It\u2019s not the first time that the Department has looked at such weapons. In 1989, the\u00a0U.S.<\/span>\u00a0launched a neutral particle beam into space, as part of an experiment called\u00a0BEAR<\/span>, for\u00a0Beam Accelerator Aboard a Rocket<\/a>.<\/p>\n The experiment report ldescribed it as modestly successful: \u201cThe\u00a0BEAR<\/span>\u00a0flight has demonstrated that accelerator technology can be adapted to a space environment. This first operation of an [neutral particle beam] accelerator in space uncovered no unexpected\u00a0physics.\u201d<\/p>\n But there\u2019s a big difference between a successful experiment and an affordably deployable weapon. As part of the earlier effort, several companies produced prototype designs. The weapons they sketched were enormous. One was\u00a072 feet long<\/a>.<\/p>\n On Wednesday, Defense officials said that advances in technology have brought down the potential size and cost of space-based particle\u00a0beams.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve come a long way in terms of the technology we use today to where a full, all-up system wouldn\u2019t be the size of three of these conference rooms, right? We now believe we can get it down to a package that we can put on as part of a payload to be placed on orbit,\u201d said a senior defense official. \u201cPower generation, beam formation, the accelerometer that\u2019s required to get there and what it takes to neutralize that beam, that capability has been matured and there are technologies that we can use today to\u00a0miniaturize.\u201d<\/p>\n Officials, however, stress that the explorative studies do not necessarily mean that the Department will actually deploy a weapon. \u201cI can\u2019t say that it is going to be at a space and weight requirement that\u2019s going to actually be feasible, but we\u2019re pushing forward with the prototyping and demo,\u201d said an official. The exploration, according to the official, \u201cmeans we need to understand as a Department, the costs and what it would take to go do that. There\u2019s a lot of folklore\u2026that says it\u2019s either crazy expensive or that it\u2019s free. It needs to be a definitive\u00a0study.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/div>\n The push to develop space-based weapons also reflects growing concern about advances in missile technologies from adversarial and so-called \u201ccompeting\u201d nations like China, Russia, Iran and North\u00a0Korea.<\/p>\n \u201cThe addition of the neutral particle Beam effort will design, develop, and conduct a feasibility demonstration for a space-based Directed Energy Intercept layer. This future system will offer new kill options for the [Ballistic Missile Defense System] and adds another layer of protection for the homeland,\u201d says an\u00a0MDA<\/span>document put out on\u00a0Tuesday.<\/p>\n Those new options are essential, say defense officials, to hit missiles during their boost phase, as they leave the launch pad and head straight\u00a0up.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s a really hard battle space to go after, right?\u201d said the senior official. \u201cIt\u2019s a very short timeline, first to even know where it [meaning the missile] is coming from\u2026It\u2019s less than a \u00a0couple minutes before it leaves the atmosphere. So you have to have a weapon that\u2019s on station, that\u2019s not going to be taken out by air batteries and so we have been looking at directed energy applications for that. But you have to scale up power to that megawatt class. You\u2019ve got to reduce the weight. You\u2019ve got to have a power source. It\u2019s a challenge,\u00a0technically.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s also a controversial idea and not popular among arms control proponents. \u201cThe deployment of interceptors in space would be a disaster for strategic stability. To ensure the credibility of their nuclear deterrents, Russia and China would likely respond by building additional and new types of long-range ballistic missiles as well as missiles that fly on non-ballistic trajectories. Russia and China could also take steps to improve their ability to destroy such\u00a0U.S.<\/span>\u00a0interceptors, thereby greatly increasing the threat to\u00a0U.S.<\/span>assets in space,\u201d said Kingston Reif, who directs disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control\u00a0Association.<\/p>\n The\u00a0U.S.<\/span>\u00a0is a signatory to the 1967\u00a0Outer Space Treaty<\/a>, which prohibits placing nuclear weapons in space. Another Defense official made clear that the treaty does not provide an obstacle to the deployment of either lasers or neutral particle beams in orbit. \u201cThe 1967 Outer Space Treaty says that weapons of mass destruction can not be placed into outer space and then it limits even further specifically military activities on celestial bodies, I think the moon or otherwise. But the treaty does not expressly prohibit activities that are not weapons of mass destruction on outer\u00a0space.\u201d<\/p>\n If the Defense Department does deploy weapons in space, the United States would be the first country to do so officially. But defense officials frequently contend that they probably would not be the first to do so\u00a0in actuality.<\/em>\u00a0A February\u00a0report\u00a0<\/a>from the Defense Intelligence Agency suggests that both China and Russia are developing space-based weapons and that they could be in orbit next\u00a0year.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn.defenseone.com\/media\/img\/upload\/2019\/03\/14\/shutterstock_1196087329\/defense-large.jpg\")
Defense officials want to test a neutral\u00a0<\/strong>particle-beam in orbit in fiscal 2023 as part of a ramped-up effort to explore various types of space-based weaponry. They\u2019ve asked for $304 million in the 2020 budget to develop such beams, more powerful lasers, and other new tech for next-generation missile defense. Such weapons are needed,\u00a0they say<\/a>, to counter new missiles from China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. But just figuring out what might work is a difficult technical\u00a0challenge.<\/p>\n