LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space [LWN.net]

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 16:47 UTC (Thu) by jhhaller (guest, #56103)
In reply to: LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space by ortalo
Parent article: LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

I would say reentry is just as important to being a nuclear nation, it does you no good if your missile burns up on reentry.

But, the State Department is responsible for export control, and giving a talk to an audience including foreign nationals is considered export. Depending on the content of the talk, one can export knowledge considered to be restricted. Munitions is definitely one of those categories, and spaceships is in the munitions category.

to post comments

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 19:25 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (20 responses)

> I would say reentry is just as important to being a nuclear nation, it does you no good if your missile burns up on reentry.

A couple of points about this.

1. if you have a nuke, you don't need to do reentry to do massive damage to any modern country, if you explode it in low orbit, the EMP will do a lot of damage, very possibly more than if it were to go off at ground level.

2. 'reentry' is a slippery term to define.

It's pretty easy to make a solid object survive reentry if you don't care exactly where it hits, all you need is enough mass.

It's a bit harder if you want to have 'soft payload' like electronics or people survive reentry

It's a bit harder if you want to have guidence of your reentry capsule after reentry

But yes, every bit of effort that can make a better manned spacecraft can be used to create a better weapon.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 21:06 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (18 responses)

But yes, every bit of effort that can make a better manned spacecraft can be used to create a better weapon.

Which is why we've gotten manned spacecrafts in the first place. And this is why all the longer-reaching spacecraft plans were never realized. To launch man on the orbit you only need to add a little to a good weapon system, but to launch man on the Moon or Mars you need some developments which are impossible to use as weapon. Moon become the matter of national prestige when USSR won the space race, but once it was proven that "yes, we can" the whole "outer space" thing was quickly and radically scaled-down.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 21:57 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (17 responses)

actually, advances that would let us get to real use of space (asteroid mining, etc) would make even better, and simpler, weapons than ICBMs. There would be no need for a warhead, just get a way to put rocks on a intercept orbit.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 23:08 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (16 responses)

The problem is that it's pretty hard to move rocks around. Without nuclear power, that is - and you use nuclear power anyway then you can just blow up the stuff directly. And the disruption for the whole plan is relatively simple: launch cargo of nails on the orbit.

There is a reason for why full-blown "space wars" never materialized: they are absolutely impractical. Reconnaissance from space, on the other hand… that works. And leads us to today's Google Maps and OSM.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 21, 2012 0:46 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (15 responses)

Simple Solar power can move rocks around. Ion drives don't have much thrust, but are very efficient over a long timeframe.

Simple mirrors to vaporize things will also work (but not very efficiently)

"Full blown space wars" never materialized for the same reason that "full blown nuclear wars" never materialized. in both cases offense is easy, defense is hard and nobody with the capability has been willing to sacrifice their space assets to knock out someone else's

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 21, 2012 1:42 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (14 responses)

Simple Solar power can move rocks around. Ion drives don't have much thrust, but are very efficient over a long timeframe.

Right. But we are talking about military operations here. They may be planned in advance but should be executed quickly and without warning. "Attack" which takes months and can be disrupted at any time is not of much interest to military.

In both cases offense is easy, defense is hard and nobody with the capability has been willing to sacrifice their space assets to knock out someone else's.

Sorry, but no. Situation with space is direct opposite to the situation with nukes. Offense is hard, defense is [relatively] easy as both China and US show us. That's why a lot of countries are trying to create nukes but not a lot are trying to bring ion drives to the military operations.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 21, 2012 3:37 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (13 responses)

space offence against ground targets is hard.

offence against satellites is relatively easy (a bucket of bolts in the right orbit)

The nations that have the capability to launch into the upper orbits all have enough dependencies on their own orbital resources to not be willing to loose them.

The nations and organizations that are willing to burn everything down as long as they take their enemies with them do not have the capability.

they are working harder to get Nukes because Nukes don't require the infrastructure to deploy, you can deploy a Nuke in a truck, boat, etc Plus people have an unreasoning fear when Nukes are mentioned so they make good terror weapons.

As for speed being critical for space based attacks, that depends on the situation. It doesn't matter if an asteroid is redirected in days, weeks, or even months if it's going to take months for anyone to get to it and be ready to redirect it to go elsewhere.

If you think an aircraft flying into a building at a few hundred miles an hour is bad, it pales in comparison with something hitting at even low orbital velocity (remember, energy is M*V^2), at those speeds you don't _need_ a warhead.

When you read about the hypervelocity weapons the military is working on, this is exactly what is going on. They are working to get missiles that are fast enough that no warhead is needed (and they have the side effect that even at long range, the chance of being able to intercept is poor)

It is well within the capability of the satellite launching nations to build space-based weapons that would be extremely powerful, but all these nations have agreed not to go there, and so far none of them has been pressed enough violate (or at least to admit to violating) that agreement.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 21, 2012 15:16 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (12 responses)

space offence against ground targets is hard.

offence against satellites is relatively easy (a bucket of bolts in the right orbit)

Well, the rest of the post is pretty pointless, isn't it? All the worthwhile targets (machines and humans, most importantly troops) are on the ground. So we have a weapon which is hard to deploy and use but very easy to stop. This is not something military will be interested in.

As for speed being critical for space based attacks, that depends on the situation. It doesn't matter if an asteroid is redirected in days, weeks, or even months if it's going to take months for anyone to get to it and be ready to redirect it to go elsewhere.

You are planning to use your brand-new, top-of-the-art weapon against low-tech barbarians? There are many other ways to kill low-tech barbarians believe me.

If you think an aircraft flying into a building at a few hundred miles an hour is bad, it pales in comparison with something hitting at even low orbital velocity (remember, energy is M*V^2), at those speeds you don't _need_ a warhead.

Right. But this equation works both ways: to reach this velocity you need a warhead-equivalent, to alter this velocity you need a warhead-equivalent… at the stage where someone can create space-based weapon s/he can create pretty potent non-space-based ones, too… and they are hundred times more practical.

It is well within the capability of the satellite launching nations to build space-based weapons that would be extremely powerful, but all these nations have agreed not to go there, and so far none of them has been pressed enough violate (or at least to admit to violating) that agreement.

Ha. How many other such humanitarian agreements were kept? ABMT? CFE? These are only short-lived (by historical measures) papers. No, space-based weapons are not developed because they make no sense. As you've said: space offence is hard, space defense is [relatively] easy. Everything else follow from these two facts.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 21, 2012 17:48 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (11 responses)

you keep saying that space defense is [relatively] easy. That is just not true. Space defense is pretty much non-existant, and even conceptually it's prohibitively expensive.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 22, 2012 18:43 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (10 responses)

All the stuff in the near space is monitored by quite a few countries. And there are means to stop you attack and was shown by China and US. If this is not "space defense", then what is it?

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 22, 2012 19:25 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (9 responses)

what means have any countries shown that would prevent satellites from being destroyed?

I've heard of means to destroy satellites, but not ways to prevent their destruction by another space-capable nation.

monitoring is not defence, it may be the first part of a defence, but in and of itself it's not defence.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 23, 2012 17:38 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (8 responses)

what means have any countries shown that would prevent satellites from being destroyed?

Nothing—a that's my point.

I think you've lost context. Let me remind you what I've already said: All the worthwhile targets (machines and humans, most importantly troops) are on the ground. This is what defines what is offense and what is defense.

This is similar to air fights: a fighter aircraft may be air-to-air aggressor, but it's very much part of the defense system, not part of the offense system. Because it's useless if you don't have an air-to-surface aggressor (or surface-to-surface aggressor with on-air helper).

Similarly in space: the ability to find and destroy satellite is part of defense system because satellite on it's own it's not a worthwhile goal. It only becomes worthwhile goal if someone else uses it to attack your troops! Heck, the most famous space war program was called Strategic Defense Initiative for this very reason!

I've heard of means to destroy satellites, but not ways to prevent their destruction by another space-capable nation.

Bingo! And that means exactly what I've said: space offence is hard, space defense is [relatively] easy.

Monitoring is not defence, it may be the first part of a defence, but in and of itself it's not defence.

Right. The second part of the defense is the ability to destroy satellites (including the ones who employ ion drives to move rocks around). Also a known technology

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 24, 2012 19:18 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (7 responses)

> All the worthwhile targets (machines and humans, most importantly troops) are on the ground.

Here is a major disagreement. I see the satellites themselves as being major targets. If all satellites were to stop working, most of the first world countries would be in a world of hurt.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 24, 2012 22:03 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (6 responses)

Here is a major disagreement. I see the satellites themselves as being major targets. If all satellites were to stop working, most of the first world countries would be in a world of hurt.

Not as much you'd like to think. Yes, some services will be disrupted (like toll collection), but if you compare it with what destruction of just a few large dams can do… no, there are no comparison.

Yes, satellites are slowly becoming indispensable in a few rare cases, but their destruction are still not a way to cripple your military power. For that you ultimately still need on-the-ground military operation, even airstrikes can only help them, not replace them.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 25, 2012 11:50 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (5 responses)

You might want to pay attention to just how much depends on GPS these days. A smaller actor with space-interdiction capability wishing to bugger up a lot of larger actors could do worse than taking out a bunch of GPS satellites.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 26, 2012 4:27 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (4 responses)

Military jams GPS regularly when they do military exercises. There are some inconveniences and people complain, yes, but nothing life-threatening.

You right is pointing out that people are using unreliable and fragile GPS significantly more often then it's feasible, but GPS is far from being security critical infrastructure.

Well, it is sometimes critical for military offense, but this different problem altogether (it falls under "space-technology assisted offence and as I've pointed out this is not all that reliable") - and military have replacements (may be not as efficient, but they work).

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 26, 2012 18:58 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

Without Satellites, military communications and targeting will suffer drastically.

the vast majority of the 'smart' bombs that are in use rely on GPS, without GPS we are back to Korea war era targeting precision.

communications would in some ways be in worse shape (while the military keeps some of the old stuff around, just in case, the difference between what they are trained to expect to have available, and what they would have available would cause problems in itself)

space-based assets are a drastic force multiplier (both for offense and defense). I would say that they are well over a 10x multiplier, and I could see arguments putting them in the 100x range.

If being able to weaken your opponent by 10x or 100x doesn't make something a militarily significant target, I don't know what would.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 26, 2012 20:41 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Without Satellites, military communications and targeting will suffer drastically.

On your own turf? Only if you've did something stupid and replaced reliable land-based communications with a sattelite-based ones.

the vast majority of the 'smart' bombs that are in use rely on GPS, without GPS we are back to Korea war era targeting precision.

Sure, but this an aggression, not defence. You may say that sometimes you actually need to attack someone and I may even agree with you but this does not change the fact that when you sent your 'smart' bombs to some other country you are an agressor.

communications would in some ways be in worse shape (while the military keeps some of the old stuff around, just in case, the difference between what they are trained to expect to have available, and what they would have available would cause problems in itself)

Again: not on your home turf.

space-based assets are a drastic force multiplier (both for offense and defense). I would say that they are well over a 10x multiplier, and I could see arguments putting them in the 100x range.

They are potent multiplier in a case of aggression, but for defence? Not so much. You don't need to use sattelites if you can just connect two military pieces with an optical canble (or just plan old radio). Yes, you can use sattelites to notice enemy earlier, but radars on ground work just fine, too. Only when you move to another, hostile country you need to rely on sattelites - and this move is act of aggression by defnition (when you move to friendly country you can bring the same on-ground network with you).

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 26, 2012 22:00 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Military jams GPS regularly when they do military exercises. There are some inconveniences and people complain, yes, but nothing life-threatening.

This has long ceased to be true. You might note that the military do not jam GPS in major civil centres and especially not near e.g. airports. (What GPS jamming goes on is people trying to fake their tachographs. This is causing increasing trouble and concern at fairly high levels.)

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Oct 7, 2012 19:16 UTC (Sun) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

I think most goods to US are transferred with ships. I think nowadays ships use GPS extensively for navigation. Taxi services would also suffer quite a lot if GPS would stop working...

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 24, 2012 19:13 UTC (Mon) by ortalo (guest, #4654) [Link]

You are probably both right.
I think I should have said "landing" in fact for 2.