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

#SpaceForce Double Header

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 23, 2018
Filed under
#SpaceForce Double Header

Transformers: Space
“Vice President Mike Pence is confirmed to speak at The Washington Post on October 23 as part of a “Transformers: Space” event. Pence, who serves as chairman of the National Space Council, will talk one-on-one with National Political Reporter Robert Costa about the Trump administration’s plan to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the U.S. military and other important space policy matters.”
National Space Council Meeting

President Donald J. Trump Is Launching America’s Space Force
“The six recommendations presented to the President call for:
— Forming a United States Space Command to control our space forces and develop the tactics, techniques, and procedures for military space operations.
— Establishing the Space Force as a separate and distinct branch of the military whose mission will be to organize, train, and equip combat space forces.
— Calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a Space Force and provide funding for the United States Space Command.
— Launching a joint review by the National Space Council and National Security Council of existing space operational authorities for meeting national security objectives, informed by DOD’s assessment of the authorities required.
— Creating a Space Development Agency to ensure Americans in the Space Force have cutting-edge warfighting capabilities.
— Creating collaborative mechanisms with the Intelligence Community to improve unity of efforts for the development of space capabilities and operations.”

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

41 responses to “#SpaceForce Double Header”

  1. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    The subject is nowhere near the radar of normal people. If anything is going to happen, next summer would be the logical time for a big push.

    It’s fairly clear however that the political landscape will be dramatically different.

    In short, the space force is going nowhere.

  2. Beomoose says:
    0
    0

    Why is the NASA administrator evangelizing for the Space Force? He has a job, and cheerleading for a new DoD agency is not it. Or does he plan to be the Secretary of Space, after NASA is consumed by the Space Force?

    • Tom Billings says:
      0
      0

      He answers when reporters ask. If they didn’t ask for his opinion, he has plenty of NASA stuff to talk about. He really does think a Space Force is needed, as many have for several decades. NASA is, by law, civilian, not military. Only the Air Staff’s “Poison Pill” plan for a Space Force would have put into Space Force NASA, and NOAA, and NRO and many other agencies whose Patrons in Congress would then be converted from yes votes to no votes.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      You forget, unlike the other NASA Administrators he is informed and knowledgeable about space policy beyond simply science. He understands the need to protect America’s space assets. Tell me, would you like to go back to the world as it existed before GPS? Overnight?

      Also remember NASA has always been paired with the military because of its use of military assets. Who operates the Eastern Test Range that NASA uses for its flights? He knows that it needs updating but that is low on the priorities of the fighter pilots who run the USAF. And I am sure he also sees potential in the proposed Space Development Agency for improving aerospace procurement for producing technology for benefiting NASA.

  3. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    There is no branch of the military that does not utilize space already. Space specific activities are already under Space Command, which is a unified operational element of the DOD incorporating personnel from all the services. We would be spending billions to set up a separate named military service that would only move exiting functions farther from the forces they support and complicate coordination. The military is stronger when it is united than when it is divided, that is why we established the Department of Defense after WWII. The idea of a Space Force is pointless and wasteful of tax dollars, and appears designed to benefit its supporters politically rather than to benefit the US militarily.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      A little like “Homeland Security” and DNI.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      There is no branch of the military that isn’t dependent on aviation. Should we abolish the USAF and just set up a unified operational element for using air assets under the DOD? Space is important enough to the nation’s economy and security to have an independent service focused primarily on space, like the USAF is focused primarily on aviation.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        That’s already the case. The Air Force has fewer pilots than either the Army or the Navy. You may be aware of the long-standing controversy over the demise of the A-10, attributed by some to the Air Force’s inordinate focus on air combat and neglect of close air support. Today some believe the Air Force would neglect DOD space for the same reason. The solution is not further division, it is unity. The US Space Command, created in 1985 under Reagan and merged back into the Air Force in 2002 by Donald Rumsfeld, for reasons that remain obscure, will likely be re-instituted as a unified command. That represents a reasonable compromise between a massve and cumbersome sixth service and diversion of space funding to buy more F-22s and B-21s.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          If you follow that line of reasoning the logical step would be to follow the Canadian Model and merge all the branches of the armed forces into one unified service.

          • james w barnard says:
            0
            0

            That would seem to be the “logical” solution, captain. There is already a lot of “jointness” whereby tasks of various types are manned by personnel from several different services. While the ‘logic” of a single service might be thought of as sound, the traditions of each service are too far ingrained to make a single service practicable. So far as a sixth service is concerned, I don’t think that will happen until multiple countries are operating in space from Low Earth Orbit and beyond. For the time being, a unified combatant command under the Air Force is probably the easiest and most economical way of implementing the capabilities needed to protect the U.S. interests in space.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            And that is the basic problem. The USAF tradition is based on fighter pilots being aces and bombers smashing the enemy. Both fail to appreciate how different space is, and that “warfare” in space is more about Electronic Counter Measures and Hacking than anti-satellite missiles launched from space fighters. To those running the USAF is likely doesn’t seem heroic to fight from a computer terminal in a bunker stateside and going home to their family at night, but that is exactly how war in space will be fought and America space assets, like GPS, will be protected from attack.

            So it may not be a big service. Or be loaded with tradition. But it still needs to be independent so it will be able to develop freely without the prejudices of USAF getting in the way.

            It should be noted that the USAF suffered the same way under the U.S. Army in the 1920’s and 1930’s where its mission was seen to be providing reconnaissance, artillery spotting and close air support for ground units. Yes, they were allowed a couple of squadrons of strategic bombers to experiment with, but they really weren’t allowed to use them until after the Battle of Britain showed the importance of strategic bombing.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Have you seen anything on that space development agency that is supposed to be created? I wonder how much actual hardware will be launched from the 13 billion proposal..

          • Bob says:
            0
            0

            Vlad… How else will we pay for the SLS and the Gateway Station and did you see the new lunar lander…Cool

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Well, one thing’s for sure…it’s not enough to build a new booster, even if you already have the engines…

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Probably the same as the USAF is launching now since it is about the same size as the current USAF space budget.

            https://breakingdefense.com

            “PENTAGON: The big news on the 2018 Air Force space budget: it grew at least $1.5 billion. That’s a large increase considering the total budget request is $10.4 billion. For perspective, the entire Defense Department space budget last year — known as the space Major Force Program — was $22 billion. The Air Force oversees the vast majority of the unclassified space budget, so much of that other spending can probably be attributed to the NRO, builder and operator of the nation’s spy satellites.”

          • Tom Billings says:
            0
            0

            The Air Staff’s $13 billion proposal is *not* designed to launch anything. It is designed to poison the whole idea in Congress.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            In fact, there were similar issues before the second world war, regarding the proper role of tanks. In several countries and for the most part, the officers with an infantry or cavalry tradition didn’t know what to do with them and weren’t really interested in figuring it out. But no one considered a separate service as a solution.

            Also, the sort of fighting from behind a computer console you describe isn’t radically different from operating ballistic missiles or drones. I’m not saying the Air Force doesn’t have a fighter pilot and fast airplane bias. But the US military has a number of problems, and I’m not sure that one is the most important or urgent to solve.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            True, but that was because tanks and infantry fight in the same environment. And even so they found they work better if you separate them into armor and infantry units.

            But fighter planes and satellites operate in different environments. Destroy a fighter plane and the debris fall quickly to the ground. Destroy a satellite and the remains stay in orbit as a debris field. Also you have different legal environments governing combat in space versus the air.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            The debris issue might suggest one role to assign the Space Force. That of removing or clearing orbital debris. In a conflict with a nation less reliant on space assets, the enemy might not care about creating debris (in fact, they might see it as a benefit.) Removing debris would be a military role similar to clearing minefields. And it would also give them a useful role in times of peace, since orbital debris is always a concern. And that peacetime role wouldn’t be unprecedented, since the Corp of Engineers does lots of peacetime work preventing non-military disasters.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Since the Space Force is likely to take over the tracking and cataloging of space objects it would be logical for them to at least supervise the cleanup if not do the job itself.

          • David Fowler says:
            0
            0

            Which the Canadians have been gradually undoing since 1968. The CF is still legally a unified service, but the three branches are for all practical purposes, independent entities again.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Maybe, but that would deny the Generals and such the Joy of Puffery, which is what happens when different services brag about how much they cooperate. You see the same thing in local police work.
            ********************
            And before anyone jumps on this known liberal with terms like ‘anti-military’, save your breath. As a younger man such a label would have been accurate. As an older person my views have, in some areas, moved distressingly to the right. And I recognize excellence as well as anyone; the US military has excellence by the bucketful (it’s people I’m talking about here).

            But it also has a fair amount of narrow sightedness masquerading as “tradition”. I don’t claim any special knowledge on military organization or policy – and I know that several here DO have that skill. As a citizen, while there’s a certain logic to a unified force, there’s also the danger of falling into the “Seems Like” trap.

        • David Fowler says:
          0
          0

          The US Space Command was not “merged back into the Air Force in 2002 by Donald Rumsfeld.” It was disbanded to create the US Northern Command. Nothing obscure about it, unless you’re unwilling to read organizational histories.

          • jamesmuncy says:
            0
            0

            Actually, it was merged into Strategic Command.

          • james w barnard says:
            0
            0

            Actually, virtually every combatant command and support units from Army, Navy and Air Force, is OpCon (Operational Control) to StratCom. StratCom has very little or no operational units. It is a strategic headquarters that “borrows” whatever it needs to accomplish whatever missions are required by the president through the Secretary of Defense. CINCSTRATCOM is a four-star officer. A couple of years ago, a Navy Admiral commanded it. Now it’s a four-star Air Force general. The position is rotated.

    • David Fowler says:
      0
      0

      There has not been a “unified operational element of the DOD” known as Space Command since US Space Command was disestablished in 2002. The Air Force Space Command is just that….the Air Force’s Space Command. I’m sure your argument impressed many people in 1947 when the US Air Force was created.

  4. Bob says:
    0
    0

    If you have a $10B hotel in space and show up only to find that the life support system has been stolen who are you gonna call? Isn’t the Space Force going to be like the Police Force?.. Without government security of space against those pesky space pirates who will invest? In addition how will Lockheed Martin and Boeing get money for their space projects if commercial space is taking away the commercial market from them?

    • Tom Billings says:
      0
      0

      ” Isn’t the Space Force going to be like the Police Force?”

      No. For that, a Space Guard is proposed. If it happens, it will probably grow out of the Commerce Department’s new S.P.A.C.E Administration, which will take over regulating all civil spaceflight, including commercial.

  5. Bob Mahoney says:
    0
    0

    The greatest expense may be turning the Pentagon into the Hexagon.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Don’t be silly. The building has seven faces, five sides, the top and the bottom. Just give the roof (or top floor offices) to the Space Force. They will also have the basement available, in case someone decides to create a new service for sapping and any other military work involving digging holes in the ground.

  6. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    I think I know what the Space Force is about. The military is toast. They don’t have an enemy. So Trump is sending them into space to give them something to do. Russia does not have enough missiles to ward off a threat of a SRB attack of conventional warheads. If a 1000 to a million SRB were available to Europe aimed at Russia. Do they have to say forget it, we are not your enemy? You want to talk? So Trump might as well send his troops home. He would not have to spend a cent on Europe defense. Maybe balance the budget. Italy has a nice SRB that might reach St. Petersburg or Moscow. They could sell them to balance their budget. China does not seem to be threatening anyone. The Koreas get it. No one else seems to want to attack anyone.
    It would be wise of Russia to think about what happened to another Federation when the Sulibon was revealed and Malcome said I might get a few. But there are too many of them(Star Trek Enterprise). 12,000 WIFI sats. Can they be used as weapons? Hydrazine makes a good explosion. Take a look at the AMOS explosion shockwave when it hit the camera. A fuel tank from a sat was just found in California. So reentry maybe. One could be made to look like a regular sat, but is bomb. Shotwell said that Spacex would deliver a bomb to orbit if asked by the military. If I remember correctly.
    Weapons of mass destruction can not be used. It is MAD. They can only be used by prior consent as in Trumps attack on Syria. That was done so that Trump thought he was doing something like showing how strong he is. The bulldozers filled in the holes and the runway was repaved. They were back flying in a few days. So far it has stopped the gas attacks. Worth it I suppose. I think one as a warning shot would have worked. Everybody knows already that we have a lot of cruise missiles. It was also a way to get money to defense contractors. Republicans could also increase defense spending to pay for replacement missiles. It was also used to fake out dummies that does not know what is going on. It could have caused a terrorist attack, but didn’t so they might have ok it. Or they may thought it was not worth it. May have increased the National Debt.

    • jamesmuncy says:
      0
      0

      “China does not seem to be threatening anyone.”

      That’s a joke, right?

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        They are taking some islands in South China Sea. But they are in dispute.A typhoon may clean them off. Everything else is defensive.

        • jamesmuncy says:
          0
          0

          The World Court (or whatever it is called) says there is no dispute. Those waters have never belonged to China.

          I’m not sure loan shark deals to inject China-owned infrastructure into resource-rich nations is completely benign.

          And you will have to ask Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam if they think China’s military investments are all defensive. I’m guessing now.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            And, ironically, the US and China have judges on the World Court in Den Haag, despite the fact that we are nations which only accept their rulings on a case by case basis.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          And the Uighur muslims in Xinjiang don’t feel threatened. The Chinese “reeducation” camps for them are all about vocational training. Yea. Sure. And I’m going to send $10,000 to the guy who offered to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge. Get real. The US hasn’t been perfect in its treatment of other countries or our own citizens, but China’s record isn’t any better.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      It appears that we are reading different newspapers.

    • Sean Boyle says:
      0
      0

      Reminds me of the saying that goes something like “If it moves, salute it. If it doesn’t, pick it up. If you can’t pick it up, paint it.”

  7. jamesmuncy says:
    0
    0

    Keith,

    What impressed me most about Administrator Bridenstine’s comments at the Space Council this week was his personal acknowledgement of Doug Loverro, who labored in the trenches of DOD space policy for decades. Making sure that someone who served America so well actually got some public credit for his sacrifice, as opposed to the usual flattering of some stuffed shirt, is quite refreshing. Cheers to Jim B.

    – Jim

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      As a purely private citizen with no direct knowledge of those who toil to benefit us all I too appreciate learning about these civil servents.

      Over the past few decades there has been a concentrated effort to diminish the value played by millions in public service. “Throw the bums out” is quite de rigueur.

      We diminish ourselves, though. Where once even my friends on the right valued a clean environment, or recognized the important role played by a “city on the hill,” nowadays every institution is denigrated. And for what?

      I don’t know Mr. Loverro. What I DO know is that special as he might be, he is not alone, and we should be grateful that is the case.