Focused on the Threat: Orbital Attacks (Part 6 of 6)

Published Sept. 28, 2024
By Lisa Sodders and Brad Smith, SSC Public Affairs

El Segundo, CA -- When man first walked on the moon, space was a new frontier dedicated to exploration. Today, pacing challengers are fielding sophisticated weapons that can disrupt or disable the space capabilities we rely on for national security. One such man-made threat is the deployment of orbital attacks.

An orbital attack – using one spacecraft to damage or destroy another - is the intentional infliction of damage on one satellite by another through on-orbit maneuvers and even physical contact.

“A lot of what a nation state can launch into orbit appears benign and peaceful, but that can be just a cover story,” said U.S. Space Force Maj. Neal Carter, deputy director of Intelligence at Space Systems Command (SSC). “Just because an adversary says, ‘This is for peaceful purposes; this is for repair operations,’ doesn’t mean it’s not worth us paying close attention. Does it have the capability of maneuvering near or onto our vehicles and doing some serious damage? That’s something we’re paying very close attention to.”

In recent years, adversaries have demonstrated the ability to launch satellites with smaller satellites nested inside and satellites with robotic arms. While such capabilities could be used for peaceful purposes – repairing or refueling satellites, for example – this kind of technology also could be used to disable other spacecraft.

“At least one Chinese satellite has been identified as having a robotic arm on it, and that satellite moved close to an old Chinese satellite and moved it into a super synchronous (graveyard) orbit,” said Dr. Scott C. Theiring, a director within Project West Wing at The Aerospace Corporation. “The use of robotic arms are required for refueling or for servicing and other peaceful and productive uses. However, the skillsets required for that also overlap with the ones required for more nefarious purposes. In this case, the towing of that satellite was a net benefit – it got rid of a piece of space junk in GEO.”

Orbital mechanics also mean that if an adversary destroys another country’s satellite, the wreckage could jeopardize more than just the target spacecraft. This raises the question: how do countries determine who is responsible for damaging another nation’s space vehicle?

“Attribution is the tricky part about space warfare – such as the strategic implications of a rendezvous-and-proximity operation,” Carter said. “It’s easy for pilots to see some sort of incursion: a Russian plane flying in American air space, near Alaska. They can see the markings, they know what type of planes the Russians fly, and the pilots can communicate with and take pictures of their Russian adversaries.”

“It’s a lot harder to do that in orbit – and then convince the international community that it’s occurring. And with that, are we burning sources and methods of how we collect the intelligence?” Carter said.

In many respects, space is still a very new frontier. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 established a framework for space law, but it is proving to be outdated as more nations put payloads into orbit, much less use new technologies in new regions of space.

“Even as recently as 10 years ago, space wasn’t as competitive, congested or contested to the point where we needed a dedicated military service to operate solely in the space domain,” Carter said. ‘Now, it couldn’t be more important, and our role will only continue to grow. As commercial interests start to expand into every orbit and cislunar space, our job is only going to get harder and become more important.”

Space Threats Episode 6: Orbital Attacks