UK and US Say Russia Fired a Satellite Weapon in Space (bbc.co.uk) 83
The UK and US have accused Russia of launching a weapon-like projectile from a satellite in space. Joe2020 shares a report: In a statement, the head of the UK's space directorate said: "We are concerned by the manner in which Russia tested one of its satellites by launching a projectile with the characteristics of a weapon." The statement said actions like this "threaten the peaceful use of space." The US has previously raised concerns about this Russian satellite. In his statement, Air Vice Marshal Harvey Smyth, head of the UK's space directorate, said: "Actions like this threaten the peaceful use of space and risk causing debris that could pose a threat to satellites and the space systems on which the world depends. We call on Russia to avoid any further such testing. We also urge Russia to continue to work constructively with the UK and other partners to encourage responsible behaviour in space."
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone except Finland [youtube.com] did.
It was all Trump's stable genius plan! (Score:1, Flamebait)
I was almost ready to believe the FP subject, but it has to be AC to pretend to be an authentic Russian troll. I'm not saying he isn't working for Putin, because he has said some pretty amazing and stupid stuff, but I am saying that anyone who is still defending Trump needs to take that cognitive exam Trump is so proud of.
We'll know that it's over when Turmp [sic] throws EVERYONE under the bus. He's going to claim he didn't lose. He just decided to destroy the Republican Party and he won so much that he got
Re: (Score:2)
I was almost ready to believe the FP subject, but it has to be AC to pretend to be an authentic Russian troll. I'm not saying he isn't working for Putin, because he has said some pretty amazing and stupid stuff, but I am saying that anyone who is still defending Trump needs to take that cognitive exam Trump is so proud of.
We'll know that it's over when Turmp [sic] throws EVERYONE under the bus. He's going to claim he didn't lose. He just decided to destroy the Republican Party and he won so much that he got tired of winning and just wants to retire in clouds of glory. Legend in his own mind to the end.
Oh yeah. About the actual story. I am NOT surprised. Not at all. My only question is about the timing. Why did Putin do it now? Not a technical issue, but the answer may surprise you: I think it depends on how much Putin prefers Trump over Biden and it could even be part of a reality-TV conspiracy to help Trump. Maybe Trump's Space Force is about to ride to the rescue? I just hope they send Pence on the rocket to lead the mission. What's his name already made the movie. (All I can remember is something about "The Ripe Stuff".)
However I'm seriously waiting for the other shoe to drop on Trump's punkin' head, and I think it's going to drop in Hong Kong. Consolidate those losses and Hong Kong, too. This accounting period is already a disaster because of Covid-19, so why not consolidate Hong Kong, too, and make that "cost center" look like a minor blip? Next year will HAVE to be 1,000% better! (When you flip from negative to positive it's even YUGER than 1,000%, but "infinite percent" is mathematically ridiculous.)
Mixed mods, so quoted as an precautionary anti-censorship measure (to prevent loss of context), but mostly returned to extend it a bit to reflect a later and related news item:
Pompous Pompeo has announced that the "US constructive engagement" policy with China has failed. On the one hand, he's lying, since it is really HIS Chinese policies that are failing. On the other hand, he's lying because we [reference unclear, but I would argue the reference could be corporate, national, international, or even worldw
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dumb question. Which one's does Russia have?
Projectile with weapon like characteristics? Sounds very specific.... no way that could describe one of millions of pieces of orbital junk floating around....
It's been like a decade since Chinese supposedly tested some kind of laser based weapon for disabling sats. Any leader of any nation would have to be a complete irresponsible buffoon not to test their own, or want to have their own at the very least.
Re: We didn't (Score:1)
Dumb question. Which one's
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC the Chinese anti-sat weapon was an explosive type, the several million resulting fragments were what caused so much fuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By all the gods, we've had them since the 1970s. The Pentagon was pretty open about it at the time, in spite of complaints from NASA. There were rumors of nuclear weapons on orbit, they were built at Oak Ridge but no one knows for sure whether they were ever launched or not. I'd be shocked if the Soviets hadn't done the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
True enough, and I realize that Anecdote != Fact but:
I was hitchhiking in Florida in the early '80s and spent one evening drinking with the recently retired head of security for Oak Ridge (which at that time was still one of the leading sites for nuclear weapons research). During an entertaining evening of stories of bureaucratic and military incompetence he mentioned that they had built between one and two dozen compact weapons designed for on-orbit operations. He said that the exact number of them was im
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not FOBS launches, although we had those too. These would have sat on orbit until needed and then retrorockets (I assume) would have been fired to bring them down to the target. Essentially no warning like there would be for an SLBM or ICBM, so no time for the enemy to move its high priority assets to protected locations. With its leadership beheaded the likelihood of a retaliatory strike would go down, supposedly, since like the US their nuclear arsenal was tightly controlled from the capital. It would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would have stayed in the same orbital path as our spy satellites, or for that matter the proposed Rods From God kinetic weapon. We had a frack of a lot of them up there, it would have been difficult to tell from the ground which was a spy satellite with an RTG and which was a nuke if they were packaged similarly. I would assume they would have been self-contained, but I doubt we even discussed that. His actual knowledge just covered what was done at Oak Ridge, anything beyond that would have been spec
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You got 1 out of 3 right
Re: (Score:2)
Sad attempt to justify space force (Score:1)
Is this just a sad attempt to justify space force? or perhaps creating space force and militarizing space wasn't the best idea?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this just a sad attempt to justify space force? or perhaps creating space force and militarizing space wasn't the best idea?
Weapons in space are nothing new. Everyone has them, no one admits to them. The US Space Force is nothing new - just a new name for an existing part of the military, not some move to (openly) weaponize space.
Satellites are fundamental to a modern military. No, you don't need orbiting death lasers, it's far more valuable to be able to see the enemy, and communicate easily, and to guide smart bombs. That's what the US Space Force does. That's what the Russian Space Forces do. They operate the military sats.
Everyone also has a few satellites designed to take down the other guys' satellites, since they're so important. Russia's mistake was to test one in orbit, as nothing in orbit is secret these days. First rule of satellite fight club.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it is. The US pulls out of arms treaties and other treaties unilaterally. Sets up a 'Space Force'. And then starts whining about the Russians militarizing space. It's SOP.
It feels like I've... (Score:2)
Predicting the U.S. Administration response ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump will recall his remarks from his meeting with Putin in Helsinki in 2018:
I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. ... President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be.
Re:Predicting the U.S. Administration response ... (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case Russia might just admit to it, pointing to the fact that the US is developing stuff like satellites that can intercept other satellites.
Trump himself created Space Force, another branch of the military.
There is plenty of blame to go round but the bottom line is that space is becoming militarised.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly true and I wish I had a mod point for you.
I'm wondering how this new Russian weapon compares with something a friend of mine said to me more than 30 years ago. Pretty sure it involved a discussion of Reagan's early militarization of space. Star Wars? SDI? As I recall it, his idea was basically to send a bucket of BBs around the moon so it came back in a retrograde orbit synchronized with the enemy satellite you want to destroy. Of course you empty the bucket a short while before the orbits intersect.
Re:Predicting the U.S. Administration response ... (Score:5, Informative)
The Space Force, as a part of the Air Force (you know, the way the Army Air Corps in WW2 - the guys who ran the B17s, B24s, B29s, P51, P47, P38 - were a part of the Army) has existed for about 50 years (since the beginning of the Space Age).
The only thing Trump did was give the top General of the Space Force (who was an Air Force general till the Space Force was created) a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Re: (Score:1)
Russia can safely admit to it. Trump won't even confront Putin about placing bounties on American soldiers. The militarization of space justifies Space Force. Space Force justifies Russia using force in space.
This isn't uniquely Trumpian. I think, maybe 25 years ago, the National Review had "Militarize Space Now" on the cover.
The urge to militarize downtown Portland is new though.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you were unfairly modded down. I have a nasty feeling this is the way it will be until the election.
Take comfort knowing that they don't have an endless supply of mod points though.
Re: Predicting the U.S. Administration response .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Several countries and various private companies are developing things like "satellites that can intercept other satellites." Pretty much anything that can clean up space junk can intercept a satellite.
Re: (Score:2)
The way international politics work is that things developed for civilian use that could be re-purposed are seen as less of an escalation than building weapons. For example Japan has rockets and everything it needs to assemble nuclear weapons in just a few months, but that's considered much less of an escalation than actually building an ICBM.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality of space based weapons. The fragments they produce, mean denial of access to a space for all of humanity for quite some time, until the millions of fragments in orbit have dissipated.
Here is the most primitive weapon possible to target all orbiting spacecraft and deny access to space for all future human space craft for decades to come. You build a large two part liquid fuelled rocket. The tanks for the fuel made from plastic reinforced with segmented titanium wire. The guidance can be non-exis
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a good guarantee that it won't happen.
There's this "if I can't have it for myself, nobody shall have it!" mentality. You can call it petty selfishness or spit
Re: (Score:2)
Wait wait wait....wouldn't your titanium wire weapon essentially seriously degrade if not destroy the entire satellite ecosystem we have up there?
GPS fucked, Telecoms fucked, Meteorology fucked, Science fucked, the ISS fucked.
That's not shooting yourself in the foot. That's blowing away one eye, one ear, the entire jawbone, an arm and a leg.
That's you-fucked-the-global-economy-and-everyone-loses-bad. I just can't believe that would even be considered. War is for profit. You don't do anything to jeopardize t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. ... President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be."
Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV
Space Cowboys (Score:2)
might turn out to be a documentary. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
THAT'S IT! That's the movie I couldn't remember in my earlier comment. But I still want Pence to lead the mission!
They are apparently trying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks pretty certain that the Russians are working on a kinetic kill capability in orbit. This is bad news, both for military and civilian assets.
I got to say that I'd be surprised if multiple countries are not already doing this, they are just not in your face about it like the Russians. I know we already have demonstrated non-orbital explosive kill weapons for LEO objects, along with China and Russia (which produced a boatload of orbital junk in some instances), but this "I'll fly up to you and fire a projectile at your satellite" thing brings this to a whole new level.
Re: (Score:2)
I got to say that I'd be surprised if multiple countries are not already doing this, they are just not in your face about it like the Russians.
I've often wondered if the Little Spymaster, Putin, suffers from Short Man Syndrome [healthguidance.org].
Re: They are apparently trying... (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if the X-37b has an ASAT package that could easily be swapped in. Considering they can stay up there for a year or more, easy to have continual ASAT capability. What would surprise me a little more (but not much more) is if they also had a space to ground kinetic package as well.
You call it in the face (Score:2)
I call it honest. At least we know where we are with the russian. Not so much with the US/UK "five eye"/"nsa spying"/etc...
Unfortunately nobody can point a finger (Score:3)
Re:Unfortunately nobody can point a finger (Score:5, Interesting)
Not just Space Farce, but the unilateral scrapping of treaties with Russia for no reason other than just cos. Why anyone expected Russia to play fair under those conditions beats me. Not that they were playing by the rules anyway, but at least they made an effort to appear to sort of be doing so.
Now, with treaties being more optional and/or gift-wrapping than to be taken seriously as an important part of international politics by game theory, we've a problem. Trump is going to try one-upmanship, and Putin will follow suit, followed by China and India. Very soon, you'll need Star Trek-style deflector shields to launch any new satellites.
Re: (Score:3)
Which Treaties? The "Open Skies" Treaty that let them overfly ANYWHERE in the USA and gather intelligence while we could do the same? How's that bad?
Or are you upset about the IMF treaty? Which the USA obviously needed out of due to China's build up and there was significant evidence that Russia was indeed in violation of the terms of the agreement. Seemed like a win-win situation to me. It's not like the Russians can afford a build up right away anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Abandoning the Open Skies treaty was most damaging to America's European allies who don't have robust satellite surveillance capabilities. Those allies can come to the US and ask for satellite intelligence, but it's typically classified at a much higher level than photos captured by spy planes and may not be shared. Dropping out did little to harm Russia, harmed America's allies, and is further evidence to the world that the US won't stick to an agreement on arms control or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
So, your complaint is not about the USA's interests, but it's allies? So now they cannot as easily gather intelligence on the Russians, because the USA is stingy about sharing? Do you *know* that or are you making something up to justify your position?
IF your problem here is about NATO (which seems to be your prospective though you are not saying it), then I ask you to justify NATO's need for this information. What information do they need that they are not getting now that the Open Skies treaty is kaput?
Re: (Score:2)
The interests of American allies are aligned with America's. It's part of what defines them as "allies."
And for the rest of your post: [economist.com]
More importantly, notes James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment, a think-tank, America’s withdrawal is “a win for Russia, which has a number of spy satellites”, and “an FU to allies in Europe, many of which don’t”.
Of course, allies could ask America for satellite images. But these, unlike Open Skies photos, tend to be highly classified and, for that reason, cannot be shared as freely. General James Mattis, Mr Trump’s first defence secretary, once noted that Open Skies imagery was “a key visual aid” during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Although some of the gap may be filled by commercial satellite imagery, which did not exist when the treaty was signed 28 years ago, planes can spot things concealed from ordinary satellite sensors. Open Skies aircraft may carry thermal-imaging cameras, for instance, which can detect such things as whether an aircraft is fully fuelled or bone dry.And for the remainder of your post -
The US withdrawing from Open Skies did no good for anyone but Russia. It was a needless, self-inflicted injury.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL... You act like the Open Skies treaty was some boon to inelegance gathering, it wasn't. You DO understand that the overflights where limited to known and commercially available equipment. If you couldn't buy it off the shelf, you couldn't use it on your aircraft. Also, the data was 100% shared with everybody involved (including the Russians) with the only costs being what it cost to duplicate the data.
The data was worth what was paid for it... The whole effort was pointless. Visual resolutions wh
Re: (Score:2)
General James Mattis, Mr Trump’s first defence secretary, once noted that Open Skies imagery was “a key visual aid” during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014
On one side of the argument, we have Jim Mattis - secretary of defense, USMC general with 4+ decades of experience. On the other, we have bobbied from Slashdot. Who's the authoritative voice here? Decisions, decisions...
Re: (Score:2)
Having the advantage of a high ground implies the assistance of gravity, which is hard to come by in a zero G environment.
The best you can hope for is to sling-shot your morals around massive objects.
Re: Unfortunately nobody can point a finger (Score:1)
Having the advantage of a high ground implies the assistance of gravity, which is hard to come by in a zero G environment.
It's the advantage of having no gravity, you fucking twit.
Re: (Score:3)
Right back at you. I'm talking about the expression "high ground", which gets it's meaning from having an advantage by shooting downhill at your opponents and having gravity on your side. For those on the lower ground does it mean they have to fight uphill and overcome gravity.
Quick, close the stable door! (Score:1)
If you have spy satellites that are informing military policy and action, then guess what, you've already militarized space, and you'd be a hypocrite.
Not defending Russia, but there's a lot of faux-outrage theatrics on the nation-state-stage.
Re: (Score:2)
But everyone is escalating... I mean "space force" is a response to china becoming active in space, russian space guns is a reaction to space force, etc etc... in a circle. Space war is probably less bad than terrestrial war... as long as they don't point the guns this way. And frankly I don't trust the Chinese not to do so... I don't think the russians would they are just posturing but China has ambitions.
Re: (Score:3)
You are not wrong.
However, it IS an escalation of what folks are fielding in space. But let's face it, the balance of power in space vastly favors the USA because we obviously have lots of assets up there. I've never counted things up, but I'll bet we have more satellites up there than the next 5 countries combined doing lord knows what.
What this really amounts to is a shot over the Russian's bow. It says "We know what you are up to so watch yourself." Kind of like a teacher guarding a playground who
Hypocrites... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrites... (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt the US does have weapons in space. The result of a robot satellite war is the end of everyone's access to the affected orbits. It can mean we lose weather satellites, navigation, and communication. For a generation or more.
Fighting this war means everyone loses and no one benefits. It's why there are treaties on this very subject.
I feel that space weapons should be a justification for sanctions, inspections, occupation, invasion, or even total war. It's that serious of a problem, and not the kind of brinkmanship we should tolerate from China, Russia, or anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Space weapons are one thing... how about an entire Space Force...?
Re: (Score:2)
Space weapons are one thing... how about an entire Space Force...?
If there's one thing we know about the US naming things lately, it's that whatever it actually does will be the polar opposite of what the name is. Space Force certainly isn't applying any force in space.
Re: (Score:3)
how about an entire Space Force...?
Why would that matter? If you're going to have spy satellites it's prudent to have full time staff to monitor them and organize the information for them. Of course, why the Air Force shouldn't keep doing it is a good question, but hardly the same level as building satellite killers or deploying orbital weapons platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel that space weapons should be a justification for sanctions, inspections, occupation, invasion, or even total war. It's that serious of a problem, and not the kind of brinkmanship we should tolerate from China, Russia, or anyone else.
Horse has left the barn.
And the farm.
Awesome!!! (Score:1)
If I wasn't such and old fart, I would enlist again. This sounds like fun.
They had space weapons in the 80's (Score:5, Informative)
The Russians had their "killer satellites" back in the 80's. They took out a GE satellite as a "test". They have a LOOONG history of them dating back to the 1960's so you fools who blame Trump are ignorant and don't bother reading history!
Let me help you learn the facts.
https://www.popularmechanics.c... [popularmechanics.com]
Re: They had space weapons in the 80's (Score:2)
Sure, this could be any president facing an anti-satellite weapon deployment from a satellite, because it happens allllll the time, but what's Trump going to do about it?
Re: They had space weapons in the 80's (Score:2)
Umm ever heard of this thing Trump started called Space Force? What the hell do you think that is for? You might be anri-trump but trust me he has ZERO power over this stuff. He is just a figure head like the queen of england. "Space Force" has existed for long time it pre-dates wven Obama. The are just now slowly letting the public know about it.
Plus the US has had ships that fly in space for years the public just doesnt know about them. Just like they didnt know about the U2 and SR-71 and the stealth figh
Re: (Score:2)
And a few years ago we did a quick launch from off the Lake Erie (or her sister ship) using an SM-3 rocket to take a out one of our malfunctioning sats as a show of force after the PRC got some attention by doing something similar. We did it quicker, with better precision, and in a lower orbit so there wasn't much debris. Space weapons are not needed at this time.
Nice things (Score:2)
Untrusted News Service (Score:1)
Propaganda
Drop The Dead Aunty
tvlicensing.co.uk/notv
Tory Lipservice