Rethinking Rapid Reconstitution
Rapid reconstitution. Responsive space. These are only a couple of terms describing the ability to quickly replace a key space asset such as a satellite which has been disabled by either Mother Nature or an adversary. The idea is not new by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, more than 30 years ago when satellites were smaller and less expensive, as were launch vehicles, it was not uncommon for the U.S. Government to ensure that there were “satellites in the barn” ready for rapid deployment. At that time this was primarily a reliability concern, a worry that some critical component or subsystem would fail, leaving the satellite unusable. The solution was to build additional satellites that could be kept at the ready on the ground. An example was the Defense Meteorological Space Program (DMSP). This program, started in the early 1960s, ensured continuous sensing coverage by two low earth orbiting (LEO) satellites in polar orbits. Given the small number of satellites, the loss of only one of the two would result in a large gap in data collection and observations. As a result, often at least one additional satellite was maintained on the ground in preparation for a quick call-up.
Back then a “quick call-up” was not hours, but the time frame was considered acceptable as was the added cost. Often the earliest launch date was dominated by the availability of a launch vehicle. Over time both governments and the commercial space industry have pursued methods of compressing this time span to enable a much more rapid response to the loss of a satellite. Recently the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) demonstrated a very rapid launch of a small demonstration satellite called Victus Nox in only 27 hours from the time the order was given. Similarly, the advent of commercial proliferated LEO architectures, primarily for satellite communications, such as StarLink and OneWeb, are showing similar benefits based upon a high-volume production line. So many satellites are in production that the replacement of a single one is relatively simple. Of course, the impact to system performance due to the loss of a single satellite also becomes vanishingly small where mega-constellations are concerned, so ironically the motivation to rapidly reconstitute is much less.
Now the U.S. Space Force is rethinking how to best integrate this new rapid reconstitution capability into its broader portfolio of threat mitigation approaches. The fact that this reevaluation is happening on the cusp of new capabilities becoming available is likely good news as it shows an awareness that any single mitigation approach has its advantages and limitations or even drawbacks. Rarely is a single silver bullet the answer, but instead the integrated use of multiple mitigations to achieve the highest resilience.
This SpaceNews article provides more context via an interview with Gen. Michael Guetlein, vice chief of space operations of the U.S. Space Force..
