Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military United States News

Pentagon Wants To Test a Space-Based Weapon In 2023 (defenseone.com) 143

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
pgmrdlm writes: Defense officials want to test a neutral particle-beam in orbit in fiscal 2023 as part of a ramped-up effort to explore various types of space-based weaponry. They've asked for $304 million in the 2020 budget to develop such beams, more powerful lasers, and other new tech for next-generation missile defense. Such weapons are needed, they say, to counter new missiles from China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. But just figuring out what might work is a difficult technical challenge.

So the Pentagon is undertaking two studies. The first is a $15 million exploration of whether satellites outfitted with lasers might be able to disable enemy missiles coming off the launch pad. Defense officials have said previously that these lasers would need to be in the megawatt class. They expect to finish the study within six months. They're also pouring money into a study of space-based neutral particle beams, a different form of directed energy that disrupts missiles with streams of subatomic particles traveling close to light speed -- as opposed to lasers, whose photons travel at light speed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pentagon Wants To Test a Space-Based Weapon In 2023 More

Pentagon Wants To Test a Space-Based Weapon In 2023

Comments Filter:

  • Spiral of escalation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @02:12AM (#58296594)

    We use China's satellites as justification to build space weapons. Then China uses our space weapons to justify space weapons of their own. The we use that to justify bigger and better weapons, On and on. The only winner is the MIC [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

      Not sure why this is modded as troll. Even presidents have been warning about the military industrial complex for ages. It's not even a partisan thing. Dislike of the MIC is something you see on both sides of the political spectrum.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's nothing to do with "the military industrial complex". It's political and strategic. US military doctrine is "full spectrum dominance". That doctrine is incompatible with Russia and China (for example) launching their own military satellites with anti-satellite capabilities, or ground-based missile offence for taking out US satellites. You can't have it both ways. Either you want to be protected from bad people or you do not. If you do, your policy has to be to dominate them across all capabilitie

        • Well the US is already bending to Russia's will, so...

          If the US wants to be dominant in space-based weapons they should be very, very secretive about them. The fact that any are even being considered should be top secret - the secrecy that surrounded the Misty stealth spy satellite is a good starting point for the kind of secrecy that should surround a space weapon. The only thing that could do a better job of spurring on a space-based arms race (and thus reducing the US' potential dominance) than letting p

          • We can't be secretive about them any more.

            We are forming an official Space Force.

            Kinda implied we'll have some... well,.. *space* *force*.

            • Announcing the creation of the Space Force was also a terrible idea for the same reasons, but it doesn't necessarily have to be compounded by announcing individual space weapons. The air force is public knowledge, but various aircraft and the technologies behind them have been kept secret.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Thats why the West let the Soviet Union go full satellite. So no nation can say they have any control over what is in orbit above them at any time.
      Decades later the US is going full particle-beam. Who can say no? The precedent for a free for all in space was set long ago.

    • Yes... that is how an arms race works.... it is an integral component to humanity since day one.... not sure what your point is....

    • You're not wrong. It's a trap. But it's one of those traps you know going in is a trap, but you go anyway. 'The only way to win is to not play' only works if everyone quits the game at the same time. 'Hearts and minds'.

  • It's Star Wars all over again (Score:4, Insightful)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @02:18AM (#58296608) Homepage

    And it will be about as successful at its primary objective. Though as a secondary objective the Star Wars undid the USSR, which was a huge benefit to the world.

    • 1: SDI's primary objective was always to get the USSR to waste money. Nobody in the know actually believed it was feasible in the 1980's. Both sides greatly overestimated eachother's technical capabilities to the point where even vague reports of new weapons could get the top military leaders buzzing all at once. They did it to us with the MiG-25 unintentionally. It was meant to be just an interceptor but when we saw it everyone lost their minds and thought it was an F-15 killer. SDI was a targeted social e

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Back then space was still seen as the ultimate high ground. Now things have changed due to the availability of surface to space anti-satellite missiles and hypersonic missiles.

      Hypersonic missiles in particular make space much less militarily important, because ICBMs going up and over are no longer the only reliable way to deliver nuclear warheads. In fact they aren't even the best way any more, as a hypersonic nuke is harder to detect, gives less warning (if any) and is harder to shoot down.

      And Russia alrea

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Hypersonic missiles aren't that different from ballistic ones. The long range ones still have to fly very high. Space-based weapons would be as useful for shooting them down as they are for ballistic missiles.

        But if you've got a laser in space that can shoot a missile coming off the launch pad, think what else you could do with it. People think drones are terror from the skies....

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Flying even a kilometer or two above ground is very different to flying into the upper reaches of the atmosphere. The space based defence systems rely on shooting down ICBMs as they are on the way up, and there is a fairly narrow window where the atmosphere is thin enough and the missile is travelling on a trajectory that can be tracked and hit with a laser or another missile. Hypersonic missiles don't have that vulnerability.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            Long range hypersonic missiles don't fly a kilometre or two above the ground. The amount of fuel required to do so would be insane, not to mention the heat management problems. Hypersonic glide missiles are basically ICBMs (or MIRVs that detach from ICBMS) except that they have aerodynamic surfaces for maneuvering in terminal approach in the atmosphere. Medium range hypersonic cruise missiles are designed to fly up high, then dive down for final approach. The Russian Kh-32 probably has a range of ~1000 km a

    • You also are not completely wrong. The likelihood of success is not so great, but technology overall has improved since the 80's and they might at least get closer than they did with Star Wars 1.0.

  • And then what ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CptJeanLuc ( 1889586 ) on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @02:39AM (#58296634)

    And then what? If you put weapon platforms in space, what is the next step? Well, for the other side to develop means to disable those armed satellites, of course! And what happens if you start exploding satellites in space? Kessler syndrome and losing our ability to get into space entirely.

    I cannot see why the US wants to lead a race to the bottom. Respond to aggressive measures by other nations in this field, yes. But to be the one to actually start this craziness? So stupid.

    • If you act like a paper tiger, you get attacked... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DanDD ( 1857066 ) on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @03:42AM (#58296742)

      Lead a race to the bottom.... might want to check your facts:

      Polyus space-based megawatt laser anti-missile weapon system launched by Russia in 1987 [wikipedia.org].

      Ironically, much of the engineering that went into this Russian weapon system is now an integral part of the International Space Station [wikipedia.org].

      It's not a race to the bottom until someone pulls the trigger.

      • Checking facts, like how we are a party to a UN treaty prohibiting this?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        No, that's an undesirable fact-- gotta IGNORE that part!

        • How stupid do you have to be in order to link to a wikipedia article which says the exact opposite of the claim you're making?

          • And the parts about not installing bases of operation for military purposes, and all that shit, is what, chopped liver? the intent of the treaty is very fucking clear, and the "Not a weapon of mass destruction! *raspberry*" loophole you seem so enamored by, is exactly why there was a followup resolution in 2005, which the US of course, vetoed.

            You are welcome to check that out. It outright forbid *all* space based weapons.

            https://www.nti.org/learn/trea... [nti.org]

            and we even attempted to pass legislation on this---

            • And the parts about not installing bases of operation for military purposes, and all that shit, is what, chopped liver?

              No, stupid, it applies to "celestial bodies", as in the moon, other planets, or asteroids. It says nothing about space stations or other artificial satellites.

              the intent of the treaty is very fucking clear

              To everyone except you, it seems.

              exactly why there was a followup resolution in 2005, which the US of course, vetoed.

              If it was vetoed then it is not in force which, again, directly contradicts your earlier statement that "we are a party to a UN treaty prohibiting this". Congrats, all of your sources agree that you're wrong. Brilliant strategy, that.

              • Re: If you act like a paper tiger, you get attack (Score:5, Informative)

                by wierd_w ( 1375923 ) on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @09:04AM (#58297828)

                Did you even fucking READ the first link, asshole? Here, let me quote it for you.

                Although these treaties ban the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space, they do not prevent states from placing other types of weapons in space. As a result, many states argue that existing treaties are insufficient for safeguarding outer space as âoethe common heritage of mankind.â In order to address this, the final document of the UN General Assemblyâ(TM)s Special Session on Disarmament mandated that negotiations should take place in what is now the Conference on Disarmament (CD), âoein order to prevent an arms race in outer spaceâ that are âoeheld in accordance with the spirit of the [Outer Space Treaty].â

                The last fucking sentence is pretty damn contradictory to your argument. It is pretty abundantly clear that the consensus position of the UN and its member nations is that the treaty should have applied to all weapons, and they have been trying VERY hard ever since to make that so.

                Our own legislature, as I pointed out, has *ALSO* tried several times.

                The problem, is that for some reason that escapes me, people like you and the GP are hell bent on creating an escalation of force in space for no tangible benefit.

                • It doesn't matter what some asshats retroactively want it to apply to; you stated that it the US is a signatory to a treaty which prohibits these types of systems. Literally every single link you've posted specifically states that the treaty does not prohibit them. Ergo you're wrong, you yourself have demonstrated that you're wrong and your continued inability to acknowledge that you're wrong only demonstrates that you're unreasonable in addition to being wrong.

                  Glad we could sort that out. Feel free to c

            • lol. I just clicked through to see the rest of your links ... oh my! Three bills sponsored by Denni Kucinich ... the nubag who spread 9/11 conspiracy theories, buddied around with Alex Jones, apparently had a profound visitation from a UFO, and petitioned the US government to create a "Peace Department".

              Sounds like exactly your kind of guy!

      • I think this is the right sentiment. Ever since 1958(Sputnik 1) there has been plans, contingencies and attempts at readying for space warfare.
        So far, because orbit is orbit: Generally attacking the ground from space isn't feasible. Everything that enters orbit is costy, and re entering means a lot of missiles won't really do anything. So as it has to come, that means Space warfare as envision is going to be vs other satellites to establish control over space.
        Space warfare is by itself a plan on how to deny

        • What you stated has been the situation until very recently however things are changing. New typeds of ASAT weapons that do not create mass amount of collateral are being developed by the Chinese. Instead of blasting a satellite with a laser, warhead or KE projectile these are derived from the emerging servicing probes that are just now reaching the market. These probes have the ability to disable satellites in ways that dont create debris. They can burn out sensors, damage solar panels and antennas, things

    • Re:And then what ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @06:07AM (#58297072) Homepage Journal

      It's a great way to funnel tax money to the military-industrial complex. You don't even have to deploy these weapons, just waste billions developing them.

      • It's a great way to funnel tax money to the military-industrial complex.

        Hey, it's still JOBS and helps move the economy along....

        Nice thing about it...is that often these types of jobs require clearances, and pretty much ONLY US citizens can qualify, so it keeps the jobs IN the US.

        Generally well paying jobs too!!

    • You, also, are not wrong. It's a trap, we know it's a trap, but we go into it anyway, because we have no choice. If we don't do it, they will anyway, and suddenly there's no Balance Of Power, and we're at a disadvantage. Saying "if we stop all this nonsense then everyone else will too" is naive at best; they won't pass up having a military advantage over the U.S. or anyone else, and you can take that to the bank. 'Hearts and minds', friend; unless you have a Magic Wand that will change Hearts and Minds of a

    • Putting a laser on a satellite that can destroy things on the ground is really really hard. Putting a laser on the ground that can destroy satellites is much easier. Size and weight don't matter. You can hook it up to as big a power plant as you need. And you always know where your target is, unlike missiles that can be put on submarines that are really hard to track. You don't even need to destroy the satellite. Just hit it with enough light to blind its cameras so it can't target your missiles.

      They

  • They want to attack the missile at launch, in early boost phase, instead of in space. OK, so to do it at launch, early in boost, there's thick atmosphere to penetrate but it's not moving so fast. I'll let the next physicist readin' this explain better, but would the atmosphere affect the beam, spread it at least? Why would they want to hit it that early, unless they're hedging their bets? Or is there something they're not telling us mere taxpayers?

    • Shooting it during the boost phase makes it go boom and all the bad stuff stays over there.

      Shooting it after it's done boosting and is coasting through space probably won't make it go boom since there's no fuel left, and even if it does go boom some of the warheads may still remain active and fall on your territory.

      • this isn't about making something go boom thats sci-fi nonsense, laser weapons are about blinding and disrupting sensors.

        • No. That is the case with some current laser based cointermeasure systems, because they are designed to confuse homing missiles which use various types of optical sensors. ICBMs do not need optical sensors; they're launched on a predetermined ballistic trajectory and have no need to track anything. If you want to take out an ICBM with a laser, you have to make it go boom.

          This is why others have pointed out that such defensive systems can be rendered less effective by making the missile reflective. If yo

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Need lots of energy to make the new type of bean more able to reach down past that thick atmosphere.
      Try to get any rocket ready and the US makes the launch fail from orbit. Go full submarine to avoid that in the open launch in the wide open on land?

  • Can't have Spaceforce without some pew pew. I wonder if the space force logo will be an eagle with Trump's haircut.

  • as opposed to lasers, whose photons travel at light speed

    My tachyon-based proposal can blow shit up before it even fires.

  • "They've asked for $304 million in the 2020 budget to develop such beams, more powerful lasers, and other new tech for next-generation missile defense."

    I can't help but think...

    + A company already built it.
    + They can't say anything due to a military non-disclosure agreement.
    + A consumer application for the tech is found.
    + CEO sees dollar signs.
    + Makes excuse to make it public that it's 'starting' to be worked on.
    + Consumer equivalent released when manufacturing cost hits consumer price point.
    + Profit.
    + Mili

  • So when exactly does this fiscal year start and end? And why be explicit it's in fiscal 2023 and not in actual 2023?

  • Resurrect the 80's Start Wars program ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Laxator2 ( 973549 ) on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @06:13AM (#58297096)

    Did they learn nothing at all from the Star Wars program of the 80's ? The obstacles that made that program fail had to do with Physics not computing power. And physics did not change that much in 40 years.
    Sure there was some progress since then (just look at the power output of semiconductor lasers now vs 40 years ago) but nothing on the scale that will make the program feasible.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re "scale" Computers are faster and smaller.
      Its not for a full Soviet amount of detection.
      Re "program feasible"
      The US just wants this for one rocket attempting a needed test by any 1st/2nd/3rd world nation.
      A nation attempts to test its longer range rockets and every time it fails to get very far.
      No need to send in special forces to make the launch fail.
      Now the US can do it for space and reach down to any nation attempting to do rockets.
      Every attempt to start will fail.
      Think of the US ability to all

    • these are different weapons than those programs proposed

      lasers do blind and disrupt aircraft and spacecraft sensors. this isn't about vaporizing them or other sci-fi FX

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      There's been a lot of progress in laser technology recently, and yes, it probably is enough to make a space-based laser useful, although possibly not quite as useful as was envisioned in the 80s. Destructive lasers were giant, heavy, delicate things. To get up to useful power levels, the best option in 2000 was a chemical laser, that effectively used ammunition. Now, you can build a militarily useful laser and put it on a hummer. Megawatt laser weapons in space don't exist currently, but they're a decent po

  • I don’t know if anyone else caught it, but this energy beam weapon requires megawatts. Meaning we’re going to have a nuclear reactor in space. IMO that’s a pretty fucking dumb idea, since it basically hands your enemy a dirty nuclear bomb they can drop on your head.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      Meaning we’re going to have a nuclear reactor in space.

      Not necessarily. This beam weapon would probably not have to run for much longer than minutes.* In that case, I think electric batteries would be a much more straightforward way to go - far fewer technical risks.

      But speaking more generally, I think it would be a benefit to human space exploration to develop nuclear reactor technology for space. While perhaps not a pre-requisite for colonization on the moon and Mars, a MW-class nuclear reac

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Go nuclear for energy. Its only to stop one rocket at a time. The energy needed is great but its for one rocket at a time.
      The US expects it has the energy, aim and detection ready.
      The US detects a nation is getting ready to attempt a rocket test.
      Their rocket fails to get into orbit.
      The enemy nation is expected to look over its failed rocket for weeks and months. Then try again.
      Another US beam is used. The enemy nation takes months to look over the next crash.
      Try again.
      Then start looking at its

  • Edwin Windsor would not approve.

  • This will start a very dangerous arms race. Once again the US is obsessed with creating new ways to kill people. And you claim to be the good guys?

    • uh, you missed the memo about Russian hypersonic warhead tech? They initiated this...

      • And the US is spurring it further for no good reason. If they must break the space weapons treaty and respond by developing their own space weapons, they should do so with extreme secrecy, not a public announcement. They've done this properly in the past with space-based surveillance tech, so it's not like they don't know how.

  • Oh, hey, I remember that movie! It was called... Real Genius [wikipedia.org], right?

    So after all these years, Hathaway has finally figured out the power problem?

  • I seem to recall that the U.S. is signatory to a treaty that specifically prohibits putting weapons in space, as well as claiming any celestial real estate. Has this changed, or is the U.S. just so arrogant that treaties are only relevant when other people try to evade or violate them? Just wondering.

  • I thought we'd already been through this?

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close