This is why we need a 'Space Force'

American Thinker ^ | 08/16/2018 | Rick Moran

[SeekAndFind]

A mysterious Russian satellite has exhibited "very abnormal behavior" in its orbit, leading the Pentagon to worry that it may be some kind of weapon.

Weapons are banned from outer space by treaty, but it's believed that there are ways to weaponize lasers and electronic jamming devices to disable or destroy satellites.  China is believed to already have an advanced anti-satellite capability, with the U.S. nearly on par with the Chinese and Russia trailing in the race to develop this vital technology.

The media largely dismissed Trump's plan to develop a Space Force and make it a separate branch of the armed forces.  In fact, much of the press made fun of the notion.

But this satellite launched by Russia is a perfect example of why we need a Space Force and why it's no joke – especially to the Russians and Chinese.

BBC:

"[The satellite's] behaviour on-orbit was inconsistent with anything seen before from on-orbit inspection or space situational awareness capabilities, including other Russian inspection satellite activities," Ms Poblete told the conference on disarmament in Switzerland.

"Russian intentions with respect to this satellite are unclear and are obviously a very troubling development," she added, citing recent comments made by the commander of Russia's Space Forces, who said adopting "new prototypes of weapons" was a key objective for the force.

Ms Poblete said that the US had "serious concerns" that Russia was developing anti-satellite weapons.

Alexander Deyneko, a senior Russian diplomat, told the Reuters news agency that the comments were "the same unfounded, slanderous accusations based on suspicions, on suppositions and so on".

He called on the US to contribute to a Russian-Chinese treaty that seeks to prevent an arms race in space.

[higgmeister]

China is believed to already have an advanced anti-satellite capability, with the U.S. nearly on par with the Chinese and Russia trailing in the race to develop this vital technology.

Russia had a "Killer Satellite" forty years ago. It was a proximity blast device.

[proust]

and whatever happened to North Korea’s satellite?

[DoodleDawg]

I don’t doubt that we need to monitor space, and apparently we are doing just that. But what will a separate Space Force do that the Air Force could not?

[higgmeister]

In the 1970s, Russia was conducting killer satellite experiments, and many news reports discussed the implications of this technology. Some of these articles include:

• "Now a new arms race in space: Soviet satellite killer," U.S. News & World Report, 83:28, November 14, 1977

• "Soviets test another killer satellite: Cosmos 970," Aviation Weekly, 108:21, January 2, 1978

• "Targeting a hunter-killer: anti-satellite interceptor (ASAT)," Time, 110:10, October 17, 1977

• "Soviet killer satellites: U.S. ponders a response," D. Shapley, Science, 193:865-6, September 3, 1976

• "Soviets test killer spacecraft," Aviation Weekly, 109:17, October 30, 1978

From an article from the Royal Airforce Quarterly,  ("Russian Hunter-Killer Satellite Experiments", The Royal Air Forces Quarterly, Vol 17, Winter 1977, pp. 328-335), Geoff Perry describes Russia’s success in their experiments:

"Within a period of eleven months the Russians had demonstrated their ability to place a hunter spacecraft in the vicinity of targets with orbits characteristic of electronic ferrets, meteorological and navigational satellites, and photo-reconnaissance payloads." (p. 333)

"Whereas the FOBS flights have never been resumed, further interception tests were carried out in 1976 and 1977. It soon became apparent that these were no mere carbon-copies of the earlier series and that considerable development had taken place. In the four tests, involving six attempted interceptions [attempts to destroy satellite targets], only one fragmentation [destruction of the killer satellite itself] occurred." (p. 333)

"Malcolm Currie, Director of Defense Research and Engineering in the Ford Administration, was quoted (November 8, 1976) as saying, 'The Soviets have developed and tested a potential war-fighting anti-satellite capability. They have thereby seized the initiative in an area which we hoped would be left untapped. They have opened the spectre of space as a new dimension of warfare, with all that this implies. I would warn them that they have started down a dangerous road. Restraint on their part will be matched by our restraint, but we should not permit them to develop an asymmetry in space.'" (p. 333)

[higgmeister]

Co-orbital ASAT

Between 1976 and 1982 13 more tests were conducted, primarily to perfect a more rapid intercept profile and to evaluate a new acquisition sensor. Whereas the first seven tests had all required two revolutions, tests 8 nd 9 attempted single-revolution attacks as did tests 12 and 13. In both cases the first attempt was judged a failure and the second attempt a success. The last of these tests demonstrated a reach to an altitude of nearly 1,600 km.

[Magnum44]

When this topic was first presented by POTUS, I made the comments that go hand in hand with your question. We do all the same things we would do with a future “space force” today with the combined services (ie Air Force Space Command, Navy Space Warfare Center, Army Space Command, etc). These commands are joint, meaning they combine the personnel and requirements of all services and each have specific roles in meeting the needs of the warfighters as flowed through the warfare commanders (CENTCOM, PACON, SOCOM, etc) and back to the three letter agencies that support the DoD missions.

A new Space Force would just consolidate these functions under a new and single bureaucracy. Its arguable whether that really makes them more efficient or better than what exists today. Personally, I don’t think so, and I find the “Space Force” concept a bit space farcy (like already coming up with star trek looking uniforms and insignia - seriously?)

[Snickering Hound]

Only if the uniform includes a cape.

[z3n]

Let’s knock them ALL down and go back to 1955

I do not personally believe my life is enriched by cell phones, GPS, and 2403 channels of shit on the TV to choose from.

[Jotmo]

Then don’t use them.

I like them.

Are they hurting you in their current location?

No?

Then leave our toys alone.

[null and void]

You are far enough inland that satellite-based hurricane tracking wouldn’t save your life, so the heck with everyone else?

(I agree with your assessment of cell phones and TV, though)

[SaveFerris]

I remember reading about grazing orbits and proximity weapon sats in “Deep Black” way back when.

[sjmjax]

I wish they would explain exactly what is ‘abnormal behavior’ of a satellite!

[Magnum44]

I can give you one example. For geosynchronous communications satellites, the slots (there are a limited number of them if you think about it) are negotiated and assigned by an international organization called the ITU. By agreement there is a process where a nation can request a slot or box for satellite placement (like if the Philippines wants a geosynchronous satellite, then Mabuhay will request a slot and they have so many years to populate that slot or it gets given to someone else who has applied). Abnormal behavior would be another nation flying its satellite in a manner that puts these assigned slots at risk, or perhaps operating within another nations assigned box.

[iowamark]

Navigating close to another country’s satellites.

[roadcat]

I wish they would explain exactly what is ‘abnormal behavior’ of a satellite!

Triple-axel spins?

[LeoWindhorse]

UFOs , and those that operate them

[CodeToad]

“Weapons are banned from outer space by treaty”

I wonder what treaty the idiot author thinks that is.

[numberonepal]

The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV). However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit and thus some highly destructive attack strategies such as kinetic bombardment are still potentially allowable. The treaty also states that the exploration of outer space shall be done to benefit all countries and that space shall be free for exploration and use by all the States.

[Mount Athos]

I’m still wondering if the air Force should have been a separate service. I’m skeptical on yet another split