Russian Satellite Linked to Its Nuclear Anti-Satellite Weapon Program Appears Out of Control, Analyst says (msn.com) 44
An anonymous reader shared this report from Reuters:
The secretive Russian satellite in space that U.S. officials believe is connected to a nuclear anti-satellite weapon program has appeared to be spinning uncontrollably, suggesting it may no longer be functioning in what could be a setback for Moscow's space weapon efforts, according to U.S. analysts... [The Cosmos 2553 satellite launched in 2022] has had various bouts of what appears to be errant spinning over the past year, according to Doppler radar data from space-tracking firm LeoLabs and optical data from Slingshot Aerospace shared with Reuters.
Believed to be a radar satellite for Russian intelligence as well as a radiation testing platform, the satellite last year became the center of U.S. allegations that Russia for years has been developing a nuclear weapon capable of destroying entire satellite networks, such as SpaceX's vast Starlink internet system that Ukrainian troops have been using. U.S. officials assess Cosmos 2553's purpose, though not itself a weapon, is to aid Russia's development of a nuclear anti-satellite weapon. Russia has denied it is developing such a weapon and says Cosmos 2553 is for research purposes....
"This observation strongly suggests the satellite is no longer operational," the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, said of LeoLabs' analysis in its annual Space Threat Assessment published on Friday.
Believed to be a radar satellite for Russian intelligence as well as a radiation testing platform, the satellite last year became the center of U.S. allegations that Russia for years has been developing a nuclear weapon capable of destroying entire satellite networks, such as SpaceX's vast Starlink internet system that Ukrainian troops have been using. U.S. officials assess Cosmos 2553's purpose, though not itself a weapon, is to aid Russia's development of a nuclear anti-satellite weapon. Russia has denied it is developing such a weapon and says Cosmos 2553 is for research purposes....
"This observation strongly suggests the satellite is no longer operational," the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, said of LeoLabs' analysis in its annual Space Threat Assessment published on Friday.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This business... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now StarLink, that's an interesting one. Is it sustainable without SpaceX's government launch contracts? I don't know- but I mean, SpaceX leveraging its launch business to... well, launch satellites of its own... is just good business.
The handouts thing... it rubs me the wrong way.
We get a psycho fucking Republican in office, and now every fucking liberal that stands against him has adopted Republican rhetoric. Drives me fuc
Re: This business... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the size of this uberconstellations, dropping is probably the better move.
As long as SpaceX can keep the costs of their F9 launches cheap as hell, they can continue to put new sats up.
Costs about $300k per year per sat to keep a constellation of constant size up there with the 5 year lifetime.
Means it costs ~$2B a year to keep the constellation in service.
StarLink has almost 3 million subscribers. If each
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia's plans always work out great (Score:2)
The First Chechen War enters the chat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Armageddon."
Re: Russia's plans always work out great (Score:2)
It's probably do it on purpose (Score:2)
It the best defense.
"oops, sorry our satellite collided with your spy satellite by accident. It was acting off for a few months now..."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: It's probably do it on purpose (Score:2)
Re:It's probably do it on purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia doesn't need NATO to break Russian things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia (Score:2)
Re: In Soviet Russia (Score:2)
go to defcon 3 (Score:2)
go to defcon 3
Call the ... (Score:3)
If any are still alive.
Re: (Score:2)
There's too much legal liability into sending boomers up into space. Besides, imagine being locked in a capsule with a generation that talks loudly on their speakerphone. ugh!
Re: Call the ... (Score:2)
Mooo (Score:2)
Cows in space? Preposterous!
FIVE DOLLARS (Score:2)
Russia could spend FIVE DOLLARS on a teeny tiny bit more research and development on their space abacus.
OR
They could spend FIVE DOLLARS on a couple more rounds for men to be sent to Ukraine to cause death, some of it their own.
They made that decision 3 years ago.
The only idiot still believing their shit is Donald Trump. He'd do more to "help" but he has "the bone spur thingie."
Yeah and Rachel Dolezal is Black. But at least she doesn't call her kid a "hot piece of ass".
Re: FIVE DOLLARS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story Ivan.
Re: Propaganda? To What Purpose? (Score:2)
So fun fact uranium degrades (Score:3)
And here's the scarier part, they might still have some or even all of their nuclear arsenal but another country besides that they don't and that they want that land. Remember that war is really just stealing other people's land. And as our civilization grinds to a halt and economy start to collapse countries will seek to expand their borders in order to loot other countries to keep their economies functional.
Point being One Way or another we're going to find out whether or not those nukes still work.
Re: So fun fact uranium degrades (Score:2)
You're thinking of tritium (Score:4, Informative)
Half-lives:
U-235: 700 million years
Pu-239: 24 thousand years
Tritium: 12 years
But most modern fusion weapons use lithium deuteride instead of tritium, and Li-7 and H-2 are both stable.
The parts of modern weapons which degrade are the explosives and triggering mechanism. If the explosion isn't perfectly symmetrical, the weapon fizzles.
And the missiles the warheads launch on.
That's why DoE labs periodically removes the fissionable pit from a nuclear warhead, reassembles it with an inert pit, and blows up the explosives to see if they still work. And why we periodically launch missiles from subs or land for testing.
However, if Russian nukes are anything like their reactive armor as seen in Ukraine, some of those warheads and missiles are filled with bricks and sand. Of course, that just means they'll launch enough of them to guarantee some working ones make it to their targets.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird (Score:2)