Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Strategic Defense' started by chopsticks, Nov 2, 2005.
they dont jam or attach, do they?
I was under the impression that attaching objects to each other is really hard in space. After all space is really big, all the objects in it are traveling some 10+ machâ€¦ sure the space shuttle can link up with stuff like the ISS, but the space shuttle is under human control, and the ISS is constantly transmitting data about its position, rotation, etcâ€¦
Also why would you want to attach a micro satellite to jam another satellite, just to get rid of the satellite? Wouldnâ€™t it be easier (but not easy) to simply ram the offending satellite, and send it either into the earthâ€™s atmosphere to burn up, or out into the void where it can no longer communicate.
The U.S. does indeed have this technology. Where do you think they got the capabilities for low Newton thruster designs? This stuff was tested in the USA in the late 1970's for NASA's micro-probe projects. This ain't new at all.
read my post again, i was just saying that using the term 'micro-satellite' refers technically to a small satellite, regardless of its capabilities. So whether it can jam, attach itself to another satellite, etc. has no bearing on its designation as a micro-satellite.
mini sats are advanced tech? no, they are not. even student groups have built mini- or micro-sats and had them launched. Again, this type of designation refers only to the size of the satellite and not its capabiltiies. For example, I could have a 100 kg satellite launched that just transmits a radio signal and does nothing more--it is still a micro-satellite because of its size.
you also say putting space thrusters on a small craft is hard--why? could you explain your reasoning. I don't think it would very difficult, not particularyly more difficult than for larger sats.
here are some links on recent US micro-sats:
no, thats not hard, but being able to steer a sattelite onto another sattelite is redicoulous. this is space remebers, so you cannot use suction devices. magnets would be too disruptive. dont even think about glue...chinas simpy not there yet, maybe in 5 years.
Most people think that some type of 'parasitic' micro sat would have to attach itself to another sattelite in order to disrupt it with 'jamming', as the article indicates. On further thought, this would not be necessary at all. In the case of observation sats, all that is necessary is the park a sattleite in front of the objective lens and it will be blinded. So this is no easy task, but if a micro sat can be roughly postioned in front of its target, It could then deploy a fan or some other large area, yet light weight device to block the spy sat's view. This type of design doesn't require absolute precision of the micro sat. Another option would of course be to bump into the target sat. This is potentially easily done if controlled from the ground. With a camera a ground controller can guide the microsat to bump into its target, negating the need for a difficult to develope autonomous system.
The point is, it doesn't take high tech to reak havoc in orbit. A small bump into a spy sat or GPS sat is all it takes to make it useless.
You can attach and jam with a micro satellite.
Here is a sernario.
The US sends a communication satellite into space. China finds which course the satellite is going in and sends one of these mirco satellites on the same course. It reaches it and slowly attaches itself to the american satellite.
Now if anyone thinks you cannot attach things in space you dont know anything about space travel. How do you think space capsules or the ISS attaches itself
This process of attaching indivuial capsules is extremely difficult because it you ram the other one a bit it could go out of control which the micro satellite doesn't have to worry about.
You use a remote control to move a stick to screw into the other capsule. while the micro satellite only needs to ram itself into the satellite of some how anchor itself to it.
Jamming is used to block Frequencies by releasing a large surge of energy. They use this on jamming aircraft
is it possible to blow the lens with explosive or anything. partialy damaging it will cause big problems won't it?
I think blocking the lens would be easier and cheaper option. You dont need a multi-million dollar project for that
Am i the only one here that thinks this jamming, connecting, blocking business is a total waste...
If the Chinese have the ability to make one satellite get close to another then who the hell needs to block or jam or try to 'parasite' onto the enemy sattelite?
10kg of semtex (or any other high explosive) and goodbye american satellite.
quick, easy, cheaper and less mucking around.