The problem with that as I see it is we already have ASAT capability even from something as small as conventional fighter jets, big bombers, and naval destroyers. developing a sabre derivative for the same thing wouldn't at first glance seem logical.*shakes REL box to encourage faster news delivery*
Quote from: Stormbringer on 02/08/2016 02:25 pmThe problem with that as I see it is we already have ASAT capability even from something as small as conventional fighter jets, big bombers, and naval destroyers. developing a sabre derivative for the same thing wouldn't at first glance seem logical.*shakes REL box to encourage faster news delivery*true. But most of these methods are devastating in terms of space environment. Maybe blinding lasers would be more effective than from the ground?Just speculating of course.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 02/08/2016 04:41 pmQuote from: Stormbringer on 02/08/2016 02:25 pmThe problem with that as I see it is we already have ASAT capability even from something as small as conventional fighter jets, big bombers, and naval destroyers. developing a sabre derivative for the same thing wouldn't at first glance seem logical.*shakes REL box to encourage faster news delivery*true. But most of these methods are devastating in terms of space environment. Maybe blinding lasers would be more effective than from the ground?Just speculating of course.Iran and China have been blinding US satellites for years using lasers. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4162770,00.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1529864/Beijing-secretly-fires-lasers-to-disable-US-satellites.html
It's an interesting question: would affordable launch (if enabled by Skylon and others) make ASAT development less attractive because assets can be easily replaced, or more likely because space-based weapons can be launched on smaller budgets... That question probably deserves a new thread, though.
I have been thinknig, of late, at a different military application for a Sabre-based vehicle. Let's say, a small-ish drone carrying anti-sat weaponry which jumps to LEO, releases its small payload, and goes back. How small can a sabre-based vehicle be made? I am sure there is a downard limitation...
Iran and China have been blinding US satellites for years using lasers. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4162770,00.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1529864/Beijing-secretly-fires-lasers-to-disable-US-satellites.html
Quote from: knowles2 on 02/08/2016 11:20 pmQuote from: francesco nicoli on 02/08/2016 04:41 pmQuote from: Stormbringer on 02/08/2016 02:25 pmThe problem with that as I see it is we already have ASAT capability even from something as small as conventional fighter jets, big bombers, and naval destroyers. developing a sabre derivative for the same thing wouldn't at first glance seem logical.*shakes REL box to encourage faster news delivery*true. But most of these methods are devastating in terms of space environment. Maybe blinding lasers would be more effective than from the ground?Just speculating of course.Iran and China have been blinding US satellites for years using lasers. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4162770,00.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1529864/Beijing-secretly-fires-lasers-to-disable-US-satellites.htmlQuoteI am aware, but sending a laser to cut through the deep planet atmosphere does not sound very efficient. A Skylong-based system instead would be able to reach low orbit, disable the target satellite with much larger laser efficiency, and turn back.
I am aware, but sending a laser to cut through the deep planet atmosphere does not sound very efficient. A Skylong-based system instead would be able to reach low orbit, disable the target satellite with much larger laser efficiency, and turn back.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 02/09/2016 08:38 amQuote from: knowles2 on 02/08/2016 11:20 pmQuote from: francesco nicoli on 02/08/2016 04:41 pmQuote from: Stormbringer on 02/08/2016 02:25 pmThe problem with that as I see it is we already have ASAT capability even from something as small as conventional fighter jets, big bombers, and naval destroyers. developing a sabre derivative for the same thing wouldn't at first glance seem logical.*shakes REL box to encourage faster news delivery*true. But most of these methods are devastating in terms of space environment. Maybe blinding lasers would be more effective than from the ground?Just speculating of course.Iran and China have been blinding US satellites for years using lasers. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4162770,00.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1529864/Beijing-secretly-fires-lasers-to-disable-US-satellites.htmlQuoteI am aware, but sending a laser to cut through the deep planet atmosphere does not sound very efficient. A Skylong-based system instead would be able to reach low orbit, disable the target satellite with much larger laser efficiency, and turn back. These systems aren't designed to permanently disable satellites, just to blind them and prevent them taking clear pictures of what going on on the ground. Space base weapons is vastly more costly, why achieving the same thing as ground base lasers, blinding your opponents to your activities. Plus you less likely to trigger international incident if you just blinding a satellite instead of shooting it down.
yes, but the "mission profile" is not a peacetime attempt to decrease a competitor's capacities without provoking international unease. Rather, it is becoming clear that any large scale conflict of the future will be chacraterised by attempts to achieve space dominance first. having a reliable, quick and cheap launcher, copuled with a modified version capable of taking down the opponent's assets, is a game changer in that scenario.
Rockets for lift-off take on the order of Gigawatts of power. This is why laser launch isn't terribly practical except for very small rockets, which still would need many megawatts.People often underestimate just how much power is involved with modern rockets. Falcon Heavy, for instance, would produce on the order of 60 Gigawatts. BFR would be 200-300 Gigawatts, i.e. half the average US electric grid output.
<lasers>Indeed I was thinking more "in space" not lift off