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.'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.
Talking about Russian nukes here, radiation detection plus intelligence sources.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.
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.Talking about Russian nukes here, radiation detection plus intelligence sources.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
S2G warheads are for dealing with laser or HPMW attacks.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.
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.S2G warheads are for dealing with laser or HPMW attacks.
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.
They didn't look right to me, either, but the math is assembled the same way you put together standard firearm effective range.Those Math are probably wrong or not relevant to the problem at stake.![]()
![]()
Golden Dome: Space Force awards first space-based interceptor prototype contracts - Breaking Defense
The Space Force did not identify the winners, saying their names are "protected by enhanced security measures."breakingdefense.com
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.
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.
That looks like an exo-interceptor.
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.Entire relevant portion of the NG add in slow motion here:
Pentagon tasked to outline proposal for accelerating Golden Dome development
Pentagon tasked to outline proposal for accelerating Golden Dome development | InsideDefense.com
Congress has ordered the Pentagon to deliver by June a sweeping assessment of the feasibility of accelerating the development and deployment of major elements and programs comprising the Golden Dome next-generation air and missile defense architecture.insidedefense.com
It will be fun to watch Hegseth drink his way around that…
I have no idea what "third stage interceptor" means. Do they mean warhead perhaps? Common warhead but different propellant stacks?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'm reading that as it's a fully staging weapon related to how the SM3 stacks.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.A new generation of missiles are being developed, apparently with interchangeable parts, to conduct air, missile defense and hypersonic strike in a single weapon.
![]()
New US Navy Missile to Support Hypersonic Strike, Air Defense Roles - Naval News
The U.S. Navy’s next-generation of missiles are set to support hypersonic strike and long-range offensive counter air missions.www.navalnews.com
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.