Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrtnmcc | Hacker News Reader

Joe at The Drive has been writing a ton of Space Force propaganda articles lately.

The Defense Budget is getting debated now and this "news" really does seem aimed at Congress.

Space Force and SDA want to fund their constellation of hypersonic reentry vehicles based on the SpaceX Starlink platform [1,2,3]. It would provide instant kill capability around the world. China is the justification for this massive buildup of weapons in space.

[1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/space-based-missile-defense...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles (old project now rebooted with SDA)

[3] https://www.nap.edu/download/13189 (Details matching original Starlink orbits, click Download as Guest)

Even a few years ago the cost to launch all this would have been astronomical, but SpaceX has since brought costs down by 1 order of magnitude (or 2-orders with Starship). Still expensive, but within reach with a little warmongering.

View on HN

+1 on this. Virtually all the sources interviewed are connected with the military or the government itself, which fits a propaganda model or at least a very one-sided view on the gravity of the threats. Not to say that the facts and incidents reported are false, but the framing of the narrative is problematic and missing key issues such as ---

1. To what extent are critical satellites already built to handle these threats?

2. How much of an offensive capability does the US already possess in terms of retaliation? [Edit : Seems like there are a ton of programs in existence already! How many more are actually needed?]

3. Are the views represented a minority or a majority view in the defense establishment?

4. Like [1], what do the JASONs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)) or other groups that do not stand to gain directly from a budgetary increase towards defending such attacks have to say on the opinions of the general quoted in the headline?

European governments were raising the issue of increasingly sophisticated attacks against their satellites earlier in the year, which makes it less likely it is pure propaganda (it might still be a budget shout though). The US is well-equipped for this, both defensively and offensively, but the frequency and severity of the attacks has been increasing by all accounts.

While not mentioned in the article, my understanding is that some of the current attacks are only quasi-reversible e.g. some appear to be specifically designed to cause satellites to waste all the fuel in their maneuvering thrusters, greatly shortening their service life.

If SpaceX can get Starship flying at the price they predict, it would be a game-changer. Presently that seems like a big 'if'.

It would pay to be the first nation with a Brilliant Pebbles installation, since such an installation could be used to deny any other nation the ability to create the same. Brilliant Pebbles isn't merely an anti-missile system; it could also be used to intercept rockets launching satellites, including the launch other BP systems. It's a winner-takes-all game.

If the strategic interests of America are not your own interests, all of this obviously seems very grim. If you think strategic defense is just a waste of money, then all of this is more of the same. But if you're the sort of person who thinks that billions of dollars spent on nuclear submarines is money well spent, then using Starship to launch a Brilliant Pebbles constellation is a no-brainer.

The Russians new ICBM don't go to space and fly a “low” altitude trajectory to avoid ABM defences. including, it seems, these pebbles.

Anyway, the Russians or the Chinese, if they reasonably feel they’re being denied access to space will trigger the Kessler syndrome. what happens if the Russians counter the 1000 mini-pebbles in space with ten massive satellites filled with TNT, ball bearings and a remote trigger?

Ultimately, thats what I would do if I got bored of the space race. Put enough TNT up there to deny space for everyone if need be.

ICBMs by definition go to space, the B stands for Ballistic. FOB systems aren't ballistic either (that B stands for Bombardment), but still go to space and Brilliant Pebbles is designed to intercept missiles during the initial boost phase, so it would work against FOB systems too. Brilliant Pebbles, once in place, can stop any satellite launch, including those intended to trigger the Kessler syndrome. Of course, Russia might have such satellites in orbit already...

What Brilliant Pebbles wouldn't be any good against is cruise missiles that remain in the atmosphere, and ultra long range nuclear torpedoes. Russia is working on both, doubtlessly for this very reason.

I thought brilliant pebbles was long cancelled?

Hypersonic tech and reduced launch costs have brought something similar back if the funding keeps coming.

At the time the cost to launch it would have been insane since it called for ten thousand or more satellites in LEO. However with Starlink, SpaceX has been promising to demonstrate the ability to economically launch such massive satellite constellations. If they succeed, I expect Brilliant Pebbles to return, although probably under a new name.

Interesting take by one of the SDI/Brilliant Pebbles architects pitching Starlink http://highfrontier.org/january-8-2019-brilliant-pebbles-is-...

Ballistic doesn't mean space, it mean paraboloid trajectory. A baseball is ballistic. But I concede your point.

Its pedantic though. The new missiles do have a shallow trajectory specifically to avoid interception including in the boost phase.

Add to that, the Russians have hypersonic missiles.

Starlink wont checkmate the Russians.

Yeah following that line of thought I think they are just scrambling for a piece of the budget that's "freed" now that the military doesn't have to sustain operations in Afghanistan anymore. That's what I mean with propaganda.

I've often wondered whether this article was DOD fundraising propaganda: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones...

Readership of The Drive ain’t where they get their money.

Fair, but media headlines and intelligence agencies provide similar services.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com