Slashdot Mirror


India Developing Vehicle To Knock Enemy Satellites

Frankie70 writes "Star Wars are back in fashion. With perennial (and nuclear armed) foe Pakistan always teetering on the brink of political collapse and neighboring regional superpower China taking greater strides into space technology, India has announced that it is developing an exo-atmospheric 'kill vehicle' that will knock enemy satellites out of orbit."

178 comments

  1. Knock by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    This headline made me think of D&D before anything else.

    1. Re:Knock by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Luckily, very few satellites these days have "Wizard Lock" and or "Hold Portal" cast on them.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:Knock by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      "vehicle which will knock satellites" made me think of a contact communication method was involved.

      "Knock, knock."
      "Who's there?"

    3. Re:Knock by theJML · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they just do this with a wish spell?

      --
      -=JML=-
    4. Re:Knock by jacks0n · · Score: 1

      I read "vehicle which will knock up satellites" and imagined a giant penis being launched into space.

      Which is kind of accurate in a metaphorical sense.

    5. Re:Knock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Knock, knock."
      "Who's there?"

      Paki.

      Paki who?

      Pack-it-in , this type of joke is not being funny already!

  2. Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With everyone "testing" their antisatellite weaponry and creating ever more orbital debris, pretty soon there'll be so much debris up there we won't be able to keep any satellites operational.

    China's test of a year or two back may have already generated enough debris to start a chain reaction, any more and we may definitely go over the brink to where nothing is survivable in low earth orbit.

    --PM

    1. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's an article1 about the military version of the Soviet Salyut space station, which flew as Salyuts 3 and 5 between 1974 and 1977.
      Virtually no information was available about the military Salyuts until recently, when access was opened up to a full-scale training model at the Moscow Aviation Institute. Well, guess what--Salyut 3 had a machine gun. The station had a 23 mm rapid-fire cannon mounted on the outside, along the long axis of the station "for defence against US space-based inspectors/interceptors".

      http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/spaceguns/

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that is the least of any government's worries if the alternative is letting his enemy freely communicate, spy, command and bomb their positions as they wish. If you absolutely need to point out the responsibility of turning space (well, the earth's orbit) into a shooting gallery then put the blame where it should be put: those who started putting there military equipment/targets there and not the ones needing to take them down.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    3. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The thing is, 23mm is overkill. a simple 9mm round would work. Honestly make a microsat that can maneuver to the target and simply fire a 12 gauge )) buckshot shell from a short barrel single fire when it is in a high speed approach and it will shred the hell out of it's target. You could make them the size of a small garbage can and have your launch vehicle carry 20 of them into orbit.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't there some talk of a garbage collection system?

    5. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by icebrain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The thing is, it's not just military spacecraft that would be targeted. Assuming the ASAT rounds have the range, you'd see things like com satellites (even civilian ones--think Iridium), GPS satellites, maybe even weather observation satellites. In a full-blown war where it's drastic enough to start downing birds, you're going to hit anything that could possibly help your enemies and give you a better chance to survive.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    6. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by jandrese · · Score: 1

      It was also likely pointless, since chances are you would never see a killsat before it got its shot off. I've always assumed that gun was on there just because it was a military project and military guys want to put guns on everything.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    7. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by gnick · · Score: 1

      There's been a lot of talk about a garbage collection system.

      Basically the talk revolves around why it's damned near impossible (or at least infeasible) because a destroyed sat sends a heckuva lot of tiny pieces flying in unpredictable directions hella fast.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    8. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by cellurl · · Score: 1

      Since the US is at least 20 years ahead of this, I would venture a guess that transatlantic-fiber is in place to bypass satellite needs.

      Put your stinkin speed trap here

    9. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by raphael75 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a giant magnet work, kinda like Katamari Damacy?

    10. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Then we will be forced to, finally, work on actual means of cleaning up the debris... perhaps some form of roomba satellites, gravity bombs, an atmosphere tether that is charged to attract low orbital debris, electromagnetic katamari democracy shooting stars, .... I am open to suggestions, since I am out of silly ideas that sound appealing to me.

    11. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop sayin hella.

    12. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am open to suggestions, since I am out of silly ideas that sound appealing to me.

      Um... um... giant space wet napkin?

      Using quantum mechanics to probabilistically erase the debris out of objective reality?

      Sex bot?

      Yeah, I know sex bot don't clean up teh orbits, but I'd worry less about space debris if I had one.

    13. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      The gun was there to research the feasibility of using one in a space environment. There are special thermal and lubrication issues in space that needed to be explored.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    14. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      The GPS started out, still is and will never cease to be a military system. It's a military system which, just like the internet, has found quite a lot of civilian uses. Nonetheless, although civilian GPS clients have found themselves into the market it doesn't mean, for example, precision-guided bombs ceased to rely on it to navigate towards targets. And if your enemy is using the GPS to drive bombs right into your targets than you can bet you will desperately want to take them down.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    15. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha ha... he said "thermal and lubrication issues" needed exploring. If she is pretty I volunteer.

    16. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Efreet · · Score: 1

      Actually, its possible to shoot satellites as they're about to make a re-entry and be certain that any debris ends up hitting the earth within one orbital period. That's what the US did in the Burnt Frost test.

      Its still perfectly possible for flying debris to hit another satellite before hitting atmosphere and burning out, but that's very unlikely compared to the risks of other methods of testing ASAT weapons.

      --
      This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
    17. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Launch a few solid state lasers to help clean up the orbit.

      With the laser scorching one side of the junk the junk would end up being pushed away from the laser and hopefully into the atmosphere.

      If we have five or six in orbit we should be able to clean up the current debris in a few years. If we have a few dozen then we might also be able to use them to deflect asteroids.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    18. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      In a full-blown war where it's drastic enough to start downing birds, you're going to hit anything that could possibly help your enemies and give you a better chance to survive.

      In a full-blown war, the first attack will be to nuke the enemy, repeatedly. And then to nuke them one more time for good measure.

      These stupid satellite games are more for skirmishes when you don't want to annihilate the enemy, but just cripple them.

      Unless India finally realized that India is right next door, so the fallout will blow back into their country...

    19. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Calinous · · Score: 1

      That's a 23 mm recoilless auto canon - this will allow you to shoot more than one round against a possible target, and the recoilless part is good to keep the orientation of the satellite while you shoot.

            As for the "high speed approach" and 12-gauge and whatever, it seems overkill to have a shotgunon a satellite that probably won't have enough reaction mass to maneuver against more than one possible target. Just launch some sand grains or whatever.
        As for "have 20 and carry them into orbit" - what orbit are we talking about? most of the satellites "fly" (or float) on orbits that differ greatly, and maneuvering is costly in either time, fuel or both. Not even the space shuttle can maneuver at will in space, and it brings to it gobs of fuel

    20. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may also have provided research data on the impact to the station itself of firing such weapons. (ie: with little to no friction, wouldn't firing a machine gun have the effect of propelling the satellite or space station in the opposite direction? Or have I been playing too many arcade games?)

    21. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      That's a 23 mm recoilless auto canon - this will allow you to shoot more than one round against a possible target, and the recoilless part is good to keep the orientation of the satellite while you shoot.

      There is nothing recoil less about a recoil-less gun. Instead of a major jerk of energy you get a smoother push of energy. Every shot fired will change your trajectory.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    22. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To India, India is even closer than next door.

    23. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      satellites are non magnetic. mainly al/ti etc.

    24. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      this is not true. when we test fire cannon station did not change trajectory. a burst of 23mm round has insufficient mass to signifiantly alter trajectory of space station. hoever we now have shchit-3 space-to-space cannon with ejectable sleeve is far mroe efficient at engaging space target by detaching projectile and therefore reaction force from station before launch. we can kill approaching ekkv with sar radar tracking and engage at bvr ranges with 99.9% kill probavbilty in extreme edge of kill envelope. Yediny, moguchy Sovetsky Soyuz!

    25. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      And the few test firings were with the cannon pointing "back", so the projectiles rapidly deorbited.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    26. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is GPS not a military target?

    27. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      The impact on the station was an issue major enough that any possible test firings occurred without any crew on board. Rumor has it there was quite a bit of noise and vibration associated with firing.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    28. Re:Oh great, more orbital shooting gallery! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Some powers might see that as a good thing. Those without the capabilities to put up large fleet of satellites for example. Or, OTOH, those with big enough rockets, secure enough launch pads and good enough sensors; not limiting them to LEO.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  3. Errr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a one-time use kinetic energy weapon would be suffice. A rod of (insert your favourite metal here).

    1. Re:Errr. by schmidt349 · · Score: 1

      It's an inanimate carbon rod!

    2. Re:Errr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbon is not an metal, you insensitive rod!

    3. Re:Errr. by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 1

      It's an inanimate carbon rod!

      ...you insensitive clod?

    4. Re:Errr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, an insensitive rod should be able to keep his girlfriend hap... Oops, sorry, forgot, this is /.

  4. India announces a lot. by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    India and Russia both have this habit of announcing these awesome things, and then never actually doing them. If India and Russia would have done everything they said, India would have five aircraft carriers and a man on the moon, Russia would have mach 15 planes for everyone, and more.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:India announces a lot. by RedTeflon · · Score: 1

      That reminds me, where is the flying car I was promised?

    2. Re:India announces a lot. by Alinabi · · Score: 1

      You mean like SDI?

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    3. Re:India announces a lot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously! Indian govt has these awesome plans which are never actually put into action!
      though i'm an Indian still announcing such stuff without some solid backing is much more demeaning!

    4. Re:India announces a lot. by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Five aircraft carriers on the moon would do India a fat lot of good,
      there's no atmosphere for the planes you dumbass.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    5. Re:India announces a lot. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0, Troll

      Five aircraft carriers on the moon would do India a fat lot of good, there's no atmosphere for the planes you dumbass.

      And these dumb idiots are going to put one man on moon along with five aircraft carriers? What a stupid plan.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:India announces a lot. by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      India and Russia both have this habit of announcing these awesome things

      The Americans started the tradition, at least with regard to anti-satellite and space based weapons, with the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka "Star Wars") under then president Ronald Reagan. It has been speculated by some that SDI hastened the decline of the Soviet Union by promoting even more military research and spending on counter-counter measures at a time when the Soviet Union could least afford to "keep up" with accelerated US defense spending. The Soviets bought the artist renderings and animations of SDI laser satellites (peew, peew, peew) hook, line and sinker. They thought that not only were the Americans capable of building such things, but that they would work exactly as advertised (the Soviets had long had an inferiority complex when it came to western technology). It worked for the US during the Cold War so now other countries are taking a page out of the US playbook and touting their own "advanced" weapons or counter-measures programs.

    7. Re:India announces a lot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Five aircraft carriers on the moon would do India a fat lot of good,
      there's no atmosphere for the planes you dumbass.

      Actually he said, 5 aircraft carriers "and" a man on the moon.

    8. Re:India announces a lot. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      India and Russia both have this habit of announcing these awesome things, and then never actually doing them.

        So does the US.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    9. Re:India announces a lot. by nithinsujir · · Score: 1

      Not to mention we would be 4 men short

    10. Re:India announces a lot. by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      India and Russia both have this habit of announcing these awesome things

      Is there a problem with that? Vaporware works well to drive off Microsoft's business competitors. It might work in military arms race as well.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  5. Not surprising by charleste · · Score: 1

    The technology is there. But I wonder: will they have to modify the software at NORAD to take into account Big Objects that get transmuted to A Bunch Of Little Objects? I am a geek: I'm thinking about software updates.

  6. Bad Idea by zifferent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Weaponizing space is a seriously bad idea. The US, Russia, Japan and China are not going to like this.

    --
    cat sig > /dev/null
    1. Re:Bad Idea by couchslug · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      When you have Jihadist neighbors like Pakistan, weaponizing space is a good idea.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Bad Idea by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Weaponizing space is a seriously bad idea. The US, Russia, Japan and China are not going to like this.

      China is already doing it. They demonstrated the ability to knock out a satellite similar to the GPS satellites a few years ago.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Bad Idea by mxh83 · · Score: 1

      Why not? If you're allowed to weaponize earth, why not space? Is it some kind of holy shrine? As for the 'bad idea' part- Well they should have thought of that when they created weapons in the first place right? India is doing what it takes to protect itself from some sort of maniacal attack from the Amreicans and the ruskies who'll try to blame it on someone else.

    4. Re:Bad Idea by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does Pakistan have satellites? They've had some put up for them, but it looks like it numbers a total of three that have been put up there, and it looks like they're all dead or abandoned now.

      It seems more to me they're concerned about China.

    5. Re:Bad Idea by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, the US already shot a satellite out of the sky. They tried to rationalize an attempt to get the satellite to hit water instead of land, but if you think it was anything less than a weapons test, you're being a bit naive. I was quite disappointed that this angle didn't get more play in the news.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    6. Re:Bad Idea by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why not? If you're allowed to weaponize earth, why not space? Is it some kind of holy shrine? As for the 'bad idea' part- Well they should have thought of that when they created weapons in the first place right? India is doing what it takes to protect itself from some sort of maniacal attack from the Amreicans and the ruskies who'll try to blame it on someone else.

      It's a bad idea because blowing up a few satellites may make low Earth orbit a field of debris dense enough that it is impossible to keep the other satellites intact. Once we cross a certain orbital debris density threshold, the debris will impact with satellites and create new debris faster than existing debris falls to Earth due to drag. I think that's called the Kessler Effect (someone correct me here). Once that happens, we may be locking the whole world away from space exploration and exploitation (like commercial communication satellites) for a long time.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    7. Re:Bad Idea by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      Space is already weaponized. The only difference is that now some factions are managing to develop ways to put their enemy's weapons out of commission.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    8. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      When you have Jihadist neighbors like Pakistan, weaponizing space is a good idea.

      ... because next thing you know, Pakistan will be raining virgins down on India.

    9. Re:Bad Idea by werfu · · Score: 1

      Because space is for everyone and provides too much firepower ability. Placing a satellite the size of a school bus loaded with nuclear missile would lend it's owner with enough power to nuke most big cities in the world under 8 minutes. This goes completely contrary to non proliferation treaties. There's is also a domino effect. Almost no country in this world could survive on its own now. Everyone depends on someone else. If a third world war was to happens, the last things you want is to be alone. If every communication means goes down you won't be able to contact either allies or enemies. Einstein said: I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth - rocks!

    10. Re:Bad Idea by dkleinsc · · Score: 0

      Quick reminder: The Pakistani government is actively providing support to the US in the War On Terror (TM). A lot of their recent instability has been their attempts to remove Al Qaida and other groups from their country. So they aren't so much "Jihadist" as they are "anti-Jihadist but ineffective".

      The India-Pakistan conflict (which is probably the primary motivation of this) goes back to the 1940's, and have little to do with Al Qaida and its ilk.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    11. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost like we need a treaty or something. Unfortunately, certain countries, including most of the ones on your list, apparently want to deploy space-based weapons, and the current Outer Space Treaty only prevents deployment of "weapons of mass destruction" there, such as nuclear weapons.

    12. Re:Bad Idea by werfu · · Score: 1

      I forgot to say : Not only does it land the ability to nuke every important city in the world, but this almost without being detected. Current missile lunch detection system spot big rockets lifting-off. In space all you would need is a smaller missile being able to resist entry into atmosphere and guide itself while falling.

    13. Re:Bad Idea by mxh83 · · Score: 1

      Ok. Now think of it from India's point of view. If they see a possibility that they might not exist in the future, why should they care about future space exploration for other countries? This is simply another deterrent.

    14. Re:Bad Idea by tokul · · Score: 1

      Weaponizing space is a seriously bad idea. The US, Russia, Japan and China are not going to like this.

      Pot meets kettle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz

    15. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's how you establish superiority, do something first and counter any attempt to do the same by anyone else. In other words a bit like 'king of the hill' or 'nuclear non-proliferation'.

    16. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China could just send its peasant-class armed with machetes into India to shred the population without firing a single shot into outer-space.

    17. Re:Bad Idea by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm... Non sequitor alert here.

      It is, unfortunately, true that Pakistan has nukes and (despite being our ostensible buddy) a fairly large and influential class of religious enthusiasts with a penchant for explosive politics.

      However, there is absolutely nothing about that situation that is improved by spending a big pile of cash on whizbang space weapons. India and Pakistan are right next to each other. Even if Pakistan's team jihad decides to use missiles(rather than just putting a warhead in the back of a truck under a pile of something boring, or chartering a small cargo plane, or any other cheap, prosaic, and quite plausible method) this isn't going to be some "NORAD gets several minutes of warning while the ICBMs fly over the north pole" thing. This would be a very short range job. If anything could intercept in time, it wouldn't be grand space-based satellite killers.

      As for Pakistani satellites generally; satellites are all kinds of useful, and it can be prestigious to have your own(and, if you need certain specific capabilities, you pretty much have to build them yourself); but basic GPS and GPS equivalent services, as well as reasonably high resolution images in a variety of wavelengths, are close to commodified. It isn't as though Pakistan is going to build the "JihadPS" satellite positioning system that India can then knock out. Anybody who doesn't have the cash to build their own vertically integrated defense complex is just going to use off-the-shelf GPS/GALILEO/GLONASS receivers and hope for the best. You think India wants to go knocking out some or all of those?

      India faces some very real security issues, Pakistan among them; but the value-for-money in using satellite warfare to confront them seems absurdly slim, even by defense contractor standards.

    18. Re:Bad Idea by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True. However, their creepy intelligence agency, the ISI, which is arguably even more influential and less accountable than ours, has an unfortunate enthusiasm for unsavory groups.

      At best, they have a penchant for using fanatics as cost-effective proxies. At worst, they are actively sympathetic to them(They are hardly alone in this, it isn't a huge secret that the CIA has had a major hard-on for every tinpot right-winger who promises to hate the commies for some decades now; but that doesn't really make India feel any better about it).

    19. Re:Bad Idea by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Quick reminder: The US has interests. Pakistan has interests. Sometimes those interests converge. Sometimes they don't.

    20. Re:Bad Idea by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      China and India are pretty close in population. Don't think it's a big enough difference for them to just overwhelm with with numbers.

    21. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also seriously easy. Missiles shmissiles, kinetic energy weapons are cheap and effective.

    22. Re:Bad Idea by Cjstone · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US has had ASAT capability for a while now, and has "shot down" way more than a single satellite. Our earliest ASAT systems actually detonated nukes in or near space. The first US hit-to-kill interceptor was in 1985, and was launched from a fighter jet. I think that test still holds the record for the only fighter jet to have shot down a satellite. In my opinion, the recent test was there to show that our standard weapons are capable of intercepting ICBM warheads. That test was strange, in that it took place at a relatively low altitude as far as satellites are concerned. The SM-3 missile can't reach a high enough altitude to knock down orbiting satellites, but it's good enough to nail vehicles reentering the atmosphere, and the test demonstrated that it can handle orbital velocities. So, basically, it wasn't an effective test of an anti-satellite weapon, but it was an effective test of an anti-ICBM weapon.

    23. Re:Bad Idea by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Get your facts out of here you dirty terr'rist!

      --
      I hate printers.
    24. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pakistan is so close to India that the nukes from there don't need to go into space. An ABM system is not going to be very useful.

    25. Re:Bad Idea by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, the US already shot a satellite out of the sky. They tried to rationalize an attempt to get the satellite to hit water instead of land, but if you think it was anything less than a weapons test, you're being a bit naive. I was quite disappointed that this angle didn't get more play in the news.

      As far as I know the satellite you mentioned is, in fact, now out of the sky. Unlike the prior Chinese anti-satellite test or what the device in the article will do.

    26. Re:Bad Idea by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      You're looking too deep. The simple truth is this is a show of strength. A lot of military buildup is about intimidating your enemies into NOT attacking you. To be able to claim that you have weapons even in space is merely another factor to intimidate their enemies.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    27. Re:Bad Idea by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Again, though, unless your enemies are complete putzes(occasionally true; but a lousy bet to make), shows of strength only work if they are shows of relevant strength.

      You don't think that 10 dudes in a couple of cheap boats, with a few tens of thousands worth of small-arms and cellphones would have been afraid of anti-satellite weapons, do you?

    28. Re:Bad Idea by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      ... because next thing you know, Pakistan will be raining virgins down on India.

      I'm pretty sure Pakistan doesn't have enough virgins to do any serious damage to India, they will, however, be able to tap into the significant supply of /.ers who are only too eager to get their revenge against the Indians who took their jobs.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    29. Re:Bad Idea by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Why? It’s the perfect excuse to start a “preventive strike on the war on terror”... Cheney, Putin and Jintao would cum at the moment of hearing it. (Warning: Do NOT attempt to imagine that! I repeat: Do NOT attempt to imagine that! ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    30. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >So they aren't so much "Jihadist"

      Your knowledge of S Asia is like Palin's.

    31. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post worded as intended. Any "Fixed that for you" jokes will be modded into oblivion. Yes, I know I can't post and mod.

      That's okay, I'll chip in and mod "fixed that for ya" posts in to oblivion when you're not able to.

    32. Re:Bad Idea by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Why is weaponizing space when you have neighbours like Pakistan a good idea? What about Pakistan thinking they need to weaponize space because they have a neighbour like India?

    33. Re:Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why not? If you're allowed to weaponize earth, why not space? Is it some kind of holy shrine?"

      It's for practical reasons: because it makes for such a fricking mess of debris in orbit that using the area around the Earth for other satellite purposes (communication, weather monitoring, etc.) becomes increasingly difficult. It's like pollution that "goes global" (circum-global). It's the same sort of reason for banning atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Or do you think it would be a good idea to resume that too?

    34. Re:Bad Idea by zebpack · · Score: 1

      There is not much need for India to develop anti satellite weapons when Pakistan does not have military satellites in the first place. India is gearing towards competing with China in space weapons and is using Pakistan as scapegoat to test out its designs. The recent quote by Chief of Indian Army Gen Kapoor that Indian army can take both China and Pakistan under a limited nuke war simultaneously is good indication of Indian intentions.

    35. Re:Bad Idea by mjwx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Weaponizing space is a seriously bad idea. The US, Russia, Japan and China are not going to like this.

      India is not weaponising space, India is developing ground based anti satellite weapons. This is perfectly acceptable as it's not banned by the treaty that prevents the militarisation of space (cant remember name).

      Besides, Russia, China and the US (Japan by proxy of the US) already have this technology. In addition to this Russia and China don't give a crap what India is doing within it's own borders (and I don't think Japan does either).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    36. Re:Bad Idea by couchslug · · Score: 1

      That support is in return for substantial military aid, which the Paks want for preparedness against India. F-16s aren't designed for COIN work.

      The Paks do as little as possible to fight people who are just like them because tribal areas are more "real" than arbitrary borders on a map.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    37. Re:Bad Idea by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pakistan is militant, Muslim and therefore a threat. There is no reason to be politically correct and accord Islam respect it does not deserve.

      India should be ready to destroy Pakistan if attacked. It would be doing the rest of the non-Jihadist world a considerable favor should it come to that.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    38. Re:Bad Idea by shadowbearer · · Score: 1
      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    39. Re:Bad Idea by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Iraq should be ready to destroy the US of A if US of A attacked? Panama should be ready to destroy US of A if US of A attacked?

            By the way, USSR would have made the rest of communist world a considerable favour if it would have destroyed USA

            Giving your favourite nation some rights would allow your least favourite nation to claim the same rights.

    40. Re:Bad Idea by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't forget to mention the Space Shuttle

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    41. Re:Bad Idea by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Many here imagined worse.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    42. Re:Bad Idea by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Which ICBMs are you talking about? India-Pakistan wars haven't needed ICBMs during last 62 years of hostility. Mostly it is conventional wars on the border. Even after both countries became capable of multi-thousand-km nuclear missiles. In conventional, low-tech wars, information about mobilization of enemy forces is crucial in deciding when, where, whether to strike.

      If their Chinese overlords help Pakistan launch some satellites to spy on mobilization of Indian forces, anti-satellite warfare sounds very practical. If Pakistan is denied intimate knowledge of the whereabouts of Indian troops, India can do with less troops mobilization. This actually goes on to save money for India.

      Note that India is a renowned expert in satellites. If it utilizes that expertise in anti-satellite warfare, expenses may not be that big.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    43. Re:Bad Idea by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Pakistan does not have military satellites in the first place

      Yet. Note that the Chinese are known to provide military help to Pakistan. The USA unconditionally provides billions of dollars to Pakistan in the name of the so-called "war on terror". Pakistan strongly objected to US attempts to make the aid conditional on Pakistan's performance in war-on-terror, and this objection was heeded seriously by the US and conditional-ness was removed. If you have the money, it takes less than a month to launch a satellite and deploy it to gather intelligence required to strike an enemy country better. It takes years to develop anti-satellite warfare capability. You want India to start when Pakistan already have a satellite in place, and call it a good strategy from the Indian point-of-view?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    44. Re:Bad Idea by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      It's a bad idea because blowing up a few satellites may make low Earth orbit a field of debris dense enough that it is impossible to keep the other satellites intact /quote.

      And lack of satellites is more painful than being beaten by Pakistan army and being converted/assmiliated into another Islamic dictatorship? Not to mention huge human/infrastructural/financial losses during the war.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    45. Re:Bad Idea by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Kessler Syndrome is actually not so dramatic, I imagine. It likely won't stop exploration and exploitation of space, only of LEO; if you want to send something further, that object will stay very short time in Kessler Syndrome affected LEO, so the probability of collision might be acceptably low.

      What it will certainly do, is locking out from meaningful exploration countries without very powerful rockets (needed for quick escape of big cargo out of LEO; especially if Earth-observing satellites need to have bigger, heavier instrumentation to perform adequately) and/or safe land area to launch them (especially since big one is much easier to notice and shut down). Useful thing for few biggest players...new area for what would be essentially imperialist expansionism?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  7. Which will be immediately countered.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    By putting up thousands of fake satellites and thousands of smaller real, but redundant satellites.
    .
    But hey, the Indians need stimulus spending thought the purchase of unnecessary military hardware too. After all, look how well it's worked for us in the USA? :)

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Well, it is far too expensive to put up redundant satellites. The safest bet is to actually put up inflatable balloons which would have the same size as the satellite to be "Defended." If the kill vehicle hits a balloon, no appreciable amount of debris will be produced, unless of course the kill vehicle is an explosive charge.

    2. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by mxh83 · · Score: 1, Troll

      But hey, the Indians need stimulus spending thought the purchase of unnecessary military hardware too. After all, look how well it's worked for us in the USA? :)

      Apparently, someone failed their English class.

    3. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      History, too.

    4. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Indeed? Explain please.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    5. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      If you assume satellites have to be large, yes. If you put up a few hundred smaller ones about the size of a coffee cup, scattered across a few hundred miles, aggregating their data dynamically, it's a different proposition.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    6. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Balloons don't leave the atmosphere. Satellites do. Balloons don't move very fast. Satellites do. Telling them apart would be trivial.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Really? I'm talking about inflatable structures in space, not in the Earth's atmosphere. An Inflatable structure surrounding a satellite would be moving at the exact same speed as the satellite, quite frankly it has no choice in the matter if it is to stay in orbit. The point of an inflatable structure is that it would be trivial to fit 10 of them into a small rocket, heck you could even include them in the payload bay of the rocket carrying the real satellite, although that would pose many issues of it's own.

      If you have 10 inflatable structures in a 2000m-500m radius of a satellite, it would be significantly harder for a kill vehicle to determine which one is the real satellite. Especially if you add in minor electronics to generate noise and heat to mask the real satellites EMF signals(Infrared being one of the many.) The only way would really be visually, and even then, you could make the inflatable structures in such away that they have a very similar shape to the real satellite.

    8. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. will need to deploy these as soon as we can. We'll need resources and know-how. Some one call Tata.

    9. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States has done quite well in spite of - and in certain ways because of - "wasting" money on "unnecessary military hardware".

    10. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      An Inflatable structure surrounding a satellite would be moving at the exact same speed as the satellite, quite frankly it has no choice in the matter if it is to stay in orbit.

      Ah! Okay. Sorry. I thought you meant balloon as in weather balloon, not decoy satellites.

      Actually, you'd want to launch them on the same rocket as the main satellite so that they have the same orbit. Launching decoy sats at the same time is trivial. Launching them afterwards and synching the orbits is expensive and challenging. However, the real problem is atmospheric drag. Even at twice the altitude of the ISS, there is still a thin atmosphere (and most military satellites are well below this altitude). The drag on the decoy satellites will be different than the drag on the real bird and it will pull them away. A second related problem is station keeping. Most low altitude satellites can periodically boost themselves into a higher orbit to compensate for the atmospheric drag. Simple inflatable decoys won't be able to do that.

      So, what you're left with is the need to have a decoy satellite that is the same size, density, emits the same IR, UV, and EMF signals, can boost itself at the same time as all the other decoys, launched on the same rocket. You might as well just build ten real satellites and have true redundancy.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:Which will be immediately countered.... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      But hey, the Indians need stimulus spending thought the purchase of unnecessary military hardware too.

      Here's the thing about India's economy, they didn't have the GFC that western nations went through. They have enough of a strong economy that they have the highest paying professional sports league the IPA (Indian Premier League, they play cricket) which overtook the English Premier league (they play soccer) in 2008. Bollywood is nipping at Hollywood's heels, they are making a packet out of Outsourcing and manage to keep labour costs low. India can afford to support a military-industrial complex.

      What I don't understand is why Washington hasn't tried to develop better relations with India, they are spending trillions of Rupee's on their military so why should this go to Russia instead of NATO nations. In the unlikely event that the proverbial its the fan in Asia, India is someone we'd really need on our side.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  8. Knock out of orbit? by jpmorgan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can't just 'knock something out of orbit,' like it's a porcelain vase on a mantelpiece. Orbits do not work that way! They're building a kill vehicle to blow up satellites.

    They're still going to be in orbit, just in lots of little pieces.

    1. Re:Knock out of orbit? by valadaar · · Score: 1

      Depends on the orbit. If they hit the ones that need active boosting to stay in orbit, then yes, they will be knocked out.. eventually. Knock out without using the word orbit would be more accurate.

    2. Re:Knock out of orbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually yes you can just knock them out of orbit. All you need to do is speed them up or slow them down just a little and they will seek an now orbit radius but if there is continued change in speed they will either fly off into open space or slowly enter the atmospher and eaither burn up or skip off the atmosphere into space.

    3. Re:Knock out of orbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also depends on the design and usage of the kill vehicle. If it is designed to hit the satellite on a return trajectory after reaching it's peak and hits from a direction counter to the orbital path, it seems to me the majority of the debris will have a shorter orbital lifespan than something hit with an upshot from behind.

      Another way to make a "kill" vehicle is to have one that does it "softly". It just acts as a space tug, and nestles up and pushes sats until their own corrective thrusters can't do anything and their orbits decay. You think some military sats might have some gun or something to deal with this, but some kevlar balloons or something similar on the pushing kill vehicle might be effective enough to neutralize most projectiles and perhaps make the process of shoving easier. Such a weapon means orbits remain fairly debris and litter free, yet this design wouldn't be able to act on short notice and would require a sizable fuel payload and lots of time in order to do anything. I wouldn't put it past the U.S. or Russia to have something like this, but it's a hell of a lot more expensive than the more typical one-shot-one-kill variety.

    4. Re:Knock out of orbit? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If the projectile arced, and hit the sattelite from above, it could cause it to enter the atmosphere and burn up.

    5. Re:Knock out of orbit? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You can't just 'knock something out of orbit,' like it's a porcelain vase on a mantelpiece.

      Actually you can. Stable orbits are quite precarious. They are only easy to maintain because there are few external forces pushing against them. Push them out and they'll fly off into space, push them into a lower orbit and it will decay, even if you re-orient the satellite it will be rendered useless. Now if you were to ram these satellites with a slow moving rocket motor rather then an explosive warhead then you can easily "knock them out of orbit" without having to drag a heavy warhead out into space.

      To knock something out of orbit does not imply that you will bring it back to the ground, you could push it out into space or send it into an unstable or useless orbit.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:Knock out of orbit? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Where do you people get those ideas? There would be certainly no "flying off into space", of anything - giving the kill vehicle energies required would be pointless. As pointless as any explosives or trying to "reorient" the satellite. And it would certainly not "push it into lower orbit" the way you imagine.

      Simply put, at few kilometers per second contact speed, the contact itself is enough to shatter the satellite into thousands of pieces (which will deorbit faster due to much larger area to mass ratio, much larger drag)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:Knock out of orbit? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Negligible effect; majority of the energy in the collision comes from the orbital velocity of satellite, not the impactor (which is almost stationary in comparison). Plus such kinds of collisions behave quite weird and probably don't transfer momentum very well.

      But what you suggest would make the projectile much less effective. Bigger rocket required, easier to notice and intercept, more time for evasive maneuvers, target being on the noisy background of Earth.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:Knock out of orbit? by Gaffod · · Score: 1

      Didn't China try blowing up a satellite a while ago, and end up making a huge mess? And now India's doing it too, and soon everybody and their brother is gonna act like drunk rednecks at a shooting gallery! No more Google maps, no more GPS. Great.

  9. Good or bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly it seems that a military space race might be exactly what the world needs to get behind space tech.

  10. Go Missiles! by decipher_saint · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can't regular missiles do the job?

    Won't somebody think of the missiles?

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Go Missiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the ASM-135, tested in the mid-80s.

  11. Outsourced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they will build it for 1/10th the price of American workers. Except they will get the requirements wrong and literally build an "atmospheric kill vehicle"... leading to the wide spread destruction of Earth's atmosphere...

    1. Re:Outsourced by mxh83 · · Score: 0, Troll

      But they will also take your job while they are at it.

  12. Ready set fight by RedTeflon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I personally cant wait for Dish & Direct TV to start battling it out by shooting down each others satellites.

    1. Re:Ready set fight by vlm · · Score: 2, Funny

      I personally cant wait for Dish & Direct TV to start battling it out by shooting down each others satellites.

      And the only way the public wins, is if they BOTH are successful.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Ready set fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you think that hasn't already happened?

    3. Re:Ready set fight by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      The public doesn't win if satellite television is gone, Comcast does.

    4. Re:Ready set fight by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      It will sound something like this: peew, peew, peew.

  13. The problem is by LoudMusic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is, even if you knock down their satellites they're going to retaliate on the ground in your largest populated cities. And they don't need their satellites to do that.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a war-time weapon, to be used to indirectly incapacitate the other side, and presumably the other side is already trying to go after your largest cities. Similar to how blowing up ammunition factories won't directly prevent them from invading your cities, it will have a major impact on their ability to do so. Modern armies use satellite recon extensively, and also use them to communicate in real time, reducing the "fog of war" to a great extent.

    2. Re:The problem is by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is to disable communications at a critical moment while the ground troops/navy/air force fight it out. presumably this won't be a first strike weapon, it's more likely to be used after hostilities begin and before escalation to all out nuclear clusterfuck.

    3. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the US does. Can't fly those precious Predator drones without a satellite network.

    4. Re:The problem is by couchslug · · Score: 1

      India needs a first strike capability should Pakistan government control collapse and the (more dedicated) Jihadists take over.

      India is large enough to absorb a moderate number of Pak nukes and then finish the job with boots on the ground, but every advantage is to be sought in advance.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  14. Wonder if ... by DeadDecoy · · Score: 0, Troll

    this was developed by some disgruntled IT employee.

    Hello, this is Bob your friendly local IT representative, how my I help you?
    Yes, my computer broke after spilling coffee in the cup-holder. Can you fix it?
    * facepalm
    * launches satellite displacement missile
    Ok, just give me a sec... ****CARRIER LOST****

  15. I saw this movie by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    They plan on taking 9 year olds and putting them in bright yellow 1 man spacecrafts with a paylod of missiles and some laser capabilities.

    They will then land/dock with the ISS, accidentally fire a pair of missiles, and return to Earth. There will then be a parade with a ridiculous amount of confetti.

    I don't know what inspired them, but its genius.

    1. Re:I saw this movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Wars Episode 1?

  16. Hope you hit the right satellite by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    Cue classic scene from Spies like Us

    Though this could never actually happen, because well, MTV doesn't play music videos anymore.

  17. Enemy? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    What defines that a satellite is "enemy"? Launched by a now-enemy state used for anything, like controlling the gps network, monitor climate or tv transmission? Or something passive like watching over your territory and transmits to your enemy sensible information? Or something more active like... mmm destroying your satelites and not sure if can be done anything else aggresive at this moment.

    Don't worth to worry about the 1st kind (unless you are the aggressor), the 3rd kind is, for now, just you, and the 2nd one, well, there are plenty of probably neutral satellites looking down to all world (probably most sensible areas can be spotted by google earth, no need to launch your own satellites because of that) to worry in particular your enemiy ones. Looks like this kind of satellites announces that you are ready to take the aggresive role, dont look so particulary useful for defense.

  18. Why use a Missile? by mschirmer · · Score: 0

    We already have the technology to destroy something using a high powered laser beam. Why use a laser to guide a missile when you can just shoot it down with a laser, all still from within space? Seems a little obsolete to me.

  19. The threat is real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in the state of Punjab, which shares a border with Pakistan. The villages closet to the Pakistan territory are always at the receiving of rocket fire, mortars and indiscriminate open firing at night from the Pakistan side. As always, Pakistan denies it. 99% of the times, the Indian Border Security Force does not retaliate and just issues a notice against the attacks. Considering the threat we have from our neighbor, any measure that strengthens our defense is always a good idea and is welcomed. Rest assured, India never restores to the attack first approach (from history).

  20. Re:Obligatory knock knock joke by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    Indian exo-atmospheric 'kill vehicle': *knock* *knock*
    Jim @ International Space Station: "WTF?! We didn't order any take-out! Goddamn annoying fuckards! *flushes* That'll teach ya!"
    Bob @ ISS: "Holy fuck! You took 'em out with only one flush!"
    Jim @ ISS: "Yeah... Had vindaloo for lunch."

    I knew I wouldn't have to scroll too far to see anti-Indian racism. Sad but true.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  21. Nukes? Why always with the nukes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these billions spent on projects yet nobody reads Heinlein.
    Go grab a copy of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
    You don't need nukes when you have sufficient g's.

  22. The Bright Side by happy_place · · Score: 1

    Look on the brightside. If they do end up screwing up space, and fullscale wars among satellites do occur, we can always market it as a new form of entertainment.

    "Battlebots In SPACE!"

    We could then all take turns designing new battlebot satellites to fight one another. Mine would have a long arm with a buzzsaw on it... and lazers and one that shoots bees (in little space suits)...

    --
    http://www.beanleafpress.com
  23. We're building it... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    You mean like SDI?

    Hey, it's just taking a little bit longer than expected. But at least they can intercept some missiles now, and at varying stages in flight.

    --
    This is my sig.
  24. Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any of the countries with space launch capability could ruin the party. It was pointed out years ago that a vehicle loaded with ball bearings can be sent around the Moon and back toward Earth, releasing a load of shrapnel which would sweep across all Earth-based orbits. Fortunately, space is big. Really big. So the damage would be spread out over time, depending upon how large the attack is.

    1. Re:Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fortunately, space is big. Really big.

      [citation needed]

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    2. Re:Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, space is big. Really big.

      [citation needed]

      Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

      Douglas Adams
      The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    3. Re:Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by DrKnark · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, space is big. Really big.

      [citation needed]

      The Universe is very large and possibly infinite in volume; the observable matter is spread over a space at least 93 billion light years across. Wikipedia - Universe

    4. Re:Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, space is big. Really big.

      [citation needed]

      http://farm.imdb.com/title/tt0114781/

      "Under Siege 2: Dark Territory"

    5. Re:Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Fortunately, space is big. Really big.

      > [citation needed]

      '"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space, LISTEN!" and so on...'

      The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, chapter 8.

    6. Re:Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Ball bearings would be too few to interdict Earth-orbits when launched from Moon. Assuming the typical satellite is having a target area of 10 square meters, you'd want to be hit by at least two balls (to keep a bit of overkill). That means that you could use 10 millions balls to cover an area 10 by 10 kilometers.

            Kinetic energy penetrators launched from space assume they are already there, on the perfect trajectory. How they get there is very very energy intensive, so much so that ground-based lasers might try thousands of shots for a lower energy use.

    7. Re:Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      That means that you could use 10 millions balls to cover an area 10 by 10 kilometers.

      Not an area. A widening volume with, in this example, a diameter of about 10 kilometers during the first orbit.

    8. Re:Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by Calinous · · Score: 2, Informative

      And with a decreased chance to hit the intended target it the target manage to escape that 10 kilometer wide "kill area" at the first shot. Coming to think about it, if it escapes the target area in the first ball bearing pass, chances are that it won't be on the same path with the ball bearings for a looooong time. So no, I don't think this "space ship loaded with ball bearings" is a good space-based kill weapon.

      For your information, 10 million ball bearing having about 5mm diameter would weigh more than 5 metric tons

    9. Re:Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Intended target? The intended target is anything in orbit.

    10. Re:Buckshot orbital shooting gallery! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Launching small projectiles around the Moon would be very ineffective use of lifting capability of your rocket - because they would generally hit the area of interest only once.

      It is much more sensible to launch your payload into LEO and detonate it there in controlled fashion (in a way that will spread the balls quickly but not direct larger number of them towards the atmosphere). After that they will stay in place, with many, MANY more potential for impacts. Plus there can be much more of them, without the energy waste of circumlunar flight.

      Oh, and don't just use ball bearings, they reflect quite good light and radar.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  25. Kessler Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess no one in India has ever heard of Kessler Syndrome .

    Shooting "down" satellites would likely cause just as much long term harm to the country launching the missile as the country losing the first satellite.

    I would be intereseted to know if any astrophysicists have estimates on how many satellites have to be blown up before space is completely useless. I would think stastics calculations involved would be fairly simple.

  26. Re:Obligatory knock knock joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Indian' is not a race, No more than American is..

  27. context by astar · · Score: 1

    You do not have it quite right.

    The bigger picture is what counts. Russia, China, and India, and I suspect Japan, are all strongly tending to very deep cooperation. This is not due to some historical friendship!

    On space stuff, I think of the recent economic policy announcements by the Russians, which puts an emphasis, not the biggest emphasis, but an emphasis on space technology, and in context nuclear powered space tech. And Russian and India just signed a nuclear deal that spits in the face of Obamba and happens to open up cooperation on light weight nuclear reactors. that means launchable reactors

    Less clear is the Japanese plan for a SPSS. But again, context. Japan and Russia and Japan and China are busy making very friendly nice talk and deals.

    You might note that the russian-chinese rail deal required actions between the two peoples that are unique in human history for them. so business as usual reasoning is best described as insane. sort of like congress:-)

  28. Tiin, Do, Ek, FUD by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    So ho hum. After peeling off the unnecessary, inevitable and stilted rationalization for violence (hey, I enjoy war as much as the next soldier, but not with imaginary friends) I've decoded the message here. The article is intended more for flag waving than for technology announcement. In fact I believe this to be agitprop, simply propoganda to stir up any targets and make them believe this might be possible.

    Oh, and possible it is. China had their turn recently. As for the US:

    [ASAT SPIN]

    (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT )

    Starting in 1960 the Department of Defense (DoD) started a program called SPIN (SPace INtercept).[1] In 1962, the United States Navy air launched rockets from an F-4D fighter as part of Project Hi-Hoe with the objective of developing an anti-satellite weapon.[3][4]

    The United States developed direct ascent anti-satellite weapons. A United States Army Nike Zeus missile armed with a nuclear warhead destroyed an orbiting satellite in May 1963.[5] One missile from this system known as Project MUDFLAP and later as Project 505 was available for launch from 1964 until 1967.[5] A nuclear armed Thor anti-satellite system deployed by the United States Air Force under Program 437 eventually replaced the Project 505 Nike Zeus in 1967. The Program 437 Thor missile system remained in limited deployment until 1975.

    [ASM-135A]

    (from http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm )

    Anti-satellite missile. Country: USA. Status: Retired 1986. Department of Defence Designation: ASM-135A. Popular Name: Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle.

    The ASAT air-launched anti-satellite missile was developed by Vought in response to a 1977 Air Force requirement for a missile that could be launched from an F-15A fighter yet was capable of intercepting and destroying enemy satellites in low earth orbit. Four of five tests were successful before the program was cancelled in 1988.

    To launch the ASAT, the F-15A pilot had to fly a precise launch profile. At the calculated pull-up point, flying at Mach 1.22, he had to pull into a 3.8 G, 65 degree vertical climb. The missile would automatically release itself at 11,600 m altitude, followed by first stage ignition. After the first stage burned out and separated, the second stage propelled the Miniature Homing Vehicle (MHV) into space in a near-vertical trajectory on a collision course with the target. The second stage was equipped with a hydrazine attitude control system and spin table for the MHV. The second stage would orient the MHV toward the oncoming satellite (as determined by pre-launch orbital tracking data), spin the MHV up, and then release it. The MHV homed on the satellite, which was approaching at 8 km/second, and destroyed the target by ramming it.

    1985 September 13 - Western Test Range DZ -. First US ASAT intercept Agency: USAF. Apogee: 550 km (345 mi). Successful ASAT intercept test; rammed and destroyed the Solwind P78-1 satellite.

    Manufacturer: Vought. Launches: 5. Success Rate: 100.00%. First Launch Date: 1984-01-21. Last Launch Date: 1986-09-30. Launch data is: complete. Apogee: 1,000 km (600 mi). Liftoff Thrust: 0 N ( lbf). Total Mass: 1,200 kg (2,600 lb). Core Diameter: 0.46 m (1.50 ft). Total Length: 5.40 m (17.70 ft). Boost Propulsion: Solid rocket. Boost engine: SR75. Cruise Propulsion: Solid rocket. Cruise engine: FW-4S TEM640. Cruise Thrust: 27.400 kN (6,160 lbf).

    * Stage1: 1 x ASAT-1. Gross Mass: 1,000 kg (2,200 lb). Motor: 1 x LPC-415. Length: 4.30 m (14.10 ft). Diameter: 0.46 m (1.50 ft). Propellants: Solid.

    * Stage2: 1 x Star 20. Gross Mass: 301 kg (663 lb). Empty Mass: 28 kg (61 lb). Motor: 1 x Star 20. Thrust (vac): 27.135 kN (6,100 lbf). Burn time: 28 sec. Length: 1.50 m (4.90 ft). Diameter: 0.50 m (1.64 ft). Propellants: Solid.

    A modified Boeing AGM-69 SRAM missile with a Lockheed P

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  29. Way to go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    India: A country with a miserably low GDP, lots of basic sanitation problems and a high illiteracy rate - but it MUST have a system to knock down enemy satellites. Way to go, guys!

  30. Re:Obligatory knock knock joke by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I knew I wouldn't have to scroll too far to see anti-Indian racism. Sad but true.

    Racist? Dude, go get a sense of humor. There's nothing at all racist about that joke. You want racist jokes? Here are a few (poking fun at my own anscestors):

    What's a seven course meal for an Irishman? A six pack and a potato

    How many Irish does it take to change a light bulb? Three: One to hold the bulb and two to drink until the room spins.

    If you hear a British accent in a bar, how do you tell if he's English, Scottish, or Irish? Wait until a fly lands in his beer. An Englishman will push the glass aside and politely order a fresh beer. A Scotsman will make a face, pull the fly out, and keep drinking. An Irishman will pull the fly out and scream "SPIT IT OUT YOU LITTLE BASTARD!"

    I heard these jokes in a bar. The fellow telling them was visiting from Ireland. It's too bad so many other cultures are so tightassed they can't enjoy a joke made at their expense. I feel sorry for someone with so little self respect that they can't enjoy a joke at their expense.

  31. Wont work... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    As if, the US government will allow such a weapon to be able to get out into space and be able to literally render the US blind...

  32. Bloomberg reports about Indian military equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bloomberg reports that 50% percent of Indian military equipment is obsolete.

    http://www.bloombergutv.com/news/latest-business-news-india/42481/-half-of-defence-equipment-is-obsolete-.html

    While it may sound pretty bad, its only a little worse than the industry average -

    worldwide average - 30% equipment should be “state-of-the-art”, 40% “mature” and only 30% “obsolete”.

    Indian defence average - 15% equipment is “state-of-the-art”, 35% “mature” and 50% “obsolete”

    Here is a few more reports

    http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_50pct-indian-arms-obsolete-report_1334536

    http://beta.thehindu.com/news/article80014.ece

  33. Like Kirk said, by deprecated · · Score: 1

    KHA-A-A-A-A-A-A-AN!

  34. Those satellites suck. by tubeguy · · Score: 1

    There. I just knocked 'em.

  35. Indian business plan by swschrad · · Score: 1

    1) found satellite company

    2) have other nations outsource satellites to them for "cost savings."

    3) threaten to blow satellites up.

    4) obscene excess profits!

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  36. weapons of mass destruction by UnexplodedNT · · Score: 0

    They already have a 'vehicle' in place, it's effects are devastating. The tough part will getting their enemies to sign the support contract.

  37. Re:Obligatory knock knock joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew I wouldn't have to scroll too far to see a hypersensitive little flower deliberately misunderstand a joke so he could point the finger of racism. Sad but true.

    You know, if an Indian made that joke to you, you'd laugh, but if someone you guess to be an American does it, it's racist? So you would treat this differently based on the race of the joke-teller? Does racism mean the same thing in your country as mine?

    Go back to harrassing American pre-teens on xbox you loser.

  38. Question? by assertation · · Score: 1

    Does India even have enemies that have satellites?

    1. Re:Question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will now.

  39. India & China going to war? by assertation · · Score: 2, Funny

    If India and China went to war that would wipe out the take-out industry on a global scale. We would all be stuck eating Mexican.

  40. The old adage is true, then by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    "No country is so poor or so backward that it cannot afford the most modern weapon technology".

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  41. Works both ways by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

    And if they're already invading your cities, wouldn't it be nice to be able to take down their satellites.

  42. healthy competition by alt154 · · Score: 1

    now if they produce satellites instead, the planets would be coming after them for cheaper labor.