Researchers send 'wireless' message using neutrinos

[DeltaV]

Ladajo, stop twisting what I write.

So now you argue that X-37B is timeframe irrelevant to ASAT. Ok.

You know that we were arguing whether the X-37B has enough delta-V capability to evade an air-launched (NOT orbital sneak-up) ASAT in the few minutes available to do so.
By the time the onboard engine built up enough delta-V or the aero surfaces got enough atmospheric bite in a plane-change maneuver, it would all be over.

I am also making no comment on your X-37B capabilities comment.

Issac Newton thanks you.

What about contemporary systems like SM3 or SM6?

What about them? I'm all for them and think they are good programs to pursue and expand upon. I like the mobility and wide-area coverage of multiple, networked Aegis platforms and hope that Aegis-based AESA/GEODSS/LADAR for space surveillance, combined with enhanced-performance SM ASATs, gets perfected.

My fundamental point here is that X-37B is a game changer, specifically in its ability to change orbit. It raises large questions regarding track and engage for the "other" guys.
Your point seems to be that it is not. Your point also seems to be based in a lack of real knowledge about Space Surveillance.

Orbit change has nothing to do with endgame evasion of air-launched ASATs. There just isn't enough time. We weren't arguing space surveillance. Knowledge of target orbit was an a priori assumption. We were arguing endgame evasion in compressed time frames.

Please also recall my earlier statement that there would be certain things that you should not mess with by any means in orbit as Nuclear War starting redline items. Imagine what the Russians would think if somebody went after their launch detection assets or C2 links? They are already paranoiacs.

I did not state that sanity would be a characteristic of the perps.

[ladajo]

Ok, fair enough about end game shot. But please note that ASAT had a very limited window to shoot in, and it was primarily based on known orbit. As I recall, you got two tries on a LEO, then you had to go home.

For X-37B, I think the definer would be that it was stable, and had no idea someone was going to take a potshot at it. However, that said, as soon as they took the shot, and it was in flight, some folks would probably know.
I do not even begin to think to speak on what the urgent maneuver capability is for her. But I am guessing that someone has thought about it, and it is mapped out and understood by ground control. I am also thinking that during a contested political period, that if there were indications some perp might take a crack at it, they would probably go to an operating profile to boost survivability. That could well include not only a "Zig-Zag" plan, but also some plus up in onboard fuel.

I really am not trying to twist your words. I understood what you wrote differently to what I now understand you meant.

[DeltaV]

OK. Forgot to mention another advantage of multiple, distributed Aegis-type platforms for detection of stealthy birds in orbit. Bistatic radar, large radar/IR/optical interferometric baselines, target illumination by combined beams, etc. Not to mention plain old statistical improvements with more sensors.

[ladajo]

The issue with this idea is that that harder you look up, the less you can look around. You only have so many 'dwells' to 'spend' in a given system. The primary threat axis is from around, not up. Also, things that come from up tend to be "Duck Shots".

What you are talking about is along the lines of CEC. It has already been done. But it does not address the system load balance for looking up verses around. The distinct problem with Space Surveillance is the management of the volume. The deeper you look the more unmanageable the volume becomes. This is why most basic systems make use of "fences" and not volume scan. Fences work because Kepler cannot be proven wrong. However, the introduction of Kepler violators (complicators), like X-37B, severely complicate the standing methodology for Space Track. And the other guys know it. That is why they keep crying about it.

I don't think you really understand how it all actually works, and how it all works together. But that said, you are pushing the conversation to where I am becoming limited in my freedom to comment. Bravo.

[DeltaV]

All your CETPS are belong to us.

[ladajo]

It only matters if TIP is right.



I have formally sunk to a new low in humor. And, ironically, I just spent two weeks with group of about 50 Japanese. A good number old enough to remember Zero Wing.

[DeltaV]

All your ATIP and PMW/A-170 are belong to us too.

[ladajo]

Having fun with google are you? Lemmie guess, you are poking around FAS and Global Security?



Its all good. I don't hold it against you.