9 thoughts on “The Increasing Military Threat In Space”
It wouldn’t end well for Russia or China as we can cobble together communications networks that don’t need satellites.
I haven’t seen this discussed, so its probably another stupid question but do orbital dynamics permit for dropping the space based equivalent of caltrops? Is it possible to create a field of debris that would prevent a specific country from having access to space? Like, maybe we don’t create a debris field by blowing up satellites but we place one up there.
Then, the lower the altitude is, the shorter the duration but also lowers the ceiling for more terrestrial weapons.
Sure. Just use the Falcon 9 to put 22,000 kg of 0.177 cal BBs into LEO, dispersing them slowly with gaseous nitrogen. That amounts to 66 million BBs in orbit, each with a kinetic energy against a stationary target of 10 kJ. That could form a very large cloud at low density, but with a high enough hit probability to deny access to orbit to pretty much everyone.
When I think Space War I don’t think of low earth orbit. Pocket change.
I think of redirecting small asteroids to impact at high energies:
Penetrating contained environments constructed in subsurface lava tubes to vent their atmospheres.
Breaking up competitor’s asteroid-based mining operations by breaking up the asteroids.
Lunar mass drivers to threaten the entire surface of the Earth for ransom.
Cube Sat torpedoes.
Hacking software controlling airlocks.
And stuff.
So, the same problem we have with space commerce. People are twenty steps ahead of reality.
The ideal answer to the problem he outlines would be a successful mitigation for the Kessler syndrome, since that would be beneficial in peacetime as well as war. We need to be aggressively pursuing research into cleaning up small orbital debris en masse. Coupled with a reasonable level of hardening and redundancy for strategically important satellites this would mitigate the ASAT threat.
I know that sweeping orbits clean is a daunting challenge, but it would also benefit from reduced launch costs just like every other space-based activity. Hopefully our defense planners now fully realize what an incredible asset SpaceX is and will take advantage of the new capabilities.
I always thought the claim that missile defense couldn’t work because interceptors cost more than ICBMs was economically poorly thought out. Your first demo of any new technology including missile interception is going to be a really expensive prototype because of all the R&D costs included in the price. Once you’re mass producing them, costs should go down drastically.
The calculus of missile defense is more complicated than just the cost of the attacking and defending systems. You also need to consider the value of what is being defended. Consider Israel’s Iron Dome system. The unguided rockets being fired at Israel cost from a few hundred dollars each, while the defending missile reportedly costs about $50,000. However, one of those attacking rockets can kill people and destroy buildings worth far more than the cost of the defending rocket. Additionally, Iron Dome fires only at the rockets that are heading towards something worth protecting and lets the others fall harmlessly.
You’re also right about that. I was referring specifically to an argument that if your missile interceptor costs more than an ICBM, the enemy will just defeat by having more ICBMs. Which I think is flawed for the reasons above. BTW, I recall someone argue that Iron Dome’s effectiveness was exaggerated because they only counted the the total rockets it attempted to intercept when they calculated the hit percentage, not the rockets the system ignored because they weren’t going to hit anything. Eye-rolling stupid, since if the system ignores low or no threat targets it’s working as intended.
It wouldn’t end well for Russia or China as we can cobble together communications networks that don’t need satellites.
I haven’t seen this discussed, so its probably another stupid question but do orbital dynamics permit for dropping the space based equivalent of caltrops? Is it possible to create a field of debris that would prevent a specific country from having access to space? Like, maybe we don’t create a debris field by blowing up satellites but we place one up there.
Then, the lower the altitude is, the shorter the duration but also lowers the ceiling for more terrestrial weapons.
Sure. Just use the Falcon 9 to put 22,000 kg of 0.177 cal BBs into LEO, dispersing them slowly with gaseous nitrogen. That amounts to 66 million BBs in orbit, each with a kinetic energy against a stationary target of 10 kJ. That could form a very large cloud at low density, but with a high enough hit probability to deny access to orbit to pretty much everyone.
When I think Space War I don’t think of low earth orbit. Pocket change.
I think of redirecting small asteroids to impact at high energies:
Penetrating contained environments constructed in subsurface lava tubes to vent their atmospheres.
Breaking up competitor’s asteroid-based mining operations by breaking up the asteroids.
Lunar mass drivers to threaten the entire surface of the Earth for ransom.
Cube Sat torpedoes.
Hacking software controlling airlocks.
And stuff.
So, the same problem we have with space commerce. People are twenty steps ahead of reality.
The ideal answer to the problem he outlines would be a successful mitigation for the Kessler syndrome, since that would be beneficial in peacetime as well as war. We need to be aggressively pursuing research into cleaning up small orbital debris en masse. Coupled with a reasonable level of hardening and redundancy for strategically important satellites this would mitigate the ASAT threat.
I know that sweeping orbits clean is a daunting challenge, but it would also benefit from reduced launch costs just like every other space-based activity. Hopefully our defense planners now fully realize what an incredible asset SpaceX is and will take advantage of the new capabilities.
I always thought the claim that missile defense couldn’t work because interceptors cost more than ICBMs was economically poorly thought out. Your first demo of any new technology including missile interception is going to be a really expensive prototype because of all the R&D costs included in the price. Once you’re mass producing them, costs should go down drastically.
The calculus of missile defense is more complicated than just the cost of the attacking and defending systems. You also need to consider the value of what is being defended. Consider Israel’s Iron Dome system. The unguided rockets being fired at Israel cost from a few hundred dollars each, while the defending missile reportedly costs about $50,000. However, one of those attacking rockets can kill people and destroy buildings worth far more than the cost of the defending rocket. Additionally, Iron Dome fires only at the rockets that are heading towards something worth protecting and lets the others fall harmlessly.
You’re also right about that. I was referring specifically to an argument that if your missile interceptor costs more than an ICBM, the enemy will just defeat by having more ICBMs. Which I think is flawed for the reasons above. BTW, I recall someone argue that Iron Dome’s effectiveness was exaggerated because they only counted the the total rockets it attempted to intercept when they calculated the hit percentage, not the rockets the system ignored because they weren’t going to hit anything. Eye-rolling stupid, since if the system ignores low or no threat targets it’s working as intended.
*should*