Assuming it is in fact a nuclear warhead placed in orbit as some rumors insist, it is probably a payload loaded onto an ICBM, not a space booster, and it is probably only fired in the case of a conflict with all of dangers that an ICBM launch entails. Which is to say, it is pretty much like the original FOBS in use case, if not target set. And the consequences of deployment would also be similar. Again, assuming we are in fact talking about an orbital nuclear warhead, which is still a big IF to me.
"Destabilising" Russian Space Threat
- Thread starter Flyaway
- Start date
Assuming it is in fact a nuclear warhead placed in orbit as some rumors insist, it is probably a payload loaded onto an ICBM, not a space booster, and it is probably only fired in the case of a conflict with all of dangers that an ICBM launch entails. Which is to say, it is pretty much like the original FOBS in use case, if not target set. And the consequences of deployment would also be similar. Again, assuming we are in fact talking about an orbital nuclear warhead, which is still a big IF to me.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,201
- Reaction score
- 10,260
Many of the Russian ICBMs are capable of placing payloads into orbit, just not their full ballistic throw weight. IIRC it was about half their throw weight as a satellite payload.
I cannot come up with any other method of generating a large "energy blast" capable of disabling or destroying multiple satellites short of megaton class nukes.
CommanderRenHoek
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 1 August 2023
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 22
Russia still has stocks of megaton-level warheads, and likely is still producing them even if at reduced scales just barely sufficient for inventory refresh for delivery systems like the Topol/Topol-M ICBMs and the Avangard HGV-armed UR-100Ns.
Its quite possible, given that Topol/Topol-M ICBMs (which have single ~1MT warheads) are on the way out of service to be eventually fully replaced by RS-24 Yars, that they may try to repurpose the Topol/Topol-M warheads for ASAT use via large-scale EMP ala Starfish Prime. Just a matter of either placing them in new FOBS-like orbital vehicles for a persistent if unsubtle threat up in orbit, or keeping them in regular RV+rocket on Earth ready to launch.
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,468
- Reaction score
- 4,006
I agree, I just think this particular claim was laid for very domestic political reasons and should not necessarily be taken at face value.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,590
- Reaction score
- 7,253
A story in February about the “possibility” of some type of Russian space weapon will have zero traction come November.
Zero.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,201
- Reaction score
- 10,260
It's way too early in the election cycle for that to matter in November.
Frack, the way the media is working, I'm not sure announcing something like this in October would still be in the news come Election Day, nevermind the end of February(!)
I meant it was used to put pressure on Johnson.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 8,240
- Reaction score
- 13,949
Russian nuclear weapons in space could ignite an arms race
San Diego CA (SPX) Feb 27, 2024 - Fresh U.S. intelligence circulating in Congress reportedly indicates that Russia is developing an anti-satellite weapon in space with a nuclear component. News reports speculating about what t
www.spacewar.com
Rhinocrates
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 26 September 2006
- Messages
- 2,724
- Reaction score
- 6,532
For reference - I'm not suggesting that this is what it is.
en.wikipedia.org
Project Excalibur - Wikipedia
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,201
- Reaction score
- 10,260
Yes, that's a possibility.For reference - I'm not suggesting that this is what it is.
Project Excalibur - Wikipedia
Unlikely because each laser rod needs its own fire control system and those are still expensive.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,201
- Reaction score
- 10,260
I'm leaning more towards an EMP, but a somewhat more likely destructive ASAT is a Casaba Howitzer, in the "nuclear EFP" sense.For reference - I'm not suggesting that this is what it is.
Project Excalibur - Wikipedia
Casaba-Howitzer - Wikipedia
Encase your small nuke (tweaked to provide mostly xrays and gamma) inside a chamber that is reflective to xrays, and shaped so that all the Xrays go into a channel. The channel is filled with something like Beryllium Oxide, which is opaque and absorbs xrays, and that blasts into an extremely hot plasma.
If you then place tungsten or another high-z material across the opening of the channel, you get a wide spray of plasma. The lower the z (atomic weight) of the material, the narrower the spray of plasma it spits out. Also, the thinner this material is, the narrower the spray.
So now you have some 85% of the energy of a nuke going into a very narrow angle in one direction.
Edit: This image is of an Orion Propelling charge. The only difference between an Orion propelling charge and a Casaba-Howitzer is shape and materials of the "propellant."
The stuff labeled "propellant" in this image is what I'm talking about for a thin layer of low-z material.
Last edited:
Beryllium and Oxygen, especially Beryllium, are low Z materials so they "Bleach" at fairly low temperatures (Re: low energy X-rays) meaning the channel is transparent not opaque, the presence of the channel-filler is to retard the expansion of plasma into it from the nuclear-warhead.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,201
- Reaction score
- 10,260
I may have misunderstood that part, but that's the explanation on Wiki and Atomic Rockets.
Bold+Italics mine.
Go from a tungsten plate to a fat cylinder and that plasma goes out in a very narrow direction. (note that there are disagreements on this, Scott Lowther says fat cylinder, other say thinner plate makes a narrower beam)
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,201
- Reaction score
- 10,260
Oh, hell.
SDI Project Prometheus. ( https://www.projectrho.com/public_h...hp#id--Nukes_In_Space--Nuclear_Shaped_Charges and scroll down a ways till you see the bubble titled "THIRD-GENERATION-WEAPON INNOVATION - DIRECTED THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES")
10kiloton ASAT. Instead of heating the tungsten plate into a plasma like for an Orion propulsion charge, you insulate it from the heat of detonation as much as you can and let it "fractionate" into millions of small fragments that are all flying along at 100km/sec. A single one of those 8 milligram fragments carries roughly 40kJ of kinetic energy. With as much work as people have put into prefragmented projectiles over the last 15ish years, I assume that making the tungsten plate fragments would not be difficult, nor would making sure that the fragments spread evenly. The example from Atomic Rockets puts one fragment per square meter at 2000km from the boom.
And I know the Russians can do the math to make a nuclear shaped charge. (Hell, if I had any mathematical heavy lifting to do, I would reach out to one of the Russian Universities math departments to get it done.)
SDI Project Prometheus. ( https://www.projectrho.com/public_h...hp#id--Nukes_In_Space--Nuclear_Shaped_Charges and scroll down a ways till you see the bubble titled "THIRD-GENERATION-WEAPON INNOVATION - DIRECTED THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES")
10kiloton ASAT. Instead of heating the tungsten plate into a plasma like for an Orion propulsion charge, you insulate it from the heat of detonation as much as you can and let it "fractionate" into millions of small fragments that are all flying along at 100km/sec. A single one of those 8 milligram fragments carries roughly 40kJ of kinetic energy. With as much work as people have put into prefragmented projectiles over the last 15ish years, I assume that making the tungsten plate fragments would not be difficult, nor would making sure that the fragments spread evenly. The example from Atomic Rockets puts one fragment per square meter at 2000km from the boom.
And I know the Russians can do the math to make a nuclear shaped charge. (Hell, if I had any mathematical heavy lifting to do, I would reach out to one of the Russian Universities math departments to get it done.)
I'm leaning more towards an EMP, but a somewhat more likely destructive ASAT is a Casaba Howitzer, in the "nuclear EFP" sense.
Casaba-Howitzer - Wikipedia
Encase your small nuke (tweaked to provide mostly xrays and gamma) inside a chamber that is reflective to xrays, and shaped so that all the Xrays go into a channel. The channel is filled with something like Beryllium Oxide, which is opaque and absorbs xrays, and that blasts into an extremely hot plasma.
If you then place tungsten or another high-z material across the opening of the channel, you get a wide spray of plasma. The lower the z (atomic weight) of the material, the narrower the spray of plasma it spits out. Also, the thinner this material is, the narrower the spray.
So now you have some 85% of the energy of a nuke going into a very narrow angle in one direction.
The stuff labeled "propellant" in this image is what I'm talking about for a thin layer of low-z material.
I've seen that image before as a project Orion propellant charge. I wonder what, if anything, it truly represents now. Perhaps it is just something the internet recycles without sources.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,201
- Reaction score
- 10,260
It is an Orion propelling charge.
The difference between a propelling charge and a Casaba-Howitzer charge is only the thickness and materials of the "propellant charge."
I cannot believe I remembered it that well. I think I saw that in the 90's or early 'oughts. Well yes, I guess a nuclear explosion could be smaller and more focused if you want it to be. But if you're detonating a nuke in orbit, even if it does not result in a wide spread EMP, I kinda feel like that is like taking the cherry off your five scoop sundae when you're on a diet.
I'm hoping that if there is anything to this--it is the TEM/RORSAT deal... humanity can at least get a nuclear electric tug spacecraft out of that, at least.
The casaba is best as an asteroid intercept package---replacing the copper disk of the Deep Impact bus.
The former could shove the latter to target.
The casaba is best as an asteroid intercept package---replacing the copper disk of the Deep Impact bus.
The former could shove the latter to target.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,149
- Reaction score
- 12,288
US, Russia set for a showdown at UN over nuclear weapons in space
The United States and Russia are set to face off over nuclear weapons in space on Wednesday at the United Nations Security Council, which is due to vote on a U.S.-drafted resolution calling on countries to prevent an arms race in outer space. Russia is expected to block the draft resolution...
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 8,240
- Reaction score
- 13,949
What exactly is this nuclear anti-satellite weapon? Nuclear-powered or actually nuclear?
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,149
- Reaction score
- 12,288
Nuclear armed from the sounds of it.
No one has explicitly stated, but IMO it is clearly a nuclear warhead aimed at destroying mega constellations in low earth orbit, STARFISH PRIME style. The U.S. is about to start launching hundreds of LEO communications and ISR satellites every year, starting possibly as soon as next month (several dozen test satellites are already in orbit). Even China will find itself at a huge information disadvantage very soon and the Russian space program has no prayer of keeping up. Nuking low earth orbit over Russian airspace represents another rung on the escalation ladder short of using a nuclear weapon on NATO territory, and it would neutralize a vast asymmetric capability and infrastructure that Russia will never be able to produce.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 8,240
- Reaction score
- 13,949
Didn't the 1967 treaty ban nuclear warheads in space? Another case of treaties being used to retrict others while the usual suspect catches up and subsequently breaks the treaty.
Could be time to develop a Neutral Particle Beam with impact fusion pellets if we're forced to play nuclear games in space.
China is rapidly catching up:
US commander sees 'breathtaking' development of China's space power
Sydney (AFP) April 24, 2024 - China's military capabilities in space are developing at a breathtaking pace that only looks set to intensify after recent defence reforms, the head of the US Space Command said Wednesday.
www.spacewar.com
China advances its earth observation capabilities with new satellite launch
Sydney, Australia (SPX) Apr 22, 2024 - China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) successfully launched a Long March 2D carrier rocket from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in Sichuan province at 7:45 am on Sunday, deli
www.spacewar.com
Didn't the 1967 treaty ban nuclear warheads in space? Another case of treaties being used to retrict others while the usual suspect catches up and subsequently breaks the treaty.
Could be time to develop a Neutral Particle Beam with impact fusion pellets if we're forced to play nuclear games in space.
China is rapidly catching up:
US commander sees 'breathtaking' development of China's space power
Sydney (AFP) April 24, 2024 - China's military capabilities in space are developing at a breathtaking pace that only looks set to intensify after recent defence reforms, the head of the US Space Command said Wednesday.www.spacewar.comChina advances its earth observation capabilities with new satellite launch
Sydney, Australia (SPX) Apr 22, 2024 - China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) successfully launched a Long March 2D carrier rocket from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in Sichuan province at 7:45 am on Sunday, deliwww.spacewar.com
My personal guess…and let me reemphasize guess…is that it is indeed a nuclear warhead based system but that it is a ground based, direct ascent delivery system. This would not violate the Outter Space Treaty. It also is something most any country with an IRBM and a nuclear warhead could achieve.
I would actually argue that China perhaps has overtaken the U.S. in some ways with regards to remote sensing. But I think that advantage is going to be very short lived. The SDA and NRO plan to deploy hundreds of satellites in the coming years, and the U.S. Space industry is lapping China in terms of payloads to orbit with no hope of the PRC gaining ground in the near to medium term.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 8,240
- Reaction score
- 13,949
I think that unlikely, not so much because the Russians want to respect a treaty or be less escalating, but because space basing allows for extended inspections or even preemptive countermeasures/engagement. If I were Russia, I definitely would develop a weapon to destroy LEO in general, given the hopeless strategic situation Russia is in with regard to space. But I would keep it ground based where no one would have any access to its components. LEO is effectively a U.S. playground at this point.
It's harder to achieve when it comes to space, but if you've been observing Chinese private launchers and CALT/CASC for a while, you'll see that they're going to do what they typically do; which is catching up and building up "overcapacity (!) XD" super fast. Granted they won't have superheavy LEO freighters but we still gotta give them credit for their hard work.
Also you might as well hate me for stating this, but superheavy launch vehicles are pretty OVERRATED no matter who builds them. They serve a very niche purpose which is delivering currently nonexistent oversized cargo, and even reusable ones are going to be super expensive contrary to claims.
Elon should've focused on making F9 even more reusable and also maybe slightly upscaling it instead. A monstrosity like Starship is unneeded for most use cases.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 8,240
- Reaction score
- 13,949
Using it would still be classed as starting a nuclear conflict either way though, and would likely be responded to in a nuclear way.
Chinese companies are launching very small payloads predominantly with solid fuel, with the one notable exception of Landspace who has a beefy LNG rocket (6000kg to LEO) and is testing Star hopper like rockets for vertical recovery.
That said, I ran the numbers for last year using Wiki figures as a back of the envelope calculation. The U.S. launched about 10x the LEO capacity. It also launched >2,000 objects vs China at ~200. This year might see the U.S. introduce three heavy lift systems: Vulcan, which already launched successfully and has a half dozen more scheduled, equal more or less to Long March 5, New Glenn which is scheduled to launch and recover its first stage on its first attempt and is closer to a Falcon Heavy, and Starship/Superheavy, which likely at least makes successful splash downs this year and likely is immediately turned into a Starlink lifter as soon as it does.
Falcon 9 launches continue to increase throughout, and F9 out classes any PRC launcher short of LM5, and if fully expended gets to within 80% of it’s capacity.
The PRC meanwhile predominantly still uses its older LM 2/3/4 series. It is hard not to characterize that situation as an overwhelming advantage to the US in any orbital altitude or inclination.
Last edited:
Perhaps, but it immediately solves a massive conventional disadvantage while not killing anyone, making most any response seem overly aggressive. It’s definitely what I would do in their position.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,201
- Reaction score
- 10,260
Only bans nukes in orbit. Direct ascent is still legal, FOBS may be.
Starfish Prime took out power grid and comms across the Pacific.
Imagine what it'd do if detonated over the US.
FOBS already fulfilled that role and I assume Russia could still do something similar with a ballistic missile. My *guess* is that for this weapon, the Russians would create a radiation trap over a sparely populated part of their own country, or else the North Pole, in the lower Van Allen belt, as a way of destroying most of the LEO constellations (most every LEO satellite has a polar enough orbit such that it crosses Russia daily, usually multiple times). This would make nuclear retaliation extremely difficult, politically.
Unless Russian civil-infrastructure has been specifically hardened against EMP generated by high-altitude nuclear explosions it will be fried too with very serious consequences for Russian society and Russian industry when the lose their electrical grid.
Yeah, fortunately though it happened before semiconductor electronics were widespread and semiconductor ICs just starting to go into production (At the time they were a hideously expensive niche product used exclusively in military electronics).
There was a late 80s TV-series with that scenario.
Russia is sufficently large with enough sparsely populated areas this would not be a major problem, assuming it did not instead target the north pole. The key point is that they would not have to detonate over a foreign country to accomplish this.
The problem here is that all of those high-tension power-lines (220-330KV) which are hundreds to thousands of miles long is that they act like giant antennas/aerials which can transmit over large distances the massive EMP induced current surges in them.
Well like I said, the North Pole would be within easy reach as well. Also quite honestly if Russia was willing to use nuclear weapons first, I suspect it would not particularly care of some of its least populated areas just lost power. They could always blame it on The West(TM).
But they may also split the difference and produce something like FOBS that is direct ascent but with a delay option such that they could detonate it anywhere. That would not violate the OST until the moment they decided to launch it, and they could simply blow that object over anyone they did not like, on top of the fact it would probably turn LEO in general into a demolition derby.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 8,240
- Reaction score
- 13,949
It's the use of a nuclear weapon to destroy assets either way you look at it. It's a nuclear war. The very act of launching a nuclear weapon into orbit is a hostile act and an imminent threat and the US has the absolute right to destroy it immediately.
If you read the article it is a nuke in orbit. Several sentences allude to the fact directly and indirectly.
US, Russia set for a showdown at UN over nuclear weapons in space
The United States and Russia are set to face off over nuclear weapons in space on Wednesday at the United Nations Security Council, which is due to vote on a U.S.-drafted resolution calling on countries to prevent an arms race in outer space. Russia is expected to block the draft resolution...
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,149
- Reaction score
- 12,288
He who holds the high ground....
I'd say we are going to be seeing a lot of nuclear armed systems in orbit in the near future. Not only ASATs but things like MOBS (orbital MIRV platforms).
I'd say we are going to be seeing a lot of nuclear armed systems in orbit in the near future. Not only ASATs but things like MOBS (orbital MIRV platforms).
Similar threads
-
-
-
9M730 Burevestnik (SSC-X-9 Skyfall) cruise nuclear-powered missile- Started by Brickmuppet
- Replies: 268
-
France to develop anti satellite lasers and "defensive" mini babysitting satellites
- Started by muttbutt
- Replies: 22
-