@NMaude : Aaah, exactly under 1,5. Hence, when correctly rounded, one second, that for the perigé and apogée

Min and Max dist Earth-Moon in Km: 356 410 and 405 500 km
Speed of Light: 300 000 km/s

(and that's center to center)

;)
 
'Stability' has failed to achieve its purpose.


Not going to win a space weapons race against Falcon 9 and New Glenn and a space nuke would be removed immediately as a matter of urgency.
How are you going to know the difference between a nuke and any other satellite? A W68 is relatively small. Could almost be stuffed on as an afterthought on some satellites.
 
How are you going to know the difference between a nuke and any other satellite? A W68 is relatively small. Could almost be stuffed on as an afterthought on some satellites.
Talking about Russian nukes here, radiation detection plus intelligence sources.
 
The complexity of orbital ABM is beginning to show…people are talking about preemptive strikes on satellites already. Governments will likely have these same arguments and reach different conclusions about the viability and stability of such deployments. Such a system has the potential to spark the conflict it attempts to deter. This is what I mean when I say it is inherently destabilizing.

There probably is no other choice but to develop such capabilities and minimally be in a position to deploy them, but actual large scale deployment would probably have consequences beyond financial cost depending on peer capabilities and intent.
 
Talking about Russian nukes here, radiation detection plus intelligence sources.
On scale of current satellite deployment, gamma ray detection seems like a staggeringly large task for a nation like the U.S. or PRC and an impossibly for anyone else.

On the flip side, once a country orbits a nuke, there is basically no way to ensure it is not eventually detected, with all the political fallout that entails.
 
On scale of current satellite deployment, gamma ray detection seems like a staggeringly large task for a nation like the U.S. or PRC and an impossibly for anyone else.

On the flip side, once a country orbits a nuke, there is basically no way to ensure it is not eventually detected, with all the political fallout that entails.
The cost of a nuke is prohibitive, with estimates around $100m each (plus fairly large launch costs since Russia doesn't have RLVs), compared with US launches which are now $500/kg and falling. So I'm confident that nuke detection capabilities will outstrip nuke launch capabilities by several orders of magnitude.

The complexity of orbital ABM is beginning to show…people are talking about preemptive strikes on satellites already. Governments will likely have these same arguments and reach different conclusions about the viability and stability of such deployments. Such a system has the potential to spark the conflict it attempts to deter. This is what I mean when I say it is inherently destabilizing.

There probably is no other choice but to develop such capabilities and minimally be in a position to deploy them, but actual large scale deployment would probably have consequences beyond financial cost depending on peer capabilities and intent.
There's also talk of conventional S2G warheads on satellites to deter such strikes, although if an SBI can take down an ICBM, it can take down an ASAT missile.
 
Light travels from moon to earth in a matter of a single second. Far fetched but why wouldn't that be not relevant to have a laser gunning down high value objects from there?
I did the math a while back, effective range of a laser is determined by mirror radius and beam wavelength. A Hubble-sized pointer mirror (and diffraction-limited optics) only gives a couple hundred km range against a 1m^2 target with IR lasers.




There's also talk of conventional S2G warheads on satellites to deter such strikes, although if an SBI can take down an ICBM, it can take down an ASAT missile.
S2G warheads are for dealing with laser or HPMW attacks.
 
S2G warheads are for dealing with laser or HPMW attacks.
They're to deal with any ground-based object that causes a threat, or any aerial one after it has landed. Although given that SBIs will be both endo- and exo-, there's nothing to say that aerial threats can't be taken out too, and space-based ones can be taken out by the exo- SBIs.
 
I did the math a while back, effective range of a laser is determined by mirror radius and beam wavelength. A Hubble-sized pointer mirror (and diffraction-limited optics) only gives a couple hundred km range against a 1m^2 target with IR lasers.

Those Math are probably wrong or not relevant to the problem at stake. ;)
 
Those Math are probably wrong or not relevant to the problem at stake. ;)
They didn't look right to me, either, but the math is assembled the same way you put together standard firearm effective range.

Note that you're still doing damage well past that, it's just that your pointing accuracy and optical path accuracy makes a cone that eventually will exceed the size of the target.
 

Space Force to solicit prototype proposals for midcourse space-based missile interceptors​


DOD eyes midcourse defense Space-Based Interceptor, reaching for 'low-hanging' fruit​

 
Last edited:

MDA picks over 1,000 initial winners for Golden Dome contracting vehicle​

In total, the agency is providing awards to 1,014 "qualifying offerors" for the Scalable Homeland Innovative Enterprise Layered Defense (SHIELD) program, under deals that could eventually total $151 billion over 10 years.
 

Poll finds increasing support for international engagement, Golden Dome spending​

 

Golden Dome Details Begin to Emerge​


U.S. to stand up patchwork of 'mini domes' in 2028 as Golden Dome expands to cover nation​


Pentagon executing Golden Dome contracts by piggybacking on existing procurement vehicles​

 
Last edited:
Momentus joins US Space Force SHIELD contract vehicle
 

Space Force wants advanced tech for space-based interceptors​

The U.S. Space Force is looking for advanced technologies for space-based interceptors that can intercept ballistic missiles during their boost phase inside the atmosphere, according to a Small Business Innovation Research solicitation.
“The desired outcome is to develop and integrate high-G propulsion systems, advanced seekers, and low-SWaP [size, weight and power] interceptors integrated into space vehicles for … SBI [space-based interceptor] architectures that support fast detection-to-intercept timelines,” stated the SBIR solicitation, which opens Jan. 7 and closes Jan. 28.
The Space Force envisions boost-phase interceptors that can hit missiles at an altitude of less than 120 kilometers, or about 75 miles or less, above the Earth’s surface. Intercept time should be less than 180 seconds.
Propulsion for the new interceptor should enable high thrust, plus rapid acceleration to at least 6 kilometers, or nearly 4 miles, per second.
“Desired characteristics include dual-pulse or throttleable motors, high-grain solid or hybrid propellants, and thrust vector control,” the SBIR specified.

Other features include fast shutdown and reignition of the rocket motors, and improved specific impulse for more efficient thrust.
The service also wants to increase the probability of a kill by fitting the interceptors with multiple sensors.
The interceptors should also be small, easy to manufacture at scale and capable of being fired from constellations of orbital launch platforms that would allow continuous coverage over specific terrestrial regions below. Because they will be descending rapidly from space into the atmosphere, they will also need strong thermal protection.

“Successful solutions will also consider survivability under extreme conditions experienced during atmospheric re-entry including the extreme temperatures from aero-thermal heating,” the Space Force noted.
 
Last edited:
That´s exactly what we were given to see in that now infamous Northop add:

capture-x-37-northrop-png.789036



screenshot-2025-10-22-163841-png.789037



See here
 
The Space Force envisions boost-phase interceptors that can hit missiles at an altitude of less than 120 kilometers, or about 75 miles or less, above the Earth’s surface. Intercept time should be less than 180 seconds.
Propulsion for the new interceptor should enable high thrust, plus rapid acceleration to at least 6 kilometers, or nearly 4 miles, per second.
“Desired characteristics include dual-pulse or throttleable motors, high-grain solid or hybrid propellants, and thrust vector control,” the SBIR specified.

Cha-ching. $$$$$
 
I need more details about the speed. Because at 200km altitude for the interceptor, the garage is doing nearly 8kps!

I'm thinking polar orbits over the ICBM fields, and/or orbits inclined to match approach vectors from the main fields.

Every garage will require both missile interceptors and RFGs to respond to anyone trying to screw with the satellites from the ground.
 
Entire relevant portion of the NG add in slow motion here:
It does appear to be a boost phase intercept but it doesn't seem shaped for re-entry as per the endo-interceptor spec. though.

VanHerck calls for FAA-Pentagon radar integration as Golden Dome takes shape​

 
Last edited:

MDA adds 1,086 firms to its SHIELD pool for Golden Dome-related tech​


SDA awards four contracts worth $3.5B for next-gen missile tracking satellites​


SDA Hands Out $3.5B for 72 New Missile Tracking and Defense Satellites​


SDA expands Tracking Layer satellite awards and related missile defense contracts​

 
Last edited:

Pentagon tasked to outline proposal for accelerating Golden Dome development​


It will be fun to watch Hegseth drink his way around that…
 

MDA Space wins role in US SHIELD missile defense program​

 

SpaceX to launch next SDA missile tracking satellites​

SpaceX will launch 36 Tranche 2 Tracking Layer satellites — 18 built by L3Harris and 18 built by Lockheed Martin — plus eight FOO Fighter birds built by Millennium Space Systems.
 
A new generation of missiles are being developed, apparently with interchangeable parts, to conduct air, missile defense and hypersonic strike in a single weapon.


The relevant bit:

According to Trinque, the missile will utilize a common third stage interceptor alongside differing combinations of propulsion stacks to create variants of the missile that can conduct hypersonic strike roles and various air and missile defense missions.
I have no idea what "third stage interceptor" means. Do they mean warhead perhaps? Common warhead but different propellant stacks?

Apparently this is the replacement for the SM family.
 
I have no idea what "third stage interceptor" means. Do they mean warhead perhaps? Common warhead but different propellant stacks?

Apparently this is the replacement for the SM family.
I'm reading that as it's a fully staging weapon related to how the SM3 stacks.

Booster, first Stage, second stage, and the terminal weapon is the third stage.

Booster plus terminal "third stage" for short to medium range air defense.

Booster and first stage plus "third stage" for long range air defense.

Booster, first, and second stage plus "third stage" for hypersonics and exoatmo antimissile.
 
A new generation of missiles are being developed, apparently with interchangeable parts, to conduct air, missile defense and hypersonic strike in a single weapon.


The relevant bit:


I have no idea what "third stage interceptor" means. Do they mean warhead perhaps? Common warhead but different propellant stacks?

Apparently this is the replacement for the SM family.
The article makes it sound like there is a common kill vehicle for different booster stacks that would be single-pack (SM-3 equivalent), dual-pack (PAC-3 MSE equivalent), or quad-pack (PAC-3 equivalent). Once they have the booster stacks, they can put other warheads and guidance packages on for anti-air and anti-surface missions.
 
Last edited:

AST SpaceMobile secures role on MDA SHIELD defense architecture​

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom