|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space War
"Abrigon Gusiq" wrote in message
... I know a bit like science fiction, but what is the plans and doctrine with dealing with space related warfare? Especially now that China (PRC) is working on a consistant manned presense in space, with a possible space station in the next 5-10 years. As well as the possible access to space by more than the current access. Namely instead of just Soyuz/Shuttle, but a possible X-prize winner or like? Examples being: What if someone attacked and took over the International Space Station? Or someone found ways to get to the asteroid belt and start throwing rocks? Or just that an asteroid was in route to hit earth? How would we deal with it, other than to take it in the chin? Here is what the French and the Germans claim to be doing. http://www.launchers.eads.net/ballis...tree=84&tree_n ame=EADS_ST_WEB_PAGES&langue=en Andrew Swallow |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space War
"Abrigon Gusiq" wrote in message ... I know a bit like science fiction, but what is the plans and doctrine with dealing with space related warfare? Especially now that China (PRC) is working on a consistant manned presense in space, with a possible space station in the next 5-10 years. Having seen the US station FUBAR Spacehole One I doubt they'll want to copy that mistake. They'll go straight for a moonbase. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millennium http://www.theconsensus.org |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space War
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in message ...
"Abrigon Gusiq" wrote in message ... I know a bit like science fiction, but what is the plans and doctrine with dealing with space related warfare? Especially now that China (PRC) is working on a consistant manned presense in space, with a possible space station in the next 5-10 years. Having seen the US station FUBAR Spacehole One I doubt they'll want to copy that mistake. They'll go straight for a moonbase. Why? They should be able to demonstrate a large space station at a fraction of the cost of ISS. Sounds like a cheaper political victory than going to the Moon. They have to avoid the cost plus structure of NASA bidding, the multilateral approach, and the constant redesigning of the space station. If they can do that, then they should be able to embarrass NASA quite handily. Karl Hallowell |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space War
Abrigon Gusiq wrote in message ...
I know a bit like science fiction, but what is the plans and doctrine with dealing with space related warfare? The Soviet/Russian have a lots of extensive research and design on space warfare, or at least orbital warfare. It also should be noted that the current Space Shuttle is probability also was designed to be a carrier of nuclear missiles. Especially now that China (PRC) is working on a consistant manned presense in space, with a possible space station in the next 5-10 years. As well as the possible access to space by more than the current access. Namely instead of just Soyuz/Shuttle, but a possible X-prize winner or like? Examples being: What if someone attacked and took over the International Space Station? Actually, the question someone would ask is... who wanted to attack and took over a piece of junk? It's cheaper and easier to blew it up to pieces. Or someone found ways to get to the asteroid belt and start throwing rocks? Well... I guess that an asteroid will have to do, since so far there are no known large human colonies in space to bombard them to earth. Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space War
EAC wrote:
It also should be noted that the current Space Shuttle is probability also was designed to be a carrier of nuclear missiles. In the same sense that any cargo-carrying vehicle of sufficient size can carry nuclear missiles. If your insinuation was that this was a mission of the space shuttle, then you are completely mistaken, and I would like to know where you acquired this bizarre idea. Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space War
"Karl Hallowell" wrote in message om... "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in message ... "Abrigon Gusiq" wrote in message ... I know a bit like science fiction, but what is the plans and doctrine with dealing with space related warfare? Especially now that China (PRC) is working on a consistant manned presense in space, with a possible space station in the next 5-10 years. Having seen the US station FUBAR Spacehole One I doubt they'll want to copy that mistake. They'll go straight for a moonbase. Why? They should be able to demonstrate a large space station at a fraction of the cost of ISS. Sounds like a cheaper political victory than going to the Moon. They have to avoid the cost plus structure of NASA bidding, the multilateral approach, and the constant redesigning of the space station. If they can do that, then they should be able to embarrass NASA quite handily. Not as embarassing as going back to the moon before the US. Most of the cost of a moonbase is getting off Earth, so it should not be significantly more expensive than a space station if its done right. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millennium http://www.theconsensus.org |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space War
Karl Hallowell wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in message ... "Abrigon Gusiq" wrote in message ... I know a bit like science fiction, but what is the plans and doctrine with dealing with space related warfare? Especially now that China (PRC) is working on a consistant manned presense in space, with a possible space station in the next 5-10 years. Having seen the US station FUBAR Spacehole One I doubt they'll want to copy that mistake. They'll go straight for a moonbase. Why? They should be able to demonstrate a large space station at a fraction of the cost of ISS. Sounds like a cheaper political victory than going to the Moon. They have to avoid the cost plus structure of NASA bidding, the multilateral approach, and the constant redesigning of the space station. If they can do that, then they should be able to embarrass NASA quite handily. That really does not match their overall strategy though. They have been slow and methodical. If they go for a space station, it would far more likely be a one or two element station launched off their heaviest launch vehicle. Probably a single launch. At this stage, they are far more likely aiming at slowly building up core skills and tech. If they went into a full up competition, they would be taking an unnecessary risk and investment. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space War
One to consider that a common tactical axiom is that whomever has the high
ground, has the advantage. And it doesn't get any higher than space. Moonbases, L5 stations, orbital missile platforms...it's a lot to take in. You put a mass-driver on the moon, calculate the ballistics and wham! You get missiles in orbit, wait for the right moment, launch and bam! You build a gigantic magnifying glass in orbit, aim it just right and sizzle! Seriously, the point here is that the US has to re-establish a significant orbital and lunar presence. If somebody else starts building little pink houses up there, we're screwed. Our administration is looking at NASA as a soak-off, while the European Union and the ESA is about to commercialize it. Remember, the Imperials in Star Wars were British, not American.... "Abrigon Gusiq" wrote in message ... I know a bit like science fiction, but what is the plans and doctrine with dealing with space related warfare? Especially now that China (PRC) is working on a consistant manned presense in space, with a possible space station in the next 5-10 years. As well as the possible access to space by more than the current access. Namely instead of just Soyuz/Shuttle, but a possible X-prize winner or like? Examples being: What if someone attacked and took over the International Space Station? Or someone found ways to get to the asteroid belt and start throwing rocks? Or just that an asteroid was in route to hit earth? How would we deal with it, other than to take it in the chin? Mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space War
"Master and Owner, Beryl J. Turner III" wrote in
message om... [snip] Remember, the Imperials in Star Wars were British, not American.... There is a good reason why Hollywood casts British actors as the villain. To successful pay a bad guy you have to be able to ACT. Since in real life any one that evil would be in jail. Also the actor needs the moral fibre to handle being hissed and hated. A lot of "actors" just want to be loved. Andrew Swallow |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space War
In article ,
Master and Owner, Beryl J. Turner III wrote: One to consider that a common tactical axiom is that whomever has the high ground, has the advantage... Yes and no and kind of. Consider that there has been little interest in military occupation of Mount Everest. You put a mass-driver on the moon, calculate the ballistics and wham! Calculate the energetics instead of the ballistics. Lunar catapults (they are generally not mass drivers -- that's a specific type of catapult) are massively overrated as weapons. I'm sorry to shatter illusions, but Heinlein blew this one badly. Their power supplies have to be too big and the waste heat would be too hard to hide. You get missiles in orbit, wait for the right moment, launch and bam! The "bam" is the sound of your missiles being hit by ground-launched antisatellite weapons. Orbit is a *lousy* place to put missiles, unless you can armor them very heavily. They're too easy to spot and too hard to protect. Silos dug into hard rock are a far superior location. You build a gigantic magnifying glass in orbit, aim it just right and sizzle! Try computing just how large such a "magnifying glass" (in practice you'd use mirrors) has to be, bearing in mind that the Sun is not a point source and hence there is a limit to how tightly you can focus sunlight over long distances. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |