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

Space States Fight For Space Force HQ

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 19, 2019
Filed under
Space States Fight For Space Force HQ

Alabama Wants Y’all To Join Their Space Force, earlier post
Rep. Mo Brooks pushes to put ‘Space Force’ command in Alabama, AL.com
“Alabama’s congressional representatives aren’t wasting any time lobbying for the Pentagon to put President Trump’s new “Space Force” command on Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville. U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks told an all-star panel of witnesses at a committee hearing today that, “I hope that you will help make Redstone Arsenal a finalist in the space command headquarters debate.” On Tuesday, it was U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Mobile) saying the headquarters of the new force should be in Huntsville.”
Keith’s note: Despite the intention of keeping military and civilian space activities clearly separate (something this White House and previous Administrations have tried to do) it would seem that at least two state’s politicians want to blend them together – or muddy the distinctions – for local political reasons.

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

20 responses to “Space States Fight For Space Force HQ”

  1. David Fowler says:
    0
    0

    Since HQ AFSPC, and the 21st, 50th, 310th and 460th Space Wings, as well as the Army’s 1st Space Brigade and 100th Missile Defense Brigade are based in and around Colorado Springs, it’s hard to believe that it will be anywhere but there.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      It would make more political sense to local the Space Force HQ somewhere around Washington DC.

      IMO the primary role of such a HQ is lobbying Congress for funding.

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      I thought the same thing. I’m glad it isn’t just me.

  2. spacegaucho says:
    0
    0

    I guess it wasn’t enough for Alabama’s congressmen to screw up the nation’s civilian space program now they want to do it to the military one as well. Somebody should tell Mo that Redstone isn’t an AFB.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      No, the Redstone Arsenal is an Army base. Since this Space Force will be drawing personnel from all branches of the armed forces, I’m not sure why an Army rather than an Air Force base would be a major issue.

      Personally, I think Colorado makes more sense. But we already have a big Air Force presence and Congress likes to spread the work (and money) around.

  3. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Given the key role that the U.S. Army had in the exploration of the American West and Alaska, and given the successful role of the U.S. Navy in exploring the ocean and polar regions perhaps it’s time to reconsider NASA being a civilian agency, Recall that giving space exploration to a civilian agency was mainly to score propaganda points against the Soviets military space program in the Cold War. It would definitely shake things up at NASA to put in under a military chain of command ?

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      I think I know what you’re after here, Dr. M., and to that extent it’s worth considering. I’ve always admired the Corps of Engineers – well, that is, except when trying to get permits on behalf of clients.

      The US Army made very poor decisions in the developing West. Different times, different conditions, but there’s a lesson in there somewhere.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Yes, the robotic mission,with Goddard and JPL would be out into their own agency, with their own budget and focus on pure space exploration.

        Similarly Armstrong, Glenn and Langley could form a reborn NACA under the FAA only now expanded to basic aerospace research, like NACA used to do, for industry.

        And human spaceflight would be refocused on practical space applications creating space infrastructure, like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did along the nations rivers. ISS, Gateway and a Moonbase would fit into that model much easier then their current argument that they are for science.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          I just do not see why the Military’s budget is not big enough to do that without NASA’s?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Do you think that the Congress Critters that support NASA pork will allow a competitor? But what I really see is private space development making human spaceflight at NASA irrelevant and creating a Corp of Space Engineers under the Space Force is probably the only way to salvage that part of NASA in anything like its current form. Of course NASA probably continue to have “astronauts”, but like NSF polar researchers their transport and accomandations will be provided by commercial firms with them just being passengers. The SLS/Orion/Gateway costs and delays, and clinging to outdated infrastructure like the ISS, plus programs like the CCP, basically guaranteed that will happen.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Actually, the NSF-funded researchers in Antarctica do not use commercial firms for air transportation. For some reason, that’s handled by the 109th Airlift Wing of the New York Air National Guard. I have no idea how or why someone decided to do that. Formerly, air travel was provided by the Navy’s VXE-6 squadron, which was heritage from the Navy’s support of Operation Highjump and Deep Freeze (part of the US Antarctic IGY program.) I think accommodations are operated by a civilian contractor, but the facilities are government property. But, in any case, you’re right that the NFS doesn’t do any of that themselves.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Every single line item in the Pentagon’s budget has a mobilized, vocal constituency ready to shout “National Defense!”

            While I agree with you in principle that the Pentagon’s $716B budget appears excessive (if that’s what you are saying), money needed for this implementation will likely be ‘new money’, as the say.

        • space1999 says:
          0
          0

          “Similarly Armstrong, Glenn and Langley could form a reborn NACA under the FAA only now expanded to basic aerospace research, like NACA used to do, for industry.”

          If your aim is to break up NASA into smaller chunks I’m not sure why the FAA would be involved, just create a National Aeronautics and Space Research Administration. Also you forgot Ames…

          A long long time ago as a student of aerospace engineering, the NACA airfoils were like a godsend. I’ve often pondered how that model of success could be mapped onto modern times… not sure it can.

    • Roger Jones says:
      0
      0

      This would be a disaster for NASA, and for the global community that cares about peaceful exploration of space. From the Space Act: “The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.”

    • james w barnard says:
      0
      0

      Frankly, we need both a civilian agency to handle exploration and research, probably with a LOT of help from commercial enterprise, but also the military organization for protection of our space assets and the rights of the civil side against those who would inflict their will against freedom beyond Earth! Exactly what form the military space arm will take is TBD. Likely, it will evolve over time from an Air Force combatant command, whether part of SPCOM or like the Marines are to the Navy, to eventually a separate force, as various nations move out beyond LEO.
      Maybe we’ll wind up with United Space Marines!
      Ad Astra!

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      You can point to the Corps of Discovery and the fact that West Point was originally much more a school of engineering that European military academies. But the real successes were in engineering and building, with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy Seabees as prime examples.

      But the US military hasn’t done much exploration on their own hook. The Lewis and Clark expedition was Jefferson’s idea; he just handed it to the Army to implement. The Navy’s role in Antarctica was also directed, to support non-military efforts like the State Department’s Antarctic Service or the National Academies led IGY program. Even the Air Force work in arctic exploration (e.g. T3, Fletcher’s ice island) was about learning to operate in polar conditions because that’s where the US and the Soviet Union were physically closest.

      And, in many cases, the US military was directed to support expansion and settlement of frontiers. The best you can say in many cases is that it was a mess, a botched job and something we probably want to avoid in the future. But it was also largely politicians giving the military an impossible and/or stupid task and then leaving them holding the bag.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      The military doesn’t need NASA’s budget added to the trough. If the military wants a NASA they have plenty of funds to create one.

  4. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Were there a Perfect World, out there, somewhere in the Land of Perfect Democracy, the headquarters location would be logically assessed and sited.

    Perfect World doesn’t exist, chiefly because, humans; and as that’s the case, I’d encourage the politicians representing me to take whatever action needed to get all space-y stuff to Florida. This would be so that I could conveniently visit.

    Our new governor did issue a lame tweet expressing interest but if he or anyone else did anything more I don’t know.