UK and US say Russia fired a satellite weapon in space
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Don't get me wrong, Russia aren't some good guy, but when you actively do a thing for tens of years and then the other guy does that thing, you have no moral high ground left to complain.
Have a read about Sputnik News, for example, which is considered to be “slick” propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)
Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it. I get that we are in some really dark times, but this is appalling to tolerate as Americans.
But it's a bit different, because it's about bringing up some completely unrelated point to distract. In this case, though, the subject matter is the same.
This isn't to say that Russia ought to be excused, or that countries that are not currently involved in militarizing space shouldn't criticize it. But if they do, shouldn't they be criticizing US, as well? And as for Americans, well, the hypocrisy there is rather obvious.
Also, for all the other obvious reasons.
If pointing out stuff that the US military readily admits it does is "Russian propaganda" I really don't know how to respond to that. The Space Force and X-37B aren't some conspiracy theory or hot take, they're official and somewhat public programs even with their own websites[0][1]. Nobody denies they're military programs either.
I've seen people throw around unfounded accusations of repeating propaganda before, but this has to be one of the more farcical ones.
[0] https://www.spaceforce.mil/
[1] http://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/index....
> The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.
And goes on to say:
> USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Their core mission is to develop "space power" to "present to our Combatant Commands." And we're meant to believe that Armed Forces that are developing space "Combatants" for "space power" aren't the "militarization of space?"
Yes: military use != militarization. Let's consider hypothetical: you quoted this:
>> The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.... USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Let's invent the "US Logistics Force", a new hypothetical branch of the US Military:
> The U.S. Logistics Force (USLF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces.... USLF responsibilities include developing military logistics professionals, acquiring military logistics systems, maturing the military doctrine for logistics power, and organizing logistics forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
Would the existence of such a force be a militarization of transport links? Not necessarily. It could just be akin to a civilian shipping and logistics company where the drivers wear military fatigues and sometimes drive unusual 8-wheeled heavy lift trucks [1] to strange destinations.
The USSF isn't militarizing space because it's not stationing weapons up there, and the kind of stuff it does put up in space, for the most part, are the kinds of things civilian organizations have also put up there (communications, sensor, and navigation satellites).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Expanded_Mobility_Tactic...
> The U.S. Space Force is a military service that organizes, trains, and equips space forces in order to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force. USSF responsibilities will include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands.
> Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it.
That is your takeaway from observing this phenomena? That we should stop giving other people a pass for behaviour we routinely engage in?
How does that make any sense?
If you want to denounce the militarization of space, this is a great place to start. But you need to approach it with a 'Yes, and', instead of a 'No, but'. One is intellectually consistent, the other is an argument of tribalism.
If your goal is demilitarization, the solution to aim towards is a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia. If your goal is to engage in tribalism, then the solution to that is to denounce Russia, with no followup.
There are currently four countries that have successfully tested anti-satellite weapons. The United States, Russia, China, and India.
If the existence of anti-satellite weapons is an existential threat to free space access, which of these four countries should dismantle their anti-satellite weapons programs? And how should that be brought about?
Edit: It should be noted that putting weapons in space is not a violation of the Outer Space Treaty[1]. Putting nuclear weapons in space would be. But, as far as I can tell, this is not a nuclear weapon. The BBC is lying through its teeth, when it claims that this is an illegal weapon.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
> The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law.
> Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space.
> It specifically limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV).
> However, the treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit, and thus some highly destructive attack tactics, such as kinetic bombardment, are still potentially allowable.
Conventional weapons in orbit aren't illegal, and there are no treaty obligations that prohibit them.
The BBC either didn't do the most rudimentary research, or is engaging in misleading propaganda. (It is quite ironic to find that a subthread about Russian propaganda is rooted in a such a fundamental error of fact. We are well and truly in the post-truth era.)
It's always producing information to aid the narrative.
2. There is no reason to believe that X-37 cannot be a space-based weapons platform.
3. Why does it matter if the weapon was fired at a satellite from the ground, or at a satellite from space? The risk factor (Kessler effect) to peaceful space exploitation is exactly the same in both scenarios, because it comes from a satellite being blown up, not from a missile being launched.
You're making distinctions without a difference. The problem is ASWs existing, not splitting hairs over where ASWs are launched from.
There is a difference between "I suspect you committed a crime" and "I have video of you committing a crime".
> Why does it matter if the weapon was fired at a satellite from the ground, or at a satellite from space?
Well, it matters because everyone said they wouldn't do this. The weaponization of space is something we said we wouldn't do.
Why does it matter? What are the first-principles reasons for why firing a missile from a satellite into a satellite is a problem, but firing a missile from an aircraft carrier into a satellite is not? It should also be noted that putting conventional weapons in orbit is not currently banned by any international treaty.
Does it make any difference, but semantics? Kessler syndrome will happen in response to either one.
Not that the distinction matters a jot, they have been shooting things down in space for more than 70 years; this
>You're missing the fact that Russia has been militarizing space longer than the US has
is a lie.
It was a maneuverable satellite designed to destroy an enemy satellite by collision. They even launched a special armored satellite that could be used as a target for multiple test interceptions.
The results of the tests still remain classified. However it appears that the
follow-up Almaz station was to be equipped with a pair of interceptor missiles
rather than a cannon.
The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon.
>Don't get me wrong, Russia aren't some good guy, but when you actively do a thing for tens of years and then the other guy does that thing, you have no moral high ground left to complain.
Russia tested a satellite-to-satellite weapon which is completely unprecedented militarization of space.
The US has tested ground-based anti-satellite weapons on satellites in decaying Low-Eart Orbits. The debris quickly burned up in the atmosphere.
China is the only country to have blown up a satellite beyond LEO. The debris from that will be in orbit for decades. That was an unprecedented militarization of space and not comparable with anything the US has done in the space.
You are pushing a narrative that the US is the warmonger in space and that Russia is only responding in kind. The truth is that Russia and China are far ahead of the US in weaponizing space. The US is playing catch-up.
No, but that seems a little bit disingenuous. Aircraft carriers are neither missiles nor weapons either. We can recognize things as military assets that are neither missiles nor weapons.
The X-37B is a DOD asset, operated by the military, capable of deploying weapons systems. In that way, it is part of the military capability of the US.
With larger anti-sat sats you could actually latch on to the target and de-orbit it for zero orbital debris destruction. This requires many more, much larger such devices because while it takes relatively little delta-v to raise or lower an orbit, it takes a lot more to match an arbitrary target's orbit (to which more fuel has to be added for de-orbiting).
> antisat weapons that only ever raise or lower their orbits and fire .22s at their targets.
raising your orbit is the hard and expensive part, it takes a lot of propellant, which generally rules out smaller vehicles, right?
And if you want to destroy a satellite, you need a lot of kinetic energy, which for a tiny projectile means lots of speed relative to the target... But since your absolute speed determines the height of your orbit, the only way to get more than ~1000 ft/s is to have your gun-sat in an opposite-direction orbit to the target, right? And isn't it the case that our satellites are all orbiting in more or less the same direction, since they launch from canaveral and have to head east to be over water?
Otherwise raising orbit is expensive(ish) depending on whether you want a circular orbit. Matching an orbit can be expensive. If the target has auto avoidance like Starlink does then matching orbit becomes war of attrition; even getting the target to burn off its fuel is a win as it will drastically shorten its life span.
Deorbiting is relatively easy at LEO, just increasing frontal area is a cheap way to achieve it. Above LEO would normally require fuel of some amount.
Can you identify a time when cost was obviously a signifcant factor in a military choice? To me it seems that cost is low in the grand scheme of things.
If they could have 1,000 asat sats, they'd want to have 1,000. Can you imagine them saying "sure, let's just have an X-37B, one, just one, it will do"? If you need these in a shooting war, 1 ain't gonna be enough. You need lots of them. You can't have lots of them if: they're big and heavy (launches are too infrequent and too expensive) or if they're too expensive (you want 1,000 but can only afford 10).
It is said that was also the reason they started the Buran and Energia project - while their engineers though the Space Shuttle was too complicated, expensive and dangerous (and they were right...) they also though there must be something special about it, otherwise the Americans would not build something that bad.
They have seen some dangers like sattelite theft and others, so they have built a vehicle with similar capacity just because you have to match the opponent, even if the idea doesn’t really work and there are more efficient ways of achieving same results.
It's a cute theory but you should be skeptical of the claim that this study was the motivation for the Soviet shuttle program.
But why did the Soviets need that much cross-range? First of all their spy satellites were not generally put into polar orbits (they used shorter lived satellites that didn't need sun synchronous orbits) and second of all, one polar orbit around from Baikonur runs right over Russian land rather than the Pacific Ocean, so they had no need for all of that cross range.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that a design goal for Buran was "copy the STS, but don't do quite as many silly things" because I simply can't find a use case for that much cross range for them.
Think snagging enemy’s secret sattelite from orbit and bringing it back for research.
https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/mtkvp-glushkos-o...
The popularity of the Space Program in America has fluctuated over the years with a corresponding amount of support and funding from the government. That being said, the Space Shuttle was seen at the time as a major iteration in space technology. Moreover, it closely resembled an actual "space ship" from science fiction lore! For the first time space technology was recognizable and relatable to the American taxpayer.
They probably could have accomplished more with a less iconic design, but they would have had trouble selling it to Congress and taxpayers. For a society that's used to seeing billion-dollar metal tubes used up every several minutes before exploding into the ocean; the reusable "Space Shuttle" was a comfort investment for Americans that boosted confidence and enthusiasm for the Space Program.
Voila, you are now in completely different orbit, one that a conventional spacecraft can't achieve due to the delta-v requirements an inclination change would require.
Also once you have don this, you can put your perigee above the atmosphere by a short OMS burn.
Unless you have a security clearance and are using the information from classified sources, you cannot claim this, and people should not believe this statement at all.
The X-37B is a classified US military project. There is no confirmation, either way, whether it is or isn't a weapons system, or whether it has already been used as a weapon system.
In fact, you can ask the US military point blank, is the X-37B a weapon, and you will get "no comment"
> The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon.
cannot be proven. In fact they went on to say
> There is no confirmation, either way, whether it is or isn't a weapons system
The X-37 is obviously a military device, since they're the ones using it, and it may well be meant for servicing U.S. military sats, spying on others' sats, jamming them perhaps, or outright stealing them, and, yes, maybe destroying them, but again: there's no point using the X-37 for anti-sat purposes as it's too expensive for that.
They took a page out of Blofeld's book.
This is precisely how most major superpowers justify their behaviors. Just because of their size and power, a lot of things can hurt other nations. It's not a matter of what one things, one has to consider their impact, and their target's tolerance.
My whole life I thought that things could be solved with science and reason, but it seems we need a miracle...
Look back at "The Future" as thought of by people in the 1950's and see how accurate they were. So don't think you will be accurate.
And if it is that bad, or worse, well you can only do so much.
Even though I am devoutly NOT religious there is a nice set of words: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference"
Good luck.
Who are the good guys?
Non space-based weapons are perfectly in keeping with international norms, but launching and/or testing ASATs and space-based weapons is not.
That said, given what has been reported in the press about the capabilities of the X-37B, it would seem they might have it transport a payload to sit around nearby and actively video/watch what such things are doing.
My favorite unconventional idea for an anti-satellite device is a small maneuverable can of spray paint that paints the surface of any solar panels of the satellite it "attacks" with an opaque paint. Don't create shrapnel, just take away its source of power.
However the technology required to manoeuvre that closely to the target was more sophisticated than a stand-off kinetic attack, which was also less detectable in execution.
I don't need to be fair to the other guy. I don't plan on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1
"the Ministry of the Defence Industry and its primary design bureau, OKB-1, were assigned the task of building the satellite"
"The R-7 rocket was initially designed as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by OKB-1"
You'll also understand the at times seemingly random actions of those two countries a little more.
https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-War-Russias-Operations-America...
I personally doubt Russia and China have moved ahead of the US in any realm, satellite, rockets, cyber, or anything. But if you want to get a book sold, you can do worse than arguing as such, and you certainly will have a lot of evidence from the available various Congressional hearings, and other official military communications, just because the Pentagon is not beyond crying wolf when it serves its interests.
Edit: the book you mentioned looks quite good, thanks for mentioning it. I just bought it.
China has tested space to space satellite weapons.
Russia has now tested space to space satellite weapons.
The US has not tested any space to space military assets and doesn't have this functionality as far as what is currently known. (The rumor mill also currently says the US has no such functionality and requires ground take off).
The reason this is important is that any response to a direct satellite attack would potentially take greater than 30 minutes using ground based weapons. (Again rumor mill).
Um, most recently in 2008 the USA shot down it's own dead satellite by a ASAT missile fired from a ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost
While the story goes that the satellite was dangerous due to frozen ball of hydrazine fuel on board (as it failed soon after launch and still had full fuel load) it was also a perfect chance to test the existing ASAT capability.
Also in 2019 India tested their ASAT missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Shakti
Yes, such systems could be used for military purposes (e.g. for inspecting US spy sattelites or for interfering with their work), but also can be used for civilian as well (e.g. refueling, safe deorbiting, and even some day repairs). It's far easier and more reliable to destroy enemy satellites using ground based systems, after all you just need to create a field of ballistic debris which can be slower than first cosmic velocity, so it will be cheaper than satellite. So I highly doubt purpose of the system is satellite destruction.
America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside to See What It Does https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/
Have there been previous cases of Russian test-firing in space? [edit grammer]
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a33381411...
That isn't really the point. The point is that the US armed forces already use space for military purposes so extensively that they even have a whole branch dedicated to space militarization.
Military use of space != "militarization [of space]." My understanding is that the US Space Force pretty much just controls space assets used by the military that are comparable to civilian ones (i.e. sensor, communication, and navigation satellites). I don't think they've stationed any actual weapons in space.
Military use of space != "militarization [of space]."
Are you naive to the point where you believe that the US armed forces have spent billions establishing a global comm network just to send emails?
I mean, did you failed to notice that the US's current strategic bet lies on it's ability to operate and manage autonomous vehicles through its global communication network?
I actually think it's very reasonable for the military to have spent billions just improving their human-to-human communication infrastructure. Efficient and highly available communication is vitally important for a functional military without needing to into autonomous vehicles.
If GPS went away, the US military wouldn't stop blowing stuff up. They'd just be less accurate with more collateral damage (especially when you take into account the lives that GPS saves by preventing KAL-007 type incidents, more efficient farming, better knowledge of seismology, etc etc)
The US Military has spent nearly half a century trying every single trick in the book to get around the 'laws' and put weapons in space. I would be personally extremely shocked to find that the US does not have militarization of space already stocked with weapons and things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#Real_life_...
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a458089.pdf
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_Project_Thor_would_fir...
"Rods from God" / Project Thor is a public example of the US Military's unending desire to put weapons in space.
Just what have they done with all that star wars budget if they were lofting flowers in muzzles?
Failing to produce much of use, mostly. It's hardly the first unproductive R&D program in our history.
That said, there were absolutely weapons tests as part of SDI; they were just ground-to-space (and eventually turned into the current ABM programs). There were also space-based sensor systems - radars etc. There's no evidence I'm aware of of any US space-to-space weaponry having made it into actual testing.
The USA and its allies finds it very useful to paint Russia as a hostile and even unethical actor here, but there is no fundamental difference between what Russia does and what the West does.
Internally, Russia is a deeply shitty regime, run by mobsters and thugs and preying on its populace. The US has a lot of problems too (and even more so since 2017) but its fundamental framework still prioritizes individual rights and freedom of expression without fear of punishment (although, unlike its allies, it doesn't do much to provide healthcare or education). I would much rather have a world that's dominated by the US than one dominated by Russia or China.
Russia has for years been laundering billions through the lax City of London, and days after reports alleging sitting Lords took bribes from Russians to stop Anti Money Laundering Acts, we see a show of strength.
Not for geo politics, but for rich russian elites worrying about the cash.
Once upon a time Putins manoeuvres made some twisted strategic sense. Now not so much.
And they give a shit because the UK is making serious noises about tightening up on money laundering - I mean FFS one of our own lawmakers has been implicated in taking russian cash for putting down amendments - that's basically Russian cash paying for UK laws - it's huge. And it will make it harder for Russian money to move in London.
https://www.insider.com/twenty-one-biggest-donors-to-the-lea...
My understanding of these words are that it wasn't that Russia having weapons in space per se threatens the peaceful use of space but how they tested their weapons in this case. This is because it risked causing debris and a lot of damage. I don't see the basis for calling out the US for hypocrisy based on this article. I'm unaware of any anti-satellite projectile weapons being tested by the US like this over the past 12 years, I suppose you could call the US a hypocrite for previous tests but that's a bit of a stale accusation given how much more peaceful space activity there has been since then.
Edit: for clarity.
It seems very arbitrary to draw the line at 12 years.
In 2008 the US tested and proved their anti-sat tech works [1]. Now they don't need to keep testing it, because everyone knows it works, and that's enough.
Now the Russians want only to do the same thing, and they're bad because of it.
[1] https://science.howstuffworks.com/shoot-down-satellite.htm
I envision a future where nation-states governed by strong-dictators shoot down each other's mars attempts while also denying climate change exists.
It is basically what dung beetles do. They roll things up until they're bigger. The bigger the ball, the faster it grows from size. Like making a snowman.
I'm referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEAP-4iUirY
To answer your question, in this sense: I mean to say that the more space debris there is hurtling through our orbit capturing other space debris, the more likely we are to end up with micrometeroids building up mass, momentum and velocity until we just end up with an extremely hostile environment for our satellites and vehicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katamari
There is an established term, Kessler syndrome, effectively a runaway debris cascade:
They’ve got massive problems internally, most of their armed forces run on vapors, are they hoping to sell this to the highest bidder? Just a few last chest thumps before they become less relevant? They still have some good lead in some highly technical areas like weapons and rocketry and ancillary technology, but most everything else is being wasted and no one seems to care there. It’s a slow degradation. So much potential just wasted.
They could work with Europe, even the US, if they just reset the way they play. Play your part—you’re not the old USSR any more.
This is why:
> They’ve got massive problems internally...
An external enemy to blame does wonders.
Literally.
Cuba and North Korea have done this for decades; it works well.
“Look, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!”... One destroyed country later: “So we were wrong.”
Take Ukraine as an example. Russia had a lot of capital invested there, 70% or so were speaking Russian at home. Next thing you know, there’re all those new tv stations literary coming out nowhere(like Espresso TV) and financed from abroad, fueling the rage. Nuland handing out cookies at Maidan. How do you call that? The country I was living in had it government overthrown in a matter of months.
That’s just a world we live in, big countries play big.
It’s like Venezuela threatening to invade Columbia. I guess they could try, but they have much bigger issues to deal with than showing they “have more soldiers”.
Perhaps it's the communist past that made them this way. Imperial Russia made a huge effort to westernize and modernize, but after the revolution, they kind of slid backwards, into some weird "self-sufficient but still world power" way of thinking.
They have nothing to speak of when it comes to the economy, it's mostly natural resources being exported, and it's all owned by a few very rich individuals. Sad state of affairs.
To be fair, a lot of their population does care and has noticed that Putin has failed to deliver on his promises. They're aware that their income / standard of living is facing a decade plus decline (they're on year seven of that now). In the past good times Putin utilized the oil price boom to very aggressively consolidate his power, install a new authoritarian system, wipe out a lot of human rights and all free press. Now he's formally dictator for life. He was busy while the people were enjoying the momentary prosperity that the oil boom brought. Pretty fucked up frankly, the Russian people get a moment's reprieve from a century of horrors, and another dictator uses that time as a distraction to hijack their brand new, fragile democracy. Now they're trapped and from everything I've read, they're largely aware of it. They see what's happening to their standard of living gains. And up to recently they've had pretty easy outside access to the Internet and what's true or not true (which is why Runet has often been filled with anti-state and anti-Putin memes). The problem is: once a system like that is installed, and the python begins to squeeze, how can you do anything about it? Short of armed, massive, violent revolution. The Russian state won't allow protests, whatever force is used against them, they're capable of and willing to responding with far greater force.
Things didn't get better until Putin took charge. This wasn't a dictator making his way in through the back door during a period of good times, this was a dictator who was credited by Russians (correctly or otherwise) for bringing about those good times.
[1]The guy who pretty much let let any manoeuverer leach off the state bringing about the beginnings of its plunder by later oligarchs.
Russia has no capability to project naval power to this region.