It seems like ASAT against navigational satellites is really hard due to their extremely high orbits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DcshWrvKEM
From ground launched weapons? Oh yes, quite difficult. If a hot war broke out between two space powers you’d have wanted to have been lacing small kinetic weapons in orbit pre staged to only need to make minor corrections at perigee to get them into geosynch targeted orbits for kinetic kill. But that’s all hypothetical it’s not like a nation had a DoD space shuttle that had spent years up in orbit doing god knows what for the past decade…
>>61967678Mundane satelites with predicted debris orbitals has more plausible deniability, just start crashing shit together.
>>61967470>GLONASS orbits lowerIsn't GLONASS on Molnya orbits?
>>61967787I can't find anything yet but I imagine so. That's the norm.
>>61967470>Purposely splits Beidou's satellites into "regional" and "global" instead of Its total number to make the number of US GPS satellites look biggerLMAO!
>>61967470Why not just pre-place guided missiles in orbit with standard cargo launches? Didn't they plan to use AIM-9's in space at some point?
>>61967470Fuck GLONASS, Russians are too dumb to make anything work and just make things different for the sake of being different. The whole UTC(SU) autism and the interchannel bias bullshit makes me want to kill a Russkie just for having to think about it again.
>>61967678I mean, you just need a bigger booster. It's not worth spending all that energy to get the thing into orbit, all you need is a ballistic trajectory with the apogee higher than geosync. It could be done by simply upgrading current antisat systems by adding another boost stage or something.>>61967991The scale is the OP image also retarded. All three of those orbits require basically the same energy to intercept.
>binkov
>>61967470The really hard part is that once you start blowing shit up in the extremely crowded geo belt it will daisy chain the whole system.How important are satcoms, television and anything else the satellites are doing to your own effort?All of those third parties affected will now be your enemies too. You shit would get ended fast.
>>61967787I think it is high MEO circular. Interesting that they are gonna put some in a weird Tundra orbit in the future.
>>61967991You third world brained retard. Regional and Global are extremely important differences for a fucking GPS system. Stupid idiot. If you are in Brazil what the fuck use is it to know there are 15 China only satellites in the system?
All three are precision mogged by the EU https://www.esa.int/Applications/Satellite_navigation/New_Galileo_service_set_to_deliver_20_cm_accuracy
>>61967470>Galileo missing>just the most accurate GNSS currently available???>>61968774This, the fuck?
So…any Eurocuck clown want to explain why most of the Galileo network was launched by Russia?
>>61968870cheaper costs. now its Ariane anyways.
>>61968870It was Soyuz launches out of French Guyana but that launcher was used because it was the low cost launch vehicle for that size class at the time (it isn’t any longer)
Can a Phoenix launched from an f14 flying straight up reach it?
>>61968870Cheap, reliable, available...
>>61967470I am not watching that russian cunt
>>61968950IMO Soyuz is still king for affordability until the top end where it is overtaken by Falcon 9.
>>61968977just make sure they don't steal your satellites lmao
>>61968870because theyre an economic drain that produces no actual new contributions to society
>>61968811just a reminder, QZSS is just a way for the US Space Force to put surveillance devices on Japanese satellites that can monitor north korea/japan more closely.> Developed by MIT Lincoln Laboratories, DEL 2’s space surveillance payloads aboard two QZSS satellites will augment data flowing into the USSF’s Space Surveillance Network and reaffirming their commitment to strategic deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region.
>>61968709Geosync orbit isn't as valuable as it used to be. You can put everything in lower orbits cheaper, it's just not going to stay in the same spot in the sky which isn't that important in the age of constellations. It used to be a simplicity thing as well, you just point the dish towards the satellite and leave it there, but now we have phased array antennas that can track low-earth orbit satellites with no moving parts.My point is, if geosync is fucked countries with functioning space launch industries can just launch more sats on lower orbits.That's why the US is investing in "tactically responsive space launch" tech like Victus Nox. If some nosattelite nation spergs out (this includes Russia because of how useless their sats seem to be) and starts breaking shit, you launch 3/4 Falcon Heavys you have parked somewhere with clusters of dozens of satellites each (in an orbit that isn't fucked), enough to get the bare minimum strategically/tactically important assets you need to bomb them until they forget what space and satellites are.
>>61968977lolwutFalcon is so ahead of everyone else it's not even close. IDK what you mean by "top end", if you mean launch weight there's always ridesharing.
>>61968870In the dark ages of spaceflight before SpaceX, even though Euros had their Ariane 5, Russians were le cheap option. Now with SpaceX having turned into a well oiled machine, no amount of paying your workers with potato and drops of ethanol distilled from potato to make a 1960s rocket is enough to compete. Meanwhile Europe's (still expensive) Ariane 6 is delayed and SpaceX made it utterly obsolete before its first launch. Lately some Euro payloads are rescheduled to launch on SpaceX.
>>61968955Does the Phoenix have a 20000 km range?
>>61967991Implessive
Something that Binkov wasn't pressed about was the relative costs of sat-shootdown vs sat-launch for Russia and America. As Musk adequately stated when Putin threatened Starlink, "We can launch new satellites for less than what you spend to shoot them down".
>>61967991 helmettard moment
>>61969526Ariane 5 was never about cheapness but about reliability and precision.
>>61969545Forget about range, the Phoenix would have no way to steer outside the atmosphere.
>*blocks your path(finding)*
>>61971559Didn't ESA say just last week Ariane 6 is all the EU needs as they don't think reusability is realistic yet.Fucking joke.
>>61973273Ariane 6's first flight is July 9th. If it doesn't go well i'm gonna laugh
>>61973273Not that it isn't realistic, but that it's not that convenient if you have a low launch cadence. Afaik it's a pretty agreed-upon understanding that reusability becomes less convenient the lower the cadence and the smaller the rocket. Ariane 6 will have about 10 missions/year for the foreseeable future, mostly EU institutional payloads and Amazon, and they can't produce a lot of rockets. So the handicaps you get for propulsive reusability (smaller payloads, added complexity, etc.) do not make it worth it. SpaceX does great with reusability because they need tons of launches for Starlink so it's worth it. Starlink basically pays for SpaceX. The US in general also launches a lot of payloads (bigger space agency, unified military, etc.). If the EU decided to start launching a lot of payloads, say due to Iris2 being built, then a reusable rocket could make sense. For now, an independent if boring launch vehicle is probably the best choice, and they'll leave it to the various startups to risk with more innovative designs. RFA should launch this year, now that's a more interesting player than Ariane.
>>61967470>binkov
>>61973273I remember some ESA frog giving a cope speech claiming "w-we WILL be there!" referring to Europe maintaining an indigenous spaceflight capability
>>61974482yeah at 10x+ the cost to orbit per kg maybe
>>61967470That's why you want to use a laser.Easily scalable and range is only a matter of scale.https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/what-satellite-attack-weapon-might-the-us-reveal-soon/Even France is working on one of those... who would have thought?
>>61968323>not worth spending all that energy to get the thing into orbit, all you need is a ballistic trajectory with the apogee higher than geosync.At these heights difference bettewn vertical launch and orbits in Delta V is not large. And with vertical launch you have minuscule window of intercept . For GOS height intercept practically you better go with orbtial trajectory.
>>61974695>20000km>laser
>>61967730this. Just place some innocuous satellites (mix them in with a Starlink payload) that have some extra thrust (very little required) and simply put them into a colliding trajectory with enemy satellites when needed. And no, it doesn't matter that Starlink has a lower orbit, I won't explain orbital mechanics to brainlets who chronically get everything about space wrong. Go play KSP.
>>61973273>Didn't ESA say just last week Ariane 6 is all the EU needs as they don't think reusability is realistic yet.>>61973635I'm French and it's more face-saving. We can't out of the blue develop a new reusable launcher.How much you launch is irrelevant because what is currently launched now is limited by price and capabilities.You launch 1 tons of satellite for $150M because that's all you can afford.If you could launch 10 tons for $150M you would because you hope you could go even more.Starlink justify SpaceX launch rate but it doesn't really fund it. It's horribly costly for what it does. Main reason it's useful in Ukraine right now is because a constellation is much harder to jam, harder to threaten, so it have great military application.For a civilian communication service you'd want bigger satellites with laser communication on an higher altitude.We need real competition.
>>61974710Easily scalable.
>>61974781>We need real competition.which means someone else needs to develop a large reusable launcher
>>61974793>10 meters aperture mirror
>>61974781>>61973635Here is the thing.Falcon 9 is not only reusable.It's also simplest cheapest single use rocket designed for lowest cost of unit production. Its marvel of industrial design.If you don't lauch reusable you still want Falcon 9. Elon is genuis engineer.
>>61967730>Mundane satelites with predicted debris orbitals has more plausible deniability, just start crashing shit together.>>61974723>I won't explain orbital mechanics to brainlets who chronically get everything about space wrong.Especially when you don't understand the topic yourself.Your satellites will not be stealthy, everyone can look up who launched it, who is responsible for it, and look where the money trail go.The only deniability you can have is to literally hack the controls of a civilian satellite and pretend it's terrorism. But to be able to do that without leaving security hole in every civilian satellite open to your enemies or actual terrorist, it would have to be a back-door tailored for you, that only you know about....which is going to be suspicious as fuck since they WILL ask an investigation and presume it's a military black op anyway.
>>61973635>it's not that convenient if they have low launch cadenceand why do we have low launch cadency?oh that's right, because we don't launch a lot of satellites.and why don't we launch a lot of satellites? oh because they're expensive and artisinal to buildand why is that? well because we have to make them work for a long time and on the first go, and we have to spare as much mass as possible.and why is that?well because our rocket is really expensive, not re-usable, and we don't make a lot of them, so we have high per kg and per launch costs and therefore have to make every satellite count instead of just launching more common manufactured cheaper satellites with less tight tolerances.and why is that?oh well because we have low launch cade-god, i fucking hate being a euro sometimes. the writing was on the wall over 8 fucking years ago that ariane 6 was being built for a market that no longer existed, and even now recently ariane and ESE talking heads and came out saying that they are STILL sticking their heads in the sand and are STILL in denial about the fact that their rocket is obsolete.another european sat launch just went to spacex, AGAIN a few days ago.the sheer level of denial going on is something i will never understand.
>>61974872>who is responsible for itIn what kind of scenario did you imagine we need to down the turdie satellites, smartass? Total war is the answer. Who gives a fuck that you can trace that it was the US government that did it? How the fuck is that consequential? What did you think the explanation would be even if they *were* stealthy, and one day suddenly GLONASS and chingbing suddenly explodes out of nowhere? I guess it was a solar flare huh
>>61974865this is also true btw, people laud spacex being cheaper because of re-usability.but the reality is they were already far cheaper than the alternatives long before that due to their vertical intergration and less retarded design choices. (say for instance milling out over 90% of an aluminum plate for isogrids instead of just welding on a seperate isogrid, which is only slightly heavier and way way cheaper.)
>>61968955No, you need a F-15 to shoot down satellites.
>>61974781Starlink is now cash-positive.
>>61974820You don't need that to hit GEO, the only difficulty is more the targeting than the laser range.There's also other methods.https://www.army-technology.com/projects/300kw-high-energy-laser-weapon-system-helws-us/?cf-view=This is for a mobile truck against conventional target.If there was a political-will it wouldn't be difficult to create a support-ship powered by a nuclear reactor solely to hit GPS sat.In a few decades I expect lasers to be a common ship anti-air system with optional ASAT capabilities >10000km.The reason we don't seek to threaten GPS sat and the like is because attacking those satellites would be treated similarly to a nuclear strike. They are just that important.
>>61974884We don't launch a lot of satellites because ESA has a tiny budget compared to NASA, and the EU doesn't have a DoD launching a lot of military satellites every year. Plus, not being a unified country, every member state tries to make sure as many components as possible are built in its territory, which makes rockets more expensive. If the EU were a country like the US, launching as many satellites as the US, you would have your European SpaceX.
>>61974901>which is only slightly heavier and way way cheaper.Marvelous things it is not heavier.... It's lighter....Thing is previously welding was heavier than solid thing. Welds were weaker. But. SpaceX uses magik tekhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=YUyLHQxRHKoFriction stir welding that was invented relatively recently (90s). And they use aluminum alloys developed with friction stir welding in mind. Thesw alloys were developed by Airbus aluminum supplier like in 2010, they are much stronger but you can't weld them normally. But is no problem because magik friction stir welding exists (synergy).So SpaceX uses complex welded shapes that are much more stronger AND they are made from stronger material. Before nobody made welded rocket fuel tanks frames because aluminum frame conventionally welded would be heavy and reliability disisaster.But with novel tech (tek) hitting market just went when they started developing their Falcon 9 (say high boomers from NASA with their 60s rockets) it's all clicks together.While other tried to squeeze couple extra s from engines Elon reinvented fuel tank. Genius.
>>61968255>Why not justTreaties, bro. Nobody wants to risk war by breaking international treaties.
>>61968756>what the fuck use is it to knowKnowledge is a powerful thing, brahski.
>>61969526>Euro payloads are rescheduledAmerica just keeps winning.
>>61975042that's very interesting, i'd never bothered to delve much deeper into that topic.also you're gonna catch so much seethe for calling elon musk a genius lol, that guy generates more derangement than anyone else these days, people will literally become flat-earthers to spite him and his company's accomplishments.
>>61974893Said that to the anons I answered, they are the one talking of plausible deniability.Which would be technically possible but extremely risky with high suspicion since there would not be a lot of entities with the technical knowledge to both take control of the sat, but also actually put it on a collision course even with a target with openly available trajectory.If we do not care the slightest about hiding, then ASAT missile will be more practical or a laser you'd have developed.That said>one day suddenly GLONASS and chingbing suddenly explodes out of nowhere? I guess it was a solar flare huhHack well enough and you could make your enemy system have "accident" or "human error". Information warfare can be scary.
>>61975102>Said that to the anons I answered, they are the one talking of plausible deniability.That is literally my post you replied to and I didn't say anything about plausible deniability. Fair enough the first poster did but I didn't comment on that at all.>there would not be a lot of entities with the technical knowledge to both take control of the satLet me elaborate. The US pays off Musk (or holds a gun to his business) and forces him to launch a handful of fake starlink sats. They just hang around and do nothing, following the constellation until activated. They would be stealthy up until the moment they're needed. Doesn't need to be Musk. Doesn't need to be Starlink. Point is they're disguised as comms/weather sats.>ASAT missile will be more practicalMaybe. Personally I think that sounds failure prone and considering it would probably need to reach close to orbital velocity to have a decent chance of hitting anything it also sounds expensive and cumbersome to launch. Although I'm sure we could. But I was operating off OP's assumption of current gen ASAT being ineffective against navigation sats
>>61974901This. Even in 2015 before being able to land the booster, we who followed said things like:>Yeah right reusability is a crazy pipe dream but still the rocket will be cheaper than anything else thanks to its design.>>61975022>Plus, not being a unified country, every member state tries to make sure as many components as possible are built in its territory, which makes rockets more expensive.Funnily, America has the same problem. NASA projects like Space Shuttle and SLS are designed by politicians as jobs programs so there are as many contractors as spread out as possible in their district. That's why they get so expensive. Cutting that out and getting vertically integrated is one of the things that set SpaceX apart. It's kind of a thing successful consumer level production companies do but was unimaginable in this field.
>>61975095Other design decisions of the Falcon 9 are no less genius. Falcon 9 is two stage. Two stage is less ballistically effecient than three stage. But economically? 3 stage is three separate fuels tanks, 3 engine groups and control groups. 2 stage? Yes you need larger stages, but larger stage is "just weld extra sheets so they hold extra fuel". From production standpoint making largers things is much cheaper than making complex things.And another things first and second stage of the Falcon 9 are essentially same thing. They are same diameter and powered by same engine (only second stage has only 1 engine, first stage has 9 such engines). Same diameter means that they make stages using same bending and welding machines for both stages (second stage hold much less load so they don't weld in frame , it's just plain sheet fuel tank). One factory for both stages tanks, one engine factory for both stages engines.Now compare Falcon 9 for something like Russian Proton. Proton has booster's that have different diameter and completely different construction, it had 3 stages and every stage has its own engine type (3 different production lines for engines).One rocket was designed by ballistics engineer, maxing pure ballistic numbers. Another rocket was made by production engineering group, who min maxed production costs.
>>61975022>every member state tries to make sure as many components as possible are built in its territoryThe US did the same before F9.
>>61975162I see, you may not believe the intent remain shrouded but IMO you still need to know why it is a BAD idea.>Let me elaborate. The US pays off Musk (or holds a gun to his business) and forces him to launch a handful of fake starlink sats. They just hang around and do nothing, following the constellation until activated. They would be stealthy up until the moment they're needed. Doesn't need to be Musk. Doesn't need to be Starlink. Point is they're disguised as comms/weather sats.Nothing would be stealthy about this, outside of telling your enemy that any civilian satellite may be a missile (simply using GPS/starlink do not count as military use).Even if the "laws of wars" are more like suggestion, you do not give your enemy the moral high ground for shooting every civilian satellites.Your enemy would probably already know which sat is fake simply by following the money trail.Also we are talking of the Musk who once deactivated Starlink locally to prevent a Ukrainian attack against Russia because he "felt it would escalate the Russian genocidal war". So the strategy obviously hinge on requisitioning Starlink as you declare war.>ASAT missile>failure proneAs opposed to a satellite(missile) you've launched year/decade ago without maintenance and can only reach nearby orbits?ASAT missiles would be properly built as KKV for course correction.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnofCyaWhI0>it would probably need to reach close to orbital velocityNot at all, it only needs to intersect the target orbit at the same time the target occupy that position. You could do that launching straight up from below.>navigation satsIf you mean GEO altitude, it would indeed require more effort but we've already built missiles with far more dV than necessary for the sake of Nuclear missiles NOT following a ballistic trajectory and accelerating non-stop.This is assuming you do not have a better method to attack GEO, like lasers.
>>61967991i assume theyre geostationary which matters
>>61975066There is no such treaty, stop regurgitating shit you saw in a movie. There are practical constraints to stationing something like an AIM-9 in space which is why all of the space based weapons in orbit today are more bespoke to the real demands of an ASAT or denial of space mission.
