It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Star Wars Coming?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2018 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CaptainBeno

To have all of our military space assets under a single branch of the military would lead to many efficiencies as well as discoveries - as Navy doesn't always share info with Army or Air Force, and therefore each branch may not know that the other branches hold the missing piece(s) to one of their puzzles.

It also allows for a single, coherent Space Strategy which will drive the planning of future missions in support of that strategy.

BTW, it makes me chuckle when people say they are worried about space becoming "weaponized". Are you kidding me? Do you think any gov't would invest a half billion$ or more on a satellite mission and NOT give that sat some way to protect itself?! It's simply common sense and protecting their investment.

Space is and has been weaponized for *quite* some time.

And it helps if you put the concept of "space weapons" in perspective. A Sat's most likely potential enemy is another Sat. You don't need Space Cannons and Star Wars type weapons to disable a Sat (temporarily or permanently). Low energy tight beam weapons can handle the job very effectively.

The last critical piece to this puzzle is you have to load the best, most intelligent software you can get your hands on to "run" the Sat. Typically, it does very little, but in the event of an "emergency" type situation, there is often not enough time for the sat to radio back to earth, have 3 people argue about what to do, and then radio instructions back.

In those instances, the software has to make a split second decision as to what action (if any) to take or the party's over.




posted on May, 3 2018 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
BTW, it makes me chuckle when people say they are worried about space becoming "weaponized". Are you kidding me? Do you think any gov't would invest a half billion$ or more on a satellite mission and NOT give that sat some way to protect itself?!
The ISS has cost $100 Billion so far, does it have weapons?

Is the International Space Station Worth $100 Billion?



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




The ISS has cost $100 Billion so far, does it have weapons?


I'm not sure what you mean.

The ISS is not a satellite and it's not military.

Many of the other objects up there with it, are both though. And that was the focus of the OP and of my post in response.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: Arbitrageur




The ISS has cost $100 Billion so far, does it have weapons?


I'm not sure what you mean.

The ISS is not a satellite and it's not military.
It IS a satellite.

The International Space Station (ISS) is a space station, or a habitable artificial satellite, in low Earth orbit.

I'm sure there have been satellite weapons developed, but I also think many military satellites have no defensive capability, contrary to your suggestion. For example, I don't assume that military spy satellites have defenses.

I remember the Chinese conducted a satellite weapon test of destroying another satellite and they were criticized for creating so much hazardous debris in low earth orbit, so there can't be a lot of destruction tests like that going on, or all countries conducting those tests would be criticizing all other countries conducting those tests.

China's Anti-Satellite Test: Worrisome Debris Cloud Circles Earth


The flotsam created by China's anti-satellite test last month is on the radar screens of space debris analysts, as well as space policy experts.

The intentional destruction on Jan. 11 of China's Fengyun-1C weather satellite via an anti-satellite (ASAT) device launched by the Chinese has created a mess of fragments fluttering through space.

The satellite's destruction is now being viewed as the most prolific and severe fragmentation in the course of five decades of space operations...

Johnson said that the debris cloud extends from less than 125 miles (200 kilometers) to more than 2,292 miles (3,850 kilometers), encompassing all of low Earth orbit. The majority of the debris have mean altitudes of 528 miles (850 kilometers) or greater, "which means most will be very long-lived," he said.

The number of smaller orbital debris from this breakup is much higher than the 900-plus being tracked. NASA estimates that the number of debris larger than 1 centimeter is greater than 35,000 bits of riff-raff.

"Any of these debris has the potential for seriously disrupting or terminating the mission of operational spacecraft in low Earth orbit," Johnson pointed out. "This satellite breakup represents the most prolific and serious fragmentation in the course of 50 years of space operations," he said.
Satellites are too beneficial to all of us to be creating those kinds of hazards which threaten all satellites, not only the ones destroyed.

One concern along these lines is the Kessler Syndrome


The Kessler syndrome (also called the Kessler effect,[1][2] collisional cascading or ablation cascade), proposed by the NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, is a scenario in which the density of objects in low earth orbit (LEO) is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade where each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions.[3] One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges unfeasible for many generations.
The plot of the movie "Gravity" includes a Kessler Syndrome, though it's not just a sci-fi theme. As satellite density increases, so does the risk of a Kessler ablation cascade, so if there's a space defense, it should be geared toward preventing this disaster, rather than causing it.

edit on 201853 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

yeah and...? millions of deads just because leaders got butthurt



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

"yeah and...?"

And what?

People die in wars down to there leaders/politicians fanciful whims and demands.

Such is the world we live in, by our own design and stupidity no less.

We call it freedom and stability. LoL



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Space Shuttle was originally designed for military purposes (delivering nuclear weapons from orbit), and the Soviet unmanned space station Almaz had a gun to shoot American satellites with. www.popularmechanics.com...



Wouldn't be surprised to see something like that in space again.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
Space Shuttle was originally designed for military purposes (delivering nuclear weapons from orbit), and the Soviet unmanned space station Almaz had a gun to shoot American satellites with. www.popularmechanics.com...



Wouldn't be surprised to see something like that in space again.


Great post - thanks!

People would be amazed if they knew what type of weaponry is serenely (for the most part) buzzing around our little blue dot. It's simply become a necessary evil.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join