
UK and US say Russia fired a satellite weapon in space - _puk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53518238
======
Someone1234
Between the Air Force X-37B and the new Space Force, I find it a little hard
to take pearl clutching about the "militarization of space" seriously.

Don't get me wrong, Russia aren't some good guy, but when you actively do a
thing for tens of years and then the other guy does that thing, you have no
moral high ground left to complain.

~~~
ktrl
>Air Force X-37B

The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon.

>Don't get me wrong, Russia aren't some good guy, but when you actively do a
thing for tens of years and then the other guy does that thing, you have no
moral high ground left to complain.

Russia tested a satellite-to-satellite weapon which is completely
unprecedented militarization of space.

The US has tested ground-based anti-satellite weapons on satellites in
decaying Low-Eart Orbits. The debris quickly burned up in the atmosphere.

China is the only country to have blown up a satellite beyond LEO. The debris
from that will be in orbit for decades. That was an unprecedented
militarization of space and not comparable with anything the US has done in
the space.

You are pushing a narrative that the US is the warmonger in space and that
Russia is only responding in kind. The truth is that Russia and China are far
ahead of the US in weaponizing space. The US is playing catch-up.

~~~
knodi123
> The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon.

No, but that seems a little bit disingenuous. Aircraft carriers are neither
missiles nor weapons either. We can recognize things as military assets that
are neither missiles nor weapons.

The X-37B is a DOD asset, operated by the military, capable of deploying
weapons systems. In that way, it is part of the military capability of the US.

~~~
cryptonector
It would be silly to use the X-37 as an anti-sat weapon: it's too expensive.
Think of how cheaply SpaceX is putting up Starlink! A single Falcon 9 could
probably put up a bunch (20? 30?) of antisat weapons that only ever raise or
lower their orbits and fire .22s at their targets. The idea is to disable
targets with as little debris as possible.

With larger anti-sat sats you could actually latch on to the target and de-
orbit it for zero orbital debris destruction. This requires many more, much
larger such devices because while it takes relatively little delta-v to raise
or lower an orbit, it takes a lot more to match an arbitrary target's orbit
(to which more fuel has to be added for de-orbiting).

~~~
knodi123
Just having a theoretical conversation now, but

> antisat weapons that only ever raise or lower their orbits and fire .22s at
> their targets.

raising your orbit is the hard and expensive part, it takes a lot of
propellant, which generally rules out smaller vehicles, right?

And if you want to destroy a satellite, you need a lot of kinetic energy,
which for a tiny projectile means lots of speed relative to the target... But
since your absolute speed determines the height of your orbit, the only way to
get more than ~1000 ft/s is to have your gun-sat in an opposite-direction
orbit to the target, right? And isn't it the case that our satellites are all
orbiting in more or less the same direction, since they launch from canaveral
and have to head east to be over water?

~~~
enkid
What if you used an object in another orbit to fire a projectile? Wouldn't
that make the differences in energies pretty significant?

~~~
knodi123
I did suggest "have your gun-sat in an opposite-direction orbit to the
target". Yes, that would dramatically increase the kinetic energy.

------
strictnein
If you want to learn more about Russia and China's militarization of space,
The Shadow War by Jim Sciutto (Chief National Security Correspondent for CNN)
is a good place to start. It could be a one-sided effort (I doubt he has
access to RU and PLA national security insiders like he does in the US), but
it definitely sounds like Russia and China have moved ahead of the US in this
realm, in terms of actual satellite based shenanigans.

You'll also understand the at times seemingly random actions of those two
countries a little more.

[https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-War-Russias-Operations-
America...](https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-War-Russias-Operations-
America/dp/0062853643)

~~~
credit_guy
The US military has a certain tension in its communications. On one hand they
have to get money from the Congress, and the way to do this is "the gap
between us and these other guys is shrinking, we can't continue to do our job
with what money we have right now, hence, give us more money". On the other
hand, they have to communicate to their allies that the gap between themselves
and the Russians/Chinese is not actually shrinking, it's all good, and even
expanding (which it should better be, considering their budget is equal to the
defense budget of the next 20 nations combined).

I personally doubt Russia and China have moved ahead of the US in any realm,
satellite, rockets, cyber, or anything. But if you want to get a book sold,
you can do worse than arguing as such, and you certainly will have a lot of
evidence from the available various Congressional hearings, and other official
military communications, just because the Pentagon is not beyond crying wolf
when it serves its interests.

Edit: the book you mentioned looks quite good, thanks for mentioning it. I
just bought it.

------
an0f6a2bb51bb
Knocking out another countries satellites is what would be done in a first
strike nuclear attack according to modern military theorists.

China has tested space to space satellite weapons.

Russia has now tested space to space satellite weapons.

The US has not tested any space to space military assets and doesn't have this
functionality as far as what is currently known. (The rumor mill also
currently says the US has no such functionality and requires ground take off).

The reason this is important is that any response to a direct satellite attack
would potentially take greater than 30 minutes using ground based weapons.
(Again rumor mill).

~~~
m4rtink
>The US has not tested any space to space military assets and doesn't have
this functionality as far as what is currently known. (The rumor mill also
currently says the US has no such functionality and requires ground take off).

Um, most recently in 2008 the USA shot down it's own dead satellite by a ASAT
missile fired from a ship:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost)

While the story goes that the satellite was dangerous due to frozen ball of
hydrazine fuel on board (as it failed soon after launch and still had full
fuel load) it was also a perfect chance to test the existing ASAT capability.

Also in 2019 India tested their ASAT missile:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Shakti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Shakti)

~~~
mbrameld
Um, a ship is surface-based so that wasn't a space to space asset.

~~~
m4rtink
Isn't who owns the capability more important where it is based ?

------
fuoqi
Judging by the article the system in question simply was maneuvering near
another Russian satellite and got really close to it. It didn't fire any
projectiles to destroy it or anything like that. So I don't understand why it
caused such fuss, apart from the routine nurturing of the Russian scarecrow.

Yes, such systems could be used for military purposes (e.g. for inspecting US
spy sattelites or for interfering with their work), but also can be used for
civilian as well (e.g. refueling, safe deorbiting, and even some day repairs).
It's far easier and more reliable to destroy enemy satellites using ground
based systems, after all you just need to create a field of ballistic debris
which can be slower than first cosmic velocity, so it will be cheaper than
satellite. So I highly doubt purpose of the system is satellite destruction.

~~~
LatteLazy
I don't know why you've been downvoted, this is exactly what I thought.

~~~
FpUser
"apart from the routine nurturing of the Russian scarecrow" \- here is why.
Watch for this reply being downvoted as well

------
trhway
The main US strategic advantage over Russia is the networked military
platforms under the "Total Global Awareness" paradigm which are able to deploy
smart precision weapons, and the satellites are at the core of it. In general,
one has either to build its own capabilities up to the level similar to the
opponent's, which isn't an option for Russia in this case, or to bring down
the opponent's capabilities to the one's own level, and that is the only
option that at least somewhat plausible for Russia here. So, it is pretty
logical that the satellites are going to be the first priority target as much
as it is possible for Russian capabilities.

------
aaron695
It's interesting that this seems a propaganda piece for Space Force.

America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside to See What It Does
[https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/](https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/)

------
Zenst
"It is the first time the UK has made accusations about Russian test-firing in
space"

Have there been previous cases of Russian test-firing in space? [edit grammer]

~~~
ceejayoz
Yes, Salyut 3 had either a 23mm or 30mm cannon, which was apparently test
fired: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-
board_gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3#On-board_gun)

~~~
m4rtink
There were also plans for a manned Soyuz based satellite interceptor armed
with cannons and/or missiles but it was never flown and nothing really built:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Soyuz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Soyuz)

------
jcun4128
Kind of curious what this weapon is, said "projectile" so I guess it's not a
laser, I was thinking of those "Gods rods" but that's for targeting the ground

------
buzzert
Highly recommend watching 007 Goldeneye for a fictional take on this
situation. Fantastic movie.

------
praveen9920
I'm actually surprised to see that India is in race of developing anti-
satellite weapons.

------
ndesaulniers
I just hope someone is building a Gundam.

~~~
ianai
Welp have I got a link for you!!

[https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a33381411...](https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a33381411/japan-
giant-gundam-robot/)

------
sschueller
"threaten the peaceful use of space" and what exact is the US space force for?
Cleaning up after Elon's space junk? I don't think so. Kind of hypocritic to
accuse others of militarizing space.

~~~
Fishysoup
US military presence in space consists of spy satellites and military
communications satellites. As far as we know the US hasn't put any space-based
weapons up there. There's a difference.

~~~
octodog
Russia doesn't care about the technical difference and why would they? The USA
uses satellite infrastructure to exert influence, including in regions that
Russia is active in and considers critical. From a Russian perspective, it is
important that they have some way to counteract these capabilities.

The USA and its allies finds it very useful to paint Russia as a hostile and
even unethical actor here, but there is no fundamental difference between what
Russia does and what the West does.

~~~
Fishysoup
In terms of gaining influence, sure, maybe they're ethically on par. But
saying it's reasonable they're weaponizing space because "they need to
counteract US capabilities" is a flawed argument. They could counteract US
capabilities by investing in the education and economic well-being of their
populace, which, if enacted in 2000 when Putin came into power, would have
given enormous dividends to technological and military capability by now.
Instead they spend their human capital luring college graduates into troll
farms in Siberia with the promise of bare minimum shelter and food.

Internally, Russia is a deeply shitty regime, run by mobsters and thugs and
preying on its populace. The US has a lot of problems too (and even more so
since 2017) but its fundamental framework still prioritizes individual rights
and freedom of expression without fear of punishment (although, unlike its
allies, it doesn't do much to provide healthcare or education). I would much
rather have a world that's dominated by the US than one dominated by Russia or
China.

------
lifeisstillgood
What bothers me most is not "Russia has a Geo-political imperative that has as
much a claim to legitimacy as US or China" but the timing ...

Russia has for years been laundering billions through the lax City of London,
and days after reports alleging sitting Lords took bribes from Russians to
stop Anti Money Laundering Acts, we see a show of strength.

Not for geo politics, but for rich russian elites worrying about the cash.

Once upon a time Putins manoeuvres made some twisted strategic sense. Now not
so much.

~~~
eloff
Or, the simpler explanation, they could just be unconnected events.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
It's possible - but then Russia was fairly foolish for conducting it anytime
near the much heralded report. It seems far more likely the timing of the
report was known and not avoided.

~~~
rorykoehler
Why would they care about a report? That for the Brits to care about. Russia
couldn't give a shit and they probably planned this launch years out.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
The satellite has been up for years. The test firing is whenever they press a
button.

And they give a shit because the UK is making serious noises about tightening
up on money laundering - I mean FFS one of our own lawmakers has been
implicated in taking russian cash for putting down amendments - that's
basically Russian cash paying for UK laws - it's huge. And it will make it
harder for Russian money to move in London.

~~~
rorykoehler
The whole and only reason Brexit was pushed through was because they wanted to
avoid tightening up on money laundering. It's literally the City of London's
business model and the EU were making regulatory noises.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Err... They?

~~~
rorykoehler
They are political establishment "Leavers" like ex-trader Farage in this
context. There is a whole load of investment and banking money behind the
Leave movement.

[https://www.insider.com/twenty-one-biggest-donors-to-the-
lea...](https://www.insider.com/twenty-one-biggest-donors-to-the-leave-brexit-
campaign-2017-5#2-peter-hargreaves-3200000-20)

------
nyokodo
After saying that Russia was witnessed "launching a projectile with the
characteristics of a weapon." the Air Vice Marshall said "Actions like this
threaten the peaceful use of space and risk causing debris that could pose a
threat to satellites and the space systems on which the world depends."

My understanding of these words are that it wasn't that Russia having weapons
in space per se threatens the peaceful use of space but how they tested their
weapons in this case. This is because it risked causing debris and a lot of
damage. I don't see the basis for calling out the US for hypocrisy based on
this article. I'm unaware of any anti-satellite projectile weapons being
tested by the US like this over the past 12 years, I suppose you could call
the US a hypocrite for previous tests but that's a bit of a stale accusation
given how much more peaceful space activity there has been since then.

Edit: for clarity.

~~~
grecy
> _I 'm unaware of any anti-satellite projectile weapons being tested by the
> US like this over the past 12 years._

It seems very arbitrary to draw the line at 12 years.

In 2008 the US tested and proved their anti-sat tech works [1]. Now they don't
need to keep testing it, because everyone knows it works, and that's enough.

Now the Russians want only to do the same thing, and they're bad because of
it.

[1] [https://science.howstuffworks.com/shoot-down-
satellite.htm](https://science.howstuffworks.com/shoot-down-satellite.htm)

------
DataGata
Why is Russia or China even trying to take out our satellites at this point?
We have SpaceX, guys. We can put replacements up whenever we want to. How
about the Russians start figuring out how to use a launch system that isn't
worrying about whether or not its saved up enough for retirement?

~~~
mc32
I have no clue as to why Russia insists upon playing the neighborhood punk in
international politics. I mean to what end?

They’ve got massive problems internally, most of their armed forces run on
vapors, are they hoping to sell this to the highest bidder? Just a few last
chest thumps before they become less relevant? They still have some good lead
in some highly technical areas like weapons and rocketry and ancillary
technology, but most everything else is being wasted and no one seems to care
there. It’s a slow degradation. So much potential just wasted.

They could work with Europe, even the US, if they just reset the way they
play. Play your part—you’re not the old USSR any more.

~~~
ceejayoz
> I have no clue as to why Russia insists upon playing the neighborhood punk
> in international politics.

This is why:

> They’ve got massive problems internally...

An external enemy to blame does wonders.

~~~
mc32
I don’t think that’s it. This is more for international audiences. For
internal distraction they’ll threaten some Caucasus republic or Ukraine.

~~~
ceejayoz
Hard to blame economic woes on internal threats; "the Americans are
sanctioning/interfering our exports" is a lot easier to sell.

Cuba and North Korea have done this for decades; it works well.

