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.

 

Capabilities to conduct a military strike on a vessel or object in near-Earth space?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Nations like the US, Russia and China have state-of-the-art weapons, particularly the US. Hypersonic missiles exist now.

However, such military capabilities are mostly Earth-based and no word yet on space-based weapons.

So, hypothetically speaking, as of 2020, does any country have the ability to strike a hostile object or vessel in near-Earth space (near-Earth space, not orbit - so any object between the Earth and moon and in that distance/orbital zone)?




posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I’d be willing to bet, at the very least, the US & Russia do (with China potentially aswell).

However, such weapons are like far down the “public” pipeline.

Star Wars initiative anyone?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:09 AM
link   
The Rand Corporation published a study some years ago regarding “near-space” assets.

I do know that a prototype was built.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: IndigoLLC

The answer depends entirely on the time window, the trajectory and the relative velocity of the object in question.

As for operational weapon systems - the answer is almost certainly no. But you could put a couple of warheads as a payload on a carrier rocket of your choice. A matter of weeks if a suitable rocket is available.



posted on Feb, 1 2020 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: IndigoLLC

Most of the big players the US, Russia and China as well as some other's have anti satellite missile's of varying quality and effectiveness, there are rumors that both the US and Russia also had much more powerful and capable systems dating back to the cold war so what the US really has today is probably something we may never learn but I should say that they most probably have some very powerful technology.

This is probably one of the least advanced anti satellite system's.


Probably as far back as the 1970's the US were probably testing air launched plane to space system's.

Today many nations also have anti satellite energy based weapon's.


Let's hope they never have to be used in anger and if this is what you can find in a quick trawl of the net what do you really think they have that you do not know about, Rail gun anti satellite, plasma anti satellite etc are most likely though plasma or a plasma rail system would while at closer range being more powerful at longer range it would be less effective and accurate than the laser technology.



posted on Feb, 1 2020 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) is a program of the US Army, utilizing ground-based interceptor missiles which can intercept missiles in the upper part of the atmosphere and outside the atmosphere


Courtesy WP , THAAD

"Outside the atmosphere" is essentially low orbit, so this would qualify.



posted on Feb, 1 2020 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Actually, every space rocket that is capable of docking (exact positioning) .. is capable of destroying a satellite.
edit on 1-2-2020 by EartOccupant because: added some height



posted on Feb, 1 2020 @ 02:23 PM
link   
If the need for such weapons ever arises, you can be sure they’ll be developed relatively quickly. If indeed they don’t already exist.

I know China has successfully shot satellites down with ground based missile systems.

If the need arises all of a sudden and we’re caught off guard by a new threat in near earth space, an ICBM can surely be launched toward the threat. One only needs to get close to a target with a large-yield nuclear weapon.
Any alien-tech such as force fields etc would be no match for a 6 megaton detonation at close range.

We hope



posted on Feb, 2 2020 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: LABTECH767

Actually, every space rocket that is capable of docking (exact positioning) .. is capable of destroying a satellite.


And there goes the no claim's bonus from the car insurance.



posted on Feb, 2 2020 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Have to consider what types of weapons can be deployed indefinitely in space, the threat to the public if they fall back down to Earth, etc.



posted on Feb, 2 2020 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
If the need for such weapons ever arises, you can be sure they’ll be developed relatively quickly. If indeed they don’t already exist.

I know China has successfully shot satellites down with ground based missile systems.

If the need arises all of a sudden and we’re caught off guard by a new threat in near earth space, an ICBM can surely be launched toward the threat. One only needs to get close to a target with a large-yield nuclear weapon.
Any alien-tech such as force fields etc would be no match for a 6 megaton detonation at close range.

We hope


China? I thought it was Russia who did that recently?



posted on Feb, 2 2020 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
If the need for such weapons ever arises, you can be sure they’ll be developed relatively quickly. If indeed they don’t already exist.

I know China has successfully shot satellites down with ground based missile systems.

If the need arises all of a sudden and we’re caught off guard by a new threat in near earth space, an ICBM can surely be launched toward the threat. One only needs to get close to a target with a large-yield nuclear weapon.
Any alien-tech such as force fields etc would be no match for a 6 megaton detonation at close range.

We hope


Umm actually..unless it was in Atmosphere the nuclear detonation would only result in high rads. You think shields that stand up to cosmic radiation cant handle nuclear radiation?

You would have better luck with a rail gun and combinations of EMPs.
HIgh velocity stuff wont get through a force field prolly anyway. low velocity might though. Sounds weird i know but FF's are designed to reflect things off like rocks,and stuff.



posted on Feb, 2 2020 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Not the radiation, the energy-release. No star-wars type forcefield would withstand a Tsar Bomber-like detonation at close range. Too much energy.

Yes if it was in-atmosphere we wouldn’t use that method.

And yes, space based rail gun systems would be quite effective I guess
edit on 2 2 2020 by Breakthestreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2020 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: yuppa

Not the radiation, the energy-release. No star-wars type forcefield would withstand a Tsar Bomber-like detonation at close range. Too much energy.

Yes if it was in-atmosphere we wouldn’t use that method.

And yes, space based rail gun systems would be quite effective I guess


Without atmo particles to produce a pressure wave/force wave all you get is a exspensive light show. UNLESS its inside of the object you want to blow up.



posted on Feb, 4 2020 @ 02:56 AM
link   
A start would be the ASM-135 ASAT..



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: IndigoLLC

So, hypothetically speaking, as of 2020, does any country have the ability to strike a hostile object or vessel in near-Earth space (near-Earth space, not orbit - so any object between the Earth and moon and in that distance/orbital zone)?


This Article, just published, might give a “hint” in the direction you are thinking.

www.thedrive.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join