Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Space The Military

Space Force Just Launched Satellites Capable of 'Inspecting' Enemy Satellites (thedrive.com) 52

Posted by BeauHD from the orbital-warfare dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Drive: Space Force launched two additional satellites today as part of its push for greater Space Domain Awareness, or SDA, in geosynchronous orbit some 22,000 miles away from Earth. The two satellites are part of the Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program, or GSSAP, and will allow Space Force to not only locate and identify objects in this distant orbit, but also maneuver close to them in order to inspect them or assess their capabilities. The launch comes as Space Force leadership continues to sound the alarm about the risks posed to U.S. satellites in orbit.

The Northrop Grumman-built GSSAP-5 and GSSAP-6 were launched today at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida atop a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V 511 rocket. The first two GSSAP satellites were launched in 2014, with the second two following in 2016. Space Force has not released any details about how these two new GSSAP satellites might differ from the previous four, which were designed to operate near the belt of other geosynchronous satellites and maneuver close to them to conduct surveillance. A spokesperson for Space Systems Command stated this week that the new GGSAP satellites "will provide improved SDA data to the National Space Defense Center and other national users to enhance our ability to navigate freely and safely within the GEO belt."

GSSAP-5 and GSSAP-6 were originally scheduled to be launched in 2020, and it is not known why the launch was delayed almost two years. The GSSAP program was originally highly classified and was only revealed to the public in 2014. While the exact capabilities of the satellites are not public, it's known that they are able to capture close-up images of other satellites in geosynchronous orbit. Former Commander of Air Force Space Command Gen. William Shelton (Ret.) told Aviation Week in 2014 that the satellites are designed to drift in and out of the geosynchronous belt collecting intelligence on specific targets. The Air Force has previously used one of the satellites for Remote Proximity Operations (RPO), maneuvering close enough to inspect another Department of Defense satellite operated by the Navy that was experiencing a malfunction. The former head of Air Force Space Command, General John Hyten (Ret.), has previously said the satellites are capable of capturing some "truly eye-watering" imagery.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Space Force Just Launched Satellites Capable of 'Inspecting' Enemy Satellites More

Space Force Just Launched Satellites Capable of 'Inspecting' Enemy Satellites

Comments Filter:

  • GRASP? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Geosynchronous Relative Awareness in Space Program, or GRASP.

  • Hey, that's a nice satellite you have there... (Score:3)

    by suss ( 158993 ) on Monday January 24, 2022 @10:42PM (#62204851)

    Would be a shame if someone were to "inspect" it.

    • GoldenEye satellite will strike back

    • Every nation is now deeply involved in all sorts of dependencies on satellite information and control and all these vital information and control networks are sensitive to destruction by satellite weaponry if it only is a matter of creating clouds of garbage to destroy the viability of orbiting paths, This sensitivity may result in massive world chaos to no purpose but vandalizing the entire satellite systems. For a species that prides itself on intellect, it is rather astounding how rarely it is used.

  • It's just a matter of time until someone takes down an American satellite and oh boy, will we be crying foul.

    • Re:Is a collision also considered a close inspecti (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @03:26AM (#62205111)

      An intentional collision of a satellite into another would be unlikely, if that's what you are implying. Satellites are very expensive compared to a ground launched anti-satellite missile. It appears Russia has launched satellites equipped with guns. I can speculate that they did this in an attempt to create plausible deniability in the event they want to kill another satellite. An anti-satellite missile launched from the Earth's surface would be far more obvious than a gun fired from another satellite, at least that's my speculation.

      It's possible that some physics and geography makes it easier/cheaper/whatever for Russia to have kill satellites in orbit than equip ships with anti-satellite missiles like the US Navy has now. Russia doesn't have control of land all that close to the equator, and being close to the equator makes launching things into space easier. Russia has big ships to use as launch platforms, just like so many NATO nations, but it could be they think it necessary to have a backup anti-satellite plan.

      If someone intentionally, or out of negligence, collides their satellite into an American satellite then the Americans would have every right to cry foul. That's potentially an act of war that is not so easily reversed. That's salting the earth kind of destruction, making it difficult to put satellites into orbit for a very long time. Busting up satellites in low Earth orbit is bad enough, that will leave debris for months to decades. Making a mess in geosynchronous orbit can make a mess for thousands of years.

      Russia is obviously looking for a fight. It's only natural for the USA to prepare accordingly. If you seek peace, prepare for war.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by JanSand ( 5746424 )
        Ever since the installation of the pseudo communist system in Russia at the time of the first world war, the capitalist system has, in direct military action and by other means kept Russia as a convenient enemy to justify attacking various other nations that had friendly relations to Russia even though they might have been democracies that resented capitalist intentions to control their natural resources. Russia no longer even pretends to be communist any more but the scent of that system remains to keep th

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Miles_O'Toole ( 5152533 )

        Just since the late 1970s, the US has gone "looking for a fight" in Panama, Iraq (twice), Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haiti, Serbia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Nepal, the Horn of Africa/Gulf of Aden, Libya, Uganda, Syria, Yemen and probably half a dozen places in South America.

        If you wanted to find Russian soldiers "looking for a fight" outside of Russia itself, where would you go looking?

        • If you wanted to find Russian soldiers "looking for a fight" outside of Russia itself, where would you go looking?

          International waters.

          • Russia has scaled back since its days as the Soviet Union. But all of Eastern Europe comes to mind, and southeast Asia where they've been collaborating in saber-rattling against China. They've also been sending mercenaries to mid-African nations, much as the US has been sending mercenaries to Iraq and Afghanistan.

          • Wow! That's quite a list!

            Even I could do better, though I'd have to ignore the fact that Russian incursions into other countries are whole orders of magnitude smaller than US ones.

        • Ukraine? Moldova? Georgia?

          Sorry, that's Russian territory.

        • Where has Russia gone "looking for a fight" in the past ~50 years, you ask?
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Ethiopia (twice), Angola, Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Central African Republic. And about a half-dozen places closer to home but internationally recognized as independent states for the last ~31 years (Georgia - twice, Abkhazia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Crimea, Ukraine).

          Pot, kettle, etc.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Guns in space are not very effective except from close range, so it would be kinda obvious if a Russian satellite manoeuvred near to another and something bad happened. The problem is that bullets are very small and have no terminal guidance. Anti-satellite missiles steer themselves near to the target, then release a cloud of small fragments, hoping that enough of them hit the target to disable it.

        Putting missiles in space would be difficult to disguise, so everyone has been doing surface to space missiles.

        • Guns fired from one satellite to another don't have to worry about air resistance or wind so the range doesn't matter. The orbits of satellites are quite predictable, as is the ballistic path of a bullet fired from a modern cannon, so shooting a gun at a satellite and hitting it is about getting your ballistic measurements and calculations down to sufficient precision. The gun can fire multiple projectiles to help in the odds, which can take the form of a shotgun blast, machine gun burst, or both. Cannon

      • Oh I dunno wait til the American satellite comes to 'inspect' have a collision - blame the Americans, After all space is 'huge' so there is not excuse for the being so close as to cause a collision in the first place.

        • Oh I dunno wait til the American satellite comes to 'inspect' have a collision - blame the Americans, After all space is 'huge' so there is not excuse for the being so close as to cause a collision in the first place.

          Are you suggesting Russia or China would consider intentionally ramming this inspection satellite with their own satellite then claim it was the Americans that caused this? Just how close do you think this satellite would get? Would it not be quite obvious who was at fault? There's a lot of people tracking these satellites, and people analyzing the orbit of the debris, so finding how was at fault should not be all that difficult.

          Consider that the Americans will be taking the most interest in satellites t

  • Just like World War I aircraft (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @12:16AM (#62204977) Journal

    First reconnaissance, then the machine guns

    • Well, given that the Soviets had at least one autocannon in space already in the past..

      • It's likely there are Russian satellites in orbit now equipped with cannons. This article was linked from the article under discussion which indicates Russia has had such weapons in orbit for months, possibly years: https://www.thedrive.com/the-w... [thedrive.com]

        Letting Russia know that the US Space Force is able to shoot down their satellites means it is less likely for Russia to pull the trigger themselves. It is a kind of mutually assured destruction, but in space.

        Putin wants to restore the USSR so it should be no s

    • Space dolphins with lasers.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dasunt ( 249686 )
      Any satellite with enough fuel to do a controlled deorbit, and is durable enough to have enough mass hit the ground, is potentially a weapon. The kinetic energy of satellite are huge.

  • About time (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @01:17AM (#62205023)

    Thats great news i was sincerely worried that the united states wouldnt be able to find any new places to start wars.

  • (Mumbles something about this being "our" space.)
  • 3, 2, 1 ,,, everybody else launches satellites that can knock out other people's satellites that come to close to their satellites.

  • What the hell is considered "truly eye-watering" imagery? A close-up photo of another satellite?

  • And so it starts.. Or continues, since most other countries do the same sort of thing, or just test blowing satellites out of orbit..

  • LOL (Score:1)

    by Nuncio ( 179612 )

    "SDA"??? LOL Such BS. ICYMI acronyms went out in the 90s. OMFG

  • And here I was, afraid that they'd launched satellites that would *eat* other satellites. You just know that's going to leave a mess in the exosphere that we're going to have to clean up.

  • Or towed home to do a real one.

    • What do you think the X-37 is doing up there...Gulp ! No one is going to admit that the US just ate one of their prize secret assets....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      I don't think you can 'tow' a satellite not designed for re-entry back through the atmosphere. And have anything useful for inspection survive. And I don't think you want to stow anything in the hold of a craft (X-37) when you don't have complete control of its thrusters and fuel tank venting.

  • Its meant to high five shit back into the atmosphere.

  • Steve Carell to the moon!

  • Thunderbirds are GO!

  • I propose calling them "Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program Inspections," because nothing else in the area of security could possibly have an acronym like GSSAPI.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close