July 26, 2023 • 38 mins
The US Space Force, established in 2019, is the first new branch of the military to be created since 1947, and its mission is vast: defend US interests in space. But what exactly is the Space Force? And what does defending US interests in space mean or look like practically?
As the nearly $900 billion defense spending bill winds its way through Congress, Wes went to the Pentagon to sit down with General David Thompson, the Vice Chief of Space Operations to learn what US interests in space are, and how the branch is developing. Bloomberg cybersecurity reporter Katrina Manson joins later to describe her visit to Space Command in Colorado and the importance of the US keeping a watch on its adversaries in zero gravity.
Listen to The Big Take podcast every weekday and subscribe to our daily newsletter: https://bloom.bg/3F3EJAK
Have questions or comments for Wes and the team? Reach us at bigtake@bloomberg.net.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
United States Space Force.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Is it an arm of NASA or is it a
private corporation.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
A space force? Gosh, I don't know.
Speaker 4 (00:11):
Are they guardians or exploration? I don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Defend US against alleged space threats? I mean, I don't
know that I think it does much. I'm assuming like
a branch of the army that fights crime and space.
Speaker 5 (00:26):
Well, I think Space Force they go in space with
like weapons for some reason. And I don't know why
I even need weapons in space, explore space.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
To the moon or flight to the moon or whatever.
I don't know if it's public.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I'm guessing it's some sort of military arm of NASA,
the space program that has to do with strategic defense
or maybe settling Mars.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
The almost nine hundred billion dollar defense spending bill that's
working its way through the Congress includes a thirty billion
dollar request for the newest and smallest branch of the
US military, the US Space Force. You may remember when
it was created in twenty nineteen, there were plenty of
star Trek in space cadet jokes, and even at Netflix
(01:11):
comedy starring Steve Carrell as a bumbling Space Force commander.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Air Force is Space Force, Space Force, sir, you don't
like to use your full title.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Sorry, sir, Spaceman first class.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Nothing to be ashamed of Air Forces airmen Space Force
as spacemen. Nothing embarrassing or comical about it.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
But we haven't heard much about Space Force since then,
which made us wonder, now that it's up and running,
what does it actually do and how are they spending
all those billions to find out? I paid a visit
to the Pentagon to speak with General David Thompson.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Our job is to protect US interest in space.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
He's the Vice Chief of Space Operations for all of
Space Force.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
It is now incumbent on us to do two things.
First is to develop get abilities that will defend our
satellites in a whole host of ways, and it will
become our responsibility also to deny advisary use of space.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
And later in the show, I talked to Bloomberg cyber
security reporter Katrina Manson.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
I think it's really fair to say the homes race
is already on, and certainly in terms of perception, the
amount that you're seeing from the commercial well putting up
into space also creates huge dilemmas for the US military
and what they need to defend.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
I'm wes Kasova today on the big take. Space Force
is no joke. General, I would imagine that some portion
of your job is just explaining to people you meet
what the Space Force is.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
You're absolutely right, it really is. There a whole host
of things that we do that many people don't really understand.
But I'll start with the things that people probably see
every day and may not realize it. Right, people with
smartphones billions all over the world follow the blue dot
on their smartphone every day. That's Global Positioning System GPS.
That constellation of thirty satellites is brought to you by
(03:11):
the United States Space Force. That constellation also provides a
timing signal that synchronizes the cellular network they use, and
financial networks and the Internet and things like that.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
That's provided as a service for the world.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
But the real reason it exists is US Air Force
aircraft flying over the Arctic ice cap, Navy ships in
the Middle Pacific Ocean, Army units in the middle of
the Arabian Desert. They follow the blue dot every day
as well, and that's really why it's there. So they
can navigate effectively all over.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
The globe, all over the world.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
There's a whole host of missile and rocket activity. Rockets
are launched all over the world every single day. We
operate a constellation of spacecraft that detect every single launch,
figure out where it is, where it's coming from, if
it poses a threat to the nation or our friends
or allies and forces, and provide warning. Those are the
kinds of things that we do every day. I'm done
(04:02):
for decades, all the way up to including keeping track
of objects in space. Forty thousand plus objects in space
that we keep track of every single day. We figure
out where they are, we figure out where they're going,
and whether or not they oppose a hazard to themselves,
to others, Do they pose a hazard just to astronauts
on the International Space Station. We have a global array
(04:23):
of ground and space based sensors to keep track of
all that.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
So you're keeping track of this stuff. Let's say you
find an object, an old satellite, something else that does
pose a threat.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
What do you do, well, We provide warning to whomever
it poses a threat to, you know, obviously and most directly,
we have a very close tie with NASA so that
we protect the International Space Station and to human beings
in orbit. We do the same for satellites operated by companies,
satellites operated by other nations. When the Chinese have astronauts
(04:57):
on board their space station, we provide warning the We
provide warning to anybody and everybody who operates a spacecraft,
and then it becomes their responsibility to decide what they
want to do with that information. Move their satellite, assume
the risk, and hope that it doesn't hit them.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Those sources of things.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
What do you find when you talk to people about
Space Force? What do Americans think it does? Well?
Speaker 4 (05:22):
Yeah, great question, I mean, and you know, when we
were created three and a half years ago, there was
this line of conversation that said, now that we've created
a space Force, we have to find something for them
to do well. As I just described, there were a
whole host of things we were already doing. Most of us,
not all of us, but most of us were in
the United States Air Force doing those things. So the GPS,
(05:45):
the communication, satellites, the missile warning, tracking all those objects
in space, we were already doing all that, and when
we created the Space Force, we continued. The difference is
and the reason we were created is other nations, now,
especially those that wish us ill who would seek to
do us harm, are looking to deny us use of
(06:05):
those capabilities if in fact we're in conflict with them,
And so one of the reasons we were created was
to help protect those satellites as well and make sure
those soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines get the
things they need from GPS, have the communications they need,
get the information they need from space, because other countries
have now said we're going to try and take that
(06:27):
away from you if it comes to conflict.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Yea, and I want to talk a bit more about
that a little bit later. First, this new branch of
the military built up very quickly. Can you just talk
about what happened from twenty nineteen when it was first
announced till now?
Speaker 4 (06:43):
Sure, Actually we had a little bit of advanced notice.
We started, as you said, when the legislation was signed
into law in December of twenty nineteen, about eight months previously.
We saw that this was very much a possibility, so
we established a planning team to decide how we would
establish the force, so that the day the law was created,
(07:04):
we sort of had a running start. So what we
did was we took the foundational pieces that existed already
in the Air Force, already in the Army, already in
the Navy, and we began putting them together and filling
in pieces that weren't there. As an example, you know,
we had organizations that built satellites and deployed satellites and
(07:25):
operated satellites. What we didn't have was an effective intelligence enterprise,
right adversaries, how do they operate in space? What are
their capabilities, what sort of hostile behaviors. We didn't have
an effective enterprise in that regard, so we had to
build that very quickly.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
And how large is Space Force now?
Speaker 4 (07:43):
The Space Force today consists of about eighty five hundred
guardians in uniform and about five thousand more civilians, and
so all told, we're now approaching fourteen thousand people.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Now.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
One important point in that regard, though, is we also
rely heavily on the United States Air Force for a
lot of things that we need that we don't do ourselves.
And there are about five thousand airmen who are out
there helping us operator installations. They're providing our medical care,
They're giving us logistical and security and legal support, and
so a lot of the things that we need to
(08:16):
operate effectively we don't do for ourselves. It's a great
partnership that we have with the US Air Force that
allows us to execute all those functions as well.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
So in a little over three years, really you built
space for us up pretty quickly. How large will it be?
Is there a final number that you're building towards.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
There is not, but I.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Will tell you we're continuing to grow. And the reason
we're continuing to go is missions that we used to
do in other domains are moving to space. Right For example,
something we call ground moving target indication tracking ships as
they move across the ocean, tracking large vehicles on the
ground and actually some of them in.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
The air as well.
Speaker 4 (08:53):
So that mission is moving to space, and so we
have to grow our number of people in our systems
to be able to do that. We're creating a whole
lot more connectivity for forces at sea, on the ground,
in the air, so that they can operate in a
more integrated fashion. That requires a whole lot more connectivity
to move data and to communicate through space. So we
(09:15):
have to build that out. There's not a final number,
but I would say in the next five to ten
years we will probably grow by about a third just
because of those new missions, and who knows what will
happen in the future after that.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
You said earlier that a lot of the functions that
the Space Force now does was previously done by the
Air Force. Why did Space Force need to become its
own branch. Why couldn't the Air Force have expanded to
meet the challenges of a changing time.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
There's a couple of reasons why. The first is really
the fact that we moved from what I will call
a relatively benign and domain into one where those space
systems are under threat. Starting as far back as two
thousand and seven, starting with the Chinese, they specifically started
developing and fielding weapons to take our satellites and the
(10:06):
services they provide away from missing conflict. They did that
with a test with a missile launched from the ground
to destroy a satellite space The Russians have followed suit.
Both have put offensive weapons in orbit to threaten our satellites.
And so now we're not talking about just providing that
GPS signal or the communications or the warning. We're now
talking about the need to defend and protect those assets
(10:29):
as well. And so that requires a focused service who
thinks every day about what it takes to operate in
space and to do that effectively with soldier, sailors, airmen,
and marines. The second thing I'll say is the United
States Air Force has a really full plate, and to
ask one service and one service chief and one staff
(10:51):
to do all that effectively in the air and then sale,
by the way, focus effectively on space as well, was
really too large of it span of control. And so
just like in nineteen forty seven, the last time we
did this, the United States Army built the world's greatest
air forces as part of the army. But in nineteen
forty seven the nation decided we now need a separate
service that focuses every day on the air and interfaces
(11:14):
directly with the Army of the Davy. We reach the
same point in space to say, now, just like we
need a service to understand how to operate on the ground,
at sea in the air, we need a comparable service
to be able to do that in space as well.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
I imagine since the military is very keen on drying
boundaries and lines, and what's the difference between air and space.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Well, there's a lot of difference.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
In fact, it's actually pretty easy because it's a very
thick and large boundary. You know, there's really you get
up to about one hundred thousand feet maybe one hundred
and fifty thousand feet, you can't really operate effectively in
the air anymore above that, and then it's really about
down to about one hundred miles where you can operate
effectively in space. So there's a boundary there. We can
(12:02):
draw one specific line, but there's really a large area
in between air and space where you don't operate effectively.
And the principles under which you operate are vastly different,
and therefore you need to understand it, act and think
about them differently to operate effectively in each kind of
the same way. The difference between operating and see and
operating on the ground, same thing.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
And what does training look like to become a member
of space for us, I imagine it's a lot different
than it is for other branches in out there.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
It is.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
The initial training is very similar. First of all, you know,
if you think about basic training, we just first of all,
I want you to teach you the fundamentals of military service.
But the second phase of training, what we call technical training,
immediately becomes different. We do that technical training out at
VanderBurg Space Force Base in California, and that's when we
start talking about how is operating in space different than
(12:53):
operating in the air, or land or at sea. What
do we need to train you and how do we
need to train you to either operate those satellites effectively
or provide intelligence support or build and fly them.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
What sort of training is needed when you're really pushing
up against the limits of technology to try to keep
up with both civilian technology and military adversaries.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
We're now moving into an era where we have to
move faster. You know, those potential adversaries out there like
China are moving very quickly. Technology lets us build satellites faster.
Technology allows us to build them a little more cheaply,
and the way people are operating. Rather than building a
handful of very large, very capable, very expensive satellites, we're
(13:39):
now talking about building hundreds and perhaps thousands of smaller,
cheaper satellites that can do the same thing. We saw
that in the commercial space sector. We're now moving that
direction as well.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
In access to space, as you're saying, is really easy.
It used to be pretty hard. Now you can pay
you a long musk to put a satellite up there
for an amount of money that a mid sized company
can afford.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Yeah, that's it. I would say it's getting easier. It's
still very.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
Complicated, but you're right compared to the past when it
took superpowers to gain access to space and then countries,
but you're right. Now the ability to do it, do
it quickly, do it easily, and do it at reasonable
cost is absolutely there.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
And so.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
You know, a university, a small company, folks that don't
really have tremendous expertise or a huge infrastructure could build
and design and fly their own spacecraft or pay somebody
to do it for them. And you're right, it's really unleashing.
I think a new way of thinking about.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
Space after the break. How Space Force defends US interests
in orbit. One of the things you talked about earlier,
which is very important, is the militarization of space and
(14:56):
those concerns. Who are the adversaries the US is most
concerned about in this realm.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Yeah, today the most concerning adversaries are to Russia and China.
China for two reasons. One is they have very clearly
demonstrated by their actions and by what they're developing fielding
and testing their desire to attack our spacecraft, our satellites
and deny our use of them in conflict.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
I mean, when you say attack, what do you mean
by so?
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Attack in any number of ways.
Speaker 4 (15:27):
In two thousand and seven, as I had said earlier,
they launched a missile from the ground to destroy one
of their satellites, physically attack it and destroy it. They
also now have spacecraft in orbit that can maneuver right
up next to one of our satellites and block it,
collide with it. You know, they've actually demonstrated the ability
(15:48):
to throw a net over one of their satellites and
drag it to another orbit, so to physically attack in orbit.
They have the capability to interfere with the communications links
of our satellites jam those links. They've demonstrated the ability
to use lasers to either dazzle our sensors whether the
sensors don't work, or to cause physical damage on them.
(16:09):
So basically, whether it's direct attack, kinetic attack, reversible jamming attack.
In addition to attack through cyberspace physical attack of ground infrastructure,
they have developed means to attack our satellites directly, indirectly,
kinetically and non kinetically pretty much in any orbit we
operate in. So they have a vast array of offensive force.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Does the US have the same capabilities?
Speaker 3 (16:32):
The US does not.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
And what is the reason for that.
Speaker 4 (16:36):
Well, for a couple of reasons. One is we have
been very loath to pursue capabilities like that in the
past because we believe in preserving the domain and using
it effectively for a broad range of purposes. I will say, however,
that we are We have been developing capabilities for electronic
interference for several years and been using those, but at
(16:56):
this point in time, it is now incumbent on us
to do two things. First is to develop capabilities that
will defend our satellites in a whole host of ways,
and it will become our responsibility also to deny adversary
use of space. And so what I'll say today is,
as a result of the activities of others, we are
looking at and preparing for a whole host of ways
(17:17):
to both defend and protect our capabilities but also potentially
deny adversary's use of space and conflict.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
If you think back to the nuclear age, the concept
of deterrence is maybe you didn't want to use it,
but just the adversary knowing that you could deterred them.
Is that the idea.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
So that is absolutely our approach, especially our approach to
new constellations, what we call proliferated constellations A constellation, sorry,
a whole bunch of satellites, right, constellation of satellites. Right.
Most of the satellites we've developed in the past, relatively
small in number GPS satellites about thirty provide all that
global coverage communication satellites depends on specifically what they're for,
(17:58):
but usually if from about six to a dozen satellites
to provide those communications, our mister, warning, constellations about the
same size. What we're moving to now is as opposed
to tens, maybe tens of satellites to conduct missions, we're
now talking about one hundreds and thousands. And so the
first thing you say is, Okay, if my goal is
to attack ten satellites, that's a manageable problem. If now
(18:22):
the goal is I got to take out one hundred
or a thousand satellites, that's much harder. And so there's
a detern effect there because it is very hard to
do something like that. And so that's the first part.
The second part is if an adversary looks into space
and either sees through their desire to deny US use
of space, or US knowing that we can take their
(18:42):
space capabilities away. If they look into space and say,
I will not be able to do what I intend
to do. I'm not going to go to conflict today.
That's exactly what the intent is. We do not want
to see, especially members of the US Space Force, but
the United States of America and our leaders don't want
to see conflict in space. And so our first goal
is to deter any adversary action in space, but make
(19:04):
it clear to everybody and anybody if it comes to that,
we are preparing to win in space. So the second
piece of China is not just offensive capabilities. The second
piece of China is they've watched how effective we are
in space with GPS, with communication satellites, with monitoring and
detecting activities. They're building out a similar constellation to do
the same thing that we've been doing for decades. On
(19:25):
the rush aside, they are not as focused on that
second piece, but they are very much focused on offensive.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
Capabilities, just like the Chinese.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
And while they're not moving as aggressively and as broadly
to develop offensive weapons for space. They're doing the same things.
Just recently they conducted a kinetic attack, launched a missile
from the ground, destroyed one of their satellites in space.
The fall of twenty twenty, they launched objects into space
maneuverd them very close to some of our most capable satellites,
(19:56):
demonstrating that they're prepared to attack them in space. Same
thing with attacks through cyberspace, interference, jamming on the ground,
laser dazzling.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
They are as aggressively.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Pursuing offensive capabilities, deny or use of space as the Chinese.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
And satellites have played a really important role in the
war in Ukraine, especially on the side of Ukraine the
USSEU in helping support the war.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
They absolutely have, and in fact, in many.
Speaker 4 (20:27):
Cases those are commercial companies doing that, which has opened
up a whole new area of interest and exploration and
work required from a policy standpoint is what's the relationship
between commercial companies and commercial services from space as it
applies to conflict. A lot of companies monitor see sense
(20:47):
collect information from space, and they've been able to provide
that to Ukrainians. Companies have provided the ability to communicate
where both through the physical attacks on the ground and
some of the Russian cyber space attacks, and the Russians
have been working hard to deny them those that use
and it has proven to be quite a challenge.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Do you worry that an arms race in space is
ultimately inevitable?
Speaker 4 (21:14):
I guess I am concerned. I'm concerned about that just
like any other domain. And I would say a couple
of things. One is, from my perspective, our job is
to ensure that both our forces and our national leaders
have the capabilities that they need and the options that
they need to operate effectively in the diplomatic space, in
(21:34):
the military space, and count on those folks to help
us work through the issues of how do we do
that responsibly, how do we do that as a community
of nations. And so while I'm concerned about how we're
growing in space, I would say, to some extent, it
is sort of inevitable. Unfortunately, that's a nature of the
human race. Our job is provide those capabilities, help to
(21:57):
ensure that we use them effectively, but also respond and
then work hard on the deterrens piece so that hopefully
it never comes to actual conflict.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
And again, if you think back to the Cold War,
there were all of these deconfliction lines that if something
looked bad, you could quickly call and say, hey, it's okay.
Are there those kinds of lines of communication with China,
with Russia specifically with regards to space.
Speaker 4 (22:21):
No, not really today, and that's not different than a
lot of our communications these days. However, there is a
body in the UN that's focused on developing responsible behaviors
in space and trying to get the Community of Nations
to agree to them. That effort is led for the
US by the State Department. But just a couple of
(22:43):
years ago, the Secretary of Defense Secretary of Austin put
out what we believe are tenants for responsible behavior in
space that we the Department of Defense will follow. Things
like communicating our tension with respect to what we're doing
in space, conducting activities that create large amounts of debris
like Connecticut SAT tests. Those are the sorts of things
(23:07):
that we believe are foundational to responsible behavior in space
and hope that that spurs additional negotiations and agreements in
the United Nations and with others to really operate responsibly
in space.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
So you said, in the next five ten years, maybe
Space for US grows about thirty percent. That means you're recruiting.
What's the recruitment pitch for Space for US, Like we
know what it is for Army and Navy. You know
what's your pitch today?
Speaker 4 (23:33):
Well, and I will say I know that the other
services are facing some recruiting challenges right now. We are not,
But ours is. I mean it feels like back to
the future. Right when I was young, space was cool.
There was this grand vision and idea of moving out
into the galaxy and things are going on. Well, that's
not exactly our pitch, but we are certainly leveraging that
(23:54):
desire and that interest. If you want to do something
that matters, if you want to serve the nation, if
you want to work with advanced technology and really operate
in and deal with activities and what is still my opinion,
the final frontier, not just today focused on what we
do on Earth, but in the future as we move
out towards the Moon in Mars. You can go to
(24:15):
commercial industry, you can go to NASA, but absolutely there's
a role for you in the Space Force as well.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
And what are the top three positions say that you
would be recruiting for it of your psyche. This is
what we need.
Speaker 4 (24:25):
Yeah, well, we only really do four things, so they're
all important. The first is we build and then launch
those space systems in dow Or. But that's one thing
you can do. You could be an engineer, a program manager.
The second thing we do is we operate them, so
you're no kidding sitting there in the operation center managing
the activities and fly and the things you need to
do every single day. If you want to be an
(24:46):
intelligence specialist like you might be in the air, on
the ground, at sea. We need folks who deeply understand
what's going on in the domain, what other capabilities exist
out there, how people operate, So we need those. And
then lastly, space capabilities today don't really produce except through cyberspace.
That information it's collectors from those satellites has to get
(25:09):
to the ground. It has to be disseminated. We have
to operate networks and IT systems to operate them to
connect them and get that data that people need them.
So we need cyberspace operators and cyberspace defenders. And because
we're small our numbers, we only need several hundred people
a year and so right now we don't really have
a recruiting challenge. We have the opportunity to accept applicants
(25:31):
and from those applicants choose the absolute best to come
into the space for So it's a pretty easy sell.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Do you ever get to premise and they're going to get
to go to space?
Speaker 4 (25:41):
So I would say, I hope someday that can guardians
go to space? Yes, today we have two guardians who
go to space. They are astronauts in NASA's Astronaut Core.
Most of our works on the ground. As the human race,
as the nation and the human race goes back to
the Moon, to Mars, goes beyond that, will there be
(26:02):
a place for guardians in space? Absolutely in the future,
and we are you know, Ana as NASA returns to
the Moon, we talk about how do you navigate near
the moon, how do you communicate near the moon? How
do you understand what's happening in the lunar space and
whether it's a hazard or a threat. Guardians are doing
all of that today side by side with NASA. We're
just doing it from the ground. We're not doing it
(26:24):
in space yet, but one day somewhere out there in
the future.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
Absolutely do you have to suffer through a lot of
Guardians of the Galaxy jokes.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Ah, we do.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
But you know what, humor is part of the American
psyche and culture. And if you can't take a joke,
you know what you really have to do is just
embrace it. Like I said, you know, my people are nerds,
and today nerd is cool.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
General Thompson, thanks so much for speaking with me.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Absolutely, it's been a real pleasure.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
When we come back. What the US is doing to
prepare for an escalation of tensions in space. If the
kind of conflict in space that General Thompson talked about
did happen, that's when the US Space Command would take charge,
(27:13):
with Space Force and other branches of the US military
pitching in personnel and resources. Bloomberg's Katrina Manson covers cyber
and emerging tech. I asked her about Space Command and
what exactly the US is doing to prepare for a
potential military confrontation high above the Earth. Katrina, you've been
(27:35):
out to Space Command in Colorado, I think twice now, right, Yeah.
Speaker 5 (27:39):
That's right. I went in twenty eighteen and then again
in twenty twenty, so a while ago. What really struck
me is. It's kind of a low slung building, and
obviously one's looking for one's fill of Star Trek analogies
and a bit of Battlestar Galactica. I think you get
(28:01):
it more and more now from the Space Force, but
Space Command looked to me a little bit like a
sort of rudimentary rocket combined with a crossed with the
sardine can. And inside it's a little bit like visiting
a smaller version of the National Air and Space Museum.
There are lots of wrapped boxes in the sky hanging
(28:22):
down from the ceilings, and their satellites, their models of satellites.
And the thing that really struck me is the early
satellites are big and the newer satellites are small, and
it's just a really clear demonstration of the way the
whole entire approach to space is changing.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
And of course that's what we're talking about today. And
you visited Space Command and there's that distinction between Space
Command and Space Force.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
The simplest way to think about it is Space Force
provides the people and Space Command does the fighting, and
in this case in peace, does the operations. Space Command
existed a long time ago. It got disestablished and then
got set up again in full in twenty nineteen, and
the whole point of that really is about saying spaces
(29:11):
in the US jargon of the thing, a war fighting domain,
and the whole effort of creating, re establishing Space Command,
and then establishing Space Force for the first time. As
much as it was sort of accompanied by mirth, and
there are lots of detractors, I think the fact that
it has stuck it out is so much about this
US focus on what it sees as the threat from
(29:35):
China and the fact that they've noticed China really developed
its own space architecture really propel what it's trying to do.
I think China itself has said it wants to overtake
globally in space by twenty forty five, and the US
has said they think China really will be a world
class player by twenty thirty. But of course, China already,
(29:56):
in the US estimation, has many different types of weapons
in space and focused on space. That has concerned the US,
and I think when you speak to senior US military officials,
they talk a lot about developing to terrance in space.
That's already an admission that the US is not quite
clear what level of space superiority it has, and of course,
(30:18):
to Terrance means being able to win and then letting.
In this case, the Chinese know.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
That what is the current capability of the US in
defending those satellites.
Speaker 5 (30:32):
I think they're really clear not enough. When I visited
in twenty twenty, I spoke to a general Space Command
who said the US really needed to start thinking about
offensive weapons in space. And of course that triggers all
sorts of questions in Congress, in the American public, and
indeed the Biden administration, which has not set out this aim.
But I think Space Command, Space Force, and its supporters
(30:54):
are really leaning into this idea that the US needs
much more capability. The US says that it has communications
jamming equipment that could jam a satellite, but that it
doesn't have any space based weaponry, and several other of
the different types of weapons that you could use from
ground to space, from space to space, and from space
back down to the ground. There's a whole array. I
(31:15):
think the thing that really triggered US concerns was back
in two thousand and seven when the Chinese launched an
anti satellite test that did explode a decaying Chinese satellite,
and that's really when the US started saying, oh, China
is serious about this. That test was criticized as irresponsible.
It put I think more than twenty thousand pieces of
debris into circulation, and a couple of thousands of those
(31:37):
pieces are still circulating today. But of course the US
has done the same. It did it before China, and
it's done it since China in two thousand and eight.
India's also done it. Russia did it in twenty twenty one,
just on the eve of the invasion of Ukraine. And
this kind of mounting concern has seen the US really
want to develop things. And what the US is worried
(32:00):
about is when they do these war games that involve
global scenarios over Taiwan, it tends to very quickly escalate
to space. The US is worried that China will fire
the first shots of any war in Taiwan in space,
degrading US space capabilities that enable the US to communicate
with its own military forces and to move its own
weapons around the world.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
You talked about these shootdowns of satellites that China did
and Russia did, is some of the thinking that those
were in part just to show the US the capability
that they had that the shooting down of the satellite
wasn't really the main point in China's case.
Speaker 5 (32:39):
They said they just needed to get an old weather
satellite out of the way, and that's not really how
you need to remove an old weather satellite. So I
think the US certainly really saw that as their wake
up call and used it as their wake up call.
They did their own anti satellite test the next year.
India did theirs in twenty nineteen. I think there is
so much signaling going on in space and no one's
really figured out their doctrine yet. So in the same
(33:02):
way that you hear about a cyber pearl harbor, the
original pearl harbor, there is a scenario that some US
thinkers on this talk about as a space pearl harbor,
where China might destroy US capabilities in space to say
that's it, we really mean business, leave us alone, where
the US would see that as the first shot of
all out war. And so that kind of messaging, that
(33:25):
kind of escalatory tension is so carefully done. It's meant
to be modulated very carefully, but no one quite knows
the rules of the discussion and what you see from
Space Command in Space Force is saying no, no, no.
China is putting so much military hardware now into space.
It did more military launches in space last year than
the US, and that trajectory really scares the US. And
(33:48):
whether you sort of look away and say we won't compete,
or you say we will match you. That's the very
difficult balancing it that the US is facing, because it's
clear that the US isn't prepared to let China have
that capability. The US wants to be able to have
superiority because that's what it sees as the deterrent effect.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
When you're talking to your sources, how concerned are they
that we could have an arms race in space?
Speaker 5 (34:14):
I think it's really fair to say the arms race
is already on, and certainly in terms of perception, the
amount that you're seeing from the commercial world putting up
into space also creates huge dilemmas for the US military
and what they need to defend, and a lot of
that hasn't been ironed out yet. The US at the
moment is trying to work out if they should make
space critical infrastructure, should they specifically designate things in space's
(34:38):
critical infrastructure. There are a number of different elements that
are labeled critical infrastructure, which means that any attack on
them is seen as an attack on national security and
the US needs to defend. And in fact, when President
Biden went to meet Vladimir Putin some time ago, he said, hey,
don't touch our critical infrastructure. This is what it is.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
Now.
Speaker 5 (34:58):
A lot of that critical infrastructure depends on space, and
there's a discussion right now in the US about whether
that is sufficient. Does the fact that these things depend
on space mean that space is indirectly preserved and clearly
off limits, or does the US need to take a
step extra and say, actually, anything in space counts as
critical infrastructure, which would then require all sorts of different
(35:20):
defensive means. And of course a lot of US food
supply now depends on space. Our mobile phones depend more
and more on space. Every single element of US national economy,
which is increasingly tied to national security, relies on space
in part and will only rely more on space in future.
And so looking at exactly how you defend that, and
(35:41):
putting more things up in space to defend that, of
course begins to create huge anxiety on both sides. I
think you could speak to a number of people today
who would say the space race is already.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
On, Katrina. One of the reasons we're doing this episode
is because all the things we're talking about here, I
think most people just don't even know is something that
Space Force does. What do you think people get wrong
about Space Force?
Speaker 5 (36:08):
Well, of course there's this TV show all about Space
Force with Steve Carell, and that became a kind of
very clear parody of Space Force, and they've been a
little health hostage to some of that themselves. They've spent
a lot of time on uniforms. All of this always
happens in the military services, and they're only getting going.
So I think they defend that quite clearly. But obviously
(36:29):
the entire corpus of sci fi and our popular understanding
of space is sort of fun and quirky, and so
they have to deal with that fun and quirky feeling
at the same time as thinking, hold on, can we
just put our hands up? Everything we have depends on space.
This is far more vulnerable than people realize, and I
think the popular conception is that it's a bit of
(36:52):
a joke. And when I did speak to a general
at Space Command, I asked him if he'd watched the
TV show, and he Binge watched it in a night,
and they're very good natured about it. They say anything
that brings attention to space force and anything to do
with space is good by us. I think they took
a sort of sanguine view that they couldn't start fighting
it before they'd even established their own reputation. But this
is a reputation that is developing in the public consciousness now,
(37:14):
so it really depends, and I think the language around
it matters so much for trying to get public support on.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
Board, Katrina, thanks so much for speaking with me today,
Thanks for having me, Thanks for listening to us here
at The Big Take. It's a daily podcast from Bloomberg
and iHeartRadio. For more shows from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and we'd love to
hear from you. Email us questions or comments to Big
(37:40):
Take at Bloomberg dot net. The supervising producer of The
Big Take and the producer of this episode is Vicky Ergolina.
Our senior producer is Katherine Fink. Raphae almcaly is our
engineer with additional production support. From Nielli Haramo Plata and
a Brayer Ruffin. Original music was composed by Leo Sidron.
(38:03):
I'm West Kasova. We'll be back tomorrow with another big take.
United States Space Force.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Is it an arm of NASA or is it a
private corporation.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
A space force? Gosh, I don't know.
Speaker 4 (00:11):
Are they guardians or exploration? I don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Defend US against alleged space threats? I mean, I don't
know that I think it does much. I'm assuming like
a branch of the army that fights crime and space.
Speaker 5 (00:26):
Well, I think Space Force they go in space with
like weapons for some reason. And I don't know why
I even need weapons in space, explore space.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
To the moon or flight to the moon or whatever.
I don't know if it's public.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I'm guessing it's some sort of military arm of NASA,
the space program that has to do with strategic defense
or maybe settling Mars.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
The almost nine hundred billion dollar defense spending bill that's
working its way through the Congress includes a thirty billion
dollar request for the newest and smallest branch of the
US military, the US Space Force. You may remember when
it was created in twenty nineteen, there were plenty of
star Trek in space cadet jokes, and even at Netflix
(01:11):
comedy starring Steve Carrell as a bumbling Space Force commander.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Air Force is Space Force, Space Force, sir, you don't
like to use your full title.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Sorry, sir, Spaceman first class.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Nothing to be ashamed of Air Forces airmen Space Force
as spacemen. Nothing embarrassing or comical about it.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
But we haven't heard much about Space Force since then,
which made us wonder, now that it's up and running,
what does it actually do and how are they spending
all those billions to find out? I paid a visit
to the Pentagon to speak with General David Thompson.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Our job is to protect US interest in space.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
He's the Vice Chief of Space Operations for all of
Space Force.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
It is now incumbent on us to do two things.
First is to develop get abilities that will defend our
satellites in a whole host of ways, and it will
become our responsibility also to deny advisary use of space.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
And later in the show, I talked to Bloomberg cyber
security reporter Katrina Manson.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
I think it's really fair to say the homes race
is already on, and certainly in terms of perception, the
amount that you're seeing from the commercial well putting up
into space also creates huge dilemmas for the US military
and what they need to defend.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
I'm wes Kasova today on the big take. Space Force
is no joke. General, I would imagine that some portion
of your job is just explaining to people you meet
what the Space Force is.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
You're absolutely right, it really is. There a whole host
of things that we do that many people don't really understand.
But I'll start with the things that people probably see
every day and may not realize it. Right, people with
smartphones billions all over the world follow the blue dot
on their smartphone every day. That's Global Positioning System GPS.
That constellation of thirty satellites is brought to you by
(03:11):
the United States Space Force. That constellation also provides a
timing signal that synchronizes the cellular network they use, and
financial networks and the Internet and things like that.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
That's provided as a service for the world.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
But the real reason it exists is US Air Force
aircraft flying over the Arctic ice cap, Navy ships in
the Middle Pacific Ocean, Army units in the middle of
the Arabian Desert. They follow the blue dot every day
as well, and that's really why it's there. So they
can navigate effectively all over.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
The globe, all over the world.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
There's a whole host of missile and rocket activity. Rockets
are launched all over the world every single day. We
operate a constellation of spacecraft that detect every single launch,
figure out where it is, where it's coming from, if
it poses a threat to the nation or our friends
or allies and forces, and provide warning. Those are the
kinds of things that we do every day. I'm done
(04:02):
for decades, all the way up to including keeping track
of objects in space. Forty thousand plus objects in space
that we keep track of every single day. We figure
out where they are, we figure out where they're going,
and whether or not they oppose a hazard to themselves,
to others, Do they pose a hazard just to astronauts
on the International Space Station. We have a global array
(04:23):
of ground and space based sensors to keep track of
all that.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
So you're keeping track of this stuff. Let's say you
find an object, an old satellite, something else that does
pose a threat.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
What do you do, well, We provide warning to whomever
it poses a threat to, you know, obviously and most directly,
we have a very close tie with NASA so that
we protect the International Space Station and to human beings
in orbit. We do the same for satellites operated by companies,
satellites operated by other nations. When the Chinese have astronauts
(04:57):
on board their space station, we provide warning the We
provide warning to anybody and everybody who operates a spacecraft,
and then it becomes their responsibility to decide what they
want to do with that information. Move their satellite, assume
the risk, and hope that it doesn't hit them.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Those sources of things.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
What do you find when you talk to people about
Space Force? What do Americans think it does? Well?
Speaker 4 (05:22):
Yeah, great question, I mean, and you know, when we
were created three and a half years ago, there was
this line of conversation that said, now that we've created
a space Force, we have to find something for them
to do well. As I just described, there were a
whole host of things we were already doing. Most of us,
not all of us, but most of us were in
the United States Air Force doing those things. So the GPS,
(05:45):
the communication, satellites, the missile warning, tracking all those objects
in space, we were already doing all that, and when
we created the Space Force, we continued. The difference is
and the reason we were created is other nations, now,
especially those that wish us ill who would seek to
do us harm, are looking to deny us use of
(06:05):
those capabilities if in fact we're in conflict with them,
And so one of the reasons we were created was
to help protect those satellites as well and make sure
those soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines get the
things they need from GPS, have the communications they need,
get the information they need from space, because other countries
have now said we're going to try and take that
(06:27):
away from you if it comes to conflict.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Yea, and I want to talk a bit more about
that a little bit later. First, this new branch of
the military built up very quickly. Can you just talk
about what happened from twenty nineteen when it was first
announced till now?
Speaker 4 (06:43):
Sure, Actually we had a little bit of advanced notice.
We started, as you said, when the legislation was signed
into law in December of twenty nineteen, about eight months previously.
We saw that this was very much a possibility, so
we established a planning team to decide how we would
establish the force, so that the day the law was created,
(07:04):
we sort of had a running start. So what we
did was we took the foundational pieces that existed already
in the Air Force, already in the Army, already in
the Navy, and we began putting them together and filling
in pieces that weren't there. As an example, you know,
we had organizations that built satellites and deployed satellites and
(07:25):
operated satellites. What we didn't have was an effective intelligence enterprise,
right adversaries, how do they operate in space? What are
their capabilities, what sort of hostile behaviors. We didn't have
an effective enterprise in that regard, so we had to
build that very quickly.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
And how large is Space Force now?
Speaker 4 (07:43):
The Space Force today consists of about eighty five hundred
guardians in uniform and about five thousand more civilians, and
so all told, we're now approaching fourteen thousand people.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Now.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
One important point in that regard, though, is we also
rely heavily on the United States Air Force for a
lot of things that we need that we don't do ourselves.
And there are about five thousand airmen who are out
there helping us operator installations. They're providing our medical care,
They're giving us logistical and security and legal support, and
so a lot of the things that we need to
(08:16):
operate effectively we don't do for ourselves. It's a great
partnership that we have with the US Air Force that
allows us to execute all those functions as well.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
So in a little over three years, really you built
space for us up pretty quickly. How large will it be?
Is there a final number that you're building towards.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
There is not, but I.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
Will tell you we're continuing to grow. And the reason
we're continuing to go is missions that we used to
do in other domains are moving to space. Right For example,
something we call ground moving target indication tracking ships as
they move across the ocean, tracking large vehicles on the
ground and actually some of them in.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
The air as well.
Speaker 4 (08:53):
So that mission is moving to space, and so we
have to grow our number of people in our systems
to be able to do that. We're creating a whole
lot more connectivity for forces at sea, on the ground,
in the air, so that they can operate in a
more integrated fashion. That requires a whole lot more connectivity
to move data and to communicate through space. So we
(09:15):
have to build that out. There's not a final number,
but I would say in the next five to ten
years we will probably grow by about a third just
because of those new missions, and who knows what will
happen in the future after that.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
You said earlier that a lot of the functions that
the Space Force now does was previously done by the
Air Force. Why did Space Force need to become its
own branch. Why couldn't the Air Force have expanded to
meet the challenges of a changing time.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
There's a couple of reasons why. The first is really
the fact that we moved from what I will call
a relatively benign and domain into one where those space
systems are under threat. Starting as far back as two
thousand and seven, starting with the Chinese, they specifically started
developing and fielding weapons to take our satellites and the
(10:06):
services they provide away from missing conflict. They did that
with a test with a missile launched from the ground
to destroy a satellite space The Russians have followed suit.
Both have put offensive weapons in orbit to threaten our satellites.
And so now we're not talking about just providing that
GPS signal or the communications or the warning. We're now
talking about the need to defend and protect those assets
(10:29):
as well. And so that requires a focused service who
thinks every day about what it takes to operate in
space and to do that effectively with soldier, sailors, airmen,
and marines. The second thing I'll say is the United
States Air Force has a really full plate, and to
ask one service and one service chief and one staff
(10:51):
to do all that effectively in the air and then sale,
by the way, focus effectively on space as well, was
really too large of it span of control. And so
just like in nineteen forty seven, the last time we
did this, the United States Army built the world's greatest
air forces as part of the army. But in nineteen
forty seven the nation decided we now need a separate
service that focuses every day on the air and interfaces
(11:14):
directly with the Army of the Davy. We reach the
same point in space to say, now, just like we
need a service to understand how to operate on the ground,
at sea in the air, we need a comparable service
to be able to do that in space as well.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
I imagine since the military is very keen on drying
boundaries and lines, and what's the difference between air and space.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Well, there's a lot of difference.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
In fact, it's actually pretty easy because it's a very
thick and large boundary. You know, there's really you get
up to about one hundred thousand feet maybe one hundred
and fifty thousand feet, you can't really operate effectively in
the air anymore above that, and then it's really about
down to about one hundred miles where you can operate
effectively in space. So there's a boundary there. We can
(12:02):
draw one specific line, but there's really a large area
in between air and space where you don't operate effectively.
And the principles under which you operate are vastly different,
and therefore you need to understand it, act and think
about them differently to operate effectively in each kind of
the same way. The difference between operating and see and
operating on the ground, same thing.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
And what does training look like to become a member
of space for us, I imagine it's a lot different
than it is for other branches in out there.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
It is.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
The initial training is very similar. First of all, you know,
if you think about basic training, we just first of all,
I want you to teach you the fundamentals of military service.
But the second phase of training, what we call technical training,
immediately becomes different. We do that technical training out at
VanderBurg Space Force Base in California, and that's when we
start talking about how is operating in space different than
(12:53):
operating in the air, or land or at sea. What
do we need to train you and how do we
need to train you to either operate those satellites effectively
or provide intelligence support or build and fly them.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
What sort of training is needed when you're really pushing
up against the limits of technology to try to keep
up with both civilian technology and military adversaries.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
We're now moving into an era where we have to
move faster. You know, those potential adversaries out there like
China are moving very quickly. Technology lets us build satellites faster.
Technology allows us to build them a little more cheaply,
and the way people are operating. Rather than building a
handful of very large, very capable, very expensive satellites, we're
(13:39):
now talking about building hundreds and perhaps thousands of smaller,
cheaper satellites that can do the same thing. We saw
that in the commercial space sector. We're now moving that
direction as well.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
In access to space, as you're saying, is really easy.
It used to be pretty hard. Now you can pay
you a long musk to put a satellite up there
for an amount of money that a mid sized company
can afford.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
Yeah, that's it. I would say it's getting easier. It's
still very.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
Complicated, but you're right compared to the past when it
took superpowers to gain access to space and then countries,
but you're right. Now the ability to do it, do
it quickly, do it easily, and do it at reasonable
cost is absolutely there.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
And so.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
You know, a university, a small company, folks that don't
really have tremendous expertise or a huge infrastructure could build
and design and fly their own spacecraft or pay somebody
to do it for them. And you're right, it's really unleashing.
I think a new way of thinking about.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
Space after the break. How Space Force defends US interests
in orbit. One of the things you talked about earlier,
which is very important, is the militarization of space and
(14:56):
those concerns. Who are the adversaries the US is most
concerned about in this realm.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Yeah, today the most concerning adversaries are to Russia and China.
China for two reasons. One is they have very clearly
demonstrated by their actions and by what they're developing fielding
and testing their desire to attack our spacecraft, our satellites
and deny our use of them in conflict.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
I mean, when you say attack, what do you mean
by so?
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Attack in any number of ways.
Speaker 4 (15:27):
In two thousand and seven, as I had said earlier,
they launched a missile from the ground to destroy one
of their satellites, physically attack it and destroy it. They
also now have spacecraft in orbit that can maneuver right
up next to one of our satellites and block it,
collide with it. You know, they've actually demonstrated the ability
(15:48):
to throw a net over one of their satellites and
drag it to another orbit, so to physically attack in orbit.
They have the capability to interfere with the communications links
of our satellites jam those links. They've demonstrated the ability
to use lasers to either dazzle our sensors whether the
sensors don't work, or to cause physical damage on them.
(16:09):
So basically, whether it's direct attack, kinetic attack, reversible jamming attack.
In addition to attack through cyberspace physical attack of ground infrastructure,
they have developed means to attack our satellites directly, indirectly,
kinetically and non kinetically pretty much in any orbit we
operate in. So they have a vast array of offensive force.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Does the US have the same capabilities?
Speaker 3 (16:32):
The US does not.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
And what is the reason for that.
Speaker 4 (16:36):
Well, for a couple of reasons. One is we have
been very loath to pursue capabilities like that in the
past because we believe in preserving the domain and using
it effectively for a broad range of purposes. I will say, however,
that we are We have been developing capabilities for electronic
interference for several years and been using those, but at
(16:56):
this point in time, it is now incumbent on us
to do two things. First is to develop capabilities that
will defend our satellites in a whole host of ways,
and it will become our responsibility also to deny adversary
use of space. And so what I'll say today is,
as a result of the activities of others, we are
looking at and preparing for a whole host of ways
(17:17):
to both defend and protect our capabilities but also potentially
deny adversary's use of space and conflict.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
If you think back to the nuclear age, the concept
of deterrence is maybe you didn't want to use it,
but just the adversary knowing that you could deterred them.
Is that the idea.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
So that is absolutely our approach, especially our approach to
new constellations, what we call proliferated constellations A constellation, sorry,
a whole bunch of satellites, right, constellation of satellites. Right.
Most of the satellites we've developed in the past, relatively
small in number GPS satellites about thirty provide all that
global coverage communication satellites depends on specifically what they're for,
(17:58):
but usually if from about six to a dozen satellites
to provide those communications, our mister, warning, constellations about the
same size. What we're moving to now is as opposed
to tens, maybe tens of satellites to conduct missions, we're
now talking about one hundreds and thousands. And so the
first thing you say is, Okay, if my goal is
to attack ten satellites, that's a manageable problem. If now
(18:22):
the goal is I got to take out one hundred
or a thousand satellites, that's much harder. And so there's
a detern effect there because it is very hard to
do something like that. And so that's the first part.
The second part is if an adversary looks into space
and either sees through their desire to deny US use
of space, or US knowing that we can take their
(18:42):
space capabilities away. If they look into space and say,
I will not be able to do what I intend
to do. I'm not going to go to conflict today.
That's exactly what the intent is. We do not want
to see, especially members of the US Space Force, but
the United States of America and our leaders don't want
to see conflict in space. And so our first goal
is to deter any adversary action in space, but make
(19:04):
it clear to everybody and anybody if it comes to that,
we are preparing to win in space. So the second
piece of China is not just offensive capabilities. The second
piece of China is they've watched how effective we are
in space with GPS, with communication satellites, with monitoring and
detecting activities. They're building out a similar constellation to do
the same thing that we've been doing for decades. On
(19:25):
the rush aside, they are not as focused on that
second piece, but they are very much focused on offensive.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
Capabilities, just like the Chinese.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
And while they're not moving as aggressively and as broadly
to develop offensive weapons for space. They're doing the same things.
Just recently they conducted a kinetic attack, launched a missile
from the ground, destroyed one of their satellites in space.
The fall of twenty twenty, they launched objects into space
maneuverd them very close to some of our most capable satellites,
(19:56):
demonstrating that they're prepared to attack them in space. Same
thing with attacks through cyberspace, interference, jamming on the ground,
laser dazzling.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
They are as aggressively.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Pursuing offensive capabilities, deny or use of space as the Chinese.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
And satellites have played a really important role in the
war in Ukraine, especially on the side of Ukraine the
USSEU in helping support the war.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
They absolutely have, and in fact, in many.
Speaker 4 (20:27):
Cases those are commercial companies doing that, which has opened
up a whole new area of interest and exploration and
work required from a policy standpoint is what's the relationship
between commercial companies and commercial services from space as it
applies to conflict. A lot of companies monitor see sense
(20:47):
collect information from space, and they've been able to provide
that to Ukrainians. Companies have provided the ability to communicate
where both through the physical attacks on the ground and
some of the Russian cyber space attacks, and the Russians
have been working hard to deny them those that use
and it has proven to be quite a challenge.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Do you worry that an arms race in space is
ultimately inevitable?
Speaker 4 (21:14):
I guess I am concerned. I'm concerned about that just
like any other domain. And I would say a couple
of things. One is, from my perspective, our job is
to ensure that both our forces and our national leaders
have the capabilities that they need and the options that
they need to operate effectively in the diplomatic space, in
(21:34):
the military space, and count on those folks to help
us work through the issues of how do we do
that responsibly, how do we do that as a community
of nations. And so while I'm concerned about how we're
growing in space, I would say, to some extent, it
is sort of inevitable. Unfortunately, that's a nature of the
human race. Our job is provide those capabilities, help to
(21:57):
ensure that we use them effectively, but also respond and
then work hard on the deterrens piece so that hopefully
it never comes to actual conflict.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
And again, if you think back to the Cold War,
there were all of these deconfliction lines that if something
looked bad, you could quickly call and say, hey, it's okay.
Are there those kinds of lines of communication with China,
with Russia specifically with regards to space.
Speaker 4 (22:21):
No, not really today, and that's not different than a
lot of our communications these days. However, there is a
body in the UN that's focused on developing responsible behaviors
in space and trying to get the Community of Nations
to agree to them. That effort is led for the
US by the State Department. But just a couple of
(22:43):
years ago, the Secretary of Defense Secretary of Austin put
out what we believe are tenants for responsible behavior in
space that we the Department of Defense will follow. Things
like communicating our tension with respect to what we're doing
in space, conducting activities that create large amounts of debris
like Connecticut SAT tests. Those are the sorts of things
(23:07):
that we believe are foundational to responsible behavior in space
and hope that that spurs additional negotiations and agreements in
the United Nations and with others to really operate responsibly
in space.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
So you said, in the next five ten years, maybe
Space for US grows about thirty percent. That means you're recruiting.
What's the recruitment pitch for Space for US, Like we
know what it is for Army and Navy. You know
what's your pitch today?
Speaker 4 (23:33):
Well, and I will say I know that the other
services are facing some recruiting challenges right now. We are not,
But ours is. I mean it feels like back to
the future. Right when I was young, space was cool.
There was this grand vision and idea of moving out
into the galaxy and things are going on. Well, that's
not exactly our pitch, but we are certainly leveraging that
(23:54):
desire and that interest. If you want to do something
that matters, if you want to serve the nation, if
you want to work with advanced technology and really operate
in and deal with activities and what is still my opinion,
the final frontier, not just today focused on what we
do on Earth, but in the future as we move
out towards the Moon in Mars. You can go to
(24:15):
commercial industry, you can go to NASA, but absolutely there's
a role for you in the Space Force as well.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
And what are the top three positions say that you
would be recruiting for it of your psyche. This is
what we need.
Speaker 4 (24:25):
Yeah, well, we only really do four things, so they're
all important. The first is we build and then launch
those space systems in dow Or. But that's one thing
you can do. You could be an engineer, a program manager.
The second thing we do is we operate them, so
you're no kidding sitting there in the operation center managing
the activities and fly and the things you need to
do every single day. If you want to be an
(24:46):
intelligence specialist like you might be in the air, on
the ground, at sea. We need folks who deeply understand
what's going on in the domain, what other capabilities exist
out there, how people operate, So we need those. And
then lastly, space capabilities today don't really produce except through cyberspace.
That information it's collectors from those satellites has to get
(25:09):
to the ground. It has to be disseminated. We have
to operate networks and IT systems to operate them to
connect them and get that data that people need them.
So we need cyberspace operators and cyberspace defenders. And because
we're small our numbers, we only need several hundred people
a year and so right now we don't really have
a recruiting challenge. We have the opportunity to accept applicants
(25:31):
and from those applicants choose the absolute best to come
into the space for So it's a pretty easy sell.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Do you ever get to premise and they're going to get
to go to space?
Speaker 4 (25:41):
So I would say, I hope someday that can guardians
go to space? Yes, today we have two guardians who
go to space. They are astronauts in NASA's Astronaut Core.
Most of our works on the ground. As the human race,
as the nation and the human race goes back to
the Moon, to Mars, goes beyond that, will there be
(26:02):
a place for guardians in space? Absolutely in the future,
and we are you know, Ana as NASA returns to
the Moon, we talk about how do you navigate near
the moon, how do you communicate near the moon? How
do you understand what's happening in the lunar space and
whether it's a hazard or a threat. Guardians are doing
all of that today side by side with NASA. We're
just doing it from the ground. We're not doing it
(26:24):
in space yet, but one day somewhere out there in
the future.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
Absolutely do you have to suffer through a lot of
Guardians of the Galaxy jokes.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Ah, we do.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
But you know what, humor is part of the American
psyche and culture. And if you can't take a joke,
you know what you really have to do is just
embrace it. Like I said, you know, my people are nerds,
and today nerd is cool.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
General Thompson, thanks so much for speaking with me.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Absolutely, it's been a real pleasure.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
When we come back. What the US is doing to
prepare for an escalation of tensions in space. If the
kind of conflict in space that General Thompson talked about
did happen, that's when the US Space Command would take charge,
(27:13):
with Space Force and other branches of the US military
pitching in personnel and resources. Bloomberg's Katrina Manson covers cyber
and emerging tech. I asked her about Space Command and
what exactly the US is doing to prepare for a
potential military confrontation high above the Earth. Katrina, you've been
(27:35):
out to Space Command in Colorado, I think twice now, right, Yeah.
Speaker 5 (27:39):
That's right. I went in twenty eighteen and then again
in twenty twenty, so a while ago. What really struck
me is. It's kind of a low slung building, and
obviously one's looking for one's fill of Star Trek analogies
and a bit of Battlestar Galactica. I think you get
(28:01):
it more and more now from the Space Force, but
Space Command looked to me a little bit like a
sort of rudimentary rocket combined with a crossed with the
sardine can. And inside it's a little bit like visiting
a smaller version of the National Air and Space Museum.
There are lots of wrapped boxes in the sky hanging
(28:22):
down from the ceilings, and their satellites, their models of satellites.
And the thing that really struck me is the early
satellites are big and the newer satellites are small, and
it's just a really clear demonstration of the way the
whole entire approach to space is changing.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
And of course that's what we're talking about today. And
you visited Space Command and there's that distinction between Space
Command and Space Force.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
The simplest way to think about it is Space Force
provides the people and Space Command does the fighting, and
in this case in peace, does the operations. Space Command
existed a long time ago. It got disestablished and then
got set up again in full in twenty nineteen, and
the whole point of that really is about saying spaces
(29:11):
in the US jargon of the thing, a war fighting domain,
and the whole effort of creating, re establishing Space Command,
and then establishing Space Force for the first time. As
much as it was sort of accompanied by mirth, and
there are lots of detractors, I think the fact that
it has stuck it out is so much about this
US focus on what it sees as the threat from
(29:35):
China and the fact that they've noticed China really developed
its own space architecture really propel what it's trying to do.
I think China itself has said it wants to overtake
globally in space by twenty forty five, and the US
has said they think China really will be a world
class player by twenty thirty. But of course, China already,
(29:56):
in the US estimation, has many different types of weapons
in space and focused on space. That has concerned the US,
and I think when you speak to senior US military officials,
they talk a lot about developing to terrance in space.
That's already an admission that the US is not quite
clear what level of space superiority it has, and of course,
(30:18):
to Terrance means being able to win and then letting.
In this case, the Chinese know.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
That what is the current capability of the US in
defending those satellites.
Speaker 5 (30:32):
I think they're really clear not enough. When I visited
in twenty twenty, I spoke to a general Space Command
who said the US really needed to start thinking about
offensive weapons in space. And of course that triggers all
sorts of questions in Congress, in the American public, and
indeed the Biden administration, which has not set out this aim.
But I think Space Command, Space Force, and its supporters
(30:54):
are really leaning into this idea that the US needs
much more capability. The US says that it has communications
jamming equipment that could jam a satellite, but that it
doesn't have any space based weaponry, and several other of
the different types of weapons that you could use from
ground to space, from space to space, and from space
back down to the ground. There's a whole array. I
(31:15):
think the thing that really triggered US concerns was back
in two thousand and seven when the Chinese launched an
anti satellite test that did explode a decaying Chinese satellite,
and that's really when the US started saying, oh, China
is serious about this. That test was criticized as irresponsible.
It put I think more than twenty thousand pieces of
debris into circulation, and a couple of thousands of those
(31:37):
pieces are still circulating today. But of course the US
has done the same. It did it before China, and
it's done it since China in two thousand and eight.
India's also done it. Russia did it in twenty twenty one,
just on the eve of the invasion of Ukraine. And
this kind of mounting concern has seen the US really
want to develop things. And what the US is worried
(32:00):
about is when they do these war games that involve
global scenarios over Taiwan, it tends to very quickly escalate
to space. The US is worried that China will fire
the first shots of any war in Taiwan in space,
degrading US space capabilities that enable the US to communicate
with its own military forces and to move its own
weapons around the world.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
You talked about these shootdowns of satellites that China did
and Russia did, is some of the thinking that those
were in part just to show the US the capability
that they had that the shooting down of the satellite
wasn't really the main point in China's case.
Speaker 5 (32:39):
They said they just needed to get an old weather
satellite out of the way, and that's not really how
you need to remove an old weather satellite. So I
think the US certainly really saw that as their wake
up call and used it as their wake up call.
They did their own anti satellite test the next year.
India did theirs in twenty nineteen. I think there is
so much signaling going on in space and no one's
really figured out their doctrine yet. So in the same
(33:02):
way that you hear about a cyber pearl harbor, the
original pearl harbor, there is a scenario that some US
thinkers on this talk about as a space pearl harbor,
where China might destroy US capabilities in space to say
that's it, we really mean business, leave us alone, where
the US would see that as the first shot of
all out war. And so that kind of messaging, that
(33:25):
kind of escalatory tension is so carefully done. It's meant
to be modulated very carefully, but no one quite knows
the rules of the discussion and what you see from
Space Command in Space Force is saying no, no, no.
China is putting so much military hardware now into space.
It did more military launches in space last year than
the US, and that trajectory really scares the US. And
(33:48):
whether you sort of look away and say we won't compete,
or you say we will match you. That's the very
difficult balancing it that the US is facing, because it's
clear that the US isn't prepared to let China have
that capability. The US wants to be able to have
superiority because that's what it sees as the deterrent effect.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
When you're talking to your sources, how concerned are they
that we could have an arms race in space?
Speaker 5 (34:14):
I think it's really fair to say the arms race
is already on, and certainly in terms of perception, the
amount that you're seeing from the commercial world putting up
into space also creates huge dilemmas for the US military
and what they need to defend, and a lot of
that hasn't been ironed out yet. The US at the
moment is trying to work out if they should make
space critical infrastructure, should they specifically designate things in space's
(34:38):
critical infrastructure. There are a number of different elements that
are labeled critical infrastructure, which means that any attack on
them is seen as an attack on national security and
the US needs to defend. And in fact, when President
Biden went to meet Vladimir Putin some time ago, he said, hey,
don't touch our critical infrastructure. This is what it is.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
Now.
Speaker 5 (34:58):
A lot of that critical infrastructure depends on space, and
there's a discussion right now in the US about whether
that is sufficient. Does the fact that these things depend
on space mean that space is indirectly preserved and clearly
off limits, or does the US need to take a
step extra and say, actually, anything in space counts as
critical infrastructure, which would then require all sorts of different
(35:20):
defensive means. And of course a lot of US food
supply now depends on space. Our mobile phones depend more
and more on space. Every single element of US national economy,
which is increasingly tied to national security, relies on space
in part and will only rely more on space in future.
And so looking at exactly how you defend that, and
(35:41):
putting more things up in space to defend that, of
course begins to create huge anxiety on both sides. I
think you could speak to a number of people today
who would say the space race is already.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
On, Katrina. One of the reasons we're doing this episode
is because all the things we're talking about here, I
think most people just don't even know is something that
Space Force does. What do you think people get wrong
about Space Force?
Speaker 5 (36:08):
Well, of course there's this TV show all about Space
Force with Steve Carell, and that became a kind of
very clear parody of Space Force, and they've been a
little health hostage to some of that themselves. They've spent
a lot of time on uniforms. All of this always
happens in the military services, and they're only getting going.
So I think they defend that quite clearly. But obviously
(36:29):
the entire corpus of sci fi and our popular understanding
of space is sort of fun and quirky, and so
they have to deal with that fun and quirky feeling
at the same time as thinking, hold on, can we
just put our hands up? Everything we have depends on space.
This is far more vulnerable than people realize, and I
think the popular conception is that it's a bit of
(36:52):
a joke. And when I did speak to a general
at Space Command, I asked him if he'd watched the
TV show, and he Binge watched it in a night,
and they're very good natured about it. They say anything
that brings attention to space force and anything to do
with space is good by us. I think they took
a sort of sanguine view that they couldn't start fighting
it before they'd even established their own reputation. But this
is a reputation that is developing in the public consciousness now,
(37:14):
so it really depends, and I think the language around
it matters so much for trying to get public support on.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
Board, Katrina, thanks so much for speaking with me today,
Thanks for having me, Thanks for listening to us here
at The Big Take. It's a daily podcast from Bloomberg
and iHeartRadio. For more shows from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and we'd love to
hear from you. Email us questions or comments to Big
(37:40):
Take at Bloomberg dot net. The supervising producer of The
Big Take and the producer of this episode is Vicky Ergolina.
Our senior producer is Katherine Fink. Raphae almcaly is our
engineer with additional production support. From Nielli Haramo Plata and
a Brayer Ruffin. Original music was composed by Leo Sidron.
(38:03):
I'm West Kasova. We'll be back tomorrow with another big take.
Hosts And Creators
Sarah Holder
Saleha Mohsin
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.