[ - ] localsal 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 18:55:15 ago (+1/-0)
I don't know, but I would imagine most gps satellites use a very similar orbit height. Destroying one or two would probably create enough debris to eventually destroy them all - and make that orbit height uninhabitable and possibly even unpassable, making any travel out of earth orbit impossible or deadly for most crews.
The US shot down a satellite in LEO from a cruiser a few years ago - with a slightly modified missile, but not the "space shuttle" type rockets that everyone imagines being needed to hit that height.
A huge amount of the rocket size for a shuttle and/or rocket launch to orbit is to lift the payload AND the rocket fuel. With a 1 ton warhead (or none at all, as with the US launch) there is an exponential decrease in the size of the rocket needed due to less fuel all together.
And if the payload doesn't need to actually orbit - just go up and either hit the target or come back down, that removes a lot of fuel as well.
Another option would be to just nuke the gps from a higher orbit using a large EMP - which wouldn't necessarily poison any orbits for future use or pass through. But that wouldn't be as covert.
[ - ] localsal 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 21:18:59 ago (+1/-0)
Any collisions in space create a lot of dangerous debris.
The whole US launch was a "show of force" because China shot down their own satellite - not with a warhead - but created enough debris to make even the ISS have to alter its orbit for a while.
Even a small shard of paint, traveling at 20,000km/hr can cause a satellite enough damage to become inoperable. Bigger chunks of space debris - all traveling at thousands of mph relative velocity - can cause a cascade of impacts and debris, which is what most space agencies are working very hard to predict and avoid.
Of course, blowing any satellite up with a warhead would be unbelievably catastrophic for every space program due to the cascading effects.
[ - ] localsal 1 point 2 yearsApr 25, 2022 08:49:22 ago (+1/-0)
"Shooting down" of a satellite is very similar to that - without the need for a magnet.
The missile shoots up to the height of the satellite just before the satellite gets there, and then the difference in speeds causes a collision, with the new added mass and combined speed causing the satellite to "fall" back closer to earth.
Unless the difference in speed is small, most collisions will end up causing some sort of damage/debris.
Anything orbiting in LEO has a small - but not insignificant - amount of drag from the atmosphere and will slow and eventually (could be decades) fall back to earth.
The biggest problem with debris is the relative speed between "catcher" and target. A small ball bearing could be going 1000mph - is something going to just reach out and snag that? or will a "net" be able to withstand trying to catch a bullet?
I wonder if they could use magnets to create a space vacuum and start collecting all the debris, maybe it doesn't need to collide with the debris, maybe it can just get up to speed and fly by the debris and pull it in.
I have heard of many ideas floating around, but none of them accurately reflect the strength needed to catch bullet size projectiles at mach 8 speed.
The shuttle was the best bet for retiring old LEO satellites because the arm could extend and just grab the whole thing gently, tuck the satellite into the payload bay and just land with it.
Another option exists if there is enough control and fuel left aboard the satellite - to do a slow burn to lower the orbit and then finally crash it into the earth at a known uninhabited spot - like the middle of the pacific.
Without gravity, magnet can have a stronger influence, but I would bet still not strong enough to grab anything that is more than a meter away or going faster than 10m/s relative velocity.
Most of the space debris is probably paint chips, aluminum (not magnetic), titanium - if it is a very special satellite - or not made up of enough magnetic material to really be effective.
Some of the solutions that are being considered are things like nets, lasers, some sort of grabby gel, and even vacuum cleaner type thingy.
The big problem in space is momentum. p = m * v, and v is huge. It takes a long time (and a lot of planning) to maneuver a craft into a particular orbit, and a lot of these orbits are planned on liftoff.
Changing directions in space is not as shown in the movies, or the same as a plane - there is no air to provide resistance.
The entire "go 1/3 the speed of light to go somewhere" sounds good in theory, but the same energy needed to speed up is also needed to slow back down before crashing into something. And when going that fast, it is a very very straight line.
Drhitler, a magnets sounds good but would not work. There is a lot of (non-magnetic) materials, titanium alloys, aluminum's and plastic's, etc due to their light weight. Steel is rarely utilized.
It would be relatively difficult to destroy a satalite. Doing it wouldn't necessarily be that hard. It's on a projected course and everything. You know where it's gonna be. But you have to put a projectile just there and that isn't easy to do. LEO is relatively hard to reach. There's a reason launches don't happen every day. There's a lot of math.
And even if you did all that. The repurcussions are extreme. Scattering the debris from a single good sized satellite isn't great. No one sane wants to do this.
And? No one wants to do this on scale. It ruins your own ability to use that space. It's hard and expensive and pollutes your own air space. No one considers this a realistically usable weapon.
There are much better ways that don't scatter debris all over LEO
I'm going to come back to this comment in a week. 7 days. When nothing you are suggesting has happened. None of it. And later,I'll return 30 days after. And none of this will have happened.
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 18:17:08 ago (+1/-0)
Hey, dick for brains, I didn't say it would happen, and I sure in the fuck didn't suggest that it would happen this week. What the fuck is you're problem? You also suggested "no one" thinks this is likely, but I gave you 2 links, one to GPS World, that are considering the possibility of this exact thing happening.
My question was, since you obviously need it repeated, because you're a dumbassed fucking autist, is what would our response be to this scenario?
1st it was. "They can't" Then "They wouldn't" Then "They won't"
How about just answering the fucking question or shutting the fuck up?
You do understand that "destroyed" doesn't imply "blown up" (how much debris, exactly?) and that Russia is technologically more advanced in space tech than the US and can likely operate at higher altitudes in Leo than the US or other Nato countries, right?
For more than 30 years, GPS World has been the top publication for the GNSS industry. We help advance the development and deployment of GPS/GNSS and other positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) solutions. With a focus on technical, practical, ever-changing applications, we captivate and educate our readers, and deliver unmatched returns for our growing family of marketing partners.
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:46:56 ago (+1/-0)
On Feb 24th Putin said that if outside forces interfered with the Ukraine situation, the response would be something 'you cannot imagine' (paraphrased cause I'm lazy).
People like Tim Pool and most of the MSM talking heads imagined a nuke strike, which no sane person wants to do. I imagined a strike on the capital using a drone that's capable of Mach 7.6, which we know they have. No sane person wants to do that either.
But when Putin suggested to the Russian airlines that they need to prepare for a world without GPS, I started imagining this.
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:55:04 ago (+1/-0)
Hey, illiterate nigger, I didn't suggest they would. I said MSM suggested that shit and was an example of unimaginable shit that "no sane person would want" that is being imagined with respect to Putin's comments about outside interference.
Using these large launch vehicles to get at any kind of useful number of satellites would stress any country’s launch capabilities, as the number of launch pads capable of space launch is limited. In 2011, China’s banner year for space, it launched a total of 19 times. Should an attack on GPS begin, the U.S. would be on notice and could have GPS satellites start making small maneuvers that would be enough to evade attack.
ofc idiots on the internet eat up these low atltitude tests as if they can reach anything
[ + ] Steelerfish
[ - ] Steelerfish 26 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 16:16:19 ago (+26/-0)
[ + ] Redhairin
[ - ] Redhairin 3 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 16:54:16 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 2 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 16:17:36 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:17:09 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Spaceman84
[ - ] Spaceman84 4 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 16:17:57 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 16:35:58 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] the_noticer
[ - ] the_noticer 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 21:15:16 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 18:55:15 ago (+1/-0)
The US shot down a satellite in LEO from a cruiser a few years ago - with a slightly modified missile, but not the "space shuttle" type rockets that everyone imagines being needed to hit that height.
A huge amount of the rocket size for a shuttle and/or rocket launch to orbit is to lift the payload AND the rocket fuel. With a 1 ton warhead (or none at all, as with the US launch) there is an exponential decrease in the size of the rocket needed due to less fuel all together.
And if the payload doesn't need to actually orbit - just go up and either hit the target or come back down, that removes a lot of fuel as well.
Another option would be to just nuke the gps from a higher orbit using a large EMP - which wouldn't necessarily poison any orbits for future use or pass through. But that wouldn't be as covert.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 19:12:53 ago (+0/-0)
Are you imagining it blowing up?
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 21:18:59 ago (+1/-0)
The whole US launch was a "show of force" because China shot down their own satellite - not with a warhead - but created enough debris to make even the ISS have to alter its orbit for a while.
Even a small shard of paint, traveling at 20,000km/hr can cause a satellite enough damage to become inoperable. Bigger chunks of space debris - all traveling at thousands of mph relative velocity - can cause a cascade of impacts and debris, which is what most space agencies are working very hard to predict and avoid.
Of course, blowing any satellite up with a warhead would be unbelievably catastrophic for every space program due to the cascading effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test
[ + ] drhitler
[ - ] drhitler 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2022 08:07:21 ago (+0/-0)
maybe it could just latch on and send it out to nowhere.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 2 yearsApr 25, 2022 08:49:22 ago (+1/-0)
The missile shoots up to the height of the satellite just before the satellite gets there, and then the difference in speeds causes a collision, with the new added mass and combined speed causing the satellite to "fall" back closer to earth.
Unless the difference in speed is small, most collisions will end up causing some sort of damage/debris.
Anything orbiting in LEO has a small - but not insignificant - amount of drag from the atmosphere and will slow and eventually (could be decades) fall back to earth.
The biggest problem with debris is the relative speed between "catcher" and target. A small ball bearing could be going 1000mph - is something going to just reach out and snag that? or will a "net" be able to withstand trying to catch a bullet?
[ + ] drhitler
[ - ] drhitler 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2022 09:15:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2022 19:27:43 ago (+0/-0)
The shuttle was the best bet for retiring old LEO satellites because the arm could extend and just grab the whole thing gently, tuck the satellite into the payload bay and just land with it.
Another option exists if there is enough control and fuel left aboard the satellite - to do a slow burn to lower the orbit and then finally crash it into the earth at a known uninhabited spot - like the middle of the pacific.
Without gravity, magnet can have a stronger influence, but I would bet still not strong enough to grab anything that is more than a meter away or going faster than 10m/s relative velocity.
Most of the space debris is probably paint chips, aluminum (not magnetic), titanium - if it is a very special satellite - or not made up of enough magnetic material to really be effective.
Some of the solutions that are being considered are things like nets, lasers, some sort of grabby gel, and even vacuum cleaner type thingy.
The big problem in space is momentum. p = m * v, and v is huge.
It takes a long time (and a lot of planning) to maneuver a craft into a particular orbit, and a lot of these orbits are planned on liftoff.
Changing directions in space is not as shown in the movies, or the same as a plane - there is no air to provide resistance.
The entire "go 1/3 the speed of light to go somewhere" sounds good in theory, but the same energy needed to speed up is also needed to slow back down before crashing into something. And when going that fast, it is a very very straight line.
[ + ] beece
[ - ] beece 0 points 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 12:26:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] drhitler
[ - ] drhitler 0 points 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 22:01:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2022 01:31:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger -1 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:09:51 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:12:50 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:29:54 ago (+0/-0)
And even if you did all that. The repurcussions are extreme. Scattering the debris from a single good sized satellite isn't great. No one sane wants to do this.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:40:07 ago (+1/-0)
Hmm. They've killed 1 satellite already.
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:47:28 ago (+0/-0)
There are much better ways that don't scatter debris all over LEO
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 18:00:04 ago (+1/-0)
Much better ways to what? Cripple the US and NATO countries ability to commercially circumnavigate the globe?
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 18:05:05 ago (+0/-0)
Would you like to make a wager?
Your stupid hurts my brain
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 18:17:08 ago (+1/-0)
My question was, since you obviously need it repeated, because you're a dumbassed fucking autist, is what would our response be to this scenario?
1st it was. "They can't"
Then "They wouldn't"
Then "They won't"
How about just answering the fucking question or shutting the fuck up?
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 18:35:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 18:41:10 ago (+0/-0)
exactly?) and that Russia is technologically more advanced in space tech than the US and can likely operate at higher altitudes in Leo than the US or other Nato countries, right?
This ain't CNN.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:46:56 ago (+1/-0)
People like Tim Pool and most of the MSM talking heads imagined a nuke strike, which no sane person wants to do. I imagined a strike on the capital using a drone that's capable of Mach 7.6, which we know they have. No sane person wants to do that either.
But when Putin suggested to the Russian airlines that they need to prepare for a world without GPS, I started imagining this.
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:49:40 ago (+1/-1)
Are you a QTard? Because this is all QTard tier stupid
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:55:04 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger -1 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:34:46 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:40:58 ago (+1/-0)
Sure, jan.
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:47:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 17:52:46 ago (+1/-0)
You simply saying they can't doesn't seem realistic. How about answering my question given that they likely can.
[ + ] mikenigger
[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 2 yearsApr 24, 2022 19:21:34 ago (+0/-0)
https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/does-a-high-altitude-asat-test-make-sense/
ofc idiots on the internet eat up these low atltitude tests as if they can reach anything