US Space Force Monitors Satellites in the 'Robotic Battlefield' of Space

'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.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.