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.
TrumpSpace

National Space Council 101 Overview By Scott Pace

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 13, 2017
Filed under
National Space Council 101 Overview By Scott Pace

Pace Outlines Trump Administration’s Approach to Space Development and Law, Space Policy Online
“The United States should seek to ensure that its space activities reflect “our values and not just our technologies,” Pace urged. “We should seek to ensure that our space activities reflect those values: democracy, liberty, free enterprise, and respect for domestic and international law in a peaceful international order.” To influence the development and utilization of space, the United States needs to “create attractive projects and frameworks in which other nations choose to align themselves and their space activities with us, as opposed to others.” Pace praised the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which just turned 50 years old, saying there is “no doubt” that U.S. national interests are served by conducting space activities within that international legal framework. Conversely, he lambasted the 1979 Moon Agreement as “contrary to American interests.” It declares the Moon to be the common heritage of mankind with all nations sharing equitably in benefits derived from its resources.

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

29 responses to “National Space Council 101 Overview By Scott Pace”

  1. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    “We should seek to ensure that our space activities reflect those values: democracy, liberty, free enterprise, and respect for domestic and international law in a peaceful international order.”

    I hardly know where to start with this specious ‘statement’. I suppose the cynic would ask if our relentless wars and skyrocketing military budget are respectful.

    There are points in the MoonAgreement worthy of criticism, to be sure. But Pace’s replacement would be something like “whoever gets there first, wins— and gets to own the Moon.”

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      I guess you overlooked the part where he praised the OST which prohibits ownership of Celestial Bodies like the Moon. It’s the Moon Treaty that attempts to “own” the Moon Treaty by making it’s resources the common property of all the nations that ratified it. So you have it exactly the opposite of what he say and what the OST states.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        No, it’s not ME who overlooked it— it’s Scott’s comments.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Where? No where does he talk about owning the Moon…

          • JJMach says:
            0
            0

            It’s one of the main points of contention over the “Moon Agreement” (http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/… which Scott Pace pointed out has only been ratified by 17 nations, none of which have a significant space industry (and many of which are major oil exporters). India signed the treaty but their government never ratified it, as they likely realized the devil in the details:

            “[N]either the surface nor the subsurface nor any part thereof shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person.”

            This one line is death to any sort of private industry interest in or development of the Moon. Whatever you do, you can’t profit from it. If you do produce anything, any nation can call dibs on “equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived from those resources” (hint: This applies whether or not they did anything or nothing at all to help you.)

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, it is what happens when you send a NASA lawyer to negotiate what was suppose to be a commercial treaty rather than a lawyer from the commerce department that actually understood business and wasn’t hostile to it.

          • DP Huntsman says:
            0
            0

            Exactly whom was the lead negotiator on the US side? I thought it was someone from State.

  2. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    “Our values”??

    • chuckc192000 says:
      0
      0

      Indeed. Could somebody please explain to me what “American values” means in the context of space exploration?

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        They are in the article if you read it. Scott Pace also listed them…

        “democracy, liberty, free enterprise, and respect for domestic and international law in a peaceful international order.”

        • tutiger87 says:
          0
          0

          Domestic and international law…

          Which does not apply on the Moon. He’s already shown his displeasure in the Moon Agreement. I’m sure it’s all about that America First drivel that the present Administration spouts.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Wrong, both apply in space and on the Moon. Why do you think there is an FAA-CST? Look up Article VI of the OST.

  3. jamesmuncy says:
    0
    0

    As someone who has known Scott for 30 years, and who has not always been his #1 fan… I was thrilled with his speech and his responses to questions yesterday. (Yes, I was there in person).

    His point is that, despite a lot of ivory tower thinking to the contrary, spaceflight is not some pristine pure scientific pursuit, but rather needs to be consciously managed as an expression of those American values that we try to uphold in every part of society. We’re not perfect, but we are amazingly self-correcting.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the dichotomy you are setting up, between “pristine pure scienc[e]” and a “consciously managed… expression of… values.” Most industries and types of business are definitely not pure science, but neither are they managed as an expression of anyone’s values. I mean, for example, that while General Motors is definitely managed, the automobile industry is not collectively managed, and certainly not for any common values (other than profits for the shareholders.) You seem to be implying (or attributing to Pace) that things are either pure science or need to be _government_ managed in accordance with _someone’s_ opinions of what “American values” are. I don’t think that’s the case.

      • jamesmuncy says:
        0
        0

        That was not what Scott was saying. And I didn’t mean to imply anything negative about science, since curiosity and discovery are absolutely American values. I was saying that an American space enterprise needs to incorporate/reflect/express our values. And of course General Motors, and Tesla too, are expressions of a desire to creatively produce goods that are valuable to and serve customers, thus earning an economic return. Capitalism is not just about profit, it is about doing something well enough to be profitable so it can continue and grow/advance/innovate. That idea wasn’t born in America, but in many ways it reached some of its fullest expression here.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I believe I was reading too much into your phrase “consciously managed.” In the analogy to the car industry, GM and Tesla are definitely expressions of American culture, but that isn’t a result of conscious planning and management. It isn’t like we have a federal five-year plan for auto production. I have no problem with saying that, whoever goes into space will put their own culture’s stamp on the future of the solar system. Nor do I have a problem with saying we’d like it to be our own, and therefore should do things in accordance with those cultural values. But I think that’s different consciously managing the process.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Yes, there is nothing new here, its was part of the why of Apollo. As President Kennedy stated in his Rice University speech.

        https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh

        “We mean to be a part of it–we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace.”

        and

        “Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war”

        Which is basically not much different than what Scott Pace states in the article.

        “democracy, liberty, free enterprise, and respect for domestic and international law in a peaceful international order.”

        So the values he states date to the founding of NASA. I guess folks have forgotten them…

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          It’s a moot point, since I was reading too much into the phrasing, but… My problem was with the part about “consciously managed.” To me, that implies strong, top-down management, and in this context, top-down management by the federal government. I didn’t see that as consistent with values like “liberty” and “free enterprise.”

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Spaceflight has to be managed as an expression of values? What does that even mean?

      Seriously? Are we speaking of capitalism here? Are we discussing spaceflight as a means of spreading Democracy? What ‘values’?

      Confused.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        I will help end you your confusion since Scott Pace also listed them…

        “democracy, liberty, free enterprise, and respect for domestic and international law in a peaceful international order.”

        This is in contrast to the Moon Treaty which has no respect for liberty, democracy or free enterprise.

        • Gerald Cecil says:
          0
          0

          This list is certainly aspirational, both in space and in the USA. Unfortunately, the Electoral College distorts the first, militarized police the second, lobbyists pushing distorting legislative tweaks the third, “intelligence service” domestic spying the fourth, and violations of international law by wars of aggression by the “coalition of the willing” and meddling in foreign elections the last. Better luck in space?

      • jamesmuncy says:
        0
        0

        Thomas below is 100% right, but I’ll take it a step further. American Spaceflight is about expanding American civilization into space. Not as conquest, and thank goodness certainly not at the expense of humans already living in these “new worlds”. But it is expansion into a new ecosystem, evolving as we migrate outwards while maintaining ties and trade with those we leave behind. Spaceflight therefore becomes not about just technology or engineering or science or any one application/use of space, but about growing our economic, cultural, and yes political sphere into this frontier.

        Whether those Americans who settle space continue to be “Americans” is TBD. A lot of science fiction (staring with Moon is a Harsh Mistress) has been written about that.

        I’m sorry if this is offensive to anyone. That’s not my intent.

        But I genuinely believe that much of the American character is the result of the values the Founders inherited from the our European forbears (going back to Athenian democracy) plus the continuous rebirth of freedom as we expanded into the Louisiana Territory and other additions to our nation.

        We can enjoy that rebirth of freedom from settling the space frontier as well. And that is a civilization-wide payoff that makes “jobs” and “spinoffs” insignificant by comparison.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          As thrill-seeking tourists, perhaps. But there are far more hospitable regions on Earth that have never been settled.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          I’m not sure yet why this discussion, and the points by Drs. Pace, Matula and Muncie, are so deeply troubling, but they are.

          Is it because the argument sounds something like those supporting Manifest Destiny? The sense that we Europeans should spread our Athenian seed?

          More thought required.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Think of it in a slightly different way. Without implying one is better than the others, it’s reasonable to say that American, Chinese, and Indian (to pick three mostly at random) cultures are different. Any sort of expansion into a new place will reflect the culture and values of the people who go there (and will not reflect the culture and values of the people who stay behind.) Deliberately or not, that’s going to happen.

          • jamesmuncy says:
            0
            0

            “Manifest Destiny” was a post hoc rationalization for our westward migration. Of course it didn’t justify or excuse taking lives and land from Native Americans. But that is not the situation in Earth’s solar system.

            You don’t have to believe that the Anglosphere is perfect to think that it would be a good to expand its presence/influence into the solar system. Or that it would be better to spread the Anglosphere into space than North Korea’s totalitarian family cult.

            I guess I side with the May 25, 1961 declaration by the acclaimed internationalist (and moderate Democrat) John Kennedy: “We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.”

  4. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    Let’s first develop a reliable and sustainable capability for humans BEO, then we can debate this issue.

    • jamesmuncy says:
      0
      0

      Two responses:

      #1 (impolitic): please use your own money then.

      #2 (semi-politic): This isn’t a debate… it’s policy. BEO spaceflight “sustainability” is not really about technology, it’s about values and grand national strategy. I realize this isn’t taught in engineering schools. Welcome to representative democracy.