The US plans go against decades of space diplomacy. Photo / Supplied
The US plans go against decades of space diplomacy. Photo / Supplied
The Pentagon is quietly calling for tenders to build what some are calling a real-life version of the infamous Star Wars Death Star.
It's no moon, but the idea is to put into orbit a robotic hub with an optional military crew. So, will we soon witness the power of a fully armed and operational battle station?
The Defence Innovation Unit (DIU) is a body tasked with thinking big, thinking bold — and investing in the technology necessary to turn such thoughts into reality, reports https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/mutually-assured-destruction-us-developing-reallife-death-star/news-story/69c497510c7cf6b2ab03624eacf07c5f.
Right now, it is thinking the US needs a dedicated military space station.
It is reportedly calling for industry submissions on the design and construction of a "self-contained and freeflying orbital outpost". It must provide "space assembly, microgravity experimentation, logistics and storage, manufacturing, training, test and evaluation, hosting payloads, and other functions".
Breaking Defence reports the director of the DIU's space unit, Colonel Steve Butow, as saying the Pentagon is, at this stage, mainly interested in robotic orbital facilities.
"In short, we are casting a wide net for commercial solutions that can meet the basic needs described in the first part of the solicitation (autonomous/robotic, etc.)," he is quoted as saying.
The solicitation wants the robotic module to be "human-rated". This means it must be fitted with a docking hatch, be capable of supporting a pressurised atmosphere and insulated against radiation and the extreme temperature variations of orbit.
The potential for the space station to be manned has led some commentators to dub it a "Death Star" in the making — but there's no need to panic just yet.
"I think it is important not to overstate the implications of this idea. It's a 'small' military platform for experimentation in orbit — hardly a Death Star — and it won't be 'armed' with weapons," Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Dr Malcolm Davis told news.com.au.
"Having said that, it is significant that the US military is looking at going down this path."
Many pixels died to bring us this information
The DUI's plans don't initially seem ominous. Potential contractors have been asked to provide plans for a core module offering a minimal internal volume of one square metre.
It must have a docking bay capable of holding 80 kilograms. Its power supply must come in at about one kilowatt. It must have a data link with the Pentagon. And it must incorporate a "common berthing mechanism".
That means a network of modules can be attached at later dates, just as the International Space Station was gradually added to since its core was launched in 1998.
But it's not likely to be a threat. At least not any time soon.
"It seems talk of an actual Death Star is overblown, but it's still interesting to think about real threats. On a metaphorical level, maybe the real Death Star is the slow erosion of our collective belief that space is a place for inspiration and co-operation between nations," says University of Sydney research student and host of the Space Junk podcast Annie Handmer.
"It's more terrifying that, 50 years after the giant leap for mankind, discourse suggests that we are contemplating taking terrestrial conflict into orbit. We signed the Outer Space Treaty (OST) a generation ago to avoid war in space, and now it seems we might have forgotten the lessons the Cold War was meant to have taught us; conflict in space is bad for everyone."
But protecting that treaty will need an alliance among rebels, says Dr Davis.
"Strengthening the 1967 OST's provision on space weapons is also a must, but it will be difficult to get other major space powers such as China and Russia to agree to new legal constraints on capabilities that they're already developing and testing," he says.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin are pushing boldly into space. Photo / Getty
That's no moon
It's no fully armed and operational battle station. But when the 1967 OST agreed not to militarise space, it did not envisage the possibility of a military-crewed space station — be it armed or not. So while such a facility may go against the spirit of the treaty, it may not breach the word of the law.
Scale it up, however, and it would be a different matter.
"I'm not an expert on space weapons, so I won't comment on the DIU's plans. But as a matter of general interest, I am quite confident that the Death Star the Galactic Empire built in Star Wars would, for the purposes of international law, be considered a 'weapon of mass destruction'. It would, therefore, fall under Article 4 of the OST," says Ms Handmer.
The treaty is an agreement to use space for "peaceful purposes", signed by all the world's major powers including the United States, Russia and China.
Article 4 reads: "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner … The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden."
It says nothing about space stations.
But the danger, Ms Handmer says, is not the weapons themselves — but the escalating militarised rhetoric about space: "This may, over time, weaken the norms that prevent weaponisation. The public perception of how space is and should be used will be key in determining what states view as a permissible activity, alongside the text of the space treaties."
At least we'll know how to take it out when the time comes. Photo / Supplied
No exhaust ports please
"Blow up something big enough, and all sorts of public services we take for granted, like GPS or mobile communications or our banking systems come under threat," says Ms Handmer.
"It's a new kind of mutually assured destruction, and my opinion is that the risk starts well before the first shots are fired. It starts when we let talk of weapons in space become normal."
The OST is coming under increasing pressure as a new Cold War develops, with numerous nations looking to incorporate space "assets" into their "warfighting" capabilities.
While spy and communications satellites have long been a feature in our skies, there have been recent indications nations such as Russia, China, the United States and the United Kingdom — among others — have been developing "dual-use" robotic satellites. There's open talk of arming satellites as "first responders" in the event of a hostile ballistic missile launch. Then there are hypervelocity glide vehicles, military "spaceplanes" and anti-satellite missiles.
"We do seem to be heading in the wrong direction towards space as a warfighting environment, which is a real shame," says Dr Davis, adding the West cannot ignore the reality that this is happening.
"At the moment, efforts towards strengthening norms against space weaponisation don't seem to be working very well because there is no incentive for our adversaries to give up a clear military advantage."
While the OST already requires space activities to serve "the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding", Dr Davis says defining "peaceful purpose" activities isn't easy "particularly when states such as China have space programs run by the military".
"My view is that I think it may require deterrence in space to strengthen incentives towards negotiating new legal measures that then make arms control in space a possibility, which in turn gets us back on the right path of co-operation in space," he says.
"Perhaps it's time to review and refresh the treaty … The alternative is a free-for-all on the high frontier with dangerous risks for major-power competition in a contested space environment."
