Satellite warfare: An arms race is brewing in orbit(economist.com)
economist.com
Satellite warfare: An arms race is brewing in orbit
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/08/15/an-arms-race-is-brewing-in-orbit
113 comments
https://archive.vn/mnOqr
A competition akin to a new space race is under way between the United States and China, evident in the rush to blanket the earth with thousands of small satellites that provide everything from high-speed communications to high-resolution intelligence. New space-based capabilities will be central to how militaries command and control their forces. Even more than today, future kill chains will flow through space, enabling militaries to distribute the process of understanding, deciding, and acting across large networks of systems rather than depending on single platforms to close the kill chain on their own. The result will be a dramatic expansion of "time-sensitive targeting": the ability to find moving targets, track them, and strike them before they have moved away.
The proliferation of satellites, however, is only the beginning of the new space race. Spacecraft have always been limited by the impracticality of refueling them. They have only as much fuel as they could carry into space, and when it is gone, they cannot actively propel themselves any farther. This has restricted spacecraft to orbiting Earth, but emerging space technologies are changing that.
These technologies are being developed now. In the coming years, it will be possible to service, assemble, and manufacture complex orbital infrastructure in space that would be impractical to launch from Earth. This could include vast space-based solar power arrays to capture more of the sun's energy than is possible on Earth, where our atmosphere absorbs or deflects it. Power-beaming technologies will transfer that energy around space. Space-based mining technologies could extract ice from the moon or asteroids, utilizing the underlying oxygen to fuel rockets and support human life in space. The means of production to support space operations will increasingly shift off Earth and into orbital bases and perhaps onto the moon, where spacecraft and other critical space infrastructure could be produced using 3-D printing and advanced manufacturing. It sounds like fantasy, but it is not.
In time, space will be transformed into a unique warfighting domain, and this will inevitably have military applications. Space operations in the coming decades will come to resemble maritime operations in the nineteenth century, when industrial age great powers built global networks of coaling stations and other infrastructure to project naval power in defense of their expanding commercial interests. A similar dynamic will occur in outer space, and the two states that will most shape humankind's spacefaring future will be China and the United States. It is hard to imagine their strategic and military competition will remain confined to Earth.
Source: The Kill Chain, Defending America in the future of high-tech warfare, Christian Brose, Hachette Books, 2020.
The proliferation of satellites, however, is only the beginning of the new space race. Spacecraft have always been limited by the impracticality of refueling them. They have only as much fuel as they could carry into space, and when it is gone, they cannot actively propel themselves any farther. This has restricted spacecraft to orbiting Earth, but emerging space technologies are changing that.
These technologies are being developed now. In the coming years, it will be possible to service, assemble, and manufacture complex orbital infrastructure in space that would be impractical to launch from Earth. This could include vast space-based solar power arrays to capture more of the sun's energy than is possible on Earth, where our atmosphere absorbs or deflects it. Power-beaming technologies will transfer that energy around space. Space-based mining technologies could extract ice from the moon or asteroids, utilizing the underlying oxygen to fuel rockets and support human life in space. The means of production to support space operations will increasingly shift off Earth and into orbital bases and perhaps onto the moon, where spacecraft and other critical space infrastructure could be produced using 3-D printing and advanced manufacturing. It sounds like fantasy, but it is not.
In time, space will be transformed into a unique warfighting domain, and this will inevitably have military applications. Space operations in the coming decades will come to resemble maritime operations in the nineteenth century, when industrial age great powers built global networks of coaling stations and other infrastructure to project naval power in defense of their expanding commercial interests. A similar dynamic will occur in outer space, and the two states that will most shape humankind's spacefaring future will be China and the United States. It is hard to imagine their strategic and military competition will remain confined to Earth.
Source: The Kill Chain, Defending America in the future of high-tech warfare, Christian Brose, Hachette Books, 2020.
Oh, HenryKissinger, I swear you've got a one-track mind! You see everything as another opportunity for military spending!
There is an easy trick to it: pretend it’s impossible to no go to war and any action that improves the life of a foreigner is reason to spend! Otherwise a gap might develop, and we can’t have that!
China and Russia are building and deploying disruptive space technologies, thus we must do the same, lest we cede the high ground to our enemies. I wish that wasn't the case, but as long as there exist major powers that challenge the United States and our allies the all-domain arms race will never end.
The US Space Force just released its capstone warfighting doctrine: https://www.spaceforce.mil/Portals/1/Space%20Capstone%20Publ...
> Not only are space operations global, they are also multi-domain. A successful attack against any one segment (or combination of segments), whether terrestrial, link, or space, of the space architecture ca neutralize a space capability; therefore, space domain access, maneuver, and exploitation require deliberate and synchronized defensive operations across all three segments.
The US Space Force just released its capstone warfighting doctrine: https://www.spaceforce.mil/Portals/1/Space%20Capstone%20Publ...
> Not only are space operations global, they are also multi-domain. A successful attack against any one segment (or combination of segments), whether terrestrial, link, or space, of the space architecture ca neutralize a space capability; therefore, space domain access, maneuver, and exploitation require deliberate and synchronized defensive operations across all three segments.
>China and Russia are building and deploying disruptive space technologies, thus we must do the same,
Diplomacy would be much cheaper, but this would mean US would also stop doing this kind of shit and that would mean less money into the pockets of the military industry. Diplomacy seems also something that most leaders are missing.
Diplomacy would be much cheaper, but this would mean US would also stop doing this kind of shit and that would mean less money into the pockets of the military industry. Diplomacy seems also something that most leaders are missing.
It’s entirely possible to do both, and indeed, most do.
War & force are simply continuations of policy with additional means.
War & force are simply continuations of policy with additional means.
TBH I can't remember any serious diplomacy happening. I was hopping that the Internet will make the regular people get past eh national barriers but as we see with BLM in US things did not got better.
Diplomacy in general, or specifically re: space arms control? I don’t think there have been any significant modern examples yet.
Important to remember we’re in the infancy of this stuff as well, NPT for reference hadn’t even started being negotiated til the 1960s.
Obviously, that doesn’t exactly support my point though considering the chicken definitely came first there...
Important to remember we’re in the infancy of this stuff as well, NPT for reference hadn’t even started being negotiated til the 1960s.
Obviously, that doesn’t exactly support my point though considering the chicken definitely came first there...
"I wish that wasn't the case, but as long as there exist major powers that challenge the United States and our allies the all-domain arms race will never end."
LOL there we go again. The US is the center of the universe. I mean there are actual reasons why you don't want China or Russia dominate the world (well, in times of Trump that is actually questionable what is the bigger evil here), but you have to bring the most ridiculous one: We are the US, and someone is challenging us, can't have that.
LOL there we go again. The US is the center of the universe. I mean there are actual reasons why you don't want China or Russia dominate the world (well, in times of Trump that is actually questionable what is the bigger evil here), but you have to bring the most ridiculous one: We are the US, and someone is challenging us, can't have that.
Someone has to lead, and unfortunately authoritarianism is closer to the natural state of human social equilibrium.
That's not true. We don't need the US to lead. The natural state of human social equilibrium in anarchy, and was indeed the mode of social equilibrium in most of human history until the "tragedy" of agriculture.
And indeed, if you take any half decent IR class they will teach you that the state of international relations is anarchy.
And indeed, if you take any half decent IR class they will teach you that the state of international relations is anarchy.
How comforting.
Killing lots of innocent people in lots of places for no discernible reason would only be "leadership" if one thereby inspired others to do the same thing. Fortunately that hasn't happened yet...
Isn't that default mode of every government? As long as there exist powers that challenge country's position, the country will work against that.
There is no value judgement if country's position is deserved or justified here.
There is no value judgement if country's position is deserved or justified here.
Some of our governments are officially neutral, which means that instead of playing massive multiplayer monkey dance, they get to concentrate on improving quality of life for their own citizens.
It's not ridiculous if they're Sith: "One to embody power..."
How might reusable launch platforms affect strategic orbital postures?
My current guess is that with or without them, any major power war is likely to wind up with a lot of cheap gravel or even sand intersecting previously-useful orbits.
My current guess is that with or without them, any major power war is likely to wind up with a lot of cheap gravel or even sand intersecting previously-useful orbits.
Orbital dynamics are fun- a truckload of gravel dumped in front of a satellite either stays in front, or slows down and moves to a different orbit. So you have to dump it in a higher orbit, and let drag bring it where you want it. You could do it, but it would basically look like an attack- the speeds are too high, distances too large, and drag too unpredictable to make it look like an accident.
"How do you fight SDI orbital-based weapons platforms ?
Oh, it's easy. launch a truckload of nuts and bolts into orbit, and blow it up" (c) Soviet military cicra 1986
Obviously the best way to avoid Kessler syndrome is to prevent it from occurring in the first place, but given the widespread short-termism everywhere these days, that seems naïve.
Are laser brooms the current state of the art when it comes to deorbiting? From this article [0], it appears to be quite slow but at least highly parallel, "cleaning" an object in 3-4 years but all addressable objects in ~5 years. It's still unclear to me if the principles required for them to function effectively are currently available, or if more development is required first.
Another concern is that large installations may be viewed with suspicion, given their potential applications as anti-satellite weapons, especially against surveillance satellites whose sensors (I assume) would be more sensitive to high-intensity illumination. Any ideas on how these concerns might be mitigated?
[0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3835
Are laser brooms the current state of the art when it comes to deorbiting? From this article [0], it appears to be quite slow but at least highly parallel, "cleaning" an object in 3-4 years but all addressable objects in ~5 years. It's still unclear to me if the principles required for them to function effectively are currently available, or if more development is required first.
Another concern is that large installations may be viewed with suspicion, given their potential applications as anti-satellite weapons, especially against surveillance satellites whose sensors (I assume) would be more sensitive to high-intensity illumination. Any ideas on how these concerns might be mitigated?
[0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3835
This is very pessimistic - basically every space-faring nation now has pretty strict licensing requirements for new spacecraft, a portion of which is a plan to deorbit / move to a 'junkyard orbit.' In the US, this is actually handled by the FCC, because a satellite you can't talk to might as well be debris. [0]
In general, the economics of debris removal are also really unclear, because the actual risk of collisions is still pretty slim and the potential legal risk of touching another nation's spacecraft are high. Many objects are also too small to be tracked. The community is largely shifting towards debris avoidance, rather than mitigation - i.e., tracking and maintaining custody of debris, and maneuvering out of the way when necessary. This is pretty straightforward, since we already do a lot of space object tracking and maneuvering anyways. A variety of commercial companies have already moved into this space, including giants like AGI [1].
[0] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354773A1.pdf [1] https://www.agi.com/missions/space-situational-awareness
In general, the economics of debris removal are also really unclear, because the actual risk of collisions is still pretty slim and the potential legal risk of touching another nation's spacecraft are high. Many objects are also too small to be tracked. The community is largely shifting towards debris avoidance, rather than mitigation - i.e., tracking and maintaining custody of debris, and maneuvering out of the way when necessary. This is pretty straightforward, since we already do a lot of space object tracking and maneuvering anyways. A variety of commercial companies have already moved into this space, including giants like AGI [1].
[0] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354773A1.pdf [1] https://www.agi.com/missions/space-situational-awareness
And who is going to make the Space Force clean up our orbitals after a battle or war?
The idea of combat in orbit is insanity, the Space Force will just ground itself if war ever breaks out in orbit at any scale. It's like building a navy that would be unable to leave port if you were to ever actually use it. It's like... well, nuclear weapons, except perhaps less likely to result in human extinction.
The idea of combat in orbit is insanity, the Space Force will just ground itself if war ever breaks out in orbit at any scale. It's like building a navy that would be unable to leave port if you were to ever actually use it. It's like... well, nuclear weapons, except perhaps less likely to result in human extinction.
Ironically, a navy that doesn't leaves port is a naval strategy of the 1690s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being
And the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine in nuclear warfare can be seen as nothing but a sequential development of this naval strategy. I was surprised when I first learned it.
In chess, "The threat is stronger than the execution"-Aron Nimzowitsch
Even later - it was the main German naval strategy of WWI.
Not sure if you're being humorous or not but that's because they lost immediately in the opening battle.
They kept their fleet in port for most of the war; Jutland was halfway through the war, when the Germans lost patience, ended indecisively, and led the Germans to return to a fleet-in-being policy.
The Space Force's first doctrinal cornerstone is literally "Preserve freedom of action" and one of their core competencies is space mobility and logistics.
It seems pretty obvious that they've identified the strategic importance of being able to reliably launch and move in space. Now does this mean picking up all the debris after all the Starlink satellites are hacked and turned into missiles by adversaries? Probably not. It's more likely to manifest as either exceptional detection capabilities (and there is an entire section to this in the Space Force), or some sort of shielding technology that brings the risk level to an acceptable tolerance.
In its current state it probably means a lot of people thinking about ways of dealing with Kessler syndrome in a variety of ways so that if it ever happens, there is a plan ready to go.
It seems pretty obvious that they've identified the strategic importance of being able to reliably launch and move in space. Now does this mean picking up all the debris after all the Starlink satellites are hacked and turned into missiles by adversaries? Probably not. It's more likely to manifest as either exceptional detection capabilities (and there is an entire section to this in the Space Force), or some sort of shielding technology that brings the risk level to an acceptable tolerance.
In its current state it probably means a lot of people thinking about ways of dealing with Kessler syndrome in a variety of ways so that if it ever happens, there is a plan ready to go.
Exceptional detection is not enough against Kessler syndrome. Shielding is a hope, but I wouldn't bank on it.
I would more than bank on it.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29232/navys-advanced-a...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29232/navys-advanced-a...
That would be useless against non-conductive debris, which is most of it. The only protections are kinetic.
> the Space Force will just ground itself
They’d have to have something to ground first. The so called Space Force is a navy without so much as a dinghy.
They’d have to have something to ground first. The so called Space Force is a navy without so much as a dinghy.
What do you mean? They're already operating dozens of birds, and even more if you count their manpower that's on loan to places like the NRO
Elon Musk, who became a billionaire by launching a website that merged with a website that provided payment services to a website that provides auction services to vendors who sell things like second hand mobile phones: Has rockets and independent space launch capability. Has ability to perform manned missions.
US Space Force, government agency that's supposed to "Conduct space operations" and "Preserve freedom of action": No rockets, no capability to perform manned missions.
I know who I'd want on my team in a Moonraker-style space laser battle.
US Space Force, government agency that's supposed to "Conduct space operations" and "Preserve freedom of action": No rockets, no capability to perform manned missions.
I know who I'd want on my team in a Moonraker-style space laser battle.
I don't think the space force's focus is really on winning Moonraker-style space laser battles
The purpose of Space Force is not to deploy a fleet of manned spacecraft, it is to initiate and manage the prescision deorbit manuevers of titanium rods into aircraft carriers and other ground assets. Why do you think the latest X37B launch was so massive? Edit: sarcasm
If they ground themselves they also ground any enemies. Job accomplished I would say, no more threats from space.
> And who is going to make the Space Force clean up our orbitals after a battle or war?
as if the rest of the military think that long for any conflict.
From past performance, they will probably install a terrorist organization and/or dictator in orbit.
as if the rest of the military think that long for any conflict.
From past performance, they will probably install a terrorist organization and/or dictator in orbit.
The alien warlord Xenu!
We've already had a startup take the Uber/Lyft/Airbnb approach of ignoring regulations and just launching anyways after the FCC denied their application. The punishment a slap on the wrist (6 figure fine, drop in the bucket and probably actually cheaper than doing things the right way)
This is how hazardous waste is handled in the US. The producer is ultimate responsible, and accountable, for the waste.
Seems like enforcement is lacking, or why else there is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites ?
Most of those sites predate modern environmental law.
Most hazardous waste isn’t related to superfund-type sites.
Fast food places produce grease. Gas stations have lots of small to medium size spills. Agriculture produces toxic runoff. Etc.
Compliance can definitely suck, especially when it comes to small, non-obvious producers - like a mom and pop diner.
I don’t know if there are “mom and pop” satellite launchers.
I suspect satellite management is an easier industry to regulate.
Fast food places produce grease. Gas stations have lots of small to medium size spills. Agriculture produces toxic runoff. Etc.
Compliance can definitely suck, especially when it comes to small, non-obvious producers - like a mom and pop diner.
I don’t know if there are “mom and pop” satellite launchers.
I suspect satellite management is an easier industry to regulate.
Look at how many of those sites are formal military bases. If the gov’t won’t hold themselves accountable, why would you expect them to hold a private company responsible?
Considering the number of abandoned tailings ponds etc, this seems pretty laughable in reality
If we held satellite operators liable for damages from collisions, they may be incentivized to acquire insurance against collision events. And underwriters would incentivize satellite operators to reduce that risk by giving lower premiums to operators that use collision avoidance systems like drag sails and/or propulsion.
Similar to safety with fission energy, this is not something where you want to apply financial incentives, because you don't want companies to take that risk ever. People may say: "If it goes wrong, I guess my company goes bankrupt. But it's unlikely enough that'd I'd take that risk." - like they're gambling at a stock exchange or something.
If anything ever goes wrong and something like the Kessler syndrome occurs, humanity will be so monumentally screwed you'll have trouble putting a dollar amount on the amount of damage done. No amount of insurance is going to make it right. It will be a large setback for humanity as a whole.
What you want to do is: Have companies follow the precautions you dictate and ensure compliance before they're allowed to launch.
If anything ever goes wrong and something like the Kessler syndrome occurs, humanity will be so monumentally screwed you'll have trouble putting a dollar amount on the amount of damage done. No amount of insurance is going to make it right. It will be a large setback for humanity as a whole.
What you want to do is: Have companies follow the precautions you dictate and ensure compliance before they're allowed to launch.
"UL standards for satellites" sounds like a pretty presumable scenario. Extrapolating how the UL standards are currently used in the industry, private space corporations may even refuse to launch the satellite, provide or accept services if it's not certified.
I think there needs to be rules about orbital distance. Low earth orbit satellites like Starlink aren't risky because their orbit decays rapidly without constant boosts. Its the perfect failsafe.
The only reason to use higher orbits is to save money on satellites and complex communication systems. Orbits that allow space junk to hang around for centuries should be banned.
The only reason to use higher orbits is to save money on satellites and complex communication systems. Orbits that allow space junk to hang around for centuries should be banned.
This is simply not true. Higher orbits are useful for longer line-of-sight links, greater earth observation area, etc.
Useful but not necessary. Anything pointing at the Earth, nearly all satellites, work better closer. The issues of line of sight and coverage are all about money, and the cost of small satellite launch is dropping rapidly.
There are some satellites like telescopes that need to be far from the earth. But the vast majority could be banned from orbits beyond a distance where they won't decay in a reasonable amount of time, with the only downside being cost
There are some satellites like telescopes that need to be far from the earth. But the vast majority could be banned from orbits beyond a distance where they won't decay in a reasonable amount of time, with the only downside being cost
Not an expert, and have barely studied anything related.
That being said, this:
> I think there needs to be rules about orbital distance. Low earth orbit satellites like Starlink aren't risky because their orbit decays rapidly without constant boosts. Its the perfect failsafe.
doesn't necessarily sound like a bad idea. Obviously you are correct about the second part however.
That being said, this:
> I think there needs to be rules about orbital distance. Low earth orbit satellites like Starlink aren't risky because their orbit decays rapidly without constant boosts. Its the perfect failsafe.
doesn't necessarily sound like a bad idea. Obviously you are correct about the second part however.
is there a good metric for distance between two objects in different orbits? you can say something like "must not come within x km of each other for the next n years" but extending that to all orbiting object pairs seems complex. i may be overthinking this, though?
You're not. Most orbits at about the same altitude will intersect.
What kind of rule?
anything with an orbit calculated to take more than a decade to decay without station keeping is banned. These calculations are routine so the requirement is only a burden for mission cost (needing more satellites for coverage). Exceptions for scientific missions and satellites used for extra-earth communications
How about for every new sat we launch, a few micro sats (with extra fuel) go up with it, and each of these stays in a parking orbit ready to be commanded to attach to and knock down large debris or other decommissioned sats in range? If we did this for awhile, coverage could extend to most common orbits.
Edit: removed a redundant statement.
Edit: removed a redundant statement.
Right now the economics for this don't add up. The risk of collision is quite low compared to launching "extra" satellites with the sole purpose of finding and tracking another satellite. It is also much more difficult to target an arbitrary piece of debris. If the incoming debris is in a similar orbit (both altitude and inclination) then it requires less fuel to be able track and find it. If the incoming debris/satellite is in a different orbital plane it requires a huge amount of fuel in order to change orbital inclination [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination_change
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination_change
If you want to carry enough fuel for significant orbital changes plus some sort of docking manipulator then you need a macro satellite, not micro.
Ground based lasers are a serious concern for satellites
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-u-s-satellites-increasingly-vuln...
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-u-s-satellites-increasingly-vuln...
Does anybody have any ideas as to what opportunities might open up for lightweight start ups from the general trend of decreasing launch costs? I mean aside from the obvious ones such as starting a launch company or anything that requires a ton of investment.
I understand that lower costs of launching satelites massively changes the economics but I can't figure out how it might affect auxiliary industries/businesses. Satellites seem to be more related to communications which tends to come under utilities and is managed by government entities
I understand that lower costs of launching satelites massively changes the economics but I can't figure out how it might affect auxiliary industries/businesses. Satellites seem to be more related to communications which tends to come under utilities and is managed by government entities
The core question is, 'what's the use of space anyways?' Orbits have two nice properties - they're high up, so you can see lots of stuff, and they're reasonably stationary with respect to the rotation of the earth, which lets you get global(ish) coverage without needing a huge number of accessors or high system replacement rates like aircraft or ground-based sensors need.
Communications and surveillance are the two largest opportunities, and a variety of companies have already sprung up (Starlink, Kuiper, Planet, Spire...) in addition to traditional players (OrbCom, Iridium, Maxar). There are some esoteric proposals for other uses, like manufacturing or bitcoin mining [0], but I don't think they provide nearly enough benefit compared to Earth-based competitors at this point.
[0]https://www.space.com/25626-bitcoins-satellites-deep-space-i...
Communications and surveillance are the two largest opportunities, and a variety of companies have already sprung up (Starlink, Kuiper, Planet, Spire...) in addition to traditional players (OrbCom, Iridium, Maxar). There are some esoteric proposals for other uses, like manufacturing or bitcoin mining [0], but I don't think they provide nearly enough benefit compared to Earth-based competitors at this point.
[0]https://www.space.com/25626-bitcoins-satellites-deep-space-i...
A possible novel opportunity could be truly physically secure servers: if you put the server in space, it's really expensive to physically interfere with it (potentially impossible if you launch towards outer space instead of Earth orbit), but you can still communicate with it. I'm not sure that there's any market for that at current launch costs though.
Decrease costs how?
SpaceX isn't resting on its laurel letting newer startups show them up. They're working on catching million dollars crate and on their next generation systems.
SpaceX isn't resting on its laurel letting newer startups show them up. They're working on catching million dollars crate and on their next generation systems.
The best guess I can think of for potentially lower cost per unit is a space cannon but that sort of megaproject doesn't exactly qualify as "lightweight" and would probably call for ruggedization of payload to survive the launch.
Ruggedization is a vast understatement given the energies involved. On top of that, your payload needs to be able to circularize from a negative perigee, so it would need lots of onboard delta-v. You’d also either have an aimable cannon or deal with expensive plane change maneuvers.
Scott Manley presents a great summary of the Russian satellite and sub-satellites and their potential uses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4C-ydEpN58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4C-ydEpN58
I'm curious how space x and their re-usable rockets impacts this arms race (not to mention blue origin, rocket labs, etc.). Seems like a huge advantage.
It’ll be curious how censorship will work when you can access the internet with a small antenna(easily hidden) anywhere on the planet.
Wont nation states be able to use basic triangulation to find out where people are and prosecute them heavily?
Also wont nation states be able to tell Starlink to not transmit in china if they dont want Tesla factory nationalized or other similar threats?
Also wont nation states be able to tell Starlink to not transmit in china if they dont want Tesla factory nationalized or other similar threats?
Nation states will jam Starlink ; GPS jamming is easy , there's no reason to thing Starlnk jamming will be much more difficult.
GPS and LEO satellite internet are very different. GPS is meant to be received by near-omnidirectional antennas anywhere on the planet. Starlink satellites will place multiple spot-beams acting as cells and customer receivers are high directional as well.
Jamming Starlink would require satellite tracking and high gain antennas. And you would have to have separate jammers for each spotbeam that the starlink satellite casts on the ground.
Jamming Starlink would require satellite tracking and high gain antennas. And you would have to have separate jammers for each spotbeam that the starlink satellite casts on the ground.
I think active antennas are harder to hide than you might think.
Also if they only receive data, don't send / upload anything?
A old times radio receiver, it cannot be detected? Or can it
Or TV antenna? That receives only
A old times radio receiver, it cannot be detected? Or can it
Or TV antenna? That receives only
Yes, you can locate even passive antennas by broadcasting a wide-band signal and looking at the reflected spectrum. It's way easier if you know the frequency that the antenna is tuned to.
If the receiver uses mixing (like a superhet) it is trivial to detect radiation from the receiver. This was widespread 70 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_RAFTER) and has almost definitely been expanded to modern radio by today's spy agencies.
There are commercial receivers that can be placed near the side of the road to measure the popularity of broadcast FM stations by measuring LO leakage. Definitely not limited to TLAs.
> A old times radio receiver, it cannot be detected? Or can it
Old times radio receivers are low power transmitters. Their local oscillators leak out of the antenna enthusiastically.
The physics hasn't changed. There is far less leakage in modern receivers, but our detectors are way more sensitive as well. And if you're a nation-state and free to fly drones over rooftops looking.... yeah, don't believe anyone that claims they can operate anything involving electromagnetic energy without risk of detection.
Old times radio receivers are low power transmitters. Their local oscillators leak out of the antenna enthusiastically.
The physics hasn't changed. There is far less leakage in modern receivers, but our detectors are way more sensitive as well. And if you're a nation-state and free to fly drones over rooftops looking.... yeah, don't believe anyone that claims they can operate anything involving electromagnetic energy without risk of detection.
If all you need is a receiver, you're right that an antenna is reasonably difficult -- not impossible -- to locate. But if you want to request a resource from a satellite, you need to broadcast a signal. And that's very easy to locate. Even tightbeams are scattered and reflected, so can be triangulated by ground receivers.
For covert operations contexts one could use a backscatter/passive modulation such as “Passive Wi-Fi” setups or corner cubes with vibrators attached
Not impossible.
mesh network/TOR for uplink can solve that. not to mention it can work as a backup connection when the high bandwidth downlink satellite is nuked/lasered(?) from orbit.
mesh network/TOR for uplink can solve that. not to mention it can work as a backup connection when the high bandwidth downlink satellite is nuked/lasered(?) from orbit.
Every node in that mesh network will get a missile, problem solved.
mesh network and tor/etc over clearnet is already a solution in many, unfortunate, parts of the world.
It's just slow for the most part.
It's just slow for the most part.
Isn't tor blocked in many high-risk censor areas?
I know cellular was blocking it during the peak of the war in Syria.
I know cellular was blocking it during the peak of the war in Syria.
just like many other traffic. But it's mostly done via routes. that's why people use actual real world personal networks to share hidden TOR guards. ...until everyone start with DPI
[deleted]
It's amazing how complex solutions get before someone remembers the $5 wrench approach
Impossible using radio waves. Perhaps you could use a laser, but if you're transmitting via radio waves to a satellite, it's trivial to locate you.
Laser is actually what was on my mind when I mentioned tightbeam. When you shine a 5W laser into the night sky, it's visible to people quite a long ways away. Particles, clouds, and even variation in humidity or pressure create impedance mismatches, which result in partial reflection of your signal -- which end up spraying everywhere.
to block mesh network you are assuming the state will also ban every bluetooth speaker.
The censor triangulates your signal and fires artilery shells at you: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/satphones-syria-and-su...
Now obviously satphones use very different protocols from these modern internet constellations but I wouldn’t bet my life on them being impossible to triangulate.
Now obviously satphones use very different protocols from these modern internet constellations but I wouldn’t bet my life on them being impossible to triangulate.
> I wouldn’t bet my life on them being impossible to triangulate.
Don't bet anything at all. A drone with a phased array antenna pointing down will draw you a map directly to every transmitting base station that exists.
Don't bet anything at all. A drone with a phased array antenna pointing down will draw you a map directly to every transmitting base station that exists.
Make a double hop.
Give your antenna a cellular connection, route over a few hops, cover your tracks.
Give your antenna a cellular connection, route over a few hops, cover your tracks.
[deleted]
In most cases, I think the censor nation would lodge a complaint against the country of origin of the offending communications satellites, and the owners of the satellites would then be prohibited from operating in those countries. If using international treaties doesn't work or is deemed too slow, the censor nation might pursue other means.
A emerging secondary capability seems likely to be the ability to quickly launch low orbit or temporary platforms, either on board a rocket or via something like a Pegasus xl strapped to a plane, or flying objects like balloons (Loon) or drones like Facebook's Aquilla, maybe with FSO links instead of RF. FSO is more difficult to jam or intercept and has higher data rates for the size, weight and power usage of the transceiver.
In principle it is quite easy to blind satellites with lasers, maybe the only way is to have 100s of thousands of small satellites so that you know when an attack has started and can respond with kinetics.
Wish we had a fully-accessible article.
But on the topic at hand, what about loosely coupled bots that individually use broom lasers to break down debris in manageable pieces?
But on the topic at hand, what about loosely coupled bots that individually use broom lasers to break down debris in manageable pieces?
Fk! We haven't even started cleaning up the Great Pacific garbage patch or stopped burning the Amazon. Does anyone really think that any government is really going to stop dumping crap into space where no one gets hurt.
As I wrote earlier[0], it does not make much sense to build a dedicated satellite destruction weapon residing in orbit (assuming we are talking about LEO). Ground and air based systems are cheaper and much more flexible. And the acceleration of the smaller satellite is laughable, you get much higher relative velocity by simply having a different orbit inclination. So to me it looks simply like a continuation of the US smear campaign against Russia.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23934552
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23934552
What are the methods for security/defense for individual satellites?
This seems like a key paragraph:
> Russia and China would like a formal treaty banning all weapons in space. Both are keen to prevent America from deploying space-based anti-missile systems which might threaten their own nuclear forces. America and its allies resist this. They argue that it is impossible to define a space weapon—anything that manoeuvres in orbit could serve as one—and that it would be easy to cheat.
> Russia and China would like a formal treaty banning all weapons in space. Both are keen to prevent America from deploying space-based anti-missile systems which might threaten their own nuclear forces. America and its allies resist this. They argue that it is impossible to define a space weapon—anything that manoeuvres in orbit could serve as one—and that it would be easy to cheat.
They will want this until they have equal or greater capacity than the US/SpaceX, and we now know the CCP doesn't stick to treaties they agree to - e.g. Hong Kong's independence - so they're just dishonestly posturing.
The world is not as black-and-white as you're making it out to be, not all treaties are created equal. All major powers have a mixed history when it comes to honoring their commitments, but that doesn't mean treaties are worthless.
When it comes to security you best learn from an actor's history and consider all actions, weighted properly, and not simply get stuck in indecision of what if's.
In the U.S. the current leaders and those making decisions rotate, adjust over time, so there's less certainty and a foreign nation will have to do their best to know and read the political climate. With China's CCP there isn't so much change and so their actions are much more determinant of their future actions.
Of course no situation is black-and-white, however all things considered what I described is their strategy, that is my conclusion for their strategy; I hope you see the pattern of Putin's Russia every 5 years or so killing off the main opposition leader, like recently happened - Alexei Navalny in a coma currently. Do we ignore that and believe that we'll trust Putin will change if he claims he will? He'd never agree to a treaty though that hurts his position of power/control though, just like this "no space weapons" doesn't hurt Putin's or CCP's position of power - because they don't wield that power or capability, and so of course they want a treaty against it.
Let's hope the free, democratic world rallies in creating multi-lateral trade agreements to syphon off buying from CCP controlled China and this is enough wake them up economically, unfortunately it's possible that it will only to cause the CCP to be able to tighten their grip on the Chinese people (control, censorship, security systems of the hierarchal tyranny) - creating more internal pressure that CCP can continue to make the narrative that it's the U.S. and other democratic nations that are the cause, rallying hate and anger which then they will direct where they see fit.
In the U.S. the current leaders and those making decisions rotate, adjust over time, so there's less certainty and a foreign nation will have to do their best to know and read the political climate. With China's CCP there isn't so much change and so their actions are much more determinant of their future actions.
Of course no situation is black-and-white, however all things considered what I described is their strategy, that is my conclusion for their strategy; I hope you see the pattern of Putin's Russia every 5 years or so killing off the main opposition leader, like recently happened - Alexei Navalny in a coma currently. Do we ignore that and believe that we'll trust Putin will change if he claims he will? He'd never agree to a treaty though that hurts his position of power/control though, just like this "no space weapons" doesn't hurt Putin's or CCP's position of power - because they don't wield that power or capability, and so of course they want a treaty against it.
Let's hope the free, democratic world rallies in creating multi-lateral trade agreements to syphon off buying from CCP controlled China and this is enough wake them up economically, unfortunately it's possible that it will only to cause the CCP to be able to tighten their grip on the Chinese people (control, censorship, security systems of the hierarchal tyranny) - creating more internal pressure that CCP can continue to make the narrative that it's the U.S. and other democratic nations that are the cause, rallying hate and anger which then they will direct where they see fit.
"Orbit War was a magazine game published by Steve Jackson Games in Space Gamer (Issue 66 - Nov 1983). This release was followed by an expansion published in Space Gamer (Issue 67 - Jan 1984) and later by the boxed edition.
It is a simulation of satellite warfare in low Earth orbit. The players are the USA and the APU (Asian-Polish Union). The object is of course to destroy your opponent's satellites and such..."
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2101/orbit-war
It is a simulation of satellite warfare in low Earth orbit. The players are the USA and the APU (Asian-Polish Union). The object is of course to destroy your opponent's satellites and such..."
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2101/orbit-war
I think it's rather naïeve to think that nation states are going to be the main actors of this battle.
If you get some banks and companies trying to enforce compliance to a regulatory system, maybe. Anything outside of that does not cause a war in my mind.
If you get some banks and companies trying to enforce compliance to a regulatory system, maybe. Anything outside of that does not cause a war in my mind.