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.
Military Space

Is A Space Force Needed?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 18, 2018
Filed under ,
Is A Space Force Needed?

Security center director: US needs counterspace capabilities as part of Space Force, The Hill
“A security director is backing President Trump’s idea of creating a Space Force, citing a troubling development of counterspace technologies by some of the United States’ biggest rivals. Todd Harrison, director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says that while the U.S. still has a “great advantage” over countries like China and Russia, the U.S. military is not doing enough to protect itself. “Where other countries are causing concern for us is not that they’re developing space capabilities, but they’re developing counterspace capabilities,” Harrison told Hill.TV during an interview that aired on Friday, referring to weapons and other destructive systems designed for offensive uses.”
The Space Force isn’t silly. Reshuffling the Pentagon might be, opinion, Washington Post
“For now, it is unclear whether a big, new military reorganization would add anything useful to what the administration is already doing — setting up a joint space command, putting more emphasis on developing new space military technologies and pushing harder for the cultivation and promotion of space-oriented officers and specialists. The administration should step up these efforts, not inaugurate a massive bureaucratic overhaul that could for years prove a diversion and distraction.”

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

33 responses to “Is A Space Force Needed?”

  1. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Keith, I read that document from the Defense Secretary that you posted here last week. From it, and from what we all see going on in Commercial Space and the space capability apparent in our country’s “competitors”, I’ve drawn three conclusions…

    1–That we don’t need a Space Force now, but it is possible to see a future in which we will need one. I’m not talking about the storm troopers/space Marines that we have fun imagining for this, just a separately funded branch with it’s own mission and development path that answers directly to the Defense Secratary as described in that document.

    2–That to set up such a branch correctly and with less disruption of the other services it should be carefuly planned and eased into over time.

    3– That this isn’t a Trump thing and that treating it like it is short-sighted, not helpful, and gives him more credit for understanding the reasons for it than he really deserves.

    I realize that that document could have been prepared specifically to lead the reader to these conclusions…but it still jives for me.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Good analysis! Also remember that sometimes waiting for the perfect time often means it doesn’t get done. At the moment you have a President willing to push the effort, spend the political capital and ignore the jokes from the media to make it happen. That support is not something that should be counted on from a future Administration, especially given the laugher seen in the media over it.

      So if it doesn’t happen now it may be a long time before there is another opportunity. Indeed, it may even have to wait until there is some major military crisis in space which seems to be the norm in pushing space policy forward. Remember that so far nearly all the major space policy events, NASA, Project Apollo, the ISS and replacement of the Shuttle, were responses to crisis in space policy. It would be nice if the Space Force could be spared such a birth that would be even more disruptive and rushed. Even the FAA AST was created in reaction to an event, the first flight of a private rocket into space in 1982. It would be nice to be proactive for once in space instead of waiting until something happens and reacting to it.

      • Bill Housley says:
        0
        0

        I know right? The people who are whining about the disruption it would cause are advocating the very disruption they are whining about.

        Yes, we can all laugh at the clown President and say it is a clown thing because he advocates it, but in many ways he is a product of someone else’s lack of planning in several areas. The Space Force is a product of the times in which we will soon live, in part because of something that was done right by the previous administration. That space assets on Earth have now become important enough to our country’s future goals and economy to attract the attention of our county’s military competition and opened enough innovation doors to require us to focus on the military implications should be viewed by space advocates as at least somewhat encouraging.

        Not planning, again, should not be encouraged.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Yes. You know, one of the keys to winning WWII was the Army Air Force’s strategic bombing campaign, but it was only possible because a hand full of rogue officers pushed for it and the Army brass, shut them up, allowed them have a squadron of YB-17s to play with so they would shut up. The infrantry trained Army brass Knew that the function of air power was to directly support troops, just as the leaders of the German and Japanese Armies believed. As a result those nations never develop a true strategic bomber force or doctrine, just one for tactical bombing. It cost them the war as that handful of rogue officers and their American strategic bombers choked off their industry and starved their armies in the field.

          But if you read the biographies of those officers you will see the challenges they had to over come that added a couple years to the war. Imagine trying to train 45 bomber crews, a entire wing, with only 3 B-17e’s available as General LeMay had to at the start of the war. Indeed, one could argue the reason WW III never occurred was because Russia knew that SAC was ready at s moment’s notice to destroy their industry. Yes, atomic weapons also was a factor, but they are much smaller threat if there is no way to deliver them.

          BTW the same was true of carrier avaition and submarine warfare. If Japanese hadn’t destroyed the battleship Navy at Pearl Harbor the Pacific War would have lasted a lot longer.

          A U.S. Space Force will have the time and freedom to develop the techniques and tactics to keep space secure, both for American industry and warfighters. It is good to seeing the U.S. getting ahead of the curve for once.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            In fact, your argument would have been stronger if you had stuck to naval aviation and submarines. The significance of strategic bombing during the Second World War has been debated for various reasons. Naval aviation and submarines make your point about having a capability before you need it, and I don’t think anyone seriously debates their importance during the War.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, there have been debates, but if you read the biographies from the Japanese and German side you see a common thread of being limited from lack of fuel. In the Pacific it was from the submarines sinking tankers, but in Europe it was from strategic bombing. Also it really wasn’t until 1944 that the USAAF had the tactics and resources to be effective at it. Remember how much time they had to spend gearing up for it.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I should probably drop it, since we’ve gotten off topic. But you’re subdividing strategic bombing. Harris, for example, was advocating area bombing from day one, and felt that leveling cities would make a surface invasion of Europe unnecessary. That aspect of strategic bombing was pretty clearly less effective than advertised.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            It was in Europe. However it was proving effective in Japan. Even after two strikes with atomic weapons the Japanese were looking to negotiate a surrender, but a final air raid made a land invasion unnecessary. But yes, this has drifted off topic.

            http://www.jahitchcock.com/

            http://ww2today.com/14-augu

          • mfwright says:
            0
            0

            >significance of strategic bombing during the

            >Second World War has been debated for various

            >reasons.

            I read bombing from B17s didn’t do much (most bombs were way off target) but it lured German fighters to attack the bombers which were then shot down by allied escort fighters (i.e. long range P51s). Then on D-Day the Germans had no air power over Normandy.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I really didn’t intend to start a debate about strategic bombing during the Second World War. I was making a comment on Dr. Matula’s rhetoric. Rhetorically, using a historical example to prove your point is a good idea. But it’s better to use an example no one is likely to challenge or debate. Strategic bombing is debatable (with valid points, including yours, on both sides.) But naval aviation or submarine warfare would have been equally good examples, and ones few people would debate. That would have been a rhetorically better example, since it would not have diluted his point by opening the door to a discussion of a side issue.

          • mfwright says:
            0
            0

            You have me thinking original intent of WWII strategic bombing and what the end results were… using those events to forecast intent of a Space Force but what the end results will be? Should SF be modeled after Air Force, Army, or Navy? i.e. AF has fast vehicles that are in continuous use for hours. Navy has slow vehicles that are in continuous use for months. Army occupies territories. Each branch has a management structure to fit those needs. Space Force? but then they don’t have spaceships like Star Fleet (modeled after the Navy). It seems SF like the Space Command is mostly network systems and process management.

          • Tom Billings says:
            0
            0

            And yet, the Germans stated that 35% of their war effort went to air defense.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I think your comment help something ‘gel’ in my own mind, Professor: “Imagine trying to train 45 bomber crews, a entire wing, with only 3 B-17e’s available.”

            Imagine trying to train any sort of ‘space force’ with notional rockets?! The required hardware poorly understood – mostly because the mission is hazy.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            No, what space warfare will be is cyber and electronic warfare, experts at computers figuring how to jam, confuse or disable space assets electronically, with lasers or by hacking. This is one of reasons why it will operate better split off from the USAF which still thinks, as you are, in terms of physically destroying targets. Hacking your opponent’s satellite and feeding it outdated or false information is far more effective than simply destroying it.

            Remember, the goal in space warfare is ensuring your side has the intelligence, information and communication they need to win while denying the opponent all access to intelligence, information and communication from space.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think the comparison to cyber warfare is too strong. Jamming and disabling with lasers don’t seem like cyber warfare to me. Also, a low velocity approach and a mechanical arm to jerk a satellite’s solar arrays isn’t an impossible idea. Again, that’s not exactly cyber warfare. Seriously destructive means would be counterproductive, since they just create orbital debris.

            Or, depending who you are, that might be highly productive. For a nation with few space assets, creating orbital debris might be a viable way of denying the use of space to a country dependent on it. Of course, neutral nations might not be happy about that (also true of past naval policies from impressment to unrestricted submarine warfare.) So some maneuvering and operational capabilities might be in order. Other defensive means like hardening, robustness to subsystem damage, and rapid replacement (whether or not the spacecraft were small) also occur to me.

            None of that is the sort of thing we traditionally associate with aircraft crews. So I see your point. But, even if most of the work is done on the ground and sitting behind a computer, I’m not sure I’d call it cyber warfare.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Perhaps Computer Warfare might be a better term, or maybe video warfare with a nod to the similarity to video gaming. But it is a very different environment than dog fighting or aerial bombardment.

            BTW, the USAF just moved cyber warfare from space command to air combat command.

            https://spacenews.com/air-f

            Air Force Space Command transfers cybersecurity responsibilities to Air Combat Command

            by Sandra Erwin — June 7, 2018

            It looks like they want to hang on to it if a Space Force is spun off.

          • Natalie Clark says:
            0
            0

            Heather Wilson doesn’t want the Space Force. So this move of 72 people is planned to more firmly focus Air Force space efforts. Much of the cyber was already planned a while back. These 72 people are just the last ones to be relocated. Most already went to the Texas-based 24th Air Force. These last 72 planners will head to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia which is air combat command headquarters. Handwriting has been on the wall regarding what to do with space systems. The Air Force has already been trying their best to reorganize to avoid having a space force. The Air Force siphons money from the space systems – so a new space force will end their cash cow – many programs that wouldn’t be funded any other way will be affected.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Hopefully with President Trump and the NSC pushing it will happen.

          • Bill Housley says:
            0
            0

            I think the document also hinted at more specialized protection of the launch infrastructure as well.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, that is something that would be needed. One advantage of the air launched systems is that it would be possible to disperse them like the bombers to any of a number of air fields, or keep them airborne until needed by refueling.

            But this doesn’t seem to be something built into the current systems (L-1011, Stratrocruiser, White Knight Two). However it would have been an option with the F-15E based option that DARPA was exploring.

            https://fighterjetsworld.co

            One could also imagine using a C-17 as the basis for an portable and mobile air launched system.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            The air launch systems have some special payload processing, fueling and tracking requirements. That isn’t available everywhere, but I suspect they could increase the number of locations where it is available (although it would cost.)

            But for the fixed sites, I’d think protecting the infrastructure would, in this case, be a cyber warfare thing. A physical threat to Vandenberg or Canaveral would imply a similar threat to a whole lot of other places in the United States, and the current military services are tasked with preventing that sort of thing.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            True, but I wonder how many of those activities could be made mobile and transportable by C-130’s or C-17’s to make dispersal more practical. Remember cost isn’t the issue, but the ability to survive is.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Some, possibly most or all, of the ground support work could be made mobile or at least transportable. How much it would cost or how long it would take to set up at a new location isn’t a question I can answer. Estimating that and comparing it to the benefits is something worth studying. Say, perhaps someone in the Space Force…

            Later edit: I noticed your statement that cost would not be an issue. I disagree. The dollar which go to one program are often dollars which do not go to another. Even for the Department of Defense, money is a resource and using it efficiently is (or should be) a consideration.

          • dd75 says:
            0
            0

            “Of course, neutral nations might not be happy about that”

            That would make for a great apocalyptic novel. A rogue nation like north korea launches a single rocket and explodes a splinter bomb that throws millions of splinters in LEO and GEO destroying ALL satellites of all nations and bring them down to their level. In fact it is a plausible threat that could happen.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That’s a bit extreme, but the premises for novels of that sort often are. If you want to write a novel along those lines, feel free. It’s not like I can ask for royalties for the idea, or would do so if I could.

            But I was thinking of something a little more realistic. Possibly not very realistic, just a little bit more so. Countries like the United States, Russia and China need to be careful about using antisatellite weapons. The wrong sort could produce debris, put their own satellites at risk and potentially cause more harm to themselves than their enemy. A country which does not depend on satellites but which could launch antisatellite weapons wouldn’t have to worry about that. North Korea would be in that category, but it isn’t alone. But that doesn’t mean they would deliberately produce debris as a form of space denial. It just means they would be less concerned about incidentally producing debris.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Even worst, the denote a Nuke that fries satellites with its EMP

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Don’t worry about the EMP. The Starfish 2 (a k.a. Starfish Prime) test produced a temporary, artificial radiation belt which was more damaging to satellites than the direct EMP.

      • Natalie Clark says:
        0
        0

        The Air Force doesn’t want this to happen. They will drag their feet, obstruct, and request it be studied more. We simply can’t ignore the fact that these space systems need to include defensive and protection measures. We can’t simply claim, oh well there’s nothing we can do. This results in the attitude of build more space systems or don’t rely on the space systems. Due to the budgets pressures, we can’t afford this. The siphoning off money problem has also reached a point the space systems community feels the pressure to produce and is pushing for this new agency. The fact is, the space systems being treated like a cash cow step child has left the United States extremely vulnerable. The United States simply can’t afford this money or national security wise.

    • MarcNBarrett says:
      0
      0

      Saying that this isn’t a “trump thing” is itself shortsighted. This thing was embraced by trump entirely for him to have a slogan to chant at his rallies and have his limited-capacity followers something to chant in return. He knows that “Make America Great Again” is getting old and can be thrown back at him besides. “Space Force! Space Force! Space Force!” is new and fresh enough for his followers to repeat ad nauseum.

      • Bill Housley says:
        0
        0

        It can be perceived as a swamp thing…but it is neither new nor fresh. Folks at the Pentagon we’re talking about it clear back in the Clinton Administration.

        New Space is both new and fresh…and dug in its heals before Trump was elected. It drew the attention of venture capital firms…before Trump was elected. It triggered a wave of innovations and expansive aspiration…before Trump was elected. Analysts have predicted heavy U.S. influence in a huge, new, multi-layer, global growth industry springing from it…before Trump was elected.

        And now the new space race is about to reach critical mass, where it actually steers the direction of Government instead of the other way around.

        That is what has triggered this initiative. That the need matured just in time for Trump sheeple to call it theirs and chant about it is convenient for Trump critics and supporters to tug back and forth on it…but it is coincidence.

  2. Natalie Clark says:
    0
    0

    The head of the U.S. Air Force said that war is coming to space “in a matter of years” as great powers including China, Russia, and the U.S. bolster their space-based military capabilities.

    Basically space has been treated by each respective service as a step child.
    The Air Force has mismanaged the space efforts over the decades resulting in other agencies setting up their own space initiatives. The Air Force currently looks at the Space activities as a cash cow and siphon off funds for other pet projects.

    More importantly, most military operations depend on space for navigation and timing, real-time intelligence, accurate weather forecasts, battlespace awareness, strategic and theater missile warning, and wideband, as well as secure and protected, communications.

    One of the biggest problems is the current way space military is manages is that it retreats from defending its space investment. In part it’s due to various treaty’s blocking anti satellite weaponry and in part to group think with in the military industrial complex (MIC). Cheating on the treaty’s leads to a significant vulnerability on the non-cheaters.

    Another very significant problem problem is the MIC retreats from taking much action to protect and defend it space assets. In part because they think of these space systems as cash cows. Way back in the 1980s I was part of red team/blue team exercises. I was part of the science/engineering team of the red side (role playing the bad guy Russians). Every time we said we would do such and such to put out a satellite exploiting a vulnerability the blue team would scream foul and a general would scold us and tell the red team to quit proposing things we don’t want to hear.
    Fast forward to 2007, when the Chinese shot down their own satellite in 2007, Air Force and other DoD leaders were heard saying that there was no way to defend space. And so over the many decade the MIC have basically haven’t even tried to defend and protect space assets. This is a major problem with typical space systems taking 10 years and cost a billion or more dollars each. Even back in the 1980s many of us on these review teams strongly expressed concerns the high cost and vulnerability of space systems would bankrupt this country if we didn’t find a better way.

    The proponents of the new space force believe the new agency will solve many problems by a process called jellos advocacy. As the link below points out “Jealous advocacy works in a similar fashion to shape and strengthen an institution. Institutions that understand their domain and can see future changes and potential threats, jealously advocate for changes to their mission to stay in the lead. They do so in a bureaucratic struggle for resources and importance.”

    We simply can’t keep doing the space business the same way we have for decades.
    The MIC advocating for space system budgets (to siphon funds for other pet projects) while treating space systems as a step child approach isn’t working.

    The new space force agency has a lot of merit. It’s not perfect. No major reorganization fixes everything. In conjunction with the new Space Force, there needs to be a push for cooperation to share/leverage expertise and resources amongst the new agency and the other agencies. The MIC is very dysfunctional in this regard – with or without the new Space Force agency forming.

    https://spacenews.com/why-t

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      “with the new Space Force, there needs to be a push for cooperation to share/leverage expertise and resources amongst the new agency and the other agencies”

      It mentions that near the end of the document that Keith posted here last week.

      • Natalie Clark says:
        0
        0

        Yes- obviously so – but not the primary driver for the Space Force. But as I pointed out we still have this issue whether or not the space agency is formed. As I pointed out the current agency retreating from defending and protecting the space systems is what is driving forming the new agency. We’re always going to have these issues regarding sharing/leveraging resources. Unfortunately the MIC feels more money, duplication, ineffectiveness is better and more profitable. This leads to the second driving reason I pointed out- we simply can’t afford to continue like this. Typical of bureaucratic thinking to latch onto the lesser problems as the priority.