US Space Force Monitors Satellites in the 'Robotic Battlefield' of Space (nytimes.com) 15
"At least 44,500 space objects now circle Earth," reports the New York Times magazine, "including 9,000 active satellites and 19,000 significant pieces of debris."
The article notes a threat assessment from U.S. Space Force Chief Master Sergeant Ron Lerch: What's most concerning isn't the swarm of satellites but the types. "We know that there are kinetic kill vehicles," Lerch said — for example, a Russian "nesting doll" satellite, in which a big satellite releases a tiny one and the tiny one releases a mechanism that can strike and damage another satellite. There are machines with the ability to cast nets and extend grappling hooks, too. China, whose presence in space now far outpaces Russia's, is launching unmanned "space planes" into orbit, testing potentially unbreakable quantum communication links and adding A.I. capabilities to satellites.
An intelligence report, Lerch said, predicted the advent, within the next decade, of satellites with radio-frequency jammers, chemical sprayers and lasers that blind and disable the competition. All this would be in addition to the cyberwarfare tools, electromagnetic instruments and "ASAT" antisatellite missiles that already exist on the ground. In Lerch's assessment, space looked less like a grand "new ocean" for exploration — phrasing meant to induce wonder that has lingered from the Kennedy administration — and more like a robotic battlefield, where the conflicts raging on Earth would soon extend ever upward.
One interesting detail from the article. "[I]f a requirement to 'blind and deafen' an enemy's satellites were to arise from U.S. Space Command, the Space Force could help fulfill the order. The means would most likely not be "kinetic" — some form of physical or explosive contact — but electronic, a weapon of code-related stealth, or perhaps a kind of debilitating high-energy burst."
And Space Force's highest-ranking officer, General Chance Saltzman, describes the kind of new military calculations made, for example, when Ukraine moved its communications to Starlink satellites: "The Russians are trying to interrupt it," he said, "and they're not having very good success." And the takeaway is that proliferated systems of many small machines in low orbit can be more technologically resilient to hacking and disruption than a few big machines in higher orbits... [W]hile small satellites in a large configuration could potentially be a more expensive investment than two or three megasatellites, the shift could be worthwhile. If an adversary believes that it cannot achieve a military objective, Saltzman remarked, it will hesitate to cross "a threshold of violence." No conflicts. No debris. No crisis.
The article notes a threat assessment from U.S. Space Force Chief Master Sergeant Ron Lerch: What's most concerning isn't the swarm of satellites but the types. "We know that there are kinetic kill vehicles," Lerch said — for example, a Russian "nesting doll" satellite, in which a big satellite releases a tiny one and the tiny one releases a mechanism that can strike and damage another satellite. There are machines with the ability to cast nets and extend grappling hooks, too. China, whose presence in space now far outpaces Russia's, is launching unmanned "space planes" into orbit, testing potentially unbreakable quantum communication links and adding A.I. capabilities to satellites.
An intelligence report, Lerch said, predicted the advent, within the next decade, of satellites with radio-frequency jammers, chemical sprayers and lasers that blind and disable the competition. All this would be in addition to the cyberwarfare tools, electromagnetic instruments and "ASAT" antisatellite missiles that already exist on the ground. In Lerch's assessment, space looked less like a grand "new ocean" for exploration — phrasing meant to induce wonder that has lingered from the Kennedy administration — and more like a robotic battlefield, where the conflicts raging on Earth would soon extend ever upward.
One interesting detail from the article. "[I]f a requirement to 'blind and deafen' an enemy's satellites were to arise from U.S. Space Command, the Space Force could help fulfill the order. The means would most likely not be "kinetic" — some form of physical or explosive contact — but electronic, a weapon of code-related stealth, or perhaps a kind of debilitating high-energy burst."
And Space Force's highest-ranking officer, General Chance Saltzman, describes the kind of new military calculations made, for example, when Ukraine moved its communications to Starlink satellites: "The Russians are trying to interrupt it," he said, "and they're not having very good success." And the takeaway is that proliferated systems of many small machines in low orbit can be more technologically resilient to hacking and disruption than a few big machines in higher orbits... [W]hile small satellites in a large configuration could potentially be a more expensive investment than two or three megasatellites, the shift could be worthwhile. If an adversary believes that it cannot achieve a military objective, Saltzman remarked, it will hesitate to cross "a threshold of violence." No conflicts. No debris. No crisis.
Just wondering... (Score:2)
How many members of the Space Force have ever been in space?
Re: Just wondering... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I imagine a divorce lawyer has managed that. They just have to get everything in the divorce, following the dog, the kids, the house, the pickup truck. Y'know, what the average country song is about. The best way to defeat that, is to turn the vinyl table to reverse and play the country song backwards, and I guess, ya'know, run over that lawyer (proverbially).
Re:Just wondering... (Score:4, Funny)
How many members of the Space Force have ever been in space?
Apparently two have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That was an easy enough question to answer, why did you feel the need to ask?
Re: (Score:1)
That was an easy enough question to answer, why did you feel the need to ask?
Because it wasn't a question, just a FUD tactic used by idiots pushing an agenda.
tungsten carbide ball bearings (Score:2)
You realize any space power could just launch let's say 100 tons of tungsten carbide ball bearings with fake micro-trackers into space and although it wouldn't really be dangerous .. it'd scare many space projects. People are dumb enough. The country that does it would then have space all to itself because the other countries would think they can't go to space because they'd think they need the microtracker data.
Re: (Score:2)
People are dumb enough.
Individually perhaps but fortunately, as you note, it would take a space power to do this and that requires a government willing to waste loads of money on something that will get them global pariah status. Governments that stupid don't tend to last long enough to see a project like that to completion.
Space Force hehe (Score:3)
I still can't believe this ridiculous Marvel branch of the military was created.
At least call it something more realistic and less bombastic for the time being, like US Low-Earth-Orbit Monitoring Agency or something, and ditch the uniforms. Time enough to rename it Space Force and make then look like soldiers when they actually go into space to attack or defend something for real.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the military branch should have been called Space Corps since it is subordinate to the USAF much like how the Marine Corps is subordinate to the US Navy. Maybe someone felt it appropriate to name it Space Force because they believed that in a relatively short amount of time the branch would "graduate" to being on a level suited to be considered a peer to USAF, US Army, and US Navy, calling it Space Force now would avoid having to rename it later.
Prior to World War Two we saw the beginnings of the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They might not yet "actually go into space to attack or defend something for real" but they just might real soon.
Why not create the Super Intergalactic Force then? Or the Multidimentional Universe Force? That way we'll be covered because we may just invent FTL travel.
The Space Force "just might real soon" do real space stuff, but they sure waste billions in taxpayers' money right now.
Re: (Score:3)
The Space Force "just might real soon" do real space stuff, but they sure waste billions in taxpayers' money right now.
The USSF does do "real space stuff" right now, it's that very little of it involves putting people into space just yet.
Why not create the Super Intergalactic Force then? Or the Multidimentional Universe Force? That way we'll be covered because we may just invent FTL travel.
Probably for the same reason we didn't have an Air Force until after WW2. From about 1905 to about 1940 the US Army had aircraft capable of performing reconnaissance and combat but didn't feel it necessary to consider these few assets as any more than a small corps within the Army. During WW2 the size of the assets grew to a point that they created a separate air force in everything but n
Re: (Score:1)
While the Space Force does "real space stuff" Rosco does have a point, they don't do even remotely enough to justify existing in their own right and they aren't doing anything better or more efficiently than when the US Airforce was responsible and successfully doing the very same thing.
Imagine if your office building had a Department of Toilet Paper Replacement, instead of just letting building maintenance do it. The inefficiency by creating a whole department for a minor activity is insane and the Space F
Re: (Score:1)
While the Space Force does "real space stuff" Rosco does have a point, they don't do even remotely enough to justify existing in their own right and they aren't doing anything better or more efficiently than when the US Airforce was responsible and successfully doing the very same thing.
I've never served, but have spent almost 20 years in non-military jobs that require interaction with Air Force Space Command, and now Space Force. I will say up front that I don't know enough to be able to say you're wrong -- but I know enough to not assume you're right. The military does a vast amount of stuff in space, and acknowledges it has a problem with over-classification of space-related stuff. Many, if not most, things are TS/SCI at a minimum, just because they are. So anyone who claims they kn
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if your office building had a Department of Toilet Paper Replacement, instead of just letting building maintenance do it. The inefficiency by creating a whole department for a minor activity is insane and the Space Force is a huge waste of money.
If your analogy is that the USAF is like building maintenance then the Space Force is more like the people responsible for the bathrooms than just the toilet paper replacement. Toilet paper replacement is part of cleaning and maintaining the bathrooms but that this not all they do. In this analogy the Air Force might be responsible for cleaning and maintaining the hallways, dining hall, and kitchen, leaving bathrooms to the Space Force. Then perhaps that makes the Navy the people that maintain electrical
Safe LEO is a gift (Score:2)
The clean Low Earth Orbit space we use today may be a once in a civilization gift? Any conflict in space would probably lead to a Kessler Cloud of high velocity orbital shrapnel. The risk of collisions would render LEO orbits unsafe for a generation or more. Damn shame we couldn’t access space anymore because it’s likely a hypervelocity remnant of an old space ware debris is likely to take you out