It was a maneuverable satellite designed to destroy an enemy satellite by collision. They even launched a special armored satellite that could be used as a target for multiple test interceptions.
The results of the tests still remain classified. However it appears that the
follow-up Almaz station was to be equipped with a pair of interceptor missiles
rather than a cannon.
1. This weapons test was also against a low orbit satellite.
2. There is no reason to believe that X-37 cannot be a space-based weapons platform.
3. Why does it matter if the weapon was fired at a satellite from the ground, or at a satellite from space? The risk factor (Kessler effect) to peaceful space exploitation is exactly the same in both scenarios, because it comes from a satellite being blown up, not from a missile being launched.
You're making distinctions without a difference. The problem is ASWs existing, not splitting hairs over where ASWs are launched from.
> Well, it matters because everyone said they wouldn't do this. The weaponization of space is something we said we wouldn't do.
Why does it matter? What are the first-principles reasons for why firing a missile from a satellite into a satellite is a problem, but firing a missile from an aircraft carrier into a satellite is not? It should also be noted that putting conventional weapons in orbit is not currently banned by any international treaty.
Does it make any difference, but semantics? Kessler syndrome will happen in response to either one.
