New Space Race

[phongn]

And while we could argue that the downing of what is arguably a strategic weapons system will only weight a proportional response, nobody is going to take that risk. They'll probably accept the orbiting satellites of doom, and if war ever comes then they'll knock the fool things down.

Perhaps. However, if the decision was made to preemptively knock down a SPECTRE Deathbeam Platform™, it would not be the same as hitting a military base on the opponnent's home territory, nor would it entail any risk to civilians within that territory. Otherwise, the likely response is to place orbital cannisters in the SDP's pathway, which could be detonated anytime. And the cannisters would certainly be a simpler and cheaper deterrent to the weapons platforms.

It would not be the same, no, but would it be considered similar to knocking down a strategic early-warning satellite? Or a communications satellite? Or a military weather satellite? This game is very dangerous, Patrick, which is why I don't feel like any nation would simply knock it down in peacetime.

You could put some sort of countemeasure up (canisters, hunter-killer ASATs, etc.) - but outright interception in peacetime, IMHO, is out of the question.

[Edi]

Your persistence is admirable, Edi, but your intelligence lacks.

If the published info is falsified, then the satellite once released will not settle into the orbit predicted by NASA and the game is up.

You're done in by orbital mechanics. Not only are you in trouble for lying to us and destroying valuable government property, you're ALSO in trouble for displaying your blatant contempt for us by using a tactic so transparent that it might fool a blind man for a second or two if you're lucky.

I see the point about false data regarding the satellite. But is it impossible, in your opinion, to put an additional, unreported payload on the booster, with the attendant increase in fuel to get the sat where it's going and get the wrecking payload up into orbit as well, without it being detected?

Edi

[Iceberg]

You're done in by orbital mechanics. Not only are you in trouble for lying to us and destroying valuable government property, you're ALSO in trouble for displaying your blatant contempt for us by using a tactic so transparent that it might fool a blind man for a second or two if you're lucky.

I see the point about false data regarding the satellite. But is it impossible, in your opinion, to put an additional, unreported payload on the booster, with the attendant increase in fuel to get the sat where it's going and get the wrecking payload up into orbit as well, without it being detected?

Edi

Again, you've got the problems before: The trajectory the rocket follows won't be the same as what NASA and SPACECOM calculated given the expected payload and fuel loading, and although the satellite will get into the right position, it won't follow the right path getting there. You're getting closer, but you've still got the same basic problem: Every stage of flight can be determined mathematically knowing the vehicle weight and target insertion orbit (which have to be checked with NASA, SPACECOM, ESA, Russia and a few other space agencies to ensure that your satellite's orbit doesn't conflict with any other satellites already up there). A difference of only a few tons is enough to significantly alter the launch trajectory, and that's going to make a few propellorheads at SPACECOM go "That's funny" and bend over their computer terminals when their Expensive White Elephant Satellite(tm) goes offline.

This is also assuming that the TDRS satellite network doesn't notice your attack payload being launched from the orbital insertion vehicle, because frankly, if you're going to do that, you're going to get more than just the US pissed at you. Junk in orbit is a genuine hazard not just for the satellite you're trying to kill, but every other space vehicle up there. I'm sure you're going to feel mighty sorry if, for instance, your hypervelocity attack mass ends up perforating the habitat module of the International Space Station and killing its crew.

It would probably be better for you overall if you just owned up to what you were trying to do and fired a missile at the white elephant satellite.

[LordShaithis]

You just don't see the larger picture, do you? If the entire point of the SPECTRE Deathbeam satellite is to terrify other nations into submission to the U.S., and instead it results in a preemptive strike and a general war, then the object of the exercise has necessarily failed.

How thick are you, Degan? Read your words above, which were tossed in with references to the pre-emptive war in Iraq. You clearly seemed to think that deploying Sattelites of Doom would cause other countried to go to war with the US.

[Patrick Degan]

And it's another episode of Prawn's Dementia.

You just don't see the larger picture, do you? If the entire point of the SPECTRE Deathbeam satellite is to terrify other nations into submission to the U.S., and instead it results in a preemptive strike and a general war, then the object of the exercise has necessarily failed.

How thick are you, Degan? Read your words above, which were tossed in with references to the pre-emptive war in Iraq. You clearly seemed to think that deploying Sattelites of Doom would cause other countried to go to war with the US.

Wrong again, stupid. Try reading the actual fucking thread. But then, I forget that you have to have all the dots connected for you in nice and simple words so that things don't fly past you. So let's try again, shall we?

The first argument was that deploying orbital weapons means nobody will try anything against the U.S. This is the idea. The sentence above says that if the result instead is war, then the intented purpose of the weapon satellite has failed. But I guess you didn't see the word "if" at the opening of the sentence above.

Guess this must be part-and-parcel with your evident reading comprehension problem.