Russian Satellite Linked to Its Nuclear Anti-Satellite Weapon Program Appears Out of Control, Analyst says (msn.com) 78
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:2, Funny)
Re: This business... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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:3)
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:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless governments ban things like StarLink within their borders, it will continue to be successful.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it wasn't ignorance... maybe they just don't like you.
I'm an American. I definitely did not vote for that dipshit in the White House, but sometimes when interacting with foreigners, I get where the MAGA folks are coming from. Doesn't matter if you're sucking from our teet, or if we're cutting you of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also am American.
Then put on your shit shoveling boots and get yourself into the game.
We've had some seriously fucking terrible executives in the past. Trump's probably top-5 worst. He's not the end of the world, or the United States.
Jan 6 and this election result are some of the worst experiences in my existence, and that includes the death of my mother at an early age.
1/6 was pretty fucked up.
However, it was also not nearly as scary as it could have been. I can think of some things worse than it, but my family was in DC when James Earl Ray popped MLK, so I've heard some shit that was a lot scarier than 1/6.
This piece of shit is destroying the world.
Come on. The world is more fucking resilient than
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A better question is what de-orbiting thousands of satellites a year is going to do to the atmosphere. We don't really know, but it's probably nothing good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I very much doubt it. Really we need the regulator to have a look at it, and do the science needed.
Re: (Score:2)
That only works if the Government is not corrupt. el Bunko has corrupted the Federal Government. He's above corruption in the same way a brick is above the Sargasso Sea, to turn a Douglas Adams phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, not this corrupt in recent times, but it's never been free from measurable corruption.
Beyond that, SpaceX had contracts before Trump, and it remains the best candidate to receive them today.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I get it- you don't like el Bunko. You also don't like Elon Musk.
I don't like these people, either.
Does that suddenly mean we no longer want to invest in space, just because the most eligible space company is run by someo
Re: (Score:2)
When did we start calling government service contracts 'handouts'?
Oh, when NASA outsourced manned suborbital launches? Mercury?
Or the manned orbital launches? Mercury to Gemini?
Or the manned Moon bound launches? Apollo?
Or the reusable vehicle launches? Shuttle Transportation System?
Or how many satellite launches? How many?
I'm uninformed about this. What launch vehicles did or does NASA construct? And which did or does it contract out?
OTOH, which of the current NASA launch vehicle contractors is launching su
Re: (Score:2)
NASA only started outsourcing its launches in 2006 (ULA).
ULA remains "on time", and "on budget" (though they're not price competitive with SpaceX, at all
As for what launch vehicles NASA actually constructed- no easy answer there, either.
But most of them- or at least assembled.
If you've ever been to Orlando- look west.
That huge fucking square you can see on a clear day is called the Vehicle Assembly Building.
Not really
Re: This business... (Score:2)
The Saturn V was built by Boeing, Douglas, and North American. Yes, NASA built the facilities. The Apollo capsules and service modules were built by North American. The Lunar Module built by Grumman.
My point is that while SpaceX uses NASA facilities, it's the contractor and manufacturer is the launch vehicles. It has primarily launched satellites for customers. Interestingly the JWST was launched on an Ariane, not NASA at all... NASA builds satellites and probes, via subsidiaries, but not a lot of launch ve
Re: (Score:2)
The Saturn V was built by Boeing, Douglas, and North American.
The Apollo capsules and service modules were built by North American. The Lunar Module built by Grumman.
Its parts were, correct.
The vehicle was assembled by NASA.
The launch was conducted by NASA.
My point is that while SpaceX uses NASA facilities, it's the contractor and manufacturer is the launch vehicles.
It's a different relationship.
They build the parts, assemble the stack, and they conduct the launches. They're in charge of the mission, not NASA.
Interestingly the JWST was launched on an Ariane, not NASA at all...
I too found that interesting. And cool. NASA should be willing to use whoever they can to get the job done.
NASA builds satellites and probes, via subsidiaries, but not a lot of launch vehicles...
Remember, prior to ULA (and with some exceptions for earlier repurposed ballistic missiles) they built all of their launch vehicles. Just not the parts. They're not
Re: This business... (Score:2)
I don't think you can describe the Saturn as built by NASA. Each stage was built by the prime contractor and their subs, and was delivered. NASA stacked them. That's not the same thing as building. And NASA didn't do it alone, of course they had a small army of the contractors, engineers, technicians, etc. To be able to accomplish all this. It's not that SpaceX builds everything, they may have subs and I don't care. But NASA didn't build Saturn, they stacked it. And they control the launch, yes. More contra
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can describe the Saturn as built by NASA.
I do, in the same way that a PC is "built".
I am not, in any way, trying to imply that they built the individual stages.
Each stage was built by the prime contractor and their subs, and was delivered. NASA stacked them. That's not the same thing as building.
That's literally the exact definition of building.
And NASA didn't do it alone, of course they had a small army of the contractors, engineers, technicians, etc.
This is handwavey nonsense.
Every technical organization has a small army of contractors, engineers, and technicians.
It's not that SpaceX builds everything, they may have subs and I don't care.
So you invalidate your own point??
But NASA didn't build Saturn, they stacked it.
You're splitting hairs.
And they control the launch, yes. More contractor engineers and technicians in the room.
Contractors and engineers were in the room, but mission control was staffed by NASA employees, not contractors.
In the previous model, NASA designed a rocket. They the
Re: (Score:2)
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 fucking crazy.
Everyone is using Republican rhetoric against MAGA and Republicans because they're a bunch of unprincipled hypocrites and asked for it. Musk is a welfare queen.
The national debt - let's cut revenue, forget accounting
WWJD - FAFO?
Illegal immigration - attack legal immigration, county is too full
Low population growth - how can we make women have more babies
So yah, I use Republican language to make them feel like idiots when they deserve it. I don't take it to heart
Re: (Score:2)
Labeling every fucking government contract you don't like a handout is some Tea Party bullshit. It was just as dumb when they said it.
There is plenty to criticize the MAGA dumbshits about without sounds like a Tea Party dumbshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to quote another 1980's hit: everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Annoying people who aren't using headsets or not holding their phones to their ears isn't an age thing. It's everywhere, and it's getting worse. Not sure why you had to make this some sort of boomer bash.
I got a chuckle out of this piece recently:
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
Re: Call the ... (Score:2)
Mooo (Score:2)
Cows in space? Preposterous!
FIVE DOLLARS (Score:2, Insightful)
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:2, Insightful)
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 g
Re: So fun fact uranium degrades (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are the only one that I see who needs mental help dude.
Please seek it.
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:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Frighteningly I am pretty sure Israel does not and even if they do I'm pretty sure the rest of the world could be convinced they don't. And with the right wing continuously taking over more and more governments I think it's only a matter of time before they turn on the Jewish people again because, well when the shit hits the fan because incompetent right-wing fools cras
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Point being One Way or another we're going to find out whether or not those nukes still work.
You are absolutely 100% correct. :( :( :( :( :( :(
Weird (Score:2)
So this be spinning ... (Score:1)
... 'out of control' towards any hostile nation from a russian perspective?
Buy Rossia! (Score:2)
Another fine product from Roscosmos.