Space Security Index

Space Security 2011
138
of the space system. While capabilities to repair or replace ground stations and reestablish
satellite communications links are generally available, capabilities to quickly rebuild systems
in space are more dicult to develop and implement.
Space Security Impact
Most space systems remain unprotected from a range of threats, assessed by experts to include
(in order of decreasing likelihood): 1) electronic warfare such as jamming communications
links, 2) physical attacks on satellite ground stations, 3) dazzling or blinding of satellite
sensors, 4) hit-to-kill anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, 5) pellet cloud attacks on low-orbit
satellites, 6) attacks in space by microsatellites, and 7) high altitude nuclear detonations
(HAND). 4 Other potential threats include radio frequency weapons, high-powered
microwaves, and “heat-to-kill” ground-based lasers. Growing awareness of the vulnerabilities
of space systems has led actors to develop space system protection capabilities to better
detect, withstand, and/or recover from an attack. Nonetheless, there are no eective physical
protections against the most direct and destructive types of negation such as the use of
kinetic or high-powered energy forces against satellites.
e development of eective protection capabilities can have a positive impact on space
security by increasing the ability of a space system to survive negation eorts, thus helping
to assure secure access to and use of space, and potentially to deter negation attempts. Space
actors may refrain from interfering with well protected space systems if such attacks would
seem both futile and costly. Moreover, the use of protective measures to address system
vulnerabilities could oer a viable alternative to oensive means to defend space assets.
e security dynamics of protection and negation are closely related and, under some
conditions, protection systems can have a negative impact on space security. Like many
defensive systems, they can stimulate an arms escalation dynamic by motivating adversaries
to develop weapons to overcome them. Conceivably, robust protection capabilities could also
reduce the fear of retaliation in a space actor that possesses said capabilities, thus lowering the
threshold for attempting the negation of spacecraft. In addition, eective protective measures
can have signicant cost implications, and can thereby reduce the number of actors with
secure use of space.
Trend 7.1: E orts to protect satellite communications links
increase, but ground stations remain vulnerable
Protection of satellite ground stations
Satellite ground stations and communications links are likely targets for space negation
eorts since they are vulnerable to a range of widely available conventional and electronic
weapons. While military satellite ground stations and communications links are generally
well protected, civil and commercial assets tend to have fewer protection features. A
study published by the U.S. President’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory
Committee emphasized that the key threats to the commercial satellite eet are those faced
by ground facilities from computer hacking or possibly, but less likely, jamming. 5 Still,
satellite communications can usually be restored and ground stations rebuilt for a fraction
of what it costs to replace a satellite.
e vulnerability of civil and commercial space systems raises concerns, since a number of
military space actors are becoming increasingly dependent on commercial space assets for
a variety of applications. Many commercial space systems have a single operations center
and ground station, 6 leaving them potentially vulnerable to some of the most basic attacks.