Let me explain something real quick - you don't "shoot down" something in orbit. Orbit, by definition, means that you are in free-fall. You don't need to keep the "engines on" once you are in orbit - it will just keep going. If something was destroyed in orbit - especially by laser, which would merely cause the target to burn - it will continue on in whatever orbit it had previously, but scattering debris that would potentially destroy thousands of other orbital assets.
Now, if you were able to decelerate an orbital asset by, say, attaching a thruster or hitting it with enough kinetic force to slow its velocity? It would drop from the sky as we might be seeing here, and avoid collateral damage. We're not looking at the work of directed energy weapons here. What we are probably seeing is an asset that can attach a small thruster tactically. Lasers are for raising temperature, little else.
Correct. It would not. Orbit is simply falling at an angle such that you miss the ground. It requires no force to maintain itself once set up (though that part takes IMMENSE force). Outside the atmosphere there is no air resistance, so no propulsion is necessary. Remember basic physics - an object in motion tends to stay in motion. A laser weapon is exactly the same as a laser pointer, just a lot more high intensity. You don't put any physical force on something with a weapon like that (ok, technically you do apply force with the photons bouncing off but it's so incredibly negligible that it only matters at the subatomic level unless you're looking at a timespan of days or weeks).
Moreover, MASERs (same as lasers but with microwave waves rather than light waves) are much more likely to be actually used judging by what is publicly known. Destruction of critical orbital infrastructure can be achieved by simply frying the electronics. No cleanup, no suspicion from anyone who wasn't already aware of the target, no debris falling from the sky.
If you're having trouble visualizing what I'm talking about, picture someone tossing a watermelon over your head towards a target behind you, and it gets shot mid-air. Someone hits it with a shotgun, and it'll splatter chunks all over you. Someone hits it with a laser/maser, and it still hits the target but it's on fire when it gets there.
Yes. However, you would not see something fall from the sky like this. As is mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it would burn most of its mass off before billowing into flames like this.
Directed energy weapons, as far as we know in the real world, are nothing at all like star wars blasters. It's like pointing a microwave oven at something. You don't shatter it, you zap it. Such would require sustained energy direction over minutes or hours, but the actual kinetic force (as opposed to the thermal force) is quite infinitesimal. That minor of an orbital decay would cause a satellite (or other orbiting asset) to hit atmo at a very shallow angle, and burn long before getting in range of cameras, let alone the naked eye.
Let me explain something real quick - you don't "shoot down" something in orbit. Orbit, by definition, means that you are in free-fall. You don't need to keep the "engines on" once you are in orbit - it will just keep going. If something was destroyed in orbit - especially by laser, which would merely cause the target to burn - it will continue on in whatever orbit it had previously, but scattering debris that would potentially destroy thousands of other orbital assets.
Now, if you were able to decelerate an orbital asset by, say, attaching a thruster or hitting it with enough kinetic force to slow its velocity? It would drop from the sky as we might be seeing here, and avoid collateral damage. We're not looking at the work of directed energy weapons here. What we are probably seeing is an asset that can attach a small thruster tactically. Lasers are for raising temperature, little else.
Correct. It would not. Orbit is simply falling at an angle such that you miss the ground. It requires no force to maintain itself once set up (though that part takes IMMENSE force). Outside the atmosphere there is no air resistance, so no propulsion is necessary. Remember basic physics - an object in motion tends to stay in motion. A laser weapon is exactly the same as a laser pointer, just a lot more high intensity. You don't put any physical force on something with a weapon like that (ok, technically you do apply force with the photons bouncing off but it's so incredibly negligible that it only matters at the subatomic level unless you're looking at a timespan of days or weeks).
Moreover, MASERs (same as lasers but with microwave waves rather than light waves) are much more likely to be actually used judging by what is publicly known. Destruction of critical orbital infrastructure can be achieved by simply frying the electronics. No cleanup, no suspicion from anyone who wasn't already aware of the target, no debris falling from the sky.
If you're having trouble visualizing what I'm talking about, picture someone tossing a watermelon over your head towards a target behind you, and it gets shot mid-air. Someone hits it with a shotgun, and it'll splatter chunks all over you. Someone hits it with a laser/maser, and it still hits the target but it's on fire when it gets there.
Yes. However, you would not see something fall from the sky like this. As is mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it would burn most of its mass off before billowing into flames like this.
Directed energy weapons, as far as we know in the real world, are nothing at all like star wars blasters. It's like pointing a microwave oven at something. You don't shatter it, you zap it. Such would require sustained energy direction over minutes or hours, but the actual kinetic force (as opposed to the thermal force) is quite infinitesimal. That minor of an orbital decay would cause a satellite (or other orbiting asset) to hit atmo at a very shallow angle, and burn long before getting in range of cameras, let alone the naked eye.