Yet Another WhatWeShouldDoInSpace Study
Major Policy Issues in Evolving Global Space Operations, Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies
“This paper is designed to inform decision-makers and other interested parties on how the United States may develop national space policy to address the dynamic space environment, based on input from a variety of experts. The issues addressed here, such as space traffic management, small satellites, proximity operations, orbital debris, counterspace threats, and norms of behavior, were chosen because they are likely to demand the attention of decision-makers in the near future. In addition to highlighting the issues, the report presents an overview of options for addressing them.” …. The authors recognize that the experts consulted for this paper do not constitute a scientifically selected, statistically significant random sample from the community of space policy professionals. Nonetheless, the group includes a wealth of experience and a diversity of opinions sufficient to convey important insights and lessons on the range of questions they were asked to address.”
Keith’s note: These studies are fun to read but until/unless NASA in particular – and the U.S. government in general – can write down its top space priorities on a single sheet of paper this is just another one of those reports written by the usual suspects that will get tossed into the policy sausage grinder. Lets see what the National Space Council (NSpC) does.
It does highlight a number of issues the USAF and FAA must address in an era of expanding space commerce in terms of ensuring national security and national commercial entities in space. It discussion of the issues of space debris is also good. Hopefully it will be studied and some of recommendations acted on.
Aerospace Corporaion (which produced the paper) is primarily a DOD contractor and the paper seems to advocate privatization of the DOD space traffic management functions, vs transfer to the FAA as a direct federal service. Not too suprising since the Trump Administration wants to privatize air traffic control as well. The only question is what contractor will have the inside track. Personally I think the FAA space office has done a good job so far and should have responsibility.
The drive towards privatization is difficult to understand in terms other than an excessive level of governmental demonization.
The role of goverment- one role, at least- is the provision of a level playing field for private enterprise. It’s in this role that the government builds and maintains roads, regulates foods and food additives, and makes sure that airplanes stay clear of one another.
There’s a role for government. This is one.
It’s about funnelling money to favoured corporations (who have donated to the politicians in question), it’s not actually about hostility to government. Generally “privatisation” usually results in government, and hence tax-payers, footing the bill anyway; so it’s just shifting the mark-up from direct employees (public servants) to those favoured corporations and their senior execs.
No one seems to understand the need for a long term, sustainable concepts in a world of an increasing and unsustanability human population and Earth, which will increasingly suck all funding away from getting humans to be a multi-world species. And all we need is two or three huge disasters to occur in a row and funding will dry up even quicker. If no one listens to me do they at least listen to Hawking?
I don’t think there’s any sector of the economy that’s had more paperwork and policy proposals produced compared to hardware and missions actually produced than space exploration. The ratio there is just enormous.
It’s not exactly part of the “economy”, but military war plans are worse in terms of the quantity of paper plans versus actual operations. Most countries have them for every imaginable contingency (I hope the United States isn’t bothering with the “What if Canada invades” contingency, but it wouldn’t shock me…) and update them on a regular basis. In this case, I’d say it’s a good thing that almost none of these are ever used.
Canadians are slowly penetrating the US already, aided by their superficial resemblance to actual Americans, which makes spotting these infiltrators quite difficult.
More, “What if we have to invade Canada”. Supposedly as late as the 1930’s, this was part of War Dept planning if and when US/UK relations soured again. (Post-WW1, the punter’s favourite for Next Big War was US/UK.) And presumably during the Cold War, they mocked out scenarios where a leftist Canadian govt became a Soviet-puppet and, for example, cut off US land routes to Alaska. (Although that has apparently been denied by DoD.) Plus during war-games, presumably US and Canadian forces have gone Red/Blue against each other.
It’s a helpful report on the space commerce and traffic control side, so I hope it’s widely read. I chided my good friend Jim Vedda just a tiny bit for not throwing me a credit bone on the “Space Coast Guard:” the phrase was invented by a private group that soon disappeared, but I and coauthors were the first to flesh out a real idea and publish it (paper #SSC99-III-6) at Smallsat in 1999.