“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard.” – President John F. Kennedy, 12 September 1962
Space – the final frontier; for a generation of avid viewers the original series of Star Trek was an inspiration. Launched in 1966 it marked the mid-point of NASA’s Apollo Moon Programme which involved 35 missions from 1961-1972. In 1969 the USA put a “man on the moon” and we sat transfixed in front of the live pictures being beamed into our homes from another planet. These early Apollo missions also brought back rocks from the moon’s surface – 382kg in all – to enable a better understanding of our moon’s history and DNA. This exciting period felt like it heralded a new generation of space travel; however, it was not to be.
Instead, the focus of a growing space programme became satellites. Initially enabling global communications, the rapid advance of technology enabled smaller and more powerful sensors to be placed into long-term orbit. Unlike their air-breathing predecessors, satellites could provide persistent surveillance, navigation aids, communications and of course precision timing, all with global and enduring reach.
Today, with launch costs plummeting and micro-technology enabling much smaller (and lighter) satellites, society is becoming increasingly reliant on this off-earth capability, whether for navigation by land, air or sea, for weather forecasting or for the precision timing signal that forms the basis for global banking transactions.
How can society protect the space environment, and what role should the UK play in this vital pillar of national defence?
Despite the vastness of space, satellite orbits – particularly those offering geostationary capability – are in high demand. Only a third of satellites still in orbit are operational, as there has not – to date – been an agreed convention of how to recover satellites at the end of their useful life.
However, at the very least satellites can be tracked; the bigger challenge is the increasing amount of space debris orbiting the Earth, which includes defunct satellites, rocket parts, and astronauts’ lost tools. There are believed to be thousands of these larger objects still in orbit, and scientists estimate that there are around one million particles larger than one centimetre and 330 million particles larger than one millimetre in Earth’s orbit. Even a particle no bigger than a grain of sand – such as a fleck of paint – can cause significant damage when orbiting at 10km/second; the Hubble Space Telescope has experienced decades of minor bombardment from small debris objects.
Space congestion – and thus the risk of collision – is an increasing concern. The first-ever accidental in-orbit collision between two satellites occurred in February 2009, at 776 km altitude above Siberia. A privately owned American communication satellite, Iridium-33, and a Russian military satellite, Kosmos2251, collided at 11.7 km/s. Both were destroyed, and more than 2300 trackable fragments were generated.
Given the significant dependency on space for the functioning of society, how can space security – or freedom – be assured? What would be the impact should a weapon be detonated in earth orbit, thus potentially denying space-based capability for a generation?
Starfish Prime was a high-altitude nuclear test conducted by the United States. It was launched from Johnston Atoll on July 9, 1962, and was the largest nuclear test conducted in outer space, and one of five conducted by the US in space. The explosion took place at an altitude of 250 miles (400 km) with a yield of 1.4 Mt (5.9 PJ). The US military thought it had conducted the test well away from any orbiting satellites; however, in the months that followed satellites began to fail one by one, including the world’s first communications satellite, Telstar. High-energy electrons, shed by radioactive debris and trapped by Earth’s magnetic field, were frying the satellites’ electronics and solar panels.
It would be easy to dismiss such tests as Cold War misadventures, given that all world powers are equally dependent on space. However, rogue nations such as North Korea might be an exception: they have nuclear weapons but not a single functioning satellite among the thousands now in orbit. An attack in space could provide North Korea – or others – with their Pearl Harbour moment.
So, how to regulate space and ensure availability for all?
The Outer Space Treaty, adopted in 1967, is the foundation of international space law. It establishes rules for how countries can use and explore space. The treaty’s purpose is to keep space peaceful; however, although the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union were the first signatories to the treaty, it is increasingly difficult to enforce and is looking increasingly dated.
Space based sensors provide omnipresent military-grade intelligence and surveillance – the eyes and ears across the world. How can nations protect their privacy, but also ensure their security?
Although the UK cannot compete with the US investments in space exploration, away from the high-profile rocket launch capabilities (Blue Origin and Space X), the focus is increasingly on the satellites themselves, and on Quantity not just Quality. Project Kuiper, which aims to deploy thousands of low-earth satellites to provide broadband services, is aimed to compete directly with Elon Musk’s Starlink service. Much of the technology in this new generation of smaller high-tech satellites has been developed in the UK. The UK has a strong space technology sector, with expertise in satellite manufacturing, navigation, and space-based services, and the UK is also a leader in manufacturing small satellites and complex payloads.
And, military exchange programmes with our US allies enable confidence-building and a degree of mutual dependency; however, creating any credible degree of resilience requires funding – a lot of it!
Furthermore, we appear to be on the cusp of a new “Space Race”. With hundreds of missions planned to go to the moon or beyond in the coming decades, the race to explore more distant worlds has started. Elon Musk’s SpaceX plans to send uncrewed missions to Mars in the next few years, with crewed missions following. The goal is to eventually establish a human presence on Mars. Scientists believe that a moon-base would provide an ideal “stepping stone” for future Mars missions, as Moon’s gravity is only 15% of that on earth making it easier for spaceships to achieve escape velocity.
This might all be led by philanthropic ideals at this stage, but are the world’s superpowers going to maintain a collaborative approach if/when the exploratory ambitions of the current proposals have vital economic and strategic implications?
Given global events, the current UK Defence Review will likely focus on more terrestrial warfighting capability in the near term; but a new frontier in Space is on the horizon and approaching fast.
“Space exploration promised us alien life, lucrative planetary mining, and fabulous lunar colonies. News flash, ladies and gents: Space is nearly empty. It’s a sterile vacuum, filled mostly with the junk we put up there.” – Graham Hawkes
If you enjoyed this piece, click here to read Sean’s previous episode on the military challenges facing the UK and listen to Sean’s podcast series ‘InDefence’ here on Spotify.
