Pentagon Wants To Test a Space-Based Weapon In 2023 (defenseone.com) 143
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Satellites and missiles are the threat being countered here. These aren't designed to shoot humans from space if that's what you're thinking lol.
What things are 'designed' for and what things are used for don't always match up.
Re:What an idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't believe that after over 3 millenia of recorded human history, there are fucking morons who don't see humans as a threat.
Spiral of escalation (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Spiral of escalation - (Score:2)
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*.
Re: (Score:2)
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: Spiral of escalation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... that is how an arms race works.... it is an integral component to humanity since day one.... not sure what your point is....
Re: (Score:2)
It's Star Wars all over again (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
^^ WHERE DO THEY FIND THESE IDIOTS? Seriously asking, I need cadavers. " rather than taking measures to prevent another one, the US took advantage of its position and failed to make a lasting peace with Russia " ???
I guess you have no recollection of 1993 when Gorbachev visited the US for the "Peace on Earth" tour and the continuation of nuclear reduction treaties WHICH VLADIMIR PUTIN AND GANG HAVE INTENTIONALLY UNDERMINED?
It's unfortunate that the fall of the Soviet Union was the catalyst for the reconc
Re: It's Star Wars all over again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the idea anyone could generate enough anti-matter to make it a cost-effective weapon right now with current technology is totally fictional, I'd wager, but it has proven to work in lab tests on a very small scale. "Rods of God" as he calls them are however significantly lower-tech and something far more realistic to be afraid of.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and then dense inert metal explosives
I'm no expert but if something is inert doesn't that mean it won't explode?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's Star Wars all over again (Score:2)
.. Then they are surprised by the Osama Bin Ladens, and the Che Guevara and other nuts that emerge
Nobody is surprised by fanatics and power-mad tyrants trying to take power via force. On the contrary, stopping those kinds of mad-men are exactly why we do much of what we do. You seem horribly confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's Star Wars all over again (Score:2)
That's not consufed, that's ignorant. The other dude was confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... sometimes. The goal of US foreign policy is ultimately to further US interests. Sometimes that involves supporting democracy over dictators, sometimes the opposite. Sometimes it entails sowing some chaos and letting the chips fall where they may.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Is that why you had the CIA train Al Qaeda? And put Saddam into power? And are now going to fuck Venezuela in the ass?
To create the madmen so you can look cool and pretend to be sad later when you bomb their civilians and hospitals?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
And then what ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: And then what ... (Score:2)
It's really not, when one nation is way ahead of the others, the others won't try anything serious, thus peace is maintained.
You're either a shill or a drooling moron; you've described a scenario in which the exact opposite would occur.
Things can't be entirely one-sided or you leave your enemy with nothing to lose. That's bad; ask Israel.
If you act like a paper tiger, you get attacked... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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!
Re: If you act like a paper tiger, you get attacke (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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---
Re: If you act like a paper tiger, you get attack (Score:1)
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)
Did you even fucking READ the first link, asshole? Here, let me quote it for you.
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.
Re: If you act like a paper tiger, you get attack (Score:2)
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
Re: If you act like a paper tiger, you get attack (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And then what ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
That was airplane mounted, not space based. :P
Re: Is it like lasing dynamite? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, especially when we know they're gonna outsource the system security to Microsoft.
So, we have this beamy space thing (Score:1)
Re: So, we have this beamy space thing (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
this isn't about making something go boom thats sci-fi nonsense, laser weapons are about blinding and disrupting sensors.
Re: So, we have this beamy space thing (Score:2)
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)
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?
Well yeah of course (Score:1)
Can't have Spaceforce without some pew pew. I wonder if the space force logo will be an eagle with Trump's haircut.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. (Score:2)
as opposed to lasers, whose photons travel at light speed
My tachyon-based proposal can blow shit up before it even fires.
Whenever I see something like... (Score:2)
"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
Fiscal 2023? (Score:2)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Megawatts... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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
We are going to build a giant laser... In Space (Score:1)
Edwin Windsor would not approve.
This is incredibly stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
uh, you missed the memo about Russian hypersonic warhead tech? They initiated this...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I remember that! (Score:2)
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?
International law? (Score:2)
Star Wars? Again? (Score:2)
I thought we'd already been through this?
Re: (Score:1)
"What fucking good have they done in 40 years" - Well, Europe is more or less self-determinant and not a vassal state, nobody is lobbing nukes around... I think you're underestimating the worst case scenario rather badly, in fact.
It could be worse. That's no apology, it's a warning. It could very well be a lot worse, very quickly. It still may. It could make everything you'd cite to complain about here pretty much moot, instantly. Think on that.
Re: (Score:2)