China test ASAT II

[clarkliu]

all you need is a surge of power, for a brief amt of time.

To BLUEJACKET: I don't know how to deal with reflective surface. In a typical daydream of mine, I would think of using a lasing device that pumps out light at different frequencies. Whatever "reflective" material absorbs at the right frequency.

PS. If not laser, one could think of throwing out a big net in close range, and fish the the enemy satellite back. No debris produced :nana:

yes, u r right. every material has its own absorption line. For example, water absorbs IR very well.. but not x-ray. And also, the idea of "Net" may be possible. I think the missile has to change the direction and slow down after firing the net or fire the net at higher speed first. Also, the net has to have some mass or you won't move the satellite.

 

[eecsmaster]

"you know laser requires very high input energy. The conversion efficiency from other types of energy to laser energy is really low! (usually a few %)"


not true. Back in 97 the US blinded one of its own Sats with a commercial 30W ranging laser. And with all the frequency modulation stuff going on today, you can probably take quite a few sats out of service very easily.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think this is a very important observation:

China's strategy shows increasing consistency, but in a regional rather than a global framework: its aims lie not in the conquest and militarization of space in terms of global confrontation with the United States, but instead in acquiring instruments that can strengthen China's position on its regional chessboard in the event of a crisis in the area (Taiwan, the Spratley Islands, North Korea, among other concerns).

They chose the most economical way for ASAT, IMO.

 

[clarkliu]

"you know laser requires very high input energy. The conversion efficiency from other types of energy to laser energy is really low! (usually a few %)"


not true. Back in 97 the US blinded one of its own Sats with a commercial 30W ranging laser. And with all the frequency modulation stuff going on today, you can probably take quite a few sats out of service very easily.

blind doesn't mean destroy. What i said is to destroy the satellite.

 

[eecsmaster]

Why destroy? The whole point is to render US space assets useless, and simply blinding sats gives you more political leeway and is cheaper. Once you cross certain lines, escalation ensues.

 

[Finn McCool]

People in this thread are talking about satillite destruction as if it were a light matter. Its not. It is an act of war, and one of the more provocative acts of war at that. Especially in realtion to the US. The United States is so dependent on its satillites that it would respond VERY angrily to an attack on them.

That's why all this talk of satillite destruction is somewhat unrealistic. I can see lone spy satillies and other more tactical assets being destroyed but the implications of launching a full scale ASAT attack (something that multiple countries will have the capabiltiy to do in coming decades no doubt) are massive. However, it is highly improbable that anyone would die even in an exchange that knocked out most of the worlds satillites. Therefore it is concievable in a total war scenario.

Basically what I'm trying to say here is that ASAT weapons will be developed in the future as further deterrant as insurance in case large scale ASAT exchange does take place. But in a future where small scale conflicts are likely to predominate actual use of these weapons is unlikely.

Finn McCool

 

[crobato]

You don't even need to destroy or even damage the satellites. All you need is to "glitch" them temporarily and long enough. There is a certain deniability that comes along with it. "Who me?"

The ultimate in sat warfare is to have parasitic microsatellites attach themselves to the sats, hack into them so the satellites will incorporate or release false data---all while you are thinking that your satellites are working and secure.

 

[panzerkom]

You don't even need to destroy or even damage the satellites. All you need is to "glitch" them temporarily and long enough. There is a certain deniability that comes along with it. "Who me?"

The ultimate in sat warfare is to have parasitic microsatellites attach themselves to the sats, hack into them so the satellites will incorporate or release false data---all while you are thinking that your satellites are working and secure.

I like that idea! Or even better -- a parasitic microsatellite that points its host to a nudy beach. Can anyone say "make love not war"?

 

[amorphous]

You don't even need to destroy or even damage the satellites. All you need is to "glitch" them temporarily and long enough. There is a certain deniability that comes along with it. "Who me?"

The ultimate in sat warfare is to have parasitic microsatellites attach themselves to the sats, hack into them so the satellites will incorporate or release false data---all while you are thinking that your satellites are working and secure.

Nice ideas. I like them. Maybe we can deploying some sort of defense "mother" satellites. When an hostile satellite is in range and need to be taken out, the mother satellite will shoot a parasitic microsatellite at it.

 

[clarkliu]

To destroy one or many satellites at one time, you need a small nuclear missile. And that will melt all substance into gas and no radiation to human. OR a EM nuclear bomb will destory all the electronics on the satellites...