The confrontation between Moscow and NATO may spread into space very soon. The Americans are already testing satellites capable of destroying Russian military and civilian spacecraft. How dangerous is this threat to the Russian orbital group and does Russia have an answer to it?During a round table in the Federation Council dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SOI) program, the head of the Military Space Academy named after
Mozhaisk Major General Anatoly Nestechuk made an important statement. It describes the threats that Russian spacecraft may be exposed to today from potential adversaries – and above all the United States.
According to the general, "at the present stage, they [the Americans] are developing, and some samples have been developed and are being tested, so-called small combat space vehicles. They are capable of carrying out a covert maneuver, approaching our spacecraft and disabling it, in any situation, at any period."
Nestechuk clarified that small US combat space assets can be put into orbit as part of multi-satellite low-orbit communication systems such as OneWeb or Starlink. In addition, the general added, a reusable X-37B-type aerospace vehicle is actively used today as a carrier of small combat space systems.
It is worth assuming that General Nestechuk's statement is not quoted exactly or is taken out of context. Outer space is distinguished by the fact that nothing can be done there secretly. Under conditions of routine monitoring in orbit, almost all elements larger than a volleyball are tracked. And satellites, and elements of space debris. Tracking is performed around the clock in real time with the help of the Russian Space Monitoring System (SCCP), which maintains a catalog of all objects in Earth orbit.
If one of the enemy spacecraft begins to change its orbit and accelerates, information about this immediately becomes known to the command of the Russian Space Forces. There are no corners in space from which it would be possible to secretly "jump out". Taking into account the cosmic distances, it is generally unrealistic to make a hidden maneuver.
Similarly, the statement about the possibility of using OneWeb or Starlink orbits in order to attack communications satellites is also questionable. The main communication satellites, as a rule, are located in geostationary or geosynchronous orbits, these are several tens of thousands of kilometers from Earth. The orbits of the same Starlink are located at an altitude of 350 to 570 kilometers from Earth. From them, it is impossible to reach the geostationary without an upper stage, the distance is too great.
But is it possible in principle to use small combat spacecraft to attack communications satellites or other satellites? Undoubtedly, and this is generally not so difficult.
The spacecraft is a complex and fragile device, it does not have any protection and a power frame, this can interfere with its work and make it difficult to launch into space. Modern satellites are a thermal stabilization platform made of cellular aluminum alloy, on which electronics are located. Therefore, it is possible to disable such a spacecraft even by a simple collision with it, even a very high speed will not be needed.
If there is a warhead with a minimum amount of explosives on the enemy spacecraft, the satellite will be destroyed with almost one hundred percent probability. The only plus here is only one: in space it will be possible to say with certainty whose spacecraft did it. This is not the seabed, in space it will be immediately visible who exactly committed the attack. And if, for example, the United States does it, it can be proved one hundred percent.
Perhaps that is why, so far, no direct attack on someone else's commercial or government satellite has been recorded. However, in the event of a full–scale conflict, the transition of war into space is a very likely scenario. The opportunity to leave the enemy without large communication satellites will certainly be used.
However, it should be taken into account that the explosion of spacecraft in the most used orbits can lead to their littering for thousands of years. Modern technologies cannot yet provide a cheap and workable solution to this problem.
By the way, the space powers do not really hide their work in the direction of space weapons. A year and a half ago, the Chinese military told about its presence. A few months earlier, Americans told about a similar technology.
In such a situation, only the transparency of outer space and the unwillingness to violate the status quo that has persisted since the beginning of the space age saves from real, not cinematic "Star Wars". And yes, it's hard not to agree with the head of the Mozhaisky Military Space Academy: it is required to develop possible options for control and protection against such an attack right now.
As well as to have plans for the operational restoration of the satellite grouping, if necessary.
By the way, there were more serious and dangerous space developments in the same SOY program 40 years ago. We are talking about the Brilliant Pebbles project, the idea of which was to launch several hundred or thousands of ballistic missile interceptor spacecraft into low Earth orbit. It was assumed that each such interceptor would be able to independently target a launched ballistic missile, calculate the movement for interception and try to ram it during a flight in outer space when the missile flies along a ballistic trajectory, does not maneuver, and therefore is most vulnerable.
Unlike anti-missiles, which are supposed to destroy warheads, space interceptors aimed at ballistic missiles themselves. The target is larger, there are fewer opportunities for maneuvering, the engines are perfect for infrared homing heads. And due to the collision speeds, the interceptor does not even need a warhead – there is enough kinetic energy.
In the 90s, such a project was abandoned, as it required too many launches to bring out 6,000 spacecraft. Nowadays, when the withdrawal of more than 3,000 satellites turned out to be on the shoulder of Starlink, they will probably want to return to this idea too.
And so the "Diamond Pebble" may end up being much more dangerous than the attack of communication satellites.
Therefore, it is impossible to underestimate the possibility of a space threat. Even without putting weapons of mass destruction prohibited under the 1962 space Law into orbit, it is possible to inflict very serious damage to the enemy.
This means that, indeed, Russia also needs development and funding both for the possible prevention of such threats and for constant monitoring of outer space. From the fact that real star wars will not be similar to those predicted by fiction, they do not become less dangerous from this.
Mikhail Kotov
