Comment by trhway
8 hours ago
beside of how easy it is to destroy from orbit the anti-satellite missiles coming out from the atmosphere, you're probably missing the fact that any object in orbit is basically a warhead with TNT equivalent of at least 6x its mass. For example the 150 tons payload of just one Starship will have close to 1 kiloton TNT equivalent - 5% of Hiroshima - if dropped from orbit.
> beside of how easy it is to destroy from orbit the anti-satellite missiles coming out from the atmosphere,
No state has deployed a kinetic or explosive weapon from orbit to strike a ballistic missile or launch vehicle during ascent.
No operational system exists where satellites are used as strike platforms against Earth-launched rockets in real time.
Russia has done ground-to-orbit anti-satellite missiles though.
Any directed energy system shooting up would be strictly easier than one pointing down, not only because of thermal issues and power supply but also because it's easier to hide ground installations than satellites.
Something being deorbited will probably break up into relatively harmless pieces that mostly burn up though, and there's no nuclear material involved so even if a massive chunk hits the Earth that's not going to have a huge impact. Based on ocean coverage there's a 0.7 probability that it'll just make a big splash.
Should we ever get to a point where a country is considering shooting down space datacentres, considerations about the impact on Earth is unlikely to stop them.
>will probably break up
if it is designed to breakup. And not if it isn't.
>no nuclear material involved
that is the beauty. No contamination.
>that's not going to have a huge impact.
in my comment i already specified the TNT equivalent of such an impact.
>there's a 0.7 probability
It isn't a matter of probability. You can deorbit with high precision, and pretty much hit any desired target on the ground if you have thousands of objects in space on a bunch of various orbits.
>Should we ever get to a point where a country is considering shooting down space datacentres, considerations about the impact on Earth is unlikely to stop them.
13 ton GBU-57 reaching M 2-3 gets 200 feet deep. De-orbitted 1-2 ton steel rods will have about the same effect - ie. you can hit many strategic objects of your attacker. And having in orbit, just in case, a ball or rod of 30-50 tons will get you a small tactical nuke equivalent.
"Project Thor was an idea for a weapons system that launches telephone pole-sized kinetic projectiles made from tungsten from Earth's orbit to damage targets on the ground."
"In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 Air Force report above, a 6.1 by 0.3 metres (20 ft × 1 ft) tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 (11,200 ft/s; 3,400 m/s) has kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (48 GJ)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
De-orbitted 1-2 ton steel rods will have about the same effect - ie. you can hit many strategic objects of your attacker.
The orbital kinetic strike weapons that have been proposed in the past are usually 2 ton titanium rods that would hit at about Mach 10, and even with that level of force they've been dismissed as less useful than ballistic warheads. Things falling from space just aren't as dangerous as people tend to assume.