Weaponization Of Space

[CSM]

I don't think so.

Considering that your typical land based ICBM has a range of around 5500 to 6000 km, and a nuclear platform in space would be at a geosynchronous orbit of roughly 35,000 km above sea level, one would not only require a multiple staged rocket just to get to the platform but that rocket would take between 2 to 5 times longer to reach the platform than a typical land based ICBM would take from launch to impact. The time difference is further exagerrated when comparing an attack against a platform to a submarine based attack against ground targets.

An aggressor country would not be able to take out a space platform by surprise before lauching a theatre wide attack. The launch of the rocket intended to strike the platform would be detected hours before impact, by which time our response would already be re-entering the atmosphere.

Besides, space platforms, probably being fairly expensive, would undoubtedly have a capacity to defend themselves.

UNLESS a country had "satellite killers" in orbit as well. I seem to remember that being a concern of both the US and the old Soviet Union at one time.

 

[Zhukov]

Yes, a large focused neutron bomb could take out the electronics of anything not shielded.

I don't know how close such a bomb would have to be to be effective.

Of course in response, the platform would have a kill sphere about it, in that any object entering within twice the effective range of a neutron bomb would be immeadiately targeted for destruction.

The construction of these platforms would not be independent of an exhaustive survey of any objects already in high orbits.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Anyone else? Anyone else care to attempt to subvert american security while pretending to care about it? Wade? AJ? You guys done?

 

[DKSuddeth]

new nuclear missile subs should do the trick, coupled with a couple of new sub hunter escorts. yeah, thats it.

 

[wade]

There are lots of ways they could knock down our satalites. Simply firing a few nukes and detonating them in space would create an EM pulse sufficent to kill most of our satalites.

It only takes 3 such space burst nukes to kill all but the most hardened communciations systems in the continental USA, so as you can imagine, it would take relatively few to take out all but the most hardened of military sats.

Some good sites to get you started:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_weapons_mass_destruction_page006.html

http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/nuclear_weapons.html

http://www.barryrudolph.com/pages/atomic.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

Enjoy (I'll try to edit this and add some more later),

Wade.

 

[wade]

I don't think so.

Considering that your typical land based ICBM has a range of around 5500 to 6000 km, and a nuclear platform in space would be at a geosynchronous orbit of roughly 35,000 km above sea level, one would not only require a multiple staged rocket just to get to the platform but that rocket would take between 2 to 5 times longer to reach the platform than a typical land based ICBM would take from launch to impact. The time difference is further exagerrated when comparing an attack against a platform to a submarine based attack against ground targets.

An aggressor country would not be able to take out a space platform by surprise before lauching a theatre wide attack. The launch of the rocket intended to strike the platform would be detected hours before impact, by which time our response would already be re-entering the atmosphere.

Besides, space platforms, probably being fairly expensive, would undoubtedly have a capacity to defend themselves.

No because there is no coasting time required. When firing an ICBM, it is fired on a trajectory and then must coast through a re-entry pattern. When firing a weapon designed to take out an orbital platform, there is no coast time needed, just a bigger rocket. Maintaining the burn for just a short while longer will yeild increadible speeds. It can continue to accelerate all (or most of) the way to the target and it can be detonated quite a distance from the target and still take it out.

Yes you could put defensive systems on a satalite, but this would make it geometrically more expensive - and counter counter measures could also be used. Once the first bomb goes off anywhere near the platform, its probably blind and unable to defend itself for a significant time period anyway. Attacking anti-satalite missiles would not need to "see", as they would already know where the target is (close enough), so you could fire a nuke to detonate well below the target and then follow that with the killer missile.

Wade.

 

[ajwps]

No because there is no coasting time required. When firing an ICBM, it is fired on a trajectory and then must coast through a re-entry pattern. When firing a weapon designed to take out an orbital platform, there is no coast time needed, just a bigger rocket. Maintaining the burn for just a short while longer will yeild increadible speeds. It can continue to accelerate all (or most of) the way to the target and it can be detonated quite a distance from the target and still take it out.

Yes you could put defensive systems on a satalite, but this would make it geometrically more expensive - and counter counter measures could also be used. Once the first bomb goes off anywhere near the platform, its probably blind and unable to defend itself for a significant time period anyway. Attacking anti-satalite missiles would not need to "see", as they would already know where the target is (close enough), so you could fire a nuke to detonate well below the target and then follow that with the killer missile.
Wade.

Of course state of the art technology can now detect within seconds any rocket firing from anywhere on earth. When any missile or rocket fires, the initial burn and lift off takes up to a minute and by the time any speed is achieved, immediate counter measures unknown except to the military complex can eliminate any number of threats long before the initial ballistic missile leaves the earth's atmosphere.

It is highly unlikely that a nuclear blast would result from a missile being stopped by countermeasures and in no way effect an orbiting platform. I personally have no knowledge of these countermeasures but I do know several scientists who continually work on these problems and have been doing so for a number of years.

 

[wade]

I wonder then how we'd do after a surprise decapitation attack caused by multiple simultaneous nuclear detonations from bombs smuggled into country.

Smuggling bombs into the country is not an easy trick, there are lots of ways these can be seen by our equipment, and hiding them from that equipment requires large, conspicuous containers.

The whole point of my initial comment was about providing an invulnerable means of delivering an overwhelming nuclear strike. China wouldn't have to hit every single one of our ICBM installations to knock out their ability to fire.

Yes, you pretty much do. That's the whole point of the design.

"Following several years of relative inaction, the U.S. Navy is charging ahead with plans to neutralize what it sees as the growing menace of enemy diesel-electric submarines. Diesel-electric boats, although relatively low-tech, are emerging as a decided threat to military assets around the world and civilian targets in the United States, officials said."

I agree these do pose a threat. But the contention was these could somehow destroy our nuclear subs, and that is incorrect.

Actually I've saw plans for just such an installation while I interned for Dr. Borowski back when I was in high school. Those particular reactors weren't designed to produce weapons grade material but such a reactor wouldn't be too different.

With proper funding (which of course will never happen) we could probably have such an installation up in 15 years.

It's not the technology - it's getting it operational on the moon!

If we made this the number one national priority, at the expense of everything else, we might be able to get such a thing going within 15 years. And then it would be another 10 after that before anything usable would come out of the setup.

Tritium and deutirium are hardly as much of a health threat as weapons grade plutonium.

Hydrogen bombs actually require two fissionable critical masses, so that means at least 2-6 KG per warhead.

Your analysis of fusion bombs is completely wrong. First, a hydrogen bomb requires only one fissionable critical mass to compress the tritium-deutirium pit. Likewise, a fusion boosted fission device requires only a single fission charge. Finally, considering a fusion bomb is on the order of over 2-20X more powerful than a fission device while being not much heavier or larger than fission bombs, and as I already mentioned in a fusion bomb some fissile material is replaced with tritium and deuterium, you have reduced the amount of radioactive weapons grade plutonium.

No, it requires two fission reactions at oposing elipitical foci on either side of the fusable component, or it requires putting the fusable material inside a hollow dome of plutonium, which requires even more fissionable material which is why I didn't bring it up. For the uranium style trigger, each of these must be able to achieve super-critical mass, and this requires a minimum of 1 kg per reaction (using super-weapons grade uranium), and more likely 2-3 kg each. Putting it inside an implosion pit of a plutonium core would take perhaps two to three as much material, at a minimum, and plutonium is more dangerous when put into the atomsphere. Plutonium is the prefered method because it will yeild a much bigger fission-fusion-fission result. I was trying to state the minimum so I listed a uranium trigger because that would require the least weight of fissionable material.

Then there's neutron bombs detonated in the upper atmosphere to knock out missile guidance systems. They don't need two seperate fission charges.

Pure fusion devices, as their name implies, need no fission charge at all.

Thats all well and good, except there are no pure-fusion devices. Nuetron bombs are simply fission-fusion devices, the last fission stage of a normal thermonuke is eliminated by not containg the nuetrons in a fissionable mirror container. This is done by making the mirror shell out of nickle and/or chromium, which will not stop nuetrons. In an normal thermo-nuke, the mirror shell is made out of U-238 (the relatively inert waste isotopes of uranium) or mildly enriched uranium for an even nastier yeild, which fissions when bombarded with the neutrons from the fusion stage.

How, other than a fission reaction are you going to generate the million degree temperatures needed to initiate the fusion reaction? It appears even suns cannot get started without a fission core reaction (yes this is theoretical, but I'm pretty convinced it's true).

The purpose of these platforms is to possess the capability of annhilating every single thing in China from space. That's the 'defensive' role I had in mind. Which means multiple KT's at least.

That'd require either a lot of orbital platforms containing a lot of nukes, or some very very huge nukes. Besides the idea is absurd. Any thrermonuclear war on that scale would end up killing us too, or at the very least making life not worth living. Perhaps some huge neutron bombs might be used for such a purpose, but the nature of nuetron bombs makes them have much smaller yeilds than the traditional thermonukes, so it would require a lot of them. If you want to steralize a continent, it would probably be more effective to figure out a way to use the sun to do it, or if you're willing to accept some return loss, bio-genetic weapons tailored to the population you wish to eliminate (I think these are doable but I'm not sure).

And yet our shuttles have ejectable cockpits do they not? I wonder why that is...

It's called a contingency. Obviously a sudden catastrophic failure will render the ejection option useless, but any failure which would simply prevent the rocket from entering orbit, engine misfire or failure for instance, and thus fall to back Earth would not require that the rocket impact with it's payload still intact.

Umm... the space shuttle does not have any kind of ejection system. Too costly and deemed not likely to be effective anyway.

Any launch failure means the payload is comming back to Earth, and it's comming back pretty soon, probably within hours if not minutes. Even satalites and other things we put in orbit do not usually have stable orbits, they require adjustment burns to keep them up. Remember Skylab and Soyus? Stable long term orbits require the object to be much further out.

And there is no way to make weapons grade plutonium or uranium safe in less than a very very long time.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Of course state of the art technology can now detect within seconds any rocket firing from anywhere on earth. When any missile or rocket fires, the initial burn and lift off takes up to a minute and by the time any speed is achieved, immediate counter measures unknown except to the military complex can eliminate any number of threats long before the initial ballistic missile leaves the earth's atmosphere.

It is highly unlikely that a nuclear blast would result from a missile being stopped by countermeasures and in no way effect an orbiting platform. I personally have no knowledge of these countermeasures but I do know several scientists who continually work on these problems and have been doing so for a number of years.

Well, that is speculation. The idea that, faced with a large scale launch, we would be able to stop all enemy missiles with countermeasures seems pretty remote to me. Even if we stopped 90% of them, 10% would be enough to wreak havok.

And all that assumes our command and control systems are still operational. The first thing anyone would do in initiating such action would be to take down these systems, and without them countermeasures would become much much less effective.

The real threat lies in nano-molecular technology. Something the Chineese may have a lead in. But that's a whole nuther topic

Wade.

 

[wade]

Anyone else? Anyone else care to attempt to subvert american security while pretending to care about it? Wade? AJ? You guys done?

What? What are you talking about?

Wade.

 

[ajwps]

Well, that is speculation. The idea that, faced with a large scale launch, we would be able to stop all enemy missiles with countermeasures seems pretty remote to me. Even if we stopped 90% of them, 10% would be enough to wreak havok.

Actually that is not the case. After having had a chance to speak to these gentlemen who are doing highly classified work and told in no uncertain terms that they could not tell me anything of substance, did find out that they are working on something like laser beams, sound waves or the like which requires only nano-seconds to destroy ABM's after launch from anywhere on the earth.

And all that assumes our command and control systems are still operational. The first thing anyone would do in initiating such action would be to take down these systems, and without them countermeasures would become much much less effective.

I am certain that if I were able to glean that little bit of information, the Chinese and even the terrorist states have access to the same information. All these threats of nuclear IBM attack are I believe mainly for chest pounding and show.

Science has made geometric leaps of knowledge over these years which are beyond anything we can imagine.

The real threat lies in nano-molecular technology. Something the Chineese may have a lead in. But that's a whole nuther topic
Wade.

I'm not as certain as you that the Chinese have made that great a leap into nano-molecular technology as the west. We haven't a clue as to what the west has already accomplished.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually that is not the case. After having had a chance to speak to these gentlemen who are doing highly classified work and told in no uncertain terms that they could not tell me anything of substance, did find out that they are working on something like laser beams, sound waves or the like which requires only nano-seconds to destroy ABM's after launch from anywhere on the earth.



I am certain that if I were able to glean that little bit of information, the Chinese and even the terrorist states have access to the same information. All these threats of nuclear IBM attack are I believe mainly for chest pounding and show.

Science has made geometric leaps of knowledge over these years which are beyond anything we can imagine.



I'm not as certain as you that the Chinese have made that great a leap into nano-molecular technology as the west. We haven't a clue as to what the west has already accomplished.

I think you do AJ---your just not sharing anymore.

 

[MrMarbles]

The biggest threat to the world today isn't Chinese in nano-molecular technology, or America's attempts to put weapons in space, it is the eventual arms race that will occur. An arms race that will add tension, and cause strain on the world stage, which when flared up right will destroy us all. Why not find peaceful solutions to problems, why not stick with former agreements to not re-arm, it may be a hard thing to do, harder then pushing a red button and killing us all, but it will ensure that our kids, kids will have a place to live.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The biggest threat to the world today isn't Chinese in nano-molecular technology, or America's attempts to put weapons in space, it is the eventual arms race that will occur. An arms race that will add tension, and cause strain on the world stage, which when flared up right will destroy us all. Why not find peaceful solutions to problems, why not stick with former agreements to not re-arm, it may be a hard thing to do, harder then pushing a red button and killing us all, but it will ensure that our kids, kids will have a place to live.

That's what all you libs said during the cold war. I didn't come true. You were wrong then. You're wrong now.

 

[ajwps]

I think you do AJ---your just not sharing anymore.

I do know more but this information is for sale to the highest bidder.....

 

[DKSuddeth]

I do know more but this information is for sale to the highest bidder.....

you work at the pentagon?

 

[CSM]

There are lots of ways they could knock down our satalites. Simply firing a few nukes and detonating them in space would create an EM pulse sufficent to kill most of our satalites.

It only takes 3 such space burst nukes to kill all but the most hardened communciations systems in the continental USA, so as you can imagine, it would take relatively few to take out all but the most hardened of military sats.

Some good sites to get you started:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_weapons_mass_destruction_page006.html

http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/nuclear_weapons.html

http://www.barryrudolph.com/pages/atomic.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

Enjoy (I'll try to edit this and add some more later),

Wade.

It is true that EMP bursts in space would devestate our commercial communications infrastrucutre, power distribution grids, and so forth. It would also severely impact many other nation's infrastructure as well. EMP is omnidirectional.

 

[wade]

Actually that is not the case. After having had a chance to speak to these gentlemen who are doing highly classified work and told in no uncertain terms that they could not tell me anything of substance, did find out that they are working on something like laser beams, sound waves or the like which requires only nano-seconds to destroy ABM's after launch from anywhere on the earth.

"Working on" is a long way from "working". I've worked on many high tech projects over the last 20 years. I've worked with people who worked on projects like you discuss, and they always talk as if what they are working on in the lab will work the same way in the real world, but the fact is this is not what happens.

Do you have any idea of the amount of power involved in a laser beam type system that can reach the kind of distances you are talking about? Do you have any idea the amount of sensor data to be processed in order to track such objects?

In general, space based laser beams of the type you are describing consist of a lense (and mirror lenses) and a nuke. The nuke is detonated to create the energy needed for firing, and the lense is used to focus this energy into a beam for a few nanoseconds before it is vaporized. Just how many such satalites could we deploy? When one fires, what effect does it have on other such satalites?

Talk in terms of what does exist, not what might exist or what someone tells you they are working on, please.

I am certain that if I were able to glean that little bit of information, the Chinese and even the terrorist states have access to the same information. All these threats of nuclear IBM attack are I believe mainly for chest pounding and show.

You don't have any real information. Have you seen any technical documentation on these systems? Have you seen any lab test results? Any firing range tests?

Science has made geometric leaps of knowledge over these years which are beyond anything we can imagine.

Actually, the rate of knowlege increase is generally shrinking each year, as it is harder and harder to make the next incrimental amount of progress. But that is a philisophical discussion.

I can imagine lots of advanced technologies. But I also know how much difference there is between concept and reality. What you are talking about are concept weapons, not real weapons.

I'm not as certain as you that the Chinese have made that great a leap into nano-molecular technology as the west. We haven't a clue as to what the west has already accomplished.

The general assertion is that the Chineese have at least a 5 year headstart in this technology, and that the USA should invest in it now to catch up. But who knows... this is only what the CIA and NSA are saying.

Wade.

 

[wade]

That's what all you libs said during the cold war. I didn't come true. You were wrong then. You're wrong now.

Hmmm.. in the 20th century we came to the brink of nuclear anihilation 3 times during the cold war with the Soviets. Now you think it is acceptable to enter a 3-way or 4-way arms race as we go into the 21st century?

Wade.

 

[CSM]

We may not be that far off:

SPACE BASED LASER INTEGRATED FLIGHT EXPERIMENT

The U.S. Air Force contracted with an industry joint venture on February 08, 1999 for the Space Based Laser Integrated Flight Experiment (SBL IFX). The award constitutes the first increment of a Cost Plus Award Fee/Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract valued at approximately $2-3 billion once completed. The first increment, representing approximately $125M in funding, initiates tasks to be conducted in the first 18-24 months of the effort and immediately undertakes baseline development activities, as well as an affordability and architecture study.

The joint venture titled "Team SBL IFX" was formed on February 08, 1999, by LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, acting through Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space in Sunnyvale California, THE BOEING COMPANY, acting through its Canoga Park California offices and TRW INC., acting through its Space and Electronics Group in El Segundo California.

The SBL IFX program is executed by the U.S. Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) in Los Angeles California for the Ballistic Missile Defense Office. The program is jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The program’s objective is to conduct a research effort to advance and assess the feasibility of the Space Based Laser (SBL) concept and its technologies, culminating in an SBL ballistic missile defense (BMD) demonstration in space, as well as an assessment of non-BMD mission utility.

The SBL IFX program will include ground, flight, and space experiments as needed to verify technologies at the component and subsystem level to support design activities for the building of a SBL IFX flight vehicle. This sub-scale flight vehicle will serve as a space test bed for the technologies. More importantly, it provides a focal point for resolving the integration challenges embodied in creating a system that unites precision optics and high energy lasers onto a lightweight spacecraft. Thorough end-to-end ground testing of the vehicle will be conducted prior to flight to create a data base for analyzing on-orbit performance.

If the SBL IFX effort proves successful, the Department of Defense will assess the cost and utility of an operational system, as well as the threat predictions, to decide whether to actually enter the acquisition process for the development of an operational capability.

These pages created and maintained by (Last Updated 9 Feb 99):

SMC/ADE
Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC)
2420 Vela Way , Ste 1467-80
Los Angeles AFB
El Segundo CA 90245-4659

This article came from

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news99/990209-sbl.htm