This is a discussion on Low Observability in space within the Space & Defense Technology forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Generally, there are lots of ideas that can be used to take out a satellite, and while no one said ...
Generally, there are lots of ideas that can be used to take out a satellite, and while no one said it specifically, the international Space station.
Lasers are now strong enough they can destroy the receptors on most satellites from Earth's surface. Since they are not armored, lasers would eventually be able to defeat the satellite directly, assuming we couldn't do it now.
Rail gun technology is also advancing quickly, Shoot a 2 kilo rock in space at 3 kilometers/sec (about Mach 10) and that rock isn't going to stop, period. Make it out of something that can withstand atmospheric re-entry and you have a pretty neat man-made meteorite with tremendous kinetic energy. Tests showed a two kilo tungsten projectile would pass completely through a tank at these velocities from a 9 megajoule railgun. The Navy just test fired a 33 MJ railgun in 2010. I doubt an aluminum skinned satellite or space stations would stand a chance.
However, launched from space to surface, I expect accuracy would be an issue, as atmospheric buffeting would cause deflection in an unguided weapon.
The last ASAT missiles were tested in 1985 and the program cancelled in 1988 when the initial cost of $500 million had climbed to $5.3 billion. Talk about under bidding.
Rail gun technology is also advancing quickly, Shoot a 2 kilo rock in space at 3 kilometers/sec (about Mach 10) and that rock isn't going to stop, period.
You will need at least twice that velocity to hit a satellite in low earth orbit, and that does not include velocity loss from atmospheric friction.
Quote:
Tests showed a two kilo tungsten projectile would pass completely through a tank at these velocities from a 9 megajoule railgun. The Navy just test fired a 33 MJ railgun in 2010. I doubt an aluminum skinned satellite or space stations would stand a chance.
Depends on where it hits and the level of redundancy in the target. The simple fact is that a solid round is not very effective against unarmored targets. It is like firing an APDSFS round at a canvas tent, the round penetrates to easy and does not transfer enough energy to the target to cause large scale destruction. Basically this is just another meteoroid impact, but larger and slower than usual. Satellites are usually too small to be highly redundant, so there is probably a 50-50 chance a single hit would kill one. A space station on the other hand would probably require each compartment to be holed, and in a short enough space of time to overcome repair attempts.
Don’t use a solid penetrator, what you need is something like an AHEAD round, if that is possible for a railgun.
You will need at least twice that velocity to hit a satellite in low earth orbit, and that does not include velocity loss from atmospheric friction.
True, I was referring to a hypothetical space mounted rail gun. Currently they can mount these on a destroyer sized vessel. If already in orbit, it would not need to be as big or as powerful.
Quote:
Don’t use a solid penetrator, what you need is something like an AHEAD round, if that is possible for a railgun.
Yes, that would work, and the velocity would not be any greater than being fired from a cannon, perhaps less as acceleration is not as violent.
True, I was referring to a hypothetical space mounted rail gun. Currently they can mount these on a destroyer sized vessel. If already in orbit, it would not need to be as big or as powerful.
Yes, that would work, and the velocity would not be any greater than being fired from a cannon, perhaps less as acceleration is not as violent.
Don't forget the effects of recoil on a space craft. The railgun would probably have to be fixed mounted on the thrust axis of your spaceship. To prevent tumbling
Just move into an close orbit in the opposite direction and deploy the 4th stage + kinetic warhead of SM-3 missiles. Self-guided, better designed impactor, and much lighter. Or if you can align you orbits to cross and then divert in time, a bag of buckshot should do the job.
Just a thought to add would a moon orbit greater protection against any form on ASAT vs the much more limited target window be worth the effort(if you could get a decent payload that far). Would a Moon GEO with a rail gun or KE type weapon A be workable be worthwhile
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
Just a thought to add would a moon orbit greater protection against any form on ASAT vs the much more limited target window be worth the effort(if you could get a decent payload that far). Would a Moon GEO with a rail gun or KE type weapon A be workable be worthwhile
What is a "KE type weapon A"? (a typo?)
Because of the distance (380,000km for lunar orbit, vs. 26,000 km for GEO, and 2,000 km (max) for LEO) hitting with an unguided projectile from one at the other would purely a matter of luck, terminal guidance is required.
Defensively, putting a target farther away always has value, but typically reduces or eliminates any military value as well. About the only system that would make sense at that distance is a retaliatory strike capability.
Because of the distance (380,000km for lunar orbit, vs. 26,000 km for GEO, and 2,000 km (max) for LEO) hitting with an unguided projectile from one at the other would purely a matter of luck, terminal guidance is required.
Defensively, putting a target farther away always has value, but typically reduces or eliminates any military value as well. About the only system that would make sense at that distance is a retaliatory strike capability.
guided KE weapon. So their would be utility as retaliatory but no more
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
The only real space based weapons i've seen talked about seriously for near future aps are KK weapons. Rods from God.
Simplicity really. Rods at max the size of telephone poles. Mostly just tungstone or steel or iron with a heat resistant coating. Dumb guidance. a hit from one of those at GEO or even LEO is game over for anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryriedl
guided KE weapon. So their would be utility as retaliatory but no more
The only real space based weapons i've seen talked about seriously for near future aps are KK weapons. Rods from God.
Simplicity really. Rods at max the size of telephone poles. Mostly just tungstone or steel or iron with a heat resistant coating. Dumb guidance. a hit from one of those at GEO or even LEO is game over for anything.
"Rods from God" are an orbit to ground bombardment weapon. While originally there was a lot of hope for them, particularly for destroying deep bunkers, additional research showed that penetration would be much less than had been assumed (Basically they would be going too fast when they hit, which changed the behavior of the materials involved.)
Plenty of other weapons are practical for near future ABM and orbit-to-orbit applications. The problem with them, and ‘Rods from God’, are that you need to abrogate the various treaties against the militarization (or more properly the weaponization) of space.
Don't forget the effects of recoil on a space craft. The railgun would probably have to be fixed mounted on the thrust axis of your spaceship. To prevent tumbling
Just move into an close orbit in the opposite direction and deploy the 4th stage + kinetic warhead of SM-3 missiles. Self-guided, better designed impactor, and much lighter. Or if you can align you orbits to cross and then divert in time, a bag of buckshot should do the job.
I would say that scattering a bag of plastic pearls in a counter-orbit should do the trick against any satelite/space station - that's probably something many states can achive if they want to.
Concerning the railgun; the escape velocity of earth is around 11Km/s, and such a projectile would be subjected to massive drag. Doubt that a rail gun can do the job.
"Rods from God"
While I would guess that such a rod will hit earth at some 4000-5000 m/s and have huge kintetic energy, studies of meteor impacts show that the penetrating power probably is limited, which has to do with the huge energy involved which simply vaporizes much of the material on impact, not that you don't get a big bang. For comparison I think that a football seized iron meteor penetrates some 5 m into soil.
I would say that scattering a bag of plastic pearls in a counter-orbit should do the trick against any satelite/space station - that's probably something many states can achive if they want to.
I think (I have limited knowledge) that the penetration is a function of the impact energy released in the outer plate and the distance between plates. Below 3 kps the projectile is not vaporized and punches though as a solid. Above that the projectile is vaporized and the gas cloud spreads dispersing the energy across a larger area of the second plate so penetration is less. Above a certain velocity the gas no longer has enough distance to disperse adequately between the plates and protective effect levels off.
Denser projectile produce a smaller energy release in the outer plate due to the smaller crossection for a given mass and are therefore more effective, as shown in the study. They are also effective at higher velocities, which would support my rational.
Quote:
Concerning the railgun; the escape velocity of earth is around 11Km/s, and such a projectile would be subjected to massive drag. Doubt that a rail gun can do the job.
Orbital velocity is ~8 km/sec. You only need to achieve escape velocity if you are leaving the earth-moon area, like on a voyage to Mars.
I think (I have limited knowledge) that the penetration is a function of the impact energy released in the outer plate and the distance between plates. Below 3 kps the projectile is not vaporized and punches though as a solid. Above that the projectile is vaporized and the gas cloud spreads dispersing the energy across a larger area of the second plate so penetration is less. Above a certain velocity the gas no longer has enough distance to disperse adequately between the plates and protective effect levels off.
Denser projectile produce a smaller energy release in the outer plate due to the smaller crossection for a given mass and are therefore more effective, as shown in the study. They are also effective at higher velocities, which would support my rational.
Orbital velocity is ~8 km/sec. You only need to achieve escape velocity if you are leaving the earth-moon area, like on a voyage to Mars.
Whether the velocity is 11km/s or 8 Km/s doesn't make much of a difference from my point of view, shooting a projectile to reach 8 km/s in space from ground level through dense atmosphere, will require an absurd initial velocity, considering drag.
A collision between an object travelling 8 km/s one way and another object travelling 8 km/s the other way round, would have huge relative velocities. Though, ofcourse, I don't know whether a plastic pearl will kill a satelite, but if not, then use a tungsten "pearl" instead - which I am pretty sure will do the job.
So rendering a satelite inoperative can't be much more difficult than placing "rubble" on a collision course (which ofcourse is not done so easely)
