Mysterious Russian ‘Killer Satellites’ Spring Back To Life After Two Years Of Inactivity, And We Have No Idea Why

Tim Collins, had an article in the May 19, 2017 edition of The Daily Mail Online, warns “Russia could be preparing for a space war, after reactivating a group of satellites that military observers believed were inoperative. The objects first attracted attention for their usual maneuverability, which led some to suspect they were weapons; but, they appeared to lay dormant for almost two years. Now, the spacecraft have sprung back into action,” Mr. Collins writes, “raising concerns that the Kremlin is stepping up its space [weapons] race.”

“The agile craft, dubbed Kosmos-2491, -2499, -2504, were smuggled into space under the cover of the routine launch of communications satellites,” Mr. Collins wrote. Then this March, “Kosmos-2504 suddenly resumed its maneuvers, showing the first signs of life since October 2015,” he noted. “Last month, the craft passed within 1,183 meters of a defunct Chinese weather satellite, extremely close in astronomical terms. And, Kosmos 2499 was also seen undertaking some strange movements of its own in recent months,” he wrote.

Dr. Laura Grego, a space expert with the Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a recent interview with, The Daily Beast: “I do find it very interesting that the satellite would go dormant for two years; and then, come back to life to maneuver. One strategy to keep satellites stealthy, is to pretend they are debris, i.e., not to have them maneuver at all at first, and then come to life later. To be confident this works, you might want to test if your equipment works, after being idle for months or years.”

Mr. Collins writes that “the three unusually nimble craft are able to get within a few dozen feet of other orbiting satellites; and, are able to potentially spy-on, hijack, or even destroy other satellites/spacecraft. It is clear from their capabilities that they have the potential to become anti-satellite weapons.” “Looking at the history of space technology, it often starts with a small and cheap satellite that’s easy to launch, then the same technology gets incorporated into something larger,” said Anatoly Zak, a Russian-born journalist and space historian. “You can probably equip them with lasers, maybe put some explosives on them,” he added. “If [one] comes very close to some military satellite, it can probably do some harm.”

And, Russia is not alone of course in militarizing space. The U.S., Japan, China, and Sweden — yes, Sweden — have all tested space assets with similar characteristics — “all in the name of satellite maintenance,” Mr. Collins wrote.

“Why The Next Pearl Harbor Could Happen In Space”

There are numerous articles almost daily on the prospects or warning of a ‘Cyber Pearl Harbor;’ but, there is the potential for such an event in space. Indeed, Jonathan Broder had an article in the May 4, 2016 edition of Newsweek, with the title, “Why The Next Pearl Harbor Could Happen In Space.” And,a recent Defense Science Board study on the vulnerability of our space assets, especially those dedicated for military and national security purposes. No doubt, such an event — unless accidental, or an act of nature — would be considered an act of war. So perhaps, the chances of such an event are low probability, but high consequence — though some of you may argue with low probability.

Mr. Broder wrote at the time that, “Chinese President Xi Jingping paid a high profile visit last month [April 2016] to Air Force headquarters in Beijing, where he ordered his generals to sharpen the country’s defensive, and offensive capabilities in space — in preparation for what many Chinese military analysts believe is an inevitable war in space with the United States.” At the time of Mr. Broder’s article last year, he cited a Pentagon statement that “Beijing continues to ramp up its military capabilities in space, launching 142 satellites to provide intelligence, navigation, communications, and weather forecasting that can “limit, or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.”

The Pentagon spent $2B in 2016 to upgrade and enhance its space assets security and ‘survivability,’ and/or, ensure minimum operational capability; but, the threat to these same assets is increasing faster and more profoundly than we can adjust to. As Mr. Broder noted in his article, the $2B the Pentagon was spending in 2016 on protecting and countering space assets, was “set to soar to $22B,” this year. The Pentagon is “stressing resiliency, and broadening the use of defenses already on some of our military satellites,” he wrote. “They range from adding a thick shutter to a spy satellite’s camera for protection against laser attack, to boosting a satellite’s signals to prevent [overcome] jamming. Other methods [steps], include frequency hopping, which enables satellites to transmit data on other frequencies, if some are jammed,” or unavailable. The military [Pentagon] has also diversified its information sources, by acquiring data [streams] from neutral countries and commercial satellites.”

And, it is well known and publicized, that the Pentagon has been actively studying, and seeking alternatives to the Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation , as well as the overhead constellation that supports strategic nuclear defense, as well as support for/to conventional and special operations communications and surveillance operations.

Naturally, those in charge of protecting these assets; and, ensuring at least the minimum necessary needed for critical; mission support, some Pentagon planners and strategists have been urging that we adopt a strategy of disaggregation, or placing many more, smaller satellites up in orbit to ensure redundancy and resiliency.

“As the Pentagon explores new ways to protect its satellites, America’s fallback policy remains deterrence by threat of retaliation,” Mr. Broder wrote. :Depending on which satellites are attacked, the U.S. could confine itself to taking out the enemy’s equivalent satellites. But, if Chiba or Russia destroyed the Pentagon’s nuclear early-warning and strategic communications satellites, military strategists say, it’s unlikely the U.S. [military] response would stay ;[remain confined]in [to] space..

“In their techno-thriller, “Ghost Fleet,” authors Pete Singer and August Cole describe a cataclysmic world that begins with a Chinese attack against the U.S. in space,” Mr. Broder wrote. “First, soldiers at China’s Cyber Command Headquarters in Shanghai, hack into the Pentagon’s network of GPS satellites and scramble their signals. The cyber attack sows chaos throughout among U.S. forces, which can no longer activate accurately, track targets, or hit them with precision munitions.”

“Then from a space station orbiting 200 miles above Earth, Chinese astronauts train a laser gun on three dozen U.S. satellites the U.S. military relies upon for virtually all of its communications and critical surveillance. By the time the Chinese are done, America’s technological edge [advantage] on this new, 21st-century battlefield has been reduced to the predigital levels of World War II.”

“Scenes such as this [the above], [that] play out in Ghost Fleet, which is now required reading for military planners in the U.S. Space Command, as well as the military services and the CIA,” Mr., Broder wrote. With respect to Ghost Fleet, Mr. Singer remarked, “It’s a novel,” and a thriller, but it’s a realistic look at how a war might play out when we lose the opening battle in space,” Singer says, adding……”Let’s hope it stays in the realm of fiction.”

One thing that Mr. Broder did not refer to is a white paper publication that has been out a couple of years by China’s military strategists, “Unrestricted Warfare,” whereby Beijing is conducting and practicing simulated warfare exercises — disconnected from their networks. Perhaps they aren’t entirely sure that they can make us ‘deaf,dumb, and blind,’ without us doing the same to them. If that is the case, or close to ground truth, then that underscores the need for U.S. military strategists and warfighters to have at least a portion of their wargame exercises include being disconnected from their networks.

The U.S. also used to plan to win a two-war scenario. The thinking behind that strategy was, to a large degree, to deter adversaries who were not part of one conflict the U.S. was engaged in — from seeking to take advantage of this situation and initiate hostilities elsewhere. One does wonder if our overhead satellite constellation is knocked out, or crippled, what is our best guess as to the consequences of that dynamic, for those darker angels who may well seek to take advantage of this situation — and, who are not involved in the main conflict. Maybe it wouldn’t matter, no one really knows. But, have we ever war-gamed that kind of scenario so that we might have at least some idea of what others might seek to do, while we are engaged in a principal conflict, where our networks are down, or severely compromised.

And finally, China is currently deploying an ‘unhackable,’ encrypted satellite constellation in space that also could give them a significant strategic edge in space. V/R, RCP