Is there a technology capable of disabling the whole of Earth's satellitle network?Could there be a group of...
Did President Obama tell President Trump he was close to starting a war with North Korea?
Who, if anyone, was the first astronaut to return to earth in a different vessel?
Does a star need to be inside a galaxy?
Headless horseman claims new head
Why are these receptacles so difficult to plug into?
If an area is covered in both Ball Bearings and Caltrops, does the creature need to move at half speed or quarter speed to avoid both their effects?
How to not forget my phone in the bathroom?
Is it appropriate to give a culturally-traditional gift to a female coworker?
Why do most space probes survive for far longer than they were designed for?
A dragon's soul trapped in a ring of mind shielding wants a new body; what magic could enable her to do so?
Ethernet cable only works in certain positions
How to tell readers your story is a re-imagination of a popular story?
Father gets chickenpox, but doesn't infect his two children. How is this possible?
Is there a technology capable of disabling the whole of Earth's satellitle network?
Centering, linebreaks and raggedright in underbrace text in mathmode
For US ESTA, should I mention a visa denial from before I got UK citizenship?
Why does Python copy numpy arrays where the length of the dimensions are the same?
What happens when the last remaining players refuse to kill each other?
Mathematica seems confused about Kilograms vs KilogramsForce
How do I add numbers from two txt files with Bash?
Negotiating 1-year delay to my Assistant Professor Offer
How does a single engine tail wheel landing gear airplane turn when it is on the ground?
Found a major flaw in paper from home university – to which I would like to return
Reducing noise in this audio amplifier
Is there a technology capable of disabling the whole of Earth's satellitle network?
Could there be a group of people with highly advanced technology?Technology capable of reading brainwave commandsIs there a precedent for inventing a new technology many years before anyone else?Would England of the 14th Century be capable of producing revolver bulletsWhat would the technical term be for this technology?What is the minimum level of technology required for deciphering an extraterrestrial radio signal?How might the cooling of the Earth's core be accelerated?How to avoid the language barrier when there is no time to learn the other language?Is there a plausible way to build a pipette with medieval technology?What are the fundamental limitations of echolocation in Earth's atmosphere?
$begingroup$
Machine-based communication (and navigation) relies extensively on satellites. In the future, with the massification of 5G, more and more reliance will be put on satellites (e.g. the Internet of Things), with other technologies (like fiber optic) becoming less prominent.
Inspired by a sci-fi movie I watched the other day, I wonder whether there is currently a technology (even if in development stage) capable of rendering the whole of Earth's satellite network useless in a fairly quick way. You would imagine this could have catastrophic consequences on Earth (and, connecting back to the sci-fi movie, would definitively give an antagonist alien race mastering that technology a significant advantage when attacking Earth).
I know there are tools to do radio jamming. However, that is still very localised (geographically as well as in terms of radio bandwidth). I'm more interested in a technology that could render the whole (Earth) network useless.
technology communication satellites
$endgroup$
migrated from engineering.stackexchange.com 23 hours ago
This question came from our site for professionals and students of engineering.
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
Machine-based communication (and navigation) relies extensively on satellites. In the future, with the massification of 5G, more and more reliance will be put on satellites (e.g. the Internet of Things), with other technologies (like fiber optic) becoming less prominent.
Inspired by a sci-fi movie I watched the other day, I wonder whether there is currently a technology (even if in development stage) capable of rendering the whole of Earth's satellite network useless in a fairly quick way. You would imagine this could have catastrophic consequences on Earth (and, connecting back to the sci-fi movie, would definitively give an antagonist alien race mastering that technology a significant advantage when attacking Earth).
I know there are tools to do radio jamming. However, that is still very localised (geographically as well as in terms of radio bandwidth). I'm more interested in a technology that could render the whole (Earth) network useless.
technology communication satellites
$endgroup$
migrated from engineering.stackexchange.com 23 hours ago
This question came from our site for professionals and students of engineering.
3
$begingroup$
Are you trying to build such systems. If not it sounds like a question for worldbuilding.SE (or better yet suggest a terrorism.se on area 51 (; )
$endgroup$
– joojaa
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
If there are the tools that exist - who is going to tell you ?
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
There is a bit misconception here. Wireless is based on antenna towers. Satellites are only used by GPS which is a receive-only protocol. In other words EMPing all satellites in orbit is barely going to affect the internet. Cross-ocean communication is done by undersea glassfiber lines.
$endgroup$
– ratchet freak
23 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
Uh, neither IoT nor 5G (a mobile network tech!) need satellites for anything - satellite internet connection is way too slow and power-hungry. Only the navigation part is often done via GNSS, communication is not affected by taking down satellites.
$endgroup$
– Bergi
17 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Machine-based communication mostly relies on cell towers and wi-fi, which rely on undersea cables. 5G means more cell towers. And by the way there isn't a satellite network, there are lots of networks (that use their own satellites each), but that doesn't matter if you're going to destroy all satellites.
$endgroup$
– immibis
12 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
Machine-based communication (and navigation) relies extensively on satellites. In the future, with the massification of 5G, more and more reliance will be put on satellites (e.g. the Internet of Things), with other technologies (like fiber optic) becoming less prominent.
Inspired by a sci-fi movie I watched the other day, I wonder whether there is currently a technology (even if in development stage) capable of rendering the whole of Earth's satellite network useless in a fairly quick way. You would imagine this could have catastrophic consequences on Earth (and, connecting back to the sci-fi movie, would definitively give an antagonist alien race mastering that technology a significant advantage when attacking Earth).
I know there are tools to do radio jamming. However, that is still very localised (geographically as well as in terms of radio bandwidth). I'm more interested in a technology that could render the whole (Earth) network useless.
technology communication satellites
$endgroup$
Machine-based communication (and navigation) relies extensively on satellites. In the future, with the massification of 5G, more and more reliance will be put on satellites (e.g. the Internet of Things), with other technologies (like fiber optic) becoming less prominent.
Inspired by a sci-fi movie I watched the other day, I wonder whether there is currently a technology (even if in development stage) capable of rendering the whole of Earth's satellite network useless in a fairly quick way. You would imagine this could have catastrophic consequences on Earth (and, connecting back to the sci-fi movie, would definitively give an antagonist alien race mastering that technology a significant advantage when attacking Earth).
I know there are tools to do radio jamming. However, that is still very localised (geographically as well as in terms of radio bandwidth). I'm more interested in a technology that could render the whole (Earth) network useless.
technology communication satellites
technology communication satellites
edited 19 hours ago
Cyn
8,94812145
8,94812145
asked yesterday
luchonacholuchonacho
16117
16117
migrated from engineering.stackexchange.com 23 hours ago
This question came from our site for professionals and students of engineering.
migrated from engineering.stackexchange.com 23 hours ago
This question came from our site for professionals and students of engineering.
3
$begingroup$
Are you trying to build such systems. If not it sounds like a question for worldbuilding.SE (or better yet suggest a terrorism.se on area 51 (; )
$endgroup$
– joojaa
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
If there are the tools that exist - who is going to tell you ?
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
There is a bit misconception here. Wireless is based on antenna towers. Satellites are only used by GPS which is a receive-only protocol. In other words EMPing all satellites in orbit is barely going to affect the internet. Cross-ocean communication is done by undersea glassfiber lines.
$endgroup$
– ratchet freak
23 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
Uh, neither IoT nor 5G (a mobile network tech!) need satellites for anything - satellite internet connection is way too slow and power-hungry. Only the navigation part is often done via GNSS, communication is not affected by taking down satellites.
$endgroup$
– Bergi
17 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Machine-based communication mostly relies on cell towers and wi-fi, which rely on undersea cables. 5G means more cell towers. And by the way there isn't a satellite network, there are lots of networks (that use their own satellites each), but that doesn't matter if you're going to destroy all satellites.
$endgroup$
– immibis
12 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
3
$begingroup$
Are you trying to build such systems. If not it sounds like a question for worldbuilding.SE (or better yet suggest a terrorism.se on area 51 (; )
$endgroup$
– joojaa
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
If there are the tools that exist - who is going to tell you ?
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
There is a bit misconception here. Wireless is based on antenna towers. Satellites are only used by GPS which is a receive-only protocol. In other words EMPing all satellites in orbit is barely going to affect the internet. Cross-ocean communication is done by undersea glassfiber lines.
$endgroup$
– ratchet freak
23 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
Uh, neither IoT nor 5G (a mobile network tech!) need satellites for anything - satellite internet connection is way too slow and power-hungry. Only the navigation part is often done via GNSS, communication is not affected by taking down satellites.
$endgroup$
– Bergi
17 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Machine-based communication mostly relies on cell towers and wi-fi, which rely on undersea cables. 5G means more cell towers. And by the way there isn't a satellite network, there are lots of networks (that use their own satellites each), but that doesn't matter if you're going to destroy all satellites.
$endgroup$
– immibis
12 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Are you trying to build such systems. If not it sounds like a question for worldbuilding.SE (or better yet suggest a terrorism.se on area 51 (; )
$endgroup$
– joojaa
yesterday
$begingroup$
Are you trying to build such systems. If not it sounds like a question for worldbuilding.SE (or better yet suggest a terrorism.se on area 51 (; )
$endgroup$
– joojaa
yesterday
4
4
$begingroup$
If there are the tools that exist - who is going to tell you ?
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
yesterday
$begingroup$
If there are the tools that exist - who is going to tell you ?
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
yesterday
8
8
$begingroup$
There is a bit misconception here. Wireless is based on antenna towers. Satellites are only used by GPS which is a receive-only protocol. In other words EMPing all satellites in orbit is barely going to affect the internet. Cross-ocean communication is done by undersea glassfiber lines.
$endgroup$
– ratchet freak
23 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is a bit misconception here. Wireless is based on antenna towers. Satellites are only used by GPS which is a receive-only protocol. In other words EMPing all satellites in orbit is barely going to affect the internet. Cross-ocean communication is done by undersea glassfiber lines.
$endgroup$
– ratchet freak
23 hours ago
11
11
$begingroup$
Uh, neither IoT nor 5G (a mobile network tech!) need satellites for anything - satellite internet connection is way too slow and power-hungry. Only the navigation part is often done via GNSS, communication is not affected by taking down satellites.
$endgroup$
– Bergi
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
Uh, neither IoT nor 5G (a mobile network tech!) need satellites for anything - satellite internet connection is way too slow and power-hungry. Only the navigation part is often done via GNSS, communication is not affected by taking down satellites.
$endgroup$
– Bergi
17 hours ago
6
6
$begingroup$
Machine-based communication mostly relies on cell towers and wi-fi, which rely on undersea cables. 5G means more cell towers. And by the way there isn't a satellite network, there are lots of networks (that use their own satellites each), but that doesn't matter if you're going to destroy all satellites.
$endgroup$
– immibis
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Machine-based communication mostly relies on cell towers and wi-fi, which rely on undersea cables. 5G means more cell towers. And by the way there isn't a satellite network, there are lots of networks (that use their own satellites each), but that doesn't matter if you're going to destroy all satellites.
$endgroup$
– immibis
12 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, Kessler Syndrome
In particular:
The Envisat satellite is a large, inactive satellite with a mass of 8,211 kg (18,102 lb) that drifts at 785 km (488 mi), an altitude where the debris environment is the greatest—two catalogued objects can be expected to pass within about 200 meters of Envisat every year—and likely to increase. It could easily become a major debris contributor from a collision during the next 150 years that it will remain in orbit.
It wouldn't be instantaneous but if you exploded a few suitable targets such as Envisat you could fill the relevant sections of space with destructive fragments that then cause a cascade of strikes into other targets. Space could become a very hostile environment in a few years and remain that way for decades.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Interesting! With enough clutter orbiting Earth, we could be trapped inside, as it might be too risky to get a ship out without risking a collision. Looks like we are very vulnerable at the moment.
$endgroup$
– luchonacho
22 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I was imagining that someone might launch a giant glitter bomb.
$endgroup$
– Spencer
22 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Kessler Syndrome would be the most reliable method, but it would take some careful planning if you wanted to take out EVERY satellite. Satellites orbit the Earth at a range of altitudes and inclinations (angles relative to the equator). You would probably need at least a handful of collisions/explosions at various locations in order to reliably destroy every satellite. If you had months or years to wait for debris to spread and interact, you could probably get away with fewer initial collisions/explosions.
$endgroup$
– Kyle A
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Launching a truckload of small ball bearings into elliptical orbit that crosses the orbits of GPS satellites as well as geo-stationary satellites would be a pretty effective way to initiate the Kessler syndrome and mess up the most important satellite services in-use.
$endgroup$
– Gary Walker
19 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. Kessler syndrome applies only to a very specific orbit which makes launch difficult, but will be harmless to the vast majority of existing satellites.
$endgroup$
– forest
16 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
All at once, none that I know of. But you can always count on the good old human party trick:
Blow it up
The classical Bond's movie move is to send a few dozens missiles and take down enough of the network to accomplish your goal. Let's take GPS, for reference. GPS work with geo-synchronous satellites broadcasting an universal time set on an atomic clock1.
It it bothers you, skip that part:
Your device receive signals from those satellites that tell them when the satellite broadcasted it. It deduces the time each signal took to come from each satellite, thus allowing to triangulate your position (triangulate as in, you need at least 3 to pinpoint your position in space, otherwise, you end up with a sphere or a circle and it's not convenient).
What I'm getting at is that the system is highly dependent on its network. If you take out enough of the grid, you create at least a "no-service" zone (per Earth obscuration), or you make it completely ineffective.
My guess would be that a few missiles strikes would do quite a bit of damage to your satellite network. 1 (Not sure which missiles are able to reach satellite orbit if any though. But it's well within our reach, as well as any sci-fi race bothering visiting us)
Other option:
EMP
This one is highly hypothetical and should be taken with lots of care. EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) is a common sci-fi trope. Basically, a very powerful electro magnetic field disrupt electronics, and it's pretty nasty on computers. I think I remember Call of Duty MWII2 used a nuke exploding in orbit to disable satellites. Now, an explosion happening into the void of space does not end up in a big ball of fire a la Death Star. If I'm not mistaken, it instead produce electro magnetic radiation (among probably other things. I'm stressing 1 on this point).
Thing is, radiations and electro magnetic fields are probably something to expect in space. (Radiation is a given, EMP... maybe 3). So I wouldn't be surprised if satellites were protected against natural causes for this. But it might be worth looking into the theory.
This answer does not support any kind of attempt to take down satellites and I hereby decline responsibility if anyone manage to make sense of this thoroughly uninformed ramble and somehow devise the weapons to enact it.
1: No expert here, anyone feel free to correct me if I misunderstood something / made a mistake.
2: See why I said lots of care? [sarcasm]Very reliable source for sure [/sarcasm]
3: I mean, I know there is electro magnetic radiation in space, as even Earth has an electromagnetic field. The thing is, I don't know if they are powerful enough to fry electronics. Slight disgression here, that would need to be answered by someone actually knowledgeable about this.
Edit 1: As pointed in comments, I was mistaken about GPS using geo-synchronous satellites. Thanks to Zeiss Ikon and user71659 for their clarifications.4
Zeiss Ikon: "GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial."
user71659: "GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. [...] On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap)."
It makes sense some network are designed to be robust since GPS was originally a military project under the name Navstar GPS. Including system redundancy is done precisely to counter-act the loss of a few satellites. If we follow user71659 comment, you'd need to blow up at least 17 satellites to impede the system (to which extent, I don't know).
user71659 also suggested geo comsats would be an easier target to disable. Unfortunately, I'd need a little disambiguation as a research results are numerous, so I suggest you ask directly our fellow terrorist.SE user.
Furthermore, the Kessler effect have been pointed out several times in other answers. I didn't include it in mine for two reasons.
First, I didn't know the name of the phenomenon at the time, though it would be an obvious byproduct of exploding satellites.
Second, satellites using differents orbits at differents altitudes, I suppose it would not be "just" blowing up some satellites and would requires some maths beforehand to ensure enough remaining orbital devices would be hit in an acceptable time-frame (before the lost ones are replaced). Probability is an hard mistress though, and she commands that, if a satellite and debris have a chance to collide, they eventually will.
4: Let's give credit where it's due.
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial.
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
22 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. It trades off some accuracy for that. It is more robust than the other systems, EU Galileo, Russian GLONASS and Chinese BeiDou, all of which use 3 orbital planes. On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap).
$endgroup$
– user71659
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay, bad example then. Thanks for the information, I will edit accordingly
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Nyakouai I'd say geo comsats would be the most vulnerable. Already happened before.
$endgroup$
– user71659
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@atayenel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Story It is a nuke (double checked, it's explicitly stated in other languages) but the result is an EMP.
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The most obvious solution is the high-altitude nuke. Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcTrOGS3TyE
Just to summarize: nuclear blast sends a lot of charged particles at hight speed away. Earth's magnetic field redirects that back-and-forth, and since moving charges means current, and alternating current induces current in wires, it kills a lot of sensitive electric stuff, including satellites, telephone lines, electric cables, and everything connected to the end of those. So there will be a lot of collateral damage, only use this if your story supports it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Yes, this exactly. We happen to know that this is quite effective at destroying satellites, as we've unintentionally destroyed several of them this way already. :)
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The high altitude nuke is probably not high enough to affect satellites in geosynchronous orbit, because most ballistic missiles can't reach the required altitude.
$endgroup$
– Joe
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A rocket armed with a grenade launcher and 2000 grenades
There are about 2000 satellites. Therefore, just make a rocket, launch it into space, and have it start firing grenades into each satellite individually. Satellites are designed to survive radiation and vacuums, not explosions. Apparently, they are structurally very fragile to save weight.
Note that you do not need to chase the satellites. That would take a lot of fuel. Instead, you can just aim the grenades at the satellites. There's (almost) no air resistance in space, so you can fire as far as your accuracy and precision permits.
If you got enough cash, you could even fire the grenades or even throw yourself. This would be a lot more expensive, since you need to launch a human into space and get a lot closer (since humans are not good at aiming), all on top of the tyranny of the rocket equation. That's a small price to pay to be the person to destroy all of Earth's satellites by dual-wielding grenade launchers though in space, in my opinion.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
In was going to downvote because the logistics of getting enough shooters into space is daunting, but then i saw that the shooter is dual wielding, so that's an upvote.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm The idea is that there would only be one shooter that takes down all 2000 satellites.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
depending on the fire rate of the (hopefully full-auto?) grenade launchers the shooter is dual wielding, it may not even be necessary to put her into orbit - a brief stint above atmosphere may be sufficient, like with an ICBM. Great stuff.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm Well, having a human fire the grenades would take much longer, since you need to get close enough for a human to aim. For an automatic rocket, you might only need elevation, not orbital velocity.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Both the US and old USSR had anti-satellite weapons in development before agreeing a treaty to play nice in space. I don't know if the results were ever considered viable weapons but I can't believe they would have deleted the blueprints. The Chinese actually shot at one of their own satellites a few years back.
So if we can do this now, then your postulated aliens with the technology to cross interstellar space should have no problems targeting a few thousand sittings ducks moving in well ordered and predictable orbits.
A shotgun makes a very capable weapon in orbit, with the advantage that the pellets don't fall to ground after 50m. If you can use laser, maser, emp/x-ray bursts or even old fashioned kinetic weapons it shouldn't be an impossible task. The magazine of the A-10 Thunderbolt carried 1350 rounds, so with perfect marksmanship you'd only need 4. Actually you could afford quite a few misses!
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The U.S. Navy shot down a defunct U.S. NRO satellite before the Chinese did it, actually, so, yeah, it's pretty well known that the technology is still around. They just used the existing Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to shoot it down with an SM-3.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Some well-known hypotheticals:
- Have something crash into something to start the Kessler Syndrome.
- Build a big, ground-based laser or maser and start to take potshots at satellites. The US stopped Star Wars before it got there. The Chinese might have something like this.
- Come up with a set of malware to attack the ground control and to send destructive commands, like "spend all the maneuvering fuel get onto collision course with another sat." The problem, those control systems are rather hard.
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
And the Soviet actually launched a prototype orbital laser weapon (which crashed back in the atmosphere because of a tiny computer bug, and then Perestroika happened)
$endgroup$
– Eth
22 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Wow, epic fail. "For technical reasons, the payload was launched upside down. It was designed to separate from the Energia, rotate 180 degrees in yaw, then 90 degrees in roll and then fire its engine to complete its boost to orbit. The Energia functioned perfectly. However, after separation from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees. When the engine fired, it slowed and burned up in the atmosphere over the south Pacific Ocean." Oops.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I suppose if your aliens can cross light years of space, they might have some as-yet-unexplained way to cause a massive solar flare or coronal mass ejection.
New contributor
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
If you could explain the some as-yet-unexplained way the answer would substantially improve
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is basically the plot of Sunstorm.
$endgroup$
– ununseti
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A solar flare is capable of doing just that. A strong enough one hitting the earth directly would knock out any satellite facing the sun. So while it may not hit EVERY satellite, it would get more than half - remember the satellites are high above the earth.
So, if an alien race had large solar flare level technology, it would likely destroy a large portion of our satellites. Give that the majority of our space communications are over the northern hemisphere (most 1st world counties and land mass are there), this would basically destroy most of them if positioned appropriately.
See for instance:
https://sciencing.com/solar-flares-affect-communication-23537.html
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
While radiation from solar flares does indeed induce radio blackouts and cause some satellites to fail entirely, most satellites are designed to survive flares and CMEs. The biggest danger to satellites from flares and CMEs is that increased solar activity expands the Earth's atmosphere, increasing drag substantially for objects in Low Earth Orbit, causing them to deorbit sooner than planned. A Carrington level event is, of course, beyond the radiation hardening that current satellites are designed to survive.
$endgroup$
– Ghedipunk
16 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sounds like the question then is could an alien race realistically produce a Carrington type flare to knock out satellites. Because their range is closer and could be localized one target at a time shots they might need less energy than that.
$endgroup$
– user61498
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As i think more a potentially better solution if we really are considering alien level tech would be a dozen ships (i assume they take more than 1) with cloaking tech and simply blow them up 12 at once and then another 12 shortly after. Because we can't see the ships it would take too long to respond before they were all gone. As for cloaking, lots of researchers are working on nanostructures and left handed materials that are close to achieving cloaking with our own tech level. So we know that stuff is possible. It isn't quite a quick as maybe the op wants but would do the job.
$endgroup$
– user61498
13 hours ago
add a comment |
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, Kessler Syndrome
In particular:
The Envisat satellite is a large, inactive satellite with a mass of 8,211 kg (18,102 lb) that drifts at 785 km (488 mi), an altitude where the debris environment is the greatest—two catalogued objects can be expected to pass within about 200 meters of Envisat every year—and likely to increase. It could easily become a major debris contributor from a collision during the next 150 years that it will remain in orbit.
It wouldn't be instantaneous but if you exploded a few suitable targets such as Envisat you could fill the relevant sections of space with destructive fragments that then cause a cascade of strikes into other targets. Space could become a very hostile environment in a few years and remain that way for decades.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Interesting! With enough clutter orbiting Earth, we could be trapped inside, as it might be too risky to get a ship out without risking a collision. Looks like we are very vulnerable at the moment.
$endgroup$
– luchonacho
22 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I was imagining that someone might launch a giant glitter bomb.
$endgroup$
– Spencer
22 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Kessler Syndrome would be the most reliable method, but it would take some careful planning if you wanted to take out EVERY satellite. Satellites orbit the Earth at a range of altitudes and inclinations (angles relative to the equator). You would probably need at least a handful of collisions/explosions at various locations in order to reliably destroy every satellite. If you had months or years to wait for debris to spread and interact, you could probably get away with fewer initial collisions/explosions.
$endgroup$
– Kyle A
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Launching a truckload of small ball bearings into elliptical orbit that crosses the orbits of GPS satellites as well as geo-stationary satellites would be a pretty effective way to initiate the Kessler syndrome and mess up the most important satellite services in-use.
$endgroup$
– Gary Walker
19 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. Kessler syndrome applies only to a very specific orbit which makes launch difficult, but will be harmless to the vast majority of existing satellites.
$endgroup$
– forest
16 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes, Kessler Syndrome
In particular:
The Envisat satellite is a large, inactive satellite with a mass of 8,211 kg (18,102 lb) that drifts at 785 km (488 mi), an altitude where the debris environment is the greatest—two catalogued objects can be expected to pass within about 200 meters of Envisat every year—and likely to increase. It could easily become a major debris contributor from a collision during the next 150 years that it will remain in orbit.
It wouldn't be instantaneous but if you exploded a few suitable targets such as Envisat you could fill the relevant sections of space with destructive fragments that then cause a cascade of strikes into other targets. Space could become a very hostile environment in a few years and remain that way for decades.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Interesting! With enough clutter orbiting Earth, we could be trapped inside, as it might be too risky to get a ship out without risking a collision. Looks like we are very vulnerable at the moment.
$endgroup$
– luchonacho
22 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I was imagining that someone might launch a giant glitter bomb.
$endgroup$
– Spencer
22 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Kessler Syndrome would be the most reliable method, but it would take some careful planning if you wanted to take out EVERY satellite. Satellites orbit the Earth at a range of altitudes and inclinations (angles relative to the equator). You would probably need at least a handful of collisions/explosions at various locations in order to reliably destroy every satellite. If you had months or years to wait for debris to spread and interact, you could probably get away with fewer initial collisions/explosions.
$endgroup$
– Kyle A
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Launching a truckload of small ball bearings into elliptical orbit that crosses the orbits of GPS satellites as well as geo-stationary satellites would be a pretty effective way to initiate the Kessler syndrome and mess up the most important satellite services in-use.
$endgroup$
– Gary Walker
19 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. Kessler syndrome applies only to a very specific orbit which makes launch difficult, but will be harmless to the vast majority of existing satellites.
$endgroup$
– forest
16 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes, Kessler Syndrome
In particular:
The Envisat satellite is a large, inactive satellite with a mass of 8,211 kg (18,102 lb) that drifts at 785 km (488 mi), an altitude where the debris environment is the greatest—two catalogued objects can be expected to pass within about 200 meters of Envisat every year—and likely to increase. It could easily become a major debris contributor from a collision during the next 150 years that it will remain in orbit.
It wouldn't be instantaneous but if you exploded a few suitable targets such as Envisat you could fill the relevant sections of space with destructive fragments that then cause a cascade of strikes into other targets. Space could become a very hostile environment in a few years and remain that way for decades.
$endgroup$
Yes, Kessler Syndrome
In particular:
The Envisat satellite is a large, inactive satellite with a mass of 8,211 kg (18,102 lb) that drifts at 785 km (488 mi), an altitude where the debris environment is the greatest—two catalogued objects can be expected to pass within about 200 meters of Envisat every year—and likely to increase. It could easily become a major debris contributor from a collision during the next 150 years that it will remain in orbit.
It wouldn't be instantaneous but if you exploded a few suitable targets such as Envisat you could fill the relevant sections of space with destructive fragments that then cause a cascade of strikes into other targets. Space could become a very hostile environment in a few years and remain that way for decades.
answered 22 hours ago
Tim B♦Tim B
62k24174295
62k24174295
1
$begingroup$
Interesting! With enough clutter orbiting Earth, we could be trapped inside, as it might be too risky to get a ship out without risking a collision. Looks like we are very vulnerable at the moment.
$endgroup$
– luchonacho
22 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I was imagining that someone might launch a giant glitter bomb.
$endgroup$
– Spencer
22 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Kessler Syndrome would be the most reliable method, but it would take some careful planning if you wanted to take out EVERY satellite. Satellites orbit the Earth at a range of altitudes and inclinations (angles relative to the equator). You would probably need at least a handful of collisions/explosions at various locations in order to reliably destroy every satellite. If you had months or years to wait for debris to spread and interact, you could probably get away with fewer initial collisions/explosions.
$endgroup$
– Kyle A
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Launching a truckload of small ball bearings into elliptical orbit that crosses the orbits of GPS satellites as well as geo-stationary satellites would be a pretty effective way to initiate the Kessler syndrome and mess up the most important satellite services in-use.
$endgroup$
– Gary Walker
19 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. Kessler syndrome applies only to a very specific orbit which makes launch difficult, but will be harmless to the vast majority of existing satellites.
$endgroup$
– forest
16 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Interesting! With enough clutter orbiting Earth, we could be trapped inside, as it might be too risky to get a ship out without risking a collision. Looks like we are very vulnerable at the moment.
$endgroup$
– luchonacho
22 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I was imagining that someone might launch a giant glitter bomb.
$endgroup$
– Spencer
22 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Kessler Syndrome would be the most reliable method, but it would take some careful planning if you wanted to take out EVERY satellite. Satellites orbit the Earth at a range of altitudes and inclinations (angles relative to the equator). You would probably need at least a handful of collisions/explosions at various locations in order to reliably destroy every satellite. If you had months or years to wait for debris to spread and interact, you could probably get away with fewer initial collisions/explosions.
$endgroup$
– Kyle A
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Launching a truckload of small ball bearings into elliptical orbit that crosses the orbits of GPS satellites as well as geo-stationary satellites would be a pretty effective way to initiate the Kessler syndrome and mess up the most important satellite services in-use.
$endgroup$
– Gary Walker
19 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. Kessler syndrome applies only to a very specific orbit which makes launch difficult, but will be harmless to the vast majority of existing satellites.
$endgroup$
– forest
16 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Interesting! With enough clutter orbiting Earth, we could be trapped inside, as it might be too risky to get a ship out without risking a collision. Looks like we are very vulnerable at the moment.
$endgroup$
– luchonacho
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
Interesting! With enough clutter orbiting Earth, we could be trapped inside, as it might be too risky to get a ship out without risking a collision. Looks like we are very vulnerable at the moment.
$endgroup$
– luchonacho
22 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
I was imagining that someone might launch a giant glitter bomb.
$endgroup$
– Spencer
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
I was imagining that someone might launch a giant glitter bomb.
$endgroup$
– Spencer
22 hours ago
6
6
$begingroup$
Kessler Syndrome would be the most reliable method, but it would take some careful planning if you wanted to take out EVERY satellite. Satellites orbit the Earth at a range of altitudes and inclinations (angles relative to the equator). You would probably need at least a handful of collisions/explosions at various locations in order to reliably destroy every satellite. If you had months or years to wait for debris to spread and interact, you could probably get away with fewer initial collisions/explosions.
$endgroup$
– Kyle A
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Kessler Syndrome would be the most reliable method, but it would take some careful planning if you wanted to take out EVERY satellite. Satellites orbit the Earth at a range of altitudes and inclinations (angles relative to the equator). You would probably need at least a handful of collisions/explosions at various locations in order to reliably destroy every satellite. If you had months or years to wait for debris to spread and interact, you could probably get away with fewer initial collisions/explosions.
$endgroup$
– Kyle A
20 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Launching a truckload of small ball bearings into elliptical orbit that crosses the orbits of GPS satellites as well as geo-stationary satellites would be a pretty effective way to initiate the Kessler syndrome and mess up the most important satellite services in-use.
$endgroup$
– Gary Walker
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
Launching a truckload of small ball bearings into elliptical orbit that crosses the orbits of GPS satellites as well as geo-stationary satellites would be a pretty effective way to initiate the Kessler syndrome and mess up the most important satellite services in-use.
$endgroup$
– Gary Walker
19 hours ago
6
6
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. Kessler syndrome applies only to a very specific orbit which makes launch difficult, but will be harmless to the vast majority of existing satellites.
$endgroup$
– forest
16 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is incorrect. Kessler syndrome applies only to a very specific orbit which makes launch difficult, but will be harmless to the vast majority of existing satellites.
$endgroup$
– forest
16 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
All at once, none that I know of. But you can always count on the good old human party trick:
Blow it up
The classical Bond's movie move is to send a few dozens missiles and take down enough of the network to accomplish your goal. Let's take GPS, for reference. GPS work with geo-synchronous satellites broadcasting an universal time set on an atomic clock1.
It it bothers you, skip that part:
Your device receive signals from those satellites that tell them when the satellite broadcasted it. It deduces the time each signal took to come from each satellite, thus allowing to triangulate your position (triangulate as in, you need at least 3 to pinpoint your position in space, otherwise, you end up with a sphere or a circle and it's not convenient).
What I'm getting at is that the system is highly dependent on its network. If you take out enough of the grid, you create at least a "no-service" zone (per Earth obscuration), or you make it completely ineffective.
My guess would be that a few missiles strikes would do quite a bit of damage to your satellite network. 1 (Not sure which missiles are able to reach satellite orbit if any though. But it's well within our reach, as well as any sci-fi race bothering visiting us)
Other option:
EMP
This one is highly hypothetical and should be taken with lots of care. EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) is a common sci-fi trope. Basically, a very powerful electro magnetic field disrupt electronics, and it's pretty nasty on computers. I think I remember Call of Duty MWII2 used a nuke exploding in orbit to disable satellites. Now, an explosion happening into the void of space does not end up in a big ball of fire a la Death Star. If I'm not mistaken, it instead produce electro magnetic radiation (among probably other things. I'm stressing 1 on this point).
Thing is, radiations and electro magnetic fields are probably something to expect in space. (Radiation is a given, EMP... maybe 3). So I wouldn't be surprised if satellites were protected against natural causes for this. But it might be worth looking into the theory.
This answer does not support any kind of attempt to take down satellites and I hereby decline responsibility if anyone manage to make sense of this thoroughly uninformed ramble and somehow devise the weapons to enact it.
1: No expert here, anyone feel free to correct me if I misunderstood something / made a mistake.
2: See why I said lots of care? [sarcasm]Very reliable source for sure [/sarcasm]
3: I mean, I know there is electro magnetic radiation in space, as even Earth has an electromagnetic field. The thing is, I don't know if they are powerful enough to fry electronics. Slight disgression here, that would need to be answered by someone actually knowledgeable about this.
Edit 1: As pointed in comments, I was mistaken about GPS using geo-synchronous satellites. Thanks to Zeiss Ikon and user71659 for their clarifications.4
Zeiss Ikon: "GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial."
user71659: "GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. [...] On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap)."
It makes sense some network are designed to be robust since GPS was originally a military project under the name Navstar GPS. Including system redundancy is done precisely to counter-act the loss of a few satellites. If we follow user71659 comment, you'd need to blow up at least 17 satellites to impede the system (to which extent, I don't know).
user71659 also suggested geo comsats would be an easier target to disable. Unfortunately, I'd need a little disambiguation as a research results are numerous, so I suggest you ask directly our fellow terrorist.SE user.
Furthermore, the Kessler effect have been pointed out several times in other answers. I didn't include it in mine for two reasons.
First, I didn't know the name of the phenomenon at the time, though it would be an obvious byproduct of exploding satellites.
Second, satellites using differents orbits at differents altitudes, I suppose it would not be "just" blowing up some satellites and would requires some maths beforehand to ensure enough remaining orbital devices would be hit in an acceptable time-frame (before the lost ones are replaced). Probability is an hard mistress though, and she commands that, if a satellite and debris have a chance to collide, they eventually will.
4: Let's give credit where it's due.
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial.
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
22 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. It trades off some accuracy for that. It is more robust than the other systems, EU Galileo, Russian GLONASS and Chinese BeiDou, all of which use 3 orbital planes. On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap).
$endgroup$
– user71659
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay, bad example then. Thanks for the information, I will edit accordingly
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Nyakouai I'd say geo comsats would be the most vulnerable. Already happened before.
$endgroup$
– user71659
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@atayenel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Story It is a nuke (double checked, it's explicitly stated in other languages) but the result is an EMP.
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
All at once, none that I know of. But you can always count on the good old human party trick:
Blow it up
The classical Bond's movie move is to send a few dozens missiles and take down enough of the network to accomplish your goal. Let's take GPS, for reference. GPS work with geo-synchronous satellites broadcasting an universal time set on an atomic clock1.
It it bothers you, skip that part:
Your device receive signals from those satellites that tell them when the satellite broadcasted it. It deduces the time each signal took to come from each satellite, thus allowing to triangulate your position (triangulate as in, you need at least 3 to pinpoint your position in space, otherwise, you end up with a sphere or a circle and it's not convenient).
What I'm getting at is that the system is highly dependent on its network. If you take out enough of the grid, you create at least a "no-service" zone (per Earth obscuration), or you make it completely ineffective.
My guess would be that a few missiles strikes would do quite a bit of damage to your satellite network. 1 (Not sure which missiles are able to reach satellite orbit if any though. But it's well within our reach, as well as any sci-fi race bothering visiting us)
Other option:
EMP
This one is highly hypothetical and should be taken with lots of care. EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) is a common sci-fi trope. Basically, a very powerful electro magnetic field disrupt electronics, and it's pretty nasty on computers. I think I remember Call of Duty MWII2 used a nuke exploding in orbit to disable satellites. Now, an explosion happening into the void of space does not end up in a big ball of fire a la Death Star. If I'm not mistaken, it instead produce electro magnetic radiation (among probably other things. I'm stressing 1 on this point).
Thing is, radiations and electro magnetic fields are probably something to expect in space. (Radiation is a given, EMP... maybe 3). So I wouldn't be surprised if satellites were protected against natural causes for this. But it might be worth looking into the theory.
This answer does not support any kind of attempt to take down satellites and I hereby decline responsibility if anyone manage to make sense of this thoroughly uninformed ramble and somehow devise the weapons to enact it.
1: No expert here, anyone feel free to correct me if I misunderstood something / made a mistake.
2: See why I said lots of care? [sarcasm]Very reliable source for sure [/sarcasm]
3: I mean, I know there is electro magnetic radiation in space, as even Earth has an electromagnetic field. The thing is, I don't know if they are powerful enough to fry electronics. Slight disgression here, that would need to be answered by someone actually knowledgeable about this.
Edit 1: As pointed in comments, I was mistaken about GPS using geo-synchronous satellites. Thanks to Zeiss Ikon and user71659 for their clarifications.4
Zeiss Ikon: "GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial."
user71659: "GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. [...] On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap)."
It makes sense some network are designed to be robust since GPS was originally a military project under the name Navstar GPS. Including system redundancy is done precisely to counter-act the loss of a few satellites. If we follow user71659 comment, you'd need to blow up at least 17 satellites to impede the system (to which extent, I don't know).
user71659 also suggested geo comsats would be an easier target to disable. Unfortunately, I'd need a little disambiguation as a research results are numerous, so I suggest you ask directly our fellow terrorist.SE user.
Furthermore, the Kessler effect have been pointed out several times in other answers. I didn't include it in mine for two reasons.
First, I didn't know the name of the phenomenon at the time, though it would be an obvious byproduct of exploding satellites.
Second, satellites using differents orbits at differents altitudes, I suppose it would not be "just" blowing up some satellites and would requires some maths beforehand to ensure enough remaining orbital devices would be hit in an acceptable time-frame (before the lost ones are replaced). Probability is an hard mistress though, and she commands that, if a satellite and debris have a chance to collide, they eventually will.
4: Let's give credit where it's due.
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial.
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
22 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. It trades off some accuracy for that. It is more robust than the other systems, EU Galileo, Russian GLONASS and Chinese BeiDou, all of which use 3 orbital planes. On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap).
$endgroup$
– user71659
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay, bad example then. Thanks for the information, I will edit accordingly
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Nyakouai I'd say geo comsats would be the most vulnerable. Already happened before.
$endgroup$
– user71659
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@atayenel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Story It is a nuke (double checked, it's explicitly stated in other languages) but the result is an EMP.
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
All at once, none that I know of. But you can always count on the good old human party trick:
Blow it up
The classical Bond's movie move is to send a few dozens missiles and take down enough of the network to accomplish your goal. Let's take GPS, for reference. GPS work with geo-synchronous satellites broadcasting an universal time set on an atomic clock1.
It it bothers you, skip that part:
Your device receive signals from those satellites that tell them when the satellite broadcasted it. It deduces the time each signal took to come from each satellite, thus allowing to triangulate your position (triangulate as in, you need at least 3 to pinpoint your position in space, otherwise, you end up with a sphere or a circle and it's not convenient).
What I'm getting at is that the system is highly dependent on its network. If you take out enough of the grid, you create at least a "no-service" zone (per Earth obscuration), or you make it completely ineffective.
My guess would be that a few missiles strikes would do quite a bit of damage to your satellite network. 1 (Not sure which missiles are able to reach satellite orbit if any though. But it's well within our reach, as well as any sci-fi race bothering visiting us)
Other option:
EMP
This one is highly hypothetical and should be taken with lots of care. EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) is a common sci-fi trope. Basically, a very powerful electro magnetic field disrupt electronics, and it's pretty nasty on computers. I think I remember Call of Duty MWII2 used a nuke exploding in orbit to disable satellites. Now, an explosion happening into the void of space does not end up in a big ball of fire a la Death Star. If I'm not mistaken, it instead produce electro magnetic radiation (among probably other things. I'm stressing 1 on this point).
Thing is, radiations and electro magnetic fields are probably something to expect in space. (Radiation is a given, EMP... maybe 3). So I wouldn't be surprised if satellites were protected against natural causes for this. But it might be worth looking into the theory.
This answer does not support any kind of attempt to take down satellites and I hereby decline responsibility if anyone manage to make sense of this thoroughly uninformed ramble and somehow devise the weapons to enact it.
1: No expert here, anyone feel free to correct me if I misunderstood something / made a mistake.
2: See why I said lots of care? [sarcasm]Very reliable source for sure [/sarcasm]
3: I mean, I know there is electro magnetic radiation in space, as even Earth has an electromagnetic field. The thing is, I don't know if they are powerful enough to fry electronics. Slight disgression here, that would need to be answered by someone actually knowledgeable about this.
Edit 1: As pointed in comments, I was mistaken about GPS using geo-synchronous satellites. Thanks to Zeiss Ikon and user71659 for their clarifications.4
Zeiss Ikon: "GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial."
user71659: "GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. [...] On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap)."
It makes sense some network are designed to be robust since GPS was originally a military project under the name Navstar GPS. Including system redundancy is done precisely to counter-act the loss of a few satellites. If we follow user71659 comment, you'd need to blow up at least 17 satellites to impede the system (to which extent, I don't know).
user71659 also suggested geo comsats would be an easier target to disable. Unfortunately, I'd need a little disambiguation as a research results are numerous, so I suggest you ask directly our fellow terrorist.SE user.
Furthermore, the Kessler effect have been pointed out several times in other answers. I didn't include it in mine for two reasons.
First, I didn't know the name of the phenomenon at the time, though it would be an obvious byproduct of exploding satellites.
Second, satellites using differents orbits at differents altitudes, I suppose it would not be "just" blowing up some satellites and would requires some maths beforehand to ensure enough remaining orbital devices would be hit in an acceptable time-frame (before the lost ones are replaced). Probability is an hard mistress though, and she commands that, if a satellite and debris have a chance to collide, they eventually will.
4: Let's give credit where it's due.
$endgroup$
All at once, none that I know of. But you can always count on the good old human party trick:
Blow it up
The classical Bond's movie move is to send a few dozens missiles and take down enough of the network to accomplish your goal. Let's take GPS, for reference. GPS work with geo-synchronous satellites broadcasting an universal time set on an atomic clock1.
It it bothers you, skip that part:
Your device receive signals from those satellites that tell them when the satellite broadcasted it. It deduces the time each signal took to come from each satellite, thus allowing to triangulate your position (triangulate as in, you need at least 3 to pinpoint your position in space, otherwise, you end up with a sphere or a circle and it's not convenient).
What I'm getting at is that the system is highly dependent on its network. If you take out enough of the grid, you create at least a "no-service" zone (per Earth obscuration), or you make it completely ineffective.
My guess would be that a few missiles strikes would do quite a bit of damage to your satellite network. 1 (Not sure which missiles are able to reach satellite orbit if any though. But it's well within our reach, as well as any sci-fi race bothering visiting us)
Other option:
EMP
This one is highly hypothetical and should be taken with lots of care. EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) is a common sci-fi trope. Basically, a very powerful electro magnetic field disrupt electronics, and it's pretty nasty on computers. I think I remember Call of Duty MWII2 used a nuke exploding in orbit to disable satellites. Now, an explosion happening into the void of space does not end up in a big ball of fire a la Death Star. If I'm not mistaken, it instead produce electro magnetic radiation (among probably other things. I'm stressing 1 on this point).
Thing is, radiations and electro magnetic fields are probably something to expect in space. (Radiation is a given, EMP... maybe 3). So I wouldn't be surprised if satellites were protected against natural causes for this. But it might be worth looking into the theory.
This answer does not support any kind of attempt to take down satellites and I hereby decline responsibility if anyone manage to make sense of this thoroughly uninformed ramble and somehow devise the weapons to enact it.
1: No expert here, anyone feel free to correct me if I misunderstood something / made a mistake.
2: See why I said lots of care? [sarcasm]Very reliable source for sure [/sarcasm]
3: I mean, I know there is electro magnetic radiation in space, as even Earth has an electromagnetic field. The thing is, I don't know if they are powerful enough to fry electronics. Slight disgression here, that would need to be answered by someone actually knowledgeable about this.
Edit 1: As pointed in comments, I was mistaken about GPS using geo-synchronous satellites. Thanks to Zeiss Ikon and user71659 for their clarifications.4
Zeiss Ikon: "GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial."
user71659: "GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. [...] On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap)."
It makes sense some network are designed to be robust since GPS was originally a military project under the name Navstar GPS. Including system redundancy is done precisely to counter-act the loss of a few satellites. If we follow user71659 comment, you'd need to blow up at least 17 satellites to impede the system (to which extent, I don't know).
user71659 also suggested geo comsats would be an easier target to disable. Unfortunately, I'd need a little disambiguation as a research results are numerous, so I suggest you ask directly our fellow terrorist.SE user.
Furthermore, the Kessler effect have been pointed out several times in other answers. I didn't include it in mine for two reasons.
First, I didn't know the name of the phenomenon at the time, though it would be an obvious byproduct of exploding satellites.
Second, satellites using differents orbits at differents altitudes, I suppose it would not be "just" blowing up some satellites and would requires some maths beforehand to ensure enough remaining orbital devices would be hit in an acceptable time-frame (before the lost ones are replaced). Probability is an hard mistress though, and she commands that, if a satellite and debris have a chance to collide, they eventually will.
4: Let's give credit where it's due.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 23 hours ago
NyakouaiNyakouai
1,0721822
1,0721822
8
$begingroup$
GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial.
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
22 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. It trades off some accuracy for that. It is more robust than the other systems, EU Galileo, Russian GLONASS and Chinese BeiDou, all of which use 3 orbital planes. On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap).
$endgroup$
– user71659
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay, bad example then. Thanks for the information, I will edit accordingly
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Nyakouai I'd say geo comsats would be the most vulnerable. Already happened before.
$endgroup$
– user71659
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@atayenel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Story It is a nuke (double checked, it's explicitly stated in other languages) but the result is an EMP.
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
8
$begingroup$
GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial.
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
22 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. It trades off some accuracy for that. It is more robust than the other systems, EU Galileo, Russian GLONASS and Chinese BeiDou, all of which use 3 orbital planes. On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap).
$endgroup$
– user71659
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay, bad example then. Thanks for the information, I will edit accordingly
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Nyakouai I'd say geo comsats would be the most vulnerable. Already happened before.
$endgroup$
– user71659
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@atayenel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Story It is a nuke (double checked, it's explicitly stated in other languages) but the result is an EMP.
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
3 hours ago
8
8
$begingroup$
GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial.
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
GPS are not geosynchronous. They're at 20,200 km, which is close to half of GEO height, and some are in highly inclined orbits rather than equatorial.
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
22 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. It trades off some accuracy for that. It is more robust than the other systems, EU Galileo, Russian GLONASS and Chinese BeiDou, all of which use 3 orbital planes. On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap).
$endgroup$
– user71659
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
GPS is designed to be difficult to blow up by having six separate orbital planes. It trades off some accuracy for that. It is more robust than the other systems, EU Galileo, Russian GLONASS and Chinese BeiDou, all of which use 3 orbital planes. On top of that, there's literally more GPS satellites in orbit than the system can handle. The system needs 24, it can handle 31 at the same time, and there's 40 usable. The extras are simply on standby as spares. Compare that to GLONASS which is 1 away from losing global coverage and Galileo which 4 short for global coverage (delays & a launch mishap).
$endgroup$
– user71659
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay, bad example then. Thanks for the information, I will edit accordingly
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay, bad example then. Thanks for the information, I will edit accordingly
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Nyakouai I'd say geo comsats would be the most vulnerable. Already happened before.
$endgroup$
– user71659
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Nyakouai I'd say geo comsats would be the most vulnerable. Already happened before.
$endgroup$
– user71659
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@atayenel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Story It is a nuke (double checked, it's explicitly stated in other languages) but the result is an EMP.
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@atayenel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Story It is a nuke (double checked, it's explicitly stated in other languages) but the result is an EMP.
$endgroup$
– Nyakouai
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The most obvious solution is the high-altitude nuke. Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcTrOGS3TyE
Just to summarize: nuclear blast sends a lot of charged particles at hight speed away. Earth's magnetic field redirects that back-and-forth, and since moving charges means current, and alternating current induces current in wires, it kills a lot of sensitive electric stuff, including satellites, telephone lines, electric cables, and everything connected to the end of those. So there will be a lot of collateral damage, only use this if your story supports it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Yes, this exactly. We happen to know that this is quite effective at destroying satellites, as we've unintentionally destroyed several of them this way already. :)
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The high altitude nuke is probably not high enough to affect satellites in geosynchronous orbit, because most ballistic missiles can't reach the required altitude.
$endgroup$
– Joe
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The most obvious solution is the high-altitude nuke. Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcTrOGS3TyE
Just to summarize: nuclear blast sends a lot of charged particles at hight speed away. Earth's magnetic field redirects that back-and-forth, and since moving charges means current, and alternating current induces current in wires, it kills a lot of sensitive electric stuff, including satellites, telephone lines, electric cables, and everything connected to the end of those. So there will be a lot of collateral damage, only use this if your story supports it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Yes, this exactly. We happen to know that this is quite effective at destroying satellites, as we've unintentionally destroyed several of them this way already. :)
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The high altitude nuke is probably not high enough to affect satellites in geosynchronous orbit, because most ballistic missiles can't reach the required altitude.
$endgroup$
– Joe
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The most obvious solution is the high-altitude nuke. Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcTrOGS3TyE
Just to summarize: nuclear blast sends a lot of charged particles at hight speed away. Earth's magnetic field redirects that back-and-forth, and since moving charges means current, and alternating current induces current in wires, it kills a lot of sensitive electric stuff, including satellites, telephone lines, electric cables, and everything connected to the end of those. So there will be a lot of collateral damage, only use this if your story supports it.
New contributor
$endgroup$
The most obvious solution is the high-altitude nuke. Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcTrOGS3TyE
Just to summarize: nuclear blast sends a lot of charged particles at hight speed away. Earth's magnetic field redirects that back-and-forth, and since moving charges means current, and alternating current induces current in wires, it kills a lot of sensitive electric stuff, including satellites, telephone lines, electric cables, and everything connected to the end of those. So there will be a lot of collateral damage, only use this if your story supports it.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 18 hours ago
NyosNyos
511
511
New contributor
New contributor
2
$begingroup$
Yes, this exactly. We happen to know that this is quite effective at destroying satellites, as we've unintentionally destroyed several of them this way already. :)
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The high altitude nuke is probably not high enough to affect satellites in geosynchronous orbit, because most ballistic missiles can't reach the required altitude.
$endgroup$
– Joe
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Yes, this exactly. We happen to know that this is quite effective at destroying satellites, as we've unintentionally destroyed several of them this way already. :)
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The high altitude nuke is probably not high enough to affect satellites in geosynchronous orbit, because most ballistic missiles can't reach the required altitude.
$endgroup$
– Joe
2 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Yes, this exactly. We happen to know that this is quite effective at destroying satellites, as we've unintentionally destroyed several of them this way already. :)
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, this exactly. We happen to know that this is quite effective at destroying satellites, as we've unintentionally destroyed several of them this way already. :)
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
The high altitude nuke is probably not high enough to affect satellites in geosynchronous orbit, because most ballistic missiles can't reach the required altitude.
$endgroup$
– Joe
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
The high altitude nuke is probably not high enough to affect satellites in geosynchronous orbit, because most ballistic missiles can't reach the required altitude.
$endgroup$
– Joe
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A rocket armed with a grenade launcher and 2000 grenades
There are about 2000 satellites. Therefore, just make a rocket, launch it into space, and have it start firing grenades into each satellite individually. Satellites are designed to survive radiation and vacuums, not explosions. Apparently, they are structurally very fragile to save weight.
Note that you do not need to chase the satellites. That would take a lot of fuel. Instead, you can just aim the grenades at the satellites. There's (almost) no air resistance in space, so you can fire as far as your accuracy and precision permits.
If you got enough cash, you could even fire the grenades or even throw yourself. This would be a lot more expensive, since you need to launch a human into space and get a lot closer (since humans are not good at aiming), all on top of the tyranny of the rocket equation. That's a small price to pay to be the person to destroy all of Earth's satellites by dual-wielding grenade launchers though in space, in my opinion.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
In was going to downvote because the logistics of getting enough shooters into space is daunting, but then i saw that the shooter is dual wielding, so that's an upvote.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm The idea is that there would only be one shooter that takes down all 2000 satellites.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
depending on the fire rate of the (hopefully full-auto?) grenade launchers the shooter is dual wielding, it may not even be necessary to put her into orbit - a brief stint above atmosphere may be sufficient, like with an ICBM. Great stuff.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm Well, having a human fire the grenades would take much longer, since you need to get close enough for a human to aim. For an automatic rocket, you might only need elevation, not orbital velocity.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A rocket armed with a grenade launcher and 2000 grenades
There are about 2000 satellites. Therefore, just make a rocket, launch it into space, and have it start firing grenades into each satellite individually. Satellites are designed to survive radiation and vacuums, not explosions. Apparently, they are structurally very fragile to save weight.
Note that you do not need to chase the satellites. That would take a lot of fuel. Instead, you can just aim the grenades at the satellites. There's (almost) no air resistance in space, so you can fire as far as your accuracy and precision permits.
If you got enough cash, you could even fire the grenades or even throw yourself. This would be a lot more expensive, since you need to launch a human into space and get a lot closer (since humans are not good at aiming), all on top of the tyranny of the rocket equation. That's a small price to pay to be the person to destroy all of Earth's satellites by dual-wielding grenade launchers though in space, in my opinion.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
In was going to downvote because the logistics of getting enough shooters into space is daunting, but then i saw that the shooter is dual wielding, so that's an upvote.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm The idea is that there would only be one shooter that takes down all 2000 satellites.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
depending on the fire rate of the (hopefully full-auto?) grenade launchers the shooter is dual wielding, it may not even be necessary to put her into orbit - a brief stint above atmosphere may be sufficient, like with an ICBM. Great stuff.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm Well, having a human fire the grenades would take much longer, since you need to get close enough for a human to aim. For an automatic rocket, you might only need elevation, not orbital velocity.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A rocket armed with a grenade launcher and 2000 grenades
There are about 2000 satellites. Therefore, just make a rocket, launch it into space, and have it start firing grenades into each satellite individually. Satellites are designed to survive radiation and vacuums, not explosions. Apparently, they are structurally very fragile to save weight.
Note that you do not need to chase the satellites. That would take a lot of fuel. Instead, you can just aim the grenades at the satellites. There's (almost) no air resistance in space, so you can fire as far as your accuracy and precision permits.
If you got enough cash, you could even fire the grenades or even throw yourself. This would be a lot more expensive, since you need to launch a human into space and get a lot closer (since humans are not good at aiming), all on top of the tyranny of the rocket equation. That's a small price to pay to be the person to destroy all of Earth's satellites by dual-wielding grenade launchers though in space, in my opinion.
$endgroup$
A rocket armed with a grenade launcher and 2000 grenades
There are about 2000 satellites. Therefore, just make a rocket, launch it into space, and have it start firing grenades into each satellite individually. Satellites are designed to survive radiation and vacuums, not explosions. Apparently, they are structurally very fragile to save weight.
Note that you do not need to chase the satellites. That would take a lot of fuel. Instead, you can just aim the grenades at the satellites. There's (almost) no air resistance in space, so you can fire as far as your accuracy and precision permits.
If you got enough cash, you could even fire the grenades or even throw yourself. This would be a lot more expensive, since you need to launch a human into space and get a lot closer (since humans are not good at aiming), all on top of the tyranny of the rocket equation. That's a small price to pay to be the person to destroy all of Earth's satellites by dual-wielding grenade launchers though in space, in my opinion.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
PyRulezPyRulez
6,41833673
6,41833673
2
$begingroup$
In was going to downvote because the logistics of getting enough shooters into space is daunting, but then i saw that the shooter is dual wielding, so that's an upvote.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm The idea is that there would only be one shooter that takes down all 2000 satellites.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
depending on the fire rate of the (hopefully full-auto?) grenade launchers the shooter is dual wielding, it may not even be necessary to put her into orbit - a brief stint above atmosphere may be sufficient, like with an ICBM. Great stuff.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm Well, having a human fire the grenades would take much longer, since you need to get close enough for a human to aim. For an automatic rocket, you might only need elevation, not orbital velocity.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
In was going to downvote because the logistics of getting enough shooters into space is daunting, but then i saw that the shooter is dual wielding, so that's an upvote.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm The idea is that there would only be one shooter that takes down all 2000 satellites.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
depending on the fire rate of the (hopefully full-auto?) grenade launchers the shooter is dual wielding, it may not even be necessary to put her into orbit - a brief stint above atmosphere may be sufficient, like with an ICBM. Great stuff.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm Well, having a human fire the grenades would take much longer, since you need to get close enough for a human to aim. For an automatic rocket, you might only need elevation, not orbital velocity.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
In was going to downvote because the logistics of getting enough shooters into space is daunting, but then i saw that the shooter is dual wielding, so that's an upvote.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
In was going to downvote because the logistics of getting enough shooters into space is daunting, but then i saw that the shooter is dual wielding, so that's an upvote.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm The idea is that there would only be one shooter that takes down all 2000 satellites.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm The idea is that there would only be one shooter that takes down all 2000 satellites.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
depending on the fire rate of the (hopefully full-auto?) grenade launchers the shooter is dual wielding, it may not even be necessary to put her into orbit - a brief stint above atmosphere may be sufficient, like with an ICBM. Great stuff.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
depending on the fire rate of the (hopefully full-auto?) grenade launchers the shooter is dual wielding, it may not even be necessary to put her into orbit - a brief stint above atmosphere may be sufficient, like with an ICBM. Great stuff.
$endgroup$
– bukwyrm
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm Well, having a human fire the grenades would take much longer, since you need to get close enough for a human to aim. For an automatic rocket, you might only need elevation, not orbital velocity.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bukwyrm Well, having a human fire the grenades would take much longer, since you need to get close enough for a human to aim. For an automatic rocket, you might only need elevation, not orbital velocity.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Both the US and old USSR had anti-satellite weapons in development before agreeing a treaty to play nice in space. I don't know if the results were ever considered viable weapons but I can't believe they would have deleted the blueprints. The Chinese actually shot at one of their own satellites a few years back.
So if we can do this now, then your postulated aliens with the technology to cross interstellar space should have no problems targeting a few thousand sittings ducks moving in well ordered and predictable orbits.
A shotgun makes a very capable weapon in orbit, with the advantage that the pellets don't fall to ground after 50m. If you can use laser, maser, emp/x-ray bursts or even old fashioned kinetic weapons it shouldn't be an impossible task. The magazine of the A-10 Thunderbolt carried 1350 rounds, so with perfect marksmanship you'd only need 4. Actually you could afford quite a few misses!
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The U.S. Navy shot down a defunct U.S. NRO satellite before the Chinese did it, actually, so, yeah, it's pretty well known that the technology is still around. They just used the existing Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to shoot it down with an SM-3.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Both the US and old USSR had anti-satellite weapons in development before agreeing a treaty to play nice in space. I don't know if the results were ever considered viable weapons but I can't believe they would have deleted the blueprints. The Chinese actually shot at one of their own satellites a few years back.
So if we can do this now, then your postulated aliens with the technology to cross interstellar space should have no problems targeting a few thousand sittings ducks moving in well ordered and predictable orbits.
A shotgun makes a very capable weapon in orbit, with the advantage that the pellets don't fall to ground after 50m. If you can use laser, maser, emp/x-ray bursts or even old fashioned kinetic weapons it shouldn't be an impossible task. The magazine of the A-10 Thunderbolt carried 1350 rounds, so with perfect marksmanship you'd only need 4. Actually you could afford quite a few misses!
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The U.S. Navy shot down a defunct U.S. NRO satellite before the Chinese did it, actually, so, yeah, it's pretty well known that the technology is still around. They just used the existing Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to shoot it down with an SM-3.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Both the US and old USSR had anti-satellite weapons in development before agreeing a treaty to play nice in space. I don't know if the results were ever considered viable weapons but I can't believe they would have deleted the blueprints. The Chinese actually shot at one of their own satellites a few years back.
So if we can do this now, then your postulated aliens with the technology to cross interstellar space should have no problems targeting a few thousand sittings ducks moving in well ordered and predictable orbits.
A shotgun makes a very capable weapon in orbit, with the advantage that the pellets don't fall to ground after 50m. If you can use laser, maser, emp/x-ray bursts or even old fashioned kinetic weapons it shouldn't be an impossible task. The magazine of the A-10 Thunderbolt carried 1350 rounds, so with perfect marksmanship you'd only need 4. Actually you could afford quite a few misses!
$endgroup$
Both the US and old USSR had anti-satellite weapons in development before agreeing a treaty to play nice in space. I don't know if the results were ever considered viable weapons but I can't believe they would have deleted the blueprints. The Chinese actually shot at one of their own satellites a few years back.
So if we can do this now, then your postulated aliens with the technology to cross interstellar space should have no problems targeting a few thousand sittings ducks moving in well ordered and predictable orbits.
A shotgun makes a very capable weapon in orbit, with the advantage that the pellets don't fall to ground after 50m. If you can use laser, maser, emp/x-ray bursts or even old fashioned kinetic weapons it shouldn't be an impossible task. The magazine of the A-10 Thunderbolt carried 1350 rounds, so with perfect marksmanship you'd only need 4. Actually you could afford quite a few misses!
answered 19 hours ago
Richard NRichard N
612
612
2
$begingroup$
The U.S. Navy shot down a defunct U.S. NRO satellite before the Chinese did it, actually, so, yeah, it's pretty well known that the technology is still around. They just used the existing Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to shoot it down with an SM-3.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
The U.S. Navy shot down a defunct U.S. NRO satellite before the Chinese did it, actually, so, yeah, it's pretty well known that the technology is still around. They just used the existing Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to shoot it down with an SM-3.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
The U.S. Navy shot down a defunct U.S. NRO satellite before the Chinese did it, actually, so, yeah, it's pretty well known that the technology is still around. They just used the existing Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to shoot it down with an SM-3.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The U.S. Navy shot down a defunct U.S. NRO satellite before the Chinese did it, actually, so, yeah, it's pretty well known that the technology is still around. They just used the existing Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to shoot it down with an SM-3.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Some well-known hypotheticals:
- Have something crash into something to start the Kessler Syndrome.
- Build a big, ground-based laser or maser and start to take potshots at satellites. The US stopped Star Wars before it got there. The Chinese might have something like this.
- Come up with a set of malware to attack the ground control and to send destructive commands, like "spend all the maneuvering fuel get onto collision course with another sat." The problem, those control systems are rather hard.
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
And the Soviet actually launched a prototype orbital laser weapon (which crashed back in the atmosphere because of a tiny computer bug, and then Perestroika happened)
$endgroup$
– Eth
22 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Wow, epic fail. "For technical reasons, the payload was launched upside down. It was designed to separate from the Energia, rotate 180 degrees in yaw, then 90 degrees in roll and then fire its engine to complete its boost to orbit. The Energia functioned perfectly. However, after separation from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees. When the engine fired, it slowed and burned up in the atmosphere over the south Pacific Ocean." Oops.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Some well-known hypotheticals:
- Have something crash into something to start the Kessler Syndrome.
- Build a big, ground-based laser or maser and start to take potshots at satellites. The US stopped Star Wars before it got there. The Chinese might have something like this.
- Come up with a set of malware to attack the ground control and to send destructive commands, like "spend all the maneuvering fuel get onto collision course with another sat." The problem, those control systems are rather hard.
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
And the Soviet actually launched a prototype orbital laser weapon (which crashed back in the atmosphere because of a tiny computer bug, and then Perestroika happened)
$endgroup$
– Eth
22 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Wow, epic fail. "For technical reasons, the payload was launched upside down. It was designed to separate from the Energia, rotate 180 degrees in yaw, then 90 degrees in roll and then fire its engine to complete its boost to orbit. The Energia functioned perfectly. However, after separation from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees. When the engine fired, it slowed and burned up in the atmosphere over the south Pacific Ocean." Oops.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Some well-known hypotheticals:
- Have something crash into something to start the Kessler Syndrome.
- Build a big, ground-based laser or maser and start to take potshots at satellites. The US stopped Star Wars before it got there. The Chinese might have something like this.
- Come up with a set of malware to attack the ground control and to send destructive commands, like "spend all the maneuvering fuel get onto collision course with another sat." The problem, those control systems are rather hard.
$endgroup$
Some well-known hypotheticals:
- Have something crash into something to start the Kessler Syndrome.
- Build a big, ground-based laser or maser and start to take potshots at satellites. The US stopped Star Wars before it got there. The Chinese might have something like this.
- Come up with a set of malware to attack the ground control and to send destructive commands, like "spend all the maneuvering fuel get onto collision course with another sat." The problem, those control systems are rather hard.
answered 22 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
59.7k686197
59.7k686197
4
$begingroup$
And the Soviet actually launched a prototype orbital laser weapon (which crashed back in the atmosphere because of a tiny computer bug, and then Perestroika happened)
$endgroup$
– Eth
22 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Wow, epic fail. "For technical reasons, the payload was launched upside down. It was designed to separate from the Energia, rotate 180 degrees in yaw, then 90 degrees in roll and then fire its engine to complete its boost to orbit. The Energia functioned perfectly. However, after separation from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees. When the engine fired, it slowed and burned up in the atmosphere over the south Pacific Ocean." Oops.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
And the Soviet actually launched a prototype orbital laser weapon (which crashed back in the atmosphere because of a tiny computer bug, and then Perestroika happened)
$endgroup$
– Eth
22 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Wow, epic fail. "For technical reasons, the payload was launched upside down. It was designed to separate from the Energia, rotate 180 degrees in yaw, then 90 degrees in roll and then fire its engine to complete its boost to orbit. The Energia functioned perfectly. However, after separation from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees. When the engine fired, it slowed and burned up in the atmosphere over the south Pacific Ocean." Oops.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
And the Soviet actually launched a prototype orbital laser weapon (which crashed back in the atmosphere because of a tiny computer bug, and then Perestroika happened)
$endgroup$
– Eth
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
And the Soviet actually launched a prototype orbital laser weapon (which crashed back in the atmosphere because of a tiny computer bug, and then Perestroika happened)
$endgroup$
– Eth
22 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Wow, epic fail. "For technical reasons, the payload was launched upside down. It was designed to separate from the Energia, rotate 180 degrees in yaw, then 90 degrees in roll and then fire its engine to complete its boost to orbit. The Energia functioned perfectly. However, after separation from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees. When the engine fired, it slowed and burned up in the atmosphere over the south Pacific Ocean." Oops.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Eth Wow, epic fail. "For technical reasons, the payload was launched upside down. It was designed to separate from the Energia, rotate 180 degrees in yaw, then 90 degrees in roll and then fire its engine to complete its boost to orbit. The Energia functioned perfectly. However, after separation from Energia, the Polyus spun a full 360 degrees instead of the planned 180 degrees. When the engine fired, it slowed and burned up in the atmosphere over the south Pacific Ocean." Oops.
$endgroup$
– reirab
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I suppose if your aliens can cross light years of space, they might have some as-yet-unexplained way to cause a massive solar flare or coronal mass ejection.
New contributor
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
If you could explain the some as-yet-unexplained way the answer would substantially improve
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is basically the plot of Sunstorm.
$endgroup$
– ununseti
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I suppose if your aliens can cross light years of space, they might have some as-yet-unexplained way to cause a massive solar flare or coronal mass ejection.
New contributor
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
If you could explain the some as-yet-unexplained way the answer would substantially improve
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is basically the plot of Sunstorm.
$endgroup$
– ununseti
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I suppose if your aliens can cross light years of space, they might have some as-yet-unexplained way to cause a massive solar flare or coronal mass ejection.
New contributor
$endgroup$
I suppose if your aliens can cross light years of space, they might have some as-yet-unexplained way to cause a massive solar flare or coronal mass ejection.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 20 hours ago
NickNick
191
191
New contributor
New contributor
4
$begingroup$
If you could explain the some as-yet-unexplained way the answer would substantially improve
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is basically the plot of Sunstorm.
$endgroup$
– ununseti
7 hours ago
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
If you could explain the some as-yet-unexplained way the answer would substantially improve
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is basically the plot of Sunstorm.
$endgroup$
– ununseti
7 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
If you could explain the some as-yet-unexplained way the answer would substantially improve
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you could explain the some as-yet-unexplained way the answer would substantially improve
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is basically the plot of Sunstorm.
$endgroup$
– ununseti
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is basically the plot of Sunstorm.
$endgroup$
– ununseti
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A solar flare is capable of doing just that. A strong enough one hitting the earth directly would knock out any satellite facing the sun. So while it may not hit EVERY satellite, it would get more than half - remember the satellites are high above the earth.
So, if an alien race had large solar flare level technology, it would likely destroy a large portion of our satellites. Give that the majority of our space communications are over the northern hemisphere (most 1st world counties and land mass are there), this would basically destroy most of them if positioned appropriately.
See for instance:
https://sciencing.com/solar-flares-affect-communication-23537.html
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
While radiation from solar flares does indeed induce radio blackouts and cause some satellites to fail entirely, most satellites are designed to survive flares and CMEs. The biggest danger to satellites from flares and CMEs is that increased solar activity expands the Earth's atmosphere, increasing drag substantially for objects in Low Earth Orbit, causing them to deorbit sooner than planned. A Carrington level event is, of course, beyond the radiation hardening that current satellites are designed to survive.
$endgroup$
– Ghedipunk
16 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sounds like the question then is could an alien race realistically produce a Carrington type flare to knock out satellites. Because their range is closer and could be localized one target at a time shots they might need less energy than that.
$endgroup$
– user61498
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As i think more a potentially better solution if we really are considering alien level tech would be a dozen ships (i assume they take more than 1) with cloaking tech and simply blow them up 12 at once and then another 12 shortly after. Because we can't see the ships it would take too long to respond before they were all gone. As for cloaking, lots of researchers are working on nanostructures and left handed materials that are close to achieving cloaking with our own tech level. So we know that stuff is possible. It isn't quite a quick as maybe the op wants but would do the job.
$endgroup$
– user61498
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A solar flare is capable of doing just that. A strong enough one hitting the earth directly would knock out any satellite facing the sun. So while it may not hit EVERY satellite, it would get more than half - remember the satellites are high above the earth.
So, if an alien race had large solar flare level technology, it would likely destroy a large portion of our satellites. Give that the majority of our space communications are over the northern hemisphere (most 1st world counties and land mass are there), this would basically destroy most of them if positioned appropriately.
See for instance:
https://sciencing.com/solar-flares-affect-communication-23537.html
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
While radiation from solar flares does indeed induce radio blackouts and cause some satellites to fail entirely, most satellites are designed to survive flares and CMEs. The biggest danger to satellites from flares and CMEs is that increased solar activity expands the Earth's atmosphere, increasing drag substantially for objects in Low Earth Orbit, causing them to deorbit sooner than planned. A Carrington level event is, of course, beyond the radiation hardening that current satellites are designed to survive.
$endgroup$
– Ghedipunk
16 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sounds like the question then is could an alien race realistically produce a Carrington type flare to knock out satellites. Because their range is closer and could be localized one target at a time shots they might need less energy than that.
$endgroup$
– user61498
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As i think more a potentially better solution if we really are considering alien level tech would be a dozen ships (i assume they take more than 1) with cloaking tech and simply blow them up 12 at once and then another 12 shortly after. Because we can't see the ships it would take too long to respond before they were all gone. As for cloaking, lots of researchers are working on nanostructures and left handed materials that are close to achieving cloaking with our own tech level. So we know that stuff is possible. It isn't quite a quick as maybe the op wants but would do the job.
$endgroup$
– user61498
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A solar flare is capable of doing just that. A strong enough one hitting the earth directly would knock out any satellite facing the sun. So while it may not hit EVERY satellite, it would get more than half - remember the satellites are high above the earth.
So, if an alien race had large solar flare level technology, it would likely destroy a large portion of our satellites. Give that the majority of our space communications are over the northern hemisphere (most 1st world counties and land mass are there), this would basically destroy most of them if positioned appropriately.
See for instance:
https://sciencing.com/solar-flares-affect-communication-23537.html
New contributor
$endgroup$
A solar flare is capable of doing just that. A strong enough one hitting the earth directly would knock out any satellite facing the sun. So while it may not hit EVERY satellite, it would get more than half - remember the satellites are high above the earth.
So, if an alien race had large solar flare level technology, it would likely destroy a large portion of our satellites. Give that the majority of our space communications are over the northern hemisphere (most 1st world counties and land mass are there), this would basically destroy most of them if positioned appropriately.
See for instance:
https://sciencing.com/solar-flares-affect-communication-23537.html
New contributor
New contributor
answered 19 hours ago
user61498user61498
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
While radiation from solar flares does indeed induce radio blackouts and cause some satellites to fail entirely, most satellites are designed to survive flares and CMEs. The biggest danger to satellites from flares and CMEs is that increased solar activity expands the Earth's atmosphere, increasing drag substantially for objects in Low Earth Orbit, causing them to deorbit sooner than planned. A Carrington level event is, of course, beyond the radiation hardening that current satellites are designed to survive.
$endgroup$
– Ghedipunk
16 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sounds like the question then is could an alien race realistically produce a Carrington type flare to knock out satellites. Because their range is closer and could be localized one target at a time shots they might need less energy than that.
$endgroup$
– user61498
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As i think more a potentially better solution if we really are considering alien level tech would be a dozen ships (i assume they take more than 1) with cloaking tech and simply blow them up 12 at once and then another 12 shortly after. Because we can't see the ships it would take too long to respond before they were all gone. As for cloaking, lots of researchers are working on nanostructures and left handed materials that are close to achieving cloaking with our own tech level. So we know that stuff is possible. It isn't quite a quick as maybe the op wants but would do the job.
$endgroup$
– user61498
13 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
While radiation from solar flares does indeed induce radio blackouts and cause some satellites to fail entirely, most satellites are designed to survive flares and CMEs. The biggest danger to satellites from flares and CMEs is that increased solar activity expands the Earth's atmosphere, increasing drag substantially for objects in Low Earth Orbit, causing them to deorbit sooner than planned. A Carrington level event is, of course, beyond the radiation hardening that current satellites are designed to survive.
$endgroup$
– Ghedipunk
16 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sounds like the question then is could an alien race realistically produce a Carrington type flare to knock out satellites. Because their range is closer and could be localized one target at a time shots they might need less energy than that.
$endgroup$
– user61498
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
As i think more a potentially better solution if we really are considering alien level tech would be a dozen ships (i assume they take more than 1) with cloaking tech and simply blow them up 12 at once and then another 12 shortly after. Because we can't see the ships it would take too long to respond before they were all gone. As for cloaking, lots of researchers are working on nanostructures and left handed materials that are close to achieving cloaking with our own tech level. So we know that stuff is possible. It isn't quite a quick as maybe the op wants but would do the job.
$endgroup$
– user61498
13 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
While radiation from solar flares does indeed induce radio blackouts and cause some satellites to fail entirely, most satellites are designed to survive flares and CMEs. The biggest danger to satellites from flares and CMEs is that increased solar activity expands the Earth's atmosphere, increasing drag substantially for objects in Low Earth Orbit, causing them to deorbit sooner than planned. A Carrington level event is, of course, beyond the radiation hardening that current satellites are designed to survive.
$endgroup$
– Ghedipunk
16 hours ago
$begingroup$
While radiation from solar flares does indeed induce radio blackouts and cause some satellites to fail entirely, most satellites are designed to survive flares and CMEs. The biggest danger to satellites from flares and CMEs is that increased solar activity expands the Earth's atmosphere, increasing drag substantially for objects in Low Earth Orbit, causing them to deorbit sooner than planned. A Carrington level event is, of course, beyond the radiation hardening that current satellites are designed to survive.
$endgroup$
– Ghedipunk
16 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sounds like the question then is could an alien race realistically produce a Carrington type flare to knock out satellites. Because their range is closer and could be localized one target at a time shots they might need less energy than that.
$endgroup$
– user61498
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sounds like the question then is could an alien race realistically produce a Carrington type flare to knock out satellites. Because their range is closer and could be localized one target at a time shots they might need less energy than that.
$endgroup$
– user61498
15 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
As i think more a potentially better solution if we really are considering alien level tech would be a dozen ships (i assume they take more than 1) with cloaking tech and simply blow them up 12 at once and then another 12 shortly after. Because we can't see the ships it would take too long to respond before they were all gone. As for cloaking, lots of researchers are working on nanostructures and left handed materials that are close to achieving cloaking with our own tech level. So we know that stuff is possible. It isn't quite a quick as maybe the op wants but would do the job.
$endgroup$
– user61498
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
As i think more a potentially better solution if we really are considering alien level tech would be a dozen ships (i assume they take more than 1) with cloaking tech and simply blow them up 12 at once and then another 12 shortly after. Because we can't see the ships it would take too long to respond before they were all gone. As for cloaking, lots of researchers are working on nanostructures and left handed materials that are close to achieving cloaking with our own tech level. So we know that stuff is possible. It isn't quite a quick as maybe the op wants but would do the job.
$endgroup$
– user61498
13 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Are you trying to build such systems. If not it sounds like a question for worldbuilding.SE (or better yet suggest a terrorism.se on area 51 (; )
$endgroup$
– joojaa
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
If there are the tools that exist - who is going to tell you ?
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
There is a bit misconception here. Wireless is based on antenna towers. Satellites are only used by GPS which is a receive-only protocol. In other words EMPing all satellites in orbit is barely going to affect the internet. Cross-ocean communication is done by undersea glassfiber lines.
$endgroup$
– ratchet freak
23 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
Uh, neither IoT nor 5G (a mobile network tech!) need satellites for anything - satellite internet connection is way too slow and power-hungry. Only the navigation part is often done via GNSS, communication is not affected by taking down satellites.
$endgroup$
– Bergi
17 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
Machine-based communication mostly relies on cell towers and wi-fi, which rely on undersea cables. 5G means more cell towers. And by the way there isn't a satellite network, there are lots of networks (that use their own satellites each), but that doesn't matter if you're going to destroy all satellites.
$endgroup$
– immibis
12 hours ago