"Reaper" will clean up the orbit: you can shoot down Starlink satellites faster than Elon Musk can launch them

171

“What happens if the Russians and the Chinese target satellites? Will this be a threat to Starlink?” - such a question was asked by journalists to Elon Musk in connection with the conduct of a Russian special operation in Ukraine. The answer was:

“It was interesting to look at the Russian anti-satellite demonstration a few months ago in the context of this conflict. Because it caused a lot of controversy among satellite operators. It even posed some danger to the space station where the Russian cosmonauts are located. So why did they do it? This was a message before the aggravation of the situation in Ukraine. If you try to disable Starlink, it won't be easy because we already have over 2 satellites. That means a lot of anti-satellite missiles. I hope we don't have to test this in practice, but I think we can launch satellites faster than they can shoot them down with anti-satellite missiles."
Ilon Mask

Battle for supremacy in space


Why kill them at all? Starlink can provide relatively inexpensive high-speed communications across the entire surface of the planet (in the future). And, besides, is Elon Musk so progressive, pushing the world towards a better future?



It is possible that a better future will be built in the West for some, but the problem is that, judging by the actions of Western politicians, there is no place for Russia in this world, and we will have to gnaw it out by force weapons.

As has been repeatedly said, dominance in outer space is the basis of dominance on the surface of the planet. And this is confirmed during the conflict in Ukraine. The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), not having their own orbital grouping, but receiving data from US intelligence satellites, through US communications satellites, are able to resist the technically superior armed forces of the Russian Federation (RF Armed Forces) by an order of magnitude, inflicting quite sensitive strikes from time to time .

It is believed that Starlink satellites cannot be used for reconnaissance, although this statement cannot be unconditionally trusted, but even their use as a means of communication is a significant help to the enemy, and Starlink terminals in Ukraine, according to some reports, there are already thousands.

By supplying Ukraine with Starlink terminals, Elon Musk is actually an accomplice of Nazism.

"Reaper" will clean up the orbit: you can shoot down Starlink satellites faster than Elon Musk can launch them

Starlink satellite communication terminals - well, big business also cooperated with Hitler very willingly ...

But the problem is not in Ukraine. If there is political will, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will grind the Armed Forces of Ukraine, no matter what weapons the Western countries supply them with. You can send Stingers and Javelins, but where can you get experienced fighters who can use them effectively?

You can send anti-aircraft missile systems and combat aircraft, but where can you get professional operators, pilots and technicians capable of servicing them, and most importantly, the fuel with which they need to be refueled, of course, provided that the RF Armed Forces will act harshly and uncompromisingly, destroying both the fuel base of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the very possibility of supplying fuel from outside

The important thing is that Starlink is just the first "swallow", an example of the fact that high-tech communications satellites can be quickly produced and put into orbit in huge quantities - they are truly baking like pies. And now private radar reconnaissance satellites have already appeared that can work in any weather, which we talked about earlier in the article. Capella Space's All-Seeing Eye: Harbinger of the Satellite Intelligence Revolution. There is no doubt that the number of small-sized rapidly deployable satellites for various purposes launched into the Earth's orbit will continue to grow exponentially.


Very soon, relatively inexpensive, but highly efficient small-sized satellites for various purposes will fill low Earth orbit (LEO)

What will happen if the RF Armed Forces collide in a limited conflict that does not involve the use of nuclear weapons with a really strong adversary? With an adversary who will have sufficient stocks of long-range strike weapons?

In this case, the presence of a highly effective reconnaissance satellite constellation of reconnaissance, communications and control will allow the enemy to destroy Russian troops without entering into direct combat contact. Aircraft will be destroyed at airfields, ships and submarines will die before they leave their bases, ground forces will not be able to create any large shock fist, move with significant forces, and organize an effective supply of fuel and ammunition. Surface ships at sea will also be guaranteed to be detected and destroyed from a distance exceeding the range of their detection tools..

We have discussed all these issues many times before. If someone thinks that it will be different, that you can simply build a strong surface fleet, provide ground armed forces with modern tanks and infantry fighting vehicles with active protection systems (KAZ), to purchase “classic” fifth-generation fighters for the air force, and everything will be fine, then he is deeply mistaken.

Only superiority in space will ensure victory, and its absence guarantees defeat.

On the other hand, the US Armed Forces without satellites, without intelligence received from orbit, without space-based communication systems, will lose a significant part of their advantages - they will not receive target designation of long-range precision-guided munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will not be able to operate beyond the radio horizon or out of range actions of the communications equipment of the repeater aircraft, many horizontal and vertical communications will disappear in multi-domain forces.

Countermeasures


How can Russia counter the US in space? Surpass the number and quality of reconnaissance satellites? This is impossible, we will not be able to produce and put into orbit satellites even in an order of magnitude less than the United States and other Western countries. And the presence of its own developed satellite constellation does not negate the superiority of the United States and NATO in the number of long-range precision weapons and UAVs.

Jamming enemy satellite constellations by means of electronic warfare (EW) and blinding with lasers? So far, nothing has been heard about this - nothing like this is used in Ukraine. Functional defeat in general is not a very reliable thing, and it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of suppressing enemy reconnaissance and communications equipment at any given time.

All that remains is the physical destruction of enemy spacecraft, but there are a number of problems here too. In part, the problem of the destruction of spacecraft was considered in the articles Достучаться до небес и Orbital Cleaners.

Existing means can destroy one, ten, one hundred satellites, but what if there are thousands of them - tens of thousands? A situation will arise when putting new satellites into orbit will indeed be cheaper than destroying them, even if one anti-satellite missile will carry several interceptors. The advantage will be with those who can both produce satellites cheaper and put them into orbit cheaper.

In terms of launching into orbit, the United States already has a significant help - partially reusable launch vehicles of the Falcon family, although so far they do not create a decisive advantage. The situation may change after the start of the use of the fully reusable two-stage Starship rocket, which we talked about in the article. On the verge of a revolution in space.


Starship could be a game changer in outer space. Image by wikipedia.org

If this happens, and Starship really makes it possible to radically reduce the cost of putting cargo into orbit, then after a very short period of time the US armed forces will realize what an advantage this can provide them, and in the foreseeable future, not only reconnaissance, communications and control satellites may appear in orbit , but also space echelon of an anti-missile defense system capable of intercepting hundreds or even thousands of warheadsand space-to-surface orbital impact systems.

Based on the foregoing, it is necessary to ensure a radical reduction in the cost of destroying enemy spacecraft, primarily in low orbit. This can be achieved on the condition that one orbital interceptor destroys not one, but several dozen, or better, several hundred enemy satellites.

Project orbital interceptor "Reaper"


Massively launched into orbit satellites are deployed in clusters from one launch vehicle and then are separated into their orbits. Knowing their orbit, you can launch an interceptor spacecraft in such a way that it alternately flies past the satellites that you want to destroy. At the moment of flight at a minimum distance, the interceptor will release a compact and inexpensive ammunition, which will destroy the enemy satellite. The interceptor itself will then go to the next satellite, then to the next, and so on, and so on, until it runs out of ammunition.


Small low-orbit satellites are massively deployed in clusters from one "large" carrier. Image by wikipedia.org

When attacking "on the forehead" on approaching the target, there is a risk that the interceptor will then fly into a cloud of fragments left from the attacked target and its own attacking ammunition. Based on this, it may be preferable to attack the enemy satellite after the interceptor passes by it. In this case, the launch of the attacking ammunition will be carried out in the opposite direction - all fragments will remain behind the interceptor.

The Reaper-type orbital interceptor must include radar and / or optical means of detecting and tracking a target, fuel and attitude control / flight path correction engines, an instrument compartment and a weapon compartment.


Conceptual image of several variants of the Reaper orbital interceptor


Reaper-class orbital interceptor concept

The Reaper-type orbital interceptor, launched into orbit, should move slightly away from the intended location of the enemy satellite. At a certain moment, the orientation engines turn the interceptor flying by inertia, and then at the calculated point of the trajectory, when the tail of the interceptor is directed at the enemy satellite, a shot is fired.

The attacking ammunition hits the enemy satellite, and the interceptor receives an acceleration that corrects its flight path to fly past the next target satellite. Thus, the cycle is repeated as long as the interceptor has damaging ammunition. Additional correction of the flight path must be carried out by the engines of the interceptor.


Possible scheme of operation of the orbital interceptor "Reaper"

The Reaper orbital interceptor can use various types of ammunition. In the simplest case, this can be shrapnel ammunition, the easiest to manufacture and, accordingly, the cheapest. However, it is possible that the range and accuracy of shrapnel ammunition will not be enough.

As an alternative, unguided munitions with remote detonation on a trajectory or unguided munitions with a proximity fuse (or a combination of these solutions) can be considered. And finally, the most complex and expensive ammunition of the Reaper orbital interceptor can be a guided munition with guidance in a laser beam (“laser trail”) or with radio command guidance.

Ultimately, the type of ammunition used must be determined by the results of calculations and tests. It is possible that the ammunition load of one Reaper orbital interceptor may include several types of guided and unguided munitions.

One interceptor can potentially carry hundreds of damaging ammunition. For example, if the diameter of the launcher of one ammunition is about 150 mm, then a package of 100 ammunition in the 10x10 format will be a square with a side of just over 1,5 meters, respectively, a package of 400 ammunition will have a dimension of a little more than 3x3 meters.


Reaper-class orbital interceptor concept

Potentially, an adversary can force their satellites to change location using built-in orbit correction engines when an interceptor approaches. If the satellites are equipped with their own attack detection system, this will significantly increase their cost, and will not allow them to be produced in large quantities, and commands from the Earth may be too late. In addition, the supply of fuel on board the enemy satellites will in any case be limited - they will not “jump” in orbits for a long time.

To counteract the evasion of enemy satellites from attack using orbit correction, an interceptor provocateur, not equipped with radar and ammunition, of the most primitive design can be developed. Its only task will be to approach enemy satellites on commands from the Earth in order to force them to change orbit and waste fuel. Its fuel supply can be much larger than that of an interceptor, so it can make many orbits, forcing enemy satellites to “jump” in orbits, wasting fuel. Such "provocateurs" can be launched from time to time, even in peacetime, to slightly "cheer up" the enemy.

Enemy counteraction


Of course, the enemy can try to destroy the orbital interceptors - this can be implemented in several ways.

The first is equipping satellites with self-defense systems. But this will make them complex and expensive, since they will need reconnaissance equipment, weapons, and so on, and this contradicts the very concept of massive and inexpensive satellites.

The second is the destruction of an orbital interceptor by an anti-missile launched from a land, sea or air carrier. To counter this threat, the orbital interceptor can launch small-sized decoys with corner reflectors and Luneberg lenses that increase the effective dispersion surface (ESR) of the simulators, as well as thermal emitters designed to deceive the thermal homing heads of interceptor missiles. At the same time, the orbital interceptor itself can be covered with a screen that reduces its thermal and radar visibility when viewed from the earth's surface.

The third option is the creation by the enemy of their own orbital interceptors. It will be more difficult to make such ones to destroy the maneuvering orbital anti-satellite interceptor of the Reaper type, but sooner or later it will come to this. However, this will already be the next round of space confrontation.

If enemy satellites are to be launched by the thousands, then Reaper Orbital Interceptors must be launched by the tens, maybe hundreds. In case of a sudden attack, the enemy simply will not have time to hit them all, especially considering that both the “provocateur” interceptors mentioned above and simply false targets can be launched at the same time. The advantage of space is that it is much more difficult to distinguish a light decoy in space than in the atmosphere.

Launching into orbit


Cheap and fast launch of the payload into orbit is a topic for a separate discussion. For orbital interceptors, perhaps the best solution would be to use obsolete strategic missile cruisers (SSBNs) converted to floating spaceports, which was previously discussed in the article From under the water to space. True, the ability of modernized submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) ​​to launch such a massive payload as an orbital interceptor into an orbit of about 700 kilometers is still in question - a space interceptor will presumably weigh several tons, while existing projects of launch vehicles launched from SSBNs, can put into orbit 600 kilometers only 80 kilograms.

Perhaps this problem can be solved by creating a highly efficient overclocking module. A huge advantage of this solution is the ability to create a highly secure, operationally deployable stock of orbital interceptors. For example, four floating launch sites based on Project 667BDRM SSBNs with 16 launch vehicles each are potentially capable of launching 64 orbital interceptors into orbit. If each of them is capable of hitting about 100 enemy satellites, then as a result, over 6 enemy low-orbit satellites can be disabled at the same time. Of course, provided, as mentioned above, that it will be possible to realize the possibility of launching orbital interceptors into orbit using modified SLBMs with an additional upper stage.

An alternative option is the creation of Russian reusable launch vehicles of various classes. This issue was previously discussed in the article Projects of reusable launch vehicles in Russia: do they have a future?


Russia is quite capable of developing promising reusable launch vehicles

And finally, no one has canceled the possibility of launching orbital interceptors using classic launch vehicles. Here, as they say, "at least a carcass, at least a scarecrow", after all, Russia carries out dozens of space launches a year. If necessary, there can be no doubt that this figure can at least be doubled, that is, the Russian space industry will provide the possibility of withdrawing the required number of orbital interceptors to clean up enemy satellite constellations.

Conclusions


The creation of an orbital interceptor of the "Reaper" type is a difficult, but technically quite feasible task. It can be assumed that this weapon could have been created even on the basis of technologies of the late 80th century. The chosen orbital interceptor concept does not require highly complex seekers, hit-to-kill direct hits, active phased array antennas, or high-speed microprocessors. This weapon could have been created in the USSR of the XNUMXs, and it can be created in Russia now, no matter what sanctions our opponents impose on us.

From recent:

"U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris issued an official statement saying that the United States is committed to halting anti-satellite missile testing and also urging other countries to follow the U.S. example."

Yes of course. Having gained an advantage in space, the United States is very afraid of losing it. Having lost the advantage in space, the satellites in orbit, the US military will lose a significant part of its combat capability. Much more than the Russian or Chinese Armed Forces will lose, having lost their satellites.

It is not known what the Chinese will do, but the Russians are simply obliged to target US and NATO satellites, which definitely include Starlink satellites. Depending on the development of the military-political situation, we simply may not have any other way but to clear the orbit.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

171 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    April 28 2022
    What about laser weapons? For outer space, it is the most. Destroying an enemy satellite is not necessarily enough to disable its energy system, for example.
    1. +8
      April 28 2022
      The laser that will ensure the destruction of the satellite will be very heavy and will consume a lot of energy, while shrapnel is cheap and cheerful! I would think about the Gauss cannon, while you don’t need to make a large mass of the projectile and strive for a high initial speed, small bullets with little energy in space will smash everything due to the high mutual velocities of the satellite and anti-satellite.
      1. +6
        April 28 2022
        Quote from Andy_nsk
        The laser that will ensure the destruction of the satellite will be very heavy and will consume a lot of energy.

        Ground, "Peresvet" notorious. Laser radiation does not add health not only to optics, but also to electronic components, not to mention radar antennas, and even in a lightweight space version.
        1. +11
          April 28 2022
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Ground, "Peresvet" notorious.

          I also think that there is nothing sensible besides a ground-based laser. We will not be able to compete with the West in terms of the quantity and quality of the satellite constellation. Any of our Reapers will be answered in the form of at least a dozen of their Reapers. And a couple of dozen Peresvetov, located throughout Russia, will clear the entire sky above us in a day. Satellites do not have to be shot down, it is enough to damage the electronics. I think a laser with good energy can handle this.
          1. +2
            April 29 2022
            kytx (yeah, right now), Yesterday, 05:51, NEW - "... And what about laser weapons? For outer space, it's the most. Destroying an enemy satellite is not necessarily enough to disable its energy system, for example ..."

            qqqq, Yesterday, 09:57, NEWTh - "... We will not be able to compete with the West in terms of the quantity and quality of the satellite constellation. Any of our Reapers will be answered in the form of at least a dozen of their Reapers ..."

            Colleagues .... hi
            The issue of "solving" the problems created by the satellite constellation of our sworn "partners" has been worth a long time. bully Events on Okraina only aggravated it
            But, you should not get carried away with the PROCESS of finding solutions.. No. If there is a solution to eliminate it, then how to do it, the answer was given long ago in the USSR. soldier
            When the United States was threatened by SDI, a proposal was made on behalf of the USSR: “Go ahead, launch your groups (and this is for a trillion dollars). And the USSR will “launch” several boxes with scattered bolts (or the like) into these orbits. And your SDI will be covered with a copper basin, the USSR will spend 1000 times less for this. crying wink

            Progress is good, but a head with brains is always very USEFULa. hi
          2. 0
            5 May 2022
            The idea with Peresvet is correct. Only to hit high-flying targets is it more correct to use stratospheric aircraft. What seems to be in the developments of our military scientists.
        2. +2
          April 28 2022
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Laser radiation does not add health not only to optics, but also to electronic components, not to mention radar antennas, and even in a lightweight space version.

          Only optical sensors directed towards the Earth are most vulnerable to the laser, and for everything else it is just heating. Heating can disable some satellite systems, but the difference in the required energy is orders of magnitude.
          1. 0
            April 28 2022
            Quote: military_cat
            everything else is just heat.
            Not quite.

            The damaging factors on the target are determined by thermal, mechanical, optical and electromagnetic influence, which, taking into account the power density of laser radiation, can lead to temporary blinding of a person or an optoelectronic system, to mechanical destruction (melting or evaporation) of the body of the target object (rocket, aircraft, etc.) electronics failures on-board computers and navigation systems.

            Failures occur due to the action of a light wave on the electrons of the surface, i.e. In addition to thermals, there are also induced currents. Well, more photos and thermal erosion of the surface.
            1. +3
              April 28 2022
              Even about those lasers that actually disable drones during tests, melting and burning their structure, they don’t say that they create malfunctions in the electronics with this “electromagnetic effect”.
              1. +1
                April 28 2022
                Quote: military_cat
                melting and burning their structure, they do not say that they, at the same time, create malfunctions in the electronics by "electromagnetic influence".

                Okay, what's the point? The goal is then burned, rudely, brutally, as the "broad masses" love, in advertising booklets / commercials for the masses, they do not remember such nuances, because it is difficult. But this does not mean that there are no such damaging factors. And against satellites with their most lightweight design, such factors, yes, are secondary, but they will work quite well.
                And another consideration - a floundering satellite will definitely not be a "casus belli", unlike a destroyed satellite.
            2. +1
              April 28 2022
              do you think a laser from the earth can compete with the sun and solar wind? just satellites and electronics on them create the most resistant to this type of impact, and the energy of particles in space is many orders of magnitude higher
              1. 0
                April 28 2022
                You talk about interplanetary stations and probes, and Starlink satellites fly low. Inside the Earth's magnetosphere.
              2. -1
                April 29 2022
                Quote: telobezumnoe
                do you think a laser from the earth can compete with the sun and solar wind?
                What is there to think? It's about the power of the laser. The sun cannot even set fire to a paper airplane, and a laser with a power of 20 teapots confidently burns UAVs and even shells. Of course, it's a matter of distance, but "Peresvet" is estimated at a minimum of 1 mW. and it will hit upwards, in conditions of an increasingly less dense atmosphere.

                Quote: telobezumnoe
                satellites and electronics on them create the most resistant to this type of impact, and the energy of particles in space is many orders of magnitude higher
                I specify, the order is ten times. "Many orders" - is that tens of thousands? Once again - the sun does not set fire to anything and does not melt, even in orbit, and one kW with a 5-10 minute exposure makes iron red-hot.
                It means that there can be no talk of any, let alone many, just about "orders".
                1. +1
                  16 2022 June
                  In general, an industrial fiber 1 kW laser cuts 10 mm steel in a fraction of a second. That is, if exactly 1 kW flies into orbit, then the satellite will burn out instantly
                  1. 0
                    16 2022 June
                    It's all about the area of ​​effect. hi
            3. +3
              April 29 2022
              Do you have any idea what monstrous power a laser installation must have in order to disable a satellite in an orbit of 600 km ?? It will require several nuclear power plants and capacitors the size of the Great Wall of China.
              1. +1
                April 29 2022
                Quote: Jager
                Do you have any idea what monstrous power a laser installation must have in order to disable a satellite in an orbit of 600 km ??

                Why not geostationary? Also an orbit. But these are trifles.
                As they write a laser with a beam divergence of 1 angle. min. will give a 1,9 km spot on the Moon.
                Very rough, of course, but at 380 km the spot will be 1,9 meters. it means that at 600 km the spot will be no more than 3 m. This is 7 square meters. With a megawatt of brought power per meter, there will be 130 kW. These are 60 normal teapots.
                Peresvet can be more powerful and with better "accuracy".

                So your horrors, nonsense, in the form of a Chinese wall.
                1. 0
                  April 30 2022
                  Most likely, all this will lead to the fact that the Americans will remove all our satellites. It turns out interesting. Then it is worth opening the program of orbital warheads. something to hang in space, overhead, ready to rain down at any time. And the theme of armored spaceships ..
                2. +2
                  4 May 2022
                  Laser calculations in teapots are strong! laughing wassat good
                  1. +2
                    4 May 2022
                    Quote: Jager
                    Laser calculations in teapots are strong!

                    Stylish, trendy and affordable! And then some kilowatts, fu right. laughing
                    1. +1
                      4 May 2022
                      The only problem is that, compared to temperature changes and exposure to the most diverse radiation, a laser from the ground is just heating the skin) Do not forget about the atmosphere - any cloudiness nullifies the meaning of all these undertakings.
                      So in this case, the most effective way is to launch a Soviet cast-iron kettle into the American satellite itself.
                      1. 0
                        4 May 2022
                        Quote: Jager
                        The only problem is that, compared to temperature changes and exposure to a wide variety of radiation, a laser from the ground is just heating the skin)

                        Those. a power of 130 kW per square meter does not mean anything?

                        Quote: Jager
                        Do not forget about the atmosphere - any cloudiness nullifies the meaning of all these undertakings.
                        There is no perfection.
                      2. 0
                        4 May 2022
                        No, because delivering such energy without loss is, in principle, unrealistic.
                      3. 0
                        4 May 2022
                        Quote: Jager
                        No, because delivering such energy without loss is, in principle, unrealistic.

                        Can you read what you are not interested in at all?
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Of course, it's a matter of distance, but "Peresvet" is estimated at a minimum of 1 mW. and it will hit upwards, in conditions of an increasingly less dense atmosphere.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        As they write a laser with a beam divergence of 1 angle. min. will give a 1,9 km spot on the Moon.
                        Very rough, of course, but at 380 km the spot will be 1,9 meters. it means that at 600 km the spot will be no more than 3 m. This is 7 square meters. With a megawatt of brought power per meter, there will be 130 kW.

                        Losses are compensated by power.
                      4. 0
                        5 May 2022
                        With the same success, you can talk about the elevator on the ISS. Moreover, the power of solar radiation is MUCH higher than several kettles)) And the thermal protection there is serious. What's stopping you from adding an extra layer?
                      5. 0
                        5 May 2022
                        Quote: Jager
                        Moreover, the power of solar radiation is MUCH higher than several kettles))

                        Of course, a lot, but the ISS is lined with fireclay bricks, and that’s the only reason people haven’t welded there yet. Do you even understand what you are writing about? Even the example with teapots seems to be too complicated for you.

                        Land 1,413 1,321 kW per square meter at the edge of the atmosphere!
                      6. 0
                        16 2022 June
                        Even 130W burns 20mm plywood at 4mm/s.
      2. 0
        April 28 2022
        Kinetic ammunition and guidance system will also weigh a lot. The laser is much easier to direct. And there is no recoil, no correction after the shot is needed.
        1. -1
          April 28 2022
          chemical compounds have a much higher energy density, all the more so all satellites are well protected from electromagnetic radiation and radiation, so that only count-sensitive elements can be disabled by a laser, and then only those that have high light sensitivity.
          1. 0
            April 28 2022
            This is enough and less small debris will hang out in orbit
        2. +1
          April 29 2022
          How will you load the laser?))
          1. 0
            April 29 2022
            Explosive generator. Joke.
      3. 0
        April 29 2022
        A rocket does not consume energy? And does it require technology? :) we still need to plausibly deny the downing. :) and even bring down the entire grouping at one moment at hour "h".
    2. +2
      April 28 2022
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      The Reaper orbital interceptor can use various types of ammunition.
      In the simplest case, this could be shrapnel ammunition.

      Did the author study the topic "Shot in outer space"?
      About recoil in the vacuum of space, or where will a projectile flying past the target go?
      1. 0
        April 28 2022
        the trajectory can be chosen so that the impulse from the shot even corrects the orbit, and is used as an engine for maneuver
      2. +3
        April 28 2022
        Well, what are you really! Well, you can get a little carried away! :)
        1. 0
          April 29 2022
          And the theme is right. Why do we need this garbage in orbit? These satellites are violating. (you can think of it), they are not convenient for us and even pose a threat. Private traders? Moreover, they collect confidential information without a contract.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. 0
      2 May 2022
      Correct me if I'm wrong - if you shoot down ONE Starlink satellite with ammunition with a large number of striking elements, then it will generate a cloud of fragments and the satellite following it will most likely collide with such a fragment and further along the chain at an increasing pace. As a result, we will have a dead zone for decades in the places where the Starlink group was located.
  2. KCA
    +5
    April 28 2022
    "Based on this, it may be preferable to attack the enemy satellite after the interceptor passes it."
    Strongly, the satellite and the interceptor diverge at speeds of 30 km / h, which means that the speed of a projectile from an interceptor launched in pursuit should be more than 000 km / h, than to accelerate something? Thermonuclear explosion?
    1. +3
      April 28 2022
      the satellite and the interceptor diverge at speeds of 30 km/h

      Of course, the anti-satellite must meet the satellite on a head-on course at an acute angle, the angle must be chosen so as not to fall into the cone of fragments, or to spread them in height. But in principle, I agree with you - it is unrealistic to shoot in pursuit at such speeds.
      1. +1
        April 28 2022
        And the shells are Velcro? It is not necessary to explode right away ... you can later ... the main thing is to "stick" ... like a bath leaf to ..........! wink
        1. +3
          April 28 2022
          the idea is good, but not with an undermining, but an extremely cheap "spit" at point-blank range with some (current-shorting or shielding) composition
      2. +9
        April 28 2022
        What is actually in this article?
        It could be read more or less seriously up to the word "project".
        There is no interceptor. It exists only in the author's dreams. There are no disposable media in the required quantity. There is no "highly efficient overclocking module". There are no "Russian reusable launch vehicles of various classes". There is nothing. And it is unlikely to appear in the foreseeable future.
        What is the article all about? What to discuss? Projects? So I'll give out a dozen of these on the mountain in a minute. Even more fabulous.
        1. +2
          April 28 2022
          Quote from: Baik11
          There is nothing. And it is unlikely to appear in the foreseeable future.

          - Have you seen a gopher?
          No, I haven't seen...
          - And he is! (with)

          Our "Almaz" was on combat duty, when the Amy did not even suspect that we had a space battle station. How do you know that we have "nothing and nothing is expected." If nothing is said about this in the open press, this does not mean that it does not exist in nature. This is first.
          And, secondly, in addition to space systems, there are very effective ways to neutralize spacecraft using ground-based "high-energy" installations. Beam weapon, for one installation of which an entire power plant works (mobile). Again, missile defense based on "plasma installations" ... And this is far from all that sidekicks whisper after a glass ... of tea ... in the smoky corners of their "lairs".
          AHA.
          1. -1
            April 28 2022
            About carriers. One second Soyuz flies. All! Will you argue?
            "Angara" even slowed down at LKI, "Proton" was discontinued. Will close the contracts - and hell. Conversion launches are attractive only on paper, there you need to do a lot of alterations for a specific PN.
            How to throw interceptors?
            About "high energies", beam weapons, "plasma installations" and other lunar bases, I would love to hear from Rogozin, he is better at casting a shadow on the fence.
            1. +2
              1 May 2022
              Quote from: Baik11
              "Angara" even slowed down at LKI,

              However, Angara 1.2 brought three tons to the LEO and did not even wince! Now we have an AES-r hanging over Dill and it doesn’t even blow in the mustache ...
              And you are still there: - "One second Soyuz is flying."
              Here you have "BE ARGUMENT"!? tongue
          2. +1
            April 29 2022
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Our "Almaz" was on combat duty, when the Amy did not even suspect that we had a space battle station.

            It was in the USSR. Second economics planets.
          3. KCA
            -1
            April 29 2022
            I have three comrades who graduated from MEPhI, and by no means the theological faculty, one electronics engineer, sold out, however, long ago, long before 2014, to British Petroleum, now in London, a millionaire, won the corporate lottery, two specialists in accelerators, that's really where high energies, one works at CERN, lives in Sweden, they do not give a residence permit in Switzerland, and the third is ours, he works at JINR, a leading employee of the NICA collider, someone they have never heard anything about any ray or high-energy installations for destroying targets, although, at least ours, oiyat, should know that the mass of the permanent magnet NICA is more than 100 tons, the comrade is engaged in superconducting electromagnets, he knows everything about high-energy particle accelerators, at least from a theoretical point of view, but he- while plasma breakdown requires a beam of accelerated protons or ions, how can a 000 ton magnet be used as a weapon? And also half of the football field of other equipment. Yes, everything is fine with tolerances, all three at the military department were trained as specialists in ICBMs, who did what
            1. +1
              April 29 2022
              Quote: KCA
              someone they have never heard anything about any beam or high-energy installations for destroying targets,

              I am sincerely happy for you and your comrades. But, if you don’t get excited and remember how, at the dawn of "democracy", the unforgettable EBNya suggested to the President of the USA George W. Bush (Jr.) to join the joint development of a missile defense system based on new physical principles, which hits ANY targets with plasmoids ...
              By the way, they spoke about this quite seriously in the General Staff ...
              But you shouldn't know that... for obvious reasons.
              Yours faithfully, hi
              1. KCA
                -1
                April 29 2022
                You understand that without theoretical physics it cannot be applied, the times of alchemists have passed, to obtain gold they will not mix manure with urine, but will bombard lead with protons according to calculations, which, by the way, they do at JINR, 10 transuranium elements were synthesized for the first time in Dubna, and the existence of those synthesized at other institutes has been confirmed, a physicist dealing with elementary particle accelerators for bombarding atoms and atoms for bombarding elementary particles cannot not know at least the possible principles of plasma and other weapons based on high energies.
                1. 0
                  7 May 2022
                  Quote: KCA
                  You understand that without theoretical physics it cannot be applied, the times of alchemists have passed, to obtain gold they will not mix manure with urine, but will bombard lead with protons according to calculations, which, by the way, they do at JINR, 10 transuranium elements were synthesized for the first time in Dubna, and the existence of those synthesized at other institutes has been confirmed, a physicist dealing with elementary particle accelerators for bombarding atoms and atoms for bombarding elementary particles cannot not know at least the possible principles of plasma and other weapons based on high energies.

                  JINR is a peaceful atom. About the military atom - there is neither a dream nor a spirit.
                  Therefore, in this matter, referring to their opinion is at your discretion. hi
          4. Egg
            +1
            1 May 2022
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Again, missile defense based on "plasma installations"

            Somehow, in the early 90s, a topic about a "missile defense plasma gun" flashed on TV in the news, a type 1 installation covers the Moscow and St. Petersburg regions with a plasma umbrella, but somehow suspiciously quickly this topic was closed ... and since then there has been silence on this topic.
            1. +2
              1 May 2022
              Quote: Telur
              but somehow suspiciously quickly this topic was closed ... and since then there has been silence on this topic.

              You are absolutely right!
              At IMDEX, in my presence, they reported to Kasyanov - then he was the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Federation - about one product that was supposed to make a splash at a closed display of weapons and military equipment. So he very bluntly ordered to immediately remove it and not even remember it again until the time comes ... And the "man in black" whispered in my ear that I was not there at all ...
              Therefore, nothing has been heard about plasmoids since then, but, judging by Borisov’s report on weapons based on new physical principles, work is underway, because there is no other way: partners will EAT ... just give up the slack.
              Happy holiday, May 1! fellow
              1. Egg
                +1
                1 May 2022
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                but work, judging by Borisov's report on weapons based on new physical principles, is going on,

                I also think they are coming hi
                but we won’t know about the results for a long time or quickly, if pah, pah, pah, the war starts angry
                well, or like with Poseidon, they won’t light up on purpose.
                happy holiday drinks
        2. 0
          April 29 2022
          And where did you get the idea that we don’t have anything? Because they didn’t bring the information to you? For example, our satellites, inspectors who can de-orbit other satellites, have been discussed here more than once, these satellites exist, but there is no official information about them. So no need to panic here.
      3. +1
        April 28 2022
        Quote from Andy_nsk
        Of course, the anti-satellite must meet the satellite on a head-on course at an acute angle, the angle must be chosen so as not to fall into the cone of fragments, or to spread them in height. But in principle, I agree with you - it is unrealistic to shoot in pursuit at such speeds.

        1. If the interceptor is in a retrograde orbit (relative to the target satellites), then hijacking is really not viable.
        2. But such a technique is possible: the interceptor makes a shot back from itself BEFORE discrepancies with the target, and the target is hit by ammunition already AFTER its differences with the interceptor. The ammunition is, as it were, "positioned" in advance at the point through which the target will pass. The speed of meeting the target and ammunition (if you exaggerate a little) will no longer be 60000, but 59000 km / h, which in practice does not matter.
        3. An alternative way - the interceptor is launched into a direct orbit (in the same direction as the target satellites), and, as it were, catches up with them. For its orbital speed to be higher than that of the targets, the interceptor's orbit must be at least a few kilometers below them. But at the same time, the divergences will be very slow, and the interval between meetings will be very large. During this time, the interceptor will have time to shoot down a hundred times with an anti-satellite missile.
        1. +1
          April 28 2022
          And one more thing: you must always shoot "down", towards the Earth. So that in the event of a miss (and there will be misses - not a single weapon has 100% accuracy), the ammunition would burn in the atmosphere.

          If you shoot "up" (even at the most insignificant angle), then the missed ammunition will enter the most unpredictable orbits and can remain there for years (decades, centuries ...), posing a threat to any spacecraft.

          The introduction of self-liquidators does not solve the problem: in this case, not whole ammunition will fly, but clouds of fragments. And another way to undermine the ammunition should be optimized so that the cone of expansion of fragments goes only forward in the direction of flight. If something can receive acceleration "backward" or "sideways" during an explosion, then its geocentric velocity must be obtained obviously below the 1st cosmic one (so that it would simply fall into the atmosphere).
          1. 0
            April 29 2022
            Quote: Pushkowed
            And one more thing: you must always shoot "down", towards the Earth. So that in the event of a miss (and there will be misses - not a single weapon has 100% accuracy), the ammunition would burn in the atmosphere.

            You don't understand orbital mechanics well, it doesn't work that way. A "down" shot will launch the ammunition into an elliptical orbit with a high apogee, already on the first orbit, and turn into orbital debris, even with a strong momentum resting its vector on the atmosphere, it will bounce off it like a flat stone from water.
            (Well, perhaps, to disperse the ammunition to relativistic speeds, but today there is no technology for this even in theory)
            That is why any de-orbit requires a reduction in speed.
        2. +8
          April 28 2022
          The cheapest "interceptor" for a bunch of satellites in one orbit (Starlink, Van Web, etc.) is just a bucket of sand or lead shot fired towards. The collision speed of 15 km / s guarantees penetration through, and the cold release of sand / shot ensures a small dispersion of the cloud of damaging elements. And, in addition, in order to equalize the chances of restoring the satellite constellation, it remains to bang several factories with technologies less than 10 nm (we will somehow live without iPhones).
          1. 0
            April 29 2022
            Quote: grandfather_Kostya
            bucket of sand or lead shot

            Then they will backfire on their own. And 100 buckets will seal humanity on the planet for millennia, like spiders in a jar.
            Which will be fruitful, eat and spoil until it chokes in its own slop.
            It’s better to have nuclear armageddon right away, cleaner and more humane.
            1. +4
              April 29 2022
              The Americans have already poured millions of copper needles into low orbit to create a VHF radio wave reflector. This was in the 60s and where are they all? For the duration of hostilities, a reasonable clogging of low orbits is even useful.
            2. +3
              April 29 2022
              Nonsense. Low orbits will quickly self-clean due to drag by the atmosphere. Above 500 km, yes, a problem, but there are solutions too.
    2. 0
      April 28 2022
      Quote: KCA
      "Based on this, it may be preferable to attack the enemy satellite after the interceptor passes it."
      Strongly, the satellite and the interceptor diverge at speeds of 30 km / h, which means that the speed of a projectile from an interceptor launched in pursuit should be more than 000 km / h, than to accelerate something? Thermonuclear explosion?


      I think you misunderstood the explanation.
      The interceptor, according to Mitrofanov, must first catch up with the satellite.
      Then overtake him a little.
      And shoot with a "gun in the ass" at that satellite that he had just overtaken. Accordingly, this will give the interceptor acceleration forward, the target will be damaged and its fragments will fly even further "backward".
      1. +1
        April 29 2022
        Quote: SovAr238A
        The interceptor, according to Mitrofanov, must first catch up with the satellite.
        Then overtake him a little.
        And shoot with a "gun in the ass" at that satellite that he had just overtaken. Accordingly, this will give the interceptor acceleration forward

        Which will accumulate from shot to shot, and after 3-5 it will take the interceptor to another orbit, and you won’t be able to save enough fuel for an effective (without several turns) correction after each shot.
        The author is engaged in Manilovism, without even bothering to open a school textbook on astrophysics.
      2. KCA
        0
        April 29 2022
        The impulse ion engines used in our time give a very weak but constant impulse, it will take weeks to change the orbit and catch up with the Starlink satellite, the inspector will be thousands, and how many inspectors? One? Two?
    3. +1
      April 29 2022
      Thermonuclear explosion?

      This is the only way to reliably "light up" anything and everything. several explosions of the megaton class in space and in the high layers of the atmosphere - it will be possible to completely forget about communication (any). As well as about radar and in general about everything with the prefix "radio".
  3. +4
    April 28 2022
    interestingly, if a dozen conventional nuclear warheads from a standard ballistic missile are blown up in space (apparently several pieces, at different times), then, in theory, half of the satellites should "crumble immediately" ?. True, along with ours, but there will be more enemy ones at times, there will be more damage to them.
    1. KCA
      0
      April 28 2022
      The Americans carried out a nuclear explosion in space, it was planned to use neutron charges to destroy satellites, but in the end, both the Americans and ours abandoned the development of neutron charges to fight satellites, apparently, the effectiveness is very small
    2. -1
      April 28 2022
      They won't crumble, the radius of destruction is too small for the size of space. And you can also destroy the satellites of neutral countries. China and India will not say thank you
      1. +5
        April 28 2022
        The almost complete absence of air at such an altitude of charge detonation prevented the emergence of a nuclear mushroom that was customary during such explosions. However, no less interesting effects were observed. For example, in Hawaii, at a distance of 1500 km from the epicenter of the explosion, street lighting was disrupted by a powerful electromagnetic pulse (about 300 street lights failed, but not all), in addition, radio receivers, televisions and other electronics were out of order. At the same time in the sky in the region of testing more than 7 minutes it was possible to observe the strongest glow. The glow was so powerful that it was able to be captured on film even from Samoa, which was located at a distance of 3200 km from the epicenter of the explosion. The glow from the flare could also be observed from the territory of New Zealand at a distance of 7000 km from the epicenter of the explosion.
        A powerful explosion also affected the work of spacecraft in earth orbit. So, satellite 3 were immediately disabled by the resulting electromagnetic pulse. The charged particles that were formed as a result of the explosion were captured by the magnetosphere of our planet, as a result of which their concentration in the radiation belt of the planet grew by about 2-3 order. The impact of the resulting radiation belt caused a very rapid degradation of electronics and solar cells from 7 satellites, including Telestar-1, the first commercial telecommunications satellite. In total, as a result of this explosion, a third of all spacecraft that were in low near-earth orbits were destroyed during the explosion.

        The radiation belt formed as a result of the implementation of the Starfish Prime project caused the countries to adjust the parameters of manned launches within the Rise and Mercury programs for two years. If we talk about achieving the main goal of the experiment, then this goal was more than fulfilled. A third of the satellites available at that time, located in low-Earth orbit, both American and Soviet, were decommissioned. The result was the recognition that such an indiscriminate means of defeat could cause significant damage to the states themselves.


        The detonation of the bomb is powerful, but the last argument will go to everyone, but they have more.
        As I understand it, these microsatellites have the minimum necessary protection against electromagnetic impulses. And certainly not from nuclear weapons. Otherwise, they will cease to be microsatellites.
      2. 0
        April 28 2022
        And how "too small" the radius of destruction in an airless (practically) space moving at several speeds. km / s, which will give rise to a cloud of fragments (initially compact, then chaos in this "system" should only grow)? About the "size of space" ... well, yes, the Universe is large, only most communications and intelligence satellites operate in a not so wide range of orbits. The problem is that you can practically forget about orbital space after this.
        1. +3
          April 28 2022
          Well, in a nuclear explosion there are no fragments from the ammunition, everything turns into "smoke" and after a while it will dissipate, this is a natural and fast process. It’s much worse when they start using kinetic weapons, because of its use there are a lot of fragments, both from ammunition and from broken satellites, then you can really forget about orbital space for a long time.
  4. 0
    April 28 2022
    in space, it is easier to shoot down with a blank using mass and speed, which does not require energy and fuel, but the laser needs energy, a lot of energy. and therefore combat lasers are only either ground or surface means. and satellites can also be de-orbited by stupidly pushing them with their mass. such a satellite will either be forced to self-destruct or burn up in the atmosphere. and from the ground they will not be able to help their own in any way, if only to shoot both of them, which is actually our goal.
  5. +4
    April 28 2022
    The main message is that we need a cheap mass means of orbital interception, already yesterday. It's hard to disagree
  6. +1
    April 28 2022
    Didn't you think well about intercepting the interceptor? Since "... we will not be able to produce and put into orbit satellites even in quantities less than an order of magnitude than the United States," then the interceptors of our interceptors in orbit will not be an order of magnitude, but two more than ours - launched on orbit and remain there ... as long as there are resources.
    1. 0
      April 28 2022
      Quote from tsvetahaki
      Didn't you think well about intercepting the interceptor? Since "... we will not be able to produce and put into orbit satellites even in quantities less than an order of magnitude than the United States," then the interceptors of our interceptors in orbit will not be an order of magnitude, but two more than ours - launched on orbit and remain there ... as long as there are resources.


      The enemy deploys and launches satellites in advance. Their trajectories are known, and the interceptor is a more independent object with a difficultly predictable trajectory + camouflage and decoys. Those. destroying interceptors originally designed for war will be more difficult than simple satellites.

      Although, as I said in the article, there will definitely be opposition, but this will be the next step.
    2. 0
      April 28 2022
      Quote from tsvetahaki
      And about intercepting the interceptor ...

      And how can he be intercepted? Only an anti-satellite missile (for example, the same SM-3 or GBI) with a kinetic warhead.

      But if an interceptor can fire at its targets, having a speed difference of several km / s with them, then in the same way it can shoot back from anti-satellite missiles. The main problem here is target designation.
      1. 0
        April 28 2022
        And how can he be intercepted?

        yes, the same anti-satellite with the same ability to maneuver (and it can be heavier - more fuel), with the same missiles and with much better target designation of a potential enemy.
        And they can hang with anti-anti-interceptor missiles in orbit - several hundred, our former (and for some even present) best friends have enough opportunities for withdrawal.
        Yes, and the size of the satellites that were going to shoot down ... Maybe one a week.
        There is nothing real except for means of mass destruction ... Even 20 megatons will not disable everything ...
        Here are 20 tons of fractions on a collision course ... and so ten times .... and the end of space flights ...
  7. -2
    April 28 2022
    Satellites have a speed of about 7 km per second. At the cannon, the projectile speed is 1 km, who was going to shoot down whom. And the satellites are getting smaller and smaller. True, they were going to install a manipulator on Buran to catch satellites .. Both Javelin and Stinger are not difficult to use.
    1. +4
      April 28 2022
      Quote: Free Wind
      Satellites have a speed of about 7 km per second. At the cannon, the projectile speed is 1 km, who was going to shoot down whom. And the satellites are getting smaller and smaller. True, they were going to install a manipulator on Buran to catch satellites .. Both Javelin and Stinger are not difficult to use.


      So the interceptor does not stand still, but moves relative to the satellite at a slightly higher speed, flying past it. What matters is the absolute, not the relative speed.
      1. +7
        April 28 2022
        Quote: AVM
        What matters is the absolute, not the relative speed.

        People don't understand this.
  8. -4
    April 28 2022
    "If there is political will, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will grind the Armed Forces of Ukraine, no matter what weapons the Western countries supply them with." - when? And then 2 months have passed since the beginning of the war.
    1. Political will is used here in the sense of "the determination to use more powerful weapons"
      1. -2
        April 28 2022
        This is a very slippery path, which is completely unclear where it will lead.
  9. -4
    April 28 2022
    Now there really is a REASON for the destruction of satellites and GPS, and I. Mvska.
    We need to seize the moment. Destroy the "grouping" over the former Ukraine. This will be real damage to the Americans, and a demonstration of POSSIBILITY.
    This is a MUST be done.
    1. +3
      April 28 2022
      Quote: Ivanov IV
      We need to seize the moment. Destroy the "grouping" over the former Ukraine.

      Igor Vasilievich! A satellite in LEO is not an airship over the battlefield ... It does not hang over the same place, like a satellite in the GSO, but flies over the territory. And the first is replaced by the second, the third ... Therefore, the "trick with rabbits" will not work here. But to burn out his sensors with a pulse weapon - that will be the case ... And after that, let him fly further than the piece of iron "kuev" (from the word Kuev) ... laughing
    2. 0
      April 29 2022
      So far, reasonable people keep a mask of decency and escalation will bury far-reaching plans. While they interfere with work. And they could have taken it out. We're not the only smart ones here.
  10. -2
    April 28 2022
    Quote: AVM
    Quote: Free Wind
    Satellites have a speed of about 7 km per second. At the cannon, the projectile speed is 1 km, who was going to shoot down whom. And the satellites are getting smaller and smaller. True, they were going to install a manipulator on Buran to catch satellites .. Both Javelin and Stinger are not difficult to use.


    So the interceptor does not stand still, but moves relative to the satellite at a slightly higher speed, flying past it. What matters is the absolute, not the relative speed.

    The United States can simply deploy a laser defense system based on the DE-Star satellite project to intercept the reapers with massive laser fire even at the upper stage
    1. 0
      April 28 2022
      The US can simply deploy a laser defense system based on the DE-Star satellite project


      The United States can simply shoot down everything that is launched from Russia.
      1. 0
        April 28 2022
        Quote: Negro
        The US can simply deploy a laser defense system based on the DE-Star satellite project


        The United States can simply shoot down everything that is launched from Russia.


        What?
        1. +1
          April 28 2022
          Ship SM-3, of course. Even at the launch stage, when the upper stage / upper stage goes over the ocean.
        2. -1
          April 28 2022
          blacks, what else!)
      2. +3
        April 28 2022
        Quote: Negro
        The United States can simply shoot down everything that is launched from Russia.

        "They are tormented to swallow the dust!" (GDP)
        Well, yes, yes ...
        And we will look at all this disgrace so calmly, shake our heads and threaten with our fingers ... - so what do you think?
        1. -2
          April 28 2022
          "They are tormented to swallow the dust!" (GDP)

          The SM-3 is not cheap, but much cheaper than even a medium-weight launch vehicle.
          And we will calmly look at all this disgrace, shake our heads and threaten with a finger


          Calm, restless - that's how you want. What do you propose to do? To fiddle with a nuclear armagedulka again?
          1. +2
            April 28 2022
            Quote: Negro
            What do you propose to do?

            Yes, I somehow already wrote about this, on the other branch of the truth. It is necessary to break the MPRO line, consisting of Berks. Choosing ICBM flight routes in addition to missile defense lines, the R-28 has no such problems, because. fly through the Himalayas...
            But in general, for such tasks there is an integral department in the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. So let them think.
            1. -3
              April 29 2022
              ICBM? That is, again, we are talking exclusively about the armagedulka? Not surprised.
    2. +3
      April 28 2022
      Quote: BlackMokona
      Quote: AVM
      Quote: Free Wind
      Satellites have a speed of about 7 km per second. At the cannon, the projectile speed is 1 km, who was going to shoot down whom. And the satellites are getting smaller and smaller. True, they were going to install a manipulator on Buran to catch satellites .. Both Javelin and Stinger are not difficult to use.


      So the interceptor does not stand still, but moves relative to the satellite at a slightly higher speed, flying past it. What matters is the absolute, not the relative speed.

      The United States can simply deploy a laser defense system based on the DE-Star satellite project to intercept the reapers with massive laser fire even at the upper stage


      There is nothing like it and nothing like it. It is much more difficult to make satellites with LO than on ground, air or surface carriers.
      1. -5
        April 28 2022
        What is more difficult? Everything is in order with the power supply in orbit, they also know how to cool there. But the lack of atmosphere and weather radically simplifies the most difficult part of such weapons. Guidance and detection system.
        1. +6
          April 28 2022
          Quote: BlackMokona
          What is more difficult? Everything is in order with the power supply in orbit, they also know how to cool there. But the lack of atmosphere and weather radically simplifies the most difficult part of such weapons. Guidance and detection system.


          Cooling is difficult - you need huge radiators - try to dissipate 200-500 kilowatts or more in space.

          There is nowhere to get electricity. There are no reactors of the megabander class muzzle yet, and the area of ​​​​solar batteries will be huge.

          Plus huge distances, impossibility of service and many other things. I have an article on this subject. And in general a large series on lasers.
          1. -7
            April 28 2022
            1. Here is our nuclear tug that plans to dissipate a couple of megawatts and climb into the Angara. Do you think the US and Starship will experience problems even if their cooling system is many times worse?
            2. Electricity is just in orbit, just heaps. A large pile of panels and everything plows.
            3. No need to maintain, satellites fly for 15+ years without maintenance.
            4. And most importantly, you don’t need to make large satellites, you can again launch a swarm. It will be possible to simply fry the Reaper with common power, simply overheating it. It will be extremely difficult for him to dump heat into the environment. And putting a bunch of megawatts on each radiator is too expensive.
            1. +1
              April 28 2022
              Quote: BlackMokona
              1. Here is our nuclear tug that plans to dissipate a couple of megawatts and climb into the Angara.


              We will see. It seems that the power has already been cut to 500 kW.

              Quote: BlackMokona
              Do you think the US and Starship will experience problems even if their cooling system is many times worse?


              I don't know if they even have such designs. The presence of some technologies (Starship) does not imply the presence of others (an orbital nuclear reactor). So far, the most powerful they have is the planned Kilopower (only 10 kW).

              Quote: BlackMokona
              2. Electricity is just in orbit, just heaps. A large pile of panels and everything plows.


              And what will be the area of ​​the panels to get at least 200 kW? And 500-1000 kW?

              Quote: BlackMokona
              3. No need to maintain, satellites fly for 15+ years without maintenance.


              Satellites - yes, but lasers of such power? They don't exist at all. There are experimental ground 150 kW, closest to the series. Their range of destruction will be about 10-20 km. How will you shoot down enemy satellites on such a bandura - chase them?

              Quote: BlackMokona
              4. And most importantly, you don’t need to make large satellites, you can again launch a swarm. It will be possible to simply fry the Reaper with common power, simply overheating it. It will be extremely difficult for him to dump heat into the environment. And putting a bunch of megawatts on each radiator is too expensive.


              For this, America will have to sell not only Alaska, but also Texas and California. This is a very expensive and technologically advanced weapon.

              Actually, everything was considered here:
              Laser weapons in space. Features of operation and technical problems
              https://topwar.ru/171444-lazernoe-oruzhie-v-kosmose-osobennosti-jekspluatacii-i-tehnicheskie-problemy.html
              1. -4
                April 28 2022
                1. This is electrical power, thermal power is many times greater.
                2. Absolutely no need for them to start up reactors. Until then, enough panels. We just store it in batteries, because we don’t need continuous fire for days.
                3. More than fits into Starship's huge fairing.
                4. They flew a megawatt on an airplane, and a chemical laser and food needed a penny. They can put the same
                5. Order from Mask, very cheap. He can
  11. +2
    April 28 2022
    As far as I understand, the entire constellation of satellites flies in predetermined orbits and in one direction, launch a reaper with a supply of ordinary water in antiphase and scatter a wide field of water drops in the plane, sooner or later the entire constellation will fly through this ice cloud, I think that through for some time the grouping will thin out significantly
    1. 0
      2 May 2022
      I agree, it is really necessary to fire at such satellites with ice shot. Result: solar panels are broken, optics are broken, antennas are demolished. After working out the task, the ice will evaporate, the orbit is clean, the satellites are not working. Such words would be in the ears of techies.
  12. +1
    April 28 2022
    It's funny how no one asks "What do you say to that @elonmusk"? Although the question "What will an individual who alone is the largest space power in the world do in such a situation?" quite appropriate.

    So far, it looks like if suspicious garbage appears in orbit, Musk will have to launch his own garbage, which will fly a meter from the Russian one. Well, it doesn't look too complicated.
  13. +1
    April 28 2022
    if the diameter of the launcher of one ammunition is about 150 mm, then a package of 100 ammunition in the 10x10 format will be a square with a side of just over 1,5 meters, respectively, a package of 400 ammunition will have a dimension of a little more than 3x3 meters.
    Why do you need 6-inch guns on an interceptor? Plus it's disposable. And this is for the sake of destroying the Starlink satellites (box 20x160x320 cm excluding the solar panel)? The experience of the Almaz station showed that a 23-mm gun would be enough. Projectiles with remote + contact detonation, a rod (or similar) warhead, ammunition from several hundred (or thousands) of shells - and you will be happy. Such an interceptor is small and light, it is possible to launch it on a modified ICBM (SLBM).
    1. +1
      April 28 2022
      Quote: Pushkowed
      if the diameter of the launcher of one ammunition is about 150 mm, then a package of 100 ammunition in the 10x10 format will be a square with a side of just over 1,5 meters, respectively, a package of 400 ammunition will have a dimension of a little more than 3x3 meters.
      Why do you need 6-inch guns on an interceptor? Plus it's disposable. And this is for the sake of destroying the Starlink satellites (box 20x160x320 cm excluding the solar panel)? The experience of the Almaz station showed that a 23-mm gun would be enough. Projectiles with remote + contact detonation, a rod (or similar) warhead, ammunition from several hundred (or thousands) of shells - and you will be happy. Such an interceptor is small and light, it is possible to launch it on a modified ICBM (SLBM).


      Quite possible. I described a certain "average" option.
  14. -4
    April 28 2022
    Quote from rascor
    As far as I understand, the entire constellation of satellites flies in predetermined orbits and in one direction, launch a reaper with a supply of ordinary water in antiphase and scatter a wide field of water drops in the plane, sooner or later the entire constellation will fly through this ice cloud, I think that through for some time the grouping will thin out significantly

    No, there are hundreds of orbits
  15. +3
    April 28 2022
    If suddenly in a conflict that, in principle, does not provide for the use of nuclear weapons, something suddenly happens
    Aircraft will be destroyed at airfields, ships and submarines will die before they leave their bases

    Then no one will unleash complex and expensive "star wars", just nuclear weapons WILL BE APPLIED !!!
  16. +2
    April 28 2022
    Funny.
    Firstly, the starlink is already there, and the "reaper" is not even in the project. And in Concept.

    Concepts any competent student can make a cart.

    And the second.
    The mask has already been recorded as an accomplice of the Nazis.
    It's funny too.

    If it were not so sad for the possibilities of the former USSR.
  17. +1
    April 28 2022
    The tasks of destroying the enemy’s satellite constellation preventively (before the conflict or at its initiated beginning) or after the start of the conflict (in the event of the enemy’s first strike or after some time has passed from the beginning) are different tasks.
    In the event of a preventive strike, we have the opportunity to use most of our information objects for such preparations - the space reconnaissance systems will be intact, the launch pads at the spaceports as well, the orbit itself will be much less polluted with debris (than after the start of the conflict), the organizational apparatus will be have a lot of free time to think over the attack and its nuances.
    In the case of a preventive strike by the enemy, OR, simply after some time has passed from the beginning of the conflict, these advantages will decrease. Part of the space reconnaissance echelon will be put out of action, the infrastructure of the spaceports will suffer unpredictably (at least we will have to use less profitable orbits and more powerful rockets to launch the spacecraft), the office apparatus will be overloaded with time pressure and limited in time by the speed of the change of scenery, finally a a lot of new objects that make it difficult to work, recognition, maneuvering, output, etc.

    That is, there will be a classic dilemma of decreasing opportunities and increasing difficulties over time.

    Since we are talking about a conflict in which we will need to massively shoot down enemy satellites - most likely this is already an unconventional conflict, or a pre-stage of one. The reason, in addition to a significant mat. and defense damage in that there will be early warning systems among the satellites, their destruction will push the opposite side to preventive action, because its ability to timely detect enemy preventive measures will decrease.
    That is, such a conflict can already be considered nuclear in fact - to the greater extent, the greater the number of spacecraft affected. In this case, Musk's or anyone else's reasoning about the conclusion "more than they can bring down" is great optimism!) Because in the context of an unconventional conflict, entire chains of enterprises and infra. facilities will be put out of action, generation will fall and oil supplies will stop. There is reason to believe, in this regard, that mass launches from previously unstocked vehicles and missiles will most likely not have to be expected, at least in significant volumes.
    I mean that the side "under attack" will be able to organize the maximum withdrawal of devices obviously stocked up for "Day X", but it is unlikely that it will be able to carry out all or most of the manufacturing and launch cycle under such conditions (and within a reasonable time frame).
    Since the large-scale withdrawal of satellites implies large missiles and is currently not implemented on conversion carriers (and it is difficult to hide large and non-conversion carriers) - I don’t see any particular danger in large-scale withdrawals during the war (if it will be a war and not a beating).

    As for the satellite hunter, any such device, due to its significant dimensions, will most likely have to be withdrawn BEFORE the conflict. Since the capabilities of a particular device are limited in time, several of them will be needed. This, in turn, will be a rather thick indicator of preparing for a preventive, or at least an action that pushes the enemy towards it. So the more compact the solution itself is, the higher the likelihood that the plan can be implemented both relatively covertly and in a military situation (in the case of NOT a first strike).
    Perhaps the device itself should be limited in time to reduce the cost and reduce the design, the aiming functions should be taken over by the target designation system on the ground, and the device itself should essentially be a "buckshot deliverer" and nothing more.
    In this case, we would have an effective solution that would work as long as our ground echelon of the CD maintains relative functionality.
    1. 0
      April 29 2022
      Rogozin has already said that an attack on space objects would mean war. Apparently there are funds, and not only with us. On the other hand, which side are private traders? Musk is private. It's hard to imagine his feelings when they make a weapon out of him.
  18. 0
    April 28 2022
    Tales about a cheap heavyweight are written by Musk himself, who sold the last five launches contracted by NASA for the ISS for $3 billion. In fact, his new carrier cannot cost less than $1 billion, because. only a bunch of 46 engines for $15-20 million each, half of this figure has already been drawn out. The Boeing product will cost twice as much, but that's what the competition is for. And the best interceptor is our Frigates with Perseus delivering packs of nails in the orbits of StarLink and other things like that.
  19. +1
    April 28 2022
    Excellent article! hi
  20. +1
    April 28 2022
    An attack on satellites is the beginning of a nuclear war.
  21. +4
    April 28 2022
    It was possible to plan to shoot down satellites one at a time in the 60s of the last century. Firstly, there are not even hundreds of them, but thousands. Secondly, the destruction of the first three to five, when it becomes clear that this is not an accident, will cause a retaliatory strike and the start of a war not only in space (this is if the destruction was preventive). In response, the very "reapers" will be destroyed in the first place. Thirdly, the maneuvering satellite is calculated "on time" and itself becomes the number one target even before the start of work.
    In general, the beginning of the destruction of satellites means the automatic start of a war, with a high probability of a nuclear one. Therefore, it seems to me that the task will be to "clean up the orbits" as quickly as possible, which can be done, figuratively speaking, "with a bucket of nuts." It is impossible to eliminate the cloud of damaging elements, unlike the "reapers", and the evasion capabilities of the satellites are very limited, if any. Yes, in this case, everyone will be demolished, both the right and the guilty, but with the superiority of the enemy in the satellite constellation by orders of magnitude, the damage to them will be proportionally higher. Moreover, it is not necessary to count that we will shoot down, but they will not shoot us down.
    Well, it makes sense to use individual hunters to ensure the destruction of the most important and dangerous satellites. Similarly, as now they use MLRS and tactical missiles on the ground.
  22. +1
    April 28 2022
    The creation of zones of increased radiation will disable all these small things that do not have protection from increased radiation, since they are in low orbit (under the protection of the Earth's magic belt), which is why when they get into the radioactive "cloud" the electronics wakes up "burned out". Moreover, the "cloud" is stationary, and the satellites themselves pass through it.
    1. 0
      April 28 2022
      Quote: Strannik_GO
      The creation of zones of increased radiation will disable all these small things that do not have protection from increased radiation, since they are in low orbit (under the protection of the Earth's magic belt), which is why when they get into the radioactive "cloud" the electronics wakes up "burned out". Moreover, the "cloud" is stationary, and the satellites themselves pass through it.

      What will be the dimensions of this obraco?
      1. 0
        April 28 2022
        Along the trajectory of satellites + - apogee - perigee
    2. 0
      4 May 2022
      PS Stopped power units of nuclear power plants have graphite protection ..., during the operation of the nuclear power plant, graphite has acquired radioactive properties.
  23. +1
    April 28 2022
    Many words Russia can, must, in the long run. We are well aware that none of this will be created under the current government. How many years did Elon Musk create reusable rockets, how many years did he go to this? Here it is. First you need to learn how to make roads, then cars to these roads, then civil aircraft, and then you can go into space. As the saying goes, start small. Corruption has pierced everything, all spheres
  24. 0
    April 28 2022
    Elon Musk did not know that he was an accomplice of Nazism. From this point of view, all mobile operators that have ever been used by terrorists are accomplices of terrorism. As well as manufacturers of cell phones. The funny thing is that no one bothers the RF Armed Forces to use starlink in the same way. Though wait a...
  25. +2
    April 28 2022
    Let's build a death star right away and close all questions. When I read the title, I thought it was really about something existing or at least developed, but here it’s just fantasy.
    1. 0
      April 29 2022
      Not so long ago, an open project of a nuclear-pumped gamma-ray laser for planetary defense against asteroids was published. In the days of SDI, nuclear-pumped lasers were also developed, disposable, rather simple.
  26. kig
    +2
    April 28 2022
    And the Reaper, therefore, no one will touch ... and they will watch how he cuts Starlink's hair
    1. +1
      April 28 2022
      Yes exactly. And open-mouthed, sir))
      1. kig
        0
        April 28 2022
        Quote: Bogatyrev
        Yes exactly

        Well then, go ahead, sir! That is up. The key to start and start, in general.
  27. +2
    April 28 2022
    Space interceptor?
    If you have to destroy a group of thousands of enemy microsatellites, then no interceptor will be able to cope with this task. To implement such a technology, it will be necessary to build a heavy and expensive not even a satellite, but a ship with the ability to maneuver, having on board a system of thrusters with a significant supply of fuel and a large ammunition load. At the same time, the enemy will not calmly watch how the Reaper destroys his satellites. The enemy, in turn, will try to destroy this interceptor, and it will be much easier to do this than a large grouping of targets of this interceptor. That is, we will get another race of technologies such as projectile / armor.

    In order to guarantee the elimination of danger from outer space, it will be necessary to litter the near-Earth space with artificial debris - small shrapnel, launched into all low orbits in sufficient quantities. Already today, natural space debris poses a real danger to various satellites. And what will happen when it is artificially sprayed into space? And what will happen is that space will become unavailable for some time. Yes, it will become inaccessible to everyone, including us. But the Americans will suffer the most, since they currently dominate space. And our garbage levels everyone. And everyone will have to descend to Earth, where no one will have cosmic dominance. I think that for us it will be a good option.
    1. -7
      April 28 2022
      "Our garbage levels everyone"
      Ahh, this is genius!!
      Let's all bomb each other in the stone age! There we will definitely have the biggest favorites, and the most stones! Cool!
      But the most developed culture ... this cannot be taken away .. yes yes ...
  28. +1
    April 28 2022
    And how to get GPS satellites from their orbit?
  29. -8
    April 28 2022
    The logic is simply wonderful: "we cannot do it ourselves, it means destroying what you have"
    Brilliant.
    Instead of gaining superiority in science, technology, education, medicine, social amenities, economics - "we will slaughter him by force of arms!"
    And then wonder: "why is it that they consider us an aggressor? We just want not to build, to destroy, but is this really a reason ?!"
    But it is comforting that all these projects will remain only in wet fantasies, just for the reasons indicated by the dreamers themselves: "we are here to break!"
    1. +1
      April 28 2022
      Quote: Daddy Pig
      "We're here to break!"

      I noticed this: there are two of you in the avatar - daddy Pig and son Piglet! Does that mean you are scammers!? belay
      Oh well... lol
      1. -2
        April 29 2022
        Avatar diagnosis?
        Yes, you, uncle, are funny
  30. +1
    April 28 2022
    If we cannot compete with America in space, we just need to close it, including for everyone, well, for 50 years
    1. 0
      April 28 2022
      The idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbdestroying many thousands of small cheap satellites with the help of hundreds of "reapers" or whatever they are, is in principle unrealizable either today or tomorrow, small tracking satellites can be made even smaller and even cheaper and using low visibility technology, and therefore we must leave these fantasies to children, and to take care of our small and cheap companions ourselves.
    2. -2
      April 29 2022
      We cannot do the same in the economy, and in technology.
      Everything must be closed!
      Better forever!
      For sure!
  31. 0
    April 28 2022
    "It would all be funny if it weren't so sad..."
    For at least a decade we have been talking about the catastrophic lag behind the United States in space, although they once caught up with us. Plus, a catastrophe in microelectronics, machine tool building, there are also engines, equipment, etc., you can list a lot. A journalist, a candidate of philosophical sciences, was appointed to lead the Russian space, and so on, so on, so on ...
    The result - here it is, in Ukraine.
    "The trouble is, since the pies will start the cobbler oven,
    And boots stitch pastry:
    And it will not work well,
    Yes, and a hundredfold
    What who loves to take someone else’s craft,
    He forever others stubborn and foolish;
    He’s better to ruin everything
    And glad to soon be the laughing stock of becoming light,
    Than honest and knowledgeable people
    Ask il to listen to reasonable advice. "
    This is not only about Ragozin, who recently went to the moon with Putin. They should have flown away sooner...
  32. 0
    April 28 2022
    The cluster can be screened with dipole reflectors or a cloud of aluminum powder. The anti-satellite can be a strong case for a light but sufficient strike on the satellite to disable it.
  33. 0
    April 29 2022
    The name of the orbital interceptor from the article immediately reminded me of a series of books by S. Lukyanenko (or "Lord from Planet Earth", or "Dream Line" - I don't remember exactly), where the "Reaper" is an orbital suppression ship. Which is Shvets, and the reaper, etc. - suppressed activity both in orbit and on the planet. Isn't that where the name for the orbital interceptor project comes from?
  34. 0
    April 29 2022
    Quote: Author
    "Reaper" will clear the orbit...

    Good thing.
    But it doesn’t hurt to clean up the place of satellite launches so that old Musk doesn’t take a steam bath in vain with the launch of satellites.laughing
  35. AB
    -1
    April 29 2022
    Funny. The author needs to publish on AuthorToday, in the Fantasy section. And then he thinks that Rogozin just took it and listened to his opinion. There is an abyss between want and need, and infinity between what is necessary and done. No, of course, if the Russians once again tighten their belts and lower their already not high standard of living, then everything, absolutely everything, can be done. But the price ... Of course now they will start shouting - We will not stand up for the price !!! This slogan will be said while sitting in warmth and comfort, having eaten tightly, at the computer. Absolutely not thinking about the fact that in addition to the military special operation, Russia has the task of restoring not only the LDNR, but also Ukraine.
  36. +1
    April 29 2022
    author .. interesting person))) he offers .. how to bite a dog stick .. and not the person who controls it)! it can be an order of magnitude easier .. it will destroy that place .. from where everyone controls it ... then a bunch of garbage is not in orbit .. just rubbish! and no more!
  37. 0
    April 29 2022
    Or maybe better, a shuttle with a manipulator flew by, collected scrap metal in a basket and sat down, and so on in a circle soldier
  38. +1
    April 29 2022
    In my opinion, the author was very clever with striking elements ... For low-orbit groupings, you can simply launch a fighter satellite in a head-on direction and spray something a little larger than aluminum dust in the orbits of enemy satellites. A collision with this dust at a speed of 15 km / s will disable any satellite. Any defense that is reasonable in terms of weight will be neutralized by a slight increase in the size of the damaging elements, and besides, it will nullify the main advantage - the cheapness of the launch. In this case, you should not worry about space clogging. this dust will burn up in the atmosphere in a few years.

    By the way, for this it is not necessary to wait for the start of the war - you can simply "dust" a little in the right places in the working order, so that the satellites suddenly begin to "break". Nothing can be proved in this case, but the goal will be achieved - reducing the grouping and increasing the cost of its maintenance. And in order not to give the enemy a reason at all, you can spray not aluminum, but, for example, lunar dust and let them make claims to lunatics))
    1. +1
      April 29 2022
      Locators in orbit track objects the size of a tennis ball. Constantly. And who screwed up, you can immediately see
      1. Egg
        0
        1 May 2022
        Quote: surok1
        Locators in orbit track objects the size of a tennis ball. Constantly. And who screwed up, you can immediately see

        well, you can see and see, the satellite exploded when it was launched into a given orbit ... you never know accidents happen in space, but the fact that there are a million fragments and a small cart and everything in the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe orbits of enemy satellites ... well, we apologize, pile-major , purely by chance hi
        1. 0
          1 May 2022
          I approve. good Purely pressed sand and explosives.
  39. 0
    April 29 2022
    1. The density (per sq. km) of satellites is not as big as the coverage (in terms of communication, quality, etc.)
    2. It is enough to knock down (damage) a few pieces and the domino effect will begin, 70-80 percent will eliminate itself in a short period of time.
    3. Well, how long can you believe and talk about free and high-quality Internet that doesn’t exist?!
  40. 0
    April 29 2022
    Quote: BlackMokona
    1. This is electrical power, thermal power is many times greater.

    In the first lines, illiteracy. Batteries are good. But space batteries have different characteristics. And, honestly, I don’t understand why Musk is so different from Rogozin? Genius type? No, there's a lot of money. Till.
  41. 0
    April 29 2022
    Paradoxically, in the case of a major conflict, the least expensive solution is the most correct one. To offset the advantage in space, a bucket of nuts and just one rocket launch is enough.
  42. 0
    April 29 2022
    The Reaper can destroy many satellites. However, its price is still one rocket. What is the subject in general
  43. 0
    April 29 2022
    Prove it, at least shoot down these American ki their goods. You paint beautifully how to launch rockets, but prove it. The Americans are already destroying your weapons, just prove it, otherwise you cannot be trusted. Finish it and step on their neck, kick their ass. It's time to show modern protection and strength. am
  44. -1
    April 29 2022
    hmm, "logic". From the past, there were shuttles, they have already merged, the task is to "dive" into the atmosphere, bomb nuclear weapons and back, above 100 km. This "reusability" is MAIN - THE REST OF FANTASIES. The article is somehow poorly filled with logic. The essence is clear, the essence of the problem is that a "falcon" takes off and pops up 2-3-4 hundreds of microsatellites, and the author suggests they are chasing them. Stupidity of course. Shooting down a carrier ... no matter how ridiculous it is - at 101 km in height - the solution to the disposal of any number of satellites. It is necessary. Orbital fortress. Fantasy huh? and not alone. With shuttles. The takeoff is fixed, the shuttle breaks down, "dives" - wets and either sits on the planet or back. And to compete with Musk (by the way, he is a good guy) in catching his "flies" is stupid
  45. +1
    April 29 2022
    You have to be realistic and face the truth. pissed off the mask in space? ... pissed off. there is no engineering solution for the simultaneous destruction of thousands of microsatellites. and we haven’t got our own Russian Elon Mask yet. Rogozin? this is an "effective" manager, PR man ... Russia does not have a genius comparable in power to the queen .... or with the same mask capable of pulling the heaviest load of the latest comic developments. only average performers remained, solving local problems in space .... out, curtain.
    we must come to terms with the fact that we are under the spy magnifying glass of a hostile Western civilization ... in the nude.
  46. 0
    April 30 2022
    Close one eye and roll your lip...
    The Russian army has already made a Javelin ...
  47. 0
    1 May 2022
    .

    "... In addition, the military department announced the appearance at the parade of the latest MiG-31I aircraft (Ishim product), which is designed to launch light-class launch vehicles with spacecraft weighing 120-160 kg. The take-off weight of the aircraft along with the rocket - the carrier is 50 tons, the flight range to the launch point is about 600 km, the height of the launch point is from 15 to 18 km, the speed at the launch point reaches 2120-2230 km / h ... "- that's the anti-satellite mask's surprise, 120 -160kg of small ball bearings will destroy all Musk satellites, and C500 rockets can also be fired into space
    1. -1
      2 May 2022
      Everything is cool, but the "Reaper" MQ-9 is and is already operating. In the event that the United States transfers it to Ukraine, it will carry one and a half tons even to the Urals.
      And what kind of "cleansing the orbit" can there be if attacks on Kyiv are blocked at the political level?
      Utopia.......
  48. 0
    4 May 2022
    Excellent article
    In the sense that so much nonsense is concentrated in it that I am even delighted - I will never be able to do that :)
    It is especially interesting to ask the author - what does it mean "the presence of a highly effective reconnaissance satellite constellation of reconnaissance, communications and control by the enemy will allow him to destroy Russian troops without entering into direct combat contact" ???
    HOW? By themselves, reconnaissance and even target designation means are useless without means of destruction, and means of destruction should HIT targets, and not hit somewhere ...
    But the topic is interesting - the author actually proposes to get involved in the escalation of the withdrawal of weapons into space, I don’t even want to discuss that this is prohibited by international law. The key word is "escalation". What exactly for the author will be a "victory" in such a rivalry in space - a Pyrrhic victory? Cluttering all stable orbits with micro-garbage for several decades?
    I cannot understand WHY to consider those methods of countering satellite reconnaissance that are guaranteed to be suicidal and, most importantly, do not lead to defeating the enemy? Depriving the enemy of reconnaissance and target designation DOES NOT lead to disarmament. And if you kill the entire orbital grouping of the enemy, then this is SIMULTANEOUSLY the destruction of all your space reconnaissance equipment, right? So what? After all, this does not give an advantage - it simply turns the quantitative advantage of the enemy in the means of attack into a qualitative advantage.
    So it is necessary to discuss either means of protection, or means of disabling weapons, or methods of defeating command posts. The author repeats the most cowardly "theorists" who are carried away by theories about electronic warfare and communication disruption that lead to "victory". Like the deaf cannot cut with a sword, and the blind cannot press the "Start" button. :)
    I don’t even know what to advise the author? Maybe take up game theory? Or just choose a simpler topic for "research"?
  49. 0
    5 May 2022
    Well, go ahead! We will get the Nazis in space.
  50. 0
    5 May 2022
    Why knock it down? Collect, reflash and put at your service. This item is very valuable.
  51. 0
    6 May 2022
    We need to shoot it down already. Every day, hour, minute of delay costs us too much
  52. 0
    7 May 2022
    That is, on the satellite train the enemy will have a “locomotive” armed with a cannon to meet and neutralize the “Reaper”. Fortunately, the Americans are well aware of the features of transatmospheric interception - they have been working on similar interceptors for a long time.
  53. The comment was deleted.
  54. 0
    July 15 2022
    Quote: qqqq
    I also think that there is nothing sensible besides a ground-based laser.

    With approximately the same energy consumption, and when using the properties of superconductivity, space conditions allow this, weapons based on the principles of electromagnetic, pulsed, radio-electronic, etc. are effective. Plus, it is not necessary to physically destroy the satellite, it is enough to irreversibly destroy optoelectronic, transceiver, radio engineering, etc. . equipment. Only one thing, for this the country must have normal and up-to-date education, a scientific and engineering school and a national Academy of Sciences. The whole process, and the country itself, should be managed not by “effective managers”, persons appointed on the basis of nepotism, personal loyalty, “decent people” and friends of the “emperor”, but by highly qualified professionals in their field, selflessly devoted to their country and people, who are not They consider serving the Motherland and receiving high positions as a personal business project; life is good.
  55. 0
    July 15 2022
    Quote: Dedok
    simply write: Roscosmos is “not up to the mark”, and Rogozin is not a match for Musk.

    To make everything clear and why it is this way and not otherwise, including the so-called. our personnel policy simply compare education, skills and areas of activity, of course, the presence of talent and abilities. Musk. He studied briefly at the University of Pretoria, and at the age of 17 he moved to Canada. He attended Queen's University in Kingston and two years later transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where he received a bachelor's degree in economics and physics. In 1995, he moved to California to study at Stanford University and co-founded Zip2, a company that developed software for the Internet and the like, with his brother Kimbal. and so on .
    Rogozin. Graduate of the international department of the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University. In 1988, he graduated with honors from the Faculty of Economics of the University of Marxism-Leninism at the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU. Go to the section “#Education” In 1996, at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, he defended his dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Philosophy on the topic “The Russian question and its influence on national and international security." What else could you expect? The rhetorical question does not require an answer.
    1. 0
      December 25 2022
      I think we need to remember the “red creature” with its onananoists and “defective owners” - Rogozin is far from the worst product of that THE vilest system! bully
  56. 0
    July 19 2022
    A fairly realistic method is described. We must try to implement it without delay, since the destruction of the NATO space group is a real opportunity to bring these “partners” to the table of constructive negotiations on a safe existence on the planet. It seems to me that “Peresvet” can not be launched into orbit, but raised on an airship into the stratosphere (well, at least 25 km) and from this height in a zone of rarefied atmosphere work with the satellite constellation of the “adversary”. By the way, such an airship can also be a drone with an emergency detonation system in case it falls into the clutches of a potential enemy
  57. 0
    July 21 2022
    There was such a program in the USSR
    Aerospace system "Spiral"
  58. 0
    July 21 2022
    What is the purpose of this article? Show us how smart the author is, how much Russia has remained or what. Your country doesn't need people like that - we call them idle-thinkers. Here he will get money from this article. That's all. Let him go to work on something useful for Russia.
  59. 0
    October 19 2022
    Remembering the movie "Gravity", in which there is a scene where the Russians (of course) destroy their rocket in orbit and its fragments pierce everything in its path along the orbit, why not use this principle of destroying satellites? Or is it all fairy tales?
    1. 0
      December 25 2022
      About the “container of nails” in orbit in response to SDI - that was NOT a joke! bully
  60. 0
    December 25 2022
    There are several thoughts on StarLink and the Network in general:
    1) There is no need to create illusions that reconnaissance is not being carried out with the help of StarLink! Ukrainians have long demanded that their “fleachers” and “our” Yudoliberists transmit information on the Internet as much and as often as possible about Russian equipment and VIPs - their locations and routes! Rogozin is proof of this, and the announced plans of the VVP entourage to visit the DPR generally caused bewilderment, I think a full salvo of all Khaimars will be ensured! And vice versa - there is a call for Ukrainians to “shine” their data less!
    2) Sniper(!!!) MLRS Khaimars with a declared circular dispersion of 10+ meters from the target at a maximum range of either 120 or 250+ km, or with a prepared “surprise” like our Kalibs, with the ability to target GPS beacons planted in the equipment “on the march” - without GPS and Network guidance, it catastrophically loses its effectiveness!!! And they are ready to hand over dozens of such complexes to the Ukrainians, and prepared missiles, at a cost of 1 million dollars apiece, are worth 100 - and they are NOT being saved!!! o_o
    3) And if you remember the Israeli development “Pegasus” - silent hacking, wiretapping and tracking of almost any smartphone? But the Jews are covered in blood in Ukraine up to their sidelocks, and if our soldier said something and didn’t give up his smart phone, then all he has to do is call on the “free” Internet from the territory of the Northern Military District and that’s it - he carries his death next to him... o_O

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"