Smallsats Could Help US Mitigate Losses in Space Conflict, Experts Say

An artist's illustration of a Space Based Space Surveillance satellite for the U.S. military.
An artist's illustration of a Space Based Space Surveillance satellite for the U.S. military. (Image credit: Boeing)

WASHINGTON — The United States must be prepared to lose satellites in the event of a conflict, but smallsats and dispersed systems can help ensure key capabilities remain operational.

"Space dominance, if it ever existed, is not in our future," said Dale Hayden, senior researcher at the Air Force's Air University, noting the proliferation of anti-satellite technology worldwide.

"In a conflict, it will be impossible to defend of all the space assets in totality," Hayden said, speaking at the Satellite 2017 conference here. "Losses must be expected. It will be important to fight through those losses, just as we must in other domains. Small satellites and disaggregation make this a reality." [The Most Dangerous Space Weapons Ever]

The Air Force's Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) Office at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, is testing out ways to quickly and cheaply build and deploy satellites.

"We're looking at ways to provide minimum threshold capability in a timeline of need, and the small satellites and this disaggregated architecture is the smartest way to go, at least from an ORS position," she said.

"The launch, ground, and space system itself [cost] less than $100 million in a three-year program," Punjani said.

"Once space qualified, the MSV architecture will enable the ORS Office to rapidly develop and integrate space vehicles to meet Joint Force commanders' urgent needs with payloads utilizing a standard interface," a statement from the office said.

Shahnaz said she doesn't see many limits for the use of smallsats the military, noting that critical capabilities such as nuclear command and control can be placed on a constellation of many small spacecraft.

"You can make smallsats highly robust," the colonel said. "[The military] will not accept nuclear strategic communication that doesn't have high reliability, high mission assurance ….You can take a small satellite — what we use at ORS mostly is Class C payloads that are single string, no redundancies — and you can make them very expensive and still make them able to provide that strategic element. I would say smallsats are very flexible in that regards."

"The only reason you go to GEO is for persistence," he said, referring to the geostationary belt some 36,000 kilometers above the equator . "If you can build a satellite at about a twentieth of the cost in low Earth orbit, it actually gets to be cheaper to do persistence from LEO than to do it from GEO."

"I call it the LEO eats GEO future," he continued. "I think it's possible that essentially all of the missions that we think about doing in GEO today will get disrupted by these networked constellations in LEO."

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Phillip Swarts
Contributing Writer

Phillip Swarts covered the military, national security and government contracting in space for Space News from 2016 to 2017. A master's graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, Swarts's work can also be found at The Washington Times and Air Force Times. More recently, he has worked as a teacher for the Arlington Public School District.