How can we know the types of the things other countries launch to space?

[Cesrate]

I mean, if someone break the peaceful use of space secretly and launch a ion cannon satellite while make it public as an ordinary (maybe a little big) communication satellite, can others know it's actually a weapon? What's more, if it's an EMP bomb? Space nuke? Or other fatal things?

[Dr. Muttonstache]

Lots and lots of satellites.

[Cesrate]

Lots and lots of satellites.

What do you mean, Hinanawi? Earth's optical satellites aren't so much and aren't so powerful.

[Dr. Muttonstache]

What do you mean, Hinanawi? Earth's optical satellites aren't so much and aren't so powerful.

Spy satellites. Plenty of those out there.

[Cesrate]

Spy satellites. Plenty of those out there.

The Earth's satellite space is big. And satellites are very small, very fast and very numerous objects.

[BossSquirrelz]

The Earth's satellite space is big. And satellites are very small, very fast and very numerous objects.

Actually, satellites like the X-37 spaceplane, are suspected of spying on others, like the Chinese space station.

[Person012345]

I mean, if someone break the peaceful use of space secretly and launch a ion cannon satellite while make it public as an ordinary (maybe a little big) communication satellite, can others know it's actually a weapon? What's more, if it's an EMP bomb? Space nuke? Or other fatal things?

Short answer is that we can't know for certain. However, things tend to leak. This is the reason we have spies and the reason we accept defectors and informants. Governments can't keep secrets for crap and if it's found out that you've launched a space nuke, the consequences will never be the same.

[Nibb31]

You can't really hide military sat as a commercial sat, because commercial sats are all very well known, designed and built by commercial companies, responding to public calls for bids, etc... Most commercial companies are proud to show off their new stuff, with guided tours and public invitations for customers and shareholders for the construction and launch of the satellite.

An orbital launch cannot be hidden. It will automatically be picked up by sismographs and radar systems all around the world, and in the early phases of launch it is hard to distinguish an orbital launch from an ICBM. This is why military and commercial launches are always announced in advance, by NOTAMs (notifications for aircraft telling them to stay out of the area), and usually by matter of diplomatic curtesy.

It's easier for the military to launch their military satellites. Most military satellites are publically launched with classified payloads. There is no way of knowing exactly what kind on payload is on board the rocket, but intelligence analysts track every object and can often figure out what it's used for based on the size, the orbit, how it manoeuvers, and any other intelligence sources.

As for weapons, for a weapon to be operational, it has to be tested. Firing an EMP device, an orbital nuke (even just an inert reentry vehicle), or an ion cannon would be easy to detect. Again, intelligence agencies are pretty good at detecting weapon tests and knowing what technologies other countries have, as well as their operational capabilities. For example, everyone knows that the US has designed ship-based megawatt-class lasers (and even a Boeing 747 one), but they are not small enough to be launched to orbit.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Nibb31

[baarnold]

Just remember somebody IS always watching you. Geosynchronous orbiting satellites watch everything

[Latcarf]

Inquiry:

Is it possible to photograph a satellite from the ground? If so, that would be one possible method of determining actual payload content. If not, I'm afraid this falls into the category of "Stuff We'll Never Ever Know".

If we look at popular science fiction (in this case I'll use Stargate) any country's government has every capability to hide technology from their people. Who's to say that Earth doesn't have a capable intergalactic ship in orbit right now? Am I? No. Are you? Probably not.

[Canopus]

@Latcarf how would they hide those technologies? And yes i'm sure that no country has or will ever have any kind of "intergalactic ship"in orbit.

PS: using a sci fi tv series as an example makes stuff you say not very believable.

[Thaniel]

As for identification thru imaging, NASA and othhers have used groundbased optical observatories and the likes to take pictures and film of orbiting vehicles like the spaceshuttle and the ISS on numerous ocations. Granted, these pictures require the object in question being lit up by the sun, or something else. Or it would barely or not at all show up in the pictures taken. And the resolution due to earths atmosphere and it´s currents will liit the end result.

However, it is a way to get some idea of what kind of sattelite it is.

Likewise, other orbital assets can be and have been used to image objects of a foreign origin. And those aren´t limited by earths atmosphere.

So, for launching some orbital weapons platform, Here´s one example of how it can be done:

The vehicle will be launched as a millitary classified sattelite, it will also maneuver and operate like a generic spysatelite, or maybe more like a millitary communication sattelite, It can also have atleast limited capabilities to function like one.

The exterior of the sattelite itself will also have to be made to look like what it is posing as being. Foreign forces will then treat it just as such. Such a sattelite could then have a nuclear device or EMP bomb for orbital deployment and direct delivery. But as Person012345 says, if someone did that, the consequences could be devastating. That nation would in reality risk having all their orbital assets obliterated by other nations in retaliation, and the transperancy for any launch to orbit could make millitary cargos hard to get away with in the future.

In short, I don´t think anyone else than shortsighted egoistic dictatorships would be willing to do something like that. It´s a gamble, a possibly very expensive gamble, with a dubious return.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Thaniel

[Latcarf]

@Canopus Don't be a prick. Note the original post listed an Ion Cannon. Do any of your friends have an ion cannon? The point remains: technology that has no market does not have to be released to the public. I'm not saying that there is literally an intergalactic ship in orbit, only that there could be a secret military spy toaster in orbit and nobody but top officials would know about it. And they would hog all of the space toast.

Back on track, Thaniel. I see what you mean-- the outer surface of a payload could potentially be false casing, to be jettisoned when the weapon or defense mechanism is needed. "But as Person012345 says, if someone did that, the consequences could be devastating. That nation would in reality risk having all their orbital assets obliterated by other nations in retaliation, and the transperancy for any launch to orbit could make millitary cargos hard to get away with in the future."

A orbital weapon/defense cold war. I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracy, ever, but the prospect of orbital weaponry has definitely crossed my mind a time or two.

[Latcarf]

Irony and coincidence!!!

This thread is active and covers a bit of the same topic. The USA-165 or XSS-11[1] (eXperimental Satellite System-11) was listed over there. It seems to be a police dog, of sorts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSS_11

[The Jedi Master]

Russia: Don't worry, it's a communications SAT, honest...

United Nations: Then why does it have a big cannon on the front and why is it pointed at NYC?

Russia: Uh...

Weapons are hard to miss.

[Panichio]

I would think that the moment another country says it's going to launch a satellite, all other powerful nations will get paranoid and start spying with everything they have. Also, too many people would be working on the project, and some information would be bound to get loose. We'll have to see, though. It won't be long until countries are going to start finding ways to put weapons in space.

[Canopus]

@Latcarf i wasn't trying to be mean but i think that in the modern World new technological breakthroughs can't be kept secret, at least not for long.

[Thaniel]

Ironicaly, that could be easier done than said, with atleast a part of the public wanting a strong human presence in space, and railgun/laser technology being at it's current level, building andlaunchind parts for a new and large spacestation could be a very nice cover for such parts. It would require some serious camouflaging, but in such a case, anyone yelling "GUN" can be cut down with "you conspiracymonger, there is no gun, it's just a tank for storing liquid nitrogen....."

[Rune]

Ok, if spy sats can read license plates on cars, why do you guys assume the much, much bigger telescopes on the ground can't read their serial numbers? Even civilian sats routinely manage 1m resolutions with primary mirrors measured in cms. The NRO recently donated NASA a couple of Hubbles it never launched (~1m mirrors).

The only way to hide what you have, these days, is to keep it underground or underwater. And IR emissions also tell you how much power it is producing at any given time. And megawatt directed energy weapons (or kinetic for that matter) don't exist, but if they did they would need megawatt sized radiators to function in space. Those are kind of a giveaway (and flimsy and therefore soft target for the myriad of ASAT weapons already in existence). And megawatt sized powerplants, which are heavy and consisting of either huge solar panels or radiation-producing (and hence, detectable) nuclear reactors. Also, you can guess pretty accurately the mass from the launch vehicle used and the orbit it has.

That, without getting into the point of how useless space-based weaponry is, in a world with silo and sub-based ICBM's topped with nuclear warheads.

Rune. There is no stealth in space.

[Latcarf]

Rune. That peaks my curiosity. Could a ground based station focused on earth orbit be able to detect the varying energy outputs of existing satellites?

[Rune]

Rune. That peaks my curiosity. Could a ground based station focused on earth orbit be able to detect the varying energy outputs of existing satellites?

If it operates on IR (infrared) wavelengths, I don't see why not... but now that I think about that twice, I seem to remember IR is what gets mostly blocked out by the atmosphere ^^'. You would have to ask someone whose field is actual astronomical observation and telescopes, I'm afraid, I'm a bit green on that.

Well, it's a matter of putting your IR telescope into another satellite if so. Wait, that is what early warning satellites are, now I get why every military capable of building them has some .

Rune. The JWST would do a great job on that.

[jwenting]

why keep those things in orbit anyway, where you can't easily get at them for maintenance, upgrades, etc. when they won't be needed for years, decades, or ever?

No, you keep them where you can have easy access to them, in a secure warehouse colocated with your main launch facilities. The same place in fact you keep your spare military comsats and spysats, and some launchers.

Then, when you think war is imminent and you will have a need for them soon (as in within a few days or weeks) you announce the launch of some new comsats and surveillance sats, and mix the combat systems in in that mix using fake shrouds to make them look like those.

Or do what the Soviets did, and put them on top of some outdated ICBMs that you keep in their launch silos on alert status, ready to be shot off into orbit with the rest of them, just on a different trajectory and mission.

[Thaniel]

Well, there's a difference here, if the intent is just to detect elevated energy usage/heat levels, then those early warning sats would do. And having them built with no moving parts means less that can go wrong. With a reduced resolution, they won't have to be large either, or expensive.

however,if the intent is to "map" foreign millitary crafts with high resolution IR cameras, so you can identify what parts of them that normaly work at wich temperature, thickness of material based on residual heat from the sun etc. Hen higher resolution will be necesary, and sadly, more time. So either you base your IR sensor on groundbased observation, or you go orbital. And there's no need to limit oneself to only one alternative.

About observing in the IR wavelength on earth, yepp, our atmosphere does indeed make that hard, as it absorbs IR radiation very well. But we still have astronomical equipment meantfor observing in the IR spectrum, on top of tall mountains, where there is significantly less atmosphere inbetween the telescope and the radiating object.

groundbased equipment like that can have anhigher resolution that tiny early warning sats, but they will be subject to atmospherical distortions as well.

[Nibb31]

Amateurs were capable of photographing the failed Phobos-Grunt probe in 2011. Those pictures were actually helpful in analyzing the cause of the failure:

http://www.space.com/13774-skywatcher-photos-russian-phobos-grunt-probe.html

There are also some amazing pictures of the ISS taken from ground telescopes:

http://weinterrupt.com/2009/03/the-international-space-station-as-seen-from-earth/

And Mir:

http://www.satobs.org/telescope.html

Imagine what a government can do with their telescopes, or just by turning a KH-12 spy sat around to look at any other sats that are passing by.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Nibb31

[Latcarf]

why keep those things in orbit anyway, where you can't easily get at them for maintenance, upgrades, etc. when they won't be needed for years, decades, or ever?

You're totally right. I can't think of a good reason to lock weapons into orbit except for first-response defense/strike. Plus, the only way an orbital-to-ground defense/attack system would work is if there were A LOT of them ready to burn retrograde and enter the atmosphere where you want, and in good time.

But even so-- there would have to be a ton of satellites for this system to be efficient. On top of that the idea is borderline weapons-of-mass-destruction.

Call me an idealist but I cannot imagine 2013+ Earth being in mass chaos because of war. (Let me reiterate, I cannot imagine Earth in mass chaos because of war. Bombs still go off on a daily basis all over the world killing individuals for reasons that are beyond me, but most of the world's population still goes to work and grows vegetables in their gardens.)