Enlarge image
Above the clouds: »Satellites can play dead or pretend to fall.«
Photo: janiecbros/Getty Images
SPIEGEL:
Ms. Suess, space has long been used for war.
Now he could also become a target: at the end of October, the Russian official Konstantin Voronzow threatened that Russia could attack western satellites.
How realistic is such a scenario?
Süss:
Voronzow only hinted at what we already knew: A rocket attack on satellites is technically possible.
But will Russia really do that?
I think no
SPIEGEL:
Why not?
Sweet:
Attacking a satellite with a rocket is expensive, complex and conspicuous.
With foreign satellites, it is more difficult to calculate exactly where they are.
So hitting them precisely isn't easy.
Any rocket launch can also go wrong.
And even if he succeeds, in the end everyone will know who did it.
There are much more subtle ways to disable satellites.
SPIEGEL:
For example?
Sweet:
Cyber attacks are a common method.
A satellite doesn't zip through space independently.
It has a ground station and a connection to it, so-called data links.
All three elements are vulnerable.
Of course you can shoot down a satellite directly.
Satellites can also ram other satellites or "capture" them with a robotic arm.
And a nuclear explosion in space and its electromagnetic pulse could damage several satellites at once.
But we haven't seen this type of attack before.
They are not very discreet and not possible without restrictions: every satellite operator would, for example, notice when another satellite was approaching and would have time to take evasive action – several days depending on the orbit.
Cyber attacks or so-called »jamming«, i.e. the use of jammers, are much more subliminal.
They can disrupt communication links, temporarily shutting down satellites or their ground stations.
In the end, it's difficult to trace who directed the attack.
SPIEGEL:
Elon Musk's SpaceX is providing Ukraine with an entire network of satellites with Starlink.
Musk tweeted back in the spring that some of the ground terminals were being disrupted.
So have such attacks been taking place for a long time?
Sweet:
Yes.
At the beginning of the Russian invasion, on the morning of February 24, there was an attack on Viasat – also a company that offers satellite internet, including in Ukraine.
The modems stopped working in the customers' living rooms.
There are also said to have been problems with the Ukrainian army.
It is not 100% proven, but one assumes that it was a Russian attack.
SPIEGEL:
You said that a rocket attack is unlikely.
In November 2021, however, Russia sent an anti-satellite missile into space and blew up the old Soviet satellite Cosmos 1408.
Süss:
Several countries have tested such missiles: China, India, the USA.
Always with their own satellites.
Shooting down an alien satellite would definitely be a turning point in history.
SPIEGEL:
Space experts condemn these tests alone.
Süss:
It doesn't matter whether you blow up your own satellite or someone else's: the debris also affects the affected orbit.
It was the same with the Russian missile last year.
She blew up the satellite into around 1,500 pieces - in the same orbit as the International Space Station ISS.
These pieces of debris fly around the earth at around 40,000 kilometers per hour.
Even tiny pieces of debris can have the impact of a hand grenade.
The astronauts and cosmonauts on board had to take refuge in their capsules for safety reasons.
Among them were two Russians.
SPIEGEL:
Why is Russia risking the safety of its own cosmonauts?
Sweet:
You don't know.
Either it was planned and Russia accepted endangering its cosmonauts and damaging the ISS.
Or something went wrong.
There is always a risk.
SPIEGEL:
US Vice President Kamala Harris announced in April that America now wants to dispense with such tests altogether.
Süss:
This is also motivated by including other states in this promise.
Even those who have not yet tested these weapons.
The United States last sent such an anti-satellite missile into space in 2008.
Since then, everyone has known what they can do.
For Russia, too, it was actually clear that they had the capacity to do so.
So one can ask: Why did they do it now?
SPIEGEL:
Could an attack on a satellite trigger a NATO alliance case?
Sweet:
Theoretically yes.
If a country is attacked in or from space, it could trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty: Allies undertake to provide assistance.
However, it is not clear: What counts as an attack?
A missile, a collision with another satellite, a cyber attack?
It is also unclear: Do only attacks on state satellites trigger the alliance – or also attacks on commercial ones?
SPIEGEL:
There is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. It forbids, for example, building military bases on the moon or placing nuclear weapons in space.
Does he have no answers to these questions?
Sweet:
The Outer Space Treaty is obsolete.
At that time there were only states in space, no private companies, everything was a little clearer.
For that time he was very far.
But now we need something new.
SPIEGEL:
China and Russia presented a new draft treaty in 2008.
The US rejected him.
To date, they have not reached an agreement.
Why?
Sweet:
There are two sides and they have wedged.
Great Britain and also the USA would like to agree on broad norms: What does good behavior in space look like?
It's also about, for example, how close you can get to another satellite, who should avoid, things like that.
Russia and China want a treaty stating that no weapons will be allowed into space.
However, the treaty has been criticized in several places.
The US hadn't presented any alternatives until recently -- in part because it held its freedom of action in space extremely important.
But there is also political calculation behind the Chinese and Russian positions.
You knew: That's not how the contract comes about.
And yet they can talk their way out of it in future negotiations and say that they have made a proposal.
SPIEGEL:
Even if there were a new treaty, it probably wouldn't prevent Russia from launching a strike in space, would it?
Sweet:
That's the problem.
In war, rules are sometimes thrown overboard.
SPIEGEL:
Are there ways to defend against attacks in space?
Cute:
Satellites can dodge other satellites or debris.
But that costs fuel and shortens their lifespan.
Every satellite has some protective functions on board - against cyber attacks or jammers.
This goes as far as nuclear hardened shells.
A satellite's altitude can also protect it.
Satellites in geostationary orbit are furthest from Earth: from 36,000 kilometers.
A rocket would have to fly very far to hit them.
A satellite can also theoretically play dead by stopping sending signals or by pretending to fall back into Earth's atmosphere.
SPIEGEL:
Commercial providers like Starlink have entire satellite networks.
Is that protection too?
Sweet:
Yes, Starlink has several thousand satellites.
If you jerk off one or two there, it doesn't have much of an effect.
SPIEGEL:
If a satellite or an entire network fails, what does that mean for our society?
Sweet:
Today we are much more dependent on space than we used to be.
Without it we wouldn't have a GPS, for example.
We need that for our car navigation system, but also to pay by credit card.
There is a calculation that without GPS the US would lose $1 billion - a day.
We also need space for research.
Sensors not only measure temperature, they also measure how forests or ice caps are doing.
More than half of all measures to monitor climate change come from space.
So space is the perfect target.
But one mustn't forget that as much as we depend on him, so does Russia.