U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[StrangeSox]

I guess the follow up question there is whether they'd have the means to destroy US only satellites, and specifically ones used by the DoD. But assuming they do, hopefully we have a back up system for all of those smart bombs.

 

If you're willing to take down the entire world's satellites, it wouldn't be too difficult. Go up and just blow a ton of debris up at the right orbits and it'll shred a bunch of them to pieces.

[southsider2k5]

I guess the follow up question there is whether they'd have the means to destroy US only satellites, and specifically ones used by the DoD. But assuming they do, hopefully we have a back up system for all of those smart bombs.

 

Do you mean the ability to ID which satilites belong to whom?

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you mean the ability to ID which satilites belong to whom?

 

Yeah.

[Balta1701]

Yeah.

It's much more expensive to blow up individual satellites than it is to just blow up everyone's.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's much more expensive to blow up individual satellites than it is to just blow up everyone's.

 

What about the risk of hitting their own or their allies?

[Balta1701]

What about the risk of hitting their own or their allies?

Exactly the point.

 

You've got choices. A much more expensive program capable of targeting your enemies satellites and preserving yours, or you just send up a few comparatively cheap ICBM's into orbit, detonate them, and shut down communication across the globe.

 

The former takes a lot more planning and money. The latter costs you your own system. The U.S. would never do the latter because it'll cost the U.S. it's systems...but an enemy that is clearly outspent by the U.S. might well be willing to sacrifice its satellite communications and information just to get an even playing field.

[StrangeSox]

Exactly the point.

 

You've got choices. A much more expensive program capable of targeting your enemies satellites and preserving yours, or you just send up a few comparatively cheap ICBM's into orbit, detonate them, and shut down communication across the globe.

 

The former takes a lot more planning and money. The latter costs you your own system. The U.S. would never do the latter because it'll cost the U.S. it's systems...but an enemy that is clearly outspent by the U.S. might well be willing to sacrifice its satellite communications and information just to get an even playing field.

 

I don't know if it's even technically possible to blow up a substantial number of enemy satellites without causing a lot of collateral damage to all other satellites. At the speeds we're talking about, the shrapnel produced would tear apart anything it came across.

[mr_genius]

I don't know if it's even technically possible to blow up a substantial number of enemy satellites without causing a lot of collateral damage to all other satellites. At the speeds we're talking about, the shrapnel produced would tear apart anything it came across.

 

wonder how much it would cost to do something like that.

[Balta1701]

wonder how much it would cost to do something like that.

Blowing up a number of satellites is fairly cheap, less than a billion dollars. You just have to launch a vehicle that blows itself up carrying a bunch of ball bearings, and get the trajectory right so that it scatters those particles into the path of a group of satellites.

[Balta1701]

By the way, happy 1 month birthday to the bombing of Libya!

[StrangeSox]

Blowing up a number of satellites is fairly cheap, less than a billion dollars. You just have to launch a vehicle that blows itself up carrying a bunch of ball bearings, and get the trajectory right so that it scatters those particles into the path of a group of satellites.

 

Eh, just EMP the thing.

[southsider2k5]

Eh, just EMP the thing.

 

Exactly how easy is that to do?

[StrangeSox]

Exactly how easy is that to do?

 

No idea, but I'd imagine it'd be easier to mitigate satellite causalities from that versus a fragmentation attack.

[Balta1701]

No idea, but I'd imagine it'd be easier to mitigate satellite causalities from that versus a fragmentation attack.

You'd imagine its easier to mitigate casualties from a large nuclear air burst than it is from scattering debris?

[StrangeSox]

A nuke isn't the only means of generating an EMP, especially if you're looking at a small target like a single satellite.

[southsider2k5]

A nuke isn't the only means of generating an EMP, especially if you're looking at a small target like a single satellite.

 

I honestly have no idea, so, how exactly would you do it? And #2 would it work in space?

[StrangeSox]

I honestly have no idea, so, how exactly would you do it? And #2 would it work in space?

 

You discharge a huge capacitor through an antenna-like device. I don't see why it wouldn't work in space, it's just electromagnetic waves.

 

Basically, it'd be a small-scale version of what a large solar flare pointed directly at our planet would do.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-huge-s...-satellite.html

[Balta1701]

You discharge a huge capacitor through an antenna-like device. I don't see why it wouldn't work in space, it's just electromagnetic waves.

 

Basically, it'd be a small-scale version of what a large solar flare pointed directly at our planet would do.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-huge-s...-satellite.html

It could work in theory...

 

but there's some problems. First, the fact that no one's ever succesfully demonstrated it as a weapon. Secondly, the problem of knocking out all the local electronics around the weapon.

[StrangeSox]

It could work in theory...

 

but there's some problems. First, the fact that no one's ever succesfully demonstrated it as a weapon. Secondly, the problem of knocking out all the local electronics around the weapon.

 

I'd assumed that Chinese and US spy/military satellites aren't hanging out near each other.

[Balta1701]

I'd assumed that Chinese and US spy/military satellites aren't hanging out near each other.

They kinda are. It's the same space. It's actually a bit overcrowded right now, to the point that new satellites are often being put in higher orbits. And the U.S. has a ****load of satellites.

[Jenksismyhero]

Didn't I just read that our Navy successfully tested laser weapons?

[BigSqwert]

Yes. They armed the actual heads of some sharks.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes. They armed the actual heads of some sharks.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Didn't I just read that our Navy successfully tested laser weapons?

 

Raytheon and others have various anti-missile lasers and some that are capable of taking down a drone-sized plane.

[StrangeSox]

They kinda are. It's the same space. It's actually a bit overcrowded right now, to the point that new satellites are often being put in higher orbits. And the U.S. has a ****load of satellites.

 

I don't know the physics and I'm too lazy to learn it. There'd have to be some minimum effective charge level that comes with a minimum radius where it'd knock out equipment. You could also probably make it directional. I'm sure any critical satellites are hardened against EMP.