Anti Satellite weapons

[Apurva Kawthalkar]

Hey guys, what do you think of the Indian ASAT tests in 2019 ??

[Regor]

On 4/1/2020 at 4:00 PM, Apurva Kawthalkar said:

Hey guys, what do you think of the Indian ASAT tests in 2019 ??

I think it is honestly a pretty horrible idea. Money used for war/propaganda while creating space junk. Don’t see anyway at all how that would be a good idea. 

[Apurva Kawthalkar]

Hey guys, you all have heard of the new Russian " Inspector" satellite ? 

See these links - https://southfront.org/us-space-force-claims-russia-testing-anti-satellite-weapons-systems/

                             https://southfront.org/u-s-space-force-accuses-russia-of-testing-its-anti-satellite-weapon-in-space/

 

There is even a nice video by Scott Manley  

 

 

[Vanamonde]

Hey guy. Since your posts are about real space flight rather than KSP, your posts have been moved to the real space flight subforum. 

[Apurva Kawthalkar]

7 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Hey guy. Since your posts are about real space flight rather than KSP, your posts have been moved to the real space flight subforum. 

Well its kind of mixed, where some people talked about, what they made or were planning to make in KSP,  but ok no problem

[DDE]

18 hours ago, Apurva Kawthalkar said:

Hey guys, you all have heard of the new Russian " Inspector" satellite ? 

See these links - https://southfront.org/us-space-force-claims-russia-testing-anti-satellite-weapons-systems/

                             https://southfront.org/u-s-space-force-accuses-russia-of-testing-its-anti-satellite-weapon-in-space/

 

There is even a nice video by Scott Manley  

 

 

"New". This is the second 14F150 Nivelir, and there wasn't anywhere near as much ruckus about the first one two years ago despite it carrying out the same exact activities.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43064.0

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49501.0

Just watch every step of Bart Hendrickx, he knows far more than the Russophile blobtits at Southfront )

Ultimately I concur with USSF's assessment that the sub-sub-satellite is a weapon. The only other option is a Legato/Strazh ejectable flight data recorder - and those Soviet projects only worked with hull-mounted or tethered packages anyway. However, the US has given many good reasons fir Russia to develop such a system, from the undying spectre of SDI to the very real effort to implement space-based guidance for "left-of-launch" missile defence (which in plain terms is preemptive attack), a concept typically illustrated with images with very familiar hardware:

Spoiler

 

[DDE]

On 4/1/2020 at 9:00 AM, Apurva Kawthalkar said:

Hey guys, what do you think of the Indian ASAT tests in 2019 ??

The ASAT system involved is of the "direct ascent" type, much like its Chinese counterparts, or the Russian Nudol, or indeed the US SM-3 (although the US keeps pretending their ASAT test, following in the footsteps of the Chinese one, was a purely altruistic undertaking). Almost all such weapons have a secondary or primary use as exoatmospheric antimissiles and can become low-performance ASAT in a pinch, which is what I think India did there. I don't think India has a well-thought-out anti-space doctrine. Its most likely advesary is China.

https://satelliteobservation.net/2016/09/20/the-chinese-maritime-surveillance-system/

The PLASSF constellation seems to be placed in many various orbits, some of them unusually high. This means a DA-ASAT is going to have trouble depleting enough of them to justify the international uproar.

Finally, I've yet to have heard of the many, many activities that are associated with an operational deployment of an ASAT system.

[p1t1o]

Do we have any handle on how many satellites could be destroyed in this way before we run a strong risk of a runaway Kessler?

Closer to 10 or 100 or 1000? Or is it an unknown?

Seems to me that specifically targetting and depleting an observation or navigation constellation would be quite difficult, especially if there are spares available for rapid launch. But a random turkey shoot until space is denied to all might be easier to achieve.

Makes it a "MAD" arms race between superpowers mirroring the cold war and thus a fairly familiar thing, countries going through the motions.

Edited August 11, 2020 by p1t1o

[Guest]

Depends in which orbit such a satellite is. Kessler cascade is a localized phenomenon, depending on how crowded a given altitude is. For GEO and Starlink shells, probably not much. There are others which don't even have enough satellites in them for a cascade to occur.

[DDE]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Do we have any handle on how many satellites could be destroyed in this way before we run a strong risk of a runaway Kessler?

Yeah, the problem with DA ASAT is that you have none of the "soft takedown" options.

Spoiler

 

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Do we have any handle on how many satellites could be destroyed in this way before we run a strong risk of a runaway Kessler?

Closer to 10 or 100 or 1000? Or is it an unknown?

Seems to me that specifically targetting and depleting an observation or navigation constellation would be quite difficult, especially if there are spares available for rapid launch. But a random turkey shoot until space is denied to all might be easier to achieve.

Makes it a "MAD" arms race between superpowers mirroring the cold war and thus a fairly familiar thing, countries going through the motions.

Depends a lot, low earth will clear itself of light fragments pretty fast. Not so for higher orbits. Geo is worst as its so populated. Here you could easy get an runaway Kessler effect with one asat weapon if messy I think. 
Now something like GPS fly high but they are also in little used orbits so it would be hard to generate lots of debris.

Now the Russian system might be pretty clean as it shoot an micro satellite missile at 500 km/h. This would be useful if you was flying close to the target and then wanted to take it out. 
If you aimed for the body it would punch in. Now for more effect having an payload of quicksilver or carbon fiber would make more mess of the rest of the electronic without generating lots of debris. 

And yes something like spray paint might actually work If used on optic or the solar panels. 

However something like the Russian system could also be used for defense. 

[DDE]

14 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Now the Russian system might be pretty clean as it shoot an micro satellite missile at 500 km/h. This would be useful if you was flying close to the target and then wanted to take it out. 
If you aimed for the body it would punch in. Now for more effect having an payload of quicksilver or carbon fiber would make more mess of the rest of the electronic without generating lots of debris. 

And yes something like spray paint might actually work If used on optic or the solar panels. 

However something like the Russian system could also be used for defense. 

You're closer than you think.

https://thespacereview.com/article/3536/1

[kerbiloid]

If deliver a tank onto the Moon, it will be a lunar anti-satellite tank, with 1.5 km/s APFSDS.

Upd.
If leave it on the lunar orbit, it will be an interplanetary antisatellite orbital tank. The delta-V of APFSDS allows.

It could shoot at LEO sats, GSO sats, and even near-Earth asteroids.

Edited August 11, 2020 by kerbiloid

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It could shoot at LEO sats, GSO sats, and even near-Earth asteroids.

I don't want to be the intern assigned to program the trajectory to impact an LEO sat from a projectile weapons platform in lunar orbit.

[kerbiloid]

Just now, sevenperforce said:

I don't want to be the intern assigned to program the trajectory to impact an LEO sat from a projectile weapons platform in lunar orbit.

Why? It's interesting!

And safe, as any kinetic projectile would burn in air.

[K^2]

39 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I don't want to be the intern assigned to program the trajectory to impact an LEO sat from a projectile weapons platform in lunar orbit.

 

38 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Why? It's interesting!

@sevenperforce Ok, I have a better one. Would you rather write that program or provide explanation for above? 

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If deliver a tank onto the Moon, it will be a lunar anti-satellite tank, with 1.5 km/s APFSDS.

Upd.
If leave it on the lunar orbit, it will be an interplanetary antisatellite orbital tank. The delta-V of APFSDS allows.

It could shoot at LEO sats, GSO sats, and even near-Earth asteroids.

Yes one fact with APFSDS is that if your tank are shooting while climbing steeply uphill against an target on the ridge the projectile can reach more than 100 km. You are into the territory of the Paris gun. 
Still you can easy shoot into other countries. Its an inert projectile but still not something you want to hit an apartment block in an city with. 

[Guest]

[snip]

Back on topic, it's funny how despite all the criticism, it's the Russians who never launched an ASAT test similar to the ones China and US did.They either know better than to make debris, or are convinced that their satellite-based tech is reliable enough.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Guest
Redacted by moderator

[K^2]

37 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Back on topic, it's funny how despite all the criticism, it's the Russians who never launched an ASAT test similar to the ones China and US did.They either know better than to make debris, or are convinced that their satellite-based tech is reliable enough.

USSR/Russia have been doing tests on kinetic kill vehicles for use in missile defense and as anti-satellite (or even anti-anti-satellite!) weaponry for a very long time. I don't know why they haven't done an orbital demonstration. Purely hypothetically, they could have carried out tests at high altitude, where debris decayed right away, and concluded they have enough precision to manage it in orbit. But even then, it seems unlikely such a test would go unnoticed, and I haven't read anything about anything like this.

Another thing USSR/Russia have been very good at, at least in lab environment, is infrared interferometry ranging. It's entirely possible that some of the spy satellites have had equipment they've deemed sensitive enough to register a hit against a nearby "virtual" target. Recent oddities that Scott talked about in his video could have easily been tests or calibration for something like it.

I still don't know why Russia would go to such lengths to keep it quiet, though. Yes, there's advantage of high moral ground in not leaving debris in space, but a test like what India carried out also lets the entire world know that you have technology. Maybe the assumption is that US/China already know, and Russia would try to conceal the actual precision, response time, etc?

Russia not having capability and not being close to it would be an explanation, I suppose, but it seems like something they'd go after, and built up on Soviet research in propulsion with modern electronics, they had plenty of time to get it ready. Unless Russia just isn't even trying for it because maybe nukes, and they think they'll have advantage if they simply clear the LEO of all sats? Even then, seems like you'd want options. *big shrug*

[sevenperforce]

In what geopolitical situation would you really actually need that kind of antisat capability?

It reminds me a little bit of how MIRVs really screwed around with short-range ABM interceptors. It becomes exponential very quickly. 

[K^2]

Just now, sevenperforce said:

In what geopolitical situation would you really actually need that kind of antisat capability?

Back in USSR time when it was all just getting started, the thought was that you could take out enemy spy satellites. Now, of course, it's cheaper to launch ten of these than one kill vehicle.

GPS satellites, though? There aren't that many, it's expensive to get more, and losing them hurts your ability to conduct operations instantly. I would absolutely invest in having capability to take out enemy GPS fleet without destroying my own.

[Snark]

A lot of content, from various people who really should know better, has been removed.  This is due to various combinations of:

• off topic
• personal remarks, insults, or attacks
• publicly calling for moderator action

...all of which are against the forum rules (2.2.o, 2.2.d, and 3.2, respectively).

Folks, please play nice.  Remember that we're all pals here, and if you can't discuss something civilly, then just stroll on by.  If you see someone posting something that you disagree with, then by all means debate it-- but please debate it on the merits, not by trying to ridicule the person who posted it.

Address the post, not the poster.

Furthermore, if you see someone behaving in a way that seems to you to be against the rules, by all means report the post so that the moderators can have a look-- it's what we're for.  But any report made is private, between you and the moderator team; it's not okay to threaten people with reports, per rule 3.2 as mentioned above.

I trust that we can all comport ourselves like civil adults?  Thanks.

 

[DDE]

7 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

it's funny how despite all the criticism, it's the Russians who never launched an ASAT test similar to the ones China and US did.

We did, dozens of them - all the way back in the 1970s, before Andropov's unilateral moratorium.

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

Back in USSR time when it was all just getting started, the thought was that you could take out enemy spy satellites. Now, of course, it's cheaper to launch ten of these than one kill vehicle.

GPS satellites, though? There aren't that many, it's expensive to get more, and losing them hurts your ability to conduct operations instantly. I would absolutely invest in having capability to take out enemy GPS fleet without destroying my own.

That's unlikely to be the case, though - high-orbit ASAT is still largely unheard of; there was a bery weak link between Burevestnik and Angara-5, implying the insertion of a package of them into GEO, but Bart Hendrickx has since pursued inquiry into it being launched from a MiG-31 instead.

More immediate interests appear to be LEO ISR satellites and LEO missile defense/space-to-ground platforms.

[DerekL1963]

16 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Depends in which orbit such a satellite is. Kessler cascade is a localized phenomenon, depending on how crowded a given altitude is.

Not true at all.  The Indian ASAT test (300km) sent debris up to 2,200km.  The Chinese ASAT test (865km) scattered debris from 125km to 3850km.

That's why ASAT's are so worrisome - they can create the equivalent of the fallout cloud from a nuclear weapon, their effects spreading far beyond the local.  (Actually far worse, because a fallout cloud cannot cause further fallout clouds.)

By extension, that's also why a Kessler cascade must be prevented.  It's a chain reaction with no plausible way of shutting it down.

[kerbiloid]

Starlink is interesting in this context.
A global relay system consisting of 12 000 targets nodes equipped with propulsion system. Unlikely they can be provided with personal antisats.

Also, can they be used as impactors?

Edited August 12, 2020 by kerbiloid