Space Wars: US Plans for Dominance and Monopolization

[theCandyman]

I saw an article a few days old and thought I would get the reactions of some others on it: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70303-0.html

The Bush administration has called for a permanent base on the moon by 2020, Gagnon noted. Once there, the United States will be able to monopolize the moon's resources, he said, such as helium-3, an element rare on Earth but abundant on the moon that may drive nuclear fusion.

In January, Russia announced a similar plan, aiming to establish a permanent base on the moon by 2015 and mining operations to extract helium-3 by 2020. China, which in 2003 became the third country in the world to send a human into space, has announced plans for an unmanned lunar landing by 2010, and a manned moon mission by 2020.

To protect U.S. interests, Gagnon said space-based weapons will be deployed near or on the moon.

"The military has stated the moon is the ultimate high ground," Gagnon said. "There's going to be a scramble for the moon by the Chinese, the Russians and the Americans.
This is real. There's going to be a conflict over it."

...

This week is "March Storm," when 50 to 75 lobbyists will spend three days speaking with staffers from more than 250 offices on Capitol Hill. Some of the lobbyists represent the aerospace industry, but most have been hired by smaller space startups and entrepreneurs.

The big talking point? How the private sector can help the U.S. military build space-based weapons a lot faster and with a lot less of taxpayers' money.

...

"In the past, Full Spectrum Dominance meant land, sea and air," said a public affairs officer from U.S. Space Command, who declined to give his name. "Now it encompasses cyberspace and space.

"We need to operate in the realm of space. No doubt about it," added the officer. "We also reserve the right to protect our assets in space.

First off, I am against monopolizing a natural resource, it would prevent competition, and thus, fair prices for goods.

Also, the 'higher ups' seem to immediatly think of deploying weapons in an environment that does not even require them. Even if they are for defence, they will more likely to be used to deter another nation from trying to get a foothold in space or on the moon. I was even futher irritated when I came across this pamphlet: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdf (This file is about one megabyte, it may take a while to load.)

Already space is being made a war ground, and I always had the secret ideal that all of mankind migh work together to learn more about it and help others become part of that goal. And what of the future, if space travel allows travel to more distant planets? Are nations then going to claim those as territories and prevent others from using its resources?

 

[Cyrus]

Sorry, that is not likely to happen.

 

[franznietzsche]

And what of the future, if space travel allows travel to more distant planets? Are nations then going to claim those as territories and prevent others from using its resources?

You mean, colonialism without natives? Yeah, sounds about right. Did you think human society had changed in the last 5,000 years or something?

 

[Pengwuino]

Is it REALLY that much more expensive to create helium 3 that it becomes financially necessary to create weapons to fight with other nations?

 

[franznietzsche]

Is it REALLY that much more expensive to create helium 3 that it becomes financially necessary to create weapons to fight with other nations?

Given that to make it you need to have tritium decay, and tritium you have make yourself as well, the answer would be yes.

 

[BobG]

I think the article is slanted and sensationalistic. I don't know where he got that timeline for moon bases, since that doesn't even seem realistic. Gagnon is just an anti-war, anti-military activist and isn't much of an authority on space related activities.

The last few paragraphs are factually accurate, but what does he mean by "a public affairs officer from U.S. Space Command, who declined to give his name". The public affairs officer's comments are pretty much standard space doctrine and he would have no reason not to give name (in fact, if it was a military officer, his name was probably on his shirt, plus the job of a public affairs officer is to talk to the press). I think the author felt the "declined to give his name" part would give the impression that the author was an expert investigative reporter uncovering deep military secrets.

Overall, not a very enlightening article.

 

[Astronuc]

I agree with BobG's assessment.

I think the author felt the "declined to give his name" part would give the impression that the author was an expert investigative reporter uncovering deep military secrets.

:rofl:

Sensationalistic journalism - what a concept. :rofl:

Issues were brought up in the days of SDI/StarWars. It is not as straightforward as one would think.

 

[scott1]

Will if there aliens that are going to invade us yes.But if there aren't maybe.The U.S.(space) marines corps are working on way to send marines to space as a quick way to transport around the world.Helium-3 probally wouldn't be the only thing worth to going war there's probally would somthing very importent to our ecconmy(for Earth ex:Oil).
Edit:the candian government thinks the we are.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showt...ndian+goverment+offical+says+UFO's+are+really

 

[Pengwuino]

We're not going to space for oil, that's rediculous. $200/barrel is a nice way of saying "we're sick of oil, let's find something else" so if tritium just happens to cost more then $200/barrel to mine, transport, and refine from another planet, there is a distinct chance that no one in their right mind will bother with oil. It's like going to another planet for automobile anti-freeze.

And is it just me or is Wired a place where you can seemingly get a lot of sensationalized and science-ignorant articles? I brought up an article a long time ago on here about some wired article about some kid who claimed to prove einstein wrong and space time or something like that and it turned out to be a day-dream/TD crap :P

 

[scott1]

We're not going to space for oil, that's rediculous. $200/barrel is a nice way of saying "we're sick of oil, let's find something else" so if tritium just happens to cost more then $200/barrel to mine, transport, and refine from another planet, there is a distinct chance that no one in their right mind will bother with oil. It's like going to another planet for automobile anti-freeze.

And is it just me or is Wired a place where you can seemingly get a lot of sensationalized and science-ignorant articles? I brought up an article a long time ago on here about some wired article about some kid who claimed to prove einstein wrong and space time or something like that and it turned out to be a day-dream/TD crap :P

No that was just an example.I didn't mean we would go to space for oil.I was just comparing in resources space to oil in the middle east.

 

[G01]

First things first in order to get weapons on the moon we need a base to protect. I strongly doubt that will happe as soon as they think. And denying the rest of the world helium 3 is stupid, especially you can use it in fusion. That just makes fission all the more attractive to other nations. Personally I rather them have fusion.

 

[Pengwuino]

First things first in order to get weapons on the moon we need a base to protect. I strongly doubt that will happe as soon as they think. And denying the rest of the world helium 3 is stupid, especially you can use it in fusion. That just makes fission all the more attractive to other nations. Personally I rather them have fusion.

Wait a second, I am getting a little off track here now that you mention it. Aren't tritium and deuterium the fuel sources for envisioned nuclear reactions and used in thermonuclear weapons? Doesn't it take much more energy to create fusion using helium?

Astronuc?

 

[Cyrus]

I thought tritium was necessary for atomic fusion, as opposed to fission.

 

[Pengwuino]

I thought tritium was necessary for atomic fusion, as opposed to fission.

Tritium is a preferable fuel source for nuclear fusion. I think it's because it can fuse at lower pressures and temperatures then deuterium and hydrogen. I'm not sure though, wheres astronuc!

 

[rachmaninoff]

If I remember -

$$^2_1D+^3_2He \rightarrow ^1_1p + ^4_2He$$ is in theory a desirable reaction for fusion energy because (i) it does not produce neutrons and (ii) much useful energy can be gotten electromagnetically (decelerating the fast protons) instead of thermally (so the efficency limits of heat engines do not apply). As far as I know this is very unrealistic, because (i) D-He3 fusion requires much higher energies than for example D-T (which is already very hot), and (ii) D-D fusion will occur under in the same regime and produces lots of fast neturons, which defeats the benefit of D+He3 not producing fast neutrons. So myself I don't see what the big deal is about.

At the moment I can't find an online source to back me up on this, wikipedia's fusion page doesn't discuss this.

 

[Integral]

Does this really make any sense at all? First we have:

Yet in the 20 years since Reagan called for this multilayered "space shield," the military is still light-years away from deploying any directed-energy weapons or anti-satellite mines.

This may well be true, that the US gov has poured billions into a boondoggle that has benefited only the defense contractors and not resulted in a useful weapon.

But how do you leap from that statement to:

"This massively costly program under way today is not really about defense," he said. "The true purpose of this arms program is to control and dominate space. And whoever controls space will control the Earth."

How is it that space gives us control over the earth? We certainly control the air space over Iraq, therefore we control space over Iraq, are we in control in Iraq? Unless they are implying that we will be dropping bombs from space? We can land a ballistic missile on any point on the Earth's surface already, how will space improve that?

It is a fundamental military truth that only soldiers on the ground can control the ground.

This article is all smoke and no fire as far as the milatary information is concerned.

I do agree with the effort being made to give incentives to the commercial sector to invest in private manned space travel. The gove. should get out of manned space flights entirely and concentrate on real and meaty scientific explorations of the solar system.

 

[Pengwuino]

In my continued efforts to be anal, i must point out that the US does have a few working directed energy weapons. One has shown to be very successful in its trials at destroying artillery shells and another is designed to destroy missiles although i believe they're still running performance tests on the aircraft.

 

[vanesch]

Is it REALLY that much more expensive to create helium 3 that it becomes financially necessary to create weapons to fight with other nations?

He-3, which we use a lot, costs of the order hunderd Euros / dollars a litre (atm. pressure). It's mainly obtained from decay of plutonium.
So yes, it is a pretty expensive gas, but to go to the moon for it ...
Better produce more plutonium !

 

[Pengwuino]

What kind of applications does it have outside of nuclear fusion and what applications does it have for nuclear fusion (considering I thought the current plans/hopes were to use Deuturium or Tritium for fusion reactions)?

 

[rachmaninoff]

The only signficant use of He3 is for dilution refrigerators - cryogenic refrigerators which use the technique of diluting a He3/He4 mixture, analagous to evaporation (see the http://cdms.berkeley.edu/UCB/75fridge/inxsrc/dilution/ from Berkeley). These go down to ~10milliKelvin = 0.01 kelvin. Very, very cold. Since the only people who need this today are physicists, there is not really that much demand.

 

[vanesch]

What kind of applications does it have outside of nuclear fusion and what applications does it have for nuclear fusion (considering I thought the current plans/hopes were to use Deuturium or Tritium for fusion reactions)?

We use it for thermal neutron detection.

 

[vanesch]

Since the only people who need this today are physicists, there is not really that much demand.

But then, the main reason to go on the moon is not the He-3, but the dilithium crystals, no ?

 

[rachmaninoff]

We use it for thermal neutron detection.

I stand corrected.

 

[Astronuc]

He-3, which we use a lot, costs of the order hunderd Euros / dollars a litre (atm. pressure). It's mainly obtained from decay of plutonium.
So yes, it is a pretty expensive gas, but to go to the moon for it ...
Better produce more plutonium !

I believe He³ comes from the beta decay of tritium H³ (half-life of about 12.3 yrs). Radioisotopes of Pu are either beta or alpha (He⁴) emitters.

 

[Astronuc]

If I remember -

$$^2_1D+^3_2He \rightarrow ^1_1p + ^4_2He$$ is in theory a desirable reaction for fusion energy because (i) it does not produce neutrons and (ii) much useful energy can be gotten electromagnetically (decelerating the fast protons) instead of thermally (so the efficency limits of heat engines do not apply). As far as I know this is very unrealistic, because (i) D-He3 fusion requires much higher energies than for example D-T (which is already very hot), and (ii) D-D fusion will occur under in the same regime and produces lots of fast neturons, which defeats the benefit of D+He3 not producing fast neutrons. So myself I don't see what the big deal is about.

The aneutronic reactions in fusion are desirable simply for the fact that they are aneutronic. However, the problem with any reaction involving the D-component is the fact that D+D will happen. Half the time one obtains He³ + n, and the other half, one obtains T³ + p, which is aneutronic, but D+T then gives He⁴. The D+He³ and D+T reactions are the basis of the catalyzed D+D fusion system.

D+T produces a 14.1 MeV n, while D+D produces a 2.45 MeV n IIRC.

D+He³ does require about the same temperature as the D+D, which is why D+D would tend to occur. One way to get around this is to inject 'hot' He³ into a cooler D-rich plasma, such that D+D is suppressed while D+He³ is encouraged. The tricky part is an efficient (i.e. minimizing energy) injection method for He³ which would make this reaction practical.

 

[Astronuc]

In my continued efforts to be a pengwuino , i must point out that the US does have a few working directed energy weapons. One has shown to be very successful in its trials at destroying artillery shells and another is designed to destroy missiles although i believe they're still running performance tests on the aircraft.

Right you are!


Boeing Receives Aircraft for Laser Gunship Program
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q1/060123a_nr.html

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm

REACH OUT AND FRY SOMEONE: The Airborne Laser (Cute title :rofl: )
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_ABL,,00.html

 

[vanesch]

I believe He³ comes from the beta decay of tritium H³ (half-life of about 12.3 yrs). Radioisotopes of Pu are either beta or alpha (He⁴) emitters.

You are entirely correct. I know we get our He-3 from the decay of nuclear weapons, and I made the mental step too quickly to plutonium, but - as you point out - that's essentially an alpha and beta emitter. It's from the tritium decay for hydrogen bombs that we get the He-3, and not from the plutonium!

So that means that it is even simpler to produce He-3 if it were an issue: irradiate a lot of deuterium with neutrons, make tritium and let it decay (or use it directly!).

 

[Astronuc]

You are entirely correct. I know we get our He-3 from the decay of nuclear weapons, and I made the mental step too quickly to plutonium, but - as you point out - that's essentially an alpha and beta emitter. It's from the tritium decay for hydrogen bombs that we get the He-3, and not from the plutonium!

So that means that it is even simpler to produce He-3 if it were an issue: irradiate a lot of deuterium with neutrons, make tritium and let it decay (or use it directly!).

The US currently produces tritium from neutron absorption of Li (n, $\alpha$) in specially designed irradiation capsules. I believe it has a higher cross-section that D+n, and it is in solid form so T under pressure or T₂ or DT is not an issue.

 

[Art]

Right you are!


Boeing Receives Aircraft for Laser Gunship Program
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q1/060123a_nr.html

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm

REACH OUT AND FRY SOMEONE: The Airborne Laser (Cute title :rofl: )
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_ABL,,00.html

Wouldn't coating the missiles with a highly reflective finish render the laser useless?

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe, but it would have to be a telescope-quality mirror to even have a chance. The lasers are so powerful that if the target absorbs just a few percent of the light, it's still toast. You can't just paint your warheads silver.

 

[Astronuc]

Wouldn't coating the missiles with a highly reflective finish render the laser useless?

Like Russ mentioned, a highly reflective coating may not necessarily be reflective. But there are other counter measures - besides simply rotating the warhead so that the laser doesn't stay focussed on the same area - or deploying dummies.

Presumably the laser is designed to be pulsed, so that a lot of energy is brought to bear very rapidly. One of the challenges is tracking the incoming warhead and getting the time, distance and angle (orientation) just right.

 

[kleinjahr]

Why bother with lasers? Oh wait, high tech, expensive = sexy.

Ever hear of the Thor Hammer? Basically depleted uranium "crowbars" in orbit. CO2 or nitrogen rockets for de-orbiting, minimal guidance. Pretty much all off the shelf hardware. Comes in at orbital speed, d'oh. Accurate to within about a hundred meters, which is about the diameter of the crater. Handy when you have an army of tanks coming at you. I believe it was first proposed in the early 80s, but Reagan just had to have his rayguns.

 

[russ_watters]

Different application, different requirements. "Thor's Hammer" couldn't pick a missile out of the sky.

 

[Art]

Like Russ mentioned, a highly reflective coating may not necessarily be reflective. But there are other counter measures - besides simply rotating the warhead so that the laser doesn't stay focussed on the same area - or deploying dummies.

Presumably the laser is designed to be pulsed, so that a lot of energy is brought to bear very rapidly. One of the challenges is tracking the incoming warhead and getting the time, distance and angle (orientation) just right.

Reading the article it mentions that before the main laser fires far less powerful lasers are used to gain the information required to accurately aim the main beam. A reflective surface or even a prismatic surface should prevent the guidance lasers from being able to get a lock on the target??

 

[Astronuc]

Ever hear of the Thor Hammer? Basically depleted uranium "crowbars" in orbit. CO2 or nitrogen rockets for de-orbiting, minimal guidance. Pretty much all off the shelf hardware. Comes in at orbital speed, d'oh. Accurate to within about a hundred meters, which is about the diameter of the crater. Handy when you have an army of tanks coming at you. I believe it was first proposed in the early 80s, but Reagan just had to have his rayguns.

Depending on the mass of the crowbars, the CO2 or N2 rockets may not have sufficient thrust.

KE weapons have to be pretty accurate - hundred meters doesn't seem very accurate.

One of the biggest downsides to kinetic energy weapons is the potential for debris. Adding more debris to LEO is counterproductive, and any misses just add to high velocity projectiles that one has to deal with later on.

Lasers have a better range, and more time for targeting. However, depositing sufficient energy is the key and the challenge, even without countermeasures.