Friday, March 31, 2023
Wednesday, March 29, 2023
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
India's ASAT Mission Shakti Is A Forerunner Of Things To Come
 Four years after India tested a direct-ascent ASAT, questions remain about India’s space deterrence strategy and what other ASAT capabilities the country’s military may be developing. (credit: DRDO) |
Indian ASAT: Mission Shakti should be a comma, not a full stop
by Ajey Lele
Monday, March 27, 2023
On March 27, 2019, India tested an anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) during an operation codenamed Mission Shakti. Now four years have passed since India emerged as the fourth state in the world to achieve such capabilities after the US, Russia, and China. This could be an opportune time to do some kind of audit about India’s effort towards evolving a space deterrence mechanism. On the face of it, no significant activity has been observed by India to take any next steps towards developing an effective space deterrence mechanism since the test. Here, it is important to give some margin to the scientific community and policymakers since not only India but the entire world had faced unforeseen challenges owing to Covid-19 crisis, which ended up delaying various programs, including in India.
| It could be said that India’s political objectives, both signaling to adversaries and increasing its relevance on the global stage in the space domain, were achieved with Mission Shakti. |
To recap Mission Shakti: it was a successful ASAT test conducted by India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) exactly four years ago. Microsat-R, an experimental imaging satellite manufactured by DRDO, was launched on January 24, 2019. This satellite was eventually used by DRDO as a target satellite. It was a direct ascent, kinetic kill weapon test and DRDO used a modified anti-ballistic missile interceptor. The satellite was shot at a lower altitude of 283 kilometers to ensure that there would not be any long-term debris menace; within a short time, the generated debris would enter the Earth’s atmosphere. After the test, there was some blame-gaming and India was accused of creating some debris, which could even be detrimental to the health of International Space Station (ISS). Different sources had claimed different figures regarding the amount of debris remaining in the low Earth orbit (LEO) region. Six months after the test, some 50 tracked pieces of debris remained, which reentered in about 12 months.
It could be said that India’s political objectives, both signaling to adversaries and increasing its relevance on the global stage in the space domain, were achieved. In any global debate towards establishing a rule-based architecture for ensuring space security, India now becomes an important cog. Also, possibly, India should be able to disallow materializing of any lopsided treaty mechanism, like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), in the space domain. Diplomatically, India handled the aftershocks of this test admirably and was able to explain (and convince) many in the world, the rationale behind this test.
Was this only a one-off test for India or there is something more to India’s deterrence mechanism? According to some reports, this idea to conduct an ASAT test was approved in 2016 and became a reality three years later. There is a possibility that there could be some other ideas in making, too. At present, some crystal ball-gazing in this regard is possible, based on available open-source information. However, rather than getting into the zone of speculation, it could be prudent to carry out an assessment based on scientific, strategic, and policy underpinnings.
It may sound hypocritical, but it is a reality that India is against the weaponization of space. But since India needs to ensure that its political borders remain safe, it had no option but to develop a space deterrence mechanism, owing to increasing strategic challenges. India is walking on thin ice by ensuring that its efforts to develop deterrence are not mistaken as efforts towards weaponization of space.
Immediately after the test, DRDO indicated that they were working on programs involving directed energy weapons, electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and co-orbital weapons for ASAT roles. It was claimed that DRDO has a capability to neutralize any object up to around 1,000 kilometers altitude in space. However, subsequently, there has not been much talk about any progress made in regards to development of such technologies. It is important to mention that Mission Shakti was a “bolt from the blue” for everyone within India and outside. A great amount of secrecy was maintained about this project. On similar lines, for obvious reasons, there is a possibility that the Indian scientific community is working quietly on various counterspace projects.
| Deterrence is not only about technology, but also perceptions. What are the incremental, visible steps taken by India to build on the success of its 2019 ASAT test? |
DRDO has a Centre for High Energy Systems and Sciences (CHESS), which is working on futuristic weapon systems, mainly high-energy laser systems. They are known to be experimenting with directed energy weapons (DEWs). They are developing high-powered DEWs that can disable enemy missiles or drones. It is not known if India is working towards developing a ground-based DEW system, which can address LEO targets, or if there are plans to develop space-based platforms. Since the mid-1980s, there are some conjectures that DRDO is developing a Kilo Ampere Linear Injector (KALI). This is a linear electron accelerator or a particle accelerator that can emit powerful relativistic electron beams to damage the target’s electronic system. It is perceived that KALI would be a great weapon for destroying aircraft and missiles through soft-kill. It’s not known if there is any possibility of modifying such technology for space use.
Some four or five years ago, DRDO is known to have established an organization to cater for research and development in the military space arena and currently this agency is expected to be working on various technological options. In general, no specific details are available to understand DRDO’s possible agenda in the domain of counterspace capabilities towards strengthening India’s deterrence.
There are some areas of counterspace technologies that India need not focus on. Kinetic-physical technologies are those mainly intended to create permanent and irreversible destruction of space-based systems or ground systems. India need not undertake any ASAT test in the future by using direct-ascent anti-satellite (DA-ASAT) missiles. By undertaking Mission Shakti, India has already made a statement and any more testing (leading to debris generation) is not advisable. Maybe India could undertake a few flyby missions for technology maturation. There is a need for India to focus more on electronic and cyber means. Such technologies could help them creating interference and jamming capabilities.
Mission Shakti was a great beginning. But has India successfully established any space deterrence strategy tailored to recognize the unique characteristics of its strategic compulsions over last four years? The answer is possibly no. For some time now India’s focus has been towards establishing India as a business hub for the space industry. This step was required and a major push in that direction is visible and should be welcomed. On the other hand, what is happening on strategic side? Presumably, DRDO should be developing counterspace technologies and could possibly make them public, when the development reaches the level of testing. The issue is whether the guarded silence is necessary. Is it helping your deterrence posturing?
Deterrence is not only the above technology, but also about perceptions. What are the incremental, visible steps taken by India to build on the success of its 2019 ASAT test? What are the structures made by India to further the cause of space deterrence and are they sufficient? There is a need to have some nationwide debate on these aspects, which perhaps is presently missing.
India has created the Defence Space Agency (DSA) in 2019 and has also conducted its first simulated space warfare exercise. It is assumed that, during last four years, DSA must have been busy in the process of capacity-building. At the end of 2022, India launched the Space Defence Mission, a military space program to develop innovative solutions for the country’s defense forces through industry and startups. Under this program, 75 challenges have been identified for private industry. The industry players are expected to deliver in areas like launch systems, satellite systems, communication and payload systems, ground systems, and software. Nevertheless, all these efforts look to be too little for India to showcase its deterrence capabilities.
| What are the structures made by India to further the cause of space deterrence and are they sufficient? There is a need to have some nationwide debate on these aspects, which perhaps is presently missing. |
India has major concerns about China’s military space agenda. One of the main reasons for India to undertake ASAT test was, obviously, the China threat. The India-China border dispute remains unresolved after seven decades. Fortunately, it remained dormant for many years. However, in 2020 the Galwan Valley Conflict erupted, in which 20 Indian soldiers were killed. This was the most violent border fight with China since the 1962 India-China war. China is working towards equipping itself to fight any possible war in space. It is not the purpose here to get into the details of China counterspace program. However, it suffices to say that one of the main reasons for the US to establish a separate military vertical and establish the Space Force was the China angle.
It is important for a state like India not to view space deterrence in isolation. Modern-day warfare is multidimensional warfare. India’s both adversaries are nuclear weapon states. China has made major progress in the field of hypersonics, posing direct challenges to the existing missile defense architecture and hence questioning the efficacy of the prevailing nuclear deterrence mechanism. China is making major advancements in various strategic technology domains like robotics, lasers, artificial intelligence, and quantum.
Against this backdrop, is the capacity of space deterrence showcased by India so far enough? From the strategic perspective, India conducting an ASAT test was necessary, but the geostrategic canvas indicates that it is definitely not sufficient.
Europe Contemplates A Space Revoluition
 An independent committee commissioned by ESA says Europe should develop an ambitious human spaceflight program, one with a goal of an ”independent and sustainable” European human lunar landing in a decade. (credit: ESA/Olivier Pâques) |
Europe contemplates a space revolution
by Jeff Foust
Monday, March 27, 2023
The current head of the European Space Agency has made clear his interest in giving Europe an independent human spaceflight capability, rather than relying on partners like the United States. “I’m restarting the debate on whether Europe should have such a capability,” Josef Aschabcher said shortly after ESA’s ministerial meeting last November where the agency also unveiled its new class of astronauts (see “Europe selects new astronauts as it weighs its human spaceflight future”, The Space Review, December 5, 2022.)
| “I was a little worried at the beginning because they are not space experts,” Aschbacher said. “You never know what comes out.” |
A year earlier, ESA member states endorsed a set of initiatives that included as one long-term “inspirator” a human spaceflight program to so that Europe could keep pace with the US, Russia, China, and soon India. Those countries “all have their own ship to discover the next frontier, and that means the next economic zone, which is the Moon and beyond,” Aschbacher said after a November 2021 meeting. “Europe doesn’t have such a ship.”
After a “space summit” of ESA and European Union member states last February, ESA announced it would establish a High-Level Advisory Group to examine the future of human spaceflight in Europe. The committee would largely consist of people outside the space community—politicians, scientists, explorers, and even a cartoonist—to broadly address the issue of whether Europe should have a human spaceflight program, and for what reasons.
“I was a little worried at the beginning because they are not space experts,” Aschbacher said at a briefing last week where ESA released the committee’s final report. “You never know what comes out.”
He and others at ESA were relieved with the report’s conclusions. “ESA should design and implement a European Space Mission to establish an independent European presence in Earth orbit, lunar orbit, on the Moon, and beyond, including a European Commercial LEO Station, Cargo and Crew Capabilities for the Gateway and the Moon, and sustained presence on the lunar surface,” the report, titled “Revolution Space,” concluded. That approach included “a scenario for [an] independent and sustainable European human landing on the Moon within 10 years.”
The report offered little technical and programmatic guidance for how to achieve those goals: no discussion of what spacecraft, launch vehicles, or other technologies that must be developed or a schedule for doing so. It was also silent on budgets beyond acknowledging that “promptly mobilising resources and scaling up investment within and across Member States is crucial.”
Given the lack of space expertise among the committee, that lack of technical detail is understandable. Instead, the committee focused broadly on the benefits of an enhanced investment on human spaceflight by Europe, as well as how that investment should be structured.
One major argument might be summarized as the spaceflight version of FOMO: fear of missing out. “Substantially increasing investment in space and space exploration is a precondition if Europe is to capture large shares of multiple commercial growth areas and ensure it does not miss out on economic developments with an excellent chance of high multiplier effects,” the report stated.
It pointed to other fields, like the Internet and artificial intelligence, where Europe was originally strongly positioned but ended up losing out economically compared to the United States and China. “Europe cannot afford to, once more, miss out.”
One member of the advisory group, speaking at the ESA briefing, acknowledged that he was not convinced spaceflight would be the next internet, but argued that the cost of missing out was too high to risk missing out.
“It’s not fully certain, from my point of view, that there will be a future revolution,” said CĂ©dric O, former secretary of state for the digital sector in the French government. “But if there is a future revolution, and let's assume that the Americans and the Chinese are betting on that revolution, then it’s going to be a huge problem if Europe is not part of that.”
“We don’t want to be left aside in terms of the economic and geostrategic implications,” he added.
“Now it’s really time to step up and jump to another level,” said another member of the committee, Stefania Giannini, former Italian government minister for education and research. “What is at stake? It’s about European autonomy.” That autonomy, she continued, “should be achieved through bold political will and investment.”
| “If it were my money, I would not put a euro into the current space exploration process or procurement,” CĂ©dric O said. “The overall efficiency of the euros that are spent today is very poor.” |
Besides the potential economic benefits of keeping up with the United States and China in spaceflight, the report highlighted other advantages to investing in a human spaceflight program. One was to avoid losing talent, particularly young engineers and scientists, to other countries. “By pursuing autonomy in space exploration, Europe would provide a unique outlet to unlock European talent, and reverse the brain-drain by attracting the best and brightest from outside of Europe,” the report stated.
There would be geopolitical advantages as well, with Europe able to use human spaceflight as a diplomatic tool much as America and Russia have done for decades, and which China is proposing to do by offering flights to other countries’ astronauts.
“This can provide a European alternative for partners, who are interested in options beyond the U.S. and China and thus contributes to a more stable, multipolar world,” the report stated. “For the future, we can foresee for example a European commercial crew capsule with a European astronaut as commander, and astronauts from Latin America, Asia and Africa onboard.”
“I do believe that Europe can help make space a factor of stabilization and international cooperation, even in a landscape that is more and more competitive,” Giannini said. “Europe has to bring a value-based approach and avoid a space Wild West in the future.”
What was notable about the report was not just the arguments it made to justify a European human spaceflight program, but how Europe should develop it. While the advisory group did not delve into the engineering details of vehicles and mission architectures, it did endorse greater use of public-private partnerships—mirroring what the US did with commercial cargo and crew, and now with commercial space stations.
“Rather than designing, developing and operating space infrastructure a commercially-oriented procurement policy needs to be adopted: The public sector, through space agencies like ESA, shall define the requirements for large-scale infrastructure or missions, for example, a crew capsule, and encourage the private sector to propose the most innovative and cost-efficient solution,” the report stated.
That appeared to be based on the frustration with the limited perceived progress on major programs, like the Ariane 6 launch vehicle, done under more conventional approaches. “To be able to get back in the exploration race, Europe must overhaul its approach and processes, otherwise, a reinforced ambition is unlikely to be deliverable,” the report concluded.
The frustration was evidence in comments by O at the briefing. “In 2013, Europe was leading” in commercial launch, he said, with over half the market. Today, “to put it mildly, the situation is difficult.” SpaceX had raced ahead with its Falcon 9 rocket, while Europe struggled to make the transition from the Ariane 5, set to make its final launch this June, and the Ariane 6, whose first launch is no earlier than the end of year.
While SpaceX benefitted from NASA business, the difference “is not a significant increase in NASA’s budget,” he argued. “There is not a revolution in the amount of money that is spent. The big game-changer is the emergence of the NewSpace sector.”
“If we go on with the same procurement policies, if we go on with the same constraints that we have today, if we go on with monopolies, if we go with hampering the emergence of NewSpace actors, we won’t make it no matter what the budget is,” he concluded.
He revisited that point later in the briefing when asked about the budget needed to carry out the goals laid out in the report. “If it were my money, I would not put a euro into the current space exploration process or procurement,” he said. “The overall efficiency of the euros that are spent today is very poor.” NewSpace companies like SpaceX, he said, were far more efficient than traditional European players.
That comment was perhaps a bit too much for Aschbacher. “The money spent in ESA is really well spent,” he countered. “We have done enormous projects and huge achievements.”
| “The conclusion was that Europe cannot afford not to do this,” Rathsman said. |
But he agreed that traditional contracting would not be sufficient to carry out the plans endorsed by the committee. “Where I fully agree with CĂ©dric, and this has been expressed extremely clearly in the report, that if Europe engages in this space revolution, then we have to change completely the way how we procure and interact with industry.”
That could mean revisiting a core element of ESA contracting, the concept of “geo-return.” Under geo-return, ESA member states that commit to funding specific program expect to get contracts back to their industry for roughly the same amount. That is, if a country provides 100 million euros to an ESA program, it expects companies based in that country to get contracts related to that program worth roughly 100 million euros.
Geo-return has faced persistent criticism that this approach leads to inefficiencies: contracts get awarded based on which countries contributed to it, and not necessarily what companies are best suited to carry out the work. Without it, though, some smaller countries fear their contributions would end up going to big companies in big countries.
In an essay published a few days before the briefing, Aschbacher said he was considering ways to modify geo-return to improve European competitiveness. He argued for a concept called “fair contribution” where countries contribute based on the share of work their industries win, something he noted is already used in some areas of ESA like telecommunications. Other adjustments to geo-return across ESA, or within specific programs, could also be considered.
“Besides measuring the sum of industrial contracts, broader facets of return must also be emphasised; we must look beyond the economic output of investment and consider also the societal and strategic advantages,” he added in the essay.
At the briefing, though, he said he was not contemplating doing away with geo-return entirely. “Geo-return is not a poison,” he said, noting that it was essential to securing a 17% budget increase at last November’s ministerial.
He and other leaders were generally satisfied with the overall report. Anna Rathsman, chair of the ESA Council and head of Sweden’s space agency, was the only person on the committee with a space background. “I’ve been so impressed with the type of discussions we have had,” she said. “The conclusion was that Europe cannot afford not to do this.”
Aschbacher said that ESA would begin studying how to implement the report. “It starts from making the case, identifying scenarios and options, and then shape it together with the member states,” he said. The goal is to provide recommendations for a second space summit scheduled for November in Seville, Spain.
However, with ESA’s budgets and programs largely fixed through 2025 based on the November ministerial meeting, the agency may be limited in what it can do, other than lay the groundwork for future human spaceflight programs, before the next ministerial in late 2025. By then, NASA may be preparing to return humans to the lunar surface on the Artemis 3 mission, while China conducts additional robotic landings and starts to flesh out its plans for human lunar missions. For Europe to stay in the race, there’s no time to lose.
Note: we are using a new commenting system, which may require you to create a new account.
Virgin Orbit Is Teetering On Collapse
Virgin Orbit’s Turbulence Isn’t Over. The Stock Plunges Again.
- Order Reprints
- Print Article
Virgin Orbit launches rockets using a modified Boeing 747 jet.
Matthew Horwood/Getty ImagesShares of space launch start-up Virgin Orbit Holdings VORB –20.47% were down in early trading Tuesday after a report that the company will suspend operations again after talks for fresh investment broke down over the weekend.
Virgin Orbit (ticker: VORB) shares were down about 11%, at 48 cents each, in premarket trading Tuesday. S&P 500SPX –0.19% futures were up 0.1% and Nasdaq CompositeCOMP –0.57% futures were flat.
CNBC reported Monday afternoon that operations would be paused after talks with potential investor Matthew Brown failed to end in a capital injection. Virgin Orbit didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment early Tuesday morning.
Investment is needed. The company ended the third quarter with about $75 million of cash on its balance sheet. Fourth-quarter numbers aren’t available. Virgin has been using roughly $50 million a quarter.
The Tuesday drop continues a pattern of wild trading in Virgin Orbit shares. Coming into Tuesday, shares had dropped eight of the past 10 days. The magnitude of the average move, up or down, has been about 21%.
Shares dropped about 30% after the company said in mid March that it was temporarily halting operations. They jumped 50% on Friday on news that a partial operational resumption was planned. Shares fell 33% Monday after there was no news of fresh investment, heading south again early on Tuesday.
Virgin Orbit’s market capitalization was about $180 million, based on Monday’s closing price of 54 cents a share. The company was worth roughly $1.4 billion at its 52-week high of $7.59 a share reached in April 2022.