Jump to content

Russia Testing Highly Maneuverable Satellite


andrew123

Recommended Posts

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/Cosmos-2499.html

Ground observations indicated that the mystery satellite had not exceeded 0.3 meters in size. Previously, two Rockot launches with trios of Rodnik/Strela-3M launches also carried Yubileiny (a.k.a. MiR) experimental satellites with a reported mass of 100 kilograms. As with the previous launch, observers were at a complete loss about the possible purpose of the satellite, but such roles as inspection, robotic refueling, repairs and even anti-satellite missions are all within a realm of possibilities for this type of orbital behavior.

Hmm... seems similar to an old concept. :):P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Russia's actually getting it funded, you can bet your behind that primary mission is anti-satellite or anti-missile. Though, to be fair, USSR and Russia have been pretty good about dual-purposing their space-tech. So maybe something useful will come out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been repeated mentions of a near-operational ASAT system by Russian officials, but it's usually been thought to refer to the Naryad system that was under test in the final days of the USSR (and for which Rockot/Briz-K was developed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we really see a "0.3 meters in size" satellite from the ground? I assume the performance of the armies radars are not known, but this is a tiny object to detect.

Amateurs with telescopes could track the X37 from the ground consistently. I think that countries military probably have better capabilities than them to track things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope we don't end up with a lot of new space technology so we can play space chicken and crazy Ivans with satellites instead of submarines.

It sounds like something that is inevitable sooner or later. These conventions and pacts not to weaponize space are cute, but I am not under any illusion those will stop anyone from deploying actual weapons in space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like something that is inevitable sooner or later. These conventions and pacts not to weaponize space are cute, but I am not under any illusion those will stop anyone from deploying actual weapons in space.

Its such a shame that space is being weaponised. :( However the treaties only stop WMD being put into space, not conventional weapons.

Personally I don't understand why we need weapons in space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we really see a "0.3 meters in size" satellite from the ground? I assume the performance of the armies radars are not known, but this is a tiny object to detect.

According to this NASA document:

The Threat of Orbital Debris and Protecting NASA Space Assets from Satellite Collisions (2009).

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/ODMediaBriefing28Apr09-1.pdf

DoD’s Space Surveillance Network (Part of NORAD's mission)discretely tracks objects as small as 5 cm in low

Earth orbit and about 1 min geosynchronous orbit.

– Currently, ~14,000 officially cataloged objects are still in orbit.

– Total tracked objects exceeds 19,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we really see a "0.3 meters in size" satellite from the ground? I assume the performance of the armies radars are not known, but this is a tiny object to detect.

You don't need a particularly good telescope to see an object that size. Even if your resolution is much worse than that, you will still a shiny dot/smudge, the only issue is to get enough light, and there is long exposure for that.

Same thing with radar, you don't need a very good resolution to get an echo and good localisation information. Space isn't very far away, military radar can totally detect a rocket several kms away, so a satellite 100 or 200km above, with no ground reflection and little atmosphere in the way wouldn't even be a challenge. I suspect civilian technology, as in weather or air traffic radar, could do it.

Finally, you can use infrared telescopes, and it will be quite easy to spot.

Hiding is impossible in space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like something that is inevitable sooner or later. These conventions and pacts not to weaponize space are cute, but I am not under any illusion those will stop anyone from deploying actual weapons in space.

The most important thing has held, though: no nuclear weapons in space. ICBM launches are big, noisy, and take 30 minutes to reach the other guy; if one had nuclear weapons in orbit, ready to drop on targets on command, the deployment time goes way down, which decreases the risk of being the first one to deploy atomic weapons. The harder it is to get off an unanswered first volley, the more effective nuclear deterrence is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important thing has held, though: no nuclear weapons in space.

*that we know of. I would actually be pretty surprised if no banned or slightly illegal weapon was shot up there already. I hope they haven't, but you know what they say. All is fair...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*that we know of. I would actually be pretty surprised if no banned or slightly illegal weapon was shot up there already. I hope they haven't, but you know what they say. All is fair...

You can't hide things in space. It would be obvious if someone put one in orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important thing has held, though: no nuclear weapons in space. ICBM launches are big, noisy, and take 30 minutes to reach the other guy; if one had nuclear weapons in orbit, ready to drop on targets on command, the deployment time goes way down, which decreases the risk of being the first one to deploy atomic weapons. The harder it is to get off an unanswered first volley, the more effective nuclear deterrence is.

Putting nukes in orbit offers very few advantages. You've got a few options: LEO, which gives you a highly variable response time (from about 10 minutes to over an hour!) or GEO, which gives you consistent, but long response time (try deorbiting something in RSS if you don't believe. GEO is very, very high up). Also, nukes are heavy, and large space launches are rather hard to conceal. People find classified Delta IV payloads all the time, with Long March and Proton it's mostly the same. Don't believe Holywood, ICBMs are incapable of getting their payload anywhere near orbit (just look at how puny ICBM-derived LVs are). Space does offer plenty of advantages, but also quite a few disadvantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't hide things in space. It would be obvious if someone put one in orbit.

A little creativity goes a long way. Even radiation signatures can be obfuscated and made to look like something else, like an RTG for example. I am not saying they have full blown nuclear weapons up there, but again, I would be rather surprised if everything was up to par up there. There are bound to be slightly or very illegal weapons somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this NASA document:

The Threat of Orbital Debris and Protecting NASA Space Assets from Satellite Collisions (2009).

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/ODMediaBriefing28Apr09-1.pdf

I thought the debris and sats tracking facility (where they had long, many wires used for radio 'scope) was retired already ?

But I have to agree that hiding in space is quite hard. Unless those reflective radiation umbrella patent is a truth, and is actually up there now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm that gives me an idea. The new discoveries of waveguide forming meta materials might allow you to project light through a small craft. As long as the interference/dimming etc is less than others observational ability, you could get an effective "cloak" for space. Heating/cooling is still a problem though.

0605162.jpg

Currently I think they've only got up to infra red or other wavelengths...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little creativity goes a long way. Even radiation signatures can be obfuscated and made to look like something else, like an RTG for example. I am not saying they have full blown nuclear weapons up there, but again, I would be rather surprised if everything was up to par up there. There are bound to be slightly or very illegal weapons somewhere.

The ONLY thing illegal up there would be 'full blown nuclear weapons'. There are no treaties that ban any conventional weapons in earth orbit, except the Moon Treaty, and no nation with orbital capability has ever ratified it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY thing illegal up there would be 'full blown nuclear weapons'. There are no treaties that ban any conventional weapons in earth orbit, except the Moon Treaty, and no nation with orbital capability has ever ratified it.

That's oversimplifying matter just a tad. The term weapons of mass destruction is a little broader than just full blown nuclear weapons. It also limits the use of other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and forbids weapons testing, fortifications, bases and more. But I don't know, maybe nukes are up there, maybe they are not. The one thing I am fairly sure of is that nations tend to uphold and stretch rules only as long as they are useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...