Skip to main content
Log in

Coevolving Defender Strategies Within Adversarial Ground Station Transit Time Games via Competitive Coevolution

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Emerging Proliferated Low Earth Orbit (P-LEO) constellations may be susceptible to attacks launched by malevolent actors capable of compromising orbiting satellites. We introduce and investigate an adversarial ground station transit time game as a proxy to study the ability to rapidly detect and respond to satellite attacks. Investigation of this problem allows us to study more complex real-world dynamics involving threats to satellite systems. Unfortunately, the problem proves to be daunting to solve due to the high-dimensionality of the solution space and the difficulty of predicting action consequences in dynamic adversarial settings. For this reason, an effective method to identify successful strategies as solutions to the problem is necessary. In this work, an artificial intelligence approach called competitive coevolution is employed to solve scenarios featuring an attacker evolving strategic locations to degrade the performance of a constellation, while a defender evolves intelligent strategies to counter the attacker’s action. The proposed solution outperforms both minimal and complex strategies, while showing versatility and robustness over a variety of scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Specific scores per run that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Davide Guzzetti, upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. https://sparta.aerospace.org/.

  2. https://hackasat.com.

  3. Using the spherical_kde Python library by William James Handley, https://github.com/williamjameshandley/spherical_kde.

  4. https://www.ksat.no/ground-network-services/ (our modeled network does not include some recently added ground stations)

References

  1. Competing in Space. Tech. Rep., NASIC Public Affairs Office (2018). https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/16/2002080386/-1/-1/1/190115-F-NV711-0002.PDF

  2. Boschetti, N., Gordon, N.G., Falco, G.: Space cybersecurity lessons learned from the viasat cyberattack. Ascend 2022, Las Vegas (NV,USA) 1–8 (2022)

  3. Bailey, B.: Cybersecurity Protections for Spacecraft: A Threat Based Approach. Tech. Rep. TOR-2021-01333-REV A, Aerospace Corporation (2021). https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/DistroA-TOR-2021-01333-Cybersecurity%20Protections%20for%20Spacecraft--A%20Threat%20Based%20Approach.pdf

  4. Space Threat Assessment 2023. Tech. Rep., Center for Strategic & International Studies (2023). https://aerospace.csis.org/space-threat-assessment-2023/

  5. del Portillo, I., Cameron, B., Crawley, E.: Ground segment architectures for large leo constellations with feeder links in ehf-bands. 2018 IEEE Aerospace Conference 1–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2018.8396576

  6. Efrem, C.N., Panagopoulos, A.D.: Globally Optimal Selection of Ground Stations in Satellite Systems with Site Diversity. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 9, 1101–1104 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/LWC.2020.2982139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Petelin, G., Antoniou, M., Papa, G.: Multi-objective approaches to ground station scheduling for optimization of communication with satellites. Optimization and Engineering 1–38 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-021-09617-z

  8. Globus, A., Crawford, J., Lohn, J.D., Pryor, A.: Scheduling earth observing satellites with evolutionary algorithms. International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology (SMC-IT) 1–11 (2003). http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/SMCIT03/SMCIT02paper2.pdf

  9. Indaco, M., Harris, S.N., Seals, D., Tauritz, D.R., Guzzetti, D.: Toward co-evolving solutions of adversarial ground station transit time games for p-leo constellation management. 2021 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference (Virtual) 1–18 (2021)

  10. van Dijk, M., Juels, A., Oprea, A., Rivest, R.L.: Flipit: The game of “stealthy takeover. J. Cryptol. 26(4), 655–713 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-012-9134-5

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Hillis, W.D.: Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. Phys. D 42(1–3), 228–234 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(90)90076-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Koza, J.R.: Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (1992). https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/138936

  13. Burke, E.K., et al.: Hyper-heuristics: a survey of the state of the art. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 64, 1695–1724 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. James, R.W. (ed.): Orbit and Constellation Design and Management. Springer, Dordrecht, El Segundo, USA (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Krawiec, K., Heywood, M.: Solving complex problems with coevolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion 832–858 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3377929.3389874

  16. Poli, R., Langdon, W.B., McPhee, N.F.: A field guide to genetic programming. Lulu Enterprises, UK Ltd (2008). http://www.gp-field-guide.org.uk

  17. Miconi, T.: Why coevolution doesn’t “work”: Superiority and progress in coevolution. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Genetic Programming 49–60 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01181-8_5

  18. Schweim, D., Wittenberg, D., Rothlauf, F.: On sampling error in genetic programming. Nat. Comput. 21, 1–14 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-020-09828-w

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Montana, D.J.: Strongly typed genetic programming. Evol. Comput. 3(2), 199–230 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1162/evco.1995.3.2.199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Harris, S.N., Tauritz, D.R.: Competitive coevolution for defense and security: Elo-based similar-strength opponent sampling. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion 1898–1906 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3449726.3463193

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the support we received for this research from the Auburn Cyber Research Center (ACRC) (https://cyber.auburn.edu), Auburn University’s Intramural Grant Program (IGP) and matching funds from the Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, the Department of Aerospace Engineering, and the Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering. This work was completed in part with resources provided by the Auburn University Easley Cluster. The authors would like to thank Ms. Dhathri Somavarapu for her contribution in the development of the original constellation orbit simulation model.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davide Guzzetti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: Heatmap Rotation

Appendix A: Heatmap Rotation

The set of GP primitives for the defender includes several functions to “rotate” a heatmap and produce a new one. This can be conceptualized as rotating a spherical globe with the heatmap’s data on its surface, while fixing the grid of the heatmap in place without rotation. The output maps each cell of the heatmap to the new data in that location after the rotation. Points on the heatmap are mapped to latitude, longitude coordinates, so these rotations can be performed by converting to Cartesian coordinates and multiplying by an appropriate rotation matrix. However, heatmaps are made up of discrete data cells, which generally won’t line up after a rotation, so these need to be resampled from the original heatmap.

For this to work, the heatmap must be accessible by a continuous function on the sphere. Let Hcell(ij) be the accessor function for the heatmap array at row i and column j. When mapped to the sphere, for a given grid resolution res, the centers of these grid cells are located at \(-\frac{\pi }{2}+i \cdot res\) latitude and \(-\pi +j \cdot res\) longitude. We will define Hmap(latlon) as a function mapping a latitude, longitude point to a heatmap value, which gives the value of the heatmap cell with the nearest center to that point:

$$\begin{aligned} Hmap(lat, lon) = Hcell\left(round\left( \frac{lat + \pi /2}{res}\right) , round\left( \frac{(lon+\pi ) \mathbin {mod} 2\pi }{res}\right) \right) \end{aligned}$$

where round rounds to the nearest integer, and \(\mathbin {mod}\) is the Euclidean modulo operator.

Let Rot(latlon) be the rotation of a point (latlon) following a given transformation, with \(Rot^{-1}(lat, lon)\) as the inverse transformation. Then the value of the rotated heatmap at (latlon) is Hmap(Rot(latlon)). In order to define the cells of the rotated heatmap, we take this value at the four corners of each cell, and average them to get the value of that cell. The inner boundaries of the cell have the coordinates:

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} top&= min\left( lat + \frac{res}{2} - \epsilon , \frac{\pi }{2}\right) \\ bottom&= max\left( lat - \frac{res}{2} + \epsilon , -\frac{\pi }{2}\right) \\ right&= lon + \frac{res}{2} - \epsilon \\ left&= lon - \frac{res}{2} + \epsilon \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$

where \(\epsilon\) is a value much smaller than the resolution to ensure that the ties are broken in the direction of the current cell, so that the identity rotation does not modify the heatmap. From these, the values of the rotated heatmap are:

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} Hmap_{rot}(lat, lon)&= (Hmap(Rot^{-1}(top, right))\\&\quad + Hmap(Rot^{-1}(top, left))\\&\quad + Hmap(Rot^{-1}(bottom, right))\\&\quad + Hmap(Rot^{-1}(bottom, left))) / 4\\ Hcell_{rot}(i, j)&= Hmap_{rot}\left( -\frac{\pi }{2}+i \cdot res, -\pi +j \cdot res\right) \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Indaco, M., Harris, S.N., Seals, D. et al. Coevolving Defender Strategies Within Adversarial Ground Station Transit Time Games via Competitive Coevolution. J Astronaut Sci 70, 48 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40295-023-00411-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40295-023-00411-w

Keywords

Navigation