>The US was finding Iranian missiles after launch by the thermal signature they leave using satellites
Is there anyway to hide from satellites while you re shooting rockets at the enemy?
Like spraying coolant on the missile exhaust so you got more time to escape or putting on some kind of smokescreen that absorbs some thermal traces or something?

>>63893867 (OP)
strap the missile to a zeppelin and launch from the zeppelin. or have an ultra short boost phase inside a deep tunnel, maybe turn the missile into a rocket assisted artillery shell.

>>63893867 (OP)
yeah, just shoot the satellites.

>>63893867 (OP)
You just put up a giant umbrella over Iran. Checkmate space nerds.

>>63893867 (OP)
put the warheads into orbit weeks or months, maybe years before the attack, so you can drop them at any time with little warning. basically rods from space.

no, as the thermal signature will always be detected; this is why "stealth" in space is almost an impossible concept.

russia devised the "dome of light" to blind satellites so they don't know where each launch is coming from and going. they still use it (last test was on a topol-m).

>>63893981
>russia devised the "dome of light" to blind satellites so they don't know where each launch is coming from and going. they still use it (last test was on a topol-m).
oh, and they also have high powered lasers on their tels that they point at specific satellites.

>>63893867 (OP)
This is why you have a TEL. You drive to somewhere you aren't, launch it and drive away so you aren't where it gets bombed.

>>63893984
>>63893981
>believing slavshit lies
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>63893984
>nuclear exchange happens on a cloudy day
Womp womp

>>63893867 (OP)
If we know the rough location you can't really do much. Decoys would buy you time, you can't really blind he satellites because there's literally thousands no and they are going 37000 mph roughly at 90-250 miles up. So missiles, lasers and blinding them won't work. There is never just one looking down on a single target if importance. You've got several at different angles looking at dozens of spots creating 3d data
The best bet is decoy launches. They'll never tell us the actual number but there's roughly 1500-1800 military satellites up there now.

>>63894011
Cant you lower the thermal signature by spraying -190° liquid hidrogen on the exhaust fumes or another gas to cool it down?

>>63893984
>>63893981
None of that works. We were ironically mocking the cone of light. We aren't looking straight down with one satellite. These are basically space probes. They have no issue with looking at extremely bright areas and still seeing everything
And good luck tracking a 1500-1800 sats with lasers hitting their cameras perfectly as they go 36000 kph 100 plus miles away

That is such a stupid idea all the sat would have to do is move 6 extra inches you'd have to track it and hit a. Area less than 2 inches in radius going 37000 kph and it's moving up and down left and right and forward constantly

>>63893984
>oh, and they also have high powered lasers on their tels that they point at specific satellites.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH NONONONONONO HE UIRONICALLY THINKS THAT THIS WORKS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>63894021
No that's retarded. The best bet is decoys. Trying to mask a rocket engines heat is insane. You'd have do a lot of insane things and even then it would create a huge blip

>>63894005
This comes from US intel, anon. Both are in unclassified papers if you look for them and have been shown to exist. No one knew about the lasers until the CIA found out about them.

Both aren't really useful, because the "dome of light", when used without warning, has a high chance of meaning it's an attack. Lasers themselves blinding your optics means that there's also a high chance of an attack on the way.

>>63894023
i think its more like decoy "launches". if a satellite is looking for spots of bright light, well give it spots of bright light. the camera has no idea if its an actual icbm launch or just some decoy rocket engine burning methane, which russia has in vast abundance.

>>63894026
It's called a scam to steal money from their people

Satellites aren't sitting ducks or maintain the same speed or altitude

>>63894032
>or maintain the same speed or altitude
I mean, some do? Some do in fact even maintain their position in a geostationary orbit.

>Geonengineer huge cloudcover that block IR
>Cant see frok where it came from.

>>63894026
The lie is that the retard presents the gay slavshit concepts as working anti-satellite weapons. No, the dome of light is does not work, it's a Russian invention. Nothing Russian works. No, you can't blind a satellite with a high-powered laser, because the beam scatters and tracking a pinpoint target at that distance is incredibly difficult, way beyond any Russhit capabilities.

>>63894031
Haha we don't satellites to know exactly what the Russians are doing. There's stuff on the ground there. Russians are so stupid it's been there decades

>>63894023
>Move 6 inches
Anon, most lasers at that range have a radius of a mile or more. The valuable part is you just make it stronger and it works regardless of accuracy.

>>63894023
The idea behind the "dome of light" is that it's on all launches, i.e., the entire salvo does it. It will block your thermals. So, you know launches are under way, but not fully where.

It's likely of no use, because this is a MAD situation anyway.

>>63894033
No they do not. Lol. They are constantly changing speed and angular momentum due to random shit like the sun or tides or gravity etc. Tiny little changes even time is following different
Hitting one with a laser to blind it is insanely hard. To destroy it is way easier but still a very bad idea

>>63894024
Yes anon, you can blind optics on satellites from the ground with lasers.

>>63894032
>Satellites aren't sitting ducks
they are! you can predict their position at any given time down to the millisecond. you can even predict the angle of their solar panel or antennas in relation to the ground at any given second. they can change speed and altitude but only for a few times and then when their rocket fuel is spent, they cant maneuver at all anymore.

>this zigger laser can totes blind amerimutt satellites
do you retards think that they didn't think of these blinding attempts when designing the NRO spy satellites?

>>63894047
>>63894041
>>63894040


This dumbest thirdie sounding shit I've ever heard
And I'm not having to explain the basics if space flight

State your fucking point. I answering anymore questions. I answering I get bullshit back then have to explain the basics
Then another bullshit faggot loaded question hits

I'm not in the fucking mood. I was being helpful.

Go to sci and watch them mock your stupid asses without giving information
Fucking retards don't even know about time changes or drift OR THE FUCKING FACT THESE THINGS HAVE TO FUCKING OPERATE WITH THE UNBLOCKED SUN BEAMING RIGHT IN THE CAMERA A GREAT DEAL OF FUCKIKG TIME IM SURE Your FLASH LIGHTS WILL CAUSE FUCKING ISSUES YOU STUPID FUCKS

OH YEAH AND I GUESS SATELLITES STAy in the same FUCKING SPOTS IN SPACE AND GEOS DON'T FUCKING MOVE

OH AND WE DON'T CONSTANTLY ADJUST THEIR FLIGHTS TO AVOID THIS Retarded shit

Fucking retarded brown shits and Russians think they are some Super Genius

>>63894058
You ain't nothin but a punk

>>63894058
if what you say is true then explain that;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_communication_in_space

according to you this isnt possible because according to you one cannot hit a satellite with a laser beam.

>>63894058
It's quite frustrating when zegroes act all intellectual and reprimand you for dismissing their retarded/schizophenic ideas.

>>63894058

>>63894046
Provide proof of your claim and explain how a giga-scattered and megawide laser beam is able to completely defeat an optical sensor that most likely has countermeasures and filters against such attempts.

>>63893867 (OP)
Have someone staring up at the satellite while making 'look look there's something right behind you!' gestures. When the satellite turns around you fire the rocket.

>>63894051
A sufficiently powerful laser can blind any form of optics imaginable. That's the nature of optics, as they're sensitive by design. The only real concern with these in comparison to anti-satellite missiles is that it's hard to tell who would be blinding satellites in peace time, as people like China tend to have a habit of using lasers on the optics and sensors of opposing nations during peace time.

>>63894120
>>A sufficiently powerful laser can blind any form of optics imaginable.
Provide proof that Russkies possess such a laser that is attached to their TELs. Provide the specs of the laser.
>That's the nature of optics, as they're sensitive by design.
kek, alright
Have you considered the nature of laser beams at ranges we're talking about here?

>>63893968
Hey retard, how do you get the warheads out of orbit? What's that process look like? Is it stealthy?

>>63894105
You can Jewgle that one fairly easily. There's plenty of news articles and scientific papers on it. The US wants to do it too.

Though, most of what you'll find is specific ground based laser systems unrelated to missile launches, which is what this thread is about. Russia has them built into their missile TELs, which is a separate matter.

>>63894131
So you have no proof, only conjecture and fantasies. I accept your concession.

>>63894058
>Vague random seethe
I didnt say Russia could do it though they probably can, but I did say that hitting a small satellite is easier than you think because the inverse square law (yes) means pretty much all lasers spread out over significant distance.
Geostationary satellites are by nature "stationary", and while yes, those on a geostationary height yet more polar orbit with more longitudinal range (these can even be geostationary in terms of latitude) to reach higher latitudes do move, they are substantially easier to hit than purely LEO polar orbits as they are farther away. This sounds funny, but after a certain distance it makes virtually no difference to the light source how far away it is, as it's a single point to the source that is covered by the laser regardless of distance.

LEO polar sats are actually easier to hit with thirdie weapons systems, while they are not as stable, they are significantly closer and you can therefore use more inaccurate lasers to perform the same job.

The inverse square law is the reason laser pointers work against pilots despite being tiny and incredibly hard to aim, because by the time they get to the distance of the pilot the beam is 100's of meters wide. Significantly weaker sure, but if it can actually blind someone on the ground, it can annoyingly flash someone in a plane.

The effectiveness of a laser like this can depend on the cameras looking at it, but they can be very effective against cameras that are highly sensitive to IR such as launch detectors, and thus vulnerable to potential IR blinding.

>>63894148
Being clear these sensors often aren't "vulnerable" in a sense that solar or even ground lasers can permanently damage them (though those sensors also exist), but they are vulnerable to bleed on imagery or even medium term overheating leading to (temporarily or sometimes permanently if damaged) less effective sensors during an attack by lasers or even the sun, leading to their temporary inability to search for launch sites in the general area of the laser emitter.

Yes, areas not near the laser emitter might not be affected, making the defensive area around the source only a small one meaning it's still good enough for an overfly target search mission, it depends on the clarity of the optics used, the strength of the laser, and the type of telescope as to whether the laser blinds a few meters of the sensor pad or the entire thing.

>>63894046
Being theoretically possible != actually working shit exist

>>63894178
>>63894148
Just so everyone here knows, this is all pseudoscientific lies that this russkie-lionizing retard pulled out of his ass.

>>63894129
Probably monopropellant under pressure and aerobreaking. Probably still wouldnt be particularly stealthy just due to atmospheric heating but better than nothing. Also god that'd add some weight to the warhead, would only really be "practical" for WMDs.

>>63893946
Either this, or make your whole country as hot as the rocket exhaust from the missiles so they cannot be picked out from the background. You'd probably find it easier to go with the first option.

>>63894083
>It's quite frustrating when zegroes act all intellectual
That's why they do it, the intent is to frustrate anyone that would see through their bullshit and once they've left, the ones that remain will eat up the bullshit.

>>63893867 (OP)

>>63894058
Saar please do not redeem the seethe.

>>63893867 (OP)
i swear to god i just had to argue with some retard here about how good the IR satellite coverage of the US is just the other day. you pick up and fucking move immediately after launch, you can't hide a launch, so just don't be there when return fire arrives. alternatively, launch from within population centers and residential areas, so you can complain about warcrimes when retaliatory fire arrives.

>>63893968
not allowed by treaties and there is nowhere to hide in space, they would be under constant surveillance
Not only that but if they stay in space for a long time, they might just get shot down while waiting for order which never came because they got jammed. Or better the nation that broke the treaty about weaponizing space got nuked because they launched theirs(only to not drop them) and no one can order the nukes to de-orbit because there isn't a command center left(also jamming again is a thing).

retard
>rod from space
double retard

>>63893867 (OP)
>Is there anyway to hide from satellites while you re shooting rockets at the enemy?

>>63893867 (OP)
Stealth missiles that don't leave heat signatures.

PIAT but bigger

>>63893867 (OP)
>Like spraying coolant on the missile exhaust
I want to put alchol injection on my Camry, like that? Will I have cool exhaust?

>>63896561
this
imagine the SPROING

>>63894023
> And good luck tracking a 1500-1800 sats with lasers hitting their cameras perfectly as they go 36000 kph 100 plus miles away
couldn't they use like 2 nukes to down the whole satellite grid? Kek, opps too soon? Gues nukes weren’t actually about israel

>>63894026
The bait is turning rancid

>>63896602
>ook ook ook! Ill nook!
The last refuge of the zigger.

>>63893867 (OP)
Blot out the sky with drones, satellites can't see through drones.

>>63896615
Nuking a satellite grid
Does not equal
Nuking a city of civilians
Infact there would be minimal possibility near zero fallout

>>63894214
???
No.
China and Europe sell off the shelf high quality laser kits that have this level of capability.
Radar domes and telescopes in Russia have been tracking their own satellites for decades now, they know how to set up a slewing turret to point at them.
It's not as hard as you think to point a laser at an object that isn't changing orbit, you can even track them yourself with
your damned phone, sat locations are open source as fuck.

Pic related is a closed camera shutter on a modern sat to stop it being blinded by the sun, it rolls out on a track in front of the sensor.

If you've ever pointed a phone camera at the sun you can see the issues you get with the limited dynamic range you are reduced to, if you have an older phone with limited dynamic range you may even see it fail to adapt and will even show regions effectively blinded.

>>63897185
This is a state of the art sensor array, btw.

>>63893867 (OP)
Apparently, the lAF was using a F-15D's with large center camera pods to search for them

>>63894033
Are you high?

>>63896639
it doesn't matter what your firing your nuke at, you will get nuked too. Doesn't matter if you shoot at a city or an satellite. The moment you launch a nuke without warning you die.

>>63896433
>jamming again is a thing).
make it a dead hand device. instead of the killer satellites needing a command to fire, they would be needing a command not to fire, a signal that gets sent every week and keeps the satellite disarmed. once the signal is jammed the killer satellite starts on its own to descend down to its preprogrammed target.

as for "the enemy can shoot them down". well make the satellites communicate among each other and give them the ability to iniate a strike on their own if one of them doesnt respond anymore.

if everything fails, hide the satellite in a venus orbit. no one can find it there. obviously getting it back for an attack would take some time.

>>63894129
It would takes less force to de-orbit something than launch from the ground at something else, so it would hypothetically be stealthier

>>63894078
I mean when the satellite is actively trying to get by the beams, you know exactly where the satellite is because it's not trying to hide from you, and you don't have to maintain that target for a long stretch of time, yeah it's possible

>>63894037
>nothing russian works
I'm gonna assume soviet union doesn't count as russia. Otherwise, look up Pyotr Ufimtsev.

>>63899015
>venus
Goofy shit, if you can somehow park enough nukes on venus to return them to strike earth then humanity is beyond the stage where nuclear war is the big thing. People probably live in orbital colonies, just drop a fucking asteroid from space if you want to kill a nigger down on earth at that point.

>>63899833
getting to venus takes 1 month when earth and venus are closest which is the case every 1.5 years.

>>63897185
63894148
63894120
>>63894026
>>63893981
>What is atmospheric distortion
You would need a very sophisticated laser setup with adaptive mirrors to compensate for the atmospheric distortion, a secondary laser and sensor to measure said distortion, a processor unit to calculate the distortion, the adjustment need to tune your adjustable mirror so that the beam is coherent once it passes through the atmosphere, etc. This is something Russia is unable to produce.

>>63893867 (OP)
Hydrogen cold thrust first stage