Fearing war in space, Pentagon fortifies satellites

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Lady Marva
    Senior Member
    • Wednesday, June 17, 2015
    • 13321

    #1

    Fearing war in space, Pentagon fortifies satellites

    Would knocking out satellites have the same kinds of results that a nuke would?

    http://pilotonline.com/news/nation-w...51d891826.html
    The first salvo was a missile launch by the Chinese in 2007 that blew up a dead satellite and littered space with thousands of pieces of debris. But it was another Chinese launch three years ago that made the Pentagon really snap to attention, opening up the possibility that outer space would become a new front in modern warfare.

    This time, the rocket reached close to a far more distant orbit - one that's more than 22,000 miles away - and just happens to be where the United States parks its most sensitive national security satellites, used for tasks such as guiding precision bombs and spying on adversaries.

    The flyby served as a wake-up call and prompted the Defense Department and intelligence agencies to begin spending billions of dollars to protect what Air Force Gen. John Hyten in an interview called the "most valuable real estate in space."

    Faced with the prospect of hostilities there, defense officials are developing ways to protect exposed satellites floating in orbit and to keep apprised of what an enemy is doing hundreds, if not thousands, of miles above Earth's surface. They are making satellites more resilient, enabling them to withstand jamming efforts.

    And instead of relying only on large and expensive systems, defense officials plan to send swarms of small satellites into orbit that are much more difficult to target.

    At the same time, the Pentagon has designated the Air Force secretary a "principal space adviser," with authority to coordinate actions in space across the Defense Department. Agencies have begun participating in war-game scenarios involving space combat at the recently activated Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center.

    The flurry of activity raises the specter of a new technological arms race, this one in space, as nations jockey for advantage. The Pentagon is even developing what is known as the "Space Fence," which would allow it to better track debris in space.

    National security officials are not only concerned that missiles could take out their satellites but also that a craft's equipment could be easily jammed. Potential enemies could "dazzle" sensors, temporarily blinding them, or deploy tiny "parasitic satellites" that attach to host satellites and do their worst. That could lead to soldiers stranded on the battlefield with little means of communication or missiles that would not be able to find their targets.
    Continued at link.
  • Adam
    The way to a woman's heart is through her taste buds.
    • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
    • 16885

    #2
    Originally posted by Lady Marva View Post
    Would knocking out satellites have the same kinds of results that a nuke would?

    Continued at link.
    Not quite, but it would be pretty close, assuming that you're talking about the EMP effect of a nuke, and not the whole blowing-shit-up part.

    Assuming a sizable number of satellites were knocked out, it would likely cripple GPS (probably a primary target, since virtually all military movement is guided by GPS now: ships, missiles, etc.), and it would be surprisingly easy to basically cripple communications, both civilian and military, just by knocking out a few satellites. Almost every electronic device would become deaf and mute without satellites. Your computer would still work, but about all you could do with it is type up a letter in Word and then lick a stamp.
    It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
    In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
    Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
    Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

    Comment

    • scott
      Go-to Guru
      • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
      • 15799

      #3
      Originally posted by Adam View Post
      Not quite, but it would be pretty close, assuming that you're talking about the EMP effect of a nuke, and not the whole blowing-shit-up part.

      Assuming a sizable number of satellites were knocked out, it would likely cripple GPS (probably a primary target, since virtually all military movement is guided by GPS now: ships, missiles, etc.), and it would be surprisingly easy to basically cripple communications, both civilian and military, just by knocking out a few satellites. Almost every electronic device would become deaf and mute without satellites. Your computer would still work, but about all you could do with it is type up a letter in Word and then lick a stamp.
      As true as that is, there's way more than "a few" that would need to be knocked out. There are hundreds of GPS satellites we know of. Almost the entire planet can be covered with 12. There are thousands of communications satellites. There are hundreds of relay satellites that almost nobody knows about.

      The weapon technology to wage war in space from space is too primitive to have much of an effect. We don't have laser beams that can just "pew pew" multiple targets away. Satellite warfare would mostly be missiles and drones crashing into targets.
      "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
      -John Locke

      "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
      -Newman

      "Grievance groups are playing King of the Hill."
      -Newman

      Comment

      • Lady Marva
        Senior Member
        • Wednesday, June 17, 2015
        • 13321

        #4
        Originally posted by Adam View Post
        Not quite, but it would be pretty close, assuming that you're talking about the EMP effect of a nuke, and not the whole blowing-shit-up part.

        Assuming a sizable number of satellites were knocked out, it would likely cripple GPS (probably a primary target, since virtually all military movement is guided by GPS now: ships, missiles, etc.), and it would be surprisingly easy to basically cripple communications, both civilian and military, just by knocking out a few satellites. Almost every electronic device would become deaf and mute without satellites. Your computer would still work, but about all you could do with it is type up a letter in Word and then lick a stamp.
        Is the deterrence like that of nukes? That it would be just as bad for the nuking country as for the nuked?

        Comment

        • Adam
          The way to a woman's heart is through her taste buds.
          • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
          • 16885

          #5
          Originally posted by Lady Marva View Post
          Is the deterrence like that of nukes? That it would be just as bad for the nuking country as for the nuked?
          I don't really think so. I don't really think that there's a real mutually-assured-destruction aspect from satellites getting knocked out.
          It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
          In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
          Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
          Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

          Comment

          • Norm dePlume
            Err foil
            • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
            • 14904

            #6
            Originally posted by Adam View Post
            I don't really think so. I don't really think that there's a real mutually-assured-destruction aspect from satellites getting knocked out.
            Well, there is Kessler syndrome, which would be pretty grim for humanity, but might not be much of a deterrent for an enemy willing to forgo any sort of utilization of space. On the other hand, an enemy who would forgo the utilization of space probably wouldn't develop the launch vehicle for killing satellites.
            Enjoy.

            Comment

            Working...