Lockheed Martin receives $187.5M for mesh network of 10 small satellites | Hacker News Reader

Lockheed Martin receives $187.5M for mesh network of 10 small satellites

defence-blog.com

40 pointsDefence_Blog30 comments

This is lifted from https://news.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases?item=128968. We ban sites that do that.

This is timely, considering that the antisatellite arms race seems to be heating up:

https://www.spacecom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/Article/2285098...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

We're insanely dependent upon satellite communications for much of the world, and they're really fragile. Even military applications aside, it's massively commercially useful to be able to push a button and disable a competitor's communications (or a whole nationful of competitors).

I don't think it is possible to ever develop a satellite constellation that will be able to defend against a terrestrial actor intent on disabling it. At least not until the space-based weapon systems are superior to all ground-based weapon systems and can comprehensively track and disable any threats before they strike.

Which will be when space based systems are able to get more energy than ground based systems. So, in a lot of time.

It would be difficult to disable a significant fraction of the proposed 60,000 Starlink satellites.

> Even military applications aside, it's massively commercially useful to be able to push a button and disable a competitor's communications (or a whole nationfull of competitors).

How would that not be illegal/an act of war?

Why would being illegal / an act of war necessarily stop it from happening?

I think the parent comment is referring to why that as an option would be beneficial to a commercial entity outside of a military application.

Attribution becomes quite difficult, for one.

Stealth satellites are a thing; it's possible that stealth antisatellite satellites are also a thing, or small stealth satellite-killer weapons that detach/separate from known, non-stealth satellites.

I wonder if any of the "in-silo, ready to launch at a moment's notice" ballistic missile platforms could be repurposed to carry a bunch of communications satellites. In the event of a wipeout, it could be a way to quickly get back in the game.

I imagine if anyone destroyed that many satellites in one orbit, the amount of debris flying around would make replacing them pretty difficult without first dealing with all the debris zooming around.

Kessler syndrome basically?

Yeah (and thanks since I didn't know it had a name). I guess that would be some kind of orbital mutually assured destruction since that kind of situation would hurt all communication satellites in nearby orbits. And there's a good chance there will be retaliations that would make it worse. This must factor into the strategy of military satellites. Maybe a better way would be to disable them without physically destroying them?

Unfortunately private corporations cannot reuse ballistic missile platforms due to a law passed long ago to stop undue competition and favoritism, the payload has to be earmarked for government use, but if so, then yes.

I wish I could find a reference to the bill, maybe someone can chime in.

If we're talking about the US I have never heard of such a thing and furthermore other individuals have mentioned in this discussion the Minotaur platform which reuses existing ICBM hardware.

There is also the (retired) Titan IV and associated platforms which are directly derived from ICBMs.

The Delta launch platform (at least 4 rocket familys) is derived from the PGM-17 Thor, albeit using the first stage only as far as I know.

Minitaur is a US space launch system that isn’t only based on ICBMs like many others but is literally made from decommissioned Peacemaker ICBMs.

No. The ballistic missiles operate very differently than spacelaunch. Some of them have the energy potential, but their thrust curves are all wrong. They burn too quickly. Without a mounted upper stage, and associated navigation/orientation equipment, they wouldn't get anything into orbit.

I think parent meant the silo and apparatus, not necesarily the missile itself.

'No' is a stretch. The Minitaur space vehicle was launched on reused peacekeeper ICBM's, which were removed from service in the early 2000's - and there have been launches since.

And each of those has been greatly modified, specifically by adding various upper stages. Rather than repurposing ICBMs, Minitaur uses an ICBM rocket motor as the first stage of a very different launch stack.

> The Minitaur space vehicle was launched on reused peacekeeper ICBM's, which were removed from service in the early 2000's - and there have been launches since.

There was actually a launch a month ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1__7QidQhFI

Cool!

> I wonder if any of the "in-silo, ready to launch at a moment's notice" ballistic missile platforms could be repurposed to carry a bunch of communications satellites.

That's basically what the Minotaur rockets are.

> The Minotaur I and II are derived from the Minuteman missile, while the Minotaur III, IV and V are derived from the Peacekeeper. [1]

It's not quite the same thing as repurposing the actual ICBMs in the silos, but the parts commonality is quite high. In a true emergency, they may even be able to convert ICBMs, although it seems unlikely that there would be an emergency so urgent that ICMBs would need to be converted into satellite launch vehicles, but not so urgent that the ICMBs wouldn't be used for the intended purpose.

___

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_(rocket_family)

> although it seems unlikely that there would be an emergency so urgent that ICMBs would need to be converted into satellite launch vehicles, but not so urgent that the ICMBs wouldn't be used for the intended purpose

Maybe an extreme solar storm or super nova.

> Maybe an extreme solar storm or super nova.

Could be.

I don't know how long it takes to build a Minotaur rocket.

I know most of the traditional launch providers (ULA, ESA, etc.) have pretty long lead times for rocket launches, but some of the newer ones are actually quite quick.

Rocketlabs is making good progress towards making a new rocket in a week (they can already make one in less than a month).

SpaceX probably takes longer to build a complete rocket, but

1. They have a stock of existing first stages since they reuse their rockets

2. They probably have a stock of in production second stages and fairings since they are trying to do a Starlink launches every 2 weeks or so.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that we'd need to launch a lot of satellites pretty urgently for that to make sense.

There isn’t a star close enough to go nova and have any affect on us, well other than the Sun and if it goes nova there won’t be anyone left to launch anything since it will vaporize the oceans and strip off the atmosphere.

It's suborbital, but they developed that in the 1960s!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/DRC-8_Emergency_Rocket_Comm...

Remember Iridium? Motorola marketed it as a cellphone network for business people... in the 90s. Of course no one was paying attention. People really believed that it would be possible to transmit to LEO from inside an office building (faraday cage) using a tiny radio, powered by a battery small enough to be held in your hand... in 1997.

So Iridium Communications went bankrupt, almost instantly, after spending 5 BILLION dollars to launch a constellation of satellites into the sky. It was all other people's money, but still. For what? Why the hell would they do that? Surely someone would have noticed that their target market didn't actually exist.

One thing about Iridium was that it was launched from multiple places: Vandenberg Air Base, U.S.A; Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, Plesetsk Cosmodrome, Russia; and Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center, China. Now one of these countries is not like the others. At the time China did not have MIRV technology, but such was needed in order for Iridium to launch: they threw up 66 satellites on 22 rockets. So Iridium Comm, and Motorola lobbied the government for special waivers from the president and got personnel from the pentagon to transport the MIRVs to the launch site on the chinese mainland. That last measure was supposed to prevent the secret military technology from being transferred to the Chinese. It didn't. Here's an excerpt from House Report 104-851 from May, 1999:

"In May 1998, allegations were made that Motorola had provided the PRC with technology that would allow it to build a multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) missile-dispensing platform. The allegations were that the Smart Dispenser used by the PRC to place two Iridium communications satellites into orbit would provide the PRC with technology that would be directly applicable to MIRV dispensing. The Smart Dispenser is an on-orbit maneuvering stage with its own independent guidance system. The Select Committee has determined that Motorola did not provide the PRC with information on how to design the Smart Dispenser; rather, the PRC built the Smart Dispenser indigenously to Motorola’s specifications. However, the Select Committee’s independent technical expert noted that the PRC has demonstrated all of the techniques that are required for developing a MIRV bus, and that the PRC could develop a MIRV dispensing platform within a short period of time after making a decision to proceed."

So maybe that's why Iridium happened in the way that it did. Iridium Communications went bankrupt. Of course Motorola continued to have a strong and prosperous relationship with the PRC subsidiaries. In the following years they were contracted to build up significant portions of China's GSM network.

The protocol of communication used in this network is most probably highly proprietary. Though I wonder which of the reference routing protocols they have used as a base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ad_hoc_routing_protoco...

space force

Reply on news.ycombinator.com