The Militarization of Near Space?

Despite official documents "Against the Militarization Of Space," a Russian General announced a few years ago that "The next war will be in Space."

The Air Force has an unmanned Spaceplane (a reconfigured Space Shuttle) that can orbit Earth for years, with solar panels for fuel. And some believe (as I do) that the U.S. flies the gravity-cancelling triangle, TR-3B, that comes in both atmo and space models.

And the first potential "battlefield" seems to be in the same region as our orbiting satellites. A story a few years wondered if China really had the capabilities to shoot down satellites. And there are various projects on the boards for satellites that can destroy dangerous orbiting space debris. There are even questions if there are satellite "hunter-killers" up there now, ready to laser-blast enemy's satellites.

So I thought I'd start a new thread on the Militarization of Near Space, or the area between Earth and our Moon's orbit. And here's the first, very current story:

www.space.com...
DARPA TO BEGIN TESTING SATELLITE-LAUNCHING FIGHTER JET THIS YEAR
ALASA (Airborne Launch Assist Space Access) Program, is going to start the test-flight phase, and hope for a demonstration run by late 2015.

The most obvious question, is why a "fighter jet" to deliver payloads into orbit? Has our normal payload-to-orbit system of rockets been coming under fire? Are "armed" satellites already in orbit - and "killing" new satellites upon or soon after delivery? Is a "fighter jet" just a show of American military strength - or will it "return fire" if another satellite attacks our payloads?

I believe I read somewhere that Operation Solar Warden was a real program, but they didn't say it's objective. If Solar Warden is what many people think it is then Space has already been Militarized by the U.S.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
Despite official documents "Against the Militarization Of Space," a Russian General announced a few years ago that "The next war will be in Space."............

The most obvious question, is why a "fighter jet" to deliver payloads into orbit? Has our normal payload-to-orbit system of rockets been coming under fire? Are "armed" satellites already in orbit - and "killing" new satellites upon or soon after delivery? Is a "fighter jet" just a show of American military strength - or will it "return fire" if another satellite attacks our payloads?

Even without "Spaced based Weaponry" the next war will begin by destroying communications and reconnaissance satellites.

The best way to do that is to deliver the anti-satellite missile to the general area by fighter jet and launch it into space from there. Technically, still a ground based weapon.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
Despite official documents "Against the Militarization Of Space," a Russian General announced a few years ago that "The next war will be in Space."

Well, not entirely, but there will definitely be exchanges around Earth, especially LEO.

And some believe (as I do) that the U.S. flies the gravity-cancelling triangle, TR-3B, that comes in both atmo and space models.

It's not called TR3B. And it doesn't cancel gravity, silly rabbit.

And the first potential "battlefield" seems to be in the same region as our orbiting satellites.

You bet. That's where the communications and spying thing happens. And, hey, probably nukes, TBH.

A story a few years wondered if China really had the capabilities to shoot down satellites. And there are various projects on the boards for satellites that can destroy dangerous orbiting space debris. There are even questions if there are satellite "hunter-killers" up there now, ready to laser-blast enemy's satellites.

Question no more! If China doesn't have the ability, the Russians and the US sure do, pretty sure a limited few of our allies as well. And yep, there have been multiple tests of systems to provide adverse maintenance to other folks' satellites, and lots o' spaceborne laser tests. But a rifle round will do an awful lot of damage to a neighbor's satellite if you're good at aiming it, and it's a lot cheaper per shot in terms of weight/damage. Doesn't take much of a missile to screw up a big fragile satellite either. You could probably get away with something pretty minimal with a nice solid fuel charge, last forever, just ram the target, or a really small explosives charge with some BBs around.

The most obvious question, is why a "fighter jet" to deliver payloads into orbit?

It's the perfect vehicle. One, you've got a lot of them. If this system fits the standard payload mount, then you've got a whole world chock-full of popup delivery systems. Two, they're fast, and armed, and not at a fixed location. So you would have a really tough time tracking where the launches are going to occur. In fact, you won't be able to. So, hard to stop during the launch phase.

Has our normal payload-to-orbit system of rockets been coming under fire?

No, but no known launch site will survive round 1 of a nuclear exchange. All that will be left will be ocean and land based launch platforms that don't look like what they are due to disguise/masking. But those will immediately become targets in round 2.

Are "armed" satellites already in orbit - and "killing" new satellites upon or soon after delivery? Is a "fighter jet" just a show of American military strength - or will it "return fire" if another satellite attacks our payloads?

Yes, no, no and I dunno...have you guys heard that we have Air-to-LEO ASAT missiles? It's progressed some since ASM-135. I imagine. You have other ground-to-LEO ASAT, and of course one might want to assume (ha ha) that at the very least WE have some very nice LEO ASAT laser weaponry, you don't have to do a lot to blind or damage the solar panels on one, and you can also use a really nice plasma bloom trick that explosively ablates a little patch of skin and sort of knocks big dents in one, which can really spoil your day.

Plus, the sort of satellite you'll be launching from a fighter jet is a pop-up. It's not a big weather satellite or DSP looking thing. These are for C3I, decay pretty fast and re-enter, and aren't expected to last long. Plus the lower the orbit the better for this sort of sat, the ionosphere is going to be NUTS after a serious exchange. High orbiting satellites will be cut off and on their own for the most part, early in the dance. Except maybe for the ones with laser links. Things will settle down later but comms are going to be crap right away. A fractional orbit pop-up will be under the worst bits.

After a quick tour of "shooting UFOs" in YouTube, I found these very compelling videos that suggest some of our satellites and missiles are being "shot" with beam weapons.

www.youtube.com...
(Jan. 2013) UFO SHOT DOWN BY SATELLITE - NASA'S "OPERATION ICEBRIDGE"?

www.youtube.com...
(2008) UFO DESTROYING A MISSILE FIRED BY JAPAN

www.youtube.com...
ISRAEL SHOOTS DOWN UFO IN THEIR AIRSPACE

I believe WE ALREADY have orbiting systems that can strike the earth.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
DARPA TO BEGIN TESTING SATELLITE-LAUNCHING FIGHTER JET THIS YEAR
ALASA (Airborne Launch Assist Space Access) Program, is going to start the test-flight phase, and hope for a demonstration run by late 2015.

The most obvious question, is why a "fighter jet" to deliver payloads into orbit? Has our normal payload-to-orbit system of rockets been coming under fire? Are "armed" satellites already in orbit - and "killing" new satellites upon or soon after delivery? Is a "fighter jet" just a show of American military strength - or will it "return fire" if another satellite attacks our payloads?

I thought the fighter jet-delivery of satellites was weird too. The US military has access to their automated mini-shuttle, conventional launches from the US, Japan and other allies and low cost balloon launches etc. So where does the need for operational "readiness" and "quick delivery" of a satellites with short prep and load times and the use of military personnel exclusively, fit into putting satellites into orbit? Its doesn't, unless the satellite is a weapon of some kind. This looks, very much to me, like the systems developed during the cold war to deliver nukes from multiple platforms. Also, why an F-15? Why not something exotic that fly's high like the SR-71, U-2, etc? Because whatever is being delivered to orbit needs to be capable of getting sent up from any base, any time, not just the few bases with the high tech stuff, hence, this system is for weapons.

a reply to: boohoo

Of course it's "for weapons". The author's sloppy writing left the door open for ambiguity.

The system is called "ALASA" which stands for Airborne Launch Assist Space Access; Nothing about WHAT it "Launches" into "Space".

You can't fly SR71s or a U2s off aircraft carriers.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
I believe WE ALREADY have orbiting systems that can strike the earth.

Do tell?

a reply to: MKMoniker

Space has been Militarized for some time now. Ever heard of GPS?

The military use that right? So of course anyone fighting us would want to take that down, and of course we want to be able to protect our GPS system from someone being able to knock it down.

Anyone who believed any country would not militarize space if able to do so is naive.

a reply to: IngyBall

Thanks for your post. Operation Solar Warden is beyond orbital, I believe. These are "joint" (people and ET) craft with serious missions, like protecting the ISS and dealing with incoming "killer meteors". Although some reports say Obama has stopped the program.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
SOLAR WARDEN: THE SECRET SPACE PROGRAM

I hope this program hasn't totally been cancelled, since those needle-craft that blow up incoming meteors before impact are mighty nice to have around ...

www.popsci.com...
RODS FROM GOD: SPACE-SHOT TUNGSTEN DARTS

originally posted by: MKMoniker
After a quick tour of "shooting UFOs" in YouTube, I found these very compelling videos that suggest some of our satellites and missiles are being "shot" with beam weapons.

www.youtube.com...
(Jan. 2013) UFO SHOT DOWN BY SATELLITE - NASA'S "OPERATION ICEBRIDGE"?

www.youtube.com...
(2008) UFO DESTROYING A MISSILE FIRED BY JAPAN

www.youtube.com...
ISRAEL SHOOTS DOWN UFO IN THEIR AIRSPACE

The video you posted of an Israeli jet shooting down a drone is neither a "beam weapon" or a "space based weapon".

There's nothing "compelling" about it.

a reply to: Psynic

Thanks for your post.

The Pentagon was alarmed a few years ago, that so many of our super-secret satellites were made with Chinese parts, theoretically giving them a "back door" for shut-down in the event of war.

Since then, the Pentagon has invested heavily in ground-based line-of-sight or over-horizon communications systems, that will be invaluable in the event of a Killer-Satellite War.

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
a reply to: MKMoniker

Space has been Militarized for some time now. Ever heard of GPS?

The military use that right? So of course anyone fighting us would want to take that down, and of course we want to be able to protect our GPS system from someone being able to knock it down.

Anyone who believed any country would not militarize space if able to do so is naive.

Perhaps, or perhaps an airforce equipped with fighters capable of launching anti-satellite missiles into space is both more effective and still meets the letter of the law regarding space "based" weaponry.

It's a stretch to call "GPS" a "weapon". Yes, it is a military target, but then so is all infrastructure. A nuclear generating station is also a target, but not necessarily a weapon.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: Psynic


Since then, the Pentagon has invested heavily in ground-based line-of-sight or over-horizon communications systems, that will be invaluable in the event of a Killer-Satellite War.

I find that very misleading.

We don't need "killer satellites" to kill satellites.

Wow, I had no idea there was oil in space.

Phage, can you shed any light on this mystery?

a reply to: MKMoniker

I am not worried about the technical aspects of militarized space, it's the fact that a president can conduct unrestricted war with a touch of a button and it doesn't matter the capabilities of our potential enemies. If we can put that crap up in space we will.

a reply to: Bedlam

Thanks for your long and explanatory post. (I still think the TR-3B is real, Mr. Shambala. Primarily for recon and surveillance, its latest versions may be armed by now too. It continues to be upgraded, and the last photo I saw it was covered in glowing plasma to disguise its shape. But it didn't fool us silly rabbits ...)

I remember a few years ago, someone had the bright idea to put solar-collectors in orbit, and "beam" solar power down to Earth for the ultimate and cheapest Solar Power. The Pentagon choked on the "weaponization potential", of course, and the project was suddenly gone.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: Bedlam

The Pentagon choked on the "weaponization potential", of course, and the project was suddenly gone.

The project was scrubbed because of it's impracticality, not it's "weaponization Potential".

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Thanks for your post. And I think you are correct ...

www.youtube.com...
(Nov. 2014) RUSSIAN 'KILLER SATELLITE' MYSTERY SPARKS 'ORBITAL WEAPON' SPECULATION

www.cbsnews.com...
(July 2014) RECENT PLANE CRASHES MAY HAVE BEEN SHOT FROM ABOVE?
Several were known to be flying above 20,000 feet, which is above the range of ground-based missiles.