"Destabilising" Russian Space Threat

Josh_TN said:
I think the problem for Russia is that the U.S. is about to orbit a brand new space architecture that gives it a huge information overmatch, on top of its existing superior ISR and communication capabilities. The U.S. has launches for ~200 Tracking and Transport layer satellites in the next ~15 months on the books, and the NRO likely will add 100-200 of its Starshield based platforms in the same timeframe. The capability that brings, along with the resilience of such a large constellation, required an asymmetrical response.
Click to expand...

Huh? Not even a 10th of that amount.
 
Justo Miranda said:
These are not predictions, I'm reading the manual: universities in May 1968, the oil crisis of 1973, peace talks in Paris after losing the Vietnam War... I hope that at least this time there will be no terrorism at the Olympic Games, because it is also in the manual.It's all in the history books and newspaper archives.
Click to expand...
Well, we've gone off track here, the US isn't physically involved in Ukraine, so that makes it fundamentally different to the Vietnam War, unless you replace the US with Russia in the Vietnam analogy.
 
Forest Green said:
Well, we've gone off track here, the US isn't physically involved in Ukraine, so that makes it fundamentally different to the Vietnam War, unless you replace the US with Russia in the Vietnam analogy.
Click to expand...

The U.S. is helping to fund the war in Ukraine. Just like Vietnam, President Kennedy was willing to send money and equipment but no ground troops. Same thing with Ukraine.
 
edwest4 said:
The U.S. is helping to fund the war in Ukraine. Just like Vietnam, President Kennedy was willing to send money and equipment but no ground troops. Same thing with Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and the USSR and Chinese were helping fund/supply the NVA during the Vietnam War, so the analogy still works better the other way around.
 
Forest Green said:
Well, we've gone off track here, the US isn't physically involved in Ukraine, so that makes it fundamentally different to the Vietnam War, unless you replace the US with Russia in the Vietnam analogy.
Click to expand...


I find the current situation fascinating, history never repeats itself in the same way, even if they try to redirect it. The weaknesses of the Western world are the same as they were in 1968: middle-class families making great sacrifices to pay for their children's college, divided Europe, and the United States with the same old racial problems. Russia's strategy is also the same: to amplify already existing problems in order to disguise its weakness. I wonder what will happen this time: Twenty years of terrorism and fifty years of socialism followed by the fall of the wall? A new Russia that is more integrated into Europe? A new isolationist America? At least one thing hasn't worked as it did in 1973: oil isn't going up in price.
 
Arjen said:
To quote Niels Bohr:
'It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future'.
Click to expand...


The Germans knew that Niels Bohr was going to be flown from Sweden to Scotland in a BOAC De Havilland Mosquito Mk. VI and sent two Fw 190 A-5/U2N fighters from the Aalborg-based Nachtjagdkommando 190 to intercept him. The scientist spent most of the trip almost unconscious due to lack of oxygen, unaware that the Mosquito's crew had orders to throw him into the sea if his plane was intercepted. When, years later, someone told him how close he had come to dying, he realized that the predictions of both sides had failed.
 
Justo Miranda said:
I find the current situation fascinating, history never repeats itself in the same way, even if they try to redirect it. The weaknesses of the Western world are the same as they were in 1968: middle-class families making great sacrifices to pay for their children's college, divided Europe, and the United States with the same old racial problems. Russia's strategy is also the same: to amplify already existing problems in order to disguise its weakness. I wonder what will happen this time: Twenty years of terrorism and fifty years of socialism followed by the fall of the wall? A new Russia that is more integrated into Europe? A new isolationist America? At least one thing hasn't worked as it did in 1973: oil isn't going up in price.
Click to expand...
You talk about Western problems as if Russia has none. You think it has no racial problems or poverty? They do it's just that protests tend not to be allowed. Divided Europe? Not really, there's Orban being Orban and that's about it. The only real similarity with 1968 is that Russia is invading and annexing a European country again, last time it was Czechoslovakia, this time it's Ukraine. In 1968 it took less than 2 days, this time its over 2 years and counting.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
Huh? Not even a 10th of that amount.
Click to expand...

Your mileage may differ.


my edit (ON ORBIT):

0 Transport 20 York Space Systems, Lockheed Martin
0 Tracking 8 SpaceX, L3Harris

my edit (TO ORBIT INSIDE THE NEXT YEAR-ish):

1 Transport 126 York Space Systems, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman
1 Tracking 35 L3Harris, Northrop Gumman, Raytheon
1 Demo 12 York Space Systems

my edit (ON CONTRACT FOR ORBIT BY THE END OF 2027)

2 Transport 72 Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin
2 Transport 100 York Space Systems, TBA
2 Transport 44 (approx.) TBA
2 Tracking 52 (approx.) TBA
2 Demo 20 (approx.) TBA

www.airandspaceforces.com

SDA Awards Deal to York for 62 More LEO Satellites

The Space Development Agency (SDA) awarded a $615 million contract to York Space Systems for 62 satellites for its PWSA constellation.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com


known Falcon 9 SDA launches explicitly associated with Tranche 1 vehicles:


September 2024[379] F9 B5 VSFB,
SLC-4E SDA Tranche 1 Tracking layer T1TL-B[380] Polar LEO SDA

October 2024[379] F9 B5 VSFB,
SLC-4E SDA Tranche 1 Tracking layer T1TL-C[380] Polar LEO SDA

November 2024[379] F9 B5 VSFB,
SLC-4E SDA Tranche 1 Tracking layer T1TL-D[380] Polar LEO SDA

December 2024[379] F9 B5 VSFB,
SLC-4E SDA Tranche 1 Tracking layer T1TL-E[380] Polar LEO SDA

Q4 2024[379] F9 B5 VSFB,
SLC-4E SDA Tranche 1 Transport layer T1TR-C[380] Polar LEO SDA

~2025 F9 B5 VSFB,
SLC-4E SDA Tranche 1 Transport layer T1TL-F[451][452] Polar LEO SDA
Launch is part of Phase 2 US Air Force contract awarded in 2022.
~2025 F9 B5 VSFB,
SLC-4E SDA Tranche 1 Transport layer T1TR-A[451][452] Polar LEO SDA
Launch is part of Phase 2 US Air Force contract awarded in 2022.
~2025 F9 B5 VSFB,
SLC-4E SDA Tranche 1 Transport layer T1TR-E[451][452] Polar LEO SDA
Launch is part of Phase 2 US Air Force contract awarded in 2022.
~2025 F9 B5 VSFB,
SLC-4E SDA Tranche 1 Transport layer T2TL-A[451][452] Polar LEO SDA
Launch is part of Phase 2 US Air Force contract awarded in 2022.
~2025 F9 B5 VSFB,
SLC-4E SDA Tranche 1 Transport layer T2TL-C[451][452] Polar LEO SDA


The above list excludes NROL launches and several LEO launches by the SDA that are not explicit about their payloads.


en.wikipedia.org

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
In February, White House officials asserted that Russia is developing a space-based anti-satellite system that would violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in orbit. They later confirmed media speculation that the system in question is a nuclear weapon. Part 1 of this article summarizes what has been revealed about the alleged weapon so far and attempts to chart academic and laboratory research on nuclear explosions in space done in Russia in recent years. It also examines a Russian satellite launch that the US believes is related to the development of the weapon. Part 2 will explore Russian work on alternative directed-energy weapon systems that would mimic some of the effects of nuclear explosions in space without having the same devastating consequences.
Click to expand...
 
One semi-passive way of countering such a device would be to posion the warhead with neutron radiation from a particle beam or such. Of course with a more powerful particle beam you could destroy the satellite, or the LV without leaving any evidence of who done it.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Once semi-passive way of countering such a device would be to posion the warhead with neutron radiation from a particle beam or such. Of course with a more powerful particle beam you could destroy the satellite, or the LV without leaving any evidence of who done it.
Click to expand...

I would think killing the electronics of such a device a lot easier than directly effecting the warhead. But probably the biggest issue is positively identifying the payload in the first place.
 
Josh_TN said:
I would think killing the electronics of such a device a lot easier than directly effecting the warhead. But probably the biggest issue is positively identifying the payload in the first place.
Click to expand...
Radiation should give it away. Need to carry out in-space inspections using nearby satellites. Intelligence may also give it away, or at least narrow it down to a select few, which would then all have to be neutroned.
 
Flyaway said:
Here’s another new relevant article.

satelliteobservation.net

Countering constellations: Nuke the entire site in orbit!

What would a high-altitude nuclear explosion do to satellites? A review of the many damage mechanisms
satelliteobservation.net satelliteobservation.net
Click to expand...
This is another reason I liked the concept of orbital antenna farms... very large assets with huge dishes that could perhaps be moved higher up via solar thermal that can only get better:
www.eurekalert.org

Scientists generate heat over 1,000 degrees Celsius with solar power instead of fossil fuel

Instead of burning fossil fuels to smelt steel and cook cement, researchers in Switzerland want to use heat from the sun. The proof-of-concept study, published May 15 in the journal <em>Device</em>, uses synthetic quartz to trap solar energy at temperatures over 1,000°C (1,832°F), demonstrating...
www.eurekalert.org

Simple, rugged...just switch out breadboards.

Latency would suffer, but would be innately rad-hardened.

The article says the effects could be negligible.

If you have a big asset with heavy dishes that don't need replacing, then satellite servicing makes sense.

Space assets need to be more rugged:
www.wired.com

Strategic Defense: Military Uses of the Moon & Asteroids (1983)

On the evening of 23 March 1983, President Ronald Reagan addressed the people of the United States from the Oval Office. Citing aggressive moves on the part of the Soviet Union, he defended proposed increases in U.S. military spending and the introduction of new missiles and bombers. He then...
www.wired.com www.wired.com
 
Last edited:
An increase in the sun's magnetic activity is expected in the coming weeks. Fortunately, we all know that there are no nuclear weapons in orbit that could be activated by CME radiation.:rolleyes:
 
Justo Miranda said:
An increase in the sun's magnetic activity is expected in the coming weeks. Fortunately, we all know that there are no nuclear weapons in orbit that could be activated by CME radiation.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If you think that nuclear weapon could be detonated by solar radiation, I strongly recommend you to go back to middle school and repeat the physics course.
 
Dilandu said:
If you think that nuclear weapon could be detonated by solar radiation, I strongly recommend you to go back to middle school and repeat the physics course.
Click to expand...
Detonated? By no means, when I used the word activate did I mean that radiation could affect their re-entry systems into the atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org

Carrington Event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Fortunately, those things that might fall on the Campi Flegrei or Yellowstone exist only in the imagination of Hollywood screenwriters. No one would be crazy enough to do something like that in real life.
 
Last edited:
Justo Miranda said:
Detonated? By no means, when I used the word activate did I mean that radiation could affect their re-entry systems into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
For what possible reason the nuclear orbital mine - and if I understood correctly, this whole tread is about such - may need any kind of re-entry system?
 
Dilandu said:
For what possible reason the nuclear orbital mine - and if I understood correctly, this whole tread is about such - may need any kind of re-entry system?
Click to expand...
Because its host satellite was knocked off course, or maybe said event just upsets the the anti-tamper fuse, and triggers a war. It's a bad idea to be callous with space and putting a nuke in orbit is as callous as it gets.

Dilandu said:
For what possible reason the nuclear orbital mine - and if I understood correctly, this whole tread is about such - may need any kind of re-entry system?
Click to expand...
If a nuclear weapon is put in space, who's to know the nature or intended purpose of it?
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Because its host satellite was knocked off course, or maybe said event just upsets the the anti-tamper fuse, and triggers a war. It's a bad idea to be callous with space and putting a nuke in orbit is as callous as it gets.
Click to expand...
Insurance companies can't guarantee the survival of a dictator, but the word nuclear has done it for half a century.
 

Attachments

  • L071106e.jpg
    L071106e.jpg
    5.1 MB · Views: 19
Forest Green said:
Because its host satellite was knocked off course, or maybe said event just upsets the the anti-tamper fuse, and triggers a war.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Do you have any understanding how nuclear weapon works? It require a series of fuzes working in perfect order to produce implosion and nuclear blast. If "anti-tamper fuse" would be activated, all you would have is a small chemical explosion and some radioactive dust on orbit.

Seriously, even by laughable standards of this particuarly laughable tread, this is too much.
 
Dilandu said:
Sigh. Do you have any understanding how nuclear weapon works? It require a series of fuzes working in perfect order to produce implosion and nuclear blast. If "anti-tamper fuse" would be activated, all you would have is a small chemical explosion and some radioactive dust on orbit.

Seriously, even by laughable standards of this particuarly laughable tread, this is too much.
Click to expand...
It would be tragic if the trigger for nuclear war were a natural phenomenon, but it is a more likely option than a political decision. If Tungushka had fallen on Moscow during the Cuban missile crisis, no one would have believed astronomers
 
Dilandu said:
Sigh. Do you have any understanding how nuclear weapon works? It require a series of fuzes working in perfect order to produce implosion and nuclear blast. If "anti-tamper fuse" would be activated, all you would have is a small chemical explosion and some radioactive dust on orbit.

Seriously, even by laughable standards of this particuarly laughable tread, this is too much.
Click to expand...
Lot of optimistic assumptions about the unknown here. Ar ethe really going to design an anti-tamper fuse that simply neutralises the satellite with a chemical explosion if it's tampered with? If so it would be fantastic, but it would also somewhat defeat the purpose of said fuse.
Justo Miranda said:
It would be tragic if the trigger for nuclear war were a natural phenomenon, but it is a more likely option than a political decision. If Tungushka had fallen on Moscow during the Cuban missile crisis, no one would have believed astronomers
Click to expand...
A US bomber carrying a H-Bomb crashed in the 1950s and only a faulty fuse stopped it exploding.
 
Would this thread be better placed in 'theoretical' or the 'bar' due to its speculative nature ?
 

Attachments

  • 65e23aca1f826.image.jpg
    65e23aca1f826.image.jpg
    114.1 KB · Views: 17
Forest Green said:
Lot of optimistic assumptions about the unknown here. Ar ethe really going to design an anti-tamper fuse that simply neutralises the satellite with a chemical explosion if it's tampered with? If so it would be fantastic, but it would also somewhat defeat the purpose of said fuse.
Click to expand...
Implosion nukes are really, really picky about how they have to be squeezed to work. Do you remember the movie "Peacemaker" starring George Clooney? At the climax, the nuke is in a city somewhere (been like 25 years since I watched it) and Clooney's character pries one of the explosive charges out of the "soccer ball". Then he and the love interest run like hell to get clear of the blast area. No nuclear boom, but one hell of a mess with plutonium dust everywhere. That's really how it'd work.

All it'd take to anti-tamper a nuke is to fire one charge in the lens out of time. even if the other charges detonated sympathetically, the implosion wouldn't be even and at best/worst it'd fizzle for a small % of the rated yield. The most likely result would be no fission at all and dust and fragments of the satellite everywhere.



Forest Green said:
A US bomber carrying a H-Bomb crashed in the 1950s and only a faulty fuse stopped it exploding.
Click to expand...
1950s fuze, not modern PALs. Remember, the US gave the Russians PAL tech because it makes the "Rogue Officer Causing Nuclear Launch" basically impossible. And not just the assembled Permissive Action Links, but the full technical data package so they'd understand how the things work.

IIRC it's also been offered to the UK, China, India, Pakistan, and France. All the nuclear countries.
 
Clooney’s love interest was a high level government nuclear weapons physicist who was key to stopping the terrorist plot.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Implosion nukes are really, really picky about how they have to be squeezed to work. Do you remember the movie "Peacemaker" starring George Clooney? At the climax, the nuke is in a city somewhere (been like 25 years since I watched it) and Clooney's character pries one of the explosive charges out of the "soccer ball". Then he and the love interest run like hell to get clear of the blast area. No nuclear boom, but one hell of a mess with plutonium dust everywhere. That's really how it'd work.

All it'd take to anti-tamper a nuke is to fire one charge in the lens out of time. even if the other charges detonated sympathetically, the implosion wouldn't be even and at best/worst it'd fizzle for a small % of the rated yield. The most likely result would be no fission at all and dust and fragments of the satellite everywhere.
Click to expand...
That was a movie, but if that's how it works, then it removes all concerns about destroying it.
 
It would not be difficult to create a fuse system that would detonate upon impact.
 
Forest Green said:
But then you have the problem of a solar storm or debris impact setting it off. So it's damned either way.
Click to expand...

There certainly is risk involved, but presumably a satellite could have a number of systems and checks to confirm an engagement. Otherwise it seems likely that it would simply be shot down at the first opportunity once it was detected.
 
Josh_TN said:
There certainly is risk involved, but presumably a satellite could have a number of systems and checks to confirm an engagement. Otherwise it seems likely that it would simply be shot down at the first opportunity once it was detected.
Click to expand...

There isn’t a nuclear-armed country moronic enough to put a nuke on a hair trigger in orbit.

The easiest way to engage it is functionally identical to a space debris impact, which could happen by complete chance.

Also, what if it goes off over your or an ally’s territory? If you deactivate it then, that’s a perfect time to destroy it. If not, you could get EMP’d.

In general, leaving nukes in space long term is a dumb idea, but it would have to be command detonated.

Overall, it being destroyed is absolutely better that it going off unexpectedly. The method of defending it would have to be threats about what you do if it is targeted or more realistically hoping people don’t realize it is a space nuke, but that does ruin the deterrence value.

All in all it’s the sort of thing that would put you on everyone’s shit list.
 
Never the less, I consider it likely that the reports of a Russian system of this type are more likely accurate than not. Russia is being completely overwhelmed in space compared to either China or the U.S., and the U.S. is about to drastically increase its military constellation over the next year. Creating a system that would negate all of these at once is quite honestly logical for Russia.
 
Forest Green said:
That was a movie, but if that's how it works, then it removes all concerns about destroying it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that really is how it works, the implosion lens is the single hardest part to get right. The slightest misalignment or mis-timing of the conventional explosives will result in a non-nuclear boom or a fizzle at best.



Josh_TN said:
Never the less, I consider it likely that the reports of a Russian system of this type are more likely accurate than not. Russia is being completely overwhelmed in space compared to either China or the U.S., and the U.S. is about to drastically increase its military constellation over the next year. Creating a system that would negate all of these at once is quite honestly logical for Russia.
Click to expand...
Leaving a nuke in orbit to do that is a Very Bad Idea.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom