Gray Rinehart
05-04-2008, 07:19 AM
The argument is nothing new, but an April 28th New Scientist article, "Space war would leave destructive legacy," (http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19826535.400-space-war-would-leave-destructive-legacy.html?feedId=online-news_rss20) pointed out that,
If war ever breaks out in space it's not the loss of individual satellites that will do the damage, but the debris this produces. It will stay in orbit and go on harming satellites for decades, according to two studies presented at the American Physical Society meeting....
The question is, what do we need in terms of equipment, tactics, etc., to mitigate that result?
Almost more interesting from the same article, though, was the contention from an MIT researcher that the US has "built up such high redundancy [of] space assets that we're almost invulnerable" to a space attack. In which case the questions are, what do we need to remain invulnerable and how do we avoid letting perceived invulnerability lead to complacence?
If war ever breaks out in space it's not the loss of individual satellites that will do the damage, but the debris this produces. It will stay in orbit and go on harming satellites for decades, according to two studies presented at the American Physical Society meeting....
The question is, what do we need in terms of equipment, tactics, etc., to mitigate that result?
Almost more interesting from the same article, though, was the contention from an MIT researcher that the US has "built up such high redundancy [of] space assets that we're almost invulnerable" to a space attack. In which case the questions are, what do we need to remain invulnerable and how do we avoid letting perceived invulnerability lead to complacence?