The weapon you linked to is an anti ballistic missile. The difficulty is not purely in how fast the target is going, but how much it maneuvers, the duration at which it can sustain those speeds, and the altitudes at which it operates. The article addresses this early on.
Aren't all hypersonic missiles based on re-entry vehicles? The altitudes they operate at are basically 'all of the above'. If someone can launch a low altitude missile that can sustain Mach 5+, I'm not sure what you are going to do against it.
So what are the hypersonic low altitude capabilities for maneuvers for these platforms? I don't deny the maneuver but I have this hard time believe someone just throws out some grid fins while doing Mach 24 at 10,000 ft. If the course changes are done at high altitude I can't see what it matters either.
TFA does not discuss the missiles that only reach a hypersonic speed, which is true for any ballistic missile, because such missiles have existed for a very long time.
It discusses the hypersonic missiles that are maneuverable, which for now have not been deployed in combat yet, by any of the 3 countries known to possess such missiles.
So what are the hypersonic low altitude capabilities for maneuvers of them missiles? I keep seeing it claimed but I don't see any numbers. Just hypersonic, maneuvering and glide vehicles doesn't really say much. That's the Space Shuttle. I've yet to hear anyone claim the space shuttle is a 21st century weapon.
Totally agree. Cool little project, but I cannot think of one use case where this is needed.
> But "fine" starts to feel slow when you need dense time resolution. Generating a month of ephemeris data at one-second intervals is 2.6 million propagations per satellite.
Ok, except SGP4 loses its accuracy over WAY shorter time frames than a month (think hours/days)
> Pass prediction over a ground station network might need sub-second precision across weeks.
a) sub-second ephemeris for antenna pointing is crazy overkill, and b) same comment about accuracy as above.
It will require a number of innovations just to solve the formation flying aspect of the system, not to mention the other challenges (listed and not)... good luck with that.
Right, but they're flying them close on purpose - point is, at first glance it looks feasible and the close formation aspect has enough benefits that it's worth exploring further. For me, it's the first time I saw the idea to exploit constellations for benefit within the system (here, communication between satellites), and not externally (synthetic aperture telescopes/beaming, or just more = lower orbit = cheaper).
There are a couple interesting-sounding claims made here but there is basically no detail to be found, which strikes me as odd at best and suspicious at worst.
Yeah it's a bit odd. I can get a sense of what they might be doing and perhaps it's a compelling product but no where near enough info to go on, let alone reserve one for $99 and later buy at $1999.
