Satellite in space destroyed....

[DaShi]

More engineers doesn't equal good engineers, especially if engineering is taught in anyway similar to medicine in China. And given that I've seen just about everything in China taught in the same exact dull-drum way, I'd say there's a pretty good chance of it.

[pchang]

Satellites only carry a small amount of maneuvering fuel. Once they used it up, there is no refueling. Dodging one or two anti-satellites will probably use it all up and it will start to drift (making it useless in a couple of months).

As for dodging anti-satellites, think of a matador. Move over and then move back. Also, you don't always have to move back, you can just point yourself differently. You will have a different angle, but it is probably good enough.

Brain power is not part of the equation in dodging anti-satellites. It has to do with how much fuel you have and how much force you can exert to dodge/re-aim yourself. In this case, the advantage is unclear.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by pchang
Satellites only carry a small amount of maneuvering fuel. Once they used it up, there is no refueling. Dodging one or two anti-satellites will probably use it all up and it will start to drift (making it useless in a couple of months).

As for dodging anti-satellites, think of a matador. Move over and then move back. Also, you don't always have to move back, you can just point yourself differently. You will have a different angle, but it is probably good enough.

Brain power is not part of the equation in dodging anti-satellites. It has to do with how much fuel you have and how much force you can exert to dodge/re-aim yourself. In this case, the advantage is unclear.

JUst curious but would the satellite be able to maneuvre as quickly as the incoming killer?


Overall-- its not a shock that China would develop this capability. I am sure the US has contingency plans if they were denied their satellites. These will probably be looked at more closely as the contingency is one step closer to reality

[DaShi]

Originally posted by pchang
Satellites only carry a small amount of maneuvering fuel. Once they used it up, there is no refueling. Dodging one or two anti-satellites will probably use it all up and it will start to drift (making it useless in a couple of months).

As for dodging anti-satellites, think of a matador. Move over and then move back. Also, you don't always have to move back, you can just point yourself differently. You will have a different angle, but it is probably good enough.

Brain power is not part of the equation in dodging anti-satellites. It has to do with how much fuel you have and how much force you can exert to dodge/re-aim yourself. In this case, the advantage is unclear.

I'd imagine that it would take very little fuel to dramatically alter the course of a satellite. Of course, being able to quickly dodge an oncoming missile is another story. But given that they will target our spy satellites, we should be able to see them coming. If not, we don't want those satellites anyway.

[pchang]

The defender initiates the dodge and the attacker must react. Thus, the attacker must be able to put more force and expend more fuel. Advantage - defender.

Existing spy satellites have relatively small manuevering engines. ASATs have much more powerful maneuvering engines, but their fuel capacity is limited also. Advantage - probably attacker.

Overall advantage - ???

Of course, future spy satellites will have to be equipped with more powerful manuevering engines and greater fuel supplies....

[Berzerker]

cool, we need to develop the technology to blast or divert big rocks floating around in space

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by pchang
The defender initiates the dodge and the attacker must react. Thus, the attacker must be able to put more force and expend more fuel. Advantage - defender.

Existing spy satellites have relatively small manuevering engines. ASATs have much more powerful maneuvering engines, but their fuel capacity is limited also. Advantage - probably attacker.

Overall advantage - ???

Of course, future spy satellites will have to be equipped with more powerful manuevering engines and greater fuel supplies....

Or countermeasures. But that arms race is currently advantage - attacker, because of the rate at which we put up new spy sats.

[MOBIUS]

All I have to say is that the US brought in on themselves:

Last year the US rejected a call from 160 other United Nations countries to have talks on banning weapons in space.

Dominating the final frontier

[DanS]

ASATs are not in space, dufus. Everybody could have a healthy arsenal of ASATs on terra firma.

[KrazyHorse]

The Chinese and American ones aren't, but IIRC the Sovs based some in space back in the 60s.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
ASATs are not in space, dufus. Everybody could have a healthy arsenal of ASATs on terra firma.

ASAT's are space weapons for all intents and purposes because their targets are in space.

[pchang]

Originally posted by GePap


ASAT's are space weapons for all intents and purposes because their targets are in space.

And governments would never use technicalities to try and exclude certain things from treaties....

[Flubber]

Originally posted by pchang


And governments would never use technicalities to try and exclude certain things from treaties....

I'm just thinking that it is relatively easy to design things with an anti-satellite capability but claim or list them as anti-missile defense or something. Its not like you will invite other countries to inspect your newest innovations in detail.

Would an anti-satellite weapon look that different from an anti-ICBM weapon?

[Patroklos]

This was the first test of the system against a known non manuevering target that was purposely placed in the orbit that would make it easiest to hit. I will be years until they have it perfected, and years after that until they have enough to matter.

And never until we can't destroy their launch sites/tracking stations at will.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap


ASAT's are space weapons for all intents and purposes because their targets are in space.

ICBMs are space weapons because they travel through space to get to their targets.

The GPS-guided missiles are space weapons because their navigational information comes from space

etc

The talks Mobius was referencing, AFAIK, were about banning the presence of weapons in space, not the ability to launch weapons into space.