So Much For The Whole Peaceful Artemis Accords Thing
U.S. Air Force cadets study idea of Space Force bases on the Moon, Science
“Featuring weekly speakers and formalized research projects the students hope to turn into peer-reviewed papers, the group aims to game out the policies and philosophies that could guide military space activity when they are old enough to be in charge. In particular, these young cadets are interested in whether the Space Force might someday have a military presence on the Moon, and how it might work with civilians. That activity could put the Space Force in conflict with scientists, who typically view the cosmos as a peaceful place for inquiry. But part of the club’s mission is speculating about that interplay–between the military and civilian scientists, civil space agencies, and private companies. Cadet J. P. Byrne, who will graduate in 2021, is the group’s current president. He chatted with ScienceInsider about the institute’s work.”
This is the sort of stuff students do in future-oriented design courses. It would be egregious if military academy students didn’t explore such scenarios somewhere in their curriculum. Any place where people currently or may in the near future interact needs to be their domain of inquiry. We can all hope and strive for perfect peace everywhere, but not everyone on the globe necessarily will always act accordingly.
The U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force have had a presence in Antarctica supporting scientists since WW II, so providing similar logistics support to future lunar bases would not be unreasonable for the U.S. Space Force. It is also allowed under the Outer Space Treaty.
Given how DOD sending the Clementine Mission to the Moon woke NASA up in terms of lunar robotic missions this is probably a good thing, reminding NASA that another agency is willing to return America to the Moon if NASA is not able to do so. I wonder if they are using the Starship/Super Heavy as the basis of their study.
To be allowed under the Outer Space Treaty, the Space Force would have to be very careful about the details. Article IV of the OST says:
“The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited.”
So any sort of “base” set up by the Space Force would have to be clearly for scientific research and somehow distinct from a “military base” in the sense that term us used in the treaty.
If you’re thinking of the situation in Antarctica as a precedent, it’s worth remembering how limited that military presence is. The US military does provide logistical support, but that’s mostly limited to Coast Guard icebreakers and the New York Air National Guard flying transports to and out of bases managed by and run under contract from the National Science Foundation.
So, Bigelow Aerospace sets up a MoonBase, in a lava tube cave, and accepts landings within their berms from SpaceX Starship Stages, that just happen to hold 50 or so cadets from Colorado Springs, that join their established instructors in Space for ISRU work?
Probably better to do it more simply. Find an asteroid like quasi-Moon, 2016HO3, and use some of its material to build a base nearby. Use cadets as close-in labor and operators, to train them, and to learn the on-site problems in the logistical work of ISRU that will make future Space Force work more economical by producing the assets *in*Space*.
That way we wouldn’t even be close to breaking any OST articles in pieces, since the actual base isn’t *on* the asteroid, and possibly not anywhere near it. I like moonbases, but as long as OST is the Law, we should be walking wide of its strictures for our behaviors. Besides, getting processed materials back from 2016HO3 requires lots less delta-vee than getting stuff off the Moon to wherever its legal for USSF to build a logistical base.
That is the situation with Antarctica now, but remember the original 1950’s bases were built by the U.S. Navy SeeBees and they used to be run by the U.S. Navy who also provided helicopters and tractors which transported the scientists to do their research. The Soviet Union had a similar set up. Since the OST was written in the 1960’s that was likely the model the treaty writers had in mind in terms of military support of scientific research.
Not quite. The the 1950s, the US stations were built and operated by SeeBees, and the Navy provided the aircraft support. But when it comes to the tractors (actually SnoCats) used for surface work, they were driven and operated by civilian scientists. The military role for the traverse work was limited to maintenance at the stations (either before and after traverses, or fixing parts which had been flown back to the station.) And, as a footnote, to my knowledge, there was exactly one occasion when a Navy ship which fired a gun in Antarctica, and that was a failed attempt to collapse a ice barrier to make a flatter landing site. If the Space Force wants a base on the Moon, their role would have to be similarly limited to non-military work.
Given the long tradition of exploration in the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and even U.S. Air Force I don’t see that as an issue. Indeed, in many ways NASA is the anomaly created as it was from the NACA for propaganda purposes after Sputnik. Prior to that everyone assumed the military services would simply extend their exploration traditions to space. In one sense one could see such U.S. Space Force planning as simply a return to a more traditional pattern of government funded exploration.
I don’t see it as a serious issue either, but as an important detail. You mentioned the Antarctic as a comparison, and even in 1957, the most of the US Antarctic stations were not under military command. McMurdo was, but it was a purely a Navy logistical base. Three of the four other stations were under joint military and civilian command, with the military role limited to base construction and logistical support for the stations’ civilian science program. And in all three, it was very clear that the civilian commander was the one in charge. One station had the two positions (science chief and military commander) assigned to one person, and that didn’t work out well. It was probably the worst managed US station during the IGY period. And, by the time the OST was written, the Antarctic stations were all managed by the NSF and the Navy role was subordinate and all about providing transportation and logistical support for the scientists.
So, given that and the wording of the OST, I think a Space Force on the Moon would have to be very careful about its goals and management structure. It would have to be extremely clear and obvious that the goal was not military in any way, and that the military role was simply logistical and other support to achieve some other goal. That’s quite possible, but to make it work under the terms of the OST, the Space Force would have to be very careful about details.
True, but given that the wording of the OST and the wording in the Antarctica Treaty of 1961 are almost identical it shouldn’t be that hard to do.
Don’t think it is just the NY Guard. My buddy is a regular AF pilot and he’s flown there both as active and as reserve.
I did say “mostly”, and when I use weasel words like that, I do it for a reason. The NYAG does provide most of the air transport support (e.g. flying all of the ski-equipped LC-130s) but other military services do provide support as well. My point was that the current, military role in Antarctica is minimal and limited to providing transportation services.
Yes, as civilian capabilities are available as an option it has been steadily decreasing. But with the development of commercial lunar activities another need arises which is search and rescue. That could well be the major mission of the U.S.S.F. on the Moon. Somehow I don’t see that being a NASA mission in space.
USAF cadets at the Air Force Academy have written MS theses on lunar bases for at least the past 60 years. It’s a favorite thesis topic. Nothing new in this Science article.
OK but now its Space Force and what was an academic notion is now something that generals openly discuss.
We all knew this day was coming, whenever we weren’t fantasizing about humans becoming magically peaceful from the act of rocketing into Space. The important question is whether we deal with it using professional judgement, and a clear-eyed view of what Homo Sapiens is., a species of large, obstreperously violent primates.
Space Science was started with military funding. In spite of that, I find most of the opposition to military activity in Space, or elsewhere, coming from academia. I have no question whether backers of Space Science (myself among them) should support further military activity. The continuing hope that military activity is to become “obsolete”, including in Space, awaits far more on genetic engineering, and whether it can affect the situation without destroying human creativity, than it does on rocketry.
So we should not consider cooperation with other nations who have taken military actions in space? That should narrow the list considerably.
Indeed, we should consider it! Very, very carefully.
Unlike NASA where the average age of its workforce is in the 50’s I expect the average age of the U.S. Space Force is in the late 20’s, about the same as firms like SpaceX. Unburden with the cultural traditions and bureaucracy of an old organization like NASA they are able to look at the challenge of building and supporting a lunar base from a fresh perspective. Unburden with legacy hardware like the ISS, SLS or Orion they are free to look at innovative approaches and because of the vigor of youth be willing to take risks that NASA would be incapable of doing. This is exactly what the American human space exploration effort needs, a new kid on the block looking to accomplish great things instead of living on past glories.
Given Chinese actions in other areas covered by more established and rigorous international law–e.g., claiming EEZ in other nation’s waters in the South China Sea–at least some planning for a military presence in space would seem prudent on our part.
If the Space X Starship works and dozens-or more- can get to the Moon in the next few years, then it sounds like a reasonable study. After all we have to fend off the Chinese or others with ill intent. If the Space X Starship does not come to fuition then it really does not matter since no one else from the US or its international partners will be getting to the Moon anytime soon and then it is just an academic exercise.
There is a missile that the Navy has…SM2 I think, which is physically capable of hitting a target in LEO but is temporarily programmed not to and easily updated to remove that restriction. This is how the U.S. complies with the no space weapons treaty. I am quite sure that whatever those student are working on has two faces as well.
“There is a missile that the Navy has…SM2 I think …”
SM-3, actually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
The latest version currently under test has a range of 2,500 kilometers.
It comes nowhere near the strictures of OST against weapons of mass destruction placed *in*orbit*. It has no nuclear warhead. In fact, its only use against anything in orbit was when a US spy sat, with over a ton of Hydrazine propellant on board, lost comms and attitude control. It was going to fall soon from orbit, with over a ton of Hydrazine, … somewhere, … and we could do little to predict just where, because of the lack of satellite attitude control. This turned it from a “national technical means of verification” into a potential WMD (hydrazine in large quantities can be called a chemical weapon) violation of OST.
So, …so far, ..SM-3 shooting that one, and dispersing the Hydrazine in Space as it fell, was actually an enforcement of the OST, though against our own bird.
It is a virtual certainty that those opposing US military activity would also oppose this activity, since any work the USSF does will have to support its Service mission.
Speaking of atomic weapons it’s the 75th Anniversary of the first atomic bomb test today. 75 years ago we entered the Atomic Age.
Yes, and I recall discussion of some kind of space weapon’s treaty controversy from that at the time.
I also remember that China and Russia were quite upset about it. If we can hit that satellite at that altitude then we can pulverize incoming ICBMs as well.
The “no weapons” ban in the OST only applies to weapons of mass destruction (Atomic, Biological and Chemical) and was aimed squarely at the Fractional Bombardment nuclear weapons the Soviets were working on. It’s does not ban conventional weapons from space. The only reason convention weapons haven’t made the leap to space, other than a 23mm cannon on one of the Soviet military space stations, is because it’s not in anyone’s interest to deploy them.
I think this is a bit overblown. Okay, so you have a group of USAFA cadets who are interesting in thinking about military bases on the Moon. They’d be very aware of the restrictions imposed by overt military facilities on ‘the moon and other celestial objects’ by the 1967 OST. So I don’t necessarily see such policy discussions as implying that the US Space Force is actually intent on violating the treaty per se.
Having said that, the OST is a big vague on this. See my piece in the ASPI Strategist on this at https://www.aspistrategist….
Article IV of the OST states that ‘the Moon and other celestial bodes shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapon and the conduct of military manouvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden’.
So that means no ‘overt’ or ‘declared’ military bases. What about undeclared or covert military bases? The OST doesn’t address them. That immediately raises the potential for grey zone activities, perhaps by undeclared military forces – ‘little green men’ or commercial actors such as private security contractors that could be a cover for military personnel.
Article VI states that ‘States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by government agencies or by non-governmental entities’
So, states are responsible for the actions of their representatives. But once again, there is a vagueness here which is worrying. What if a state-owned enterprise exploiting resources on the Moon wants to protect its claim? The 2015 Space Act sets a precedent that it can do so – and it brings in private security contractors that are in actual fact, active military personnel undeclared? Does the operations of those personnel to secure a region of the Moon violate the OST?
The OST was written in 1967 – in 2020 its a different world. The ‘military bases on the moon’ may in fact be more like Chinese facilities on disputed rocks and reefs in the South China Sea – or in Antarctica. the least of our worries might be a base with a US Space Force Insignia on it.