Satellite Bodyguards

System Description.²⁸ In the years 2000-2005, we can expect a rapid growth in the average number of payloads being launched annually.²⁹ The decades following that will probably see launch rates grow at a much steeper rate. In order to protect the vast number of high-value space assets orbiting in 2025, active defensive systems must be able to respond to a wide range of threats. One way to meet this challenge is to place a large fleet of satellite bodyguards in orbits containing critical US and allied satellites. The large number of satellites requiring protection will drive an equally large constellation of bodyguards capable of performing a wide variety of functions. The most efficient means of achieving such a goal is to pursue advances in miniaturization such as microtechnology and nanotechnology.

A space-based satellite bodyguard system might consist of an integrated network of orbiting microsatellites each performing specific subsets of the space protection mission. Similar to P-51 fighter aircrafts flying escort for B-17 bombers in World War II, this system of satellites will be required to detect enemy presence, determine the threat, and act to defeat the threat. However, the bodyguard system of 2025 must take this idea one step further and capitalize on miniaturization to make bodyguards weight and cost effective. The best way to accomplish this is through what Col Richard Szafranski and Dr Martin Libicki, air and space visionaries, call a meta-system.³⁰ A meta-system is composed of individual systems working together to perform such tasks as information collection, battlespace awareness, and interfacing with other components of the cooperative distributed network.

Key components of any such meta-system will be miniature sensors coupled with high-speed computers to integrate inputs from multiple bodyguards. The sensor array (an integrated net of sensors on a number of distributed bodyguards) must be capable of detecting inbound threats operating in any spectrum including radar, infrared, acoustic, and visual. Current advances in smart materials and nanotechnology, as well as the miniaturization of high-speed computer technology, will make such a system feasible in the 2025 time frame. This is supported by the trends in computer chips which have gone from circuits three microns wide 10 years ago to current machines which are fabricated at the .35 micron level. Ralph Merckle of Xerox predicts the mainframe of the first or second decade of the twenty-first century "will be the size of a sugarcube and will execute more instructions per second than today's Cray supercomputers."³¹

While miniature high-speed computers and intelligent materials will increase the capabilities and staying power of the satellite bodyguard, advances must also be made in power and propulsion. Possible solutions to the power problem are nuclear batteries, advanced solar batteries, or fusion technologies, each resulting in a virtually inexhaustible fuel supply. Advances in nonchemical high specific impulse propulsion techniques may provide the revolutionary leap in propulsion needed to make a bodyguard capable of high- speed maneuvering (satellite jinking).³²

A large fleet of bodyguards will be required to form a meta-system capable of protecting the growing number of high-value space assets, both military and commercial. This system, coupled with the need to launch large numbers of dispersed bodyguards in order to reduce the system's vulnerabilities, will make miniaturization a crucial technology in 2025. A robust space launch infrastructure as well as rapid resupply capability is necessary to keep a satellite bodyguard system operational in a high-tempo environment.

Concept of Operations. In applying the meta-system concept to a satellite bodyguard system, individual bodyguards the size of a laptop computer will perform unique subsets of the overall mission. Based on the same basic design, some bodyguards will be tasked as sensors with the mission to identify and track possible threats. Other bodyguards will be assigned a defensive role where their main function is to seek out threats and negate them. Taking this one step further, defensive bodyguards may be active or passive. Active defenders will use high-specific impulse propulsion techniques (such as electrostatic, electrothermal, or electromagnetic systems which use electric power to accelerate propellant gasses to high exit velocities) to seek and destroy a space-based threat.³³ Passive defenders will use smart materials (capable of adapting to deflect or absorb inbound energy) to minimize electromagnetic or directed energy damage to a high-value asset. In a worst-case scenario, the bodyguard will sacrifice itself to protect the high-value asset it is guarding. Other bodyguards will be outfitted to perform critical computing and fire control functions.

For incoming ASAT missiles, the system may relay position, velocity, and acceleration data to an orbiting directed energy system which will make the kill. Another option is to equip bodyguards with satellite protective armor which would respond to a KEW attack much as today's reactive tank armor responds to antitank fire.³⁴ An alternate mission for a satellite bodyguard employs electronic warfare to confuse the enemy. Equipping bodyguards with electronic signals duplication capability will enable a bodyguard to replicate the electronic signature of a high-value asset.³⁵ By saturating the battlespace with large numbers of small and cheap bodyguards (which to enemy sensors appear to be high-value satellites), the problem of finding and destroying the truly critical satellite becomes much more difficult for an enemy.

Due to the high-risk mission they perform, satellite bodyguards will likely require steady replenishment through the logistics system. Self-replicating nanotech systems may aid in the rapid replacement of damaged bodyguards. A command and control link is assumed to be in place and is critical to the satellite bodyguard concept.

Countermeasures. One way to counter a satellite bodyguard system is to saturate the battlespace around the high-value system with threats to overwhelm the bodyguard meta-system. However, proliferation of inexpensive bodyguards performing subsets of the overall mission may make shooting them too expensive for a future adversary. The command and control function may represent the center of gravity of an integrated meta-system. Destroying the command and control link will effectively disable the bodyguard system by negating the critical integration of information between bodyguards. A hardened burst transmission send and receive capability will decrease the vulnerability of the communications link. Finally, the idea that visibility (to enemy sensors) may equate to death in 2025 makes emission control of vital importance to satellite bodyguards. Stealth as well as minimum communication requirements will help to make bodyguards more survivable in the battlespace of the future.

Robo-Bug

System Description.³⁶ In his 2,500-year-old classic The Art of War, Sun Tzu states that "all warfare is based on deception."³⁷ Those words continue to ring true today in the realm of space warfare. The idea of a robo-bug is to use small satellites, equipped with stealth or cloaking capability, to get close to a target enemy satellite. The robo-bug will then take on characteristics of the target. A plausible scenario has an undetected robo-bug satellite affixing itself to a navigation satellite similar to the Global positioning satellite (GPS). The robo-bug will have the capability to detect when a satellite is providing information to an adversary. At the right time, the robo-bug is activated and begins to disrupt the signal through jamming or other electronic warfare methods.

Another option is to attack the link system, described as the electromagnetic energy used for space system uplink, downlink, or crosslink. Given a link segment made up of electromagnetic energy, the primary technology used to attack the link is electronic warfare in the way of jamming or spoofing. Jamming is transmitting a high-power electronic signal that causes the bit error in a satellite's uplink or downlink signals to increase, resulting in the satellite or ground station losing lock.³⁸ Spoofing involves taking over a space system by appearing as an authorized user. An example is establishing a command link with an enemy satellite and sending anomalous commands to degrade its performance. Spoofing is one of the most discrete and deniable nonlethal methods available for offensive counterspace operations.³⁹

In his work on counterspace options, Maj James Lee presents a number of options which can be used in an offensive counterspace mission against a peer competitor. These options target the entire system (ground, link, and orbital segments) and range from nonlethal disruption to hard kill as listed in table 2.⁴⁰ A robo-bug system will be capable of performing the entire spectrum of offensive counterspace options.

Source: Maj James G. Lee, Counterspace Operations for Information Dominance (Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.: Air University Press, 1995),34.

The robo-bug is capable of destroying the enemy satellite with a shaped charge explosive or high energy event such as high-power electromagnetic pulse (EMP) or high-power microwave burst. An alternative, the ability to accomplish the counterspace mission with what General Horner, in a speech to the Senate Armed Services Committee on 22 April 1993 described as a "soft kill" (including jamming or intruding the satellite signal and communication links) enables US forces to deny an enemy use of space information without destroying satellites. In a future which sees a blurring of space missions between military, multinational corporations, and numerous governmental organizations, this capability will offer the commander a desirable option to be used in meeting a politically sensitive military objective-space superiority.

A robo-bug system will be comprised of a main module which will take care of basic needs such as power, navigation, and station keeping. The satellite itself will be built using stealth cloaking techniques (described later in this paper). The command and control system will be used to receive direction via ground or space link and act upon that information to direct the robo-bug to its assigned target. The heart of the system will be the payload which will have a specific mission. Missions are discussed in the concept of operations. The emerging technologies which might make a robo-bug system feasible are MEMS technology, nanotechnology, and small high-speed computing. As previously discussed, each of these technologies show signs of being near maturity in the 2025 time frame.

Concept of Operations. The idea of a robo-bug is not to act as an antisatellite weapon. Instead, the robo-bug uses electronic warfare methods to negate a satellite's capabilities without permanent damage. Robo-bugs will be pressed into operation early in a potential conflict to degrade or eliminate the detection, imagery, and communications capabilities of an adversary.

Robo-bugs must operate in such a manner as to make any loss in enemy satellite fidelity very subtle so the likelihood of discovery by the operator is as small as possible. This can be done in a variety of ways. In addition to the spoofing mission as described in the navigation satellite example, another possible mission (forwarded by Gen Charles A. Horner) is jamming or intruding the satellite signal or targeting the satellite communication links. This negates the enemy's ability to maneuver the satellite or to deploy onboard systems such as sensors and antennas. Yet another possible mission is to simply act as a power drain, sapping the power from the enemy satellite much like a tick on a dog.

Countermeasures. In their paper "Tactical Deception in Air-Land Warfare," Charles Fowler and Robert Nesbit make a fundamental observation that "the military group that is not devoting appropriate efforts to include tactics, R&D, and plotting and scheming in general for deception is almost certain to be vulnerable to being deceived itself."⁴¹ Any future US space system must be capable of defeating an enemy parasite system. Specific countermeasures to a robo-bug system are based on the ability to detect disruption efforts and take action. Assuming they can find a robo-bug, an enemy might do periodic maneuvers to avoid it or take offensive action to destroy it. Deception may also be an effective method of countering a robo-bug system. If a satellite is able to radiate emissions which make it appear to be nonthreatening (or even appear to be a friendly satellite), it may be able to fool a robo-bug.

Another very effective method in countering a parasite system is dispersion-using large numbers of small satellites to overwhelm detection and targeting systems. This method causes the enemy to expend numerous resources in an attempt to protect his valuable space systems. Once an enemy suspects a satellite is being influenced by an unfriendly parasite, confirmation can be made by comparing data to known values. However, without a way to rid itself of the robo-bug, the satellite may very well be rendered useless. Once again, the command and control link between the commander and the robo-bug presents a vulnerability. The ability to operate in a secure command and control environment continues to be an essential part of any counterspace concept.

Space Stealth

General Discussion. Stealth conjures up images of a strike package of aircraft operating deep in enemy territory while the adversary waits, watches, and listens, all to no avail. Author J. Jones describes stealth as the act of proceeding furtively, secretly, or imperceptibly.⁴² Fast forward the year to 2025 and imagine an enemy hunter-killer satellite team cruising right past a US command and control platform without the faintest hint of detection. Stealth, defined in terms of revolutionary molecular technologies, can be a key component in the protection of friendly space capabilities against enemy attack-classical defensive counterspace.

To date, numerous passive measures such as hardening, redundancy, and cross linking have served to protect US satellites from threats in space. Our status as the lone superpower and leader in space has meant these threats have so far been very benign. On the other hand, the future will likely hold greater threats both in number and sophistication. By taking a significant technology leap, we can defeat these future threats. This leap is broadly categorized as space stealth or cloaking. In essence, we are talking about making satellites invisible.

Most people are familiar with the stealth concepts employed on modern day aircraft such as the F-117 and the B-2. Current stealth technologies seek to blend signature reduction techniques in the radar, infrared, visual, and acoustic domains.⁴³ The classical design problem has been balancing aircraft designs to minimize the signature in each domain. Unfortunately, this does not lead to an optimal solution. For example, highly reflective materials are ineffective in a visual or radar environment but are very desirable in an infrared environment. In 2025, standard detection methods as well as a number of new and unique methods will have to be countered in order to achieve true stealth. The technological leap that may enable us to do this is satellite cloaking.

Satellite Cloaking

System Description. The concept of satellite cloaking takes stealth to a new level. To date, stealth has been a passive activity aimed at trying to minimize reflection and maximize absorption of energy with the goal of reducing the amount of energy reflected back to the sender. In contrast, cloaking will use active means to enable a satellite, as seen by enemy sensors, to blend into any environment.⁴⁴ Reliant on emerging material science advances as well as miniaturization and high-speed computing, a cloaked satellite will use nanotechnology robot films which will render it invisible in a space environment.

These nanotech materials, comprised of systems on the scale of individual molecules, must have two critical capabilities. First, the system must be capable of detecting any energy being aimed at the satellite. Is this possible? AT&T Bell Labs physicist Bernard Yurke sees nanotechnology systems with the sensitivity to "allow the first detection of individual photons."⁴⁵ After detection of incoming energy, the system must be capable of altering its construction to reflect or absorb that energy. With materials that have molecular motors and controllers, whole chunks of satellite skin can be made flexible and controllable. To simplify this idea of molecular manipulation, scientists describe nanotechnology through a vivid analogy. Picture an automated factory, full of conveyor belts, computers, and moving robot arms. Now imagine something like that factory but a million times smaller and working a million times faster with parts and pieces of molecular size.⁴⁶ In this concept the smart, adaptive skin of the spacecraft reacts to control inputs from the sensor array to make itself invisible to an enemy. In essence, molecular assembly lines are creating a satellite skin which is best suited to deflect or absorb incoming energy.

Figure 3-6 depicts a friendly satellite being radiated with radar energy from a hostile source. The sensor array on the surface of the friendly spacecraft detects inbound radar energy. The control system then directs the nanotechnology satellite skin to form a radar absorbent material and take an angular shape which will reflect the radar energy away from the source. Molecular sized computers, acting as the brains of this unique defensive shield, will enable the system to react almost instantaneously to inputs from the sensor array. The advent of nanocomputers, says Drexler, will give us practical machines with a trillion times the power of today's computers, all in a molecular package.⁴⁷

An alternate protective means is a stealthy satellite capable of generating an electrostatic or magnetic repulsion field which will shield the spacecraft from natural threats.⁴⁸ The repulsion field would be employed against low stress threats such as space debris or possibly to protect against solar flares. An important side benefit of such a repulsion field is the ability to use it as a sensor field to determine whether a satellite has been damaged by natural causes (space debris) or an attack. This capability gives the satellite controllers immediate information as to the probable cause should a satellite mysteriously drop off the screen.

Intelligent materials are another emerging technology with great possibilities in this arena. Researchers are creating materials which, inspired by nature, can anticipate failure, repair themselves, and adapt to the environment. Smart materials employ tiny actuators and motors as muscles, sensors as nerves and memory, and computational networks that represent the brain and spinal column.⁴⁹ Molecular computers coupled with molecular sized assembly lines ready to build the right shield at the right moment with materials capable of adapting to the environment may make cloaking a reality in 2025.

As far as feasibility, Stewart Brand, a leading futurist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reflects on nanotechnology, stating "the science is good, the engineering is feasible, the paths of approach are many, the consequences are revolutionary-times-revolutionary, and the schedule is: in our lifetimes."⁵⁰ Commercial interest in these technology developments, for uses in adaptive assembly lines and self-repairing machines, will increase the probability they will be available for incorporation in US space systems.

Concept of Operations. The satellite cloaking system will operate on all space assets critical to US operations. This includes both military as well as key civilian spacecraft. The cloaking system will go into action once alerted by its onboard sensor array or warned by its command and control network.

First, the system will classify the incoming detection signal as radar, infrared, or visual (remember, individual photon detection is the norm). Sensor information is passed to the nanocomputer control system which relays commands to the nanobuilding blocks in the satellite skin. The building blocks, acting as their own molecular assembly lines, manufacture a skin which is optimized to reflect or absorb incoming energy. The ability to change at near instantaneous speeds allows the system to overcome the problem of suboptimal design (the trade-off between reflecting and absorbing materials) encountered in today's stealth aircraft. The nanotech spacecraft skin will be capable of battle damage repair to the spacecraft (a self-healing satellite). The ability to act autonomously to repair itself greatly reduces demand on the logistics system, which in space is a great advantage in both cost and time.

Countermeasures. The most obvious countermeasure to a nanotechnology cloaking system is the ability to disrupt the molecular interactions which enable the system to operate. The possibility also exists for a new detection spectrum, possibly a smart beam, which is capable of changing to counter a response by the cloaking system. Destruction of smart nanotechnology materials should not pose a problem as the system will be capable of rejuvenation. However, this technology can be expected to proliferate through commercial developers to the community of space faring nations. The ability to perform the offensive counterspace mission against cloaked satellites presents its own unique challenges to US forces.

Kinetic Energy Weapons

General Discussion. Kinetic energy weapons (KEW) destroy things "the old fashioned way," that is using energy generated by a moving mass impacting a target mass. KEW for space application in the form of antisatellite (ASAT) systems date back to the mid to late 1960s when both the US and Soviet Union were testing ASAT weapons. US commitment to an ASAT changed with administrations until testing was finally terminated in 1985 and the secretary of defense canceled the F-15 ASAT Program in 1988.⁵¹

KEW can be employed from the ground, air, or space against targets in any medium. This paper suggests concepts which employ KEW from various platforms against ground and space targets. As noted previously, the space environment of the future will be one of multiple users of military, civil, and commercial satellites. In many cases, political considerations will prevent or severely constrain military options which involve actually destroying satellites. Having a solid KEW capability, however, will serve to deter similar aggression against US satellites and will give the US the option to destroy enemy satellites if necessary. Several concepts are proposed which take advantage of KEW technology. These include the satellite multiple attack and kill system (SMAKS) and alpha strikestar transatmospheric vehicle (TAV).

Back to 2025 Home Page