| 
			  
			
 
  by William B. Scott
 
			from
			
			Kurzweilai Website 
			  
				
					
						| 
						
						
						Space Wars by Willliam 
						Scott, Michael Coumatos, and William Birnes (2007) 
						describes how the first hours of World War III might 
						play out in the year 2010.  
						While fiction, it's 
						based on real-world military scenarios and technologies, 
						dramatically highlighting the West's vulnerability to 
						destruction of its space-based commercial and military 
						communications infrastructure. |  
				
				In 2010, advanced space weapons fall 
				into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists, who launch them 
				against the West's reconnaissance, weather, and communications 
				satellites.    
				Meanwhile, inside U.S. Strategic 
				Command, top military commanders, space-company executives, and 
				U.S. intelligence experts are conducting a "DEADSATS II" 
				war-game, exploring how the loss of critical satellites could 
				lead to nuclear war. The players don't know that the war they 
				are gaming has already begun in space and that the Pentagon is 
				about to find out that data from the GPS satellite system is no 
				longer reliable, making accurate military operations impossible 
				worldwide....
 What makes Space Wars especially credible - and a fascinating and 
				informative read - is the outstanding technical and military 
				expertise of two of the authors. Michael Coumatos is a 
				former U.S. Navy test pilot, ship's captain and commodore, US 
				Space Command director of war gaming, and government 
				counterterrorism advisor.
 
 William Scott recently retired as Rocky Mountain bureau 
				chief for Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, a 
				Flight Test Engineer graduate of the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot 
				School, and an electronics engineering officer at the National 
				Security Agency.
 
 We asked him for a reality check.
 - Amara D. Angelica
 
				Editor, KurzweilAI.net 
			  
			How close are the scenarios and 
			war-gaming descriptions in Space Wars to the real world?
 In my opinion, the 
			
			Space Wars scenarios are very realistic, based on 
			my years of reporting on military space issues. The vulnerability of 
			U.S. satellites - commercial, civil and military - has concerned milspace professionals and leaders for many years.
 
			  
			As one Cincspace told me almost 10 years 
			ago (paraphrased),  
				
				"I have nightmares about getting 
				that call from the president, saying: 'What's killing our 
				satellites, who or what's responsible and what are you doing 
				about it?' I sure don't want my answer to be: 'I don't know, I 
				don't know and I don't know.'"  
			In other words, that four-star Cincspace 
			(we no longer have a "Commander-in-chief of space," so that term's 
			out of date) and his U.S. "space warriors" are in dire need of 
			national policies, doctrines, realistic strategies and tactics, and 
			more tools to deal with myriad threats to our space infrastructure.
 Still, progress IS being made.
 
			  
			Sensors that will help engineers and 
			space operators quickly determine whether an anomaly is caused by 
			cosmic rays or somebody lasing or jamming a satellite ARE being 
			built into new national security spacecraft. However, those sensors 
			are still not being installed routinely on commercial 
			satellites - even though the Defense Dept. relies heavily on 
			commercial comsats and imaging sats.
 The war-gaming scenarios - as well as some of the "real-world" 
			scenarios - in Space Wars are amalgamations of outcomes and insights 
			gained from actual war-games, such as those listed on pg. 7 of the 
			book's forward.
 
 Finally, weapons and systems depicted in SW are real or based on 
			real-world technologies, although some remain classified. For 
			instance, as an AvWeek reporter, I confirmed years ago that 
			classified tests done at China Lake NAS, Calif., proved that a maser 
			could be accurately controlled and targeted by first firing a laser, 
			then firing the maser a split second later.
 
			  
			The latter's microwave beam would follow 
			the laser-formed "waveguide" through the air, enabling the beam to 
			be aimed accurately and controlled.
 Has such a weapon been developed and deployed? I don't know.
 
			  
			Would 
			it also work in space, or would the maser beam start wandering like 
			wet spaghetti, once it left the atmosphere? I don't know that, 
			either.  
			  
			Some scientists believe the beam would 
			remain coherent and stable in space, but I was never able to confirm 
			that tests had demonstrated that ability. Inside the atmosphere, 
			though, actual testing DID confirm that the laser-maser combination 
			enabled accurately targeting objects with high-energy microwave 
			beams.
 Ref. the 
			
			Blackstar system: I now have several photos of the XOV 
			space-plane sitting on a Lockheed Martin flight-line ramp, so the 
			vehicle definitely exists. Based on 15+ years of sighting reports, 
			inside sources, etc., I determined that Blackstar's SR-3 carrier 
			aircraft and several versions of the XOV were built and flown.
 
			  
			An
			
			AvWeek cover story describing the 
			system ran in the March 6, 2006, issue. 
			 
			Blackstar spaceplane?
			 
			Aviation Week
 
			Despite considerable feedback that 
			spanned the spectrum from attaboy support to flaming criticism, the 
			stories DID prompt airtight confirmation to come back to me from 
			impeccable sources.  
			  
			Bottom line: some may dispute it, but 
			the Blackstar system exists and has flown. Whether it can achieve 
			orbit and was/is used exactly as we've depicted via "Speed's" 
			flights in Space Wars is strictly an educated guess, based on my AvWeek reporting.
 
				
				What are your thoughts on the 
				recent Chinese destruction of their satellite, and the 
				possibility that it was an ASAT test?
 It was definitely considered to be an 
				
				ASAT test, according to 
				several general officers who spoke at last week's Space 
				Symposium here in Colo. Springs.
   
				I think such an ASAT threat has 
				existed for some time, and our milspace professionals knew it 
				was just a matter of time until some entity demonstrated it. The 
				Russians already HAD demo'd the capability decades ago, and 
				
				Doug 
				Pearson really DID shoot down a satellite in 1985, firing a 
				missile from his F-15.    
				As the USAF commander of Space 
				Command said last week, the Chinese ASAT test was a major wakeup 
				call for all spacefaring nations, proving once and for all that 
				"space is no longer a sanctuary."
 
				How does Russia's planned Glonass system relate to the 
				European nav sat system described in the book?
 
 Both are considered alternatives to the U.S. GPS network.
   
				Ultimately, Russia, Europe and the 
				U.S. envision some commercial receivers will be able to use any 
				of these signals for precise navigation and timing. 
				
				Glonass and 
				
				Galileo are being developed to (ostensibly) ensure 
				satellite-based nav and timing will always be available, because 
				the U.S. system could be turned off at will. The U.S. military 
				controls GPS, and the Pentagon could disable certain or all GPS 
				signals during a national emergency - writ "war."
 Yet, GPS signals are becoming virtual global utilities, depended 
				upon by millions of users. The Euros, Russians, Japan and others 
				see billions of dollars to be made by selling receivers and 
				GPS-embedded products, as well, and want to get in on that 
				commercial action.
   
				Bottom line, though, is this: 
				they're alternatives to GPS, sold to financiers as "guaranteed 
				service" options, should the U.S. turn off GPS.
 
				Are there any other recent technical, military, political, 
				and other developments that tie in with the book or that were 
				predicted in the book?
 
 The Iranian political situation today is playing out largely as 
				we anticipated.
   
				Technologies for "operationally 
				responsive space"  -  small-sats and quick-response launchers  
				-  
				are evolving quickly. Autonomous on-orbit servicing of 
				satellites is being demonstrated now by the Orbital Express 
				spacecraft, a feature that plays more dramatically in our 
				sequel, Space Wars II (now being written by the same coauthors).
				   
				The Chinese ASAT test has awakened 
				Congress and American citizens to the potential threats facing 
				our space infrastructure, but I don't think our political 
				leaders fully appreciate what impacts those threats could have 
				on the U.S. national security posture and citizens' activities.
 
				What kind of comments are you getting from savvy early 
				readers so far?
 
 Initial feedback we're getting is that Space Wars' message is 
				"bang-on," prophetic, scary and very timely.
   
				Many readers either had no idea the 
				U.S. - and modern civilization, in general - was so dependent on 
				"space," or that losing satellites might have such dramatic 
				impacts in the geopolitical realm, as well on people's daily 
				lives.    
				Perhaps the most succinct feedback 
				I've heard was:  
					
					"This is a very possible, very 
					scary future. I hope it doesn't come true."  
				Although many of our readers, who 
				have a military background, are aware of the threats we depict, 
				they hadn't put the IMPACTS of attacks on satellites and the ISS 
				into context the way Space Wars does - or so they're telling us.
 
			Last Thursday, during the annual Space 
			Symposium (attended by approx. 7,000 space professionals from across 
			the globe), many senior military, commercial and civil leaders 
			bought copies of Space Wars and had Mike and me sign their books.
			   
			Interestingly, the first two copies were 
			purchased by a two-star USAF general, who is the chancellor of the 
			
			National Security Space Institute, and her aide.    
			She also wants to talk to us about some 
			"hot-button" issues we should consider for our second Space Wars 
			book.
   |