Konflikti lähiavaruudessa


Russia and China are developing new space-based weapons and they’ll be ready “in the near future,” Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said Tuesday at the Defense One Technology Summit in Washington, D.C.

The countries, which Ashley called “competitors,” are developing “the ability to interdict satellites both from a ground standpoint and from a space standpoint,” he said. “The technology is being developed right now. It is coming in the near future.”

It was the most overt admission yet from an intelligence leader that Russia and China were rapidly seeking to weaponize space. But a February report from the Office of the Director of Intelligence also hinted at it.

“Russia and China continue to launch ‘experimental’ satellites that conduct sophisticated on-orbit activities, at least some of which are intended to advance counterspace capabilities,” the report said. “Some technologies with peaceful applications—such as satellite inspection, refueling, and repair—can also be used against adversary spacecraft.”

In September, 2014, Russia launched Olymp-K, which reached orbit and undertook a series of irregular maneuvers, coming within seven miles of a pair of Intelsat communications satellites. “This is not normal behavior and we’re concerned,” Kay Sears, president of Intelsat General, told Space News at the time. The incident sparked classified meetings at the Pentagon.

Since then, observers have raised alarms about three other Russian high-maneuverability satellites.

Ashley’s remark comes in the context of a new fight to establish a “Space Force,” an entirely new U.S. military service dedicated specifically to space. Ashley didn’t say whether a separate force was a good idea, but did offer that the technological advancements available to peer nations would pressure U.S. dominance in that domain.

“The competition is only going to grow,” said Ashley. “Look at the national defense strategy. There is an acknowledgement that our technological lead is vanishing… And so when you get to the warfighting doctrine you have to account for … what is the resilience you build into the domains, the redundancy? When it’s been degraded or denied, how do you fight?”

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty recognizes “the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.”

However, the International Committee on the Red Cross has noted that the treaty does not expressly prohibit weapons in space “except the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons) and the usage of the Moon and other celestial bodies for exclusively peaceful purposes.”

In March, Michael Griffin, the new defense undersecretary for research and engineering, said that the United States may dust off plans from the late 1980s to put a neutral-particle beam in space that could fire at missiles on earth or other space objects.


KOUROU, French Guiana—In June, when President Donald Trump told his military leaders to create a new branch of the military dedicated to space, the words rippled across the US military and political landscape. Soon after, the generals said they would work to comply with the order. At rallies, Trump's crowds began to chant, "Space Force! Space Force!"

But chatter about America's desire to dominate space did not stop there. Trump's declaration reached even this remote coast of South America, where the Amazon River muddies pristine Atlantic waters and jungle dominates the landscape.

Last Friday morning, Alain Charmeau met with a handful of reporters at the Hotel des Roches in Kourou, the small town outside the European Space Agency's spaceport near the equator. As the head of the Paris-based Ariane Group, Charmeau oversees Europe's family of launch vehicles, including the Ariane 5 rocket. During the discussion, Charmeau addressed a number of different topics, including the recent speech where Trump directed his generals to separate current responsibilities for military spaceflight from the US Air Force.



When it comes to science, the scientific method requires hypotheses to be testable so that inferences can be verified. UFO encounters are neither controllable nor repeatable, which makes their study extremely challenging. But the real problem, in my view, is that the UFO topic is taboo.

While the general public has been fascinated with UFOs for decades, our governments, scientists and media, have essentially declared that of all the UFO sightings are a result of weather phenomenon or human actions. None are actually extraterrestrial spacecraft. And no aliens have visited Earth. Essentially, we are told that the topic is nonsense. UFOs are off-limits to serious scientific study and rational discussion, which unfortunately leaves the topic in the domain of fringe and pseudoscientists, many of whom litter the field with conspiracy theories and wild speculation.

I think UFO skepticism has become something of a religion with an agenda, discounting the possibility of extraterrestrials without scientific evidence, while often providing silly hypotheses describing only one or two aspects of a UFO encounter reinforcing the popular belief that there is a conspiracy. A scientist must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out. In the end, the skeptics often do science a disservice by providing a poor example of how science is to be conducted. The fact is that many of these encounters – still a very small percentage of the total – defy conventional explanation.

The media amplifies the skepticism by publishing information about UFOs when it is exciting, but always with a mocking or whimsical tone and reassuring the public that it can't possibly be true. But there are credible witnesses and encounters.

There is a great deal of evidence that a small percentage of these UFO sightings are unidentified structured craft exhibiting flight capabilities beyond any known human technology. While there is no single case for which there exists evidence that would stand up to scientific rigor, there are cases with simultaneous observations by multiple reliable witnesses, along with radar returns and photographic evidence revealing patterns of activity that are compelling.

Declassified information from covert studies is interesting, but not scientifically helpful. This is a topic worthy of open scientific inquiry, until there is a scientific consensus based on evidence rather than prior expectation or belief. If there are indeed extraterrestrial craft visiting Earth, it would greatly benefit us to know about them, their nature and their intent. Moreover, this would present a great opportunity for mankind, promising to expand and advance our knowledge and technology, as well as reshaping our understanding of our place in the universe.


Tähtien sota.


on ulkoavaruudessa tapahtuvaa sodankäyntiä.

Sillä viitataan avaruudessa olevien satelliittien jne. tuhoamiseen joko avaruudessa olevilla aluksilla tai maasta käsin ohjuksilla. Avaruussodankäynti käsittää täten maasta–avaruuteen sodankäynnin, kuten maasta käsin suoritetut hyökkäykset Maata kiertäviä satelliitteja kohtaan, sekä avaruudesta–avaruuteen sodankäynnin, kuten satelliitteja vastaan hyökkäävät satelliitit (tappajasatelliitit). Neuvostoliitton FOBS-satelliittikokeita 1960-luvun puolivälissä on pidetty tappajasatelliittikokeiden alkuna. Ronald Reaganin hallinnon vuonna 1983 lanseeraana "Tähtien sota" oli 1970-luvun ohjuspuolustusohjusvarusten jälkeen merkittävin avaruussodan varustelukilpa.

Rajoitetun määrittely mukaan se ei käsitä avaruudesta–maahan käsin kohdistuvaa sodankäyntiä, missä kiertoradalla olevat kohteet hyökkäävät maassa, merellä tai ilmassa olevia kohteita vastaan suoraan, eikä se kata myöskään satelliittien käyttöä vakoilu-, tiedustelu- tai sotilasviestintätarkoituksiin. Nämä kuitenkin muodostavan pääosan Yhdysvaltain ilma-, meri- ja maavoimien avaruusjoukkojen toiminnoista kuten Venäjän avaruusvoimienkin kohdalla. 2000-luvulla Yhdysvalloissa on laajentunutta kiinnostusta "endoatmosfäärisiin" pommikoneisiin, jotka lentäsivät maamaalejaan kohden avaruuden kautta.
Space warfare
is combat that takes place in outer space. The scope of space warfare therefore includes ground-to-space warfare, such as attacking satellites from the Earth, as well as space-to-space warfare, such as satellites attacking satellites.

In the early 1960s the U.S. military produced a film called Space and National Security which depicted space warfare.[1]

From 1985 to 2002 there was a United States Space Command, which in 2002 merged with the United States Strategic Command, leaving Air Force Space Command as the primary American military space force. The Russian Space Force, established on August 10, 1992, which became an independent section of the Russian military on June 1, 2001, was replaced by the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces starting December 1, 2011, but was reestablished as a component of the Russian Aerospace Forces on August 1, 2015.

Only a few incidents of space warfare have occurred in world history, and all involved training missions, as opposed to actions against real opposing forces. In 1985 a USAF pilot in an F-15 successfully shot down the P78-1, an American research satellite, in a 345-mile (555 km) orbit.

In 2007 China used a missile system to destroy one of its obsolete satellites (see 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test), and in 2008 the United States similarly destroyed its malfunctioning satellite USA-193. As of 2018[update] there have been no human casualties resulting from conflict in space.

International treaties are in place that regulate conflicts in space and limit the installation of space weapon systems, especially nuclear weapons.


Yksin avaruudessa?


Miten pitkäikäisiä ovat sivilisaatiot?


Naapuri uuteen asevarustelu ohjelmaan on tullut kaksi osaa jotka koskee tätä ketjua

‘Nudol’ missile defense shield
Faced with an ever-expanding US global missile defense system, Russia also decided to upgrade its missile defense shield, particularly those used to protect its capital, Moscow. The new ABM interceptor missile system was named Nudol. However, little is known about its exact characteristics so far.

According to TASS, the new missile defense shield would be capable of defending Russian territories from a multiple-warhead nuclear strike and intercept all existing modern ICBMs equipped with systems that are specifically designed to penetrate the missile defense. According to some reports, the new interceptor missiles are even capable of shooting down satellites.
Tirada-2s satellite jammer

Last but not least is Russia’s cutting-edge electronic warfare device codenamed Tirada-2s. While it may not sound impressive in comparison to “doomsday” missiles or fifth-generation stealth fighters, this new equipment might yet prove to be crucial in any modern conflict, as it can actually jam satellites.

vely render the satellites useless, make it difficult for any potential enemy to bypass the jamming and de facto leaves them without any modern communication tools. Eventually, it can significantly shift the balance in modern combat activities, which are increasingly characterized by rapid changes of environment and high requirements for troops’ adaptability, in which communication plays a vital role.


President Donald Trump is again pushing his idea to create a "Space Force" as the sixth branch of the U.S. military, stating that "space is becoming very important militarily, as well as other reasons."

Trump celebrated members of the military in his speech July 3 at the "Salute to Service Dinner" in West Virginia, the evening before the nation's Independence Day holiday. He said 242 years of America's independence has "endured because of the sweat, blood, and sacrifice of the American armed forces," before adding that his administration "may add a little thing called Space Force," and he is "thinking very seriously about it."

Trump first announced on June 18 at the White House he is directing the Pentagon to create the Space Force as an independent service branch aimed at ensuring American supremacy in space. He pledged to reclaim U.S. leadership in space, framing it as a national security issue, saying he does not want "China and Russia and other countries leading us."

The idea of a Space Force was first floated in March when the president said his new national security strategy recognizes that space is a theater of war, while addressing service members in California. Trump said he had first coined the term as a joke, while discussing U.S. government spending and private investment in space. Varied reactions

The announcement of the creation of a Space Force has prompted a wide range of reactions - from memes ridiculing the proposal, to serious debate from experts.

Angelo Codevilla, professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston University and staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the 1980s, applauded the idea in an opinion piece published in The Hill news website. He said the establishment of the Space Force would "endow people with the will and interest to make U.S. control of space happen."

Codevilla argued that "any major war's operations would involve competitive destruction of satellites" and that sooner or later, "some power will bid for the comprehensive capacity to control orbital space. Better that America be first."

In a blog for the Brookings Institution, Michael O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow at the institution's Center for 21st Century Security, agreed satellites play an important role in modern warfare, but he said "space technologies and operations have a good home already in the Air Force" and the "weight of initial evidence tilts fairly strongly against" the need for a separate branch.


The company Aerojet Rocketdyne has successfully wrapped up a marathon test of the space shuttle-era AR-22 engine, firing it 10 times in 10 days to test its suitability for a quick-turnaround reusable space plane.

The engine test, undertaken at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, is the latest step in the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Experimental Spaceplane program. The crew worked 24/7 to fuel and fire the massive engine 10 times, for 100 seconds each, over 10 days — ending with 68 minutes to spare, and even enduring two lightning strikes to the building housing the test.

"We completely destroyed previously held records [for] a liquid hydrogen-liquid, oxygen-type engine," Scott Wierzbanowski, DARPA's Experimental Spaceplane program manager, said during a teleconference with reporters today (July 10). "And we shattered this idea that these types of engines can't be used in a very operable and aircraft-like way.

Tietysti rumputtimen avaruus sotilaat kulkee kiertoradalla Darpan SSTOlla. PRKL.

DARPA selected Boeing to build a reusable space plane, called Phantom Express, propelled upward with Aerojet Rocketdyne's engine — a version of which was the space shuttle's main engine. Before this, that engine had only been re-fired within 24 hours once before.

This test helps validate the idea of a reusable spacecraft with a quick turnaround that’s closer to that of an aircraft, officials said during today's discussion. Phantom Express is designed to launch vertically, releasing a disposable second stage at between 200,000 and 300,000 feet (60,000 to 90,000 meters) to deploy a satellite into orbit, Wierzbanowski said, before the space plane glides to the ground for a smooth landing. It should be able to release more than 3,000 lbs. (1,360 kilograms) into orbit for a cost of less than $5 million per flight — and the first test flight of the system is currently set for 2021.

Every day during the 10 engine firings, workers delivered 300,000 lbs. (136,000 kg) of propellant on barges to the test facility. After the engine was dried from its previous firing — an interval that the company shrank from 17 hours at first to 6 hours at one point, representatives said — the workers conducted detailed hardware inspections close to midnight and loaded in the propellant starting at 7 a.m.

"Going into the test, we thought the engine would be technically challenging to get through this, and we were expecting to have to overcome some of the challenges there, but really, the engine performed flawlessly — we didn't have any issues with it," said Jeff Haynes, Aerojet Rocketdyne's AR-22 program manager.

But it wasn't entirely smooth sailing: "We did have Mother Nature intervene on a couple of occasions where we actually had two very direct lightning strikes to the test facility — that resulted in some level of damage to the facility that we had to scramble and repair to stay on track to complete the test series," Haynes said. "Which we did. And that's really a testament to the blended team approach we had; with NASA, the S3 contractor, DARPA, Boeing and Aerojet Rocketdyne all pulling together with two 12-hour shifts round the clock 24/7 to get this done."

According to Steve Johnston, the launch director for Boeing’s Phantom Express, the flight hardware construction is happening simultaneously with the engine tests; the last subsystem review is in February of 2019, and then assembly can begin, aiming for that 2021 test flight. The design guidelines and philosophies for the spacecraft are drawn from commercial airlines, he said during the roundtable.

"Aerojet Rocketdyne has continued to refine the reusable engine technology we originally developed for the space shuttle program," Eileen Drake, Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and president, said in a statement. "With the AR-22, we are taking reusability to the next level and have demonstrated that daily, affordable access to space is within reach."


Top Pentagon official Michael Griffin sat down a few weeks ago with Air Force scientists at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio to discuss the future of quantum computing in the U.S. military. Griffin, the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, has listed quantum computers and related applications among the Pentagon’s must-do R&D investments.

Quantum computing is one area where the Pentagon worries that it is playing catchup while China continues to leap ahead. The technology is being developed for many civilian applications and the military sees it as potentially game-changing for information and space warfare.

Artificial intelligence algorithms, highly secure encryption for communications satellites and accurate navigation that does not require GPS signals are some of the most coveted capabilities that would be aided by quantum computing.

Quantum clocks are viewed as a viable alternative to GPS in scenarios that require perfect synchronization across multiple weapons systems and aircraft, for example, said Hayduk. “We’re looking at GPS-like precision in denied environments,” he said. “It often takes several updates to GPS throughout the day to synchronize platforms. We want to be able to move past that so if we are in a denied environment we can still stay synchronized.”


New Forces

The draft report says the Pentagon will, by year’s end, establish an eleventh unified combatant command: U.S. Space Command. Like U.S. Special Operations Command, which oversees special forces composed of servicemembers and organizations drawn from various service branches, the four-star Space Command will oversee space forces from across the military. The proposal goes even further than lawmakers demanded in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which orders the Pentagon to create a space command under U.S. Strategic Command.

“The Department will recommend that the President revise the Unified Campaign Plan to create the new U.S. Space Command by the end of 2018 and evaluate the need for any additional personnel, responsibilities and authorities,” the draft report says. Initially, the Pentagon will recommend that the head of Air Force Space Command also serve as the commander of U.S. Space Command. Space liaisons will be installed in the geographic combatant commands, starting with U.S. European Command.

The draft report says the Pentagon will also stand up a Space Operations Force, made up of uniformed and civilian space personnel from the four military services and the National Guard and Reserve.

“Similar to Special Forces personnel provided by all military services, the Space Operations Force will be composed of the space personnel from all Military Services, but developed and managed as one community,” it says.

This force would come together quickly: the goal is to deploy “teams of space experts” to U.S. European Command and U.S. Indo-Pacific Command by next summer.

New Ways to Procure Satellites

The draft report heralds seismic changes in how the Pentagon buys, launches, and develops new technology for its satellites, including organizational and cultural shifts to emphasize speed and experimentation. It also plans a bigger role for private-sector space companies “as commercial and government entities ‘move toward the center’ on requirements, regulation and compliance.”

The centerpiece of this effort is a new joint office, dubbed the Space Development Agency, to oversee new satellite-development and space-launch contracts.

“Major existing space acquisition programs will remain in current service organizations, and aggressively pursue improved performance, while the Space Development Agency develops and fields the capabilities outlined in the DoD Space Vision,” the draft report says. “Over time, as current programs complete, resources will shift from service space acquisition organizations to the Space Development Agency.”

The biggest impact will be on the Air Force. The move clouds the future of the service’s Space and Missile Systems Center, the 6,000-person organization in Los Angeles that currently oversees about 85 percent of DoD’s space procurement budget — and which was recently restructured to speed the purchase and launch of satellites. The report calls this overhaul “the start.”

Like the Missile Defense Agency, the Space Development Agency would oversee acquisition projects across the various military services. Its size will be determined by a “DoD governance committee in partnership with the intelligence community,” the report said. Its location will be determined through “an accelerated process that considers locations that best enable the Agency to attract talent, leverage commercial expertise and develop new capabilities at speed and scale.”

Currently, the Air Force has hubs for space in Colorado, California, and Florida. The Army and Missile Defense Agency have a large presence in Huntsville, Alabama, an area nicknamed “Rocket City” for its large role in NASA and military space projects. The city is also known as “Pentagon South” due to the high concentration of Defense Department civilians there.

The report, which responds to a congressional mandate in the 2018 Defense Authorization Act, was largely written by Shanahan’s office and by Stephen Kitay, deputy assistant defense secretary for space policy, according to a senior defense official. Air Force officials were largely cut out of the review process several weeks ago, the official — and another source with knowledge of the decision — said on the condition of anonymity to speak about the yet-to-be-released report.

From Idea to Plan

The idea of creating a new service-level organization to handle the military’s space operations has been contentious since lawmakers last year proposed to attach a space corps to the Air Force, along the lines of the Marine Corps and the Navy. Pentagon leaders, including Trump’s own Air Force Secretary, largely opposed that move. But in recent months, the president has mulled, and then stated his desire for, a Space Force. If it becomes reality, it would be the first new branch of the military since the Air Force was born out of the Army Air Corps in 1947.

“Both the chief of staff and I are actually very glad that … people are becoming more aware and having a debate about what we do about this as a nation. That just wasn’t really there before,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said during a Washington Post event on July 25.

“I think the most important thing is to say focused on the warfighter and maintaining the lethality of the service, no matter how the org-chart boxes go,” Wilson said. “It’s all about the ability to fight. If we keep focused on that and not on which boxes move around which place in the Pentagon, then we’ll do the right thing for the nation.”

Wilson’s predecessor, Deborah Lee James — who served as Air Force secretary during the Obama administration — said Monday that she opposes a Space Force, but supports the creation of a combatant command, like the one discussed in Shanahan’s report. She made her comments at a Brookings Institution event in Washington.

In recent years, the Air Force made numerous changes within its space arm to defend against Russian and Chinese interference. This week, the Pentagon is poised to announce a shift from “few independent” satellite constellations to a “a proliferated low-Earth orbit architecture enabled by lower-cost commercial pace technology and access.” Air Force officials hinted at these changes earlier this year when Shanahan visited Air Force Space Command in Colorado.

The Air Force operates 77 satellites in orbit while the Navy has 12 communications satellites, Wilson said.

“Satellites are really pretty fragile things and so we have to think now about how do we defend a constellation. It not always just direct defense,” she said. “It may be that we distribute a network. If you have multiple nodes it’s inherently more resilient than if you’re relying on one thing. Some it may be maneuverability. Some of it may be deception. There’s a lot of ways to make sure the United States can take a punch and keep on operating.”


CNAS’s Paul Scharre and Adam Routh kicked off an interesting bout on Defense One, with each publishing an article on August 1 highlighting different views on whether the new Space Force is a good idea or a bad one. To quickly recap the discussion so far:

The current plan for reorganizing the Pentagon’s space acquisition efforts and operations U.S. consists of four components: (1) forming a new combatant command, (2) pulling together a new warfighting community for space operations from all the other service branches, (3) creating a new joint agency to procure satellites for the military, and if everything goes well, ask Congress to (4) stand up “an entirely new branch of the military with services and support functions such as financial management and facilities construction.” While Paul and Adam primarily argued around the third point, their conclusions have repercussion far beyond this single item.

Paul exclusively focused on the non-defensibility of U.S. space-based assets by positing that their orbits are predictable, their mobility is limited, and hardening will be both difficult and costly, which makes them extremely vulnerable to kinetic and non-kinetic strikes. Paul therefore concluded that the Pentagon should focus on global C4ISR and precision-navigation-and-timing—primarily relying on terrestrial assets – to increase overall resilience by preparing for a fight without relying on the space domain.

Adam, meanwhile, reasoned that the future of space procurement will gradually solve the vulnerability problem through the increased commercialization of space. Essentially, U.S. private industries are bound to churn out more and better space-based assets which the Space Force could then simply hop onto. Adam therefore predicts that this innovation and growth development will skew the cost equation in favor of cheaper satellite acquisition and improved resilience over anti-satellite weaponry.

While I do not fundamentally disagree with either Paul or Adam, I would assert that they are both putting the cart before the horse. And here is why:

Between 1996 and 1998, RAND’s Arroyo Center in cooperation with the Training and Doctrine Command ran a series of high-level wargames in the context of the Army After Next project, which was initiated by the Chief of Staff of the Army. The point of the project was to help senior Army leaders anticipate how changes in international relations, technology, and organization might affect combat during the first quarter of the new century. The Winter Wargame, or WWG, particularly focused on “identifying and exploring “major issues associated with warfare in the 2020 time frame” by simulating a blue-red standoff over Ukraine that included combat operations in space and even elements of cyberwarfare.

In their summary report, RAND’s Walter L. Perry and Marc Dean Millot made several crucial observations for both space operations and conflict dynamics in space that seem to have been lost to the sands of time. Overall, the WWG raised the “important issue of U.S. dependence on space-based assets, but it did not necessarily prove that the United States will be overreliant on them – even in a war with a near competitor.” Walter and Marc therefore concluded that because of the nature of vulnerabilities in space, the U.S. will need to “determine the mix of arms control measures, passive defensives, and offensive systems that best serves U.S. interest in space in 2020.”

A deeper dive on the issue of combat operations in space, however, reveals that it is not necessarily about whether the U.S. needs to do something different in space (Adam’s argument) or move assets out of space (Paul’s argument), but that the fundamental struggles will primarily revolve around legal and strategic issues.

On the legal end, the WWG threw up two question that remain unanswered 21 years later. First, do attacks against U.S. space assets equate to an attack on U.S. territory? In the wargame, Blue’s declaratory policy clearly indicated that an attack on a U.S. satellite would lead to the triggering of NATO’s Article 5. In practice however, Blue refrained from striking targets in Red’s homeland, because it did not consider an attack on its satellites similar to an attack on Vandenberg Air Force Base or a U.S. city. The second legal problem occurred when Blue decided to use U.S. commercial satellites for military operations. This led to the question: what should the U.S. policy be toward the use of private, foreign, and international space assets in times of war? The report explained that Blue’s decision to essentially nationalize private Blue space assets, including satellites and their ground control, would have had to have been in place prior to 2020 and “would require difficult political and economic decisions.” Blue could also not decide the status of communication satellites owned by foreign entities and international bodies, and how they could be denied to Red. This unresolved issue eventually prompted Blue to attack and destroy a satellite maintained by the non-belligerent Green nation, which had maneuvered its intelligence satellites for the specific purpose of assisting Red targeting of Blue forces.

Unless and until these questions are answered, the U.S. risks going down the wrong course with its proposed space reorganizations.

On the strategic end, the WWG also revealed stark discrepancies about actually starting combat operations against space-based assets. Red clearly identified Blue’s reliance on space assets as an Achilles heel – due to Red’s lesser dependence on space assets and its vast array of space weaponry – but was still unwilling to start combat operations in space because the team concluded that the wargame scenario did not warrant such extreme hostilities. Only after the game director ordered Red to go to war did combat operations in space commence. Blue subsequently suffered a “Pearl Harbor in space that set the United States back to 1960,” and Red essentially won the war — at least according to the wargame’s rules. But in the real world, the kind of attack Red executed would set in motion a chain of events leading to intercontinental nuclear war and the destruction of Red’s society. Walter and Marc therefore asked: “What, short of an American threat to absolutely vital interests, could warrant such a risk?”

For the discussion between Paul and Adam, this essentially comes down to strategic clarity on this point: what is the Space Force supposed to be preparing for? A limited conflict in which space-based assets are targeted to temporarily deny or degrade U.S. communications systems. Or are we talking about a high-end conflict with a peer competitor that will be fought across all domains until one side is forced to surrender? If it is the former, then the threat to U.S. satellite infrastructure is minimal. If it is the latter, then any C4ISR and PNT assets will be targeted with counter-measures and even U.S. and allied commercial satellites will not escape destruction.

The bottom line is this: Rather than arguing about what the Space Force ought to be doing in relation to satellite acquisition, the first question that we need to clarify is whether the U.S. and its future peer adversaries are willing to fight a war in space. If the answer is yes, then we have to outline what winning actually looks like, how many international laws Washington is willing to bend to get where it wants, and what terrestrial and space-based assets the Defense Department would need to deploy to secure and maintain dominance in space. If the answer is no, then international law pertaining to space ought to be strengthened and refined, arms-control measures improved, and the space domain recognized as what it is: “an important supporting role, but ultimately only a supporting one” in terrestrial warfare.


A new space report by the Pentagon has named Russia and China as key threats to US space capabilities, according to a document released on Thursday.

"The United States faces rapidly growing threats to our space capabilities. China and Russia, our strategic competitors, are explicitly pursuing space warfighting capabilities to neutralize US space capabilities during a time of conflict," the report said. "Other potential adversaries are also pursuing counter-space capabilities such as jamming, dazzling, and cyber-attacks."

The report specified that the US Space Command's capability development efforts would focus on global surveillance for missile targeting and other priorities.

"Department capability development efforts will focus on... Persistent Global Surveillance for advanced missile targeting," the report said.

The paper stated that the command will also focus on developing its deterrent capability and nuclear command, control and communications. In addition to this, artificial intelligence-enabled global surveillance and near-real-time space situational awareness will be priorities, it added.

At the same time, the Pentagon outlined in the report the US Space Command's major priorities.

"US Space Command priorities will include: designing and executing a full range of joint space training and exercises, with focused support to the Asia Pacific Security Initiative and the European Deterrence Initiative," the report said.

The document revealed that the US Space Operations Force will prioritize development of the world's best space operations.

"The Space Operations Force will: Develop the world's best space operations, intelligence, engineering, science, acquisition, cyber personnel and present them to COCOMs [combatant commands]," the document noted. "Be prepared to deploy teams of space experts to US European Command and US Indo-Pacific Command no later than summer of 2019."

Why China, Russia ar allegedly threatening the US?

US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) commander Gen. John Hyten said at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium on Tuesday that Russia and China are developing capabilities and testing new technologies to challenge the United States in space. The two countries, Hyten explained, have both been increasing investments and have conducted testing of new technologies in the space domain. Russia and China also conduct tests for new technologies in space, Hyten added.

Moscow and Beijing have both declared their commitment to the use of space for peaceful purposes and are members of the United Nation's Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

As part of the September Xiamen declaration, the leaders of the BRICS countries, including China and Russia, have called on states to carry out peaceful exploration in outer space and in accordance with international law, stressing that outer space should remain free from any kind of weapons and use of force.

Pence Reminds US Congress About Trump's Call for $8Bln on Space Security System

"Today we renew the president's call on the Congress of the United States to invest an additional $8 billion in our space security system over the next five years," Pence said.

The US vice president went on to say in a speech at the Pentagon that the president's administration has begun working with the Congress to create such a force by 2020.

"Our administration will soon take action to implement these recommendations with the objective of establishing the United States Department of the Space Force by the year 2020," Pence said. "Our administration is already working with leaders in the Congress to do just that."

The statement by Pence echoes a mid-June order by US President Donald Trump to the country's Department of Defense to create a Space Force as the sixth branch of the US Armed Forces. As the US president specified, the goal of this force is to outpace such nations as China and Russia.

Following this order, at the end of June, the US House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the 2019 fiscal year that stipulates "the development and deployment of persistent space-based sensor architecture" by the end of 2022 to ensure the effectiveness of the country's missile defenses.

Reacting to this move, the Russian Foreign Ministry warned that "a military confrontation in space may be as dangerous as the nuclear arms race set off by Washington in the middle of the last century", slamming the US military space program as "adventurism" that may have "the most negative impact on the state of international security."

The US has unveiled plans for a space-based missile defense network less than a month after the July 16 US-Russia summit in Helsinki, where President Vladimir Putin presented his American counterpart Donald Trump with a series of concrete initiatives on disarmament, nuclear arms control and a proposed ban on weapons in space.

US military strategists believe that a space-based sensor layer's vantage point high above Earth would ensure persistent tracking of hostile missiles, a capability that by far exceeds that of ground-based sensors.

The Pentagon and Congress are pushing for a possible deployment of missile defense interceptors in space, Defense News reported, citing the Missile Defense Agency's director, Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves.

General Greaves described the MDA's concept of a possible space-based sensor layer intended for missile defense efforts in an August 8 speech at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.

The missile defense community has been talking "seriously" about a sensor layer in space "actively over the last year," Greaves said.

While many decisions still have to be made regarding requirements, definitions, development paths and the acquisition process, "the key thing," Greaves said, "is that there is serious consideration and support being given to the need to deploy these space sensors because we must do so."

Greaves laid out rough outlines of what the agency is looking in its effort to build a robust sensor layer.

First, the MDA might use the Overhead Persistent Infrared OPIR Global Scanning system, which currently exists as part of the US Air Force, to alert and characterize activity in space, essentially "to be the bell ringer if something is going on," Greaves said.

He added that the sensor layer would have a regional detection and tracking capability staring down at Earth that could go after hypersonic threats and other "dimmer" targets and could be able to catch missiles in the boost or burnout phase of flight.

President Donald Trump is serious about building a military Space Force.

On Monday (Aug. 13), just before signing a sweeping $717 billion defense-authorization act to fund the U.S. military over the next year, Trump took time to argue for the necessity of his proposed U.S. Space Force.

Trump signed tthe John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act in front of a crowd of soldiers, officers and dignitaries at Fort Drum, New York.

Every year, the House and Senate pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes the defense policies that will receive funding, to be set at a later date by the appropriations committees. As required by the Constitution, Congress has to provide for the "common defense," and as Trump excitedly discussed at the signing ceremony, the U.S. common defense may soon include a space-oriented, sixth military branch.

"In order to maintain America's military supremacy, we must always be on the cutting edge. That is why we are also proudly reasserting America's legacy of leadership in space," Trump said at the signing ceremony.

"Our foreign competitors and adversaries have already begun weaponizing space, developing new technologies to disrupt vital communications [and] blind satellites," Trump said. "We'll be catching [up to] them very shortly. They want to jam transmissions, which threaten our battlefield operations and so many other things. We will be so far ahead of them in a very short period of time, your head will spin."

Trump pointed to China, specifically, as a threat to the U.S. space. Vice President Mike Pence also mentioned China, in addition to Russia, as the major threats to U.S. space when he revealed a detailed plan for a Space Force last week.

"China even launched a new military division to oversee its war-fighting programs in space, just like the air, the land, the sea — space has become a war-fighting domain," Trump said at the signing today.

The president also reasserted the need for "American dominance in space," echoing words he used in June when directing the Department of Defense to form the Space Force.

"It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space — we must have American dominance in space," Trump said. "And that is why, just a few days ago, the vice president outlined my administration's plan to create a sixth branch of the United States military, called the United States Space Force."

According to the Space Force plan unveiled by Pence last week, the Trump administration is targeting a 2020 rollout for the new military branch, if it is ultimately approved and funded by Congress.


The Pentagon is eyeing space-based laser weapons technology as the ultimate solution to defeat a missile threat in its boost phase of flight, but the Defense Department is not yet at a point where it has determined the best possible solution.

“Waiting until an adversary is in midcourse [phase of flight] is giving the adversary a free pass to launch,” Michael Griffin, the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, told reporters during a media roundtable at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium.

Advocating for getting after defeating missile threats in their earliest phase of flight, he said: “Until we’ve studied the problem, I don’t know what the best long-term solution is. … The best solution may be with directed energy.

“It’s too soon to pick a winner,” Griffin said.

But the Missile Defense Agency and the Pentagon are already thinking about how to accomplish a boost-phase missile defeat, which has become critical now that Congress — as part of its fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act signed into law Aug. 14 — is requiring the Defense Department to study and formulate an initial plan to develop a boost-phase missile defense capability next year.

And the MDA has to produce a feasibility study on using UAVs and kinetic interceptors by the end of 2021.


No niin, uhittelua

A Russian satellite that launched to Earth orbit last October has been behaving oddly, raising the possibility that the craft could be some sort of space weapon, a U.S. diplomat warned.

Russia has described the satellite in question as a "space apparatus inspector," Yleem Poblete, assistant secretary for arms control, verification and compliance at the U.S. State Department, said at a conference on disarmament in Geneva yesterday (Aug. 14).

"But its behavior on orbit was inconsistent with anything seen before from on-orbit inspection or space situational-awareness capabilities, including other Russian inspection-satellite activities. We are concerned with what appears to be very abnormal behavior by a declared 'space apparatus inspector,''' Poblete said. [The Most Dangerous Space Weapons Concepts]

"We don't know for certain what it is, and there is no way to verify it," she added. "But Russian intentions with respect to this satellite are unclear and are obviously a very troubling development — particularly when considered in concert with statements by Russia’s Space Force commander, who highlighted that 'assimilate[ing] new prototypes of weapons [into] Space Forces' military units' is a 'main task facing the Aerospace Forces space troops.'"

In addition, Poblete said, the Russian Ministry of Defence has repeatedly affirmed over the past decade that it's developing anti-satellite capabilities. And a Russian Air Force official said in February 2017 "that Russia is developing new missiles with the express intent of destroying satellites," Poblete added in her 1,800-word speech, which you can read in full at the State Department's website.



An artist's illustration of a satellite-servicing spacecraft approaching its target. On Aug. 14, 2018, a US diplomat said that a Russian satellite described as a "space apparatus inspector" has been exhibiting “very abnormal” (and therefore concerning) behavior on orbit.

It's unclear exactly why American officials are so worked up about a Russian satellite's recent activities, experts say.

On Tuesday (Aug. 14), a high-ranking member of the U.S. State Department raised concerns about the satellite, describing its on-orbit behavior as "very abnormal" and implying that it could be a space weapon of some kind.

"We don't know for certain what it is, and there is no way to verify it," Yleem Poblete, assistant secretary for arms control, verification and compliance at the State Department, said at a conference on disarmament in Geneva. [The Most Dangerous Space Weapons Concepts]

"But Russian intentions with respect to this satellite are unclear and are obviously a very troubling development — particularly when considered in concert with statements by Russia’s Space Force commander, who highlighted that 'assimilate[ing] new prototypes of weapons [into] Space Forces' military units' is a 'main task facing the Aerospace Forces space troops,'" she added.

Poblete didn't name the satellite. But she did describe it as a "space apparatus inspector" and said it deployed in October 2017. These clues strongly suggest that the spacecraft is a subsatellite known as Cosmos 2523, which separated from its orbiting mothership on Oct. 30 of last year.

Russia didn't launch anything in October 2017 other than the Progress 68 International Space Station resupply vehicle and Europe's Sentinel-5P Earth-observing satellite, said Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who monitors many of the spacecraft circling our planet using publicly available U.S. tracking data.

So, "there really isn't anything else it could be" other than Cosmos 2523, McDowell told Space.com.

This gets a bit confusing, so bear with me: Russia launched the Cosmos 2519 satellite in June 2017. This spacecraft popped out a subsatellite known as Cosmos 2521 in August of that year. On Oct. 30, a second subsat, Cosmos 2523, deployed from one of these two other craft.

"I can't tell from the data whether the parent [of 2523] was 2519 or 2521, and indeed, I can't be sure that U.S. tracking didn't swap the IDs of 2519 and 2521 at some point," McDowell said.

These three spacecraft then performed a variety of maneuvers over the ensuing months, according to McDowell and Brian Weeden, director of program planning at the nonprofit Secure World Foundation. For example, Cosmos 2521 conducted some "proximity operations" around 2519 and may have docked with the mothership in October, Weeden said via Twitter today (Aug. 16).

Cosmos 2521 adjusted its orbit slightly in February 2018, then performed two big engine burns in April to significantly lower its slightly elliptical path around Earth, from about 400 miles (650 kilometers) to roughly 220 miles (360 km), McDowell said. The satellite fired its engines again on July 20, reshaping its orbit to a more elliptical path with a perigee (close-approach point) of 181 miles (292 km) and an apogee (most-distant point) of 216 miles (348 km).

And Cosmos 2519 conducted a series of small burns between late June and mid-July of this year, shifting its orbit from a nearly circular one (again, with an altitude of about 400 miles) to a highly elliptical path with a perigee of 197 miles (317 km) and an apogee of 413 miles (664 km), McDowell calculated.

These big maneuvers are consistent with a technology demonstration of some kind, he said.

Perhaps the Russians "are checking out the [spacecraft] bus and its capability to deliver multiple subsatellites to different orbits — something like that," McDowell said. "From the information that's available in the public domain, that would be an entirely plausible interpretation."


WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis over the past few days traveling in Latin America was asked on several occasions to comment on the militarization of space. In public appearances and press gaggles, Mattis insisted that the United States does not want to fight wars in space and has no plans to deploy lethal weapons in orbit even as it is moving to create a new branch of the military dedicated to space.

The announcement by Vice President Mike Pence last week that the Pentagon will stand up a Space Force suddenly has drawn attention to the issue of international space security and to an accelerating arms race that, the Trump administration argues, requires a strong posture in space.

While Mattis sought to assure allies that the United States wants outer space to be peaceful, a war of words erupted over Russia's deployment in October of an in-orbit inspection satellite. According to Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance Yleem D.S. Poblete, Russia's actions in space were "troubling," "disturbing" and masking nefarious intent. [The Most Dangerous Space Weapons Concepts]

Poblete's comments on Tuesday at the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva received an unusually high level of attention and media coverage because they were viewed against the backdrop of the Space Force, said Joan Johnson-Freese, a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College.

"Space security is usually a pretty esoteric field" that does not get the headlines that Poblete's remarks did. "Distrust about what the Russians are doing in space has been going on for quite some time, but it's now coming to the forefront because of the Space Force announcement," Johnson-Freese told SpaceNews. "It's raising the level of attention."

So much Space Force talk is making people tense, said Johnson-Freese.

"We tell other countries to not do things that are threatening to us, but the threat goes both ways," she said.

The United States for decades has been unchallenged in space and now is understandably concerned about other countries disrupting U.S. access and freedom to maneuver in space. But the Trump administration's harsh rhetoric about ensuring American dominance in space is not helpful, said Johnson-Freese. It likely will create more mistrust and unwillingness to come up with much needed international agreements on acceptable behavior in space, she said. "There are legitimate reasons for all this potentially dangerous space technology but when you're in a political atmosphere such as where we are now, where no one trusts anyone, intent is very difficult to decipher and the inclination is always to go worst case."

Equal attention should be paid to international diplomacy as it being paid to the military's role in space, she added.

International mistrust in space could become a bigger problem as the commercial space industry continues to grow and demand a peaceful environment to do business. "I think the rise of the commercial industry makes an already complex situation even more complex," she said. "Once there are economic interests in space, there will be more satellites and more objects to keep track of, and the commercial sector is not going to be pleased with a hair trigger environment."

The UN has been in talks known as the "Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space Treaty." One way to keep tensions from escalating is by agreeing on "best practices," said Johnson-Freese. "Politicians can't agree on the time of day but the technical experts can come up with solutions."

One reason why "rules of the road" for space are hard is that most space technology is dual-use, meaning it has both civilian and military applications. Any satellite that can can maneuver has the potential to run into another satellite and become an anti-satellite weapon, Johnson-Freese said. "This raises my concern that there is a huge window for misunderstanding, missteps and escalation."

Russia, China and other countries are accelerating their military space programs in order to narrow the significant gap between the U.S. military space capability and the rest of the world. The U.S. has been very careful about saying it will not put operational weapons in space, "while at the same time we developed an entire cadre of what we call 'offensive counter-space capabilities," she said. "This puts the U.S. in the position of saying, 'Do as we say and not as we do."

Mattis has has been clear that the Space Force is needed to protect U.S. interests in space. As far as how this force would respond to an attack, Mattis told reporters on Tuesday that he would never "tell adversaries in advance what we will do or what we will not do." However, "We will not stand idly by if someone tried to deny us the use of space; we will protect that just like in any other domain."


Russia has restored a global network of mothballed Soviet observatories to monitor near-Earth objects, according to a report by a state research institute.

The document, obtained by Sputnik from Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, said observatories had been brought out of mothballs in former Soviet member states, Bolivia and Switzerland.

Additional eight outposts were set up in Russia's east, Moldova and Mexico to cover the entire geostationary orbit above Earth's equator.

The network keeps track of over 5,000 identified near-Earth objects in its database, including spacecraft and space debris, and collects data on new launches.

Previously, S7 Space General Director Sergey Sopov said that the company was planning to build a plant in the city of Samara to produce Soviet-designed NK-33 and NK-43 rocket engines for super heavy-lift launch vehicles.

The company planned to purchase production capacities from the state-owned United Engine Corporation for this purpose.

Merten sheriffi

No, ryssän sopii ihan vapaasti käyttää rahojaan tuollaisiin touhuihin, eipähän ole minun vika jos ollaan taas kerran konkassa tässä lähiaikoina.
Ollaan tyytyväisiä, että ryssä seuraa maata uhkaavia objekteja. Saa Mähöset ja Turakaiset katsella huoletta salkkareita kotisohvaltaan.


A rail project meant to connect North and South Korea has been blocked by US military officials, highlighting divisions between Washington and Seoul on how to deal with the nuclear armed North.

The two Koreas planned to begin a joint field study last week by sending a train from Seoul across the length of North Korea to Sinuiju, on the Chinese border, but their application was denied by the US-led United Nations Command. The multinational military body is a remnant of the 1950-53 Korean war and controls all movement across the heavily fortified demilitarised zone that bisects the peninsula.

The denial underscores a growing split between South Korea, which favours engagement with North Korea, and the US, where officials have demanded denuclearisation as a prerequisite to any economic cooperation.

The UN command blocked the study while also “requesting more fidelity on the details of the proposed visit,” it said in a statement. The move came as Donald Trump berated China for “providing North Korea with considerable aid, including money, fuel, fertiliser and various other commodities”.

“This is not helpful!” he tweeted.