Timeline for Did anybody challenge the credibility of Turner's claim over the anti-satellite nuclear weapon?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20 at 0:56 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | @Sayaman: yes, and so can you. It thought people might disagree more with this one, than with the frame-challenge one above, on what was actually said. This answer assumes true the hypothesis that someone wants to nuke satellites, and discusses how reasonable that method is to succeed, and what are the downsides. | |
| Feb 20 at 0:05 | comment | added | Sayaman | you can post 2 answers? | |
| Feb 17 at 16:34 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 929 characters in body
|
| Feb 17 at 16:13 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 463 characters in body
|
| Feb 17 at 2:12 | comment | added | David Hammen | @userFromEU2 Regarding Satellites are hardened by design -- Many are not, and that includes SpaceX's Starlink satellites. Space-hardened avionics (which includes computers) are massively expensive and massively archaic: Several hundred thousand dollars for half the computing power of a late 1990s Macintosh. There are plenty of replacements should one of the Starlink satellites experience an avionics hard failure. The Ingenuity helicopter flew 72 flights on Mars (5 flights were needed to be deemed a success), with no hardening whatsoever. It used COTS avionics, including the computer. | |
| Feb 16 at 23:01 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4509 characters in body
|
| Feb 16 at 21:54 | comment | added | Italian Philosophers 4 Monica | OK, but one thing to keep in mind with all this is that a nation that literally nuked its rival's sats could expect to be suspected to be planning an imminent first strike: it's hardly something you could carry out casually, without a strong risk of WW3. A "limited strike" on say a particular Ukrainian city - just an example - would carry less risk of a runaway reaction, IMHO. Let alone a demo nuke somewhere empty. So exactly how useful this all is in practice is unclear. There was, for example, a recent article about how Iran striking Pakistan shows the limits of nukes short of full war. | |
| Feb 16 at 21:54 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica: actually that paper doesn't say much, but then "Chinese physicists simulate nuclear blast against satellites. Computer experiment suggests warhead detonated in near space could disable threats such as Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites." | |
| Feb 16 at 21:47 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica reportely China is also studying the problem. Someone who groks Chinese might be able to tell us more what they mull. | |
| Feb 16 at 21:19 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica: Soloviev has been publicly fantasizing about this actually, without considering the downsides, of course. | |
| Feb 16 at 21:17 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | There's another angle to this kind of attacks. It seems it will also produce the highest EMP on earth, based on the Soviet "Project K" tests. So, if anyone were to do this, they'd fry much of the ground telecoms on their own country, or whichever country they'd fire this above, which would almost certainly be considered an attack by the latter. I suppose the only way to avoid that is to do what the US did in Starfish Prime and fire it over the (biggest) ocean. | |
| Feb 16 at 20:12 | comment | added | Italian Philosophers 4 Monica | One thing to consider is how efficient Starlink has been in Ukraine. Due to their numbers, civilian swarm sats would be very difficult to counteract with traditional kinetic-strike ASATs. Not nearly as much with out-of-design-specs radiation/electromagnetic overloads. | |
| Feb 16 at 19:44 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2296 characters in body
|
| Feb 16 at 19:37 | comment | added | Jon Custer | Satellites are indeed hardened against their expected rad doses. Which are nowhere near the doses on the y-axis on that plot. Totally different regimes. | |
| Feb 16 at 19:30 | comment | added | FluidCode | This is absurd. A government report starting from the assumption that satellites are not hardened against radiation. Satellites are hardened by design. In space they have to deal with a tough environment. They might fail with a direct powerful solar flar, but that is something that packs a huge amount of energy, apart of them they can deal with the nasty radiations coming alongside the solar wind otherwise they would not work in orbit. | |
| Feb 16 at 19:14 | history | answered | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |