According to Earth’s dedicated team of satellite observers—astronomers that spend their nights watching orbiting satellites through telescopes and reporting on their movements—Russia is developing a satellite that can chase down other satellites. Obviously, such an ability could be used for the forces of good, such as repairing or refueling other spacecraft—but the rest of the world is worried that Russia might be looking to disable other satellites, or to get close enough that it can take photos of classified designs or eavesdrop on communications.
Back in December 2013, Russia launched a trio of Rodnik military communications satellites, and a fourth unknown object, on board a Rokot/Briz-KM rocket. At the time, Russia didn’t acknowledge the presence of the fourth object—known only as Kosmos 2499—but for obvious reasons launches are very closely watched by foreign governments and civilian satellite observers. The US military originally thought it was just a piece of debris, but one independent observer—Robert Christy—had seen this “debris” fire its engines to carry out some maneuvers. Eventually, in May 2014 Russia told the United Nations that there had actually been four satellites on board the rocket—though it still declined to say what that fourth satellite was actually doing.
[Additional Coverage]: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30097643
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday November 20 2014, @08:42AM
I give it 35 more years before it's impossible to get things into space de to the debris from destroyed satellites.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Aiwendil on Thursday November 20 2014, @09:39AM
Wasn't this already demonstrated? I mean, just what problems needs to be solved to have a satellite that can chase down and destroy another satellite that isn't solved when figuring out how to have a spacecraft chase down and dock with a spacestation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2014, @10:39AM
The destroy part is probably the most interesting bit. Destroying one would be quite easy, but doing it in such a way that it doesn't harm the 'destroying satellite' or another one of your own satellites is more challenging.
I don't know enough about this to know for sure, but docking with or chasing one pre-specified object in orbit seems quite different than the ability to chase down multiple targets, change trajectories regularly etc...
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:35PM
One could destroy the utility of a satellite by disabling one of its vital systems (communication, observation, power generation) rather than blowing it into a million pieces.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:35PM
I'm imagining the equivalent of a sticky grenade slingshot. How far would one need to punt it to be outside the shrapnel radius?
Or you could just shoot some metal slugs at it, but the more things you fire and the harder you launch them, the more you disrupt your own trajectory.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 20 2014, @04:46PM
You don't need to "fire" anything. Unless you're actually following the other satellite, any intersecting trajectory means speeds at which even marbles will destroy the target.
You just need a satellite that can move a lot or fire hard, it just needs to get close enough for a tiny buckshot payload to bridge the gap, at the _perfect_ time. If you have multiple targets and a decent computer, you can probably use the small impulse of one shot to start getting close to the other.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 20 2014, @05:05PM
You just need a satellite that can move a lot or fire hard, it just needs to get close enough for a tiny buckshot payload to bridge the gap, at the _perfect_ time.
Not sure whether that first "just" was supposed to be a "not." The problem is that maneuvering satellites in orbit means you have to send up all the propellant to do so with them, so unless it was injected into the right orbit to hit one/a couple specific target/s and is just "waiting for the kill order" you're either going to need to include a hell of a lot of propellant, or make the thing more or less single-use.
One advantage of having a "sticky grenade slingshot" is that if you put the satellite into a good orbit, in theory you could probably hit quite a few targets just via orbital calculations, not maneuvering (obviously depending on the power/range of the "slingshot" and any recoil).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 20 2014, @05:08PM
s/"not"/"don't"/g
Blargh. Me good at boolean algebra more better than English-making.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 20 2014, @06:12PM
Indeed, it should have been "don't". D'oh!
Considering how it's easier to make things fall down, I'd assume a cluster of small satellite killers would wait for orders at a fairly high altitude in complementary polar orbits. If the target isn't maneuvering, finding an intercept vector 13 orbits from now isn't hard math for a supercomputer. Making a kill given the temperature variations, sizes, speeds and distances may require a bit of propellant in the payload for final trajectory corrections.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 20 2014, @07:35PM
you're either going to need to include a hell of a lot of propellant, or make the thing more or less single-use.
In space one can trade patients for propellants.
Also in space, one can convert a peaceful TV transponder into a weapon.
Virtually all those TV sats are lined up like birds on a wire. Break up the first one with your marbles, and it drifts around and takes out a couple others.
I suggest the Chinese and the Russians are more interested in what The Air Force X-37 [livescience.com] is doing than anything else.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 20 2014, @07:44PM
Of course the patients might object, if so, we have to revert to patience.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday November 20 2014, @12:17PM
From Russia, with Love?
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:39PM
I was more thinking about the mission mentioned in http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=3943 [soylentnews.org] (docking with a shuttle to a spacestation without power), and pretty much every docking the russians has done so far with spacestations :)
(Score: 2, Funny) by radu on Thursday November 20 2014, @11:38AM
evil, evil Russia...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2014, @11:50AM
I'm pretty sure the X37-B can do the same thing.
If we want to show how evil Russia is, we need something better than "they have evil technology", and what makes this technology evil is "it's controlled by Russia".
Sure, that might work within the US, with the huge propaganda machine (something else that's evil when Russia has it), but it's getting harder and harder to convince Europe[1] that the US is any better than Russia.
[1] Politicians excluded, at least for now. European politicians are mostly owned by the same multinational companies as US politicians.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:38PM
One distinction I see is that the X-37 is not a satellite and thus not permanently* in orbit. Don't we have international treaty/ies forbidding the militarization of space? Or does that only apply to nukes?
*From that previous article that said the X-37 stayed up for 2 years or whatever, you could argue it's "semi-permanent" (if you can read that description without twitching).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Horse With Stripes on Thursday November 20 2014, @11:55AM
I fear this may be another maneuver by Putin to 'punk' the west. After this "destroy-bot" visits one of our satellites we'll find some Banksy graffiti instead of space shrapnel.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Dunbal on Thursday November 20 2014, @12:06PM
Seriously. Someone figured out that Russia has an extra satellite that they didn't mention having and is making a big deal out of this. Yeah, it's not like the Americans inform the whole world of their numerous classified satellites and their capabilities. It's really not a big deal. Space-going nations will be putting all sorts of stuff in space all the time. That's the advantage of having the technical expertise to do it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 20 2014, @01:15PM
Space going nations... bah.
This is to show that private initiative will advance leaps and bounds ahead of governments.
You see, there was that entrepreneur, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, which pulled more amazing feats about 50 years ago.
Watch for yourself an excerpt [youtube.com] from the doco.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Thursday November 20 2014, @01:34PM
Looks like Reagan was right with the "Star Wars" defense idea.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday November 20 2014, @01:56PM
Or maybe he was dead wrong, and now you're fearing that it may backfire on you, as you've been warned initially.
The biggest thug in the playground has become a whining little bitch, afraid of his own shadow.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:56PM
"Star Wars" was a dubious missile defense system -- not an anti-satellite system.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday November 20 2014, @04:09PM
Russia Now [russia-now.info] Has an ‘Inspector Satellite’ that Could Chase Down or Destroy Other Orbiting Spacecraft
They must be pretty cheap if a news website that looks like it hasn't had a redesign since the early 90s can afford one.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 20 2014, @05:02PM
I can't figure out what Putin is up to. Is he trying to revive the Cold War, with a Russia that is a pale shadow of its former self? It seems to me that his primary challenge ought to be to not be absorbed by an ascendant China, yet he chases old dreams like out-space-racing the US. It's silly.
Russia has a vastly reduced population, with sharply reduced life-expectancy. They cannot hope to hold their vast territory under those circumstances. They ought to choose sides and side with those whose intellectual and existential narrative most closely matches their own. But they're currently not. Instead they're indulging themselves in the fantasy that they can go it alone.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Thursday November 20 2014, @06:00PM
I can't figure out what Putin is up to.
I suspect that his posturing and recent actions have two goals: to protect Russia's gas and oil pipelines/industry/reserves (as that is the primary, and the only major source of revenue for them) and to project a strong image, as that plays well in Pervouralsk [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 20 2014, @06:51PM
Protecting Russia's oil and gas reserves is one thing, but there is only so much that can help you with a demographic crash such as Russia is in. Even in Russia's diminished state it still spans 7 time zones, but it now has a fraction of the manpower to do that. Germany, for example, has 80 million people. Russia has 144 million. Germany's area is 138K sq. miles. Russia has 6.6 million sq. miles. So Russia has 50 times more land with only 1.8 times more people. Eventually that tells. Putin and Russia would therefore be wise to make common cause with those they share the most commonality with, or else risk being absorbed from the East.
It would not surprise me overmuch if 20 years from now we're closer to Heinlein's "Day after Tomorrow" than anything else.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Thursday November 20 2014, @07:48PM
I don't disagree with you.
Putin's despotism is enhanced by appearing to "stand up" to Russia's rivals. He's only moved against former SSRs, although he has been posturing with Europe as well. I don't expect that he will push Europe too hard. He *needs* them. But, like I said, the saber rattling plays well in the Russian heartland.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by novak on Thursday November 20 2014, @05:27PM
Here's the thing about using a satellite to destroy other satellites: it's not a very good way to do it. If you read TFA you'll see that independent observers noticed the satellite moving in on a target over a period of a year. It's very expensive to put enough fuel into orbit to allow for many rapid movements. It seems useless as a weapon because it's so slow at changing orbits. Even China has anti-satellite capable missiles which would probably take less than an hour (guess it depends on where they are aiming) to strike a target.
novak
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday November 20 2014, @07:21PM
http://lenta.ru/news/2014/11/19/satellite/ [lenta.ru]
The mass of this satellite is under 50 kg, which makes sense for a test platform, but is absolutely inadequate for long-term military equipment. Here is more about the engine:
http://mipt.ru/news/plasma_propulsion_201410 [mipt.ru]
These engines have been used by Russia before, and they are sold to EADS Astrium, Thales Alenia Space and Space Systems/Loral.
It takes a psychiatrist to explain why the patient attaches, with no logical reason, certain characteristics to an object with unknown characteristics. There is no reason to conclude that this satellite has military use, and there is no reason to conclude that it may destroy other satellites. Satellites may be destroyed from Earth, as US and China demonstrated some time ago. But hey, information warfare can produce fear out of a tiniest and most harmless event.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2014, @07:44PM
The patient saw the satellite change its orbit gradually (sacrificing haste for energy), so that it could approach another object in orbit. The patient asked, "Why does a piece of seemingly inert material, that was originally of such a size and nature as to appear to be debris, slowly come to life and begin moving stealthily toward another object?" The easiest answer is, "Because someone wanted to see if a small box with limited propellant could target and possibly rendezvous with something else in space, despite being so small as to escape everyone else's notice." Then the patient asked, "Why would someone want to do that?" Then someone accused him of being paranoid.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday November 20 2014, @08:31PM
For an excellent reason, by the way. The patient says: "the satellite change its orbit gradually (sacrificing haste for energy)" - and then it's clear that either the patient doesn't understand how rocket engines work, or he is paranoid. There are engines that produce very low force, but over a long time - ion engines are just like that. If the test satellite is equipped with a low force engine, it simply cannot accelerate faster than the Newton's law permits.
100% paranoia, unless there is absolutely no other reason for a satellite to change its orbit. Hint: satellites are equipped with engines that perform a controlled deorbit after the satellite's term of service is over. Satellites move to position themselves over various spots of Earth for observation; they move to replace failed satellites (there are only few geostationary spots;) they move to correct errors of launch; they move to compensate for resistance of atmosphere... there are many reasons why a satellite should have an engine. But of course the first thing that comes into a certain mind is that it's a weapon.
As if resolution of Earth's radars is not enough to detect such an object in space. But perfectly public data says: "Space object catalogues, as generated and maintained by space surveillance networks, are limited to larger objects, typically greater than 10cm in low Earth orbits and greater than 1m at geostationary altitudes." Why would anyone attempt such a thing? Has this satellite "covertly approached" any other satellite, or it's just another example of irrational fear? Space is HUGE, and most satellites cannot move to another satellite's orbit, slowly or otherwise, at least because the difference in speed and vector is immense. Such engines are useful (on orbit) only for replacement of failed satellites or for orbit corrections. Can you just imagine an engine that would move a satellite half a way around the Earth at orbital speed, and then stop it right there? Hell, the Shuttle couldn't do that, it had to be *launched* onto a very close orbit to begin with.