Diegetics

Well, I just read that we spend more air conditioning tents in AFG than we do on NASA . If true, might want to reassess those priorities .

I am moving this thread to 'Futurism' as it lacks the whimsy of Tea Time.

My line on this is that the decline of funding/interest for NASA will result in the space program being folded into the military, and weaponization of satellites, with reciprocal satellite-destroying weaponry, will become a big growth field. Obviously there are already some working examples of both of these.

I think the defense industry will push this as they experience a lull in contracts after all the F-35s and new unmanned drones are built. Push some alarmist procurement through Congress and spend the next decade building war satellites with names lifted from science fiction movies.

You should feel blessed to be so wise. Most numb skulls would use their entire force of will to keep from shitting their pants. Most people have lost their primal self. Be glad you have not. Your lamentation at being in a superior state of being is a bit of a vice.

It is my purpose to illuminate the nature of the beast. So much is scientifically possible.

This is a great awakening. Wake. You're ready. The fear it slows you.

But back to the story at hand. The weaponization of space has implications beyond even what Sci Fi imagines. If space is not already weaponized, I would be surprised. I can only imagine what it is like for a bedouin who rides camels to see a Longbow cross the ridge. Try putting yourself in those shoes. It really is only one step further toward satellites that can target an individual.

Sennacherib I feel that my comments thus far have been a bit droll and sophomoric compared to the work you put into the OP.

So I'd like to discuss the differences between space and sea power.

1) Thus far space travel is not cheap enough that it represents a feasible logistical supply chain that can provide a strategic advantage to the forces capable of taking advantage of it. If we could fire a bucket full of marines with a railgun in an arc so that they travel to the stratosphere and then fall back down to their insertion point then perhaps it's an advantage. Thus far this is unrealistic.

2) Domination of resources would be subject to the law of diminishing returns very quickly. Naval power arose when ships were powered by the wind. This simple form of locomotion made sea travel make sense. Like our current military, the domination of energy resources makes less and less sense, and it would be even worse in a scenario where we are using space travel as a form of logistical supply. A ship with sails can easily make a profitable voyage in terms of supplies, but you have to measure the amount of energy put in against the amount extracted to see if it makes profitable sense. For the most part with space travel it doesn't. So space travel at current tech levels doesn't replicate the usefulness of a naval supply line.

3) ICBMs could already be considered, "Space Power", having the capacity to make an unstoppable strike is a very powerful weapon.

4) We already use satellites for surveillance and communication, which is a very economical purpose for them.

Agreed. The next step will be satellites laden with missiles.

You can actually launch a satellite for about $ 40k now, which in military terms is a drop in the bucket. Some Norwegian researchers studying reindeer populations got one up for their project some years ago for that price.

A missile satellite need not be much more complicated than a stinger. A series of metal tubes with communications gear. As long as the rockets can receive the target data the on-board computer can do the rest, and then the satellite is nothing more than a husk of metal floating in space.

As I understand it there have been some projects related to destroying old satellites, so that's your anti-satellite tech right there.

Of course hacking them from the ground probably gets more bang for the buck.

This is nothing like Mahan.

Think interdiction. How much is interdiction, cost-ratio wise? Next to nothing.

In the times under Mahan's analysis, it took the financial might of a state (or a rich merchant company) to launch a sea vessel, and the only thing that could reliably take a vessel out of operation was either an expensive (and fixed) fortress or a similar vessel (in terms of firepower, navigation tech, officer training etc). Furthermore, sea vessels were faster and could transport more volume of goods by orders of magnitude than any other manmade artifact. I recall reading that up until trains arrived on the scene, it was cheaper to haul coal to the American East Coast from England's mines than it was from inland Appalachia.

Compare space vehicles. Fuel makes up the majority of the cargo each time, to the point where it is impractical to create a vehicle capable of orbital launch, insertion and subsequent orbital re-exit (It'd be upwards of 99% fuel). Carrying capacity is limited, with speed the only advantage, at the risk of being confused with an ICBM launch. In terms of interdiction, all it takes to disable a billion-dollar spacecraft is a bucketful of nails launched on an intercept orbit, or even a ground-based laser. There is no cover in space, plus things move on predictable orbits. If I were a marginal space power fighting an established space-based power, the first thing I'd do was to launch 10-30 rockets in retrograde orbit into the geostationary Clark belt with nails as cargo, and detonate them up there. Within 90 minutes, all satellites are out, and given the contaminated environment, reinforcement is at best precarious. At orbital speeds, each nail hits with the impact power superior to that of a naval cannon, while space craft have to have thin walls to minimize launch weight. Not exactly a winning proposition.

Interesting thoughts ST. Definitely sounds like MAD would be a sure fire thing if space war were to ever occur.

Probably the surveillance capabilities of satellites are more significant than actually bolting weapons to them. I imagine satellites in communication with drones, maybe even drones that fly at super-high "low space" altitudes, in conjuction with advanced cameras and recognition software, to the extent that somebody just as to sign your death warrant on their notebook, and the integrated system will plan and execute the hit on you as soon as you step outside* and the satellites spot you. To me this is of a piece with "spacepower."


*assuming they can't see through walls perfectly yet

If spacepower can reduce the relevance of airpower, it could only be a good thing for humanity. Airpower is not terribly effective except against militaries that are oriented against airpower, or for the total war complete destruction paradigm that we don't do much anymore. It's horrendously expensive and not very neat and tidy in how it selects targets for death.