This is a discussion on Low Observability in space within the Space & Defense Technology forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I was wondering the if it was plausible and there was a technology to reduce the observability of GEO satellites ...
I was wondering the if it was plausible and there was a technology to reduce the observability of GEO satellites in space and its impact on militarization in space i,e a LO platform with a bunch of 'rods from god'(If remember rightly Rumsfeld was a fan of the idea). I would imagine it would be increasingly relevant with the spread of Anti-sat missiles.
I always liked the idea being a fan of SciFi and frequency of magic spaceship with various explanations for stealth under the logic of their universe. With the increasingly widespread use of LO tech on ground, air, sea I would have thought the final frontier would be the next logical step.
apologies if it has been answered before and of course aware of OPSEC so what ever info I would be grateful.
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
Last edited by WebMaster; February 15th, 2011 at 08:58 PM.
Reason: spelling, grammar, etc. Please proof read before submitting.
I did a quick search and found these 2 articles. Big problem in space is that virtually everything "man made" will radiate some heat emission which will stick out like a sore thumb with that 3kelvin background. Maybe Stars Wars was on to something with that huge space station.
The other way to operate would be to create a bunch of decoys. Let's say you put in orbit a constellation of 20 sat (in the 250 kg category,low orbit,real small) and then launch 25 or 35 sats that are decoys. You would have to spend some money on the decoys because they have to "pretend" to operate and resemble the real ones. You are basically signaling the enemy where you are but making it difficult and expensive to take down your constellation because you force him to target every sat.
Then the bad guy thinks:"forget this!" and decides to have a surgical strike or nuke the ground control center and now you have a bunch of real expensive and useless satellites in orbit.
Last edited by NICO; February 15th, 2011 at 11:08 PM.
I was wondering the if it was plausible and there was a technology to reduce the observability of GEO satellites in space and its impact on militarization in space i,e a LO platform with a bunch of 'rods from god'(If remember rightly Rumsfeld was a fan of the idea). I would imagine it would be increasingly relevant with the spread of Anti-sat missiles.
GEO [Geostationary Earth Orbit] would be the last place you would want to put any kind of ordinance that is to be delivered to the surface. Use LEO [Low Earth Orbit] weapon platforms. GEO is used mainly for COMSATs and meteorological satellites.
The next question is: Do you want to hide from observers only on the earth, or observers in space as well? If you want to hide from observers at any angle it is simply impossible with current technology. If you are only concerned about earth based observers there are some things that can be done to make their job more difficult.
The methods of detection you have to defend against include:
-- Radar. Earth orbits are regularly checked as part of tracking all the orbital debris. It is the space equivalent of the weather service. Shaping and RAM can help here.
-- Visual There are amateur and professional observers looking for undocumented satellites. The professionals do not talk, but the amateurs have an impressive record of finding things they are not supposed to. A good black-black paint job will help.
-- Thermal Heat signature cannot be hidden on an all around basis, but it can be shielded from one hemisphere using a parasol type device.
-- Occultation When the satellite passes in front of a star, the moon, or the sun. No defense possible except choosing an orbit that minimizes the possibility of crossing the sun or moon. There are automated systems that scan the sky looking for occultation’s of stars to detect orbital bodies.
In any case, it is likely that the only way you would find out that the stealth had been overcome is when a KILLSAT arrives.
There are probably only 2 effective ways to hide something in orbit. The first is to put it at the L2 Lagrangian point on the far side of the moon where it cannot be seen from earth. The other is to disguise it as some other kind of satellite.
I was thinking GEO rather than LEO because of it being further from earth it would make it harder to detect and altitude adjustment would be easier to conceal.
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
I was thinking GEO rather than LEO because of it being further from earth it would make it harder to detect and altitude adjustment would be easier to conceal.
You are correct, but because it is further from earth it is also less useful for weapons or spy satellites.
It also takes more fuel, power, etc to get there and back. So bigger satellite (more power or bigger antennas needed to communicate with earth) x bigger satellite (more fuel to get back to earth) x much bigger boosters (orbital energy requirements increase by 20x to 250x versus LEO requirements). You not only have to conceal the satellite, you have to conceal the launch. For LEO most of the burn can take place within the launch country’s air space. GEO requires several orbital transfer maneuvers, generating huge energy flares and attracting attention.
Geo offers security, Im unaware of any system that can strike a Geo sat.
Existing technology can be readily adapted to strike a GEO satellite. Basically all you need are bigger boosters. Of course it will violate several treaties, but if there is a weapons platform in orbit those treaties are pretty much moot already.
Quote:
LEO who cares? Just launch another one. If you make them small enough, and time it right you can blend in with all the other garbage out there.
And they are probably already doing it for some spy satellites. Another advantage to small satellites is that frequently several are launch several using only one booster, so one or more may get lost. Works even better if you tell the world there are 5 mini-sats on the rocket when there are actually 6.
Quote:
Even better, make a third stage rocket section your sat, people won't even know!
Only works until you have to make an orbital correction, then everyone will be suspicious.
Question: With the current technology we are able to put all kinds of sats in space,
We all know the most common types, however why launch a weapon to take out a sat if you can put a sat into space that carries a weapon?
I mean it takes some effort to make a earth based rocket that can strike into lower space, however would it not be mutch easier to put a sat up that carries a ICBM?
Iam not sure but ill bet that the tech is available for example nasa/esa.
On the other hand why would you want to hit a sat? if you can disrupt or destroy the station on earth making the sat a useless piece of junk?
Also as several other have mentioned the direct space around earth is pretty mutch documented and if not then it will not take mutch time before it gets documented as those amateur "eyes" are pretty fanatic and they know what they are doing so hiding a sat in space might be possible if you talk big distances but a sat used for military services, or public services are still bound to earth orbit.
And to my understanding if its in earth orbit then hiding is a extreemly difficult task if not impossible with the current tech available.
China and the US did some testing and they managed to hit a sat from a navy vessel. link
So hitting a sat aint a mistery anymore.
However earth based weapons might have limits or boundries as they are made accoording to the fysic's on earth wich is a lot differend then the fysic's in space.
To overcome this you can put up a armed sat into space right?
Also i think that radar systems on earth have limits as well wich a "sat radar" or some sort of space version does not have making it even harder to hide a sat and alot easier to track and attack one.....
Might be wrong....but sounds pretty mutch doable to me...
A weapon in space itself does not have to be that spectaculair,
Get the targets coords, speed and so on.....calculate it and you got your solution...(funny but its nearly like a submarine torpedo attack)
Iam pretty sure that equipping a sat with a few icbm rockets with solid fuel boosters would do the trick, put a nifty computer into the warhead guided from the sat or a earth based control centre and you got yourself a mighty nice multifunctional weapon system.
However you want to ask yourself do you really want to got that way?
The weapons on earth are enough to kill the planet a 100k times and i personally think that a space weapon arms race would be the very last thing you want.
As controlling the weapons on earth have proven to be very very difficult and with the current tech we got at least some sort of warning and defence against for example nukes, however space weapons......well do the math.
just a idea..........
China and the US did some testing and they managed to hit a sat from a navy vessel.
The Chinese and US ASAT tests were completely different. The Chinese eased a satellite with a bomb on board up next to the target and set it off, the equivalent of a truck bomb in space. The US used a missile launched from a Navy destroyer and scored a direct hit on the target head with a closing speed of 36,667 km/hr.
The Chinese system is good for taking out select satellites at the opening of hostilities and can be used in any orbit, if they do not spot it moving in and take evasive action in time. The US system allows almost no time to respond, but is restricted to low orbit.
Both are violations of long standing ‘understandings’ on not putting weapons in space, but everyone seems to accept that the Chinese started it.
Quote:
Question: With the current technology we are able to put all kinds of sats in space,
We all know the most common types, however why launch a weapon to take out a sat if you can put a sat into space that carries a weapon?
I mean it takes some effort to make a earth based rocket that can strike into lower space, however would it not be mutch easier to put a sat up that carries a ICBM?
Iam not sure but ill bet that the tech is available for example nasa/esa.
On the other hand why would you want to hit a sat? if you can disrupt or destroy the station on earth making the sat a useless piece of junk?
So hitting a sat aint a mistery anymore.
However earth based weapons might have limits or boundries as they are made accoording to the fysic's on earth wich is a lot differend then the fysic's in space.
To overcome this you can put up a armed sat into space right?
Also i think that radar systems on earth have limits as well wich a "sat radar" or some sort of space version does not have making it even harder to hide a sat and alot easier to track and attack one.....
Might be wrong....but sounds pretty mutch doable to me...
A weapon in space itself does not have to be that spectaculair,
Get the targets coords, speed and so on.....calculate it and you got your solution...(funny but its nearly like a submarine torpedo attack)
Iam pretty sure that equipping a sat with a few icbm rockets with solid fuel boosters would do the trick, put a nifty computer into the warhead guided from the sat or a earth based control centre and you got yourself a mighty nice multifunctional weapon system.
However you want to ask yourself do you really want to got that way?
The weapons on earth are enough to kill the planet a 100k times and i personally think that a space weapon arms race would be the very last thing you want.
As controlling the weapons on earth have proven to be very very difficult and with the current tech we got at least some sort of warning and defence against for example nukes, however space weapons......well do the math.
just a idea..........
Nothing new here, the same proposals were being discussed starting no later than 1945, probably earlier.
Yes, you can put up a satellite armed with nuclear weapons. It will be very obvious. It will also be a major treaty violation and will make a lot of people VERY upset. The closest comparison I can think of would be the Cuban Missile Crisis.
No, it will not mount ICBMs. You just need a small propulsion unit to de-orbit the warhead LEO. You will be very limited as to the orbital positions you can launch it from however. A larger propulsion unit will expand the launch window, but not significantly. If the satellite is higher you either have to descend to LEO before launch or accept a very narrow reentry window, neither will be quick or concealable. Orbital weapon platforms above LEO are useful for retaliatory strikes but give too much warning for first strike application.
We never had the ability to kill the planet 100k times over, or even 10 times over. Those calculations were based on X pounds of TNT = 1 death, but the effects of nuclear weapons are concentrated and the population is disbursed. Most of the cities in northern hemisphere would have destroyed, and radiation poisoning and nuclear winter would kill more and shorten the lifespan of the rest. But the southern hemisphere mostly lacked targets of either power and much would have remained habitable.
And a space-to-space intercept in orbit is not like a torpedo attack except at very short ranges or in the movies. Orbital mechanics guarantees that.
True but in 1989 a the US airforce did already shoot down a sat using a conventional rocket wich resulted in a destroyed sat.
So this proves that the tech aint that hard to get, so eventually there will be alot more nations that will have the ability to shoot down a sat.
As i said its not a matter of tech its a matter of perfecting the tech and utilize it to the full extend.
As you said the international community will be very upset if nukes are going to be present in space on the other hand its going to be near impossible to stop that form happening it requires both east and west to come to the table and write down some serious rules (better then the ones already exists) only then you can deny wmd's in space.
However i think we will be forced to allow it anyway either to provide security or either because there are other reasons...like IT is visiting earth or a major piece of rock heading for earth (Unlikely and prolly BS) however this will be factors that come into play to create a orbital weapon just imagine a scenario.....pcik one so there will be always reasons to take it to the next level
As you said the international community will be very upset if nukes are going to be present in space on the other hand its going to be near impossible to stop that form happening it requires both east and west to come to the table and write down some serious rules (better then the ones already exists) only then you can deny wmd's in space.
Already done in 1967: Outer Space Treaty
Like I said, this is all really old stuff
Quote:
However i think we will be forced to allow it anyway either to provide security or either because there are other reasons...like IT is visiting earth or a major piece of rock heading for earth (Unlikely and prolly BS) however this will be factors that come into play to create a orbital weapon just imagine a scenario.....pcik one so there will be always reasons to take it to the next level
Fine, what is your scenario where it becomes necessary to deploy an orbital nuclear bombardment system? Why can’t the job be done, cheaper and without additional controversy, using conventional earth based ICBMs or SLBMs?
Quote:
However i think we will be forced to allow it anyway either to provide security or either because there are other reasons...like IT is visiting earth or a major piece of rock heading for earth (Unlikely and prolly BS) however this will be factors that come into play to create a orbital weapon just imagine a scenario.....pcik one so there will be always reasons to take it to the next level
Fine, what is your scenario where it becomes necessary to deploy an orbital nuclear bombardment system? Why can’t the job be done, cheaper and without additional controversy, using conventional earth based ICBMs or SLBMs?
Lol no scenario i was just pointing out that there are reasons enough.
Lol no scenario i was just pointing out that there are reasons enough.
Could you please be more specific about what those reasons for creating and deploying and orbital weapons platform could be? Everything so far seems hesitant and speculative.
I think one factor that has been ignored why space still isn't a battle ground is money. Space access and all that it entails, ground infrastructure, R&D, rockets, satellites, astronauts is still tremendously expensive to create and to operate. It really kind of makes sense to keep all the offensive weapons (anti-sat,etc...) on the low and have everybody have use of space because a military race would be outrageously expensive. I think it really is everyone's interest to keep it that way for as long as possible.
I think one factor that has been ignored why space still isn't a battle ground is money. Space access and all that it entails, ground infrastructure, R&D, rockets, satellites, astronauts is still tremendously expensive to create and to operate. It really kind of makes sense to keep all the offensive weapons (anti-sat,etc...) on the low and have everybody have use of space because a military race would be outrageously expensive. I think it really is everyone's interest to keep it that way for as long as possible.
I would argue that space the price and logistics should start getting cheaper especially if things like Dragon and other cheaper private sector systems start having a success to bring the cost of launching stuff into space downwards.
Anti-Sat weapons can be adapted quite quickly the US approach of altering an ABM missile for the purposes or modifying a space capable missile like the Chinese(baring all the questions of legality). despite the cost space as a battle field can't be ruled out
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
