Saturday
Mar072009
Space War: Russia and US in Satellite Shoot-out?
Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 15:18
Related Post: Obama: Finding the Right Word for Russia
Experts, policy makers, and academics have been talking about hypothetical military combat in space for decades, particularly during the 1980s with the introduction of President Reagan's so-called "Star Wars" program to shoot down Soviet nuclear missiles. However, there's evidence to suggest that warfare in Earth's orbit is very quickly accelerating from merely hypothetical to a strategic reality.
This week Russian Deputy Defense Minister Gen. Valentin Popovkin revealed that his country has been developing Anti-Satellite weapons technology, particularly "basic, key elements" needed to shoot down a satellite in near earth orbit. Regarding similar programs by the Americans and Chinese, Popovkin said, "We can't sit back and quietly watch others doing...such work."
Of course the Russians would have to emulate any military program that both the US and China have, but this isn't your everyday imperial arms race. They think the US already shot down one of their satellites.
It's not unusual for the Russians to be suspicious about DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) projects, especially ones like Orbital Express that could eventually be used against them. But the real indicators of a US "shoot down" comes from the satellite's manufacturer, Iridium Satellite LLC, which could serve the dual purpose of both telecommunications provider and military intelligence asset.
Iridium Satellite started in the late 1990s as one of many companies competing in the burgeoning field of satellite telecommunications. However, due to technical issues and rampant mismanagement, Iridium filed for bankruptcy and seemed on the brink of disaster. That's when a private group of investors stepped in and bought Iridium and it's $6 billion in assets for the bargain basement price of $25 million. Almost simultaneously Iridium announced a $36 million, no-bid contract with the Department of Defense for providing satellite communications to some 20,000 users.
Who sits on the board of this once-broke, now uberprofitable company? None other than Alvin Krongard, better known as Buzzy, former Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency under the disagraced George Tenet and board member of the private security contractor formerly known as Blackwater.
If I can find all of that on Google, what do you suppose the Russians know? No wonder they're developing their own military space technology.
Counter-Point: Dan Mosqueda isn't so sure the US shot down the satellite. Via Twitter, he says "This conjunction was a result of sloppy Russian space ops. An Iridium bird [satellite] isn't an Orbital Express bird, not even close in size. OE was launched via an Atlas V - HUGE launch vehicle. Iridiums were launched on smaller and completely different Delta-family launch vehicles. Last launch was back in 2002. The ASTRO is at 250 miles [from the earth's surface], Iridium at 450, and the Cosmos 2251 is at 490, but could have decayed a bit. So ASTRO is out of the picture."
Experts, policy makers, and academics have been talking about hypothetical military combat in space for decades, particularly during the 1980s with the introduction of President Reagan's so-called "Star Wars" program to shoot down Soviet nuclear missiles. However, there's evidence to suggest that warfare in Earth's orbit is very quickly accelerating from merely hypothetical to a strategic reality.This week Russian Deputy Defense Minister Gen. Valentin Popovkin revealed that his country has been developing Anti-Satellite weapons technology, particularly "basic, key elements" needed to shoot down a satellite in near earth orbit. Regarding similar programs by the Americans and Chinese, Popovkin said, "We can't sit back and quietly watch others doing...such work."
Of course the Russians would have to emulate any military program that both the US and China have, but this isn't your everyday imperial arms race. They think the US already shot down one of their satellites.
Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Leonid Shershnev, a former head of Russia's military space intelligence, said in an interview published by the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper on Tuesday that the U.S. satellite involved in the [February 10, 2009 collision with a defunct Russian satellite] was used by the U.S. military as part of the "dual-purpose" Orbital Express research project, which began in 2007.
It's not unusual for the Russians to be suspicious about DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) projects, especially ones like Orbital Express that could eventually be used against them. But the real indicators of a US "shoot down" comes from the satellite's manufacturer, Iridium Satellite LLC, which could serve the dual purpose of both telecommunications provider and military intelligence asset.
Iridium Satellite started in the late 1990s as one of many companies competing in the burgeoning field of satellite telecommunications. However, due to technical issues and rampant mismanagement, Iridium filed for bankruptcy and seemed on the brink of disaster. That's when a private group of investors stepped in and bought Iridium and it's $6 billion in assets for the bargain basement price of $25 million. Almost simultaneously Iridium announced a $36 million, no-bid contract with the Department of Defense for providing satellite communications to some 20,000 users.
Who sits on the board of this once-broke, now uberprofitable company? None other than Alvin Krongard, better known as Buzzy, former Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency under the disagraced George Tenet and board member of the private security contractor formerly known as Blackwater.
If I can find all of that on Google, what do you suppose the Russians know? No wonder they're developing their own military space technology.
Counter-Point: Dan Mosqueda isn't so sure the US shot down the satellite. Via Twitter, he says "This conjunction was a result of sloppy Russian space ops. An Iridium bird [satellite] isn't an Orbital Express bird, not even close in size. OE was launched via an Atlas V - HUGE launch vehicle. Iridiums were launched on smaller and completely different Delta-family launch vehicles. Last launch was back in 2002. The ASTRO is at 250 miles [from the earth's surface], Iridium at 450, and the Cosmos 2251 is at 490, but could have decayed a bit. So ASTRO is out of the picture."
Reader Comments (13)
Obama and Co. are big on solar power, and I know they are looking into the potential of space farms. Japan has been carrying out research, and the Russians might be thinking about it as well.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/10/beam_me_down_sc.html I think it's one of the reasons they want space-based weapons -- to protect the infrastructure. Imagine a Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon (which is basically a bomb) taking out one of these things 50 years from now. Talk about an energy crisis! The Soviet Union deployed a satellite equipped with a hidden anti-aircraft cannon in the 1960s. Nobody found out about it until after the Cold War ended. I saw a picture of it in Popular Science.
http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-5-sep-oct/Tech_Frontier_Solar_Space.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtgkF7opgvA
Hi Scott:
I'm not going to post here except to say the following:
1) There are some serious oversights in Mr. Mull's analysis.
2) The collision is far more deleterious to America's national interests than all the rest of the world's nations combined, at this point. I suggest even a cursory read of the consequences of the uncontrolled debris propagation generated by the collision.
3) To "announce" that space war is "becoming" more prevalent or portentious is rather odd, given what has been going on there for many years. The signs diagnostic of mounting urgency and strategic integration of space not merely as a resource for planetary operations, but as a theater of operations in its own right, are, at best, tangentially implicated in considerations of the recent satellite collision.
I wish to remain tactful. Mr. Mull calls our attention to an important contemporary issue that is rapidly ascending in its urgency. However, the reason he cites/invokes as warranting our increased attention is, I must opine, profoundly misconceived.
Dr. Charles E. Gannon
author, Rumors of War and Infernal Machines: Technomilitary Agenda Setting in American and British Speculative Fiction
Dr. Gannon,
Thank you for your comment. I want to point out that I never actually said/confirmed that the US shot down a Russian satellite, I only drew a line from the satellite to US clandestine operations for the purposes of showing that there COULD be more to this story than a simple collision. I have no proof that the US shot down the satellite, and you have no proof that they did not. Therefore, I'd say speculation is allowed.
If you don't think the possibility of an actual aggressive move in space warrants attention, I would really like to know what would. Shall we wait until someone DIES in space? What's your threshold for paying attention to a conflict?
Scott wrote:
"If you don’t think the possibility of an actual aggressive move in space warrants attention, I would really like to know what would. Shall we wait until someone DIES in space? What’s your threshold for paying attention to a conflict?"
My response is, firstly, that my attention is directly proportional to, and determined by, the factors which would best seem to predict whether, in fact, this *event* is an "actual aggressive move" or an example of carelessness and neglect in orbital/launch/maintenance operations and planning. I consider the factors suggesting that this is NOT an "aggressive move" to be individually significant; taken as a whole rather than as the sum of their parts, they are, for me, decisive. The list of the most important (but not only) factors, follows:
One: the capability for kinetic kill (satellite to satellite) already operationally existed for, and was well understood by, Russia and the United States. Also, while not demonstrated in practice or analogous ops, it is hard to imagine that a similar capability is not fully within the operational palette of the ESA or China.
Two: this occurrence creates a navigation nightmare, with profound operational ramifications for the most space-dependent nations, and--from my contacts in the Airforce and Space Command--is a particularly terrible event for US strategic interests.
Three: lives and material destruction are very unlikely as the key indicators of an *emerging* test of wills or might in space. They would be consistent with a late-stage escalation--to the point of irreversible commitment to overt, offensive operations. Look for signals issues, service interruptions, marginal degradings, as the "opening gambits" or "shows of strength." As for this event signalling a "display of capabilities," see item #1, above.
In summary: a tiny ion-thruster fitted on any satellite that follows a similar orbital path (which is, in large measure, also altitude-specific) as that of a "target satellite" can be used to effect what the space military folks call "catastrophic intercept" (some like the rather gallows-humor term, "catastrophic rendezvous"). The number of satellites fitted with such thrusters--for perfectly legitimate station-keeping functions, but which have an obvious ability to "weaponize" the platform--number in the hundreds. Automated intercept of co-orbiting objects is not "difficult" for the "space-faring" powers--and they have wanted to avoid such events because of the operational nightmares they portend. If any power *were* to use this tactic aggressively, I would look for it coming from a minor or "new" space national space program that A) wanted to significantly erode the advantages enjoyed by the more developed national programs, and B) did not mind infuriating all of those nations in so doing.
In conclusion, I cannot see how this event was necessary, or even advisable, either as a show of capability or will. If it was an "act", I would suspect it to be the result of a "house coup" attempt to be trying to start a war predicated on a "manufactured incident", since it is a very poor strategic move: more akin to an admixture of what underlies the fictional events in "Seven Days of May" cross-fertilized with "The Sum of All Our Fears." As a genuine, cosidered, centrally-approved military action, it violates the principles of real politick that usually guide such initiatives.
And as to your initial "riposte"--"I want to point out that I never actually said/confirmed that the US shot down a Russian satellite"--I would in turn point out that I never claimed that you did say such a thing. I am simply observing that the reasons you adduce for intimating that the collision might in fact be diagnostic of a warlike policy decision are far less conclusive--or even likely--than your essay asserts.
With (cordial and *genuine*) respects,
Dr. Charles E. Gannon
Dr. Gannon,
My essay asserts that the Russians are developing anti-satellite technology, perhaps because they think the US shot down one of their satellites, and I offer a handful of reasons why they might think this. That's it. Whatever else you choose to read into it, that's on you, not me.
The post was not about US national interests in a space war, not about the physical consequences of a satellite collision, and not about rogue military personnel attacking the Russians. If you have theories about those things, please feel free to write about it.
And drop the "with all due respect" stuff, it's patronizing.
UPDATE: The comments section appears to be broken at the moment, so this is in response to the comment below by Dr. Gannon,
I don't understand what part of my analysis you disagree with. The Russians, not me, think the collision was a shoot-down, and I offered a few reasons, not all, not definitively, why they might think that. I'm not saying its true, I'm speculating as to WHY THE RUSSIANS MIGHT THINK its true. To disagree with my analysis would be to say Iridium being a US military asset headed by former CIA is not a reason for the Russians to speculate about a US "shoot down." That's fine, maybe it's a big coincidence, and maybe the Russians didn't consider that at all in their assessment, but that's not what you seem to be saying. It seems you're caught on the RUSSIAN claim of a US shoot-down.
The Russians say they are building anti-satellite technology, the Russians say they're worried about US anti-satellite capabilities, and the Russians say the US shot down a satellite. That's not my analysis, that's what the Russians said. Iridium did manufacture the satellite, it is connected to the US military, and it is headed by former US intelligence officials. Those are facts, not something I'm asserting.
I do not know enough about the technology to speculate on whether the Russian claim is true, which is why I personally avoided any technical aspects and even went so far as to update the piece to include relevant technical information contradicting the Russian claim from Mr. Mosqueda, formerly an employee of US Space Command who worked on the Orbital Express project.
So, which part specifically of my analysis do you disagree with? That the Russians might have considered Iridium in their shoot-down theory, or the satellite's connection to the US military and intelligence services is relevant to that theory? The rest of the piece is all facts or other people's analysis.
Dear Mr. Mull:
I hope to finish this thread here. There are five objects/counterpoints to your last post that I am afraid I must present.
Firstly, it was you who earlier (your first response) suggested I was representing your piece as asserting that the US shot down a Russian satellite, which I did not assert.
Secondly, you *now* object to what you consider my focus on the US program. In attempting a contrast with your actual work, you claim that "My essay asserts that the Russians are developing anti-satellite technology, perhaps because they think the US shot down one of their satellites." However, the great majority of *your* article is about what the *US* might have developed, or might be doing, in space.
Thirdly, in order to respond to your query about what would constitute grounds for alarm over an escalating space confrontation, I found itnecessary to consider the relevant details of the relevant programs. Those are the determinant factors. I am not particularly interested in focusing on the US program.
Fourth, I do not suspect nor propose rogue actions or anything equally outre'; I offer those as a caveat, and an indication that there are other alternative explanations, even some that are/seem wildly improbable. But I *do* want to acknowledge other alternatives.
Lastly, I did not address my closing to you with "due respects" but "genuine respects." Furthermore--and most importantly-- I meant it. I am not trying to be patronizing. I dsiagree strongly with your analysis. At the same time, I recognize and respect the energy and research it takes to analyze space issues. They are very detailed, multi-tiered, and the physical realities which govern them are often counter-intuitive, making policy analysis particularly tricky. I am sad that, despite my emphasis upon *genuine*, you took this to be some kind of attempt at a patronizing tone. I assure you, I did not mean it that way. If you look at some of my other posts on Enduring America, and Libertas, I think you will see that I neither flame nor patronize.
I will try one last time.
With *genuine* respect,
Dr. Charles E. Gannon
Dear Mr. Mull:
Thanks for the clarifications: I think we can come to successful conclusion, now.
As you now present the matter, my reservations are with two points:
1) I note with interest that the Russian commentator is "Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Leonid Shershnev, a former head of Russia’s military space intelligence". I differ with the presumption that he is the voice of "Russia" as you imply when you wrote (in your last response) that "The Russians say they are building anti-satellite technology, the Russians say they’re worried about US anti-satellite capabilities, and the Russians say the US shot down a satellite. That’s not my analysis, that’s what the Russians said." Point One: the Russians (their sitting command staff) has been saying this for years, just as we have said it about them, and we are both right. So, what you say is true--but it's nothing new. What makes it (ostensibly) "new" here is the collision.
However, the matter of the collision brings me to my second point: the significance of the collision was not derived from "what *the* Russians said" (to quote you). Rather, it was the comments of *a* Russian: a "retired General." He can indeed claim to have the prerequisite technological knowledge and strategic insight. However, presuming him to be an official voice of Russian perception as relates to the Kremlin's Space Defense initiatives would be somewhat akin to presuming that if retirees such as Norman Schwartzkopf or Wesley Clark said something about US military activity, we could take it as indicative of what "the Americans are thinking/doing." I do not see discriminating between these two different levels of attribution as a quibble: Shershnev is not the voice of Russian Space Defense policy-makers, particularly regarding an event which transpired after his tenure in their ranks. I will happily agree that *some Russians* no doubt think exactly as he does. OTOH, if it was THE Russians who thought that way, I can only say that Putin, Medvedev, and others have been very directly vocal about things such as missile defense shields, and the like. I suspect if they wanted to make a statement to the effect that Russia entertained a (unofficial or official) suspicion that this collision was actually a US display of anti-satellite capability, they would have made it manifestly clear to all of us. It is possible that Shershnev is a "back channel" communication mouthpiece for the Kremlin. I do not know what degree of connection/conformity he has with current Russian politicos and powercenters. However, if I had the time (I don't), and if I read Russian (not enough, and not in Cyrillic), I would go nosing about for other comments by him: I would not be surprised to find that he was an "old Cold-Warrior"--the possibility of which you allude to in your article. We have lots of them in the US, ascribing all manner of perfidy to Russia, which they presume remains secretly "Red" and committed to the destruction of the West in general and the US in particular. Shershnev might well be their Russian analog, even in vastly muted form: his analysis smacks of old Cold War habits of thought.
Which brings up the final item: is his assertion given more credibility by the Iridium-CIA connection? I remain profoundly unconvinced of this. Not because it is "coincidence". I completely agree with you, Mr. Mull, that the Buzzy-Iridium connection is probably not chance. After Carter compelled disclosure, the CIA (and other intel groups in the US) created all manner of "black box" operating arms, handily protected by being "private corporations" (therefore relieved of the onus of Congressional review) that just "happened" to be owned or steered by ex-Company employees. And, as many have said, when it comes to the Company, you are NEVER an "ex"-employee.
However, has Iridium's bird been used to "take out" a Russian satellite? That's where I must part company with the "urgency" implicit in the coverage/significance you feel warranted by Shershnev's remarks. My read on the CIA-Iridium connection is that the CIA scarfed up an immense suite of on-orbit assets, launched by private dollars, and is using those for any number of communications purposes (they are not designed for sensing, etc.). However, this frees CIA/DARPA/Space Command from having to dedicate budget to putting up such assets themselves: to the extent that this array of ex-Iridium satellites has been unofficially tasked (either directly or by lease) to exclusive government service, the government can shift the dollars it would have taken to build and launch those assets, and shift the resources to other projects.
My hypothesis, therefore: all is as it seems. Not very exciting--and therefore, a real downer for those seeking contention and conflict and the other things that drive the news cycle. The Iridium bird and the Russian bird were expended and/or malfunctioning and the expense (both fiscal and political) to prevent the collision was (if even assessed) probably deemed prohibitive. So the powers that be let the inevitable happen. Note that the Russians KNEW this was coming: there was inter-agency chatter beforehand. Look at the news releases: not a national incident, insofar as US/Russian leaders were concerned--except that, along with the EU, there was *some* discussion about how to prevent generating more, subsequent debris clouds and reducing the effects of this one. The ESA was pretty grim and accurate about assessing the operational problems and costs created by this bit of negilgence--which is what I do think it was. However, some news markets jumped on this "crash in space" because it was susceptible to easy misreading as a "crisis in the making"--and therefore, it got a place in the news cycle. And, because no one rose to the bait and the nations themselves all but yawned, it fell out of that news cycle like a brick down a well.
In conclusion, if the Iridium-CIA connection is not behind a purposeful collision, and the only person saying so is a retired Russian general who may or may not have an axe to grind, is it really *newsworthy*? Did Shershnev say what he said? Unquestionably. Are Iridium-CIA probably connected these days? A reasonable hypothesis. However, does the latter add enough credibility to Shershnev's comments to make them worth a second look? I must opine otherwise--and I have tried to include a "fast overview" of why I think Shershnev's suspicions are wrong--which is why there hasn't been a "story" developing over this. Because Shershnev is almost a lone voice--and is certainly not an official spokesperson. He is not "THE Russians"--and the collision in orbit would be a pointless demonstration of what everyone already knows can be achieved (which is why no one is thumping shoes on desks about it, which is in turn why it is not really a big story, I think). You asked me, in your response to my first comment: "What’s your threshold for paying attention to a conflict?" Most of my subsequent comments were offered in an attempt to methodically and responsibly answer that question. And in sum, my feeling is that there is almost no indication that this collision even begins to appraoch such a threshhold or warrants such a reaction. The reasons for this I have exhaustively set forth in the preceding posts.
I hope this makes my read of the event clearer. I had not intended to use this forum as a means of conducting such an analysis, and I thank you for the patience you have shown as I have commented upon yours, which--although I may not agree with it--brings important issues and commentary to light, and in an engaging and erudite manner. It has been a pleasure "batting around this ball" with you, Mr. Mull.
With appreciation for your work and investigative commitment,
Dr. Charles E. Gannon
Wouldn't the Russians want to develop (or at least conduct lab research) into/on anti-satellite technology anyway? I'm sure it has been ongoing since '91-'92 -- in the lab, if not atmospheric testing. US decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty was a clear sign that Bush and Co. wanted to move beyond arms control. US attempts at weaponising space and/or place satellites designed to be used for defence purposes sounds like a logical outcome to me. So, of course the Russians would want to pursue some type of research and development in that area -- lab if not atmospheric testing. (when funding permits).
Humbly,
Dave
Also, SDI survived Reykjavik, thanks to the stubborn old cowboy -- albeit in the lab, which was a limitation acceptable by both parties (acceptable despite ABM treaty '68 -- a re-interpretation of it, if you will). The Russians accepted the terms that led to the INF treaty in '87. And so they knew the Americans would continue with the research indefinitely. The Russians would also want to move forward with some limited activity in that area on systems to counter/overcome it, and within in the limits of all existing treaties signed by both parties. Bush and Co. signaled early on their intention of moving beyond that and withdrawing from the ABM treaty completely.
Humbly,
Dave
Dear Dave: I couldn't agree more. And every bit of intelligence, from all sectors, firmly indicates that the Russians--and the US with significant UK partnering--have been actively involved in this research from before the announcement of SDI. The importance of having satellite-to-satellite kill was an active issue from the early Seventies onward--which I presume you know as well or better than I, given the references you cite: there IS a lot of history here.
Today, there are whole treatises--and Air Force White Papers--written on the evolving issues, and they make for interesting (if dry) reading. But all of them--and Jane's and all the other Defense Watch organizations, regardless of national/partisan affiliation--have charted the inexhorable progress toward the weaponization of space. And the major players are all pretty much aware of the capabilities of the other players--which is one of the reasons I discount this incident as being an "intentional strike": no one in the know needs this "demonstration."
I really liked your comments.
Best,
Dr. Charles E. Gannon
"Dear Dave: I couldn’t agree more. And every bit of intelligence, from all sectors, firmly indicates that the Russians–and the US with significant UK partnering–have been actively involved in this research from before the announcement of SDI. The importance of having satellite-to-satellite kill was an active issue from the early Seventies onward..."
*********
Dear Dr. Gannon,
Absolutely, and other delivery vehicles as well. The Space Shuttle was originally designed with anti-satellite capability, and the Soviets were aware of it. The Soviets experimented with ground-based lasers in the Seventies (particle-beam technology), targeting satellites from Earth. The Russians actually tested one of these lasers on the Challenger shuttle (if I recall the shuttle name correctly). The shuttle's systems stopped functioning for several minutes and it made the crew sick. I believe it was 1983. I was young at the time, but you might remember. The Soviets also believed that the shuttle was designed to jam the small ABM system deployed in Moscow (small system allowed under '72 ABM treaty), as well as other strategic missile and laser systems from space. The treaty had always been designed to provide some room to wiggle.
Bush Senior pushed for a baby SDI. Introduced under Clinton, Theater Missile Defense (TMD) was another SDI offspring.
Error in my previous post -- 1972 ABM Treaty, not 1968.
Dave
And the only difference in the case of SDI as opposed to all the previous projects is that it was political. That was the whole point of it. That was its purpose. Reagan's utopian dreams and whether or not it could actually work was irrelevant. That was never the issue. SDI wasn't any more significant, as you correctly pointed out in your previous posts. You're right - it wasn't that different from earlier Seventies concepts. Hyper politicization of SDI simply made it an issue.
Dave