Overview and Preliminary Design Considerations This analysis determined that space-to-Earth kinetic weapons systems are prohibitively expensive, politically counterproductive, and tactically redundant. The variable physical nature of the space environment, governed by the predominant force of gravity, necessitates that LEO and GEO based systems each employ different design and tactical considerations. In academic discourse,the press,and popular media, two types of orbital weapon systems are often conflated and erroneously interchanged: kinetic weapons deployed at low Earth orbit (LEO) and those deployed at geostationary Earth orbit (GEO). Space Force, policy makers, military leaders, and civilian thinkers have openly proposed the deployment of space-to-Earth weapons systems capable of striking targets on Earth, with a lethality only matched by their promptness. Second, deploying such a weapon system incurs a greater international political cost than the strategic benefit it would generate.Įven before the establishment of the U.S. First, neither weapon system offers an advantage beyond conventional terrestrial capabilities: this includes the cost effectiveness, the time of flight, and explosive yield of the weapon. We offer the following conclusions in evaluating two types of hypothetical kinetic weapons: one staged in low Earth orbit and another in geostationary Earth orbit. ![]() ![]() This article performs a first-order physical analysis, as well as reviews tactical and political considerations, for employing space-to-Earth kinetic weapon systems. While this hazard would threaten our modern way of life, what is rarely discussed is the potential and impact of the reverse - weapon systems in space aimed at various locations on Earth. In April 2022, the United States announced it would no longer conduct direct-ascent anti-satellite weapons tests resulting in destruction of satellites by kinetic or explosive means, which would usually result in debris fields in space.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |