China's Space Program Thread II

[DanWangJZ]

Shijian-30 satellites A, B and C launched from Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center earlier today. The satellites will be used to "explore the space environment“ and verify relevant technology （《空间环境探测及相关技术验证》). Can someone unpack for me what Xinhua means by ”environment" here, and any idea what they could be verifying?

 

[jli88]

Chatter about Golden Dome is getting stronger which might have a space based interceptor component to it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does anyone know (or would speculate) what China would do if US were to suddenly decide to launch thousands of space based interceptors which builds a reliable missile defense safety net? US has the launch capacity, specially with Starship in future.

 

[Tomboy]

Chatter about Golden Dome is getting stronger which might have a space based interceptor component to it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does anyone know (or would speculate) what China would do if US were to suddenly decide to launch thousands of space based interceptors which builds a reliable missile defense safety net? US has the launch capacity, specially with Starship in future.

IMO, if they get it to work reliably there is literally nothing that could be done short of escalation to full WW3. Only peacetime deterrence is building an equivalent system.

 

[gpt]

Chatter about Golden Dome is getting stronger which might have a space based interceptor component to it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does anyone know (or would speculate) what China would do if US were to suddenly decide to launch thousands of space based interceptors which builds a reliable missile defense safety net? US has the launch capacity, specially with Starship in future.

Color me skeptical (and this isn't the same as 'but ppl doubted reusable rockets' a decade ago argument). The GD acquisition process is far too disorganized to become a reality and it is very likely a moneygrabbing op by contractors that are pushing it hard.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even if it becomes a thing, it is vulnerable to surprise attacks and electronic warfare, particularly with nuclear weapons or nuclear-powered spacecrafts. Not to mention there are new classes of delivery systems (depressed trajectory or airbreathing) that don't transit space much or at all.

Do they really want to drop a $trillion into this when other areas need modernizing?

 

[Tomboy]

The GD procure process is far too disorganized to become a reality and it is very likely a moneygrabbing op by contractors that are pushing it hard.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even if it becomes a thing, it is vulnerable to surprise attacks and electronic warfare, particularly with nuclear weapons or nuclear-powered spacecrafts. Not to mention there are new classes of delivery systems (depressed trajectory or airbreathing) that don't transit space much or at all.

Do they really want to drop a $trillion into this when other areas need modernizing?

Depressed trajectory is still vulnerable to boost phase interception which is what GD offers, and the other option is far short of intercontinental unless in extreme cases like a nuclear-powered cruise missile and is vulnerable to interception. Physical attack on the GD constellation would require some kind of nuclear EMP in space which will definitely trigger full WW3 and not even guaranteed to disable the entire system.

China should be wary of US developments of such a system and be prepared to build a counterpart to ensure strategic balance if the US do pull it off. Better safe than sorry.

 

[gpt]

Depressed trajectory is still vulnerable to boost phase interception which is what GD offers, and the other option is far short of intercontinental unless in extreme cases like a nuclear-powered cruise missile and is vulnerable to interception. Physical attack on the GD constellation would require some kind of nuclear EMP in space which will definitely trigger full WW3 and not even guaranteed to disable the entire system.

China should be wary of US developments of such a system and be prepared to build a counterpart to ensure strategic balance if the US do pull it off. Better safe than sorry.

Sure I agree with that, which is why Russia is now openly developing those systems, as a hedge. China not so open but I've seen some research they likely intentionally 'leaked' then retracted on the subject.

But It's obvious the system is extremely vulnerable. You don't even have to physically destroy it. If you look at how GD works, just messing with the transport layer (they need something to move the data around) the whole thing won't work. There are other problems like power source and cooling required to fire repeatedly against hundreds/thousands of MIRVs.

Having said that I think they will probably develop a system to engage maneuvering gliders rather than a full 'dome' for ICBMs. This would involve a small constellation of directed energy and missiles parked in orbit. They would try to take away any perceived surprise first strike ability PLARF might have. The FOBS thing from 2021 really rattled NORAD even though they don't talk about it much.

 

[jli88]

Color me skeptical (and this isn't the same as 'but ppl doubted reusable rockets' a decade ago argument). The GD acquisition process is far too disorganized to become a reality and it is very likely a moneygrabbing op by contractors that are pushing it hard.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even if it becomes a thing, it is vulnerable to surprise attacks and electronic warfare, particularly with nuclear weapons or nuclear-powered spacecrafts. Not to mention there are new classes of delivery systems (depressed trajectory or airbreathing) that don't transit space much or at all.

Do they really want to drop a $trillion into this when other areas need modernizing?

So your strategy is to hope that it doesn't work (very much exactly like reusable rockets), have no counter, and then if it succeeds to be a sitting duck?

It is such a game changer, that perhaps a trillion usd might be worth it. We are talking about hundreds of interceptors available in LEO (maybe 200-300km), which are already kinetic, ready to take command using a few hops of communication at light speed, and then ready to descend to intercept almost any ballistically launched missile system, regardless of trajectory after boost, or even potentially striking targets on earth (as part of prompt strike). Seems to be pretty mind bogglingly major capability to have.

 

[BoraTas]

Chatter about Golden Dome is getting stronger which might have a space based interceptor component to it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does anyone know (or would speculate) what China would do if US were to suddenly decide to launch thousands of space based interceptors which builds a reliable missile defense safety net? US has the launch capacity, specially with Starship in future.

The Golden Dome is not a credible project as of 2025. I guessed their kill mechanism would be based on space-based kinetic energy interceptors. Because all high-power chemical laser development was ceased 25 years ago. It is a lost tech. It couldn't have continued in secret because they require dedicated facilities. Electrical lasers are simply not powerful enough yet and they require electricity generation.

What about current kinetic energy interceptor of the USA? They cost $100M each for exo-atmospheric ones. So these aren't internet satellites (the only type of payload until now the advent of re-usability has increased the launch volume of) that cost $200k.



There are many other problems.
1- How the acquisition will be done? Today, large radars are needed for interception. If they are willing to put these systems to the very low earth orbit then they will have short lifespans and little capability beyond the boost phase. The jamming of a tiny sensor on a satellite would be very easy too.

2- How the satellites are going to be defended from lasers? Electrical lasers are going MW soon. They will be able to destroy satellites from the ground.

3- How these interceptors will be defended from co-orbital and direct-ascent ASATs? If they want to increase the capability to intercept these too, the costs will balloon even more.

4- How will they discriminate decoy missiles and anti-simulation decoys? Especially with those very expensive buy tiny-sensor systems?

I could continue. To summarize, I don't find the Golden Dome credible because all the potential measures against it are known since 1980s and they all cost much less. It is also a bit ridiculous to suggest space-based ABM would work efficiently when the ground based one doesn't.

 

[jli88]

They cost $100M each for exo-atmospheric ones.

That's because these missiles are essentially space launch vehicles themselves.

Let me come up with a hypothetical architecture. There are 3 kinds of space assets.

1. Low Earth (400 km) flying bullets/impactors (made up of say 2 m diameter stainless steel) with minimal orbital correction and orientation thrusters to help the bullets/impactors just change orientation and fall down to earth at heavy terminal velocity.
2. Sensor Network in LEO, MEO, and GEO to detect launches. All kinds of sensors.
3. Communication Network built of relays and communication satellites in LEO, GEO to provide an orbital internet of sorts.

This system can serve as global prompt strike platform as well, since the kinetic bullets made of stainless steel descending would have enough kinetic energy to take down buildings with precision (system like "rods from god"). Or an interception system because any launch that's detected can trigger hundreds of those bullets to descend targeting the system.

 

[madhusudan.tim]

The Golden Dome is not a credible project as of 2025. I guessed their kill mechanism would be based on space-based kinetic energy interceptors. Because all high-power chemical laser development was ceased 25 years ago. It is a lost tech. It couldn't have continued in secret because they require dedicated facilities. Electrical lasers are simply not powerful enough yet and they require electricity generation.

What about current kinetic energy interceptor of the USA? They cost $100M each for exo-atmospheric ones. So these aren't internet satellites (the only type of payload until now the advent of re-usability has increased the launch volume of) that cost $200k.

View attachment 164916

There are many other problems.
1- How the acquisition will be done? Today, large radars are needed for interception. If they are willing to put these systems to the very low earth orbit then they will have short lifespans and little capability beyond the boost phase. The jamming of a tiny sensor on a satellite would be very easy too.

2- How the satellites are going to be defended from lasers? Electrical lasers are going MW soon. They will be able to destroy satellites from the ground.

3- How these interceptors will be defended from co-orbital and direct-ascent ASATs? If they want to increase the capability to intercept these too, the costs will balloon even more.

4- How will they discriminate decoy missiles and anti-simulation decoys? Especially with those very expensive buy tiny-sensor systems?

I could continue. To summarize, I don't find the Golden Dome credible because all the potential measures against it are known since 1980s and they all cost much less. It is also a bit ridiculous to suggest space-based ABM would work efficiently when the ground based one doesn't.

You have fiber lasers with power level above 200 KW, not pulse but continuous wave (Raycus). Imagine having 1000 of those in LEO, ten of these can have power of more than 1 MW. No risk of attenuation by atmosphere. Power required is momentary, 10 second of engagement would not drain more than few kilowatt hours. Modern battery can provide discharge rate above 30C, meaning they can provide huge power from smaller energy capacity. But you would need a large constellation for tracking objects at high resolution.