![]() ![]() The recoil from a laser is much smaller and the lack of atmosphere would allow them to perform better than on the Earth’s surface.Ī laser could be used to blind instrumentation on an opposing satellite thereby reducing the efficacy of either rendezvous or aiming software. With no power, the satellite will be unable to communicate with the ground station and is essentially lost. Lasers are also being considered as defensive weapons, with the idea being to take out attacking satellites’ solar panels. The Soviet space station Salyut-3, for example, was armed with a rapid fire cannon in the mid 1970s. The idea of kinetic weapons has been attempted before. If the weapon is fired at any angle which is not in the exact direction of the orbital path the satellite is travelling along, then a torque will be applied, rapidly changing the direction of it. This could look like an accident and actually accidently occurred in 2007.Īs far as kinetic weapons in space are concerned, machine guns are generally problematic due to the recoil involved. ![]() If aimed at an adversary satellite, such a missile would be fairly obvious and could be tracked by other nations using radar.Ī more subtle method would be to destroy a satellite owned by the country or company launching the missile and aim to produce as much debris as possible, which then lies in the orbital path of the intended target. This type of removal consists of a ground-launched missile aimed at the satellite. These so called “kinetic kills” have previously only been used to take satellites out of commission at the end of their life, with the US, Russia China, and India demonstrating their ability to perform this. If a slower moving object can be placed briefly in the path of a satellite, then the resultant collision will be particularly devastating. Moving satellites have very high kinetic energy and momentum. Kinetic kills and lasersīy far the most obvious method of interfering with a satellite is a solid projectile. In fact, many military services on Earth now depend on space technology to work. Space-based electronic warfare is likely to become an increasing concern for military planners. But if a “hostile” satellite nearby were to deliberately direct broadband radio transmissions at the target satellite, then communications could be completely disrupted.Ī US Air Force Delta II booster with a GPS satellite. Satellites are thoroughly tested for self generated radio noise before going into space. This is a little like trying to spot the light from a candle against the glare of car headlights. By swamping a radio receiver with, effectively, radio noise, one can obscure the reception of genuine signals and render the system inoperative. The use of “ radio jamming” to disrupt radar and communications dates back to World War II. You could potentially make such an attack look like an accident and deny involvement. Such a concept deployed on satellites would constitute a “ directed-energy weapon”, enabling nations to disable other countries’ satellites without creating large clouds of orbital debris. In fact, such concepts have been tested before by the police as a means of bringing a speeding car to a halt by disabling electrical devices on the vehicle. Electronic warfareīut how would sabotage and warfare happen exactly? One method involves firing an intense beam of microwave radiation at an object. This follows an announcement that the US will launch a space force in 2018. ![]() To the moon and beyond 4: What's the point of going back to the moon?Īnother development is France’s recent announcement that it will build “bodyguard” satellites armed with either machine guns or lasers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |