[AR] Re: what else?
- From: Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:43:45 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016, John Dom wrote:
But I read this CNN article as more sinister.
Well, it's obviously meant to sound that way, yes -- it's somebody trying
to make an alarming story out of things people have been saying for at
least the last decade, with a dash of Yellow Peril thrown in.
Like so far Russia, the US, China (and too many more space capable
nations since 1962) have kept from naughtily orbiting nukes. To enable
them to strike at close range without detection fuss.
Outer Space Treaty, Article IV, begins: "States Parties to the Treaty
undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying
nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, instal
such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space
in any other manner." All the major spacefaring nations (yes, including
China) and most of the minor ones have signed this; even North Korea did,
although they never formally completed ratification.
Hint: when something is banned by a widely-signed treaty, quite often
that means that on close examination, it's not actually that useful --
either (a) it sounds good but doesn't deliver, or else (b) it's great if
only you do it, but when everybody does it, it just adds hassle and
expense for everyone and doesn't confer much real advantage.
Orbiting nukes are mostly in category (a). They're more complicated and
expensive than ICBMs even in the short term, and *much* more so in the
long term because you have to keep servicing and reboosting them (they are
too expensive to treat as expendable). Their warning time is actually
*longer* than that of ICBMs, unless you're prepared to invest huge amounts
of mass in high-performance propulsion, because you have to deorbit them
nearly half an orbit ahead of the desired impact point. It's basically
impossible to harden them against a preemptive strike, or even against
lesser attacks like spacewalkers taping aluminum foil over their radio
antennas. They spend most of their time passing over areas you're not
interested in attacking (e.g., they inherently spend half their time over
the Southern Hemisphere, which is almost all ocean), and people are likely
to notice if you adjust the orbits so they'll all be over the USA
simultaneously next Tuesday morning. For that matter, even just launching
a bunch of large satellites for no obvious reason at a time of tense
relations will make people suspicious. In short, a dumb idea.
Maybe another lunar military launch project is about to be revived as well?
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/an-army-base-on-the-moon/
Decidedly unlikely, when military forces everywhere are having to forego
far more immediate needs like new jet fighters or helicopter modernization
because they can't afford them.
And then there is the X-37B just orbiting innocently for years and years.
Expensive if a hobby demo only.
Definitely a mysterious craft, but hardly worrisome when there's only one
of it -- in fact, that definitely suggests "hobby demo" rather then
"sinister secret weapon". (My favorite theory is still that it's mostly
just another spy satellite, controlled by the USAF rather than the NRO,
and the tight secrecy is to defend it against bureaucratic attack by the
NRO and financial attack by Congress, rather than nuclear attack by
whichever Evil Empire leads the headlines today.)
Henry
Other related posts:
