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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.