why didn't usa russia or china make a space station and

>>34252685
How do you know they didn't?

There's a non militarization of space treaty. Also a sub off the coast is gonna give someone less warning than a nuke launched from space.

you're either shitposting or just stupid. The Rods of God application in the early 80's is implemented & not to break your little heart, but the space shuttle was designed to carry the ammunition .

>>34252686
/Thread

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3

>>34252685
> spy on each other
Spy satellites are cheaper, don't require food, atmospheres or holidays to visit their families.
What is this, 1955?

>carry weapons in it like to have anti nuke capabilities
Weapons have been carried to space.
Its hard to be in the right place to shoot down ICBMs let alone hit the fucking things.
Its useless against sub launches, or if your enemy cottons on to not at all stealthy space station and launches when you can't intercept.

>also how do we weaponize the iss
We don't. Its fragile as fuck and ASAT is easy.

>>34252788
>the space shuttle was designed to carry the ammunition .
The Space Shuttle was designed to carry spy satellites. Rods from God are retarded.

>>34252685
implying...

snatching some quotes from projectrho on why orbital killsats with the tech we have *now* (ie when getting into orbit is still an achievement) is a meme

>The trouble is, the "plasma sheath" created by atmospheric re-entry prevents remote control of the rod. Radio cannot pass through the plasma, so the bar has to be inertially guided. Or not. A Russian scientist thinks they have found the key to allowing radio signals to pass through the plasma sheath. A related problem is that anything on the rod that is not made of tungsten is going to want to burn up in re-entry. Things like the guidance computer, sensors, and hypothetical remote control radio.

The main drawback to Project Thor is the prohibitive cost of boosting the rods into their patrol orbits. Of course if you have a space-faring civilization, the rods can be manufactured already in orbit, thus eliminating the boost cost. Which means any planetary nation without a presence in space is going to be at a severe disadvantage, but that is always true.
>Another problem is maintaining the rods in orbit. Things are going to break down, so you either have to have a budget to boost replacements or have assets in orbit that can do maintenance.

>Orbital bombs have utterly predictable orbits and can be seen by everybody (unlike ground based missiles), can only be sent to their target at infrequent intervals (unlike ground based missiles), and will require a deorbiting rocket with pretty much the same delta-V as a ground base missile. So what is the advantage? Please note that not all of these drawbacks apply to enemy spacecraft laying siege to Terra.

continued

>>34253223

>On Earth, for example, the projectile will slice through the exosphere and hit the mesosphere at a steep angle, rapidly getting to regions of air dense enough for the shock heating to incinerate the projectile while the ram pressure disintegrates it. Here, the atmosphere does not help. To get the atmosphere to help you need to enter at a shallow angle, where you can stay in the upper reaches of the mesosphere for long enough to let drag do its work without incinerating you. This would be something like the minimum energy solution I described earlier - or more likely an orbit with a periapsis at an altitude of 100 to 150 km or something similar.
>Alternately, you can kill off much of your orbital velocity so the projectile enters the atmosphere at a much lower speed - similar to the method I described earlier, with the projectile dropping straight down.
>For what it is worth, a projectile given 2 km/s delta-V straight down from a spacecraft in a circular 200 km altitude orbit above airless Earth will have a surface track distance of 781 km before impact, and will take 100.25 seconds for impact. It will hit with a speed of 8.275 km/s.
>With an atmosphere, of course, it disintegrates long before reaching the ground.

>And keep in mind that the defender's anti-orbit rocket also does not need a warhead, a bursting charge surrounded by nails and other shrapnel will do. The relative velocity between the more or less stationary cloud of shrapnel and the orbital speed of orbital person will do the rest. Orbit person will be riddled by shrapnel traveling at about 27,500 kilometers per hour relative.

weaponised satellites are a meme, while we're not an interplanetary civilisation

>>34253223
>>34253232

here's the page I got all this from

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/planetaryattack.php#id--Orbital_Bombardment

>>34252685
>anti nuke capabilities

Building systems that can do this are incredibly hard. Putting them in space makes this problem even more difficult.

Systems that we have built *on the ground* have taken 70 years to reach something like 40% effectiveness against single missiles. Now imagine trying to build the same thing in space, but better, and at a size that it would actually make a difference in a nuclear exchange. It just isn't a practical idea.

>or to spy on each other

They have those, they're called spy satellites. You don't need a person in a space station to take some photos - the satellite can do that just fine on its own.

The USA will, and only the USA will have space based weapon platforms. In the very near future.

>>34253174

/thread

The US also considered an orbiting spy outpost, but they figured out how to do it unmanned before the project got off the ground so it was canned. The Russian counter part had a cannon onboard to defend itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eid_cfsNLB0

>>34252685

http://www.spacedaily.com/m/reports/Inside_Chinas_High_Tech_Space_Based_Laser_Arsenal_999.html

>If Beijing's military, which oversees the country's space program, provides the funding for the scientists' proposed five-ton chemical laser, it could be operational by 2023. The weapon would be capable of destroying enemy satellites in orbit from its position in lower Earth orbit.

And funding will come forth, if China feels the need to. All depends on how the US behaves.

>>34253599
>a cannon onboard to defend itself.

Not really. It was just a prototype to test out whether cannons in space worked or not. It was never a serious self-defense measure, and in the end, the Russians decided that this sort of thing wasn't worth the time, and abandoned it, never to be seen again on any other spacecraft.

>>34253942

It was put on board with the idea that they could use it to defend themselves if approached by another satellite. There was a targeting scope and everything. The never used it while it was crewed though. They tested it remotely once IIRC, and the station withstood the vibration.

But yeah I guess it was more of a "why not?" addition.

>>34252685
Synthesize Francium in lab on board, drop isotope from space into ocean. Cause major tidal wave wiping out coastal cities without nuclear fallout, repeat. ISS circles globe every 2 hours so you could wipe out most of the planet in a day but no fallout so you can roll through and take everything over.

>>34253174
This, also nowadays there's a treaty against it.
/thread

>>34253232
>2017
>Not an interplanetary civilization
We really need to get our shit together

>>34253223

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bHxTTLcdc

Unofficially, this
>>34252686

Officially, this :
>>34252689

>>34255904
>>34252686
how would you do it there are people from all nations there?

File: Clown is Concerned.jpg (343KB, 1280x1693px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1280x1693px

Space bears, OP.

Nothing can truly stop them, except flattery. You can't flatter space bears with weapons.

>>34253223
>The trouble is, the "plasma sheath" created by atmospheric re-entry prevents remote control of the rod.
We solved this problem already. TDRSS exists for a reason.

Atomic Rockets has some good content, but a lot of it is in desperate need of an update.

Rest is solid though, even if it doesn't mention that we can take down satellites at much lower costs than putting up those satellites in the first place.

>>34255313
There is basically no part of this that is correct. It's astounding.

Makes me think of Space Cowboys.

File: The world’s first and only “Space Ace”, Maj. Wilbert 'Doug' Pearson downs the P78-1 Solwind satellite with an ASM-135 ASAT.jpg (119KB, 826x1024px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 826x1024px

>>34252788
You are retarded,

Post poofs (beyond inforwars/and/or your blog).

U.S. Government seriously discussed gay-bombs, does not mean they were ever created.

>>34258239
he means there are satellites that probably have weapons on them.

>>34252788
The Space Shuttle was designed with the capability of taking cargo into a polar orbit for the military, but it never actually did that throughout it's entire career IIRC. Even if it did take a satellite into polar orbit, it could only take 12 tons of cargo. This is pretty useless for a weapons system that relies on high mass kinetic rods for it's effectiveness.

>>34252685
Why would they? ICBMs are way more effective and cheaper to hit targets on the other side of the planet, and all nations have a aircraft-fired anti-satellite missile if they wanted to take down a satellite - not that any of them would actually do that though, because the resulting debris field would fuck over themselves as much as the enemy.

Similarly, the easiest way to weaponize the ISS would be to blow it up and create a gigantic debris field in orbit, essentially grounding every orbital payload for the next 30-50 years as well as destroy a fuckton of satellites currently in orbit.

>>34253521
>In the very near future.
How soon are we talking? After their white population becomes a minority or before that?

Reminder the US Air Force has the title of "Non-Terrestrial Officers" that officially no one has.

>>34253174
I've never been so erect from reading wikipedia before

>>34252685
Space weapons are inefficient - you need more fuel to put them there and keep them there than you need to simply strap the weapon to a ballistic missile and fire it at your target.

The ISS could be weaponized by letting it reenter the atmosphere in a controlled way to hit a certain target, it's 440 tons of crap hitting the target at mach 5, this hurts a lot.

>>34262118
That is some WE WUZ-tier shit if it's true until we have at least Solar system-wise space travel as a routine.

>>34260982
you have no idea how large space is do you?
blowing up the ISS wont block the whole earth orbit you dunce and neither will have a dead sat any influence

>>34262401
>implying we dont already have it