Endangered Satellites
Apr 1, 2024 08:45:00 #
I've read a few articles about this lately. We have an unknown number of military satellites circling the earth. When combined with computers and weapons on the ground, they make a very powerful weapons system. There's just one problem. If we go to war with a major country, that country could disable those satellites right away. We would be worse off than if we had no satellites to begin with.
Both Russia and China have the ability to destroy satellites, and China destroyed one of its own, just to show us what it could do. That demonstration littered space with thousands more pieces of debris. I hope the military has a plan to fight a war without satellites.
Both Russia and China have the ability to destroy satellites, and China destroyed one of its own, just to show us what it could do. That demonstration littered space with thousands more pieces of debris. I hope the military has a plan to fight a war without satellites.
Apr 1, 2024 10:06:26 #
Apr 1, 2024 11:35:33 #
jerryc41 wrote:
I've read a few articles about this lately. We ha... (show quote)
There are currently around 7,500 satellites in low earth orbit, each of which is being tracked. The US, Russia and China have each demonstrated a capability to destroy one satellite in orbit with one missile. But, to destroy thousands is quite a different problem.
Apr 1, 2024 11:52:48 #
After the Russian test, I believe we shot one of ours down from Navy ship using a missile. If a war goes Nuc. it won't matter, but if any two of the three countries stay conventional, but all out and either shoot down or attack each others satellites with other satellites, near earth space will become useless until someone builds something to remove all the debris or wait a long time for enough to fall out. The Europeans I believe have done some testing on removing space junk.
Apr 1, 2024 12:07:41 #
tomad
Loc: North Carolina
I thought most of our "necessary" government satellites were in a higher orbit and much harder to destroy...
Apr 1, 2024 12:21:34 #
tomad wrote:
I thought most of our "necessary" government satellites were in a higher orbit and much harder to destroy...
Only geosynchronous (stationary position) satellites are that far out. They are harder to hit but can be.
Apr 1, 2024 15:47:44 #
cahale
Loc: San Angelo, TX
jerryc41 wrote:
I've read a few articles about this lately. We ha... (show quote)
The military has plans for every known scenario and even some unknown ones. They share a commonality - none of them work.
Apr 1, 2024 17:13:22 #
therwol
Loc: USA
cahale wrote:
The military has plans for every known scenario and even some unknown ones. They share a commonality - none of them work.
All it takes is to set off a nuke in the upper atmosphere. The satellites would not necessarily be destroyed, but it would ionize the atmosphere and prevent communication between the ground and satellites. I don't know how long this effect would last, but it's a known issue.
Back in the day, our nuclear missiles relied on self-contained inertial guidance, accurate enough to take out a target at 6000 miles with no communication with the ground or satellites for guidance. I wonder if this is still the case. GPS could easily be knocked out within minutes.
Apr 1, 2024 22:44:02 #
jerryc41 wrote:
I've read a few articles about this lately. We ha... (show quote)
‘Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.’ - Friedrich Nietzsche
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.