This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

Only Congress Likes That Space Corps Idea

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
July 16, 2017
Only Congress Likes That Space Corps Idea

White House Opposes Space Corps, Space Policy Online
“The Trump Administration informed the House that it does not agree on the need for the Space Corps proposed in the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The White House Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) called the proposal premature because DOD is still in the process of studying potential organizational changes. The White House used stronger language to object to two other space provisions in the bill. The House began debate on the bill (H.R. 2810) this afternoon.”
Government debates need for military Space Corps, The Hill
“The House moved forward with its plans to create a Space Corps this week when it passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). But the proposal faces a long road before becoming reality. The administration, including Defense Secretary James Mattis, has come out strongly against the idea. And there’s no equivalent proposal in the Senate, meaning the provision could be stripped out before the bill’s final passage.”
Congress Pushes To Create U.S. Space Corps, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

17 responses to “Only Congress Likes That Space Corps Idea”

  1. dd75 says:
    0
    0

    I like it too.

  2. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Militarization of space is inevitable. Comparisons with Antarctica notwithstanding, cis-lunar space is so strategically important that many nations will see that control is essential.

    Sigh.

  3. John C Mankins says:
    0
    0

    SP getting “to work” early at the new NSpC?

  4. Tim12278 says:
    0
    0

    I don’t really see the point of this. In terms of real estate and people the part of the Air Force dealing with space is actually quite small. Basically Schreiver, Vandenberg, Los Angeles, and Canaveral/Patrick. Far smaller than the Marine Corps for example. Furthermore there is still a lot of overlap between Air Force space and ICBM activities. Even with the above in mind both Patrick and Vandenberg are considered underutilized facilities and as such the Air Force is looking to relocate non space oriented activities from other bases to them in the near future(Also due to the fact that Vandenberg and Patrick are considered plum postings).

    • Michael Reynolds says:
      0
      0

      “I don’t really see the point of this.”
      The only real reason I see for this is to separate the Jet Jocks and their priorities (fighters and bombers) from space related activities. The current leadership in the Air Force is made up primarily of Jet Jocks who would prefer spending money on the F-35 or B-21. My 2 cents

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        Then that’s a problem that needs to be fixed. Even without space the schism between manned aircraft and UAVs would be a problem. And the divisions between the existing services. Ground support vs air superiority. Fighters vs bombers vs cargo. Fragmenting the USAF will not help in any way.

        The improvements we have seen came from unifying the services, not breaking them up.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          That made me wonder about something. In the past, the Navy has had certain mandatory qualifications for becoming an Admiral. A century ago, having commanded a battleship was a requirement. More recently, I think past command of an aircraft carrier was mandatory.

          Does the Air Force have similar requirements? Can someone become an Air Force general without having been a pilot, or commanded a squadron? If so, then it almost seems as if specializing in spacecraft or UAVs is a dead-end career for Air Force officers.

        • Tim12278 says:
          0
          0

          The problem is more the Air Force itself. There is a LOT more to the Air Force than the Jet Jocks and Space. For example, the ICBM guys, long range bombers, A10 CAS, Air mobility, Search and Rescue etc. At this point in time I would argue the problem is the predominance of the jet jocks not so much that Space needs its own corps.

          **Technically space(14th Air Force) represents one of the 15 numbered Air Forces while the jet jocks have three or four they dominate. The others are Air Mobililty, ICBM’s etc.

  5. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    Where did NRO and the space portion of the Air Force this was supposed to help come out against this?

  6. Jim R. says:
    0
    0

    Fine with it. Shakes up the complacency in the Air Force concerning space.

  7. djschultz3 says:
    0
    0

    The Air Force brass has long been dominated by people who fly airplanes. If the Space Corps should create a separate promotion pathway for the people who work in the satellite control centers, that might be a good thing.

  8. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    The dreams of Sir Arthur aside, space will become an extension of the old nationalism that has so hobbled our planet.

    Plenty of interested players have been sidelined by the stunning cost of space access, costs that include not only the design and construction of rockets and their engines, but launch facilities, control stations, and the rest.

    It’s been shown now that about $1B and 6 or 7 years will buy a rocket design and development program, and it will fund the necessary support structures.

    We can be very sure that the formerly-sidelined are seriously examining options.

    There is an incipient space race with huge consequences that will play out in the 30’s and beyond.

    • Erik says:
      0
      0

      Given how the average person lives on this planet under a local tyranny, I’m pretty happy we have nations and nationalism.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Seems like that sometimes, I know. But don’t forget that nationalism gave us a couple of wars in the last century.

        The world is not zero-sum. There is too much to be gained by sharing and making the pie bigger.

        • Erik says:
          0
          0

          Nationalism didn’t give us the wars of the last century — fascism and other flawed ideologies did

  9. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    Regarding space artwork, I’d say these old school “analog” (compared to CGI) McCall paintings are the best. This pic Keith posted got me doing internet searches, someone found above picture at a estate sale.

    About a Space Corps, I hope it doesn’t get people thinking what they attempted with DynaSoar and MOL. Both tremendous technical challenges, huge amounts of money… back then there were three space programs: Soviets, NASA, and USAF. But the real competitors that put DynaSoar and MOL out of business were the US recon satellites. However interesting history, I was amazed reading stuff in 1970s they were proposing a space station in 1960s and also a black astronaut (Robert Lawrence who shortly after getting those snazzy astro wings died in a plane crash).

  10. Gene DiGennaro says:
    0
    0

    If we wind up with a Space Corps, the only proper way to pronounce it will be “Spaaaaaaaaaacccccccce Coooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrps!”