Subject: Counting spysats (long!) From: thomsona@netcom.com (Allen Thomson) Date: 1996/08/19 Message-Id: <thomsonaDwD7ww.FJ4@netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.space.policy,alt.politics.org.cia Several months ago we had a brief exchange of messages motivated by a news report of an appearance by DCI John Deutch before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). As reported, Dr. Deutch said that the aggregate NRO budget could not be declassified because to do so would enable hostile entities to deduce the numbers and kinds of satellites to be launched. The gist of the comments on the newsgroups was that this was an incredibly foolish assertion. As it was then, so is it now. However, the full transcript of the Q&A session following Deutch's prepared testimony is now available on the CIA Web site and is more interesting (and much funnier) than the news stories indicated. It may even tie in with the "disappearing satellites" and related threads of the past year or so. Here are some relevant parts, with commentary in [square brackets]. Even with fairly ruthless trimming, it's still pretty long, for which apologies are offered. I'd recommend getting the full text (a little under 100 kB) from the CIA site, or I could mail it to the webless. Sen. Specter, as SSCI chairman, likely has some knowledge of matters pertaining to reconnaissance satellites and so his perplexity should not be interpreted as arising from simple cluelessness. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CIA Home Page DCI Q&A Session 2/22/96 Question and Answer Session following the Worldwide Threat Assessment brief to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs by the DCI, John M. Deutch. [sic; I checked with the CIA PAO and found that this is apparently a mistake. The DCI was testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] The following is the actual dialog of the Question and Answer Session: SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you very much, Director Deutch. We will proceed now to ten minute rounds of questions. [much material deleted] SENATOR SPECTER: Director Deutch, I know you are well aware of the fact that if any of the questions go beyond what you feel comfortable with, we can reserve them for a closed session, but I think it appropriate to comment for the record that we're aware on this side of the podium of that limitation. I now want to take up with you questions of the national reconnaissance, the NRO, and the concerns about the NRO having so much more money available than this committee and the Congress generally understood them to have. This ties into the overall issue as to how much secrecy is necessary for the U.S. intelligence community. Not too long ago the Senate passed, by a slim margin, an amendment to make public the total figure of the intelligence community. That was changed in a conference report. I believe that you have testified, or perhaps let me just ask you, what is your view about the propriety of making public the bottom line figure of what the appropriations are for the U.S. intelligence community? [deletia] ...You have some thinking on the subject at the moment don't you, Dr. Deutch? DR. DEUTCH: I have testified on the subject. I think the way I've testified on the subject is that I do not believe there is any great loss by making the top line of the Defense Department's budget public, but there has been some heated questioning from members of your committee about the ability to hold the line there and not have additional information on sub- categories of the budget also made public, and at that point, I think one would run very serious risks of revealing sources and methods which would not be helpful for the country's national interests. So the top line, yes; below that, no. The overall budget... SENATOR SPECTER: The overall budget for the U.S. intelligence community? DR. DEUTCH: Yes, sir. Yes. And then going below that, no, has been what I've testified to in the past, and I've received very heated questions from members of this committee about whether that's plausible that one could maintain such a position, but I would leave that to Congress' judgment. SENATOR SPECTER: Why do you say that a disclosure of figures for the national intelligence community would be involved in sources and methods? We have a very serious issue with the NRO, and it is illustrative with the problem of secrecy. If there is a reason for secrecy, then we ought to observe it; but I believe we're going to have to do more than simply generalize on sources and methods. But perhaps the best way to approach this subject within the confines of our time restrictions today is to talk about the NRO. [Specter notes that vague appeals to "sources and methods" is a favorite means of concealing financial and other irregularities. He questions that s&m (so to abbreviate) would be compromised by disclosure of the total NRO budget.] Is there any reason why the public should not know how much the National Reconnaissance Organization had in its account that was excessive? [Here he backs off to the more specific question of why the NRO's budget *excess* -- not the budget itself -- should be kept secret.] DR. DEUTCH: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I could not agree with you more that secrecy is not -- cannot -- be used as a cover for poor management and for poor financial management, in particular. But there is a very good reason why the National Reconnaissance Office budget has been maintained secret from year to year, and that is by tracking that budget over time, it would be possible, depending upon what level of detail, but even ^^^^^^^^ in the top line, the number of national reconnaissance ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ satellites that are launched. That is not a subject which I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ think should be publicly-known -- the number or types of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ satellites that are launched. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [Deutch answers in terms of the total budget, not the excess, and brings in what I think is the really interesting theme here: that revelation of the number as well as the types of satellites would be bad. He also brings in the very peculiar notion, commented on in the earlier thread, that this bad result would be brought about by disclosing the "top line" budget.] So I want to absolutely associate myself with you and with the members of this committee, the minority member especially, that financial -- lack of financial quality management is not permissible because a program is secret. But I also believe that going below the top line will begin to, getting finer and finer in detail, give information about the kinds of intelligence efforts that we have underway that will not benefit our national security. [OK, even though Deutch isn't answering the question Specter asked. Financial responsibility is generally considered to be good, and most people would agree that really fine-grained budget disclosures might occasionally compromise a legitimate secret.] SENATOR SPECTER: That's a marvelous answer, Dr. Deutch, fit for the Manchester debates in New Hampshire or the ones coming up in Arizona, but I don't think you've come near my question. [Specter notes that Deutch answered the wrong question.] My question is, is there any reason to conceal the excessive amounts the NRO had. Now I'm not talking to you about mismanagement... DR. DEUTCH: The excessive amounts... SENATOR SPECTER: Excuse me, excuse me. I'm not talking to you about mismanagement, and I'm not talking to you about their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ overall budget which might give some insights into the numbers ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ of satellites launched, which I want to pursue with you ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ because I don't see a necessary connection. Let me candidly state ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to you that too often when we get into these discussions we come up with sources and methods and we come up with items about satellites launched, and we come up with generalized national security issues. But we have seen in a free society when the facts and figures are on the table, there are many people who take a look at it. It's available under the Freedom of Information Act so that citizens can take a look at it; it's available for investigative reporting; it's more available for congressional inquiry. There's simply not enough inspectors general or members of oversight committees or directors, even as competent as directors are, to take a look at all of this. [Specter doesn't understand the very peculiar part of the answer to the wrong question. He also shows some decent understanding of how the U.S. government should and sometimes does work.] Now coming back to my question, how they had excessive funds, the NRO did. Is there any reason why the American people should not know the figure of the excessive funds? There's been a lot in the newspapers. Any reason why we shouldn't tell the American people how much excessive funds the NRO had? [Another try at the excessive funds question.] DR. DEUTCH: The reason that one should not do that, Mr. Chairman, is that by itself -- by itself -- that single figure does not place in perspective what the size of the program is and how that program is financed and how that event occurred, as inappropriate as it was. [Deutch inserts one foot in mouth.] SENATOR SPECTER: But you're saying that... [Specter demonstrates that he's listening...] DR. DEUTCH: So, the American people will not have the correct impression of the National Reconnaissance Office from only revealing that single figure. That figure has to be seen in context to understand how it happened, where the money built up, what has been done about it, because it has been -- by the Department of Defense and my myself -- put back and given back to Congress when it was not needed and placed back in a program where it was needed. And to give you more... [There goes the other foot.] SENATOR SPECTER: Director Deutch, I don't want to interrupt you unduly, but we're not getting to the point. [To say the least.] DR. DEUTCH: Yes, sir. [One has to have a little sympathy for the guy.] SENATOR SPECTER: We're not on the point about what you've done or what the Department of Defense has done. I'm on the point as to why the American people shouldn't know what the excessive amount was. Now you've said the total budget of the NRO ought not to be ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ known because it might have some indication as to the number of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ satellites set off. I don't know why that is and we'll come back ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to it. But then I say how about the number in itself and you say ^^^^^ well, we shouldn't disclose that because without knowing what the overall budget of the NRO was, we shouldn't say what the excess was. I don't understand that answer at all. [Specter has indeed been listening and realizes that almost nothing Deutch has said even begins to make sense. He definitely has picked up on the budget => number of satellites theme.] But suppose it were a trillion dollars. Suppose it is so excessive, which I believe it to be, and has independent standing all by itself. I haven't asked you yet what the figures is, and I haven't decided whether I'm going to ask you what the figure is... [Specter, understandably, gets a little incoherent himself.] DR. DEUTCH: I'm thinking. [One can well imagine.] SENATOR SPECTER: ...because I want to hear for the record what your reasons are that the total figure ought not to be announced. Now if you say you shouldn't announce it because you can't -- it doesn't have any understanding in the absence of knowing what their budget is, and then you can't tell us the budget because of the perhaps disclosures of satellite launchings, what you're saying is you can't say anything. [One more attempt...] DR. DEUTCH: Mr. Chairman, I will be very candid with you. I think you can't tell a story with one sentence. You can't just say that... SENATOR SPECTER: We haven't asked you to do that. DR. DEUTCH: My point is, Mr. Chairman, that that number by itself will provide a misleading impression to the American people. Your judgment has to be do you want to tell them everything about the National Reconnaissance Office, not just one isolated fact, I must say, a fact which is very damaging and not something that I condone. But the question is do you give a full impression or one number? I would argue to you you have to make the decision to give them a full story, but one number alone is misleading. That's my position... [The attempt was in vain.] SENATOR SPECTER: What's the damage to national security if ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ someone knows how many satellites have been launched? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [Yes! Specter asks a fundamental question.] (Pause) [A very pregnant one.] DR. DEUTCH: I think that there is an answer that I would want to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ give in a classified setting. But let me tell you, that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knowledge of where satellites are and how many there are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ allow people to take actions to deny or deceive those ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ satellite operations. So there's great merit to not having people ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ know the nature of the satellites, where they are, or how many ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ there are. ^^^^^^^^^ [Deutch gives a most revealing answer. What he's trying to protect is -- reasonably -- the missions and asserts that knowledge of location and numbers of satellites would compromise missions if the bad guys knew them.] Because... [A pity he was interrupted: the "Because" might have been interesting.] SENATOR SPECTER: The nature and where they are are totally different from how many there are. [Not entirely right, but close enough.] DR. DEUTCH: No, but the point is, all three variables are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ important. ^^^^^^^^^ [So somehow, in the DCI's mind, numbers, mission and location are all fused together. We will presently explore why that might be so.] SENATOR SPECTER: The budget doesn't necessarily tell you where ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ they are. It tells you... How does it even tell you how many ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ there are? ^^^^^^^^^ [Poor Senator Specter. He's trying so hard to find something that makes sense. The phrase "wilderness of mirrors" comes to mind.] DR. DEUTCH: Estimates can be made, and it is the variations in the budget that will tell you about launch rates and the like. Again, it depends on how much you know. [Budget-based estimates have been made, and it turns out they tell very little about launch rates; Dr. Deutch might want to talk with John Pike about that. Also, for what little it's worth, the mission models for the boosters are unclassified. Not to mention the fact that the actual launches aren't exactly inconspicuous. More on that below.] SENATOR SPECTER: How likely is it that somebody is going to figure it out, and how likely is it that that's going to harm national security, compared to a live example of the NRO having flagrantly excessive amounts of money which have been accumulated because of our rules on secrecy? Dr. Deutch, my red light is on and I'm going to stop, but I think that you and the intelligence community and this committee have got to do a much better job in coming to grips with the hard reasons for this security, if they exist. And if they exist, I'm prepared to help you defend them. But I don't see that they exist. I don't think they have been articulated or explained. And as you know in this hearing there was a suggestion that we ought to have the NRO people in here because the consequences of having the NRO secrete a tremendous sum of money are minimal. [deletia] [End of Q&As] ------------------------------------------------------------------ There are many interesting things here, notably the chain of logic advanced by the DCI: NRO top line budget => numbers of satellites => mission and location => increased capability for denial and deception (D&D) on the part of enemies. One strong possibility is that the whole business is a slightly elaborated version of the "sources and methods" bureaucratic smokescreen Sen. Specter complained about, but there are other interesting candidate explanations. Since I find it incomprehensible, I'm going to ignore the budget part, but several things need to be said about the middle two links of the chain. First, US classified satellites are launched from Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral on large, conspicuous rockets. They are announced as being classified missions, the general configuration of the booster is known, the exact time of launch is known, and the azimuth of the booster's flight path is known. As a consequence, those classified satellites which remain for even a short time in LEO are usually spotted optically and their orbits determined by amateur observers (and, one imagines, by whatever foreign intelligence services care about such things). The quality of this orbit determination is at least as good as NORAD's, and allows the position (aka "location") of the satellites to be determined quite precisely weeks in advance. Satellites bound for GEO pretty much have to be SIGINT or communications relay missions, have characteristic launcher configurations, are launched due East from Canaveral, and usually don't stay in LEO very long (rather recently, the amateur community has begun telescopic observations of what are apparently classified satellites in GEO). Satellites going into the near-polar sunsynchronous LEO orbits associated with optical imagery are launched south from Vandenberg on characteristic azimuths. Other indicators such as orbital parameters and visual appearance allow families of satellites to be identified, their replenishment rates to be determined, and sometimes missions to be guessed. So the numbers, locations and general kinds of US classified satellites are already very well determined through methods which are vastly more informative than any aggregate budget information could ever be. Whatever D&D the baddies would use such information for is already possible. All of this has been written up in books, articles in magazines and scholarly journals, and has been available on public computer bulletin boards and the Internet for years. If the DCI didn't know that, he was the victim of exceedingly bad staff work. Given this situation, is there anything that could rescue the right-hand side of Dr. Deutch's chain of logic from complete absurdity? Maybe. As discussed in various earlier threads, there have been a few (one AFP-731, three NOSS 2, maybe one other recent Titan IV payload) satellites launched this decade into ~60 degree orbits which have disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Furthermore, there have been rumors and speculation that they were imaging satellites. There is a variety of possible explanations for their vanishing, but some involve them remaining active but unrecognized in orbit. Based on indications that the US is intending to send spysats into significantly higher orbits than it traditionally has and other considerations, John Pike has hypothesized that the vanished satellites are in "short Molniya" orbits with perigee/apogee something like 500/5000 kilometers. Additionally, he suggests that they might be designed to have optical and radar signatures matching those of existing debris populations. (The USA-40 debris look like a promising candidate for such a chaff cloud.) Whether this is actually true or not, it serves as an example of the "there-but-unrecognized" family of explanations for the disappearing satellites. So there may be one semireasonable rationale for the DCI's chain of logic. Working right-to-left, it would go like this: Foreign denial and deception makes use of knowledge of the whereabouts of US photoreconnaissance satellites to carry out evil deeds at times when the satellites aren't around (*); if they had an accurate count of satellites from other sources, they would realize that the ones observed in sunsynchronous orbits fall short of the total. They would then institute additional measures to ensure full-time concealment and/or improve their space surveillance methods to find the disappeared satellites. Unfortunately, there is a large fly in this ointment, namely that the US seems to have gone out of its way to call attention to the disappearing satellites. The satellites were launched on the biggest vehicles the US has, were announced to be classified, and typically hung around in LEO, big and bright, for several days under intense scrutiny by people around the world. During that time they performed interesting maneuvers, the AFP-731 shed pieces, NOSS dropped off subsatellites -- and as a finale, foop!, they disappeared. (AFP-731 did a two-stage disappearing act.) This is more like a fan dance than a masterful plan to deploy unrecognized spysats. Further and more, US intelligence officials, including Dr. Deutch in the present testimony, have made statements which must stimulate wicked people to consider the possiblity that something interesting is afoot in the spysat world. A remarkably revelatory instance was then-DDCI Adm. Studeman's article in Aerospace America of November 1994. When the article was viewed through the lens of Kepler's Third Law the message "WE'RE GOING INTO HIGHER ORBITS" appeared, and a modest amount of analysis indicated what those orbits were likely to be: the "short Molniya" ones of John Pike's hypothesis. In neither the DDCI's article (obviously subjected to security review) nor the DCI's testimony on the CIA Web site are we dealing with accidental indescretions hitting the street before they can be recalled. While it's possible Dr. Deutch said more than he indended in open session, I'm sure there are mechanisms in place for redacting slips of the tongue from the public record. So what does all this mean? I'm not the one to claim I know, but there seem to be three main possibilities. - What the DCI said is bureaucratic smoke and mirrors meant to keep the Congress at arm's length. At least the budget part of his logic train is hard to interpret in any other way. If this had been the traditional NRO actors with their circled wagons mentality, I wouldn't hesitate to pick this as the most likely possibility. Since it was Dr. Deutch, I'm not so sure. - The numbers, mission and location parts are pointing at some real programs related to the disappearing satellites. Lamentably, these programs have been executed so clumsily as to draw attention to themselves, thus severely compromising their intended purpose. Various avoidable high-level indiscretions haven't helped. As an American taxpayer I find this scenario depressing and don't want to believe it. - Something Else. As noted, the disappearing satellites seem to have been doing a fan dance. The purpose of a fan dance is to attract and focus attention, and practitioners of magic know that diverting attention away from where the action is really going on is the essence of legerdemain. So it may not be entirely out of the question that the NRO is doing something moderately clever. Just what that might be is a matter for speculation. (If I were doing it, I'd put an imaging payload on a fake DMSP or booster upper stage.) Against this possibility is the fact that, while the NRO has built some neat satellites, subtlety hasn't been its strong suit. I'll even add an extreme dark horse under the Something Else category just to please the Area 51 fans: - The US has developed a covert launch vehicle (Pegasus-like, Aurora-esque, who knows) capable of putting a deceptive (signature- controlled, replacement for an existing object, whatever) smallish satellite with 30 to 50 cm optics into LEO. There are well-populated bands in the 800 - 1300 km region where such a thing might hide. This would be neat, and very useful in time of war, but I doubt that it's true. So, enough. Time for others to comment. (*) As mentioned in an earlier "disappearing satellites" message, I don't think the tactic of hiding nefarious activities by scheduling them around satellite overflight times is going to be useful much longer, if indeed it's used today. There are going to be just too many eyes in the sky for it to be practical.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
