I think that depends on a lot of different factors. Could it be disguised as something harmless, like just a regular satellite, is just one thing to consider.
So you don't think there are space weapons being developed? Is that what you are saying here? I would definitely disagree. We would be stupid NOT to, and to think that no one would is rather naive.
You must be kidding. Of course there is stealth in space. Physics doesn't change in space, the principles or redirecting and absorbing electromagnetics, of hiding communications, of heat signature reduction, of camouflage, all apply in space just as they apply in the atmosphere. The only thing in space that cannot be hidden is when the vehicle occludes a star or some other object, but someone/something has to be looking just at that time and then have the interest to follow up - and even that type of detection can be reduced. Items in space can be hidden, but that's not the real problem - the real problem is sneaking something into space. Everyone knows when something is launched, the trick is to get that stealth vehicle deployed without everyone knowing the purpose is to deploy a secret vehicle.
I'll bet any money that the US has and is already investigating the possibility of developing space weapons.
I think theres about a snowball's chance in hell that we (and other spacefaring nations) dont already have weapons in space. One of my favs- kinetic bombardment is so absurbly 'low tech' and 'high effect' that Id eat my hat if we didnt already have thousands of em up there. And it wouldnt even break any treaties, being that they're just guided rods of really dense metal with all the destructive potential of a tactical nuke without the fallout.
That is pretty interesting. I don't think its so far fetched that these weapons could already exist. http://taskandpurpose.com/kinetic-bombardment-kep-weaponry/
Other articles and research Ive read on the KEPs suggest that the extreme velocity of a sufficiently dense, heavy and aerodynamic projectile could emit a nuke-like blast wave, in theory.
The problem with kinetic weapons is not the projectile, but the delivery system. The "cannons" are extremely expensive. In addition, in talking about being space-based, a satellite can not be hidden, meaning very vulnerable plus the cost of getting it into space would be expensive. There are other sci-fi level weapons systems in theory and in the works. It would be cheaper to put nukes in space as weapons and nuclear weapons have a far greater fear-factor. Potentially, a correctly sized asteroid could be course altered with a simple solar sail attached that would cause total destruction of another country without radiation, although could atmosphere damage short term. Basically it would throwing a big rock at the enemy at 25,000 mph. This could even be done covertly where it seemed a natural occurrence, but would take years to decades from start to impact.
Actually the explosion would be more akin to the MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) but at a fraction of the weight. The Tungsten Penetrators of Project Thor would be only 9 tons (a little over half the weight of the MOP) but would have the kinetic impact of 12 tons of TNT which is roughly the damage caused by the MOPs payload. The reason that it hasn't been deployed yet is the fact that you'd need several of them in a bundle per satellite to make the system worth the cost, but several 18,000 pound rods would be prohibitively expensive. Currently it costs $10,000 per pound to send something into space. Say we launch a satellite that contains just 4 rods and that's $720 million...and that's just the rods. I didn't even calculate the theoretical satellite needed for such. In 2011 the Air Force ordered 8 of the MOPs for only $28 million. And that's why I don't believe that we have anything space-based in the way of weaponry. It's far more cost effective to develop systems that can do what we want them to do but be launched on this side of the atmosphere.
Heat signature reduction in space just means you boil your electronics and any living person on board. You have to radiate heat in space. Heat in space is trivially easy to detect. There is no stealth in space.
I think I read somewhere that we could detect the heat signature of the Space Shuttle's RCS thrusters from as far away as Jupiter. In orbit that would be a lead pipe cinch.
BS. Do some reading. All the vehicle has to do is either match the radiation of whatever is behind it (space junk, a celestial object, cosmic background, etc), or reduce its signature to the point that it is within or near the noise threshold of whatever is trying to detect it. And thermal detection is basically line of sight detection, if you can't see it then you cant detect it - as in put something between the vehicle heat source and the detector. Stealth does not mean "invisible", it just means the vehicle is not recognized for what it is. That includes being undetectable, or being detectable but looking like something else. Stealth in space exists, its ridiculous to think otherwise.
I do believe that we are at least in the R&D phase of creating space weapons. Of course, everyone wants to have the edge when it comes to space technologies. The one who has the edge could pretty much rule the world.
It is impossible to make the heat signature of an object in space equal to what is "behind it" (especially given the fact that orbit requires movement) because the background temperature of space is near absolute zero. We can't make temperatures that low except in lab conditions and the machines that generate temperatures that low themselves generate tons of waste heat, so its a losing concept.
Well, NASA's on board it looks, with StarFleet... https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/474414000 Space Based Weaponry's sure to see an explosion in R&D alone...
Think. There is a lot of debris in orbit, large and small debris, clouds of debris, it can be used to hide items. A nation can hide something behind another of its own satellites, or in debris (discarded booster can also contain something else, for example). Vehicles don't have to be fully powered, their electronics can be in the far end of the vehicle shielded by other structures and even a thin screen all of which will be as cold as space. Vehicles don't have to communicate with earth based stations directly, they can communicate (transmit energy away from earth) with other non-secret space vehicles which then relay to ground stations. Vehicles don't have to stay close to the earth, the farther away the easier to hide. The smaller the vehicle the easier to hide, not all vehicles are huge, many can serve their purpose and can be very small. Even if a vehicle is detected, as long as it looks like something it is not (camouflaged), as long as the people detecting it don't know what it really is, then its still hidden.
Sure. Some ideas are being kicked around, but what with the $10,000 per pound cost of delivering the weapon into space on top of the weapon system itself...on paper is where it's going to stay for now.
Do you understand how big space is? Everyone in the world is going to give extra special scrutiny to a top-secret payload that is deliberately lifted next to debris that it has literally no reason to be near. The smaller the vehicle, the less effective it's going to be as a space based weapon.
Whoever has space based weaponry, why would they feel the need to hide it? They are already EONS ahead of anyone else. What are THEY gonna do about it?
Just better hope that it's the "good" guys (if there is any such thing) who come up with this type of weaponry first.
There is a long standing treaty prohibiting weapons of mass destruction in space or any weapons systems on the moon or any other object in space, plus no country can claim to own any part of any planet or the moon in space. Thus, we have the question of what, exactly, is and is not a "weapon of mass destruction?" How big does the destruction have to be to be "mass" destruction? Outer Space Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
A satellite in space is like a floating balloon, a very easy target and not easily shielded, compared to movable weapons systems and systems deep in hardened bunkers like missiles. A laser could easily disable one and it not even known who did it. The communications with the satellite would simply cease and it would not be known if it just a failure or it was deliberately disabled. Super destructive non-nuclear weapons poise a real problem. The plus of nuclear weapons is ironic in that no one can use them because they bite you in the ass with the radiation. When they developed "neutron bombs" that killed people but did no property damage it was basically agreed they were just too dangerous as they actually could be used. Nuclear weapons have radically reduced warfare and warfare deaths. For the first time in world history, the major powers could no longer go to war against each other due to MAD - "mutual assured destruction." The radiation of nuclear weapons is what makes a large scale nuclear war also ultimately an act of self suicide. But what if the radiation is eliminated? It becomes possible to believe that tens to hundreds of millions of people could be killed and entire country totally obliterated, with little bite-back without the radiation. In the military, such ethical question are debated. New experimental and theoretic weapons are so deadly, so unstoppable and without any bite-back that there is debate as the ethnics and long term effects of such weapons systems. If a weapons system could be built that with the push of a button would kill everyone in a building, block, region, or entire county should such a system REALLY be built? New ways to kill people are growing the same as all other technology is growing - geometrically. The ethical issues grow with this technology being used. At some point it is wise to stop and question just how far development of killing machines really should go. It comes down to while nuclear weapons could destroy entire countries, they can't be really used due to radiation. But what if they could be without that concern? It is understood that for any weapons system we build, the clock is ticking before inevitably other countries have them too - and then increasingly unstable 3rd world countries with sociopath dictators are pursuing them as well. Thus, we also come to the thinking that it now may be more important to develop weapons systems that defensively destroy weapons systems, rather than just weapons systems that kill people for which the fear of retaliation is the only defense.
Basically a WMD is classified as a weapon utilizing nuclear fission, fusion boosted fission, chemical or biological weapons. One of the reasons that Project Thor (the rods from god concept) would be permitted as it uses neither of the three. There would be a huge damn explosion and a lot of devastation...but nothing that would kill anyone who enters the zone after the dust settles. Chemical's linger, biologicals are designed to infect and spread, nuclear leaves radiation that can harm/kill...kinetic kill weapons on the other hand just go boom. There wouldn't even be any explosive residue left behind. However as I said...putting those 9-ton rods into space would cost far more than a conventional, aircraft dropped device. So much more that it would be impractical. For the cost of just putting 4 of those rods into space, you could buy 205 MOPs. Why hit 4 targets when you can crater an entire nation for the same price?
