Russia’s New Ballistic Missiles to be Tested on Asteroids | Universe Today
Categories: AstronomyNews

Russia’s New Ballistic Missiles to be Tested on Asteroids

In a shocking announcement, Russian scientists say they want to test improved ballistic missiles on the asteroid Apophis, which is expected to come dangerously close to Earth in 2036. If this doesn’t send chills down your spine, you haven’t read enough science fiction.

In a February 11th article in the Russian state-owned news agency TASS, Sabit Saitgarayev, the lead researcher at the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau, says Russian scientists are developing a program to upgrade Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) to destroy near-Earth meteors from 20-50 metres in size. Apophis’ approach in 2036 would be a test for this program.

ICBM’s are the kind of long range nukes that the USSR and the USA had pointed at each other for decades during the Cold War. They still have some pointed at each other, and they can be launched quickly. This program would take that technology and improve it for anti-asteroid use.

Typical rockets of the type that take payloads into space are not good candidates for intercepting asteroids. They require too much lead time to meet the threat of an incoming asteroid that might be detected only days before impact. They can take several days to fuel. But ICBM’s are different. They can stand at the ready for long periods of time, and be launched at a moment’s notice. But to be suitable for use as asteroid killers, they have to be upgraded.

Design work on the asteroid-killing ICBM’s has already begun, admitted Saitgarayev, but he did not say whether the money has been committed or whether the authorization has been given to go ahead with the project. But like a lot of things that are said and done by Russia, it’s difficult to know exactly where the truth lies.

There’s no question that being prepared to prevent an asteroid strike on Earth is of the utmost importance. No matter where on Earth one was to strike, the effects could be global. But one thing’s certain: the development and testing of missiles designed to be used in space is unsettling.

It’s also unsettling in light of the January 16th TASS article stating that “The international scientific community has asked Russian scientists to develop an asteroid deflection system on the basis of nuclear explosions in space.” Taken together, the two announcements point towards a program of weaponizing space, something the international community has agreed should be avoided. In fact, there is a ban on nuclear explosions in space.

We don’t want to be alarmist. There are only a handful of countries in the world that have the capacity to develop some protective system against asteroids, and Russia is definitely one of them. And if Earth were threatened by an asteroid, the weaponization of space would be the least of our concerns.

The fact that Russia wants to develop a missile system with nuclear warheads, and employ it in space, is not entirely unreasonable. But it should make us stop and think. What will happen if something goes wrong?

It’s easy to imagine a scenario where an atomic explosion went off in low-Earth orbit. What would the consequences be? And what are the consequences to having one country develop this capability, rather than an international group? How can this whole endeavour be managed responsibly?

What do you think?

Evan Gough

View Comments

  • Finally!
    Nukes used to protect the whole mankind instead of menacing it.

    That said, it should be used under an internationnal protocol to avoid turning space into another warzone. I'm pretty sure that a threatening asteroïd could make consensus as a good reason to launch a space nuke. So I would put something like a key switch under the responsibility of a really small commity of specialists made of a few different countries. Something like the Security Counsel of UNO composed of 3 rotating members.

  • ".....But like a lot of things that are said and done by Russia, it’s difficult to know exactly where the truth lies."
    Any specific examples? Btw am not sure why the Russians are planning for Armageddon, when it has been proved beyond doubt that this is not the best way to get rid of asteroids hurtling our way.

  • I still try to figure out what the "shocking" part of the announcement cold be. That Russia made it and not the US, in which case the author would have loved the NASA plans to deal with PHAs?

  • Thats is EXACTLY what I mean, Now if we had come-up with this idea we would be heros all over the world but since its The Enemy Russia then its a risky situation, Oh please give me a freaking break already! I am born and raised American citizen and I have more faith in the Russian goverment then I do in my own!!! Meaning I actually trust what they say is true unlike our lying deceiving SCUM that we have in office for the past 25+ years if not more! .......I am all for this idea and support Russia 100%, if the USA dosent like it, OH WELL! Do something about it its not like they are asking for your permission anyway.Who died and made our goverment in charge of the entire world? Good for you Russia, someone taking a stand to these PIGS its about damm time. Nz.

  • I'd rather see Russia putting it's efforts into an upgraded version of their EMP weapon. The USA bought these weapons and used them quite effectively against Iraqi amour columns during both wars. These weapons froze motorized armored vehicles literally in their tracks!

    These EMP weapons are basically a copper/yttrium cylinder surrounded stainless steel tubing conducting cryogenic temperature liquids. A shaped charge in the copper cylinder is detonated precisely with a capacitor bank driven pulse of electricity into the now superconducting copper tube. The now superconducting electromagnet focuses a beam of greater than 500 million watts!

    I say put several dozen of these suckers in a rotating dispenser located at the apex of a mirror assembly similar to the JWST. Then point it at an intruding comet and microwave nudge that sucker into a harmless dust cloud!

  • Relax. This kind of ridiculous statements come out of Putin's Russia from time to time. If there is anything that actually gets some extra funding it is the military research and both the development of the Bulava missile and the Kursk disaster show how well that works. It will be another Phobos-Grunt if it ever gets to becoming any kind of hardware. If anything, this announcement is most likely sign of some internal games between different forces within the Russian military complex. No red Moon this time either.

    Regards,
    /hydrazine

  • Russia has space technology, and they either want to develop it to do something useful and attractive, perhaps to keep the field attractive to new engineers. They don't want to plant flags, or set up a hotel for millionaires on the moon. I am guessing if the USA had been proposing this, many of the readers would be cheering them on, rather than cranking up the paranoia.

    Okay, let's design a nuclear meteor-busting weapon, and see whether it can double as a terrestrial weapon....

    You will need a rocket to get everything into space - this may have some properties of an ICBM, as it will have to sit in a bunker for ages. However, it will be much too big for WW III, as it must escape the earth and meet the incoming object in deep space. It will be vunerable to attack all through the boost phase as it accelerates, and that will be much longer than an ICBM. So, the rocket is not a re-purposed tactical weapon.

    Next, the warhead. A nuke is a very compact way of packaging a big burst of energy, but it does not convey much momentum. If you want to deflect a large body, you are going to have to get the nuke inside the object somehow, so it will put its energy into accelerating bits of the object in different directions. You can't stop and drill a hole - decelerating to match your speed to the object would take too long and use too much energy. You would probably have a couple of conventional impacters in a line, each smacking into the object in the same place, and digging a hole. This sort of thing already exists - there are cratering weapons to make large holes in runways that work exactly like this. If we can get the nuke down by 10 meters, we may spall off enough material with the explosion to significantly change the orbit of the remainder. Again, there are some overlaps with conventional weapons, but the the warhead is not really something we could re-purpose as a weapon.

    Should we be doing this sort of thing? Well, if we are going to do it at all, rather than just sit and hope for the best, we ought to practice. Will it work on ice as well as rock? Will it work on dust, or loosely held aggregates? At launch time, we may not know much about the incoming object is like, so we will have to design something that works on as many types as possible.

    Go for it, say I. Perhaps test it on something that is not coming too close to Earth.

    • I think the concept of nuking an asteroid is about heating its surface to create outgassing which slowly propels it to a slightly different trajectory. This takes years and cannot be accomplished by a suborbital ICBM detonating just above the atmosphere hours before an impact.

      It is a good thing that the Russians keep converting ICBMs to ploughs. But I doubt that any ICBM could be used to deflect an asteroid. Bigger liquid fuel orbital launcher would be needed for such a mission.

  • Oh, for Pete's sake!

    Russia probably has a treaty obligation which prevents it from developing an ICBM with the capabilities it wants. So you simply claim that it is for planetary defense and there is a good chance that the other signatory to the treaty won't bother enforcing the agreement.

    So Russia gets pats on the back for the "altruistic" development of a much more capable ICBM?

    The real story is likely that Russia is developing a new ICBM and that they tentatively plan to violate other treaty obligations by testing their new warhead in space.

    You want to be able to saturate a missile defense system but you currently don't have enough throw-weight to launch something like 30-40 MIRVs with both real warheads and countermeasures interspersed? You need a more capable ICBM and that means building a new one. Very convenient to claim it is for planetary defense.

    I also fail to see how blasting a whole bunch of debris out of an asteroid is a really good idea. I've really not seen anything which suggests nuking an asteroid or comet is going to help the Earth. Arguably it could make things even worse depending on where it would hit the Earth.

    I don't buy the story.

  • I think, first of all, that the article needs a little editing. ICBMs are not nukes. They are tested now and then of course without any weaponized payload. Putin won't send a nuke to space. An ICBM can't even launch a nuke to orbit, they are sub-orbital vehicles. Actually, I doubt that any ICBM with nuclear payload can reach an incoming asteroid in time. Whatever will be sent to Apophis will be a tiny science instrument. And it's called meteoroid, when it is a meteor it is kind too late to stop.

    This must be understood in the light of the Chelyabinsk air burst the other year. Russians are rightly proud of their space program and it is easy to imagine that the public demands that it is used to prevent the asteroids from impacting. It must also be understood that russians like to talk big but deliver little, at least concerning their space program which I follow a bit online. Their space budget is now about half of what it was projected to be a few years ago. I think they'll concentrate on their core competences of rocket engines and humans in LEO. Launching an ICBM to an asteroid is however not so expensive so that is actually plausible, but more as a propaganda event than any useful planetary protection preparation.

    We launch science missions to asteroids and comets every other year or so now, by a bunch of space agencies and planned also by private initiatives. If these missions, with small modifications, were designed and equipped to also function as reconnaissance missions in the case of a sudden threat, and if they were kept in preparedness until the next one is ready, then within just months or even weeks it could be redirected to launch to the threat rather than to the originally intended science target. Knowing the mass, size, shape, composition, rotation et cetera of an incoming asteroid would greatly help in designing a mission to deflect it same years later.

  • In terms of the author's open question about the possibility of inadvertent low earth orbit detonation, the potential benefits far outweigh the risks - I mean serious how much junk was during all the above ground testing and we are all still here right? I also think the likelihood of inadvertent detonation during launch would be low (worst case is the missile blows up on ascent stage showering radioactive material which wouldn't be nice but it would be pretty small scale compared with aboveground testing (provided it was away from population centers which could be managed).

    I would agree with other posters here who comment the real danger is that blasting Apophis apart may actually deflect smaller chunks towards earth.. Explosions are tricky beasts to control.. Just ask any rocket scientist...

    As for weaponization of space, if the ICBM were launched from earth it wouldn't really be weaponization of space.. well maybe only for the brief few seconds the nuke went off.. but again I think most people would agree it was for a peaceful purpose (protecting earth's human population from asteroids) and really doesn't up the ante in any arms race sense - as the author pointed out both countries have ICBMs pointed at eachother already, so no real change in the status quo there..

Recent Posts

Crew Dragon Abort Test is Scheduled for Saturday Morning

On Saturday morning, Jan. 18th, 2020, SpaceX and NASA will be conducting the in-flight abort test of the Crew Dragon,…

18 hours ago

A Mysterious Burst of Gravitational Waves Came From a Region Near Betelgeuse. But There’s Probably No Connection

Gravitational waves are caused by calamitous events in the Universe. Neutron stars that finally merge after circling each other for…

18 hours ago

The Debate Over Cold Dark Matter Warms Up As Astronomers Take Its Temperature

Dark matter has long been one of the most mysterious things in the cosmos. It was first proposed in the…

22 hours ago

ESA Recruits Amateur Astronomers Ahead of Hera Asteroid Mission

The European Space Agency is looking to recruit amateur astronomers to help characterize possible secondary targets for the upcoming Hera…

23 hours ago

An Asteroid has been Found that Orbits the Sun Closer than Venus

Astronomers at Caltech's Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) have discovered an asteroid that orbits inside Venus. Though other asteroids have a…

2 days ago

Another Beautiful Image of Jupiter from Juno During a Flyby. Great Work by Gerald Eichstadt and Sean Doran

Confucius said, "Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it."   When it comes to Jupiter, Gerald Eichstädt and Seán Doran…

2 days ago