Community > Forum > The Spaceflight Cafe > Deployment of Space Weapons

Deployment of Space Weapons

Posted by: Andy Hill - Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:38 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 68 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Deployment of Space Weapons 
Author Message
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:51 pm
I see no reason why we need such things but I think the US will build them. I only hope that the green activists in the US will kick up, given that they dont like peaceful spacecraft with nuclear power plants they definately wont want warheads up there.

I'm assuming that such platforms will be put in geostationary orbit as no one, particularly Russia and China, will allow them to orbit over their territory and if they are in the wrong position during a strke they wont work. Would such a platform give an advantage as the distance for the missile to travel is probably similar to that if fired from the Earth's surface?

Seems an awful lot of expense and effort to go to for very little return. Still all armies always want bigger and better toys and will justify their cost on some supposed threat.

The best that can be hoped if they are deployed is that the technology will help civil space in some way.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:52 pm
Actually, what I REALLY did was simply go to my local Google temple and prostrate myself before the great god Inter-net and beg the answer to my question "who O lord is the simracing Stefan from Maastricht, he who curses me with unusual insight and difficult questions, that I might know him better and perhaps even surprise him just a little with an apparent although fallacious seeming of deeper knowledge?"

and since I had taken the trouble to sacrifice a virgin newbie earlier in the day the great one poured forth with all sorts of possibilites ... but only one had the email address that was yours.

Research. Not just for us boffins in the lab, eh?

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:09 pm
Posts: 485
Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Post    Posted on: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:55 pm
Lol Dr_Keith_H :P


And back on topic. I totally agree with Andy. But if Russia or China would detect such a platform above their territory regularly, they would see it as a threat and then all hell could break loose. Or maybe not.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:45 pm
I'm all for space weapons myself (and you were all thinking me a complete pinko :lol: ) for one reason--heavy-lift. If we can get a big booster out of the deal--fine.

The worst thing we can do is spend on the faulty ground-based interceptor drones that must shoot up at enemy warheads already coming down. Each of these oversized KKVs must ride atop underpowered rockets--and their feeble little electronic brains say:

"O.K. That is the nosecone...that's the MIRV bus...that's the decoy--oh--here's the warhead...OOPS--DONE PASSED IT!"

Better to have 100 tons of smaller, mass -produced toy-like drones with the main sensors radar on the platform--and swarm down and hit everything. Forget what is a decoy. Besides--from space, you can shoot down at enemy missiles going up--as opposed to shooting up at warheads already coming down.

Sadly, the space-based weapons people are fighting the Air Farce and NAVY types who want to prevent the funding of a seperate space force to keep exorbitant fighter/surface ship programs alive. A recent IEEE Spectrum article said that surface-launched boost phase missile defense with drones would work just fine against North Korea--provised we had a base in Vladivostok (as if!) or a ship off DPRK's coast, and how that would be "less vulnerable" than space based platforms.

That is an out and out lie. A killer satellite is just another target for space based systems farther away from threats. A ship not far from DPRK's coastline is going to be the first thing struck before a launch. Stark and Cole should be remembered. With Skvall rocket torp's on the horizon--all they need is a fishing smack to linger just outside the shoot/don't shoot area, can launch an attack, while ASW helicopters are occupied with decoys. Even if the ship is not struck--it may have to maneuver violently in an attack--precluding a stable launch platform and giving ICBM's a chance to out-pace their pursuers.

Besides, separate ground based infrastructure here for missile defense--and EELV-based exploration ventures will not share any commonality.


But if we can convince Washington to build HLLV's they can be used by both NASA & BMDO, and money saved--and the threat of cancellation from Democrats lessoned.

Here is the deal. Ground based silos can be bulldozed by Dems--rebuilt by Reps--and bulldozed again. With space-based systems, the Heavy-lift architecture remains, with Reps using it for space weapons, and Dems using it for Space-Based solar power-sat demonstrators (paid for by taxing the bloody f'ing h*** out of oil companies.) This way, space-based platforms are turned off by one Administration, turned on again by another--and waste reduced.

So either way--we the pro-space taxpayer get at least something for our money. Thus, if the HLLV employs enough people--it becomes politician proof and receives the protection of institutional inertia that kept the shuttle around for so long.

This is where the "standing armies' everyone hates so much prove their worth--by being a constituency that holds Washington's feet to the fire. Had spaceflight been cheaper all along--Congress would have abandoned NASA--and we would have lost yet more infrastructure and--once the space companies went bankrupt--we would be left with nothing.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:31 pm
Of course, publiusr, you have to keep in mind that the oil companies (bastards that they are) are the organizations who pick the people who get elected.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:18 pm
Stefan Sigwarth wrote:
But if Russia or China would detect such a platform above their territory regularly, they would see it as a threat and then all hell could break loose. Or maybe not.

Gee, back in 1957 the US detected a platform above their territory regularly, they saw it as a threat and then all hell broke loose. 12 years and $25,000,000,000 later men were walking on the Moon.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:56 pm
And don't forget the Energiya launched Polyus 100 ton space weapon platform. Energiya worked--but the Mir tech TKS ferry/FGB tug put it into the ocean.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:55 am
Heres an interesting article by Jim Oberg on space weapons and how things may have been misinterpreted over the US's readiness to deploy space based weapons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7671805/

WHile other countries may be a bit paranoid as to how far plans are along technically to create such systems, I still think it likely that they will exist in the near future (possibly 10-15 years).

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Mon May 09, 2005 9:02 pm
Its amazing that articles on space weaponry keep appearing in the media, I wonder whether some of the things said are wishful thinking.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/368/1

this article gives a few real facts and uses a few statements, essentially the same as those in the James Oberg article above, to draw the conclusion that these weapons will be deployed sooner rather than later.

It is interesting that the author Taylor Dinerman has a go at Canada for not going along with space weapons and says that because of this they have effectively relinguished any influence they might have had on US space weapons policy, yeah right - as if. He later confirms that Canada (NORAD) or Europe (NATO) shouldn't be allowed to influence the US policy anyway, no change there then.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post    Posted on: Tue May 10, 2005 7:26 am
Are orbiting weapons platforms not extremely vulnerable to earthside lasers? Ground based lasers have access to a lot more power than orbital weapons would, plus they are not silouetted against the uniformity of space.

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue May 10, 2005 7:29 am
What about protection by mirrors? And doesn't space provide much more power the easy way than Earth: solar power?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Tue May 10, 2005 12:56 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
And doesn't space provide much more power the easy way than Earth: solar power?
No, it doesn't. Solar power is no easier or more powerful in space than it is on Earth.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue May 10, 2005 1:05 pm
But in space solar power is permanently and more easyly to access because there are no clowds and no atmosphere that could bar it as happens here on Earth. So the availability of solar power in space is higher.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Tue May 10, 2005 1:35 pm
Hi Ekkehard,

The atmosphere reduces efficiency very slightly, especially when the sun is low on the horizon, but it is not as big a loss as you seem to believe. Clouds are more of a problem, but a cloudy day on Earth still offers more solar power than you could get in space at Jupiter, maybe even more than at Mars if the clouds aren't too thick. The biggest loss is no sun at night. And unlike interplanetary space, LEO has night too.

No, the reason so many space craft use solar power is not because it is easier or more powerful, it is because all other forms of power are too difficult in space. Batteries and fuel cells don't have enough energy and nuclear has too many political problems.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue May 10, 2005 1:53 pm
The distance of Jupiter or Mars doesn't have anything to do with this thread - we are talking about weapon platforms that orbit Earth. The amount of solar power in an earthian orbit has to be compared to the amount of solar power at the earthian surface. And this difference in case of clouds like those I am used to may be of meaning - not to forget about the access to gamma rays in space but not at the earthian surface. I last year had a short talk about this with spacecowboy.

The night at LEO doesn't matter that much because it lasts only 45 minutes - half orbit - while during the 45 minutes of daylight enegry got by solar power can be stored and the weapons and lasers could make use of the stored energy.

The orbiting weapons won't be firing permanently because of their movemnet along the orbit - beginning at a certain point of their orbit they would hurt the wrong country.

...

There seems to be the danger a little bit that this is running into a new Orbital Mechanics thread... :) . We should prevented by elsewhere recommended Off Topic threads...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use