Is Russia Developing an Anti-Satellite Weapon to Target Starlink? (apnews.com) 140
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Associated Press:
Two NATO-nation intelligence services suspect Russia is developing a new anti-satellite weapon to target Elon Musk's Starlink constellation with destructive orbiting clouds of shrapnel, with the aim of reining in Western space superiority that has helped Ukraine on the battlefield. Intelligence findings seen by The Associated Press say the so-called "zone-effect" weapon would seek to flood Starlink orbits with hundreds of thousands of high-density pellets, potentially disabling multiple satellites at once but also risking catastrophic collateral damage to other orbiting systems.
Analysts who haven't seen the findings say they doubt such a weapon could work without causing uncontrollable chaos in space for companies and countries, including Russia and its ally China, that rely on thousands of orbiting satellites for communications, defense and other vital needs. Such repercussions, including risks to its own space systems, could steer Moscow away from deploying or using such a weapon, analysts said. "I don't buy it. Like, I really don't," said Victoria Samson, a space-security specialist at the Secure World Foundation who leads the Colorado-based nongovernmental organization's annual study of anti-satellite systems. "I would be very surprised, frankly, if they were to do something like that." [Later they suggested the research might just be experimental.]
But the commander of the Canadian military's Space Division, Brig. Gen. Christopher Horner, said such Russian work cannot be ruled out in light of previous U.S. allegations that Russia also has been pursuing an indiscriminate nuclear, space-based weapon. "I can't say I've been briefed on that type of system. But it's not implausible," he said... The French military's Space Command said in a statement to the AP that it could not comment on the findings but said, "We can inform you that Russia has, in recent years, been multiplying irresponsible, dangerous, and even hostile actions in space."
The article also points out that this month Russia "said it has fielded a new ground-based missile system, the S-500, which is capable of hitting low-orbit targets..."
Analysts who haven't seen the findings say they doubt such a weapon could work without causing uncontrollable chaos in space for companies and countries, including Russia and its ally China, that rely on thousands of orbiting satellites for communications, defense and other vital needs. Such repercussions, including risks to its own space systems, could steer Moscow away from deploying or using such a weapon, analysts said. "I don't buy it. Like, I really don't," said Victoria Samson, a space-security specialist at the Secure World Foundation who leads the Colorado-based nongovernmental organization's annual study of anti-satellite systems. "I would be very surprised, frankly, if they were to do something like that." [Later they suggested the research might just be experimental.]
But the commander of the Canadian military's Space Division, Brig. Gen. Christopher Horner, said such Russian work cannot be ruled out in light of previous U.S. allegations that Russia also has been pursuing an indiscriminate nuclear, space-based weapon. "I can't say I've been briefed on that type of system. But it's not implausible," he said... The French military's Space Command said in a statement to the AP that it could not comment on the findings but said, "We can inform you that Russia has, in recent years, been multiplying irresponsible, dangerous, and even hostile actions in space."
The article also points out that this month Russia "said it has fielded a new ground-based missile system, the S-500, which is capable of hitting low-orbit targets..."
goldeneye (Score:2)
goldeneye
Re: Golden Dome! (Score:1)
Just like the US (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Just like the US (Score:5, Insightful)
As an anti-satellite weapon, it was an absolute bust. First, if you want to take out a satellite in a war, you need to take it out NOW, not have it fail in a few month when radiation damage from Compton electrons from the blast eventually damages the electronics. Second, we now know a whole lot more about making radiation-hard electronics, and it's not as easy to damage satellites made today as it was to damage satellites made in 1962.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has consistently blocked attempts to pass UN resolutions to outlaw the deployment of **ALL** weapons in space put forward by Russia, China and (IRC) India, including using Security Council vetos.
Starlink? No. All satellites? Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
How much did Musk pay to have Starlink added to this headline What kind of idiot thinks Starlink is the only or even the most important satellite system the west has?
Yes, Russia is almost certainly trying to develop an anti-satellite weapon.
No, they are not concerned primarily with Starlink. We got a lot more than just those satellites and most of them are far more important that Starlink. GPS, spy satellites, military only communication networks all exist.
Yes Russia is probably willing / focused on satellite weapons that not only destroy the satellite but make the orbit less useful. They know the west has superior satellite systems and consider it a net gain to eliminate all satellite orbits.
Re:Starlink? No. All satellites? Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Without Starlink Ukraine's combat communications collapse. And the US military is reportedly working with Musk to build their own constellation.
So yes, Russia is obviously going to be developing ways to destroy Starlink satellites (and I'm sure China is too). In a full war between Russia and NATO they would be high-priority targets and it would probably only require spraying a lot of ball-bearings into the appropriate orbits to take out most of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't THAT be a hoot? Starlink also being a secret ABM system, with the orbital vehicles sacrificing themselves to fill their orbits with clouds of debris to intercept missiles in mid-flight...
Re:Starlink? No. All satellites? Yes (Score:4, Funny)
Don't the intercontinental ballistic missiles fly in the same zone?
Would they also cripple their ability at a massive nuclear strike?
Newer ballistic missiles have nose-cone wipers (like windshield wipers) to brush pesky debris, like crushed Starlink satellite parts, away during flight. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Starlink? No. All satellites? Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it was, it also won't do anything about debris hitting it at 7.5 miles per second. For an idea of what that means, this is what a paint chip did to the glass on the Challenger shuttle:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Now imagine debris the size of a baseball. That would create a Chernobyl scale disaster, only this time it won't be due to simple incompetence, rather it would be due to deliberate incompetence. Not only would he knock out his own space assets in LEO orbits, it would also knock out the ISS and Tiangong. If China is feeling generous, they might only demand Siberia in compensation, and there isn't a fucking thing Putin could do about that, even if he pulled all of his military out of Ukraine before they even sent him a demand envoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Starlink? No. All satellites? Yes (Score:2)
You're talking about much more than that. Haven't you ever heard of a Kessler event? The whole point of this weapon is to trigger one in LEO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Starlink? No. All satellites? Yes (Score:2)
Like I said, tankie, we're talking much more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't the intercontinental ballistic missiles fly in the same zone? Would they also cripple their ability at a massive nuclear strike?
ICBMs would be at risk for maybe at most 30 minutes of their flight time. Satellites are at risk for all of their lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
They're at their destination in 30m. They're only at starlink altitude for a few seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
Fractions of a second.
ICBM apogee is somewhere above 500mi up, which is about 150mi over Starlink.
The rocket would only be passing through the Starlink orbit for a few tenths of a second, and the reentry vehicles even less than that on their way back down, because they would be going even faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close.
Starlink satellites are in low earth orbits around 300 miles up. A Minuteman-III missile's flight apogee is somewhere around 800 miles up.
I suppose there's a very small chance that the rocket could smack into one on the way up, but hardly worth calculating. And even less worth calculating would be the chances that a reentry vehicle would hit one on the way back down, going even faster than on the way up.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus when you're launching hundreds of these, it really doesn't matter if a few are lost. You are probably double or triple tapping targets of any significance.
Maybe Golden Dome and Starshield (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Trump's $175 billion Golden Dome project...
Senile demented old fuck probably thought it was a Golden Shower project...
Re: (Score:2)
Time to take a break from the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called 'Oreshnik' (translations vary in spelling), which means 'Hazelnut' in Russian. It's the fastest hypersonic missile yet developed, which means that there is no known method to intercept it. It has six MIRV packages, which spit into six warheads with approximately 10 meter CEP (Circle of Error Probability). The one time that it was used it targeted a former Soviet weapons factory in Ukraine which had been designed to resist a direct hit by an American nuclear weapon. The facility was smashed b
Re: (Score:2)
It's called 'Oreshnik' (translations vary in spelling), which means 'Hazelnut' in Russian. It's the fastest hypersonic missile yet developed
This is inane nonsense. Oreshnik is literally just an IRBM topping out at something like mach 10. It is ancient technology. For comparison hypersonic ICBMs with mach numbers above 20 have been around for something like 70 years now.
It's the fastest hypersonic missile yet developed, which means that there is no known method to intercept it.
We have interceptors capable of intercepting this missile in both boost and terminal phases. I'm not sure if Ukraine does.
which spit into six warheads with approximately 10 meter CEP (Circle of Error Probability).
CEP is closer to 200 meters.
The one time that it was used it targeted a former Soviet weapons factory in Ukraine which had been designed to resist a direct hit by an American nuclear weapon. The facility was smashed beyond repair, facilities four and possibly five levels underground were completely destroyed.
I think you may be confusing Putler's public statements about the capabilities of Oreshnik with what actually happened. There
Re: (Score:2)
Ukrainian first responders at the time said that four underground levels of the factory were destroyed and that they couldn't access the levels below that. Keep in mind this was with inert payloads (some reports claim tungsten, others iron), the destruction was exclusively from kinetic shock damage.
We have interceptors capable of intercepting this missile in both boost and terminal phases.
No, we don't. The only way the Star Wars money sink managed to exceed a 50% kill rate on the terminal phase is when they put transponders in the target missile. I don't think that Russia is going to be so acco
Re: (Score:2)
Ukrainian first responders at the time said that four underground levels of the factory were destroyed and that they couldn't access the levels below that. Keep in mind this was with inert payloads (some reports claim tungsten, others iron), the destruction was exclusively from kinetic shock damage.
No credible evidence provided, no fucks given about your nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Arrow failed miserably in protecting Israel from Iranian missiles.
THAAD fires two missiles at every target, and even assuming a 100% kill rate (never seen in the real world) that would require 72 interceptors at a cost of $15 MILLION each. 72 x 15 = $1.08 BILLION to stop one single $30 million Oreshnik.
Aegis interceptors are even more expensive, at $28-$40 million each. Since it's ship-based if the target is located inland the launcher will be within range of shore-based systems, and Aegis will be busy ju
Re: (Score:2)
So Arrow 3 did that in a test once? Oh, goody. Did it do it in combat conditions? No. And Oreshnik can maneuver outside the atmosphere, unlike the LEO satellites that Arrow 3 is almost certainly designed to attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. That's a 60s or 70s era ballistic missile. Maybe some stage of it nudges a little knob out into the airstream so it can "maneuver." It sure as hell doesn't carry the kinetic energy of a nuclear bomb.
I repeat: take a break from the Internet. You're either reading straight up fantasy or conflating Russian propaganda with some stuff you read once about hypersonic shells not needing conventional explosives because they carry enough kinetic energy.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have absolutely no idea what this thing is, but feel qualified to dismiss it anyway. I must say I'm just a little surprised to see that from a 5-digit UID, I would have expected a comment like that from a five million or so.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have absolutely no idea what this thing is, but feel qualified to dismiss it anyway.
What is there to know? It's an IRBM without a nuclear payload... rather ancient technology.
IRBMs are not the "fastest hypersonic missile". ICBMs are way faster.
It does not have "destructive power equivalent to nukes".
For anyone interested here are the before and after satellite photos of the "devastating" Oreshnik attack on Dnipro after the Oreshnik doomsday weapon delivered its devastating payload "equivalent to nukes".
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/... [kyivpost.com]
I must say I'm just a little surprised to see that from a 5-digit UID, I would have expected a comment like that from a five million or so.
It's one thing to simp for Putler or bless us with y
Re: (Score:2)
Kyiv Post? Why not the Weekly World News? Yeesh.
Re:Starlink? No. All satellites? Yes (Score:5, Informative)
in an open conflict with nato russia has already dominance. hypersonic missiles have been tested in combat, are already in serial production and the first brigades deployed within range of all of europe.
Nobody cares, "hypersonic" missiles have existed for over 70 years. Every day Russia lobs hypersonic missiles at Ukraine with negligible impact. A number of hypersonic missiles are regularly being shot down including both ballistic and cruise missiles.
these weapons are highly precise, they don't need satellites to operate, have a destructive power equivalent to nukes without any fallout (but could carry nuclear warheads if needed)
This is inane nonsense completely divorced from reality.
as much: "we have no intention of going to war with europe, but they seem bent on it and if they do we are ready; it would be over very quickly, with europe we wouldn't be as surgical as in ukraine". there would be no need to take out any satellites.
LOL Putler is ready for war with Europe when their own soldiers are literally riding horses into battle. Thanks for the laughs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody cares, "hypersonic" missiles have existed for over 70 years. Every day Russia lobs hypersonic missiles at Ukraine with negligible impact. A number of hypersonic missiles are regularly being shot down including both ballistic and cruise missiles.
not these. you are talking about kinzhal and zircon, these can't maneuver at hypersonic speeds. oreshnik can, and have been used only once, in 2024, as retaliation for operation spiderweb and show off. they destroyed a soviet era factory compound in dnipro. with dummy warheads. the relevant people surely took notice.
Re: (Score:2)
correction: not spiderweb, that was this year. it was in retaliation of atacms and storm shadows shot into russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Major businesses in Russia have declared the most severe industrial crisis since the late 1990s.
That's misleading. Russia is already in the process of deindustrializing. Znrt is going to be a peasant farmer soon, under the serfdom of one of Tsar Putler's vassals, aka oligarchs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Starlink? No. All satellites? Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
oreshnik can, and have been used only once
The "pureshnik" is nothing new, it is an old piece of Soviet crap that used to go by the name "Topol" back in 1983, when your granddad was still dreaming about taking the kolgodki off your babushka's hairy ass, Comrade.
Just like back then, it is dangerous when loaded with the hundred kiloton nuclear warhead it is supposed to carry. Why a bomb 10 times more powerful than the Nagasaki nuke? Because of its abysmal accuracy, which requires a yuge, ginormous warhead to produce any observable effect on the target is is pointed at, as it typically hits hundreds of meters away from it.
There's also a reason why it has been "used only once" - there aren't many of it around.
they destroyed a soviet era factory compound in dnipro.
LOL really? The so-called "kinetic" payload was basically a pointless waste of the multi-million vehicle. The pureshnik didn't "destroy" anything much in Dnipro except a roof or two. But you're welcome to provide concrete and credible evidence to the contrary. Speculation of ruzzkie "war blogs" about who "noticed" what does not count as evidence, and neither do putin's lies, though.
There has only been one "strategic" use of the pureshnik and it is to provide the potato fuhrer of Belarus with a dubious opportunity to claim "increased security" of his puppet regime from "foreign influence". Which did not prevent the said fuhrer of seeking a deal with the US administration last month.
Re: (Score:2)
The pureshnik didn't "destroy" anything much in Dnipro except a roof or two.
oh, really? well, then i guess after more than a year the plant is surely again in full operation, right? these guys are ex-soviets after all, they repair energy plants, railway stations or bridges in days or weeks. how long would it take them to repair a roof?
Re: (Score:2)
oh, really? well, then i guess after more than a year the plant is surely again in full operation, right? these guys are ex-soviets after all, they repair energy plants, railway stations or bridges in days or weeks. how long would it take them to repair a roof?
Fully operational? Did you think Pivdenmash was still churning out rockets like soviet times at the time it was struck? Pivdenmash's problem is flirtation with bankruptcy unrelated to the holes in the roof.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, you're welcome to provide evidence of the alleged "destruction" that was in excess of the previous bombings of the plant since 2022, of which there were at least 4 big ones.
While at it, you're welcome to show evidence that it worked before the start of the war. Here's an article from 2018 with an interesting headline:
"In Yuzhmash even the toilets have stopped working".
https://korrespondent.net/city... [korrespondent.net]
Re: (Score:2)
not these. you are talking about kinzhal and zircon, these can't maneuver at hypersonic speeds. oreshnik can
No, it can't. It's a matter of physics. Oreshnik is counting on MIRV capability to defeat interceptor missiles. Could it? Who knows, they haven't even tried it yet. But you might recall that your mother Russia made the same claims about Kinzhal and Zircon. And look how that turned out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Your rubles at work.
Re: (Score:2)
not these. you are talking about kinzhal and zircon, these can't maneuver at hypersonic speeds.
Zircon is very much maneuverable at hypersonic speeds.
oreshnik can, and have been used only once, in 2024, as retaliation for operation spiderweb and show off.
Oreshnik is only relevant with a nuclear payload otherwise it is a pointless waste of money. The Russians have way less costly means of achieving the same conventional effects at much less cost.
BTW this is just an intermediate range ballistic missile with some terminal maneuverability very much lacking required accuracy to be of much use with conventional warheads.
they destroyed a soviet era factory compound in dnipro. with dummy warheads.
LOL Putler's wunderwaffe attack on Dnipro destroyed jack diddly squat.
"Russian milbloggers
Re: (Score:2)
So they've reopened the factory then? No? Why would that be? Perhaps because facilities four and five levels below ground, which were designed to resist a direct hit by American nukes, were destroyed, as Ukrainian bloggers at the time reported.
Re: (Score:2)
So they've reopened the factory then? No? Why would that be? Perhaps because facilities four and five levels below ground, which were designed to resist a direct hit by American nukes, were destroyed, as Ukrainian bloggers at the time reported.
I have no idea what internal damage the facility took nor do I know the current status of the facility and neither do you. The only thing I know after Russia began waging war against Ukraine business dried up and they are flirting with bankruptcy.
If you have credible objective evidence to support any particular disposition or conclusions then by all means produce it otherwise stop wasting everyone's time with nonsensical Russian propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
This, Putin?
t would be over very quickly, with europe we wouldn't be as surgical as in ukraine"
lol, lmao. Is *that* why his 3 day operation in Ukraine is taking years? Because he's being too surgical? lol. Get fucked
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
lol, you're taking the word of Putin???
i'm always sceptical, but at least he speaks rationally and is consistent over time, unlike most western leaders ...
Is *that* why his 3 day operation in Ukraine is taking years? Because he's being too surgical? lol. Get fucked
among other reasons, but in fact they are (surgical). there are actually very few (direct) civilian casualties recorded in this war compared to any other modern wars, and that's considering casualties on both sides. civilian casualties are usually colateral damage from debris, deflected projectiles or anti air ordinance, or isolated incidents.
the thing with "meat assaults" might have been true
Re: (Score:2)
i'm always sceptical, but at least he speaks rationally and is consistent over time
He consistently lies about everything. What happened to the press crew he said was going to Kupiansk to prove that Russia had completely taken it? It's hilarious because Russia never even had it, even as Tsar Putler was pinning a medal on his general for taking it.
And what's rational about threatening nuclear war every time shit doesn't go his way?
among other reasons, but in fact they are (surgical). there are actually very few (direct) civilian casualties recorded in this war compared to any other modern wars
So why are Russians lobbing missiles into apartment buildings? You know, where civilians live. These aren't even near misses, they're direct hits. Or is it your p
Re: (Score:2)
He consistently lies about everything. What happened to the press crew he said was going to Kupiansk to prove that Russia had completely taken it? It's hilarious because Russia never even had it, even as Tsar Putler was pinning a medal on his general for taking it.
yeah, that was embarrasing. tbf, that general's briefing had been publicly broadcasted, and he did report kupiansk was captured. and it was true that they had captured it, meaning driven out the ukranians, but it wasn't secured. ukranians just retreated to the forest southweast (in a rare instance in which they emulated tactics often used by the russians, good for them), then came back together with fresh assault forces from the north.
good pr stunt, quite their style, but it apparently has already fizzled o
Re: (Score:2)
This fall the Ukrainians were attacking combines taking in the harvest.
I don't really recall Putin "threatening" nuclear war, just reminding the West what Russia's policies for nuclear retaliation were (especially during Biden's term).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really recall Putin "threatening" nuclear war, just reminding the West what Russia's policies for nuclear retaliation were (especially during Biden's term).
i read that as enough of a threat. putin is an old school statesman, a lawyer by training and a diplomat. explicit threats, inflamed speeches, insults, death wishes, and inflammatory tweets interspersed with ALL CAPS are common political communication today but are not his style at all. russian officials in general are quite serious, formal and contained. medvedev is the outlier.
Re: (Score:2)
The western MSM don't seem to comprehend even the idea of 'diplomacy' any more, and Rump certainly has never even heard of the concept.
I rather like Medvedev, he's the bull they let loose in the china shop. He's wrong more often than most, but pretty much always entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, that was embarrasing. tbf, that general's briefing had been publicly broadcasted, and he did report kupiansk was captured. and it was true that they had captured it
And you base this on the word of...Putler. No evidence whatsoever, just fucking Putler.
good pr stunt, quite their style, but it apparently has already fizzled out, the beachead resisted and russians will have to capture kupiansk a third time. they're already on it.
The way they're "on" anything is throwing warm bodies at it. It's the one and only tactic Russians are capable of. It only works on unprepared enemies, like the Nazis were in WWII. That's why you guys keep losing ground and naval wars.
by the way, zelensky's video is fake or much older than purported, in it the sign at the south entry of kupiansk appears mostly intact, while it had been battered considerably much earlier as can be seen in other earlier videos.
I saw the video, the sign is quite battered. Anyway, it's interesting that you argue that the Zelenskyy video is fake, meanwhile you accept the Putler narrative that they completely held the
Re: (Score:2)
So when he's bombing hospitals and schools, that's being "surgical"
lol get fucked
Re: (Score:2)
Russian missiles aren't THAT good [Re:Starlink...] (Score:2)
... these weapons are highly precise, they don't need satellites to operate,
Pick one. Highly precise navigation without satellite navigation requires higher tech than the Russians are known to have. I doubt any Russian missiles are highly precise without satellite navigation.
have a destructive power equivalent to nukes without any fallout
Meh. The only way to get the destructive power equivalent to nukes is to use nukes, or else to use weapons at speeds much greater than hypersonic (about ten times escape velocity will do it.).
Re: (Score:2)
Pick one. Highly precise navigation without satellite navigation requires higher tech than the Russians are known to have. I doubt any Russian missiles are highly precise without satellite navigation.
por qué no los dos? they surely would use satellites if available, but they can work without (the context was someone proposing to take satellites out to cripple that capability). i would assume precision would take a hit, but i would rather not find out.
Meh. The only way to get the destructive power equivalent to nukes is to use nukes, or else to use weapons at speeds much greater than hypersonic (about ten times escape velocity will do it.).
equivalent isn't meant in mathematical sense. the kinetic force and thermal energy seems to be enough to be devastating. mach 10 is already 1/3 of escape velocity, and apparently already makes for a nice crater volatilizing a huge chunk below. also, yo
Re: (Score:2)
Quite simply, you are wrong. First, the only missiles which "have a destructive power equivalent to nukes" are ones with nuclear warheads. Any belief to the contrary is fantasy.
Second, yes, it is possible to navigate without satellites, but it requires some high tech, and Russian tech is... lagging. Inertial navigation systems drift. Precise, or navigate without using satellites, but not both.
Re: (Score:3)
in an open conflict with nato russia has already dominance. hypersonic missiles have been tested in combat, are already in serial production and the first brigades deployed within range of all of europe. these weapons are highly precise, they don't need satellites to operate, have a destructive power equivalent to nukes without any fallout (but could carry nuclear warheads if needed) and there is no known way to intercept them.
Ah yeah, about that...
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
10 out of 10 intercepted by the Patriot system during one event. The Pentagon (among others) have verified this as well. How did you not know this? This happened all the way back in 2023. Russia has tried many times since, even aiming at the Patriot system itself, and still couldn't crack it. The only weapons that have slipped past it are slower and more maneuverable, a far cry from your supposedly invincible hypersonic weapons.
Russia, of course, has de
Re: (Score:2)
Even more hilariously, now Russia is back to soldiers on horseback. And Ukraine is taking them out with drones, but leaving the horse alive [instagram.com].
Russia: fighting like it's 1914 again.
Re: (Score:2)
these weapons are highly precise, they don't need satellites to operate, have a destructive power equivalent to nukes without any fallout (but could carry nuclear warheads if needed) and there is no known way to intercept them.
Except for them being shown to not be precise at all, having the same destructive power as any other missile carrying the same amount of conventional explosives, and have already been intercepted.
But sure.
Have anything to say that intersects with observable reality?
Re: (Score:2)
It's been pretty well accepted since the 60s that one of the first things to happen in a war between nuclear powers would be all the satellites getting fried. That's why the US air er, space force maintains the ability to launch new ones in an emergency.
Russia may be trying to develop some more subtle weapons but both the US and Russia and probably the Chinese have absolutely had multiple nukes ready and aimed at orbit for the last sixty years.
Re:Golden Dome (Score:1)
Golden Dome: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Russia and the US both had viable anti-satellite systems by the early- to mid-70s. I suspect that was one of the incentives for development of the US 'smart bullet' technology. If you can take out a satellite's power bus or comm system with something like a bullet then the victim might assume a simple malfunction rather than an attack.
Re: (Score:1)
See, wherever you can get a hi
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how much I'd worry about the S-500 (Score:3)
Russia seems to have a hard enough time hitting the ground-based targets they're ostensibly aiming for...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying that they're not actually aiming for those targets?
Some synonyms for "ostensibly" are "avowedly; professedly; apparently". So I think he's implying that their apparent inability to strike the desired targets suggests that they might not be trying to take them out.
Of course, Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
While it's certainly possible I'm wrong - I suspect the failure rate of Russia's third-world tech is absurdly high.
Basically, I really have a hard time believing all those Russian rockets that have hit apartment buildings were intended to do so. Killing a couple people and damaging the building just doesn't seem like enough of a payoff to justify wasting an expensive rocket - yet it happens a lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. While I can well believe that Russia would target heavily populated centres in order to better destroy morale - and maybe they are doing so - I have the impression that those strikes aren't doing nearly the amount of damage they might.
There's likely a lot of incompetence on the Russian side, exacerbated by the fact that the troops don't feel any fervor or moral righteousness. And yeah, we've seen a bunch of instances where their tech just plain sucks. I get the feeling that with better support, Ukraine
Dual use (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dual use (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Dual use (Score:2)
Kessler Syndrome (Score:5, Informative)
I will just leave this here: Kessler syndrome [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I will just leave this here: Kessler syndrome [wikipedia.org].
And watch the first quarter (or so) of Gravity [wikipedia.org] for an example.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin blew up a dam that drowned thousands of people in Ukraine, so triggering a Kessler Party is up his alley.
No. (Score:3)
So yeah Russia is of course working on anti satellite weapons and so is everyone else because of course they are but they are not targeting starlink or any of Elon musk's assets. It would be much cheaper to kick a few hundred million in his general direction or Offer Up access to Russia as a market for musk's products.
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger rockets! (Score:2)
The obvious next evolutionary step is big heavy armoured military sats launched from vast rockets. Mr President, we cannot allow a vast rocket gap!
Putin will find a window to fall out of soon now (Score:2)
Probably (Score:2)
I generally just imagine what a Hollywood supervillain would be plotting.
Then I imagine US developing that, and the Russians catching on later, per usual.
And I think we've been developing Satellite disruption tech for nearly 70 years, since Sputnik was launched in 1957. That's right kids, the Russians launched the 1st artificial satellite. We've been working on anti-satellite shit since about 15 minutes after hearing it.
Irony?
And that is why we cannot have nice things (Score:2)
Always some asshole that has got to have more power, no matter how much worse that makes things for others. We really need to find a way to identify the Putins, Trumps, etc. at birth and then make sure they never get any power whatsoever.
With what economy? (Score:1)
This is just more bluster from russia; simply another desperate attempt to get the rest of the world to pretend russia is a power to be reckoned with. Their economy is collapsing due to their war against Ukraine. Their only spaceport is damaged and unusable. They're selling themselves off to China and becoming a resource colony. They're selling their oil at a loss. russia has become a joke under Putin's rule.
Re: With what economy? (Score:3)
Not the USA (Score:1)
Bye, bye LEO (Score:2)
No, but the US certainly is :o (Score:2)
That is a rhetorical question (Score:1)
Developing? Itt's been developed. (Score:1)
There is a reason... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He openly supports Ukraine now by allowing them to use Starlink satellites to direct various flavors of their drones. They turned access off for a time when they realized that it was considered a weapon system component and they weren't licensed for that, but since no one but the Russians complained they've turned it back on again.