U.S. favors stealthy anti-satellite strategy

Using signals instead of missiles
The proposal to develop an anti-satellite missile had little immediate effect. Scowcroft's national security memo was dated just two days before the end of the Ford administration, and the Carter administration had little interest in the ASAT interceptor idea. (In the 1980s, the Reagan and the first Bush administration renewed interest in the kinetic ASAT — including one that would be launched from an F-15 — but didn’t deploy anything.)

But the idea of creating a “electronic negation” or “intrusion” capability never waned.  And the United States had all the means necessary to carry it out.  The U.S. military had its own electronic intercept satellites as well as worldwide network of ground stations.

“The United States has had a variety of intercept capabilities both in space and on the ground to monitor Soviet communications with its satellites,” Richelson said. “There were ground stations in the U.S., Europe, and Asia monitoring Soviet satellites.”

In Europe, there was the mammoth ground station at Menwith Hills in England; in Japan, there was a more remote but no less important site in Misawa; and in the hills of western North Carolina, near the town of Rosman, was another critical facility — which has since closed.

“Depending on encryption and whether you could read the signals, they could be telling the satellite what to do, how to maneuver, reporting on its health, etc.,” Richelson said. “That is the first step in intruding on someone else’s satellite … being able to monitor it, and then ideally you could send your own signal to take their place.”

Blocking a satellite’s view
By the 1990s, the United States had another secret means to negate an adversary’s satellite: simply stepping in front of it.

Intelligence experts described a success the United States had with what is a basic but not kinetic strategy.  In November 1990, the Pentagon launched an experimental and highly classified satellite nicknamed "Prowler" on the space shuttle Atlantis.

According to one expert's account, Prowler stealthily maneuvered close to Russian and presumably other nations’ communications satellites in high Earth orbit, 24,000 miles (38,400 kilometers) up. Such satellites are ideal targets. They are at much higher altitudes and are thus difficult to track visually. Many key military satellites are in this orbit — relay satellites that transmit the imagery from spy satellites as well as military communications satellites, weather satellites, and electronic eavesdropping satellites that target terrestrial microwave communications.

By some accounts, Prowler gathered all manner of data on its target satellites: their size, measurements, radar signature, mass and the frequencies on which they relay their data.  

Knowing all that, a satellite using Prowler technology would not have to jam the other satellite's signals or destroy it with a space mine.  Rather, Prowler could simply step in front of it and block its signals.  One expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, claimed that Prowler did just that in tests using U.S. communications satellites without being detected.

Capabilities debated
How close can such a U.S. satellite get to another satellite? Within about a foot, the expert said. What's more, Prowler technology can permit the satellite to maneuver close to the target without receiving data from earth. Once within a certain range of a target, the Prowler could resort to an internal computer program.

Since then, there is no indication that the U.S. has launched other such Prowler satellites, but the technology exists.  NASA flubbed a robot rendezvous in 2004 when an active satellite accidentally struck, but didn’t damage, its target satellite.

Experts say the U.S. military appears to be continuing its satellite-jamming experiments, even though the details are classified. Richelson pointed to a 2004 decision by the Air Force to take yet another ASAT program “black,” meaning classifying it at a high level.  The Counter Surveillance Reconnaissance program has an amorphous mission — “interfering with an adversary’s access to space-based reconnaissance.”  What that means, Richelson suggested, is a program “designed to jam signals from getting from the satellite to the ground.”

Added to programs that intercept control signals, such a system could render an adversary’s satellite capability worthless without firing a shot.  Richelson also notes that there is an unappreciated downside for kinetic ASATs: The debris field created by a successful attack could interfere with your own satellites, tearing them apart. 

Worrying about the dangers
Many in the arms control community have long worried about the dangers of either the kinetic or electronic program.

“We are not without our own capabilities,” said John Pike, a policy analyst at GlobalSecurity.org.  “Several of the anti-missile systems we are deploying can do the job.  Electronically, we have had the capability to jam data links for sometime.  It’s just not that hard for a superpower.”

The problem is whether you want to try the jamming strategy in a crisis, since the method doesn't appear to have a track record against spaceworthy rivals.

“A kinetic ASAT has high confidence. It works,” says Pike.  “The downside of the non-kinetic is the question of what your confidence level is.

“Non-kinetic solutions can be difficult to test in peacetime because there is no point in testing on your own system.   I can build representative targets that I can [use to] test the kinetic.  It’s more difficult to do that with a non-kinetic solution because the way the adversary’s satellites operate in peacetime may be different in a crisis.  You can test it in peacetime, only to discover it’s completely worthless in a crisis.” 

And then there is the danger of getting caught. “If I am testing my own against my own target, fine,” Pike said. “But if I am poking around in somebody else’s command link, now you’re meddling, and you have to think carefully about doing that.” 

MORE FROM SPACE

Space Section Front

Water discovery fuels hope to colonize moon ‘Significant amount’ of water found on moon Get the most from a promising meteor show All systems go for space shuttle launch World not ending in 2012, says NASA Cosmic Log: Marvelous view ... and a mystery Broken urine recycler may affect space mission Stuck Mars rover gets set to attempt great escape New research module arrives at space station   Month in space: What a blast! Space Section Front   Add Space headlines to your news reader: