On Feb 25, 2:22=A0pm, CharlesRCap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2:01 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > CharlesRCap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > Sure it does. A 8 km/s 10kg self-guiding munition sent to where the
> > > meticulously tracked and plotted spy sat will be in X years will
toast=
> > > it. If the craft can't maneuver. If they can, then you need to send
in=
> > > your own hunter-killer sats. If you pre-position your killer sats
> > > there then you can have an even better timeframe. It would come down
> > > to a matter of dollars and cents. How much would it cost to keep up
> > > with this cold war?
> > If you're actively shooting down enemy satellites it's not a cold war
> > any more. You've just started a "hot" war with the explicit condition
> > that your enemy is going to have an intact sensor net for X years
after
> > the war is declared. If you're depending on stealth to win it this
isn't=
> > a good position to be in.
> The Russians were shooting at US spy planes during the cold war and
> actually got one too. It ratcheted up the tension but did not provoke
> a shooting war. It's part of the cost of doing business, if you are
> spying on me then I'm going to soot your spies, if you don't like it
> stop spying on me or declare war.
This is because the US was doing something that was already
inherently an act of war. Overflying someone's sovereign territory
without their permission is an act of war. The only reason why
it didn't start a war was because the Russians didn't feel like
starting a war over it.
Of course, the US isn't above contriving a trumped up situation
where someone shoots at our stuff to start a war. However, the
US habit is to do this with our stuff in/over international waters.
It'd just be plain embarrasing to try and start a war over the
shooting down of an unauthorized overflight.
With space, the precedent has already been set that outer
space is international airspace. When Sputnik flew, it opened
the door for US spy satellites to orbit over Russia with
impunity. If the Russians can overfly in orbit without asking
any of the hundreds of overflown countries for permission,
so can we.
That said...
> It's not hard to imagine the same situation that provided the
> environment for this to occur during the Cold War to apply in a future
> battlefield.
True enough. The precedent set today could be changed by
future cultural changes and/or specific political developments.
> If you are dealing with nuclear armed warships the
> tendency to not want them shooing near your house (or at your house)
> is strong reinforcement to suck up your spy sat losses and roll the
> dice again with the next wave rather than resorting to all out war.
> However it does not need to be X years. At least not X years in a good
> position to spy from. If you have hunter-killer sats in the area that
> your opponent wants to spy from, or better yet, on the way to the
> place that he wants to spy from then you can shoot them down before
> they become effective.
Unfortunately, hunter-killer drones will need a LOT of delta-v,
compared to a simple sensor drone.
A sensor drone only needs enough delta-v to get boosted out
into interplanetary space. Without braking fuel, this drone will
eventually drift out beyond useful range, but this could take decades.
A decades old sensor drone is going to be obsolete and you'll
want to retire it anyway. So you'll be launching replacement
drones anyway.
A hunter-killer drone needs enough delta-v to get boosted
out, and then braking fuel to get on station, and then more
fuel to intercept a sensor drone. It also needs sensors
of its own to home in on the target. All in all, such a
hunter-killer drone could be much more expensive than the
target it's meant to kill.
(I don't call them "satellites" because they aren't in orbit
around a planetary body.)
> It seems that it would become a war of attrition with each side
> sending in spy sats, ant-spy sats, anti-anti-spy sats, and so on.
> Resulting in not so much good spying for either side.
Or you could get something like the real world history of
spy satellites, where attacking satellites is expensive and
difficult (so far). And attacking them is considered an
act of war because they're considered to be flying in
international airspace.
Isaac Kuo
|
