No collision, no collision, no collision.”
One of the most certain ways to destroy one of our satellites is for the bad guys to track any of our satellites from the ground and then launch a guided missile into its path. The resulting collision will destroy both objects and spread a tremendous amount of debris into already crowded orbits, so a good motto for the new Space Force is “No Collision.”
We might even use the motto on our Space Force uniforms modified from the left over Star Trek uniforms as I suggested in my last post. When the president’s goal of space dominance is achieved, we will of course have to be ready to overpower all of those other nations who have ambitions of using space for their own commercial and military applications and they might not be ready and willing to go along with us. So we will have to establish and enforce our own “Space Rules of the Road.”
Liberals have suggested that there should be global rules of the road in economics and I can imagine the Anti-Space Dominance (ASD) advocates suggesting something similar for space. Their ideas would include shared beliefs and accepted rules of behavior such as free trade of products involving space hardware and satellites, minimal application of military power (except to police the bad guys) and trusted investments and business agreements. If we are not willing to go along with this sort of mutually assured survival (MAS) with a live and let live approach, we will need to enforce our dominance of space. Our control of space would then be great again–like it used to be before others decided to compete.
Claiming that the Russian and Chinese are already moving ahead with space weapons, the president and vice president have called for “American dominance of space” so there will absolutely be no collision. I can imagine what comes next. We will create a space club and we will collect dues and make sure everybody knows our rules so that they all will all be protected from direct attacks and any space debris or even jamming, blinding or destruction from directed energy weapons. We will own all of the orbits and charge rent for their use. The law of space will be our law, our space, our territory over the entire world and nobody will be allowed to launch rockets without our permission . Our space warriors will live in fabulous huge orbiting space towers so they can keep an eye on the various other countries who may threaten us. We will build space hotels and charge visitors from other countries sky-high fees to stay there. Yes, I can see it now … America will achieve total space domination with no collision and we will set our own rules of the road. It will be my way on the space highway. No collision… total dominance… and peace and prosperity for all.
SDI Guy 
doesn’t the orbit of the small stuff decays faster? so at least for low earth orbits we may want more collisions. True its messier for a while but cleaner in the long run. What do you say. 🙂
LikeLike
Don’t know how messy for how long with what losses? Maybe a reader has done the analysis? My thought is that an all out low earth orbit space war will result in mutual destruction.
LikeLike
Key words are ALL OUT. I can see taking out some of the bad guys AND their means of waging space war.
LikeLike
So the subject is space war management of the escalation ladder. Of course the bad guys will respond. This will certainly include cyber and could escalate to earth wars and maybe with nukes….or maybe even bio.
LikeLike
I’m afraid that this administration is immune to parody. It’s clear that our space assets, both military and commercial are vulnerable to both direct threats and indirect threats (collision). As has been demonstrated, attacking and destroying a satellite produces a cloud of debris that is a threat to all satellites. There are non-kinetic threats (i.e. lasers and HPM) that can attack sensors and satellite electronics which do not produce debris clouds. Unless all space weapons are banned by treaty, we are looking at a costly arms race. The United Nations was formed to provide a venue for all nations to enact treaties that can restrict such an arms race. Unfortunately, the UN doesn’t have the support of the Trump administration and without US leadership will never be an effective body. What could provide a limit to an arms race in space is the cost. Can the US, China and Russia afford it?
LikeLike
To believe the UN is a ‘go to’ agency for an arms control treaty is a bit credulous no? The Trump bashing here can be classified as opportunistic.
Oved.
LikeLike
I’ve always loved the way Gerry uses sarcasm to drive home his points. However, the future military use of space is a serious issue. Consider the following truism:
Development and Exploitation of Space – An Observation from History
• Initial exploration of a medium leads to discovery of assets and capabilities accessible only through that medium
• As the value of these assets and capabilities are perceived to increase, use of the medium must be militarily assured.
• This leads to a relentless military expansion into the new medium creating new sources of conflict which did not exist prior to exploitation of this medium
Thousands of years ago, this applied to the use of the oceans of the world and in the 20th century to military use of the air. Military protection of the world’s use of both is now an accepted harsh reality. Today this reality is what is developing in the use of the medium called ‘Space’. In a better and different world, things might be different but history teaches some hard lessons.
It is difficult to argue with the logical merits, desirability or moral superiority of establishing Gerry’s rules of the road, behavior, etc. for the use of the Space medium. Now, let’s talk about reality. In any serious future conflict involving Russia or China or their surrogates, they will not permit us to again use our space systems to significantly enhance our terrestrial war-fighting capabilities. Desert Storm really made an impression on the Russians. Credible reports indicate both are currently developing or already have counter-space capabilities. Gerry correctly argues that there would be no winners in a war in space. There would also be no winners in a nuclear war and yet we are prepared to engage in one. Does anyone seriously believe the Russians or Chinese are losing sleep about the morality of using Space for military purposes? The President’s use of the word “Dominance” was unfortunate but using sarcasm to mock the President may seem clever and perhaps justified but certainly isn’t helpful.
So let’s talk about this reality. First, at this time the major concern is about the survivability of space assets. Even during the heyday of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), none of us in the program talked about systems capable of delivering destruction force from space against terrestrial targets. That remains the case today. Loose use of terms like “war in space” only creates near hysteria among left-leaning college professors. This may change in the future but today we must improve our capabilities to enhance survivability of our critical systems.
Historically, neither of the two primary agencies responsible for military space systems, i.e., the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) were enthusiastic about enhancing space system survivability. Why? Getting into and operating in space is difficult and expensive. Designers or surveillance, communication, navigation systems had use for every available dollar and ounce of spacecraft payload. In the 1980s and 1990s and NRO scoffed at allocating precious weight and power to enhance survivability against, they argued, a vague or low-capability threat. Are their systems today more survivable against the emerging threat? Let’s hope so. Are they survivable enough?
Here are a few things we may have to do and afford:
• Have Minuteman-class boosters on alert to replace vital communication satellites. Emphasize critical short-term needs and stop worrying about whether or not deployed troops can see pictures of their new-born baby.
• Have Minuteman-class boosters on alert to replace vital communication satellites. Emphasize critical short-term needs and stop worrying about whether or not deployed troops can see pictures of their new-born baby.
• Authorize the President and/or the Secretary of Defense seize control any or all commercial satellite or terrestrial-based communication systems in times of national emergency. AT&T’s and communication satellites are as capable as DODs even if they are not hardened.
• Similarly, grant the same authority to take over space-based surveillance systems like those that allow you to view your house on Google Maps.
• Place an imaging space-based radar satellite beyond geosynchronous orbit. This power-hungry-system would likely need to be powered by a small nuclear reactor.
• Accelerate investment in anti-jam technology for GPS system including advanced antenna design.
• If a Space Force is judged not to be needed at this time, ensure future budgets for Space Command are adequate to address enhanced space-system survivability.
Expensive: Yes. Necessary: Increasingly so. Many who favor a Space Force likely do so partially because the Air Force outside of their Space Command has (and will likely continue to do) favor planes over satellites. In any non-nuclear war of attrition with Russia or China, we must retain essential space-system capabilities.
This discussion begs a related, and perhaps a more critical, issue. I believe there should be real concern with whether or not the U.S. public has any desire for the U.S. to continue to be the preeminent world power in the face of expanding Russian and Chinese ambitions. We reluctantly accepted this role after WWII when we were only surviving economic power. Times have changed. If given an opportunity to vote between more “free stuff” like health care for all and/or enhanced Social Security OR protecting our critical economic and security interests the Southwest Pacific, Middle East, or Korea, I’m very afraid how that vote might turn out. How many people in this country are willing to sacrifice? Does Germany, France or England want the job of protecting Western interests? Let’s deal with harsh realities.
George Hess, Jr
Colonel, USAF, Ret.
1983-1989
LikeLike
I would like to respectfully respond to Colonel Hess’s long and thoughtful response to Gerry’s Post with the following comments:
1) Hess’s first two paragraphs (An Observation from History) imply a Colonial view of power that was exhibited historically by Britain, France, Germany, Spain, etc. prior to WWII. The USA has never pursued colonialism as the objective of our foreign policy (although many third world countries have accused the USA of colonial ambitions). We have in fact projected our military power to fight colonialism. Attempting to take military control of Space could be perceived by other nations as an effort to extract the riches of the new medium, just as for example, Spain extracted the gold and silver of the New World.
2) I agree with Hess that the USA’s space systems are a perceived threat to Russia, China and others who would wage a war of aggression against the USA, that these countries are therefore developing counter-space capabilities, that morality is not their consideration, and that a war in space would have no winners.
3) The positions of the Air Force and NRO vis-à-vis the need for and the cost of hardening space systems in the past may be untenable in the light of developing threats. However, I take the following issues with Colonel Hess’s proposed solutions to this problem:
a) The cost of basing and maintaining a force of Minuteman-class boosters with satellite payloads on continuous alert.
b) The Command and Control issues related to the takeover of civilian commercial space assets by the DOD.
c) Placing a nuclear reactor powered satellite beyond geosynchronous orbit. (In the late 1980’s I was involved in a Grumman/SAIC program to purchase a Russian TOPAZ reactor from the Kurchatov Institute for a joint US/Russian Neutral Particle Beam mission to a lunar orbit for resource mapping. This never got beyond the conceptual stage but besides cost and the problem of safely launching a nuclear reactor into space, an overriding issue was the lack of a booster with the payload capacity. In this period of Glaznost, we were also talking with the Russians about using a Proton booster.
Notwithstanding all this, the survivability of our space assets is paramount. I still argue that extending the Outer Space Treaty to forbidding the deployment of anti-satellite weapons in space, in addition to weapons of mass destruction.
LikeLike
Dr. Toepfer’s comments are appreciated but I must point out I never proposed U.S. “. . . military control of space.” I argued, as he concedes, that we must make major efforts to ensure the avialability of our assets during any future conflict. As to what I presented on the Development and Exploitation of Space being a “. . . Colonial view of power”, his position is interesting but offers no substantive rational as to why things will not occur as I opined. The Outer Space Treaty has worked well to date because it was in the best interest of all parties. Desert Storm, particularly for the Russians, changed all of this. Relying on any treaty to guarantee our security in the future is naïve. Ask the Russians about how the treaty with the Germans in the late 1930s worked out. Japan violated the international treaty on the size scope of their Navy in the same timeframe while the U.S. abided by its restrictions. Whether the truism I wrote is a Colonial view or not is irrelevant.
Finally, Dr. Toepfer suggested “. . . banning anti-satellite systems in space”. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese need to deploy such systems in space at this time to threaten our space-based capabilities. A recent Russian test of their anti-satellite (ASAT) capability is instructive. It was the 6th launch of a direct ascent system known as the PL19/Nudol. Defense officials believe it will eventually be deployed. Bottom Line: I’ll double down on my predictions. The military use of space is an issue that transcends this Administration and is one future President’s will be forced to address.
In the 1985-86 time frame, representatives of both the SDIO and NASA testified to Congress on the SDIO SP-100 nuclear reactor program. We argued that many future space missions would require power levels that could be only satisfied using space-based reactors. Solar light levels beyond the inner planets are inadequate. The SDIO SP-100 nuclear reactor program was in early development and was cancelled only when General Electric seriously overran the budget. With respect to launch safety, the plan was to activate the reactor containing low-level non-critical radioactive material only after it reached a stable orbit. Boosters currently available or in development will have more than adequate lift capabilities for space-based nuclear reactors. In fact, NASA’s launch of 41 Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) since 1961 to power missions to Mars and the outer planets represented a far greater risk than the launch of a “cold” nuclear reactor. RTGs contain plutonium-238. The capsules containing the plutonium-238 were well designed and would likely have survived a launch accident. However, had capsule integrity been breached, the contamination of the launch site could have been significant. As an aside, the U.S. has essentially run out of plutonium-238 to fuel future RTGs. The US’s current goal is to produce 1.5kg of Pu-238 a year by 2026 but a recent GAO audit has questioned how realistic the this timeline may be. In the early 1990s when we hoped the Russians looked like they would be more cooperative in the international community, they committed to supplying the U.S. with small amount of plutonium-238 for future RTGs. They reportedly have reneged on this commitment.
George Hess, Jr
Colonel, USAF, Ret.
1983-1989
LikeLike