Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 397 posts

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#211

Post by gorgoiler »

mapt wrote: post #100
notahacker wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically pretty much anything in orbit is a viable space to space weapon (for related reasons all space propulsion is ITAR controlled) so it was never practical to ban them. Space to earth, maybe, but that isn't unless it hits vague 'WMD' categories, and I'm not sure space to ground is necessarily what the US is declaring here. I suspect whatever capability the US is referring to is far more "counter space" than…

A bullet travels at a relative speed of about 250 to 1250m/s. A ~10g projectile moving that fast has an energy of 600-16000 joules. Everything in low Earth orbit is moving at 7600m/s. A ~10g projectile moving that fast has an energy of 580,000 joules. Getting hit by something moving that fast is roughly equivalent to getting hit by a whole ammo case of bullets at the same speed. There is no armor that can protect you…

While armor is indeed much harder in space, it is not impossible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield

Whipple shields use spaced plates to disperse the impact of a projectile on the first plate over a larger area on the second plate, and so on and so forth over four or five plates such that the final plate is not penetrated.

My father worked on high velocity impact ballistics and has some very nice multiple exposure results. The light gas guns used to propel the test cubes are just as interesting as the shields themselves.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#212

Post by GMoromisato »

WillAdams wrote: post #144

C.J. Cherryh has a memorable quote on this in her _Downbelow Station_. >They were armed, the swift exploration ships, as they had always been, venturing as they did into the unknown; but now they were used in a new way, to visit stations and pull them into line. That was bitterest of all, that the crews of the probe ships, who had been the heroes of the Beyond, became the Company enforcers.

One of my favorite SF books.

I feel that applies more to Russia's space program--some cosmonauts (not all, of course) support Putin's war.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#213

Post by mytailorisrich »

jonkoops wrote: post #8

Space really should be a neutral ground like Antarctica. Especially since the consequences of space debris might trigger the Kessler effect [1], denying humanity future access to low-earth orbit for the considerable future. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Space is too important and strategic for it to remain free of weapons and military presence.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#215

Post by wongarsu »

mschuster91 wrote: post #208
wat10000 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite as bad as that. Space is big and hitting stuff is really hard. Your hand grenade scenario has effectively been done a few times and it (obviously) didn't make LEO unusable. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision There are thousands of pieces of debris in LEO large enough to be tracked, and a lot more that's too small to track but big enough to do serious damage. This isn't…

> Adding a few thousand more pieces of debris would not be even remotely as bad as using a tactical nuclear weapon in war would be. The worst effect would be a nuclear weapon in space. The resulting EMP would probably fry more than enough electric and electronic devices to throw back whatever country is hit by it by decades .

The US famously did that in the 60s (detonating nukes at roughly the height of today's ISS)[1]. Also some less famous ones, including a Soviet test that resulted in the EMP destroying a power plant [2].

Properly aimed at a populated area it would be devastating. And you can detonate bombs far from your enemy's country, then let earth's magnetic field lines transfer the EMP pulse to their territory. Good luck defending against that

That said, it'd take far more than one bomb to take down a country, unless we are talking city states

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosio...

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#216

Post by mrguyorama »

mrtksn wrote: post #106
Merad wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Space weapons" here most likely means some combination of anti-satellite weapons and electronic warfare such as GPS jammers. AFAIK it's been widely believed that the USSR/Russia has had these capabilities in orbit since the 80s. I'd be willing to bet that the US has had them for decades as well, it just hasn't been publicly acknowledged.

For some reason they did not provide any details beyond that they have kinetic and non-kinetic means. Kinetik indeed can mean just ability to blow up satellites but IMHO it is good enough to trigger an arms race.

The arms race was always happening. Russia put a weapon on a space asset decades ago, basically for shits and giggles, but was recently practicing a space asset maneuvering and deploying a smaller asset, and there's very little justification for such a system other than "Attack another satellite", especially since no public cover has been offered.

Both Russia and China have demonstrated anti-satellite weapons. Ages ago.

Space being not militarized was always a fiction. Space was militarized first and foremost, and everything NASA ever did was to encourage and help that goal. This has only gotten dramatically less symbolic and more actually meaningful since recent massive advances in space sensor platforms and scale.

This is only a change in public messaging unfortunately.

This was always the inevitable outcome, because there's no "Bigger fish" to make independent nations follow any rule other than the rule of the jungle, and space is the highest ground.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#217

Post by FuckButtons »

spaceuhhbased wrote: post #157

The Soviet Union placed a 23mm autocannon in orbit as part of Salyut 3, a manned space station launched in June 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun Hard to be certain due to Cold War secrecy, but the consensus seems to be that they conducted several test-firings before the station was finally deorbited.

using a 23mm auto cannon on orbit is more or less useless. There’s no way to reasonably shoot something when your relative velocities could easily be strictly greater than the bullets. Even if something is coming straight towards you it’s very difficult to aim when you have to take into account orbital mechanics. You would need a huge amount of RCS fuel in order to counteract the impulse from the gun. And even if you did shoot the gun if you miss, you now have a bunch of bullets that share your orbit and will at some point intercept your flight path again, if you don’t miss, you still have shrapnel sharing your orbital path.

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#218

Post by [deleted] »

ak39 wrote: post #187
voidUpdate wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which forbids placing "nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner", but you can get around that by saying that it's just a conventional weapon, not nuclear or WMD. If it's for space to space combat, you could say that any weapon is potentially a WMD due to the Kessler potential, but if…

What is the point of any treaty with the current US administration which does not play by international laws? Rules and laws that the USA itself spearheaded after WW2.

[deleted]

Re: US confirms for first time it has deployed space weapons

#219

Post by ctkhn »

mschuster91 wrote: post #208
wat10000 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite as bad as that. Space is big and hitting stuff is really hard. Your hand grenade scenario has effectively been done a few times and it (obviously) didn't make LEO unusable. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision There are thousands of pieces of debris in LEO large enough to be tracked, and a lot more that's too small to track but big enough to do serious damage. This isn't…

> Adding a few thousand more pieces of debris would not be even remotely as bad as using a tactical nuclear weapon in war would be. The worst effect would be a nuclear weapon in space. The resulting EMP would probably fry more than enough electric and electronic devices to throw back whatever country is hit by it by decades .

If someone launched a nuke in space how would other nuclear powers react? I doubt they would assume "this is probably just an EMP and not a direct nuclear strike on our territory"
Post reply on HN