Brilliant Pebbles. Several large scale clusters (Starlink and such) are showing that such a system could be viable. Maybe they have a couple Brilliant Pebbles sats up there. (I know, I'd have a better shot at winning the lottery but one can dream.)
Pentagon [is not] ready to unveil and demonstrate operational Classified Space Weapon
- Thread starter sublight_
- Start date
Nope.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Nah. If not for Outer Space Treaty, we would have much more advanced space capabilities by now.
Also, arguably the best placement for retaliatory nuclear arsenal is on high Earth orbit. It is constantly under observation from both sides, so neither sudden attack from it, nor sudden attack on it is possible (it would took hours for missiles to went through distance). I.e. no worries about your arsenal being destroyed, and no worries for your opponent that you may launch a sudden attack on it. Win-win scenario.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
To be exact, it bans nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon from being deployed in space. Other weapons of mass destruction - kinetic, for example, or radiological - is fine.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,558
- Reaction score
- 14,341
To be exact, it does not define weapons of mass destruction at all, though it does specifically call out nuclear weapons. A kinetic weapon capable of causing a similar scale of damage to a nuclear weapon would likely be considered a WMD. OTOH, the typical proposals for kinetic weapons employed from space probably can't cause nuclear scale damage, so they may be legal?
If you’re not India, China, Russia, or the US, presumably so.
Isn't placing weapons in space a big no-no?
I predict this is likely some ground or aircraft launched anti-satellite missile.Outer Space Treaty - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I’ll bet you anything it’s not, since the US could easily use any anti ICBM weapon against a LEO satellite.
It’s possible, but there are so many non kinetic ways to fuck with a satellite without creating a shrapnel field I really doubt it’s a kinetic based system.
I disagree from a stabilizing standpoint or even a delivery standpoint. It’s hard to change your orbit quickly unless you have a lot of fuel while de orbit as a first strike is far easier to achieve without the massive thermal bloom of a ballistic missile. The DSP system could already detect Scud launches in the early 90’s. The detection of a de orbit of a FOBS like system would take a global radar and optical tracking system…which the US has. But it would not be nearly as conclusive or definitive as tracking launches from the ground.
Orbital nukes are vastly destabilizing. It might happen, but it is hardly something to be hoped for.
Bhurki
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 16 July 2020
- Messages
- 345
- Reaction score
- 382
Isn't poseidon bad?
And that is related... How?
archipeppe
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2007
- Messages
- 2,431
- Reaction score
- 3,138
It was anachronistic in 1969 when it was canceled, imagine now. Automatic systems like HEXAGON and KENNEN are far better.
Anyway a single launch of SpaceX Starship specifically designed would also Space Force to have a manned armed orbital station with 40 people onboard all at once.
We are envisioning the declassification of something reaching the end of its operational life.
Imagine such MOL working in pair with the X-37, a spacecraft known for alternating low and high orbit in an ellipsoidal path. In the low altitude it would receive instruction via direct data link and in its higher orbit pass it to the MOL in a secure way. Strategic communications could be maintained that way in the most jammed environment where others satcom would suffer attrition and interferences from opposing forces. Intelligence could also be passed down through the same channel.
Obviously, with something as massive as Starship and prompt launches as they are promised by SpaceX, that MOL would then be obsolete as you pointed.
Imagine such MOL working in pair with the X-37, a spacecraft known for alternating low and high orbit in an ellipsoidal path. In the low altitude it would receive instruction via direct data link and in its higher orbit pass it to the MOL in a secure way. Strategic communications could be maintained that way in the most jammed environment where others satcom would suffer attrition and interferences from opposing forces. Intelligence could also be passed down through the same channel.
Obviously, with something as massive as Starship and prompt launches as they are promised by SpaceX, that MOL would then be obsolete as you pointed.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,558
- Reaction score
- 14,341
Not sure how putting people on board would improve on the existing satellite capabilities. Or how such a thing would fit the described function of this capacity as improving deterrence against ASAT.
Given the scrutiny around national security launches, how do you think observers would have missed the existence of a large, manned, platform, especially if it ever approached the X-37B orbits (which sat-obs folks track very closely). If manned (the M in MOL), such a platform would have required regular crew exchanges every six months or so, which obviously did not happen.
No, think much smaller. Either something ground-based (An ASAT based on SM-3 Block II?), or a satellite-based defensive capability small enough to be launched as a ride-along on known national security missions.
siegecrossbow
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 12 March 2012
- Messages
- 705
- Reaction score
- 2,097
Rotating sections meant to generate "artificial gravity" via centrifugal force?
I’m guessing it’s a soft kill ability either based on microwave emissions/jamming cube sats or else a ground based laser. MIRCL was once fired at a defunct USAF satellite with the results never reported. It shouldn’t be difficult to scorch solar panels.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,558
- Reaction score
- 14,341
Not the same thing. I'm talking about people who specialize in finding and tracking objects in orbit -- they've imaged the X-37B (for example), and deduced the orbits and missions of pretty much every known national security space launch.
And there are no unknown ones at the right scale for what you are imagining. Space launches of the magnitude needed to carry manned spacecraft are visible for hundreds (if not thousands) of miles and come from a very small number of known sites. No one is conducting undetected space launches on that scale, much less every six months or so to rotate crew on a manned platform.
That spacecraft from the commercial is fictional -- a pretty picture for recruiting. It probably represents some form of nuclear-powered spacecraft for cis-lunar operations, since that's on the Space Force's long-term dream list.
@TomS : I understand. But I am not saying that what is shown is real but that it could be representing a capability. The commercial seems to display only real assets for the Space Force. And then there is this thing that you can see also repeatedly in another video.
Optionally manned could mean something simply crewed only a couple of week each years (scheduled maintenance). There isn't any lack of capable launcher for that mission if we look back at it since the 1980's.
Optionally manned could mean something simply crewed only a couple of week each years (scheduled maintenance). There isn't any lack of capable launcher for that mission if we look back at it since the 1980's.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Or a flywheel energy storage.
Bhurki
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 16 July 2020
- Messages
- 345
- Reaction score
- 382
Both are asymmetric class of weapons that threaten the defenders conventional capabilities.
siegecrossbow
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 12 March 2012
- Messages
- 705
- Reaction score
- 2,097
Do they normally need flywheels this big for energy storage?
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Depend on what you are trying to power up. Lasers, railguns and parcticle beams are power hogs.
The (remote) perspectives of the X-37 being used in something manned and classified reminds me of the mystery of the soot marks pattern on the cargo bay.
This has been discussed much earlier (at least I remember myself posting something on the subject) but the soot marks suggest the cargo bay are open during re-entry or low fly byes as the x-37 is known to uniquely do.
Then I wonder, what could be the probability (under the percent certainly) of it carrying an inhabited ballistic transfer module that could be released in low earth orbit protecting one or two Astronauts for their journey back on earth or be ejected in the high atmosphere before the X-37, much lighter then, begin its own glide flight back to base?
This has been discussed much earlier (at least I remember myself posting something on the subject) but the soot marks suggest the cargo bay are open during re-entry or low fly byes as the x-37 is known to uniquely do.
Then I wonder, what could be the probability (under the percent certainly) of it carrying an inhabited ballistic transfer module that could be released in low earth orbit protecting one or two Astronauts for their journey back on earth or be ejected in the high atmosphere before the X-37, much lighter then, begin its own glide flight back to base?
Last edited:
What would be the point of this?
archipeppe
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2007
- Messages
- 2,431
- Reaction score
- 3,138
X-37B Payload bay dimension rule out any possibilities of manned usage.
That's it.
That's it.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Technically it is MAYBE (I doubt it) possible, but what's the point of using long-duration spacecraft for running a very short duration manned mission? At most, you could put in one astronaut in prone position, with minimal life support. And it would literally took the whole available space in cargo bay. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just order a modified Crew Dragon (for example, with airlock instead of docking port) from SpaceX?
Cargo bay could be open during re-entry with the top of the survival module protruding above the vehicle (think at the soot marks)
The X-37 would only transfer Astronauts on their way back covertly at the end of its own mission.
Crew would be launched independently from the vehicle.
I am envisioning something that was introduced one or one half decade ago.
Using the X-37 as a covert transfer and support
vehicle for the optionally manned MOL mission.
Use the vehicle capabilities to minimize the design constraints of re-entry on the survival module (no thruster, no fuel, no thermal shield.. Just a set of parachutes)
A re-entry is something that is hard to hide in most
circumstances. So having a vehicle that can assure the transfer from orbits discreetly and provides operational advantages would be a huge bonus.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
What for?
archipeppe
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2007
- Messages
- 2,431
- Reaction score
- 3,138
Absolutely no, it would lead to a destructive re-entry.
Simply doesn't work this way....
Given the aoa on reentry, open cargo bay's external doors would be shielded by the vehicle's Delta wing. Except for their front end section where soot can be seen.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Er... I'm not sure I follow you.
Two launch vehicles. One host a simplified Appolo type capsule (no re-entry), the other the X-37.
X-37 is a tactical vehicle for the mission (including strategic coms). MOL hosts the maintenance crew.
At the end of their mission, the crew get into a survival modul hosted inside the X-37 cargo bay.
The X-37 de-orbit, eject the survival modul and glide back to land (this way its mass is reduced to the point where a small vehicle can be sufficient for the mission).
Survival modul deploys parachutes and fall down back to the surface of earth the way capsule do but discreetly, away from any suspecting sources.
X-37 is a tactical vehicle for the mission (including strategic coms). MOL hosts the maintenance crew.
At the end of their mission, the crew get into a survival modul hosted inside the X-37 cargo bay.
The X-37 de-orbit, eject the survival modul and glide back to land (this way its mass is reduced to the point where a small vehicle can be sufficient for the mission).
Survival modul deploys parachutes and fall down back to the surface of earth the way capsule do but discreetly, away from any suspecting sources.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just launch Crew Dragon?
Why exactly should they do it, instead of just returning on the ship they came with?
At most you could fit one astronaut here.
Er, the problem is, that at most critical points - de-orbiting and re-entry - the mass would be exactly the same.
I literally fail to see what exactly could be achieved by that...
A smaller winged vehicle (less wing area) can sustain more easily the re-entry.
At that time (a decade or more ago), there was no Crew-Dragon!
Using the built-in re-entry capabilities of the X-37 means that you don't double down on your total launch mass since the launch-only capsule does not have to host fuel to de-orbit, have a shield etc... Hence more useful cargo to resupply the MOL.
Without that concept, there is no secrets also since every launch and reentry can be monitored.
Last but not least, I don't want this idea to monopolies the thread.
At that time (a decade or more ago), there was no Crew-Dragon!
Using the built-in re-entry capabilities of the X-37 means that you don't double down on your total launch mass since the launch-only capsule does not have to host fuel to de-orbit, have a shield etc... Hence more useful cargo to resupply the MOL.
Without that concept, there is no secrets also since every launch and reentry can be monitored.
Last but not least, I don't want this idea to monopolies the thread.
Similar threads
-
Why These Badass Balloons Are the Pentagon's New Secret Weapon
- Started by seruriermarshal
- Replies: 19
-
Secret Projects: Military Space Technology by Bill Rose- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 35
-
France to develop anti satellite lasers and "defensive" mini babysitting satellites
- Started by muttbutt
- Replies: 23
-
-
