DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, September 2, 1997, 2:13 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD (PA)
[DoD clarification can be found in brackets, where applicable]
..............
Q: Ken, could you talk about -- is the Secretary considering allowing a test laser attack on a satellite?
A: That question has not reached the Secretary yet and no decision has been made, and I think it's premature to talk about it until a decision is made.
Q: But is there anything that would bar such an exercise? Under what conditions does this depend on doing or even considering it? Is Congress telling them to do so?
A: Well, first, we have a national space policy, and that policy says: "The U.S. will develop, operate, and maintain capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."
So we have a national space policy that allows us to consider ways to protect our assets in space and to control space to the event necessary to protect our national security interests.
General Estes, the Commander-in-Chief of Space Command, gave a very detailed speech on this last Spring, and I'd be glad to get you a copy of that if you can't get it off of DefenseLINK, where we got it. But that outlines aspects of our national space policy.
There is no treaty, and there is no legislative injunction against conducting such an experiment, but the decision to go ahead with this experiment has not been made, and the Department will have to weigh the pros and cons of proceeding at this stage. That hasn't been done yet.
Q: Are you saying that the question is going to be stopped before it even gets to the Secretary, for instance?
A: I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that decisions haven't been made. Usually decisions are made at a number of levels, and this decision has not been made yet.
Q: What level is it at?
A: Well, it has to be made, first of all, by the Acquisition and Technology people, who have the first line of authority on this. But this is under consideration. No decision has been made.
Q: Would the ability to knock out a satellite with a ground-based laser represent a big leap forward in that kind of technology?
A: Well, there are a number of ways to deal with potential problems in space. They don't all involve lasers. There has been one project underway for a while, an Army project that involves using a kinetic-energy vehicle to attack satellites. That is also under development. That's been supported by Congress over the years.
So there are a number of things we're looking at, but I think it's premature to say how dramatic it would be if this single experiment went forward at this stage. For one thing, it would just be speculative to say how the experiment would come out.
It's a long-distance issue, the laser. It is a powerful laser, but it's difficult to shoot lasers over long distances through the atmosphere. One of the things that the Department will have to look at is whether this is the way we want to go in dealing with space programs and whether this is a technically feasible project.
Q: Is this in any way related to the airborne laser that --
A: Now, the airborne laser is part of the Theater Missile Defense System, and that's basically designed to shoot a target that is moving through a parabolic flight path. That's an entirely different challenge than this.
Q: Ken, isn't one of the major -- you said the space policy was partly formulated to protect, as you put it, protect our assets in space. Isn't one of the problems there that if you develop such a weapon, it might spark a race to develop weapons by others, and in turn then put the United States' space assets in danger. Isn't that one of the things to consider here, or will this decision go forward one way or the other, without consideration to that?
A: In all complex decisions there are many considerations: Some are technical, some are political, some are diplomatic, and some have to do with the basic architecture of the program and whether the experiment fits into where we want to be in 10, 15, 20 years. So there are a number of considerations here. I don't think I should get into all of them at this stage, but suffice it to say that the decision has not been made yet.
Q: Would one of them be whether or not this might spark others to develop such a weapon and in turn --
A: Certainly, policy makers have to think broadly about responses to tests, but that's not to say -- to forecast in any way how this decision will be made. It has not reached the point for a decision yet, and I can't predict when the decision will be made, but, as I say, there are a number of considerations.
Q: On that same question, given that the decision has not been made, can you at least tell us what type of test is being discussed? Would this actually take down a real live satellite out of operation, so it doesn't work any more? How would such a test work? On a satellite? Would test it on something else.
A: No, it would be tested on a satellite that is reaching the end of its life or may have reached the end of its life, but there are satellites that go up and perform jobs for a certain amount of time and then they wear out. And that's the target that would be used here if the test goes forward, but that's an "if". The decision has not been made.
Q: So this would not just be a test of the satellite's ability, perhaps, to track and hit the -- the laser's ability to track and hit the satellite, but, if it were approved, would be a test to try to destroy the satellite, to burn it up, in effect, burn up its ability to operate.
A: If the test took place, it would produce two types of information. First, it would give us some data on the vulnerability of our own satellites and, secondly, it would give us information on space control systems that we might be able to develop in the future, if we wanted to develop them.
..............
Q: A question. Why are the (inaudible) or why now?
A: I'm sorry, you're asking about the --
Q: (Inaudible.)
A: Well, this laser has been out there for some time in New Mexico.
Q: Why now?
A: That's a question you'll have to ask the Army, but it's been out there. They've been testing this laser on a variety of things and I guess they felt that there was a satellite reaching the end of its life and it might be an appropriate time to try to test it. But, as I say, the decision to go ahead with this has not yet been made.
Q: This satellite, then, it does have life? I mean, there's a laser test to tell if (inaudible)? Is that correct? Or is it dead? Tell me, why don't they use a target, some kind of a target that has sensors to measure the effect?
A: Well, I think you have to assume that the satellite would be able to measure some of the effects, that we would have ways of measuring the effects.
Q: On the seismic event in Russia, has there been any determination yet by the department?
A: No. There has not been any determination as to what caused that seismic event in Russia and it remains a mystery. One of the issues that has emerged now is exactly where it took place -- whether it took place in water or whether it took place on land. And experts now have competing views on whether it took place in water or took place on land. Some experts believe it could have been an earthquake, others believe that it had the characteristics of an explosion.
You might ask what are we doing to try to resolve this. Well, a lot, but sometimes technology doesn't always yield quick and easy answers. Basically, there were several seismic stations that registered some indications that were read by some analysts as a potential explosion.
There are many other seismic stations in Europe and other places that aren't tied in -- that are tied into different networks and we're now in the process of going back and trying to reconstruct or retrieve the data that they gathered on, I believe, August 16th when this event supposedly took place, to try to find out what pictures they present and, over time, all of this and other information will be thrown together into a big computer which will try to make sense out of it, and then probably a bunch of analysts will sit down and try to make sense out of it as well.
Q: Are you satisfied with the explanations that you have gotten from the Russian government so far on this issue?
A: The Russians have said that nothing took place in that test site. We are continuing to look at all of the seismic and other information available.
Q: So that sounds like you're not totally satisfied, you're still curious.
A: Well, on the one hand, we have some technological information that some people have interpreted as a possible explosion. Some people have interpreted it as an earthquake. So there are various interpretations for this seismic evidence that was generated on August 16th.
The Russians have said that there was no explosion in that area. It's a piece of information. We're looking at all the information available and the reason it's taking so long is it turns out there's more information available in other seismic monitoring posts and universities and all sorts of places other than in the initial three observation points. So we're trying to gather as much of that information as possible and figure out exactly what happened.
I don't think this will be done immediately. I think it's likely to take some time.
A: PARTICIPANT: Thank you.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
