Despite reports and official responses about a Chinese anti-satellite missile test last week, satellite experts on Friday urged restraint in any response taken by the United States and several other countries which formally protested the action.
A Jan. 17 story by Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine first reported the test, citing sources as saying a cloud of debris was detected after a Chinese Feng Yun 1C polar orbit weather satellite, launched in 1999, was destroyed Jan. 11 by an anti-satellite system launched from or near China’s Xichang Space Center in Sichuan Province.
U.S. officials confirmed Jan. 18 that the test took place, and condemned the event. Several other countries, including Australia, Canada, Japan, and South Korea, also protested the test. Chinese officials declined to comment, and no reports of the test appeared in state-run media there.
“This Chinese test doesn’t seem to reflect any particular sophistication, and it’s on a particularly low orbital plane,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Lexington Institute public-policy think tank overseeing security studies.
Thompson, also a consultant with Source Associates, advising clients on matters ranging from non-lethal weapons to industrial policy and military strategy, said, “I think their efforts are mainly defensive. I don’t think they have any grand plan for world domination. I think they worry about U.S. surveillance capabilities, so they want to have some sort of response ready if they found themselves in conflict with the U.S. It’s the sort of defensive measure you’d expect any industrialized power to pursue.”
The U.S. government has maintained anti-satellite systems for about 20 years. In October, President George W. Bush authorized a new U.S. space policy in which the administration reserved the option to use military firepower in space and defend itself against any country “hostile to U.S. national interests.” Critics of that policy noted the risks and costs of an arms race in space.
“Space has already been militarized by the U.S. and Russia,” said Marco Caceres, senior analyst and director of space studies for Teal Group of Fairfax, Va. “That’s going to happen more; you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”
Thompson noted that while former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld predicted a Chinese anti-satellite component, “the irony of Rumsfeld’s tenure was that after predicting it, he proceeded to put more of our assets into space.”
“The USA and Russia have previously tested anti-satellite weapons, but this is an unfortunate step for China to take,” Martin Sweeting, CEO of  Surrey Satellite Technology, said. “Whilst it is not illegal and does not contravene any treaties or laws regarding outer space, carrying our a test that created additional debris is anti-social.  I was not surprised but a bit disappointed that this has taken place. I believe that this is just China demonstrating that it has the same capabilities possessed by USA and Russia and that it is now space power. China may have carried out this test hoping to bring pressure on the U.S. to agree to a ban on such devices, however the test is regrettable and may reduce opportunities for closer collaboration in space.
Anti-satellite testing previously has proven itself to be counterproductive, said Caceres. “No one has done it since the ‘80s. It stopped because it creates a lot of debris,” he said. “You don’t want to create any more debris than you need to, and there’s no way to control it. You might eventually end up hitting one of your own [satellites]. It’s really kind of foolish.”
Nevertheless, Caceres expects the argument for more U.S. testing to be made on Capitol Hill. “You can say that the [U.S.] Air Force is desperately trying to fund all its budgets. This will give them ammunition to go to Congress, and they will probably be very sympathetic for the need to spend on space-based assets.”
Thompson also doubted the effectiveness of such a system.
“I don’t see it as a risk for satcom or global positioning satellites (GPS), which are about 12,000 miles up, and a MilStar is twice further than that,” he said, “I don’t see this capability as being particularly worrisome to them.”
The status quo among governments that possess space capability seems unlikely to change anytime soon. “As with any military capability, we constantly always keep threats under constant review,” a spokesman for the Defense Procurement Agency at the U.K. Ministry of Defense said. “The potential capability demonstrated in the Chinese test which has been reported does not fundamentally change our appreciation of the risks to operating the Skynet constellation.”
Likewise, Pierre Faucoup, director of military satellite programs for EADS Astrium, said “I don’t think there are reasons for commercial operators to be concerned. If this is information is true, and a satellite has been hit by a missile, I think it is a LEO satellite, not a GEO satellite. Most commercial satellites are GEO satellites. It is very difficult to hit these kinds of satellites precisely.”
Thompson also questioned if there could be any meaningful responses. “We have relatively few tools at hand to limit the Chinese in their development programs,” he said. “We could threaten to limit trade relations, or we could act to reply in kind. But it’s not clear that the Chinese will respond to either, and it’s not clear that we can respond with effective countermeasures.”
Specifically, “what additional weight and complexity would you need to introduce for a spacecraft to protect itself?” Thompson asked. “We are hobbled in protecting our satellites through added weight, cost and complexity in adding effective countermeasures to the spacecraft… You can impair your business, yet still not cope with the threat.”
Thompson advised that “we need to better understand what the capabilities are before we start redesigning spacecraft,” adding “I think we need to take a measured and deliberative approach to this. I don’t think what the Chinese have done should lead to hysteria. It’s not very sophisticated, and they may choose not to continue with it anyway.”
While the initial government response focused on political ramifications, the more interesting aspect could be impact on the commercial market, Caceres said.
“When anything gets blown up, there’s an awful lot of debris,” Caceres said. “ Even if the chances are remote that another passing satellite — say an Iridium or a Globalstar — is going to get hit, you’ve got thousands if not millions of pieces left up there. When you start blowing them up on purpose, it’s silly. Everyone needs these satellites up there.”
“I don’t know what [companies] can do to protect their satellites,” he said. “Maybe more armor or something, but it’s not going to happen” because of the inherent mission costs.
Caceres also wonders about who would handle the liability for any such accidents. “I’m trying to see what the potential impact might be [for an unintended collision]. You can’t really prove whose debris it is.”