Cold War myth or operational
reality?
A patent recently issued to an upstart
space entrepreneur could be another sign that stealth satellites are real
— not vestiges of the previous millennium’s battles.
..
..
In late 2004, right about the time that
some U.S. lawmakers publicly unveiled a previously classified $9.5 billion
program to build satellites that orbit the Earth undetected from the ground,
Robert Bigelow, hotel entrepreneur and founder of Bigelow Aerospace, submitted
a patent application for a satellite that proposed to do just that.
Bigelow’s patent, filed in November
2004 and approved a year later, follows a dozen or so previously filed
inventions back to the early 1960s. Each outlined methods that could reduce
or eliminate the optical and radar signatures that could be used to track,
identify and determine the orbital parameters of a satellite from the ground.
..
..
If the essentials of an orbit are obtained
— potentially by low-cost, easily obtainable methods and equipment — an
opponent can either hide above-ground activities during the reconnaissance
satellite’s pass or possibly target the space vehicle with anti-satellite
weapons. By all indications, the U.S. has launched and operated at least
two such satellites in the post-Cold War era for photo reconnaissance or
signal intelligence, one in 1990 and the other in 1999.
..
..
Bigelow’s invention, called an inflatable
satellite bus, appears to be identical in construction to the company’s
Genesis I spacecraft, which was launched July 12 by an ISC Kosmotras Dnepr
rocket into a 550-kilometer near-circular orbit with 64-degree inclination.
..
..
The patent reveals that the shell, or
outer surface of the inflatable portion of the vehicle, “can have radar
stealth capabilities. This could include using radar absorbing materials
and/or geometrics to reflect radar waves at angles that make detection
of the craft difficult.” The patent goes on to say that shell could be
“colored as to make visual detection more difficult.”
..
..
A former CIA analyst, Allen Thomson,
included the patent in his latest Stealth Satellite Sourcebook, a document
hosted on the Web site of the Federation of American Scientists. “I guess
the main substantive reason I [included the patent] is that it shows the
idea of satellite stealth is still in the air and is being used as a selling
point,” he said in an e-mail response to questions from C4ISR Journal.
..
..
Given the secretive nature of stealth
programs — the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Boeing, Lockheed
Martin, Bigelow Aerospace and other satellite builders did not comment
for this article — the methods used to hide a satellite from view have
to be inferred from patents issued, expert opinions and the observations
of a worldwide network of satellite tracking hobbyists.
..
..
In the U.S., the primary means to achieve
stealth for aircraft have included using faceted surfaces (F-117A), compound
curves (B-1) and planform alignment (F-22), or symmetry of components.
For satellites, the proposed methods
have been similar but include additional options, such as dispensing decoys.
Although the Defense Department is said to have experimented with stealth
satellite designs in the 1970s, the first stealth satellite openly discussed
in the media was deployed by the space shuttle Atlantis as part of STS-36
in February 1990. That information came largely from a 2001 book by Jeffrey
T. Richelson called “The Wizards of Langley: Inside the CIA’s Directorate
of Science and Technology.”
..
..
Known as Misty 1 (officially known as
AFP-731 or USA 53), the satellite is thought to have been a digital imaging
reconnaissance satellite weighing about 37,000 pounds and using the analog
of faceted surfaces as its cloaking mechanism. That means an incoming radar
beam would have been deflected back in a different direction, similar to
a billiard ball’s path when grazing the bumper. The same would have been
true of incoming light, either directly from the sun or reflected from
the Earth, masking the satellite to optical tracking systems on the ground.
..
..
A patent application by workers at Teledyne
Industries at about the same time detailed how such a design could work,
at least in theory. The cloaking mechanism was a large inflatable cone
coated with “radiation reflective material” deployed on a rotating arm
on the body of the main satellite. The device could be moved into position
to cloak the satellite when needed, then moved out of the way to allow
the instruments to see targets on the ground. “The purpose of the invention
is to suppress the laser, radar, visible and infrared signatures of satellites
to make it difficult or impossible for hostile enemy forces to damage or
destroy satellites in orbit,” the applicants wrote.
..
..
Another patent in Thomson’s sourcebook,
filed in 1971 by TRW, uses anti-radar screens that project out from the
main satellite body and its appendages to either totally deny the detection
of the satellite by ground-based radars or change its appearance so that
the radar cannot distinguish it from nearby decoys.
..
..
Declassified memos from the 1960s in
Thomson’s sourcebook detail how the U.S. military was considering cross-section
reduction techniques, decoys, shielding and other countermeasures, such
as hiding among existing satellites. The CIA’s key reconnaissance satellite
at the time was code-named Corona. Operated between 1959 and 1972, the
space vehicles carried high-resolution cameras and would drop film canisters
for midair recovery by Air Force aircraft.
..
..
Concerns about satellite survivability
increased in the 1980s because of fear of Russian anti-satellite capabilities.
The mind-set continued despite the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 with
the development of Misty 1 and Misty 2, also known as USA 144, a follow-up
satellite launched by a Titan IVB booster out of Vandenberg Air Force Base,
Calif., in 1997. Both highly classified missions were unveiled to some
extent by the amateur satellite tracking community.
..
..
Ted Molczan, a Canadian technologist
by education and top satellite tracker by hobby, organized a worldwide
team in 1990 to track the mysterious payload deployed by the shuttle, and
sightings were made. About a week after deployment, however, reports from
Russia indicated that five or six objects were being tracked. The assumption
was that the satellite had exploded or been deliberately destroyed by the
U.S.
..
..
Misty 1 appeared to be a closed book
until November 1990, when hobbyists in Scotland and France observed an
unknown satellite in a similar inclination as Misty 1 but at a much higher
altitude. Molczan’s computations showed that there was a good chance the
mystery vehicle was Misty 1, meaning the orbital debris the Russians had
tracked may have been decoys or debris purposefully generated to hide the
intentions of the true satellite.
About a week after news articles announced
what the hobbyists had seen, Misty 1 disappeared again, Molczan said.
..
..
As with Misty 1, shortly after Misty
2’s launch, nine pieces of debris were catalogued by the Air Force at or
above the satellite’s initial orbit, Molczan said. Hobbyists tracked various
objects, some for several years, but doubted that the primary satellite
was among them. “No one has seen what might be the Misty 2 payload,” Molczan
said.
..
..
Aside from keeping hobbyists guessing,
the need for stealth satellites remains the topic of much debate. Democratic
lawmakers in the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence have denounced
the multibillion-dollar classified intelligence acquisition program widely
thought to be the follow-on to the Misty series and have voted several
years running to cut its funds. In each case, Congress has kept the program
going through the appropriations process.
..
..
Critics argue that enough satellites
are already orbiting, stealthy or not, that potential adversaries have
moved critical defense-related projects underground.
..
..
Thomson is of the opinion that stealth,
as one ingredient in a reconnaissance system’s survivability, may be overdone.
..
..
“Stealth, properly used, might be one
technique to increase survivability,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Stealth for
survivability enhancement is different from stealth to defeat adversarial
denial and deception (D&D), which I think is mostly a waste of time
these days. Alas, counter-D&D seems to be what the intelligence community
is fixated on.” •