Looking for Bright Ideas: Starlink and China’s Lasers
A quick note. If this particular newsletter seems a little more lighthearted, it is. The preamble and the main topic are odd, and the article is slightly more tongue-in-cheek than usual. Readers might find the topics interesting, but subscribers might be a little weirded out by the tone.
The Lost Opportunity
Before starting the primary analyses, there’s a short tangent to address, based on this article, “The Space Force Wants You, Gamers.”
First, why didn’t the author use any quotes from “The Last Starfighter” or “Ender’s Game” in the article? Or the title? Just think–it’s rare to have an opportunity to use the introduction to the video game in “The Last Starfighter:”
“Greetings, Starfighter. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Xur and the Ko-dan Armada.”
“The Space Force Wants You” is so…traditional. Sure, news is supposed to be informative. But it’s always nice when it’s entertaining, too.
Also, it’s a little embarrassing that the U.S. Army saw the value in video gamers long before the U.S. Space Force (and its USAF predecessor) did. “America’s Army” was around for about 20 years and implemented nearly 22 years before this USSF epiphany. Sure, it was a first-person shooter. However, strategy games and gamers, the type of people the Space Force part of the USAF could have used, have been around longer than FPS. If the USSF wants more creative thinkers, it should look at Portal gamers specifically.
However, for the USSF, what would a game simulate–getting coffee from the coffee maker without dirtying the uniform? I suspect some of the more exciting stuff is classified. On to the other story…
Lighting Up Starlink
This story seems straight out of science fiction (or an Austin Powers movie). The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported a People’s Liberation Army (PLA–the Chinese military) study’s idea to use Chinese submarines armed with lasers to target and destroy Starlink and other LEO satellites. To say the idea is interesting is an understatement. Since I am not an optical (or any other kind of) scientist, I can’t judge just how far technology has come to at least jump from theory to practice. I am also not a submariner, so I don’t know if this weapon system is desirable or valuable from a naval perspective.
Before getting into this, it is helpful to remember that a study is just another way to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. A lot must happen before a study becomes an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon. While the idea, in this case, is sensational, weird, and disturbing, it’s still only an idea.
Also, it’s still depressing to see militaries openly talk about targeting commercially run U.S. satellites without any real verbal pushback from the U.S. administration. Understandably, the White House is dealing with all sorts of things right now, but the bureaucracy's beauty (if you could call it that) is that this type of stuff gets handled by area experts the administration employs.
At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
The idea outlined in the article seems a bit too simple: Place a megawatt laser on a stick, poke it out of the water, aim the laser at a satellite, and then destroy the satellite—maybe hundreds of satellites.
Why do this? Because China’s scientists have noted that ASAT missiles make it too easy to find the submarine that launched them. The rocket’s plume is a pointer toward the submarine that advertises “target here!” to any navy searching for it. Submariners don’t like that. They enjoy being sneaky and stealthy–it’s a healthier lifestyle choice for them.
PLA scientists have also noted that far too many Starlinks are orbiting the Earth. ASAT missiles would literally impact a few, but not enough to cause Starlink constellation communications outages. At worst, and at a guess, the PLA would need a few thousand ASAT missiles to make a dent. There’s also the real possibility that the PLA’s ASAT missiles cost much more than the Starlink satellites.
Word(s) of the Day: LASER–light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation
Lasers, on the other hand, don’t have an ASAT missile’s limitations. With a proper power supply or generator, the number of times a laser can fire is theoretically limitless. It’s usually pinpoint. It’s hard to detect when it’s firing.
But lasers, while always cool, are not always a good option. Is a megawatt laser powerful enough to destroy a LEO satellite? Is the laser’s targeting accurate and responsive enough to keep it pointed at a satellite long enough to destroy it? Does trading time for rocket plume avoidance make sense to a submariner? The laser on a stick might need to be above the water for a while to damage the Starlink constellation. That pins submarines close to the ocean’s surface.
There are other considerations, too. Take the atmosphere–it’s a challenge for lasers. Lasers don’t work well when there’s smoke, clouds, rain, etc., between them and their targets. There are all sorts of challenges for high-energy lasers. They’re a challenge even if atmospheric conditions are just right–just ask the folks who worked on the Airborne Laser platform (ABL).
Airborne! (Laser, that is)
Like the laser considered in the study, ABL used a megawatt laser. But it also had lasers that fired before that laser. One was designed to be reflected from the target to provide a real-time characterization of the atmosphere between the laser and the target. Another was used to figure out how far away the target was and where to aim. Yet another scanned an area generally to get initial information on a possible target.
ABL did work, but it was unwieldy and costly. It took up large portions of a Boeing 747. It was designed to track and destroy missiles right after they launched, relatively slow targets when compared to LEO satellites. It took a while to destroy a missile successfully, and that was while the laser was aimed at a cylinder full of potential kablooey. Starlink satellites are smaller.
In the intervening years since ABL’s defunding, the PLA might have figured out better ways for such a system to work. Fitting a megawatt laser system on a submarine, a craft that requires water to work, might not be a good idea. Such a system would be limited to the water. Not all warfare is over or near water.
None of this is to show that the concept of lasers mounted on submarines to destroy satellites is wrong, right, or absurd. It’s just that it’s an odd and old idea that the U.S. military, in some ways already explored, only for shooting down missiles from a large air platform instead. The Department of Defense still likes its lasers, but ABL was too impractical. It’s only natural that China’s military goes down the coherent and amplified light rabbit hole.
This is not to say China couldn’t build this technology. But should it? Using submarines as the platform doesn’t seem practical unless the lasers are used for other missions, such as part of an anti-missile or anti-aircraft protection system for a naval fleet. Even then, would it work? Whatever the answer, for the next decade or so, Starlink and any other spacecraft the PLA deems threatening are probably safe from submarines with lasers on sticks. It will likely take that long if the PLA tries to transition from study to a full mission capable system.
The SCMP story inadvertently demonstrates that China’s military is still reacting to Starlink. Reacting indicates an unpreparedness for Starlink and the capabilities it provides to its consumers (and certain militaries). That such an odd idea sees daylight from China’s regulated media means the PLA wants others to know about it. Maybe the propaganda shows that it’s taking Starlink seriously. Perhaps it’s misdirection…such a system might work well enough from a cargo container on an anonymous containership, after all.
However, it would be more effective on submarines than on sharks.
If you liked this analysis (or any others from Ill-Defined Space), I appreciate any donations (I like taking my family out every now and then). For the subscribers who have donated—THANK YOU from me and my family!!
Comments ()