totm dec 2019 Russian Launch and Mission Thread

[tater]

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Not a weapon. Even not a viable design, just a fantasy.

7 000 t of aluminium to evaporate.

The idea as I understand it is for light pressure to drop the perigee, or at higher energies to vaporize a small fraction of the debris on the prograde side to provide a retrograde impulse. It is not to vaporize an entire piece of debris.

[kerbiloid]

I have instinctively reacted on the word "melt".

[FleshJeb]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Yay. That attitude definitely doesn't encourage more missiles and more blasted satellites.

I was being somewhat facetious. In an interpersonal conflict, the right solution is to just cut those people out of your life.

I've attempted to edit the following to skip the politics, and be more about the game theory aspect:

This was a ratcheting escalation that skipped too many teeth on the ratchet. If a satellite had been destroyed that was in a more reasonable orbit, very few people would have a problem with it. It also would have inferred that the capability for a more destructive action is there, and proved the point. Actually carrying out that more destructive action was both cause for condemnation AND a strategic mistake. It invites (justifies?) what I'll loosely call a "FAFO Response"--That's what happens when you're playing a game and egregiously violate the rules.

[kerbiloid]

ISS has rolled the saving throw.

[DDE]

2 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

If a satellite had been destroyed that was in a more reasonable orbit, very few people would have a problem with it.

Likely not from the viewpoint of those performing the analysis, who have grown accustomed to uniformly bad PR - and who, more importantly, aren't terribly concerned with the broader public. As a consequence of the predominance of the realist brand of International Relations since the mid-1980s (please enjoy this very Russian explanation), the Russian state (as opposed to grant-eaters profiteering at its feet, who often hold drastically different views) is almost exclusively concerned about communicating with their peers - the military, diplomatic and intelligence leadership ("The Blob"). This is reinforced by perceived long-time and institutionalized animosity and bad faith, so hard bargains and dissuasion through show of force are seen as the only usable tools at its disposal; the Foreign Ministry, by comparison, is rumored to have become derided and despondent for its inability to deliver (see here, sections "Their 2014" and "Their MFA").

I largely suspect that Ru MoD was fully aware of the consequences of this test, and they were intentional - anything less nasty would produce comparable amounts of noise, while failing to get the attention of the people they're communicating with - the people who were quite aware of what prior Plesetsk tests inferred, and were still utterly non-responsive. This is a show of resolve as much as capability.

Or, for some low-hanging fruit, just consider how Starlink is at risk whereas OneWeb is largely not.

[sh1pman]

4 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

If a satellite had been destroyed that was in a more reasonable orbit

“You see Ivan, old defunct Soviet satellites are not always in reasonable orbits, and this is life. Key to start.”

1 hour ago, DDE said:

I largely suspect that Ru MoD was fully aware of the consequences of this test, and they were intentional - anything less nasty would produce comparable amounts of noise, while failing to get the attention of the people they're communicating with

I think you overcomplicate things, making them look far more cunning than they actually are. I’m 99% sure that space debris is just not an issue for MoD unless it endangers their own assets, which ISS isn’t.

[SunlitZelkova]

On 11/16/2021 at 2:40 PM, sh1pman said:

@DDE saw that. Even with tons of broken sats available, I still like my idea with Progress more

Shooting “down” a spacecraft with a similar shape, construction, and materials used for crewed spacecraft would be pretty creepy though.

Also out of curiosity (a question for anyone to answer btw), what is the justification used around the X-37B potentially having strike capabilities? It has no bomb bay, and won’t it naturally lose speed or just break apart if it was to be used as a suicide weapon (and thus be easily shot down by existing SAM systems)?

And the readying of an X-37B should be pretty obvious to Russia’s intelligence capabilities (NOTAMs, rocket assembly, infiltrating ULA or the launch provider to learn of the payload, etc.) so how is it supposed to work as a practical weapon (I’m assuming they are referring to the X-37B as a nuclear weapons delivery platform, as there are not enough X-37Bs nor launch pads for a conventional version to be an effective strike system)? Under Soviet ideology where the entire US society is just a front for the machinations of the conniving capitalists, I suppose the Space Shuttle first strike theory/fear made sense, but a repeat of that in modern Russia feels weird, at least based on what I know about the nature of modern Russian government perceptions of their potential adversaries.

[kerbiloid]

29 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It has no bomb bay

It has cargo bay.

[DDE]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Also out of curiosity (a question for anyone to answer btw), what is the justification used around the X-37B potentially having strike capabilities? It has no bomb bay, and won’t it naturally lose speed or just break apart if it was to be used as a suicide weapon (and thus be easily shot down by existing SAM systems)?

Secrecy, persistence, subordination (most recently, USSF Delta 9 Orbital Warfare), sufficient payload capacity, ability to conduct aerodynamic plane change maneuvers via atmospheric skips, past releases of subsatellites not reported to the UN (compare and contrast with Russian inspector subsatellite and sub-subsatellite releases). It seems perfectly serviceable as, say, a retrievable/serviceable Brilliant Pebbles garage. Besides, remember the recent Chinese FOBS+HGV hype? Well, the X-37 is technically an orbital HGV too.

However, as mentioned above, the term used lumps together space-to-space and space-to-ground systems, so I digress.

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

And the readying of an X-37B should be pretty obvious to Russia’s intelligence capabilities (NOTAMs, rocket assembly, infiltrating ULA or the launch provider to learn of the payload, etc.) so how is it supposed to work as a practical weapon (I’m assuming they are referring to the X-37B as a nuclear weapons delivery platform, as there are not enough X-37Bs nor launch pads for a conventional version to be an effective strike system)?

As a space-to-space system, conventional weaponry would be adequate... and beaides there's always the nebulous Weapons Based on New Physical Principles.

As implied by current accusations of an armed X-37 already being in orbit, such spaceplanes would be predeployed in the "threatening period". The latest mission was onboard a Falcon 9, so launch costs could crater if need be... and then you have the prospects of a USSF Starship.

Edited November 20, 2021 by DDE

[DDE]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Under Soviet ideology where the entire US society is just a front for the machinations of the conniving capitalists, I suppose the Space Shuttle first strike theory/fear made sense, but a repeat of that in modern Russia feels weird, at least based on what I know about the nature of modern Russian government perceptions of their potential adversaries.

I do not believe they have appreciably changed. As I was telling @FleshJeb above, in the mid-1980s Russian IR thinking had moved from Bolshevik orthodoxy to Realpolitik - the former dictated the US society was indeed strung along by The Blob but sought to subvert it, whereas the latter discounts US society entirely as a passive non-entity, and focuses solely on The Blob and its 25+ years of adversarial actions. The lack of successes in 'soft power' creates a self-reinforcing cycle for such thinking

Spoiler

For the record, I don't agree entirely with this approach. I've seen a fair argument that social media permits a grassroots total war mentality - the public now has mostly unfiltered access to the means of communication hitherto only avilable to the central state, and can drive itself into a bloodthirsty frenzy whether or not The Blob wants that.

 

[Beccab]

 

[kerbiloid]

Why collide directly when you can shoot on fly-by?

[DDE]

On 11/20/2021 at 4:07 PM, Beccab said:

 

To be pedantic, I'm not sure Scott's sources are credible enough for such a certain claim. A lot of statements about novel Russian weapons systems are a product of citogenesis - someone extrapolates from prior systems, puts it on Wikipedia, then the Russian media reads off the infobox, and the result gets cited as an official confirmation.

See, for example, the mystery of the torpedo tube count of the Yasens. You see all sorts of numbers and calibers thrown around when the only certainty is this one image:

Spoiler

 

Edited November 21, 2021 by DDE

[Beccab]

Better than the armed soldier for public relations at least

[SunlitZelkova]

So Soyuz MS-20 isn't the only thing being done to improve Russia-Japan relations 

Would it be possible to launch two Soyuz and have them dock, Soyuz 4 and 5 style, and have each carry diplomats from Russia and Japan, and then sign the WWII peace treaty in space?

[kerbiloid]

No.

Launch and dock - yes, the latter part - no.

Because nobody actually needs to change something.

[SunlitZelkova]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

No.

Launch and dock - yes, the latter part - no.

Because nobody actually needs to change something.

"And therefore, the study concludes that there is no increase in the effectiveness of diplomats during negotiations when exposed to microgravity".

[sh1pman]

59 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

"And therefore, the study concludes that there is no increase in the effectiveness of diplomats during negotiations when exposed to microgravity".

If I were writing a grant proposal for such a study, I’d ask for more money for more launches because one repeat is not enough for a convincing statistical analysis. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 11/19/2021 at 6:05 PM, DDE said:

please enjoy

I did enjoy that - thanks very much for the link! 

[SunlitZelkova]

Launch of Prichal stream(s?) is live.

Can the spacecraft be christened “Big Brain Progress” while it is in flight to the ISS?

[Minmus Taster]

 

[Minmus Taster]

Were on the 3rd stage, final boost into orbit is starting.

[magnemoe]

On 11/18/2021 at 11:29 PM, DDE said:

 

Anything who can be precision controlled in space is an potential weapon. 
Ballistic interceptors are preferred for lower  orbits as they can intercept anything overflying and they can double as ABM systems, they are also not deployed in space but on ground or in ships. 
You can do just as good an test against an metal on Mylar balloon. 

[tater]

 

[StrandedonEarth]

9 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

 

That engine tracking shot was gorgeous!