![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I vaguely remember that some US survelliance sats have the ability to
maneuver. Is this sufficient to dodge a hit to kill asat? Considering that a satellite is probably the same temp as the background, a tracking device on an asat wouldn't be IR but would be radar. How easy is it to radically reduce the radar cross section of future sats considering the need for the antennae etc. A radar decoy should be easy to put on sats that could be deployed when it was attacked and then reeled back in for further use. If we want to protect existing expensive sats, perhaps the use of small cheaper sats that will be flown to nearby an existing sat that could deploy a radar reflector when needed would help. Is Oberg's discussion of the inverse power law for radar really a limitation for an attack on high flying sats? Wouldn't the initial target acquisition be done by high power ground based radar and then final guidance switched over to the kill veh when it gets within range? Low inclination sats approach China and Taiwan from the west, does this mean that ship mounted anti-missile systems would be useless for defending these sats from an attack? An active sat defense wouldn't suffer from the fourth power radar problem since it would only need to detect the asat on board radar so it could respond before the asat got a last fix. Any thoughts on such active defense? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
In Defense of Einstein 1 | Double-A | Misc | 0 | January 9th 07 09:12 AM |
What if space instead of defense? | Danny Dot | Space Shuttle | 59 | October 9th 06 06:04 PM |
What if space instead of defense? | Danny Dot | History | 51 | October 9th 06 05:57 PM |
In My Own Defense and That of My Book | LoudObnoxiousThemeShirts | Space Shuttle | 0 | January 20th 05 05:42 PM |
In defense of Astronomy Magazine | Dawn Baird-Chleborad | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | November 16th 04 08:55 AM |