Timeline for How many of these six military "orbital threat" techniques have been demonstrated in a (more or less) publicly recognized way?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2023 at 13:48 | comment | added | Darth Pseudonym | @Tristan Orbital intercept is difficult enough that if you're going to go to the trouble of getting there, something more permanent than a photobomb is A) easily accomplished, and B) more effective. | |
| Jun 30, 2023 at 6:09 | comment | added | uhoh | @Uwe There's also liquid metals (mercury, sodium, or eutectics) and my favorite: ionic liquids proposed for rotating liquid telescope mirrors astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/41027/7982 Wow this is getting fun... now I want to design a Mimetic polyalloy hunter-killer liquid metal space robot! :-) | |
| Jun 30, 2023 at 6:08 | comment | added | uhoh | @Uwe there are plenty of oils that can have low rates of evaporation in space (some familiar extremes are fomblin oil and vacuum greases e.g. Apiazon-L). If modern spy satellite telescopes are anything like the older Hubble-like ones, they're open tubes with a mirror in the back. Ballistic blobs of heavy oil bouncing around inside will get on the mirror(s) and then you don't have spy-grade imagery any more. These can stay for quite a long time. | |
| Jun 30, 2023 at 5:05 | comment | added | Uwe | Ballistic droplets may be fine, but finding a fluid that may be sprayed into a vacuum without too much evaporation as well as sticking rather than bouncing seems to be very difficult. The liquid should be able to build an opaque layer on an image sensor that would exist at last some hours, days, weeks. | |
| Jun 30, 2023 at 3:23 | comment | added | uhoh | @Uwe without air, droplets would be just as ballistic as other projectiles so one can calculate and aim for an intersecting path. Sticking rather than bouncing is still a problem though. | |
| Jun 30, 2023 at 2:21 | answer | added | blobbymcblobby | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 30, 2023 at 1:41 | comment | added | Uwe | Chemical sprayers from orbit to destroy a hostile object in orbit, that would require a very precise rendezvous and a very precise application of the spray to achieve substantial damage with a small amount of the chemical. Even in a low orbit space is huge. | |
| Jun 30, 2023 at 0:47 | history | edited | uhoh |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 16, 2022 at 3:32 | comment | added | uhoh | @blobbymcblobby where are you quoting from? I'm confused. | |
| Jan 16, 2022 at 3:23 | comment | added | blobbymcblobby | not enough info, but was really interesting how obvious a weapon it was. | |
| Jan 16, 2022 at 3:08 | comment | added | uhoh | @blobbymcblobby I'm curious, why is "it's a military application dating from 1993" the reason that one "can't put (it as) an answer"? The quotes suggest you are quoting a source which is (presumably, hopefully) not secret. | |
| May 25, 2021 at 11:28 | comment | added | blobbymcblobby | Laser and mechanical ring bells for me. Mechanical because Northrop Grumman's MEV-1 and MEV-2 have demonstrated (and are still doing so) approaching, docking, and therefore taking control of, another satellite and then take it somewhere else. Publically this is extending the life of an otherwise 'dead' satellite (due to expended fuel). Laser rings a bell because of tests to optically blind satellites. I'm pretty sure both major agencies were testing that in orbit, i have a memory of reading about it, but I have no sources to link to. Ground based tests, for that purpose, tested definitely. | |
| May 25, 2021 at 0:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSpaceExp/status/1396979325287780354 | ||
| May 24, 2021 at 13:33 | comment | added | Tristan | One ephemeral threat I'm surprised I haven't seen is the old "you make a better door than a window" trick -- just positioning between a satellite and its target to deny access on a temporary basis. | |
| May 23, 2021 at 10:34 | answer | added | Ng Ph | timeline score: -1 | |
| May 23, 2021 at 7:02 | comment | added | user3528438 | I think laser and chemical are the only two that I haven't heard of. | |
| May 23, 2021 at 6:50 | comment | added | uhoh | Musk September 9, 2016: Particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off. May come from rocket or something else. | |
| May 23, 2021 at 6:43 | comment | added | uhoh | @ChrisB.Behrens I asked How vulnerable could space launch vehicles be to a “lone gunman”? September 2, 2016 and on October 2 (one month later): So, um, SpaceX is looking for a sniper that shot the rocket, maybe from a nest at top of competitor's building.. Space is hard; things fail and/or blow up all the time. | |
| May 23, 2021 at 5:15 | comment | added | Chris B. Behrens | You think??? That would be pretty wild. | |
| May 23, 2021 at 3:37 | comment | added | uhoh | Not possibly related in any way: Rocket Lab investigates rocket failure | |
| May 23, 2021 at 3:33 | comment | added | uhoh | companion question Has a spacecraft ever actually sprayed a chemical (or anything) on to another spacecraft intentionally for any reason at all? | |
| May 23, 2021 at 3:31 | history | edited | uhoh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 194 characters in body
|
| May 23, 2021 at 3:19 | history | asked | uhoh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |