureau, OKB-1, were assigned the task of building the satellite"
"The R-7 rocket was initially designed as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by OKB-1"
If you want to learn more about Russia and China's militarization of space, The Shadow War by Jim Sciutto (Chief National Security Correspondent for CNN) is a good place to start. It could be a one-sided effort (I doubt he has access to RU and PLA national security insiders like he does in the US), but it definitely sounds like Russia and China have moved ahead of the US in this realm, in terms of actual satellite based shenanigans.
You'll also understand the at times seemingly random actions of those two countries a little more.
https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-War-Russias-Operations-America...
You'll also understand the at times seemingly random actions of those two countries a little more.
https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-War-Russias-Operations-America...
The US military has a certain tension in its communications. On one hand they have to get money from the Congress, and the way to do this is "the gap between us and these other guys is shrinking, we can't continue to do our job with what money we have right now, hence, give us more money". On the other hand, they have to communicate to their allies that the gap between themselves and the Russians/Chinese is not actually shrinking, it's all good, and even expanding (which it should better be, considering their budget is equal to the defense budget of the next 20 nations combined).
I personally doubt Russia and China have moved ahead of the US in any realm, satellite, rockets, cyber, or anything. But if you want to get a book sold, you can do worse than arguing as such, and you certainly will have a lot of evidence from the available various Congressional hearings, and other official military communications, just because the Pentagon is not beyond crying wolf when it serves its interests.
Edit: the book you mentioned looks quite good, thanks for mentioning it. I just bought it.
I personally doubt Russia and China have moved ahead of the US in any realm, satellite, rockets, cyber, or anything. But if you want to get a book sold, you can do worse than arguing as such, and you certainly will have a lot of evidence from the available various Congressional hearings, and other official military communications, just because the Pentagon is not beyond crying wolf when it serves its interests.
Edit: the book you mentioned looks quite good, thanks for mentioning it. I just bought it.
Knocking out another countries satellites is what would be done in a first strike nuclear attack according to modern military theorists.
China has tested space to space satellite weapons.
Russia has now tested space to space satellite weapons.
The US has not tested any space to space military assets and doesn't have this functionality as far as what is currently known. (The rumor mill also currently says the US has no such functionality and requires ground take off).
The reason this is important is that any response to a direct satellite attack would potentially take greater than 30 minutes using ground based weapons. (Again rumor mill).
China has tested space to space satellite weapons.
Russia has now tested space to space satellite weapons.
The US has not tested any space to space military assets and doesn't have this functionality as far as what is currently known. (The rumor mill also currently says the US has no such functionality and requires ground take off).
The reason this is important is that any response to a direct satellite attack would potentially take greater than 30 minutes using ground based weapons. (Again rumor mill).
>The US has not tested any space to space military assets and doesn't have this functionality as far as what is currently known. (The rumor mill also currently says the US has no such functionality and requires ground take off).
Um, most recently in 2008 the USA shot down it's own dead satellite by a ASAT missile fired from a ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost
While the story goes that the satellite was dangerous due to frozen ball of hydrazine fuel on board (as it failed soon after launch and still had full fuel load) it was also a perfect chance to test the existing ASAT capability.
Also in 2019 India tested their ASAT missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Shakti
Um, most recently in 2008 the USA shot down it's own dead satellite by a ASAT missile fired from a ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost
While the story goes that the satellite was dangerous due to frozen ball of hydrazine fuel on board (as it failed soon after launch and still had full fuel load) it was also a perfect chance to test the existing ASAT capability.
Also in 2019 India tested their ASAT missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Shakti
If you can dock a spacecraft to the ISS, you have all the capability to space-to-space destroy a satellite and then some.
Judging by the article the system in question simply was maneuvering near another Russian satellite and got really close to it. It didn't fire any projectiles to destroy it or anything like that. So I don't understand why it caused such fuss, apart from the routine nurturing of the Russian scarecrow.
Yes, such systems could be used for military purposes (e.g. for inspecting US spy sattelites or for interfering with their work), but also can be used for civilian as well (e.g. refueling, safe deorbiting, and even some day repairs). It's far easier and more reliable to destroy enemy satellites using ground based systems, after all you just need to create a field of ballistic debris which can be slower than first cosmic velocity, so it will be cheaper than satellite. So I highly doubt purpose of the system is satellite destruction.
Yes, such systems could be used for military purposes (e.g. for inspecting US spy sattelites or for interfering with their work), but also can be used for civilian as well (e.g. refueling, safe deorbiting, and even some day repairs). It's far easier and more reliable to destroy enemy satellites using ground based systems, after all you just need to create a field of ballistic debris which can be slower than first cosmic velocity, so it will be cheaper than satellite. So I highly doubt purpose of the system is satellite destruction.
The main US strategic advantage over Russia is the networked military platforms under the "Total Global Awareness" paradigm which are able to deploy smart precision weapons, and the satellites are at the core of it. In general, one has either to build its own capabilities up to the level similar to the opponent's, which isn't an option for Russia in this case, or to bring down the opponent's capabilities to the one's own level, and that is the only option that at least somewhat plausible for Russia here. So, it is pretty logical that the satellites are going to be the first priority target as much as it is possible for Russian capabilities.
It's interesting that this seems a propaganda piece for Space Force.
America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside to See What It Does https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/
America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside to See What It Does https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/
"It is the first time the UK has made accusations about Russian test-firing in space"
Have there been previous cases of Russian test-firing in space? [edit grammer]
Have there been previous cases of Russian test-firing in space? [edit grammer]
> The US said the Russian satellite system was the same one it raised concerns about in 2018 and earlier this year
Yes, Salyut 3 had either a 23mm or 30mm cannon, which was apparently test fired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun
There were also plans for a manned Soyuz based satellite interceptor armed with cannons and/or missiles but it was never flown and nothing really built:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Soyuz
Kind of curious what this weapon is, said "projectile" so I guess it's not a laser, I was thinking of those "Gods rods" but that's for targeting the ground
Highly recommend watching 007 Goldeneye for a fictional take on this situation. Fantastic movie.
I'm actually surprised to see that India is in race of developing anti-satellite weapons.
I just hope someone is building a Gundam.
Welp have I got a link for you!!
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a33381411...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a33381411...
"threaten the peaceful use of space" and what exact is the US space force for? Cleaning up after Elon's space junk? I don't think so. Kind of hypocritic to accuse others of militarizing space.
The US Space Force is largely a paper reshuffling of what were previously US Air Force Space Command assets. Nothing in it is really new.
That is not pertinent to the point being made above. Regardless of the bureaucratic nomenclature the US is actively in pursuit of weaponizing earth orbit space tech.
Repeatedly saying it with no evidence doesn't make it true. Stop doing this. The US has not to anyone's knowledge put weapons in space. Russia has now. That's a clear escalation.
The point I'm making: None of that has anything to do with the Space Force formation. It was already happening when those assets were under the Air Force, for decades. The radars, GPS satellites, etc. formerly run by the Air Force Space Command are now run by the Space Force. Same thing for the staff; they're the same people.
> Nothing in it is really new.
That isn't really the point. The point is that the US armed forces already use space for military purposes so extensively that they even have a whole branch dedicated to space militarization.
That isn't really the point. The point is that the US armed forces already use space for military purposes so extensively that they even have a whole branch dedicated to space militarization.
> That isn't really the point. The point is that the US armed forces already use space for military purposes so extensively that they even have a whole branch dedicated to space militarization.
Military use of space != "militarization [of space]." My understanding is that the US Space Force pretty much just controls space assets used by the military that are comparable to civilian ones (i.e. sensor, communication, and navigation satellites). I don't think they've stationed any actual weapons in space.
Military use of space != "militarization [of space]." My understanding is that the US Space Force pretty much just controls space assets used by the military that are comparable to civilian ones (i.e. sensor, communication, and navigation satellites). I don't think they've stationed any actual weapons in space.
Military use of space != "militarization [of space]."
if the military uses email to communicate, does that constitute the "militarization of email"? I have to imagine that for most people, "militarization of space" means actually putting weapons platforms in space.
> if the military uses email to communicate, does that constitute the "militarization of email"?
Are you naive to the point where you believe that the US armed forces have spent billions establishing a global comm network just to send emails?
I mean, did you failed to notice that the US's current strategic bet lies on it's ability to operate and manage autonomous vehicles through its global communication network?
Are you naive to the point where you believe that the US armed forces have spent billions establishing a global comm network just to send emails?
I mean, did you failed to notice that the US's current strategic bet lies on it's ability to operate and manage autonomous vehicles through its global communication network?
> Are you naive to the point where you believe that the US armed forces have spent billions establishing a global comm network just to send emails?
I actually think it's very reasonable for the military to have spent billions just improving their human-to-human communication infrastructure. Efficient and highly available communication is vitally important for a functional military without needing to into autonomous vehicles.
I actually think it's very reasonable for the military to have spent billions just improving their human-to-human communication infrastructure. Efficient and highly available communication is vitally important for a functional military without needing to into autonomous vehicles.
I think it's reasonable to differentiate between the military operations satellites in space and the military blowing up satellites in space. IMO the former is a good thing and the latter is a bad thing.
But it’s ok to be blowing up stuff on the ground - gps is used for targeting every day of the week.
IMO yes, although I can totally understand why some might disagree with that opinion.
If GPS went away, the US military wouldn't stop blowing stuff up. They'd just be less accurate with more collateral damage (especially when you take into account the lives that GPS saves by preventing KAL-007 type incidents, more efficient farming, better knowledge of seismology, etc etc)
If GPS went away, the US military wouldn't stop blowing stuff up. They'd just be less accurate with more collateral damage (especially when you take into account the lives that GPS saves by preventing KAL-007 type incidents, more efficient farming, better knowledge of seismology, etc etc)
> I don't think they've stationed any actual weapons in space.
The US Military has spent nearly half a century trying every single trick in the book to get around the 'laws' and put weapons in space. I would be personally extremely shocked to find that the US does not have militarization of space already stocked with weapons and things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#Real_life_...
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a458089.pdf
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_Project_Thor_would_fir...
"Rods from God" / Project Thor is a public example of the US Military's unending desire to put weapons in space.
The US Military has spent nearly half a century trying every single trick in the book to get around the 'laws' and put weapons in space. I would be personally extremely shocked to find that the US does not have militarization of space already stocked with weapons and things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#Real_life_...
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a458089.pdf
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_Project_Thor_would_fir...
"Rods from God" / Project Thor is a public example of the US Military's unending desire to put weapons in space.
Given all the launches accredited to SDI (and whatever it is named now) over the last 3+ decades it would be quite amazing if not one of them was a weapon test.
Just what have they done with all that star wars budget if they were lofting flowers in muzzles?
Just what have they done with all that star wars budget if they were lofting flowers in muzzles?
> Just what have they done with all that star wars budget if they were lofting flowers in muzzles?
Failing to produce much of use, mostly. It's hardly the first unproductive R&D program in our history.
That said, there were absolutely weapons tests as part of SDI; they were just ground-to-space (and eventually turned into the current ABM programs). There were also space-based sensor systems - radars etc. There's no evidence I'm aware of of any US space-to-space weaponry having made it into actual testing.
Failing to produce much of use, mostly. It's hardly the first unproductive R&D program in our history.
That said, there were absolutely weapons tests as part of SDI; they were just ground-to-space (and eventually turned into the current ABM programs). There were also space-based sensor systems - radars etc. There's no evidence I'm aware of of any US space-to-space weaponry having made it into actual testing.
US military presence in space consists of spy satellites and military communications satellites. As far as we know the US hasn't put any space-based weapons up there. There's a difference.
Russia doesn't care about the technical difference and why would they? The USA uses satellite infrastructure to exert influence, including in regions that Russia is active in and considers critical. From a Russian perspective, it is important that they have some way to counteract these capabilities.
The USA and its allies finds it very useful to paint Russia as a hostile and even unethical actor here, but there is no fundamental difference between what Russia does and what the West does.
The USA and its allies finds it very useful to paint Russia as a hostile and even unethical actor here, but there is no fundamental difference between what Russia does and what the West does.
In terms of gaining influence, sure, maybe they're ethically on par. But saying it's reasonable they're weaponizing space because "they need to counteract US capabilities" is a flawed argument. They could counteract US capabilities by investing in the education and economic well-being of their populace, which, if enacted in 2000 when Putin came into power, would have given enormous dividends to technological and military capability by now. Instead they spend their human capital luring college graduates into troll farms in Siberia with the promise of bare minimum shelter and food.
Internally, Russia is a deeply shitty regime, run by mobsters and thugs and preying on its populace. The US has a lot of problems too (and even more so since 2017) but its fundamental framework still prioritizes individual rights and freedom of expression without fear of punishment (although, unlike its allies, it doesn't do much to provide healthcare or education). I would much rather have a world that's dominated by the US than one dominated by Russia or China.
Internally, Russia is a deeply shitty regime, run by mobsters and thugs and preying on its populace. The US has a lot of problems too (and even more so since 2017) but its fundamental framework still prioritizes individual rights and freedom of expression without fear of punishment (although, unlike its allies, it doesn't do much to provide healthcare or education). I would much rather have a world that's dominated by the US than one dominated by Russia or China.
[deleted]
[deleted]
What bothers me most is not "Russia has a Geo-political imperative that has as much a claim to legitimacy as US or China" but the timing ...
Russia has for years been laundering billions through the lax City of London, and days after reports alleging sitting Lords took bribes from Russians to stop Anti Money Laundering Acts, we see a show of strength.
Not for geo politics, but for rich russian elites worrying about the cash.
Once upon a time Putins manoeuvres made some twisted strategic sense. Now not so much.
Russia has for years been laundering billions through the lax City of London, and days after reports alleging sitting Lords took bribes from Russians to stop Anti Money Laundering Acts, we see a show of strength.
Not for geo politics, but for rich russian elites worrying about the cash.
Once upon a time Putins manoeuvres made some twisted strategic sense. Now not so much.
Or, the simpler explanation, they could just be unconnected events.
It's possible - but then Russia was fairly foolish for conducting it anytime near the much heralded report. It seems far more likely the timing of the report was known and not avoided.
Why would they care about a report? That for the Brits to care about. Russia couldn't give a shit and they probably planned this launch years out.
The satellite has been up for years. The test firing is whenever they press a button.
And they give a shit because the UK is making serious noises about tightening up on money laundering - I mean FFS one of our own lawmakers has been implicated in taking russian cash for putting down amendments - that's basically Russian cash paying for UK laws - it's huge. And it will make it harder for Russian money to move in London.
And they give a shit because the UK is making serious noises about tightening up on money laundering - I mean FFS one of our own lawmakers has been implicated in taking russian cash for putting down amendments - that's basically Russian cash paying for UK laws - it's huge. And it will make it harder for Russian money to move in London.
The whole and only reason Brexit was pushed through was because they wanted to avoid tightening up on money laundering. It's literally the City of London's business model and the EU were making regulatory noises.
Err... They?
They are political establishment "Leavers" like ex-trader Farage in this context. There is a whole load of investment and banking money behind the Leave movement.
https://www.insider.com/twenty-one-biggest-donors-to-the-lea...
https://www.insider.com/twenty-one-biggest-donors-to-the-lea...
After saying that Russia was witnessed "launching a projectile with the characteristics of a weapon." the Air Vice Marshall said "Actions like this threaten the peaceful use of space and risk causing debris that could pose a threat to satellites and the space systems on which the world depends."
My understanding of these words are that it wasn't that Russia having weapons in space per se threatens the peaceful use of space but how they tested their weapons in this case. This is because it risked causing debris and a lot of damage. I don't see the basis for calling out the US for hypocrisy based on this article. I'm unaware of any anti-satellite projectile weapons being tested by the US like this over the past 12 years, I suppose you could call the US a hypocrite for previous tests but that's a bit of a stale accusation given how much more peaceful space activity there has been since then.
Edit: for clarity.
My understanding of these words are that it wasn't that Russia having weapons in space per se threatens the peaceful use of space but how they tested their weapons in this case. This is because it risked causing debris and a lot of damage. I don't see the basis for calling out the US for hypocrisy based on this article. I'm unaware of any anti-satellite projectile weapons being tested by the US like this over the past 12 years, I suppose you could call the US a hypocrite for previous tests but that's a bit of a stale accusation given how much more peaceful space activity there has been since then.
Edit: for clarity.
> I'm unaware of any anti-satellite projectile weapons being tested by the US like this over the past 12 years.
It seems very arbitrary to draw the line at 12 years.
In 2008 the US tested and proved their anti-sat tech works [1]. Now they don't need to keep testing it, because everyone knows it works, and that's enough.
Now the Russians want only to do the same thing, and they're bad because of it.
[1] https://science.howstuffworks.com/shoot-down-satellite.htm
It seems very arbitrary to draw the line at 12 years.
In 2008 the US tested and proved their anti-sat tech works [1]. Now they don't need to keep testing it, because everyone knows it works, and that's enough.
Now the Russians want only to do the same thing, and they're bad because of it.
[1] https://science.howstuffworks.com/shoot-down-satellite.htm
Why is Russia or China even trying to take out our satellites at this point? We have SpaceX, guys. We can put replacements up whenever we want to. How about the Russians start figuring out how to use a launch system that isn't worrying about whether or not its saved up enough for retirement?
Debris in orbit has a finite limit until we're then trapped on this planet. Micrometeroids and space trash will katamari until we then have to start thinking about blowing significant parts of our geocentric orbit. Warfare in space is a negative-sum game for every player.
What is katamari in this sense?
Katamari is a Japanese term used for "clump" or "clod".
It is basically what dung beetles do. They roll things up until they're bigger. The bigger the ball, the faster it grows from size. Like making a snowman.
I'm referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEAP-4iUirY
To answer your question, in this sense: I mean to say that the more space debris there is hurtling through our orbit capturing other space debris, the more likely we are to end up with micrometeroids building up mass, momentum and velocity until we just end up with an extremely hostile environment for our satellites and vehicles.
It is basically what dung beetles do. They roll things up until they're bigger. The bigger the ball, the faster it grows from size. Like making a snowman.
I'm referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEAP-4iUirY
To answer your question, in this sense: I mean to say that the more space debris there is hurtling through our orbit capturing other space debris, the more likely we are to end up with micrometeroids building up mass, momentum and velocity until we just end up with an extremely hostile environment for our satellites and vehicles.
Ah, thanks. I'd found a videogame ref, based on the same definition I now realise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katamari
There is an established term, Kessler syndrome, effectively a runaway debris cascade:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katamari
There is an established term, Kessler syndrome, effectively a runaway debris cascade:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
this is how we'll not get to mars.
I envision a future where nation-states governed by strong-dictators shoot down each other's mars attempts while also denying climate change exists.
I envision a future where nation-states governed by strong-dictators shoot down each other's mars attempts while also denying climate change exists.
Sounds like something Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven would write, maybe with some Peter F. Hamilton thrown in for good measure.
How long would it take SpaceX & other companies to launch replacements? (Further, how much would a large attack against US space infrastructure affect SpaceX's capabilities?) In that time, how much damage would be done to US government agencies, military, corporations, and citizens' lives?
Darpa's recent Responsive Launch Competition (launch a payload to space with 30 days notice) ended without a winner. So my guess is more than 30 days, and that's assuming that you already have a replacement ready to launch
I have no clue as to why Russia insists upon playing the neighborhood punk in international politics. I mean to what end?
They’ve got massive problems internally, most of their armed forces run on vapors, are they hoping to sell this to the highest bidder? Just a few last chest thumps before they become less relevant? They still have some good lead in some highly technical areas like weapons and rocketry and ancillary technology, but most everything else is being wasted and no one seems to care there. It’s a slow degradation. So much potential just wasted.
They could work with Europe, even the US, if they just reset the way they play. Play your part—you’re not the old USSR any more.
They’ve got massive problems internally, most of their armed forces run on vapors, are they hoping to sell this to the highest bidder? Just a few last chest thumps before they become less relevant? They still have some good lead in some highly technical areas like weapons and rocketry and ancillary technology, but most everything else is being wasted and no one seems to care there. It’s a slow degradation. So much potential just wasted.
They could work with Europe, even the US, if they just reset the way they play. Play your part—you’re not the old USSR any more.
Like, I have no clue why western media is constantly trying to scare citizens. I guess, they need to be kept in a state of alertness, or fear of an enemy.
> I have no clue as to why Russia insists upon playing the neighborhood punk in international politics.
This is why:
> They’ve got massive problems internally...
An external enemy to blame does wonders.
This is why:
> They’ve got massive problems internally...
An external enemy to blame does wonders.
I don’t think that’s it. This is more for international audiences. For internal distraction they’ll threaten some Caucasus republic or Ukraine.
Hard to blame economic woes on internal threats; "the Americans are sanctioning/interfering our exports" is a lot easier to sell.
Cuba and North Korea have done this for decades; it works well.
Cuba and North Korea have done this for decades; it works well.
[deleted]
Applies globally.
Literally.
Literally.
Someone envies that position..
Oh yeah, and overthrowing the governments all over the world isn’t “playing the punk”.
“Look, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!”... One destroyed country later: “So we were wrong.”
Take Ukraine as an example. Russia had a lot of capital invested there, 70% or so were speaking Russian at home. Next thing you know, there’re all those new tv stations literary coming out nowhere(like Espresso TV) and financed from abroad, fueling the rage. Nuland handing out cookies at Maidan. How do you call that? The country I was living in had it government overthrown in a matter of months.
That’s just a world we live in, big countries play big.
“Look, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!”... One destroyed country later: “So we were wrong.”
Take Ukraine as an example. Russia had a lot of capital invested there, 70% or so were speaking Russian at home. Next thing you know, there’re all those new tv stations literary coming out nowhere(like Espresso TV) and financed from abroad, fueling the rage. Nuland handing out cookies at Maidan. How do you call that? The country I was living in had it government overthrown in a matter of months.
That’s just a world we live in, big countries play big.
I mean sure, but we can expend resources, they don’t have that luxury.
It’s like Venezuela threatening to invade Columbia. I guess they could try, but they have much bigger issues to deal with than showing they “have more soldiers”.
It’s like Venezuela threatening to invade Columbia. I guess they could try, but they have much bigger issues to deal with than showing they “have more soldiers”.
I sometimes think how much more powerful Russia would be if they just adapted and played nice with everyone else. Probably on par with China.
Perhaps it's the communist past that made them this way. Imperial Russia made a huge effort to westernize and modernize, but after the revolution, they kind of slid backwards, into some weird "self-sufficient but still world power" way of thinking.
They have nothing to speak of when it comes to the economy, it's mostly natural resources being exported, and it's all owned by a few very rich individuals. Sad state of affairs.
Perhaps it's the communist past that made them this way. Imperial Russia made a huge effort to westernize and modernize, but after the revolution, they kind of slid backwards, into some weird "self-sufficient but still world power" way of thinking.
They have nothing to speak of when it comes to the economy, it's mostly natural resources being exported, and it's all owned by a few very rich individuals. Sad state of affairs.
It's because Russia as a country does not matter to those leading it. Putin and his friends have been plundering it hard since the USSR fell and nothing matters as long as they can keep raking in a significant portion of the country's GDP.
That's why things like the Magnitsky act were so offensive to Russian leaders, because it hurt their riches personally, and also why they were so effective, until a certain someone basically unilaterally killed them
> but most everything else is being wasted and no one seems to care there. It’s a slow degradation.
To be fair, a lot of their population does care and has noticed that Putin has failed to deliver on his promises. They're aware that their income / standard of living is facing a decade plus decline (they're on year seven of that now). In the past good times Putin utilized the oil price boom to very aggressively consolidate his power, install a new authoritarian system, wipe out a lot of human rights and all free press. Now he's formally dictator for life. He was busy while the people were enjoying the momentary prosperity that the oil boom brought. Pretty fucked up frankly, the Russian people get a moment's reprieve from a century of horrors, and another dictator uses that time as a distraction to hijack their brand new, fragile democracy. Now they're trapped and from everything I've read, they're largely aware of it. They see what's happening to their standard of living gains. And up to recently they've had pretty easy outside access to the Internet and what's true or not true (which is why Runet has often been filled with anti-state and anti-Putin memes). The problem is: once a system like that is installed, and the python begins to squeeze, how can you do anything about it? Short of armed, massive, violent revolution. The Russian state won't allow protests, whatever force is used against them, they're capable of and willing to responding with far greater force.
To be fair, a lot of their population does care and has noticed that Putin has failed to deliver on his promises. They're aware that their income / standard of living is facing a decade plus decline (they're on year seven of that now). In the past good times Putin utilized the oil price boom to very aggressively consolidate his power, install a new authoritarian system, wipe out a lot of human rights and all free press. Now he's formally dictator for life. He was busy while the people were enjoying the momentary prosperity that the oil boom brought. Pretty fucked up frankly, the Russian people get a moment's reprieve from a century of horrors, and another dictator uses that time as a distraction to hijack their brand new, fragile democracy. Now they're trapped and from everything I've read, they're largely aware of it. They see what's happening to their standard of living gains. And up to recently they've had pretty easy outside access to the Internet and what's true or not true (which is why Runet has often been filled with anti-state and anti-Putin memes). The problem is: once a system like that is installed, and the python begins to squeeze, how can you do anything about it? Short of armed, massive, violent revolution. The Russian state won't allow protests, whatever force is used against them, they're capable of and willing to responding with far greater force.
Russian democracy wouldn't have been so fragile if the free market reforms of the 90s (Most of them at the advice of the finest economic minds of the century.) weren't such a complete and utter disaster.
Things didn't get better until Putin took charge. This wasn't a dictator making his way in through the back door during a period of good times, this was a dictator who was credited by Russians (correctly or otherwise) for bringing about those good times.
Things didn't get better until Putin took charge. This wasn't a dictator making his way in through the back door during a period of good times, this was a dictator who was credited by Russians (correctly or otherwise) for bringing about those good times.
Medvedev would have been better. He seemed to understand capitalism and how it could help Russians, but it seems the echo of the drunk fool[1] who sold Russia out was impossible to drown out, so mr Putin comes in on his white horse.
[1]The guy who pretty much let let any manoeuverer leach off the state bringing about the beginnings of its plunder by later oligarchs.
[1]The guy who pretty much let let any manoeuverer leach off the state bringing about the beginnings of its plunder by later oligarchs.
I am not sure Russia has a lead on anything other than miniature nuclear reactors anymore.
No you can't (put something into orbit whenever you want to). Both SpaceX launch sites (Vanderberg AFB and Cape Canaveral) are very close to oceans, and any surface to air missile from a ship in international waters will reliably prevent launch attempts. Of course, this'll mean war, but the same can be said about shooting down sats in space. In other words, this news article is a part of blame and smear campaign against China and Russia; lacking any details and evidence, just like "Taliban bounties"
Russian surveillance vessels or warships in the proximity of Cape Canaveral and Kings Bay NSB have and will provoke a fleet-level response of hunter-killer submarines that harass them out of the Atlantic.
Russia has no capability to project naval power to this region.
Russia has no capability to project naval power to this region.
SpaceX is one part of a replacement solution. But, you would still have to fund and build all those replacements... which could take decades, and a lot of surveillance capabilities and therefore a lot of potential deaths could occur in that time from unseen attacks.
Don't get me wrong, Russia aren't some good guy, but when you actively do a thing for tens of years and then the other guy does that thing, you have no moral high ground left to complain.