Recently Retired USAF General Makes Eyebrow Raising Claims About Advanced Space Technology, The War Zone
“[U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Steven L. ] Kwast delivered a lecture at Hillsdale College in Washington, D.C. on November 20, 2019, titled “The Urgent Need for a U.S. Space Force.” Kwast’s wide-ranging speech described the power of new technologies to revolutionize humankind, referencing the competitive advantage the discovery of fire offered to early humans and the strategic value that nuclear weapons offered 20th-century superpowers. When it comes to current revolutionary technologies, Kwast says the “the power of space will change world power forever” and that it’s up to the United States military to leverage that power.”

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

32 replies on “Is There More To Space Force Than Meets The Eye?”

  2. The military has long hijacked science for its own aims. Perhaps a reversal of that is finally in order?

    1. Actually science only emerged as a field of study because of the military. Where do you think Galileo got the money to build his telescopes? And why do you think the NSF was created for at the end of WWII?

      1. If memory serves, Galileo’s sales pitch for telescopes was mostly commercial. He was trying to convince Venetian merchants that they would have a competitive advantage if they could tell which ships were about to arrive a few hours before other people found out. But, being the sort of person he was, I’m sure he also pointed out the military value as well. And his idea about using the satellites of Jupiter to measure longitude was what we’d call dual-use technology. The really clear example of purely military work by Galileo was his studies of falling objects, ballistics and that slide-rule-like device to let artillerymen decide on the correct elevation for a cannon based on the observed range to a target.

  3. Or just another source for instigating ignorant human conflict;
    Or just another extension of a culture of violence that is prevalent in this country;
    Or just another draining of already curtailed or limited financial resources (see military budget at over $700 billion per year compared to NASA’s at $20 billion).
    The big question is whether and in what shape humanity will be in after 100 more years of all the integrated issues at its doorstep and how this new organization will either help or hinder. I don’t see it addressing any of the most pressing issues of the day.

    1. “Or just another extension of a culture of violence that is prevalent in this country;…”

      To pick one group out of a species of large, obstreperously violent primates, and declare theirs’ a “culture of violence” is a rather vacant gesture.

      ” I don’t see it addressing any of the most pressing issues of the day.”

      Then perhaps you need to educate yourself about those issues, such as :

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

      The tasking of this group is to be able to plan and execute actions to disable current US MilSpace assets before a military conflict.

      1. I suggest that you review all the real scientific literature regarding the violent culture we live in including sports, guns, incarcerations, video games, media acceptance, and on and on. Not wanting or “believing” something because it makes one uncomfortable or they don’t want to think about it, is irrational and shows the hubris in the culture as well. Here are a couple of the multitude of sources and examples:

        https://www.psychologytoday…

        https://www.modernhealthcar…

        Oh, and never use Wikipedia as your first Go-to in referencing anything, ever.

        1. “I suggest that you review all the real scientific literature regarding the violent culture we live in…”

          Donald, get over yourself. This is a description of Homo Sapiens as a whole, not the US in specific. Suggesting Psychology Today as a reference for *anything*, while dissing wikipedia is risible! Wikipedia is the fastest way to bring generally available knowledge to someone’s attention quickly. Homo Sapiens is a species of large, obstreperously violent primates. Get used to it!

        2. It can be variable, but Wikipedia is often a better source than peer reviewed journals. If there are at least three or four editors paying attention to an article, any false or incorrect information gets removed within a day, if not an hour. And the number of editors makes it less likely that the information was written by someone with an axe to grind. (Note also that some well-respected, peer-reviewed journals rely on a single reviewer, so a lot of junk can get through.)

          The main problem is articles which very few editors pay attention to. That can lead to one retired nut case with plenty of free time overwhelming the available time of one or two others’ interested in a neutral point of view. But Wikipedia has mechanisms to pull in more editors and get third opinions in those cases. A good way to tell is to look at an article’s talk page. Look for lots of discussion about whether or not something is referenced, or if the content accurately reflects what the reference actually says, or what the article should say if multiple references disagree. That’s a good sign. If the talk page is empty and the edit history says only one person (other than bots) has edited the article, that’s a bad sign.

  4. The Philip Bono artwork is classic – I have the book in my library. I believe the vehicle portrayed was called ‘Icarus’ – a sub-orbital troop transport. How remarkably similar to what Elon Musk is suggesting Starship could be used for, in terms of point to point passenger transport – ‘anywhere on the planet in under 40 minutes’ – such a capability could easily have military application for troops and cargo.

    With systems like Starship under development, and with a lot of interest in Navy personnel seeing ‘UAPs’ (complete with FLIR footage – ‘tic tac’, ‘gimbal’ and ‘go fast’) maybe Kwast knows something more than we do, and he is just talking about it too much?

  5. I don’t see what the big deal is. General Kwast is just stating something that was obvious as far back as 1957.

  6. It was military technology, especially rocket engine technology, that made Apollo possible, not to mention the modified ICBMs that dominated space launch the 1950’s and 1960’s. The DC-X which started interest in SSTO and TSTO RLVs was military venture. So perhaps there will be another leap forward in space as secret military technology is released.

    1. True and the many, many WWII slaves that were killed working on the V2 under Wernher von Braun allowed humanity to reach the Moon, but do the ends justify the means? If humans cannot control, can not evolve beyond, their violent animalistic tendencies, then they, as the supposed smartest creature on Earth, have earned the right to eventually go extinct along with the other 99% of life that evolved on the planet.

      1. Somehow, that strikes me as a bit extreme. Would you say something similar about wolves who can’t evolve beyond their tendency to be carnivores or mosquitoes who can’t evolve beyond their tendency to spread malaria? Do they deserve to become extinct? Saying the human species has some very nasty habits and we should try to do better is one thing. Saying change or die out as a species is, in my opinion, quite different.

        1. Extinction is extreme. And there is a vast difference between biological evolution and the social/psychological evolution of an intelligent, sentient species. Especially one that self purports its greatness, accomplishments and intelligence.

      2. And the Russians continued the practice during the Soviet Era and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Chinese are doing it now given the millions in concentration camps. But overall the world is getting better.

        Slavery, common since the Neolithic, officially ended on Earth in 1981 when Mauritania became the last nation to legally outlaw it. Cannibalism and human sacrifice, which existed since the emergence of humans and was still common in the 19th Century was finally ended in the 1960’s. European colonialism is now widely seen as being wrong. So overall humanity is moving forward.

        And the General is right. It makes a difference if a nation like American with a tradition of freedom dominates space or one without that traditional like the Chinese dominate space.

          1. Actually a tradition of aspiration for freedom, yes. We just weren’t willing to fight a Civil War to get there for everyone immediately, especially when the Brits would be the probable winners, …and then had to, anyway. That we didn’t make it happen all at once, in a world where lack of freedom was the *norm*, is a very lightweight criticism.

          2. The USA has always been a work in progress. It may not be perfect yet, but it is a lot better than 99% of the rest of the world.

          3. Europe contains about 10% of the world’s population, and most of them (well, at least half) would disagree with you. So would most people in Commonwealth nations like Canada and Australia.

  7. Could anyone clear up one point for me? What does Lt. Gen. Kwast know about anything related to space? All the biographical information I can find is blank on the subject. His past assignments and commands don’t suggest work on the subject. Am I missing something or is he just a random, opinionated former general spouting off on a subject he doesn’t know all that much about?

    1. Besides being a major supporter of Space Force, he’s also a proponent behind Newt Gingrich’s $2B lunar landing prize idea.

      He wrote the forward for Air University’s Fast Space study, which was done when he’s the commander of Air University. The study calls for Airforce to develop ultra low cost access to space by partnering with private companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin.

      1. So he’s a fan of the idea, and wrote one study on the subject. That doesn’t tell me if he knows much of anything about the subject. Anyone can be a fan, and more or less anyone can write a study. I was asking about his professional background and if he is competent to have well-informed opinions on the subject.

  8. I must admit to being skeptic, until I see specifics of the technology the General purports to have knowledge of. Hours to anywhere in the Solar System, which he implied strongly, is a *very* high hoop to jump through. I’m happy to listen to specifics. Even happier to see demonstrations of them. He said they are “breadboard” level demos, …so TRL 2-4 somewhere. Not to be dismissed, but not to be accepted without those specifics.

    I’ll admit *lots* has been left on the breadboard stage, even in NASA’s original NIAC Phase II work 15 years ago. Shelby’s denial of work on NASA Space Technology programs has shown how badly things can be bolloxed up by a few people.

    1. I’d settle for a fission core upper stage to get big stuff to Mars in 2 months. Unless they have a GW fusion reactor ramping up … Lockheed? Lockheed?

      To project influence throughout the SS in hours (not that he stated such) he’s postulating either coordinated nanobots launched by very powerful lasers or malware transmitted to infect computers of potential adversaries.

    2. You may be misreading that. The business about less than an hour to anywhere suggested, to me, anywhere on Earth. As in suborbital point-to-point transportation. That would be of military value and within the scope of existing technology.

      But it does raise a concern about things like SpaceX plans for this sort of thing. What would a Hong Kong to Washington D.C. suborbital, commercial flight look like? I think it would look quite a bit like a military, ballistic missile launched from China and targeted at the United States. So regular flights of that sort would make it easy for a nuclear first strike easy be concealed. That’s not a place I want to go.

      1. “You may be misreading that.”

        You may be right! I have long experience at being wrong!

        “I think it would look quite a bit like a military, ballistic missile launched from China and targeted at the United States. So regular flights of that sort would make it easy for a nuclear first strike easy be concealed.”

        All the more reason to put “space situational awareness” systems into Space. Single warhead first strikes are unlikely, and multiple warheads spreading out to widely separated points from any ballistic transport should be detectable, especially with the resolution available in Space from laser scanning of each launch.

  9. “The technology is on the engineering benches today. But most Americans and most members of Congress have not had time to really look deeply at what is going on here. But I’ve had the benefit of 33 years of studying and becoming friends with these scientists. This technology can be built today with technology that is not developmental to deliver any human being from any place on planet Earth to any other place in less than an hour.”

    Seems to me he’s talking about Skylon, or the engine technology behind it.

  10. In one of his interviews (from the Space Show I think), Gen. Kwast mentioned a potential problem can be China able to deny us RF spectrum [if we can’t do wireless with our space systems, a serious problem]. i.e. they don’t need to build better spaceships than us, just take the lead in tech like 5G. This gets me thinking we’ll spend $$$ on SF but cut $$$ from education. Back in the days when the Reds were beating us in the Space Race, we put a lot of money into education along with everything else.

  11. He was speaking at Hillsdale College, a hotbed of far right-wing nutballery. This was red meat for the rabid faithful.

Comments are closed.