• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Space Warfare

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
33
Points
560
Combar operations will likely migrate to space sooner than we think. China has claimed to have tested an ABM interceptor vehicle, India is announcing an ASAT and the United States has shot down a satellite from a shipborn weapon and operates one AMB squadron in Alaska and has the capabilities to set up a second squadron in Eastern Europe. Note too in the article where the real threat "may" come from (although there are current satellites capable of Direct Broadcast Service [DBS] which can communicate to portable ground terminals [AKA radio and telivision sets] without elaborate infrastructure. Another generation of satellites might see the introduction of sensitive receivers that don't need elaborate ground terminals for operations).

An interesting backgrounder:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=100604C

Space Warfare: On the Way? 
 
By Glenn Harlan Reynolds : BIO| 06 Oct 2004 
   
The United States Air Force is interested in space warfare. Actually, there's nothing new about that. The late-1950s/early-1960s Project Orion, which I wrote about here, was supposed to produce a fleet of nuclear-powered space battlewagons that would do for the Air Force what nuclear submarines had done for the Navy. For a variety of reasons, Orion never got off the ground (except for a small test craft) and though it may come back at some point, it's of largely historical interest now.

But Orion wasn't the first military space project. As Paul Stares notes in his book, The Militarization of Space: U.S. Policy 1945-1984, interest in reconnaissance satellites goes back to the days immediately after World War II, and it has continued to the present.

But these things come in waves, and the latest Air Force initiative suggests that a new wave of interest is getting under way. As an article in Wired News reports:

"'Air Force Doctrine Document 2-2.1: Counterspace Operations' is an apparent first cut at detailing how U.S. forces might take out an enemy's space capabilities -- and protect America's eyes and ears in orbit. Signed by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper, the unclassified report sketches out who would be in command during a space fight, what American weapons would be used and which targets might be attacked.

"In that way, the report is similar to hundreds of others in the Pentagon's archives. But buried in the report's acronyms and org charts are two striking sentiments, analysts say. First, the document declares that the U.S. Air Force is duty-bound to slap down other countries' space efforts, should the need arise. Then, Counterspace Operations declares that a satellite or ground-control station doesn't have to belong to one of America's enemies in order to get hit."

(Here's a link to the paper.) This has some people unhappy. As one commentator in The Register observes:

"The document doesn't specifically say anything like 'we'll shoot down any neutral satellite we find being used by our adversaries.' But neither does it say, 'whatever we do we must ensure we don't shoot down any neutral satellite.' It does strongly imply throughout that destroying, disabling or interdicting non-combatant space assets is something that may have to be done, after giving due considerations to all of the consequences. So we have here the Air Force outlining the Bush doctrine in space, alongside the extension of Article 51 of the UN Charter to extraterrestrial matters."

Actually, there's never been much doubt that Article 51 of the UN Charter (which authorizes force in self-defense) extends to outer space. Nor, despite the occasional assertion to the contrary by uninformed commentators, does the 1967 Outer Space Treaty forbid militarization -- or military action -- in outer space. Rather, the Treaty's text merely forbids the placing of nuclear weapons "or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction" in orbit, and the establishment of military bases or fortifications on the Moon and other celestial bodies. None of this poses any barrier to the Air Force's plans.

No doubt there will be specious arguments of illegality made, on the popular assumption that anything the United States wants to do must offend international law. But I don't plan to waste more pixels on that nonissue here.

A more important question is this one: Even if it's legal, is this approach a good idea? On that question, my views are less firm, and there's probably considerable room for discussion.

The United States is the world's biggest user of satellite services, both civilian and military -- but especially military. This puts us in a unique position. We have the strongest incentive to protect this sort of thing, and to maintain our lead, but we're also the most vulnerable. Space assets serve as an enormously important force multiplier for the U.S. Knock out every satellite in orbit and the United States military will suffer a considerable degradation in effectiveness; the Chinese military, or even the French, will lose much less.

Yet matters are complicated by the growth of dual use, and even covertly military, satellite systems in the hands of other countries. We're learning some things, for example, about Europe's Galileo satellite system that suggest a significant military agenda. According to the Telegraph:

"A series of probing parliamentary questions put last week to the Secretary of State for Defence by a Tory defence spokesman, Gerald Howarth MP, is trying to make the Government come clean about the immense military implications of the EU's proposed Galileo satellite system. This could be the final straw in ending Britain's close defence alliance with the United States.

"The purpose of the multi-billion-euro Galileo project, supported by Britain, is to set up a direct EU rival to the US's GPS (global positioning satellite) system. Until now, Britain has supported the cover story that Galileo, run by the European Commission's energy and transport directorate, is intended purely for civil use.

"But in 2002, the commission admitted in an 'information note' that 'Galileo will underpin the common European defence policy' by giving 'the EU a military capability'.

"Earlier this year, with the potential military uses of Galileo as a rival to the US system in mind, China took a 20 per cent share in the project. Russia and Israel have shown a similar interest."

The thinking, I believe, is that by banding together, these nations make a U.S. effort to deny them (or others) such satellite services less likely. That's a direct blow -- sponsored by the European Union -- at the United States' superior space position, and it seems intended not only to maintain Europe's independence, but more significantly to weaken the United States vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

Is the Air Force paper a response -- and maybe even a threat? As the article in The Register quoted above notes, "as the US tried mightily to persuade Europe it didn't need to build its own GPS system, ten years from now Europe may only have itself to blame, right?"

Unable to rely on a de facto monopoly, I suppose it's inevitable that the United States will put more energy into denying satellite services to its adversaries, as well as protecting its own satellite resources as best it can. I also wonder, though, about the side effects of antisatellite warfare. Unless the targeting is very precise, and unless fratricide from satellite debris is minimal, the damage to other satellites could be significant. And given the global economy's dependence on satellite services, the consequences of that could be substantial.

On the other hand, though talk of "space warfare" calls up images of Star Wars-type space combat, the easiest part of a satellite system to target is usually the ground station. Despite all the talk, we're more likely to see groups of commandoes blowing up dish antennas, or hackers seizing control of computerized control systems, than laser beams and missiles in space. The trouble is, the United States is also more vulnerable to attacks of that sort, since it depends heavily on satellites, and since many adversaries without recourse to missiles and laser beams are entirely capable of these more-ordinary attacks.

It's no wonder the Air Force is thinking about these things. And perhaps the rest of us should be giving them some more thought, too.
 
The first of a new generation of military spacecraft take to the sky:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100403/ap_on_sc/us_mystery_spacecraft

Air Force to launch robotic winged space plane

By JOHN ANTCZAK, Associated Press Writer John Antczak, Associated Press Writer – Sat Apr 3, 7:47 pm ET

LOS ANGELES – After a decade of development, the Air Force this month plans to launch a robotic spacecraft resembling a small space shuttle to conduct technology tests in orbit and then glide home to a California runway.

The ultimate purpose of the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle and details about the craft, which has been passed between several government agencies, however, remain a mystery as it is prepared for launch April 19 from Cape Canaveral, Fla.

"As long as you're confused you're in good shape," said defense analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org. "I looked into this a couple of years ago — the entire sort of hypersonic, suborbital, scramjet nest of programs — of which there are upwards of a dozen. The more I studied it the less I understood it."

The quietly scheduled launch culminates the project's long and expensive journey from NASA to the Pentagon's research and development arm and then to a secretive Air Force unit.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the X-37 program, but the current total has not been released.

The launch date, landing sites and a fact sheet were released by Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Angie I. Blair. She said more information would be released soon, but questions on cost and other matters submitted by e-mail weren't answered by Friday.

While the massive space shuttles have been likened to cargo-hauling trucks, the X-37B is more like a sports car, with the equivalent trunk capacity.

Built by Boeing Co.'s Phantom Works, the 11,000-pound craft is 9 1/2 feet tall and just over 29 feet long, with a wingspan of less than 15 feet. It has two angled tail fins rather than a single vertical stabilizer.

Unlike the shuttle, it will be launched like a satellite, housed in a fairing atop an expendable Atlas V rocket, and deploy solar panels to provide electrical power in orbit.

The Air Force released only a general description of the mission objectives: testing of guidance, navigation, control, thermal protection and autonomous operation in orbit, re-entry and landing.

The mission's length was not released but the Air Force said the X-37B can stay in orbit for 270 days. The primary landing site will be northwest of Los Angeles at coastal Vandenberg Air Force Base.

The significance of the X-37B is unclear because the program has been around for so long, said Peter A. Wilson, a senior defense research analyst for the RAND Corp. who several years ago served as executive director of a congressional panel that evaluated national security space launch requirements.

"From my perspective it's a little puzzling as to whether this is the beginning of a program or the end of one," Wilson said Friday in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

As NASA anticipated the end of the shuttle, the X-37B was viewed as a working prototype of the next-generation design of a fully reusable spacecraft, but the space agency lost interest and the Air Force picked it up, Wilson said.

"It's viewed as a prototype of a vehicle that could carry small payloads into orbit, carry out a variety of military missions and then return to Earth," he said.

The Air Force statement said the X-37 program is being used "to continue full-scale development" and orbital testing of a long-duration, reusable space vehicle.

Wilson sees the upcoming launch as "a one-shot deal."

He acknowledged that he does not know if there is a classified portion of the program but said there is no evidence of a second vehicle being built to follow the prototype. In aerospace, a prototype typically remains a test vehicle used to prove and improve designs for successive operational vehicles.

To fully function as a completely reusable launch system there would also have to be development of a booster rocket that is capable of landing itself back on Earth to be reassembled with the spacecraft, according to Wilson, who does not see any support for such an initiative.

Wilson also said the usefulness of payloads such as small military satellites is in question, which would undercut the need for the launch system.

The X-37B is now under the direction of the Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office. Its mission is to speed up development of combat-support systems and weapons systems.

Operating since 2003, the office has worked on several things, including upgrading the air defenses around the nation's capital as an anti-terrorism measure and assessing threats to U.S. combat operations, according to an Air Force fact sheet.

NASA began the X-37 program in 1999 in a cooperative deal with Boeing to roughly split the $173 million cost of developing an experimental space plane. The Air Force put in a small share.

The X-37, initially intended to be carried into space by shuttles in 2003, was a larger version of the Air Force X-40A, a concept for a "Space Maneuver Vehicle" to put small military satellites in orbit. The X-40A was dropped from a helicopter in glide and landing tests but was never capable of actual space flight.

In 2002, NASA awarded Boeing a $301 million contract to complete a version of the X-37 to be used in approach and landing tests and begin designing an orbital version that would fly in 2006.

But in 2004 NASA turned the project over to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense Department's research and development arm. In 2006, the X-37 was put through captive-carry and drop tests using Mojave-based Scaled Composite LLC's White Knight, the jet that launched SpaceShipOne on the first private suborbital manned space flights.

The Air Force then began work on the X-37B, projecting it would fly in 2008. An Air Force News story at the time reported that the first one or two flights would check out the performance of the vehicle itself and then it would become a space test platform with unspecified components flown in its experiment bay.
 
Decreasing the time between launch and impact (and the links from sensor to shooter) is potentially very destabilizing. On the other hand, it provides capabilities that do not currently exist (and the idea of operational or even tactical firepower coming direct from the homeland rather than in theater would simplify other aspects like logistics and security of assets). Finding the right balance will be difficult, especially given the political implications:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/04/barack-obama-strangelove-backing-a-weapon-too-crazy-for-bushcheney.html

Barack Obama Strangelove Backing A Weapon Too Crazy For Bush/Cheney

The NY Times continues to present the Administration spin in favor of reducing our nuclear arsenal.  Part of the rationale was that our conventional weapons, such as smart bombs and cruise missile, are much more accurate and powerful.  Fair enough.  But today the Times describes a weapons system so laughably destabilizing that Bush and Cheney took a pass:

U.S. Faces Choice on New Weapons for Fast Strikes
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON — In coming years, President Obama will decide whether to deploy a new class of weapons capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour and with such accuracy and force that they would greatly diminish America’s reliance on its nuclear arsenal.

Launched from the United States and arriving in an hour?  We could only be talking about missiles or something that looks a lot like one, so the rest of the story could be written by anyone passingly familiar with nuclear doctrine and the theory of MAD.  However, David Sanger and Tom Shanker of the Times overlook the most important point, which we will come to in due course.

The basic problem is that land-based missiles are vulnerable to a first strike attack by incoming missiles.  Consequently, anyone with land-based missiles, such as Russia or China, faces a "Use it or lose it" dilemma when their screen lights up with missiles launched from the US - do they wait to see what lands and goes "Boom", or do they launch their own missiles while they still can?  This is not a new issue - people have been talking about first-strike weapons from the dawn of the nuclear age (It's why we have hotlines).

Mitigating Russian concerns to some extent would be the number of missiles they actually see launched.  One or two missiles would not take out their entire land-based capability, so if (IF!) they could be confident of maintaining their command and control structure, they might be persuaded to sit back and await developments.

However!  All of that is covered by the Times.  What the Times utterly ignores, or overlooks, is the problem a weapon such as this would cause for Iran, North Korea or any other small crazy country with a much smaller nuclear arsenal.  The US weapon could be deployed around 2020.  Will North Korea or Iran have a missile or two capable of reaching the US by then?  If so, they will be stuck with the "Use it or lose it" problem, and may feel obliged to launch on warning.

Now, maybe the plan is that North Korea won't develop the surveillance capability by 2020 to know whether we have launched our own missiles.  That's reassuring!  Or maybe we can count on crazy countries not to do something crazy.  But this is a weapon that should not be built until these problems have been hashed through.

Let's excerpt Times coverage of these problems.  First, it was too crazy for Bush:

The idea is not new: President George W. Bush and his staff promoted the technology, imagining that this new generation of conventional weapons would replace nuclear warheads on submarines.

In face-to-face meetings with President Bush, Russian leaders complained that the technology could increase the risk of a nuclear war, because Russia would not know if the missiles carried nuclear warheads or conventional ones. Mr. Bush and his aides concluded that the Russians were right.

Partly as a result, the idea “really hadn’t gone anywhere in the Bush administration,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has served both presidents, said recently on ABC’s “This Week.” But he added that it was “embraced by the new administration.”

My cynical guess - Obama is backing this now in preference to maintaining a nuclear stockpile; later, the obvious problems with this weapons system will become obvious to him.

Here we go on reassuring the Russkies:

But the key to filling that gap is to make sure that Russia and China, among other nuclear powers, understand that the missile launching they see on their radar screens does not signal the start of a nuclear attack, officials said.

Under the administration’s new concept, Russia or other nations would regularly inspect the Prompt Global Strike silos to assure themselves that the weapons were nonnuclear. And they would be placed in locations far from the strategic nuclear force.

"Other nuclear powers" includes Great Britain and France - I think they will be OK with this program, but if they want to send inspectors, fine.  However, "other nuclear powers" might, by 2020, include Iran; it already includes North Korea.  Are their inspectors also welcome?  Did Sanger and Shanker ask that obvious question and bury the answer under "other nuclear powers", or did it escape them?

This is bait and switch by Obama - a guy who couldn't back a missile defense system because it is too destabilizing will never back this, not too mention that his base will howl, but it may be expedient right now to pretend to be a tough guy.

BACKGROUND:  Popular Science explained the original sea-based version and poked at the Armageddon problem.  This 2006 memo from Pavel Podvig of Stanford looked at the Armageddon problem from Russia's perspective, noting that "Today, Russia is the only country other than the United States that has an early warning system capable of detecting ballistic missile launches. This makes it the natural focus of concerns associated with the global-strike plan."  Whether that will be true in 2020, I don't know.
 
More on the X-37 program:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/science/space/23secret.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

Surveillance Suspected as Spacecraft’s Main Role
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: May 21, 2010

A team of amateur sky watchers has pierced the veil of secrecy surrounding the debut flight of the nation’s first robotic spaceplane, finding clues that suggest the military craft is engaged in the development of spy satellites rather than space weapons, which some experts have suspected but the Pentagon strongly denies.

Last month, the unmanned successor to the space shuttle blasted off from Florida on its debut mission but attracted little public notice because no one knew where it was going or what it was doing. The spaceship, known as the X-37B, was shrouded in operational secrecy, even as civilian specialists reported that it might go on mysterious errands for as long as nine months before zooming back to earth and touching down on a California runway.

In interviews and statements, Pentagon leaders strongly denied that the winged plane had anything to do with space weapons, even while conceding that its ultimate goal was to aid terrestrial war fighters with a variety of ancillary missions.

The secretive effort seeks “no offensive capabilities,” Gary E. Payton, under secretary of the Air Force for space programs, emphasized on Friday. “The program supports technology risk reduction, experimentation and operational concept development.”

The secretive flight, civilian specialists said in recent weeks, probably centers at least partly on testing powerful sensors for a new generation of spy satellites.

Now, the amateur sky watchers have succeeded in tracking the stealthy object for the first time and uncovering clues that could back up the surveillance theory. Ted Molczan, a team member in Toronto, said the military spacecraft was passing over the same region on the ground once every four days, a pattern he called “a common feature of U.S. imaging reconnaissance satellites.”

In six sightings, the team has found that the craft orbits as far north as 40 degrees latitude, just below New York City. In theory, on a clear night, an observer in the suburbs might see the X-37B as a bright star moving across the southern sky.

“This looks very, very good,” Mr. Molczan said of the identification. “We got it.”

In moving from as far as 40 degrees north latitude to 40 degrees south latitude, the military spacecraft passes over many global trouble spots, including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea.

Mr. Molczan said team members in Canada and South Africa made independent observations of the X-37B on Thursday and, as it turned out, caught an earlier glimpse of the orbiting spaceship late last month from the United States. Weeks of sky surveys paid off when the team members Kevin Fetter and Greg Roberts managed to observe the craft from Brockville, Ontario, and Cape Town.

Mr. Molczan said the X-37B was orbiting about 255 miles up — standard for a space shuttle — and circling the planet once every 90 minutes or so.

A fair amount is known publicly about the features of the X-37B because it began life 11 years ago as a project of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which operates the nation’s space shuttles. The Air Force took over the program in 2006, during the Bush administration, and hung a cloak of secrecy over its budget and missions.

The X-37B has a wingspan of just over 14 feet and is 29 feet long. It looks something like a space shuttle, although about a quarter of the length. The craft’s payload bay is the size of a pickup truck bed, suggesting that it can not only expose experiments to the void of outer space but also deploy and retrieve small satellites. The X-37B can stay aloft for as long as nine months because it deploys solar panels for power, unlike the space shuttle.

Brian Weedon, a former Air Force officer now with the Secure World Foundation, a private group based in Superior, Colo., said the duration of the X-37B’s initial flight would probably depend on “how well it performs in orbit.”

The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office leads the X-37B program for what it calls the “development and fielding of select Defense Department combat support and weapons systems.”

Mr. Payton, a former astronaut and senior NASA official, has acknowledged that the spacecraft is ultimately meant to give the United States new advantages on terrestrial battlefields, but denies that it represents any kind of space weaponization.

On April 20, two days before the mission’s start, he told reporters that the spacecraft, if successful, would “push us in the vector of being able to react to war-fighter needs more quickly.” And, while offering no specifics, he added that its response to an “urgent war-fighter need” might even pre-empt the launching of other missions on expendable rockets.

But he emphasized the spacecraft’s advantages as an orbiting laboratory, saying it could expose new technology to space for a long time and then “bring it back” for inspection.

Mission control for the X-37B, Mr. Payton said, is located at the Air Force Space Command’s Third Space Experimentation Squadron, based at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. He added that the Air Force was building another of the winged spaceships and hopes to launch it next year.

The current mission began on April 22, when an Atlas 5 rocket at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida fired the 5.5-ton spacecraft into orbit.

Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer who tracks rocket launchings and space activity, said the secrecy surrounding the X-37B even extended to the whereabouts of the rocket’s upper stage, which was sent into an unknown orbit around the sun. In one of his regular Internet postings, he said that appeared to be the first time the United States had put a space vehicle into a solar orbit that is “officially secret.”

David C. Wright, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private group in Cambridge, Mass., said many aerospace experts questioned whether the mission benefits of the X-37B outweighed its costs and argued that expendable rockets could achieve similar results.

“Sure it’s nice to have,” he said. “But is it really worth the expense?”

Mr. Weedon of the Secure World Foundation argued that the X-37B could prove valuable for quick reconnaissance missions. He said ground crews might rapidly reconfigure its payload — either optical or radar — and have it shot into space on short notice for battlefield surveillance, letting the sensors zoom in on specific conflicts beyond the reach of the nation’s fleet of regular spy satellites.

But he questioned the current mission’s secrecy.

“I don’t think this has anything to do with weapons,” Mr. Weedon said. “But because of the classification, and the refusal to talk, the door opens to all that. So, from a U.S. perspective, that’s counterproductive.”

He also questioned whether the Pentagon’s secrecy about the spacecraft’s orbit had any practical consequences other than keeping the public in the dark.

“If a bunch of amateurs can find it,” Mr. Weedon said, “so can our adversaries.”
 
Tiny satellites with limited functionality and orbital duration could be useful in a tactical scenario ("surging" space assets to support an operation and supply extra bandwidth or observational capacity). The gun launcher has other uses as well...

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/09/quicklaunch-cubesats-and-open-source.html#more

Quicklaunch, Cubesats and Open Source Satellite Initiative

The basic idea of Quicklaunch is that you launch a projectile from a cannon at 6 kilometers per second using compressed hydrogen gas. On a conventional rocket, the payload fraction is about 3%, whereas with our concept the payload is more than 20%. For just $12 million in funding they could be launching cube satellites into orbit by 2013. It currently costs about $100,000 to launch a cubesat. A working cannon launcher could bring the cost down to a few thousand dollars.

Phase 1 - 1 year and 2 million

They use the original 240 foot long SHARP pump tube run in single stage mode. This delivers inert 40 lb vehicles to an apogee in excess of 200 km and breaks the existing record of 180 km. (interpolation: this would roughly translate into putting a 20kg projectile about 400km downrange)

Phase 2: 2 years and $10M

We use a 400 foot long Quicklauncher launching a single stage rocket motor to deliver a 1 kg Cubesat to orbit. We will then collaborate with universities on a large number of Cubesat launches. These launches will allow us to fully break in the launcher prior to Phase 3.

Phase 3: 2 years and $50M

We build and operate 400 meter long Quicklaunchers called QL-100 to deliver 100 lb payloads to orbit. These $50M launchers can deliver supplies and certain classes of satellites on demand. This dovetails with a DARPA project called Orbital Express which recently demonstrated satellite docking and transfer of propellant and batteries. The customers will range from commercial satellite providers to NASA and The European Space Agency

Phase 4: 3 years and $500M

We build and operate 1,100 meter long Quicklaunchers called QL-1000 to deliver 1,000 lb propellant payloads to orbit. The customers will range from NASA and other space consortiums to Space Entrepreneurs such as Bigelow Aerospace and Virgin Galactic. Phase 4 will supply 2,000 tons (4 million lbs) yearly. Supplying affordable propellant to depots in orbit will enable manned exploration of Mars and the Moon.

Hojun Song built a fully functioning satellite. It’s set to become the first comsat designed and financed by a private citizen to reach orbit. The tiny (about 60 cubic inches) and cheap (around $500) device is a masterpiece of DIY engineering: Song hacked together a solar cell, a lithium-ion battery, an Arduino board modded to withstand cosmic rays, and four LED lights powerful enough to be seen from back on Earth. Song will fork out $100,000 to commercial rocket company NovaNano to launch his supercheap creation into orbit.

The Open source satellite initiative is trying to develop open source satellites.

Several companies, universities and private individuals are making cubesats

    A CubeSat is a type of miniaturized satellite for space research that usually has a volume of exactly one liter (10 cm cube), weighs no more than one kilogram, and typically uses commercial off-the-shelf electronics components. Beginning in 1999, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) and Stanford University developed the CubeSat specifications to help universities worldwide to perform space science and exploration. Several companies have built CubeSats, including large-satellite-maker Boeing. However, the majority of development comes from academia
 
Wikileaks strikes again:

http://technologyreview.com/blog/deltav/26344/?p1=Blogs

Wikileaks Hints at U.S. and China Space Weapon Showdown
Documents released today show that anti-satellite tests may have been a show of military strength.

Brittany Sauser 02/03/2011

The Wikileaks website has obtained diplomatic cables, which have been released to the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph, that suggest that anti-satellite tests conducted by China in 2007 and by the United States in 2008 were not merely "tests" but showcases of each country's space weapon or military powers. This is not entirely surprising, but the documents put in writing the some of the realpolitik involved with two competing super powers, i.e. my weapons are bigger and better than yours.

The Chinese intentionally shot down an aging weather satellite 530 miles above Earth in January 2007, which resulted in thousands of pieces of debris, exponentially compounding the space debris problem. The strike down garnered criticism from nations around the world, including the United States. Then in February 2008 the United States shot down a malfunctioning American spy satellite, a task it claimed it had to conduct because the satellite was carrying toxic fuel that could pose health concerns.

According to the Telegraph,

One month before the strike, the US criticised Beijing for launching its own "anti-satellite test", noting: "The United States has not conducted an anti-satellite test since 1985." In a formal diplomatic protest, officials working for Condoleezza Rice, the then secretary of state, told Beijing: "A Chinese attack on a satellite using a weapon launched by a ballistic missile threatens to destroy space systems that the United States and other nations use for commerce and national security. Destroying satellites endangers people."

The warning continued: "Any purposeful interference with US space systems will be interpreted by the United States as an infringement of its rights and considered an escalation in a crisis or conflict.

"The United States reserves the right, consistent with the UN Charter and international law, to defend and protect its space systems with a wide range of options, from diplomatic to military."

. . .
In secret dispatches, US officials indicated that the strike was, in fact, military in nature.

Immediately after the US Navy missile destroyed the satellite, the American Embassy in China received "direct confirmation of the results of the anti-satellite test" from the US military command in the Pacific, according to a secret memo.

The most recent cable in the collection was sent from the office of Mrs Clinton in January 2010.

It claimed that US intelligence detected that China had launched a fresh anti-satellite missile test. Crucially, Washington wanted to keep secret its knowledge that the missile test was linked to China's previous space strikes.

The cable, marked "secret" said the Chinese army had sent an SC-19 missile that successfully destroyed a CSS-X-11 missile about 150 miles above the Earth.

The leaked cables are interesting, but lack the muster to confirm the Telegraph's claim of "a secret 'star wars' arms race" between China and the U.S. (Given the diplomatic climate at the time, one might expect the U.S. embassy in China to be informed of the American satellite's destruction regardless of whether or not an ulterior agenda was playing out.) More to the point, the cables bring to life dangerous tensions between two powerful nations and continue the Wikileaks saga--that is of secrets and transparency, and how one begins to make sense of it all.
 
Being able to service and maintain space assets has some pretty huge implications, and Canada leads the way with a very versatile robotic arm and hand combination:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/27/canadas-dextre-robot-passes-first-of-a-kind-test-to-refuel-satellites-in-space/

Canada’s Dextre robot passes first-of-a-kind test to refuel satellites in space

National Post Staff | Jan 27, 2013 6:32 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 27, 2013 6:34 PM ET
More from National Post Staff

The Canadian Space Agency’s “Dextre,” the robotic handyman on board the International Space Station, made history over the weekend by successfully refuelling a mock satellite outside of the station.

The refuelling mission — a collaboration between NASA and the Canadian Space Agency for their experimental Robotic Refueling Mission (RRM) — was a pivotal demonstration for robots’ ability to refuel satellites in space, extending their service lifetime.

Since 2011, Dextre, a two-armed mechanical robot not far removed from “Star Wars” R2-D2 has successfully performed three tests on satellites that weren’t built to be repaired in space.

From the Canadian Space Agency:


RRM is a significant step in pioneering robotic technologies and techniques in the field of satellite servicing-saving ailing space hardware by refueling or refurbishing them before they become space debris. The ability to refuel satellites in space could one day save satellite operators from the significant costs of building and launching new replacement satellites. With over 1100 active satellites currently operating in the near-Earth environment (many of them worth hundreds of millions of dollars), and an additional 2500 inactive satellites still orbiting around our planet, the savings could be substantial.

 
I will need a lot of convincing, since this essentially violates the laws of physics as conventionally understood, but if it is true, then we have "Impulse" thrusters. Spaceshops zipping around with reactionless drives are a staple of Space Opera, although given the claimed output of this device we will be waiting a while before we can fight the Shadows.....

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/experimental-null-test-of-mach-effect.html#more

Experimental Null Test of a Mach Effect Thruster

  The Mach Effect Thruster (MET) is a device which utilizes fluctuations in the rest masses of accelerating objects (capacitor stacks, in which internal energy changes take place) to produce a steady linear thrust. The theory has been given in detail elsewhere and references therein, so here we discuss only an experiment. We show how to obtain thrust using a heavy reaction mass at one end of our capacitor stack and a lighter end cap on the other. Then we show how this thrust can be eliminated by having two heavy masses at either end of the stack with a central mounting bracket. We show the same capacitor stack being used as a thruster and then eliminate the thrust by arranging equal brass masses on either end, so that essentially the capacitor stack is trying to push in both directions at once. This arrangement in theory would only allow for a small oscillation but no net thrust. We find the thrust does indeed disappear in the experiment, as predicted. The device (in thruster mode) could in principle be used for propulsion. Experimental apparatus based on a very sensitive thrust balance is briefly described. The experimental protocol employed to search for expected Mach effects is laid out, and the results of this experimental investigation are described.

Suggestion from Advanced Space Propulsion Workshop in Huntsville Alabama for a null experiment. If we were to place identical brass masses on either side of our active PZT stack, then the mass fluctuations would result in pushes and pulls of equal magnitude and the device should just oscillate a little but show no average thrust. This appeared to be worth testing. It would show that we were able to eliminate any unwanted vibration, noise effects.

Conclusion

We have shown using a Mach Effect Thruster (MET) it is possible to produce a linear thrust with no propellant (1 to 2 micronewtons is the test in this paper). We have utilized the Mach Principle which says in brief, that the inertial mass of a body is determined by its gravitational interaction with the rest of the matter and energy flow in the universe. We sought to prove that we had managed to eliminate all vibration effects from our data and attempted a null experiment. We attached equal size reaction masses to each end of the active PZT stack, this would cause the induced mass fluctuation to push and pull in both directions at once, and the device should not produce a net thrust. In section 3 we have shown that by using equal masses at both ends of our device we can indeed eliminate the net thrust. This is a rather nice way to show that the methods we employ are sufficient to eliminate any systematic “Dean Drive” noise caused by vibration in the system.

In addition we also tried to determine the optimal brass reaction mass to give maximal thrust. We tried several different brass reaction masses, 0.5, 0.625, 0.75, 0.875 and 1.0 inch with masses 64.7g, 80.9g, 96.8g, 112.6g and 128.3g respectively. We found that for the stack N4, the preferred brass reaction mass was 0.625 inch and 80.9g. We have not put all the data here since for a different device one would have to run this kind of test again. But it is clearly something that would be worthwhile to optimize the thrust for a given device.
 
This article is a threat, a warning and an opportunity. The threat is unexpected impacts on Earth by space objects. Given the size and speed of these pieces of space rock, the impact will be about the scale and scope of a nuclear warhead exploding in the atmosphere or on the ground (it might take time to determine that it wasn't a nuclear weapon in the chaos that follows). The warning is there are far more of thes object close at hand than anyone had previously thought.

The opportunity is that these can be reached and deflected with only a modest improvement in space capabilities, and are thought to have useable materials that can be extracted for further long term space operations (most simply water, followed by using the unprocessed material as radiation shielding) Follow the link for the diagrams:

http://earthsky.org/space/relative-positions-of-near-earth-asteroids-within-0-3-au

Think Friday’s close asteroid flyby is sobering? Look at this
Near-Earth asteroids via Scott Manley and Armagh Observatory

Objects within 0.3 AU of the Earth – or within about a third of Earth’s distance fromt the sun – today. From Armagh Observatory.

When you see computer-generated images of asteroid 2012 DA14′s February 15, 2013 close flyby – showing the asteroid near Earth in space, seen from a distant vantage point – you might see the Earth, the asteroid, perhaps the sun, and maybe a few other planets. Here is another way to picture Earth and close-passing asteroids, from Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland. The image below is near-Earth space today – February 13, 2013. It shows all the objects currently within 0.3 AU of Earth – that’s 45 million kilometers – or about 30 million miles – or about one-third of the distance between us and the sun. The red oval around Earth represents 3.84 million kilometers, or 10 lunar distances.

All asteroids currently within a third of Earth’s distance from the sun are shown, with Earth at the center, in pseudo 3D. The red oval around Earth represents a distance 10 times greater than the moon’s distance. View larger.. Computer-generated image via Scott Manley at Armagh Observatory

Scott Manley was a PhD candidate at Armagh Observatory in 1998 when he created the software needed to generate this image daily (he now appears to be a software engineer in San Francisco). Please be aware that the image isn’t depicting asteroids over some period of historic time. It’s today’s image, created with a computer program using data taken from from Ted Bowell’s online catalog of asteroid positions and movements (Bowell is an astronomer at Lowell Obsevatory in Flagstaff, Arizona). Manley wrote of the image:

    To represent the 3D nature of the positions every asteroid marked has its position projected onto the plane of the ecliptic (essentially the plane which the Earth’s orbit lies in). So the asteroid sits at the top (or bottom) of the ‘flagpole’ and the base of the pole shows where they would appear to be on the larger map of near Earth objects. In addition, the motion over the next 24 hours is represented by lines at the top of the poles.

How can we understand – and live with the idea of – the image above? One thing to remember is that space is much vaster relative to objects in space than this diagram perhaps indicates. I cannot tell you the exact scale of the area of space portrayed here, relative to the objects depicted. But I do know that, at this scale, the word Earth or the words 2012 DA14 are much, much bigger than the objects they represent. Perhaps Earth is a speck of dust at this scale, and the asteroids are microscopic? Something like that. At any rate, there is much more space out there than planets or asteroids, and that is why, contrary to your first impression after looking at this image, we are not being bombarded with asteroids once a year or so.

Asteroid 2012 DA14 to sweep close on February 15, 2013

Watch February 15 asteroid flyby online, in real-time

Asteroid 2012 DA14 will pass closest on February 15, 2013. As the image above shows, it will pass much closer than the orbit of the moon – closer even that orbiting geosynchronous satellites (22,000 miles). Image via NASA. Read more about the close asteroid flyby here.

Still, our Earth is being bombarded with objects from space with regularity – over timescales typically longer than our human lifespans – as astronomers have now realized. Asteroid 2012 DA14 will not strike us on February 15, 2013. But, if it did, its potential for destruction is being compared to an event in Siberia in 1908: the Tunguska event. In 1908, a small comet or asteroid exploded in Earth’s atmosphere and flatted miles of Siberian forest; it could have flattened a city instead if the timing had been different. Earth is mostly water, so an incoming asteroid would likely land in the ocean. But the potential for destruction remains.

That is why, if an opportunity arises to express an opinion on whether funding should continue for astronomers to track and study near-Earth objects … well, personally, I would vote yes.

Bottom line: Today’s diagram from Armagh Observatory, showing the relative positions of near-Earth asteroids within a third of Earth’s distance from the sun on February 13, 2013, generated by astronomer Scott Manley.

Read more about this image from Armagh Observatory

What happened in Tunguska in 1908?
 
Lots of interesting pictures on the link (far more than can be posted). In principle this looks like the Hubble space telescope but pointed at the Earth. This is also several generations out of date, but no indication of what direction technology has gone to replace this (although as a guess I would point to the Boeing X-37 as a recoverable spacecraft with the ability to manoeuvre in orbit is where a useful recce satellite should be based):

http://www.onorbit.com/node/3850

KH-9 Hexagon Spy Satellite Makes a Rare Public Outing (Photos and Video)

Submitted by keithcowing on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 11:01.
 
If you like this post please visit our main sites, SpaceRef, NASA Watch and SpaceRef Business

KH-9 spacecraft as seen from its aft end upon entering the exhibit tent. The Satellite Support Bus with the small rocket motor is at the aft end.

With virtually no advance notice, the National Air and Space Museum's Udvar Hazy Center put a KH-9 "Hexagon" spy satellite on public display today. The display is up for one day only. Word of this display only leaked out late on Friday.

No media advisories were issued - and no KH-9 press release is listed here on their site. They deactivated my account with them it would seem, so I reapplied. I could not get NASM officials at the exhibit to comment on the short notice or why the satellite was there. But all you had to do was go inside and see that a large party was being set up for the 50th anniversary of the National Reconnaissance Office. Reception tables and chairs were being set up under the SR-71 and Space Shuttle Enterprise. This is a little odd for a long-time Washingtonian such as myself given that the name of this organization was secret until 1992. Once secret, they now throw lavish parties. (see "NRO Observes 50th Anniversary with Declassification" at FAS).

A large tent with diesel electric generators was set up in the parking lot next to the Museum. Inside the monstrous satellite was on display - no prohibitions on photos whatsoever. Of course, you could not touch the hardware. I have seen lots of space hardware up close, but the condition of this spacecraft was rather remarkable given that it has been in storage for nearly three decades.

It was also somewhat surreal to actually see this monster. 60 feet long at 10 feet in diameter it is longer than anything ever put into a Space Shuttle cargo bay.

Up until now the only public description of vehicles like this is the result of the persistent diligence of analysts such as Charles Vick (and his famous drawings) and John Pike.

According to Wikipedia: "KH-9 HEXAGON, commonly known as Big Bird, was a series of photographic reconnaissance satellites launched by the United States between 1971 and 1986. Of twenty launch attempts by the United States Air Force, all but one were successful. Photographic film aboard Big Bird was sent back to Earth in recoverable film return capsules for processing and interpretation. They are also officially known as the Broad Coverage Photo Reconnaissance satellites (Code 467), built by Lockheed Corporation for the US Air Force."

The spacecraft on exhibit (obviously) never flew and was lacking its solar arrays and the optics and some other components were removed. In addition some "windows" have been cut into the side of the vehicle so that you can see inside. Otherwise this spacecraft is in remarkably pristine condition.

The KH-9 used cameras that took photographic film. Periodically the film would be automatically put into one of the four reentry vehicles on the forward underside (nadir) portion of the spacecraft and sent back to Earth. One reentry vehicle is shown with its gold mylar thermal blanket in tack. Another reentry vehicle has the blanket removed to show the ablative heat shield. Yet another has the heat shield removed to show internal components.

A fourth reentry vehicle is sown in its entirety in an 'exploded' fashion complete with retro rocket package and parachutes. The photos and videos below (copyright SpaceRef.com) should give you an idea of the sheer size and overall construction of this vintage spy satellite.
 
European companies are working on a suborbital launch system. Since the "First Stage" is an A-300 jetliner, the system is potentially far more flexible in terms of choosing launch timings (no large rockets to assemble) and orbital inclination. This is a larger version of the air launched "Pegasus" system:

http://www.s-3.ch/mission-goals

Our mission is to give access to space. We want to make space accessible through fast and recurrent access opportunities facilitating particularly science and in-orbit delivery. Thanks to our innovative launching system based on assembling the best of proven technologies, we will be able to serve our clients with excellence at highly competitive costs. Our aim is to democratize access to space by enabling emerging markets, countries, universities and research institutes to do what has not been possible for them up to now: deploy their own satellites.
Goals
Our objective is to develop, manufacture, certify and operate unmanned suborbital spaceplanes for small satellite deployment. The range of satellites we will be able to launch goes up to 250 kg small satellites. The start of the test flights is planned for 2017. In order to achieve this goal, we rely on the support of a worldwide network of internationally renowned partners and advisors, who all support S3 and trust our vision. While Swiss Space Systems - S3 is a new company, we benefit from decades of research, design, testing and implementation. Our partners and advisors will provide us with a know-how second to none and the best available technologies already developed and certified.

We propose a sustainable system based and built on aeronautics experience and its developments. For instance, we will launch our spaceplane from a Zero-G certified Airbus A300, and the spaceplane will use standard fuels, with no fuel required during landing after a suborbital flight.

That way, we are building the most economic and ecological model available today. Nothing is lost on a flight. The main components used during the flight are re-usable and we intend to develop ground operations known from aviation such as inspection, repair and equipment replacement activities.
 
Space navies have been a staple of SF for decades, this opinion piece is bound to spin a few heads right around:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/740cf5a8e930

Let’s Kick the Air Force Out of Space
Robert Farley and Max Lord argue the Navy could, and should, take charge of orbital forces
@drfarls in War is Boring

So if we abolished the U.S. Air Force, as we’ve argued we should, what would that process look like, and what would it leave behind? The Air Force is the lead agency for U.S. military operations in space. So who should talk over in orbit?

The Navy should. And the result could be an even stronger American presence in space.

Like the sky and the sea, space is a commons; no state has a right to exclude others. Both the Navy and the Air Force have developed conceptual approaches to this commons.

Air Force space doctrine pre-emptively militarizes space. “Due to its speed, range, and three-dimensional perspective, air and space power operate in ways that are fundamentally different from other forms of military power,” the flying branch has stated. “Thus, air power and space power are more akin to each other than to the other forms of military power.”

But we argue that the Navy’s cooperative concept of the commons is more applicable to space than the Air Force’s concept, that the responsibility for space would fit more comfortably in the Navy than in the Air Force, and that, consequently, American pre-eminence in space can survive the end of the USAF.

Space presents a unique operating environment. High access costs and lack of readily accessible materials entail negligible human habitation for the foreseeable future. Zero-sum budgeting of mass and volume restricts everything, especially maneuvering fuel. By necessity frequent, intense maneuvering remains out of the question for feasible orbital vehicles.

The twin necessities of constantly moving relevant to Earth’s surface — with the quasi-exception of geostationary orbit over the equator — and the minimal effort expended to maintain that motion once in orbit mean that anything in space also tends to stay there for extended periods of time, with even low-orbit satellites generally staying aloft for years or even decades after decommissioning.

Unsurprisingly, this makes space a fragile medium for human endeavor.

Counter-intuitively, these characteristics mean that space has more in common with the sea than with the air. Derelict ships float and abandoned satellites drift, while damaged aircraft promptly crash; the story repeats when propulsion systems fail. Most importantly, both sea and space objects stay in their media for months or even years; all but a handful of experimental aircraft return to Earth within a matter of hours.

Given such parallels to activities at sea, and the lack of readily controllable resources, treating space as a collective, persistent commons makes sense. Like the oceans, the vastness of space entails that essentially everyone can have satellites in orbit — not to mention in deep space. Most importantly, avoiding a tragedy of the commons whereby misuse threatens everyone’s ability to operate in space is critically important.

Much like the sea, space provides the opportunity for many actors to share benefits. Information gleaned from weather-monitoring satellites is useful to everyone, as are the wonders of orbital observatories. Even satellite communications and navigation, which can provide service to only so many uses at the same time, generally have enough capacity that even individuals and organizations in developing countries routinely use ubiquitous services such the America’s GPS satellite constellation.

Interestingly, GPS provides an unusual case in which the Air Force providing this form of “utility” to the world at large. Normally such aeronautical or astronautical activities fall under the jurisdiction of the nominally civilian NASA, while oceanographic research in topics as diverse weather forecasting, sea floor exploration and plate tectonics have fallen under the watch of the Navy scientific endeavors.

Regardless of institutional affiliation, the activities humanity currently pursues in space, although expensive on a per-satellite basis, have low costs per-retail-user and decidedly substantial benefits.

These systems, in order to function properly, must orbit over the whole planet. Lack of weather data from even small countries causes serious forecasting problems, and the expense and difficulty of routing satellites around hostile regions would rapidly destroy the economic viability of space flight.

In extremis this could even threaten use of geostationary orbit since any satellite in GEO sees and can be seen by approximately half of the world 24 hours a day. This requires a vision of the commons that is essentially cooperative, not competitive or exclusionary.

Unfortunately, wholesale denial of space-use remains easier than guaranteeing access to orbit. Sending objects into space is simpler than getting them into stable orbits, and relatively primitive weapons can readily destroy sophisticated, important satellites.

Simply smashing derelict or otherwise unwanted satellites with anti-satellite weapons, or packing satellites full of explosives and detonating them in orbit, can generate debris fields that last for years, cover substantial quantities of Earth orbit, and prove difficult to track. Because debris from one destroyed system may hit another, detonating fuel tanks or other volatile components while simultaneously destroying a second satellite and creating a second debris field, preventing conflict in space is an extremely important concern.

Since “rogue” states with moderately sophisticated ballistic missile programs can lob primitive anti-satellite weapons into low altitude orbits, and that they face considerable antagonism from major space-faring powers such as the U.S., the relatively low “entry costs” and likely unintended ramifications of warfare in orbit should give pause to those who advocate for the militarization of space.

In nightmare scenarios the extent of orbital debris in low-altitude orbits becomes severe enough that reliably leaving Earth’s atmosphere becomes impossible for years at a time, gutting the vital services currently provided by satellites. Put briefly, offense is stronger than defense, and we can expect that this relationship will hold for some time.

Here the “dominance” doctrine so prevalent in most forms of Air Force thinking becomes dangerous. Preemptively militarizing space activities puts the U.S. at a decided strategic and political disadvantage, because at present no major space power has the same level of investment in or reliance on space assets as the United States.

An approach derived more strongly from the intellectual traditions of the Navy’s Cooperative Maritime Strategy, relying on management and cooperation rather than control and antagonism while reserving a basic capacity to carry out retaliatory actions, holds considerably greater hopes for developing a robust system of desirable space norms.

And so, in effect, we argue that the conflation of air and space is wrong; when properly conceived of as a commons, space is more like the sea than like the air. Military culture structures how an organization envisions its role, and its relationship with other organizations, and the cooperative, commerce oriented framework in which the Navy conceives of the commons makes more sense in application to space than the Air Force’s militaristic “dominance” approach.

Moving from the abstract to the concrete, the organizational assets that currently find a home in the Air Force can easily be shifted to the Navy. We won’t miss the Air Force; indeed, our space policy may improve in its absence.

Max Lord is a student at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky.

Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce and the author of Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force. He blogs at Information Dissemination, The Diplomat and Lawyers, Guns and Money.
 
Back
Top