The launch of a super secret spy satellite failed, the satellite is lost. No need to worry about a new spy in the sky?
Seems like the sort of thing you'd HAVE to say about a secret satellite... :-)
Seems like the sort of thing you'd HAVE to say about a secret satellite... :-)
The time between launch and strike would be greatly reduced. Space is pretty close to land.
But beyond conspiracy theories, do we know of any confirmed secret satellites? They should be detectable, but on the other hand there are so many satellites that it'd be hard to index them all.
What could you do with a secret satellite? It seems like the signals would be detectable, but I'm not sure.
A secret satellite though? Oh the possibilities! The big problem with satellite surveillance is that people can figure out where your bird is, and simply you know... avoid it. Granted you can't hide large buildings, but you can predict when it will fly over and hide your troop numbers, mobile launch systems, etc.
How do you avoid a satellite you have no tracking data on? Of course, that would require some really impressive optical, radar, and thermal stealth tech, but that's quite plausible.
Of course if you were really paranoid, then maybe you'd think this isn't a satellite, but a satellite killer. I doubt it, and there are proven options to kill satellites from the ground, but it's possible.
my understanding is that many space vessels use micro-reactors for power.
Couldn't you just use plutonium warheads so that they look like one of those?
Legally speaking, 0, since the Outer Space Treaty forbids placing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and all spacefaring nations so far have signed. Even if the military kept things under wraps, I'm not so sure that stationing nukes in orbit would provide a significant advantage, as you would only be able to strike a particular target when it rotates under your orbit, which means you can hit a target only twice a day at fairly specific times, while ICBMs can be launched at any time. In addition, modern ICBMs have flight times on the order of 30 minutes ([0], [1]), so satellites aren't going to be reaching a target much faster.
Edit: forgot to address another point
>They should be detectable, but on the other hand there are so many satellites that it'd be hard to index them all.
We already track more than half a million pieces of space debris, with 20,000 of those larger than a softball ([2]), so I'd imagine a "secret" satellite wouldn't stay secret for long.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases
[1]: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/12028/is-it-correct-that-it-takes-approx-30-minutes-for-an-icbm-to-reach-russia
[2]: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.htmlSigning treaties didn't stop us from waterboarding torture.
> Even if the military kept things under wraps, I'm not so sure that stationing nukes in orbit would provide a significant advantage, as you would only be able to strike a particular target when it rotates under your orbit, which means you can hit a target only twice a day at fairly specific times, while ICBMs can be launched at any time.
The big benefit would be that a target can be wiped off the map without a giant "LOOK WE DID IT" flag immediately beforehand.
> We already track more than half a million pieces of space debris, with 20,000 of those larger than a softball ([2]), so I'd imagine a "secret" satellite wouldn't stay secret for long.
Space debris follows a predictable track once spotted and isn't deliberately constructed to be hard to find with visual/radar observation. This is a bit like saying stealth bombers are impossible because we can easily spot airliners.
Isn't that because the US called waterboarding "enhanced interrogation" instead of torture, and therefore could claim that they were following the letter of the law?
In any case, the "legally speaking" was intended to mean "it can still happen, but there's probably going to be a lot of fallout if someone finds out".
>The big benefit would be that a target can be wiped off the map without a giant "LOOK WE DID IT" flag immediately beforehand.
That's an interesting point. Only way I can think of to figure out whose nuke it is is to extrapolate the reentry vehicles' trajectory backwards and see what satellites are in possible source orbits. That's not going to be very accurate, I think. Wonder if there is a better defense against that.
>Space debris follows a predictable track once spotted and isn't deliberately constructed to be hard to find with visual/radar observation. This is a bit like saying stealth bombers are impossible because we can easily spot airliners.
Good point. I had considered the possibility of stealth tech, but I guess I didn't really think that hard about what it meant until I read that analogy.
What you're describing is closer to a spy camera in a geosynchronous orbit. A LEO nuke would not behave like this.
I was thinking of a polar orbit when I wrote that comment. You'll always be over the same longitude with a geosynchronous orbit, as opposed to passing over any longitude. You have more flexibility in targeting locations that are mostly below you, though.
>A LEO nuke would not behave like this.
Why not? The orbit stays the same, while the Earth rotates under it. A particular point on the Earth will rotate under the orbit 0-2 times a day, depending on inclination.
...and since you have to be moving faster to hit geosynchronous orbit, you have to have a lot more ΔV to get back to the earth than if you were in a lower orbit, which means more fuel, which means more weight, which means harder to get into that orbit to start with...
Oh, and since you're still moving when you're doing that ΔV maneuver, you'll end up in a lower (and not-geosynchronous) orbit before you get all the way to the planet, so the payload would probably end up doing a few orbits on its way down anyhow (at which point, why care if you're "over the target")
> You can't just fire a rocket "straight down" -- if you just point at the Earth and thrust, you end up in an elongated orbit that misses the earth entirely.
The second sentence doesn't justify the first. You can thrust in various directions even if your intended trajectory is straight down. I surmise you would simply need to reduce orbit speed to maintain the same angular velocity the whole way down, which doesn't strike me as a computationally or physically difficult problem.
Yeah, I know pointing straight down is a horribly inefficient way to deorbit; if anything, it probably requires more delta-v than you expended getting up there in the first place. I was more thinking that with something in geosynchronous orbit, small-ish changes in whatever velocity you end up in after the deorbiting burn could result in very different targets on the ground, whereas in LEO you can't cover the same amount of ground under your orbit with the same delta-v (or at least I think; haven't actually done the numbers, if I even knew how). Still requires a heck of a lot more fuel if you just want to get from LEO to the ground, as you pointed out.
> Oh, and since you're still moving when you're doing that ΔV maneuver, you'll end up in a lower (and not-geosynchronous) orbit before you get all the way to the planet, so the payload would probably end up doing a few orbits on its way down anyhow (at which point, why care if you're "over the target")
If the deorbit burn provides enough delta-v, you can fall straight from geosynchronous altitude to Earth without being stuck doing a few orbits. And the not-geosynchronous orbit is actually what I expected. You want the Earth to rotate, since that might move the point under the geosynchronous satellite approximately under the point the nuke would reenter the atmosphere. I don't know whether an orbit with the right period exists though.
This scenario might make an interesting book or movie plot, but I have never heard of one. Spy novel with nukes.
I don't know what it's called but I love when something is nicknamed for the antithesis of what it's meant to do: guns/nukes -- killing people. Peacemaker? You be the judge... [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Single_Action_Army
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
So far nukes have kept the great nations out of war, but the possible Black Swan event of a large nuclear exchange is a doozy.
If a disembodied hand comes out of nowhere and slaps you, you may have difficulty proving it was me that did it, especially if the hand vaporizes in the process.
Then there are all the other disadvantages of orbital nukes. They can only strike on their orbital path, and only when they're in the right point of the orbit, otherwise they're very expensive to re-target because it means changing orbits. Because of all those points they're actually a lot slower to target than ICMBs. If they're in a low orbit then the orbit will decay and they will come down in a few years whether you want them to or not. If they're in a high orbit the costs are even higher and they're even slower to target. Finally, they're vulnerable to detection if they're up for any length of time. They really are a terrible idea.
Plausible deniability goes a long way, even if it's not very plausible. Plenty of cases in the Cold War where everyone knew a side did something they shouldn't have but couldn't prove it.
Chaff's handy for making it look like the launcher had an issue, but you need something else for ongoing evasion.
And you can use it to make popcorn.
Your question is equivalent to "what are the chances we have more than 1 nuke in orbit." Is that what you meant?
The failure, apparently, is that they can't contact the payload, not that it disappeared.
That's not really surprising; I'd imagine most long-term satellites carry thrusters and at least some amount of fuel for stationkeeping, especially in geostationary orbit. It'd definitely make it much more difficult to track, unless you keep something pointed at it 24/7 so you notice the change in velocity.
And nice find with the SBIR competition! Does seem to point towards satellites being much more difficult to track than I thought if they're constantly moving.