Weaponising Space
Here’s an interesting article by Rand Simberg on China’s anti-satelite missile test.
The first thing to notice about this whole affair is that any notion of keeping space demilitarised is silly. It’s a bit like someone in 1906, in the dawn of aviation, declaring that the skies should be kept free of military activity. In hindsight, it doesn’t seem that it was ever possible, and in the future, hindsight will inform us of pretty much the same thing in space.
Calls to demilitarise space are also a bit like calling to demilitarise Antarctica, in that they’re each based on the assumption that both places are extreme, inaccessible, and largely unnecessary to human civilisation. Because obviously, everywhere that has proven to be accessible and necessary (the skies, the oceans, most of the land) has been completely militarised, or at least potentially so. The thing that many people haven’t realised about space yet is that it’s only difficult to access today. Tomorrow is a different story.
Like Rand Simberg, I’m a believer in Newspace, the private space developments that will one day lower the cost of access to space enough that large portions of this planet’s population could afford to go. Now obviously, if individual citizens can afford it, the world’s various militaries will also be able to afford it. Space is already the ultimate high ground, invaluable for modern warfare of the kind currently practised by the USA, and increasingly elsewhere too. So what happens when the private space boom begins, and costs of access plummet for private and military sectors alike?
Okay just off the top of my head:
We’re already about to see an arms race in anti-satelite warfare, thanks to China’s test. Manoeuvring satellites will be countered by manoeuvring warheads, as each seeks to find a way to out-dodge the other. As Rand says, rapid replacement capability for satellites will be a must. Of course, it’s possible that someone could use a nuclear weapon in orbit to fry the circuitry of all kinds of satellites, but it would be unlikely a major power would do that, because a) they’d have their own satellites up there, and b) using nuclear weapons in a war, even in orbit, is a very serious escalation, and not very wise. But I guess it’s conceivable that a not-very-wise regime (North Korea, Iran, etc) with few of their own assets might try it. Or perhaps there will be EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapons that could do the same thing, without the political ramifications of nukes. So what’s the defence against that?
Well, there’s the Star Wars missile anti-ballistic missile programs, which have now evolved into 'missile defence'. Today, they’re based on land, but conceivably you could base them in orbit, defending satellites. But then, it might just be cheaper to replace them once destroyed... no one’s really war-gamed these scenarios, and the technology’s not developed yet, so we really don’t know.
Then there’s the other applications. Popular Science has a story on the US Marines developing a sub-orbital vehicle that could insert a team of marines anywhere in the world within a couple of hours, thus avoiding overflight restrictions from uncooperative countries. Cool idea, but I don’t know that a spaceplane concept like the one illustrated would be practical -- how do you get them out again? A vertical takeoff, vertical landing vehicle like the one Jeff Bezos is making would seem far smarter, because it doesn’t need a runway, and can double as the extraction plan also. If the private space boom happens, this technology won’t remain the sole possession of America for long -- I’d put China, Russia and India on the shortlist to acquire similar technology pretty quickly.
If scramjets are fully developed, one day larger versions could transport whole infantry or armoured units to any location with an airstrip, saving half-a-day’s flight time if rapid reinforcement is required. As part of a transport fleet, such vehicles could reduce the amount of time required for a major build up like before Iraq Wars I and II. Other nations will likely wish to acquire the hypersonic missiles to shoot such vehicles down, and so it goes.
Then there’s the fun stuff. Imagine in the mid-future we have large space stations and moon colonies with quite a few people on them. They’d be ideal targets for terrorists, very visible, and quite vulnerable. You’d need teams of specially trained special forces troops who could retake such facilities, and rescue hostages. Yes, space commandos. I'm sure they'd be teased ragged by their ground pounder comrades, but there you go.
Lastly, there’s the longer-term future concept of nuclear powered interplanetary spacetravel. The thing with space is there's no drag, so acceleration is continuous, and velocity cumulative. The thing with nuclear powered spacecraft is that, like the nuclear powered warships of today, they'd only need to refuel every ten years or so (I think). So theoretically, if you burned its engines for a long time, you could make it go really, really fast. Maybe fast enough for a moderately-sized spacecraft to make a hole in the ground several kilometers wide, and bring on a nuclear-style winter. Something to think about, when figuring out the various control/navigation failsafes, and who has access to them.
I'm certain there will be plenty more. I just hope they all belong to the human species... at least in this solar system.
The first thing to notice about this whole affair is that any notion of keeping space demilitarised is silly. It’s a bit like someone in 1906, in the dawn of aviation, declaring that the skies should be kept free of military activity. In hindsight, it doesn’t seem that it was ever possible, and in the future, hindsight will inform us of pretty much the same thing in space.
Calls to demilitarise space are also a bit like calling to demilitarise Antarctica, in that they’re each based on the assumption that both places are extreme, inaccessible, and largely unnecessary to human civilisation. Because obviously, everywhere that has proven to be accessible and necessary (the skies, the oceans, most of the land) has been completely militarised, or at least potentially so. The thing that many people haven’t realised about space yet is that it’s only difficult to access today. Tomorrow is a different story.
Like Rand Simberg, I’m a believer in Newspace, the private space developments that will one day lower the cost of access to space enough that large portions of this planet’s population could afford to go. Now obviously, if individual citizens can afford it, the world’s various militaries will also be able to afford it. Space is already the ultimate high ground, invaluable for modern warfare of the kind currently practised by the USA, and increasingly elsewhere too. So what happens when the private space boom begins, and costs of access plummet for private and military sectors alike?
Okay just off the top of my head:
We’re already about to see an arms race in anti-satelite warfare, thanks to China’s test. Manoeuvring satellites will be countered by manoeuvring warheads, as each seeks to find a way to out-dodge the other. As Rand says, rapid replacement capability for satellites will be a must. Of course, it’s possible that someone could use a nuclear weapon in orbit to fry the circuitry of all kinds of satellites, but it would be unlikely a major power would do that, because a) they’d have their own satellites up there, and b) using nuclear weapons in a war, even in orbit, is a very serious escalation, and not very wise. But I guess it’s conceivable that a not-very-wise regime (North Korea, Iran, etc) with few of their own assets might try it. Or perhaps there will be EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapons that could do the same thing, without the political ramifications of nukes. So what’s the defence against that?
Well, there’s the Star Wars missile anti-ballistic missile programs, which have now evolved into 'missile defence'. Today, they’re based on land, but conceivably you could base them in orbit, defending satellites. But then, it might just be cheaper to replace them once destroyed... no one’s really war-gamed these scenarios, and the technology’s not developed yet, so we really don’t know.
Then there’s the other applications. Popular Science has a story on the US Marines developing a sub-orbital vehicle that could insert a team of marines anywhere in the world within a couple of hours, thus avoiding overflight restrictions from uncooperative countries. Cool idea, but I don’t know that a spaceplane concept like the one illustrated would be practical -- how do you get them out again? A vertical takeoff, vertical landing vehicle like the one Jeff Bezos is making would seem far smarter, because it doesn’t need a runway, and can double as the extraction plan also. If the private space boom happens, this technology won’t remain the sole possession of America for long -- I’d put China, Russia and India on the shortlist to acquire similar technology pretty quickly.
If scramjets are fully developed, one day larger versions could transport whole infantry or armoured units to any location with an airstrip, saving half-a-day’s flight time if rapid reinforcement is required. As part of a transport fleet, such vehicles could reduce the amount of time required for a major build up like before Iraq Wars I and II. Other nations will likely wish to acquire the hypersonic missiles to shoot such vehicles down, and so it goes.
Then there’s the fun stuff. Imagine in the mid-future we have large space stations and moon colonies with quite a few people on them. They’d be ideal targets for terrorists, very visible, and quite vulnerable. You’d need teams of specially trained special forces troops who could retake such facilities, and rescue hostages. Yes, space commandos. I'm sure they'd be teased ragged by their ground pounder comrades, but there you go.
Lastly, there’s the longer-term future concept of nuclear powered interplanetary spacetravel. The thing with space is there's no drag, so acceleration is continuous, and velocity cumulative. The thing with nuclear powered spacecraft is that, like the nuclear powered warships of today, they'd only need to refuel every ten years or so (I think). So theoretically, if you burned its engines for a long time, you could make it go really, really fast. Maybe fast enough for a moderately-sized spacecraft to make a hole in the ground several kilometers wide, and bring on a nuclear-style winter. Something to think about, when figuring out the various control/navigation failsafes, and who has access to them.
I'm certain there will be plenty more. I just hope they all belong to the human species... at least in this solar system.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home