Re: Missiles in Space Combat?

On May 27, 3:35 am, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
AlfredMontestrucwrote:
Because no one can orbit the earth and not pass over a wide variety of
earthly jurisdictions. If we tried to enforce such a standard, any
jackass could fire on our manned or unmanned spacecraft when it passes
over regardless of whether the other side had any evil intent. On the
other hand if a political group holds 100% control of a massive body
like a planet, minor planet or moon they can put forward a legal view
that coming withing say 0.1 AU of that body w/o filing a flight plan
and having it approved is a violation of their sovereignty and shoot
down the spacecraft.

0.1 AU is a pretty ambitious range to be claiming.

Whatever is generally agreed on will work fine. It might be a lot
less. But in sailing ship days the rule about how far one owned right
to use the sea was set at about the maximum practical land based
cannon range, ~ 3 miles.

IMHO a really powerful laser cannon with a massive power plant can
make things really dangerous for a spacecraft crew at that range.
Same principle, you own what you can control by force of arms.


And what if there are
multiple sovereign nations in and around a given massive body, just like
Earth today?


Then they have a problem, but might well unite against others from
another world.




But no matter. Even with this as a given, there are vast numbers of
orbits that don't come anywhere near those volumes. Space is much bigger
than you appear to give it credit for.


???

I was not thinking small dude, just using a page from history to
predict the future.



There's an entire third
dimension, for example, which is almost completely unoccupied by massive
bodies - and high-inclination orbits are useful for sensor platforms for
other reasons too.

No kidding, but orbiting their means you cross the plane of the
ecliptic twice an orbit. (Duh)


Or just put them in a boring old circular
low-inclination orbit that falls into the wide spaces between the orbits
of those massive bodies.


You are neglecting the serious technical arguments I have made that
show picking up a real world spacecraft using a solid pellet thrower
drive will not be seen by IR or radar or VL at such ranges at least
not by small probes with small telescopes and radars.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: TWO SATELLITES COLLIDE IN ORBIT
    ... junk up there accuracy doesn't matter. ... As these orbits elements assume point size objects something with a cross ... spacecraft on purpose. ... "non-mission critical" satellites is now going to pose a very real ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: More debris in space
    ... The volume of space around the earth where ... spacecraft using this orbit. ... Then, you have joined leading and trailing orbits, what is not ... You are counting the whole torus. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: More debris in space
    ... the volume of space for trailing and leading earth orbits  is ... spacecraft using this orbit. ... an earth trailing orbit behind the sun ... Then, you have joined leading and trailing orbits, what is not ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: How to be immune from budget cuts
    ... on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: ... >> spend NASA's 16billion dollar budget on a spacecraft that only orbits the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Pioneer anomaly engineering questions
    ... you say Doppler radar was used.. ... from Earth, reflected off of the spacecraft and returned to Earth and ... or was the Doppler shift measured on a signal that was transmitted one ... way from the spacecraft? ...
    (sci.physics)