Hacker News Reader

> Russia Has Four Potential "Killer Satellites" In Orbit, At Least That We Know About

As opposed to the operational ASAT system that the United States operates?

> space isn't safe for blue team anymore

'Blue Team' that's the good guys, right?

Besides the fact that space is inherently unsafe, it is the United States that has taken the lead in the militarization of space. Heck the US Space Force even has a website: https://www.spaceforce.mil/ , I'd assume they have some actual capabilities as well.

> something China is also doing in artificial intelligence research (not bothering with "frameworks" and "guiding principles for responsible AI")

Which of course doesn't happen anywhere else.

Really, I think your comment could use some balance. From the point of view of an inhabitant of a small nation that does not have its own space capability it sure looks like the United States is a very large part of the problem.

The establishment of "Space Force" is overblown as a story... but in ways that support your point.

It's basically a rebranding of an existing organization called US Air Force Space Command, which controls all military orbital launches and most military satellites (I believe NRO is its own separate thing). They just wanted it to be less specifically tied to the Air Force, and for its chief to be on equal footing to a service chief.

> The establishment of "Space Force" is overblown as a story

In the immediate sense yes: Space Force was just taking existing departments and putting them in a separate organisation.

But this has long term effects, cutting them free of the Air Force oversight means they are no longer bound to the Earth in a very concrete sense. It seems that while they were part of the Air Force, someone though it fun to put in their mandate that they should defend all US interests in space, which in particular means everything NASA has sent out.

Now that they are an independent organisation, that what they develop their culture around. Space Force is already putting out material with a view on how to fight around the moon! There's nothing much on the moon of course, but still they are anxious to know how to put weapons there for when there might be.

If given enough money, there's little question that Space Force would seek to achieve dominance over the Solar System.

And everything that is labeled 'defense' really should be labeled 'offense'.

Brilliant. That way we can never have any defense! It feels like you have an axe to grind.

Due to the particular characteristics of the environment the person your replying to does have a point. Everything labelled ‘defense’ in space’ also has significant ‘offense’ potential. You can call it the tyranny of orbital mechanics or gravity or whatever, but nothing any military does in space can be considered purely defensive. Which is why many smart folks, especially in the US, have advocated for the complete demilitarization of space because that would actually be the most advantageous in the long run.

I see what you mean but it is a rather tiring to refute it, many things have duality to their nature. Technology itself can be used for offense or defense. Semiconductors to nuclear fuels.

It's one thing to push back on the central premise - 'We cannot trust Blue team', but entirely delusional to also not take a deeper look at the situation of our adversaries and what exactly are they upto. If anything is unbalanced, it's your comment.

What, raising an objection without providing a full "both sides are bad" article is somehow something to be shamed about?

The deltaV requirements for matching orbits with another satellite are seriously prohibitive. It’s vastly easier to simply launch a projectile on a collision course. Further, it’s even easier to launch up and into the path of a satellite than reach orbit. Especially if you’re launching from an aircraft in a large parabolic arch.

Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT

Critically launching from aircraft to orbit is not that helpful, but if you don’t need to orbit it makes a huge difference.

>matching orbits

You don't need to match orbits, for kinetic satellite weapons. You just need to change to an orbit that directly intersects, or comes close enough to it at some point to launch a daughter projectile.

For a kinetic vehicle, matching orbits actually decreases the net kill energy.

You want a head-on train wreck, not a following-too-close fender bender.

I don’t disagree, I was referring to why this was a bad idea:

“The problem is that any satellite that can maneuver itself very close to another one, and may have small arms or probes to physically interact with its target, is inherently capable of being a weapon.”

If your anti satellite weapon is in orbit you just wasted a lot of energy getting it there.

> Russia and China have aggressive ambitions to be able to dominate space and aren't restrained by any code of ethics, something China is also doing in artificial intelligence research (not bothering with "frameworks" and "guiding principles for responsible AI").

Are you implying that the US military has a code of ethics it follows more than Russia or China? I would advise you to read up on the recent history of latin America and the Middle East if you believe such fantasies.

Speak to anyone involved on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Strikes on valid targets were routinely frustrated by the chain of command worried about collateral damage. That's not to say there are examples that where it happened anyways(you'll link me the Kunduz hospital airstrike as an example).

Contrast with the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan, or their more recent contributions to the Syrian Civil War. Collateral damage is _not_ a consideration when they decide to go kinetic. Barrel bombing civilians _is the point_.

> and aren't restrained by any code of ethics

give ... me ... a break. are you seriously implying US (aka blue team) are good guys and have some higher standards?

Especially funny in this context as recent efforts to created a code of conduct for space have largely been rejected by the US in favour of the unstructured status quo.

I sure wish we had a code of conduct for space that could be ignored like the rules regarding sea and air.

It does have a point - a structured code of conduct would restrict USA more than others because they would at least try to cover up any violations and at least openly try to follow them for internal political reasons, while the potential adversaries do have the practical capability to just flount the restrictions whenever suitable, as internal political battles or budget allocation will not risk exposing such violations like USA did - if they had something like the equivalent of Nixon's Pentagon Papers event, they would just execute everyone involved and it would not get published.

Things like USA-USSR nuclear disarmament treaties only worked because they included mechanisms for strict verification by the other side. For not developing space arms, you would have to rely on trust, and (as the article mentions) international trust is in very short supply.

Why would you have to rely on trust? As the nuclear treaties show, its perfectly possible to include verification as part of the treaty.

No, the true reason too many in the USG sees a code of conduct as undesirable is that they believe the US is so far ahead its dominance would be restricted if it had pledged to no do whatever the fuck it wants in space.

And because opposition is grounded in maintaining dominance, something that's not yet entirely edible in today's political climate, they cannot muster more persuasive arguments than "we can't have common rules because then the US would have to follow them but the others wouldn't".

This is obvious trash: if the opposition breaks the treaty the US would not respect it either, and in any case the US has not shown hesitancy to withdraw from treaties even without violations as of late.

If you actually examine the war doctrine of the US, or consider that the US and its allies by and large provide for the stability of world trade through tumultuous regions, yes. Only if you've been engrossed in Russian or Chinese state media would you think otherwise.

Personally I believe the US is still capable of being extremely unethical as well, we just have to find ways to cover it up. So really we’re not at too much of a disadvantage.

> More generally, space isn't safe for blue team anymore.

SpaceX bringing massive capabilities of orbital launch makes blue team stronger than ever. There's no competition anymore.