US Space Command: A vision for the final frontier, op ed, The Hill
“Tomorrow, the Trump administration will formally inaugurate the newest U.S. Combatant Command, U.S. Space Command. The occasion is a momentous one, because it marks the first, and long overdue, step toward a serious space policy on the part of the United States. Yet America’s move into the “final frontier” is still missing an essential ingredient: a vision of what we seek to accomplish there. That vision, it is increasingly clear, needs to focus on development. For decades, U.S. space policy has been viewed through the lens of exploration, both human and robotic. But the future of American spacepower lies not in exploration, but in development. The economic development of the inner solar system will allow America to exploit its immense mineral and energy resources and secure a position of industrial, logistical, and maneuver advantage over the celestial lines of commerce. Military development, meanwhile, will provide the United States with a dominant spacepower position that underwrites an open international system and enables human expansion under a banner of liberty.”
Keith’s note: Here we go. The prospect of the new Space Force or the U.S. Space Command or whatever it is called this week has the Pentagon types ready to turn the whole solar system into a bunch of mining operations guarded by soldiers in spiffy new military space suits. No more of that science or exploration stuff – its for wimps. Now America is going to be great in space again. To be certain economic forces rightfully seek – and should be strongly welcomed and encouraged – to expand outward from Earth to utilize the resources of our solar system. But this should happen in a synergistic fashion with scientific exploration – by everyone.
Alas, the militaristic ethos oozing from this op ed speaks to a subset of the space community who simply wants to seize the so-called high ground of space – by any means necessary. Its all about militaristic projection of overt space power into space for its own sake with all other uses relegated to subservience. This mindset will simply prompt other powers to do the same. Just what we need: an arms race spreading across the solar system.
So much for the notion of soft power – the prevailing ethos with which nearly everything in space is done in a collaborative fashion – without the laser pistols and photon torpedoes.
“…turn the whole solar system into a bunch of mining operations guarded by soldiers…”
There are already several movies out there so we can see exactly how this will play out.
And its rather pathetic to quote Star Trek when they should be quoting Star Wars.
Actually Space Patrol would be a better source since that was the task they performed in the series. It also was consistent with the tasks the U.S. Army was responsible for on the frontier, and the U.S. Navy on the world’s ocean.
Remember exploration for the sake science is mostly a Victorian invention. The Beagle Expedition and the Wilkes Expedition purpose were to make charts for their respective navies and merchant marines. Those maps were used for well over a hundred years. Secondary was evaluating resources available for development. Any science done was as side activity.
That said, exactly was is the vision for NASA exploring the Solar System? Find ET? Understand how it was formed? And for what ends?
Why explore the solar system? Well, why were people digging up dinosaur bones in Colorado a hundred and fifty years ago? Because someone back east was rich, egotistical and crazy enough to pay good money for them. I could deal with getting grant funding that way. As it stands. proposals to NASA need to include something about how the work will result in deep, profound benefits to society. That’s always thin, stretched logic and sort of annoying to have to write. Just having to convince a rich person that’s it’s cool would be a welcome change.
Yes, and if one rich guy says no, there are others. One of the side benefits of the Transcontinental Railroad was making the West accessible for science, and dinosaur hunting. Cope and Marsh could have never built their collections without it. And we would have never had National Geographic.?
Imagine how much easier it would be to do research on Saturn if you could just catch a ride on a patrol vessel out there and then stay in a mining settlement on one of the moons. Kinda like exploring the Arctic is now.
Actually, almost how space is like now. Geostationary communications satellites sometimes include hosted payloads. If you want a UV spectrometer to continuously observe the Earth’s upper atmosphere, and the funding to build and fly a whole spacecraft isn’t there, you can work something out. Just pay to have one of the transponders on a geostationary bird replaced with your instrument. The cost is low and the data rate is fantastic. It is a bit of a niche market, and a bit of a plug for one of my institution’s projects, but I think there is a lot of potential for hosted payloads.
I’m not sure about those Star Trek quotes. I was once in London, walking past the Nelson’s Column, and a friend asked me who Nelson was. I told him, including some of the better stories, and he said, “You mean he was like Captain Kirk or something?”
This is probably the way to get attention of the general public which none know of Artemis or SLS. But everyone has heard about a proposed Space Force. Of course it all can get political.
Interesting commentary so far in this thread. Particularly what drives science of digging up dinosaur bones funded by a rich guy back east, reminds me of Lowell who started the observatory.
Regarding transcontinental railroad which many use that analogy to extend through the solar system. But then that was a financial bust, ships will still used for decades to transport goods, and it had little impact on settling the wild west. However, at turn of century the railroads were very important across the continent. I guess it will take some rich guys with extra billions to spend plus others to funnel govt money to programs of questionable return. Probably may take 100 years to see how the solar system will be won like the wild west.
Two comments.
Percival Lowell got a bad reputation for the whole canals on Mars thing. But he was also the person who came up with the idea of putting observatories on top of remote mountains. Which was a great idea, in contrast to people like Mr. Lick, who insisted that his observatory had to be within sight of the San Francisco business district. (With the astronomers having to con him into the idea that Mt. Hamilton was, technically, in unusually good weather and if you have really good eyesight, in sight.)
Also, the American railroads weren’t a financial failure. They did fairly well until the interstate highway system and tractor-trailers came around. Arguably, they are still the best and most efficient form of land transportation, and the rest of the world uses them extensively. And, by the horns from half of a kilometer from my apartment, the US still finds them useful. Ships are probably the only thing better.
I was referring to the transcontinental railroad (eastern US was doing fine) which had little capacity, most goods were moved by ship. Until late 1800s then it really took off when train technology improved and huge demand for fresh fruit and vegetables from California. There is huge demand for LEO/GEO satellites (though supported with govt subsidies), mining the moon is still a concept. It can bring huge demands if realized but so far there is no usable business model. Let’s see how things will go considering the new SF, the Indian rover landing…
Interesting about Lowell demonstrating putting observatories on top of mountains. Musk Starship demonstrate how to get to the moon?
Not sure where you are getting your data. The UP was profitable even though the other transcontinental railroads followed. Now Wall Street barons would run these railroads through bankruptcy occasionally to shake off creditors, but it was how the game was played in those days. In terms of the Central Pacific, the Big Four had tight control on it and made it into a real money making machine while building the California economy.
Of course ships carried goods that weren’t time sensitive. Ocean shipping has always been cheaper than land, and still is today. But I am not sure how that equals failure given how the transcontinental railroads accelerated the settlement of the West. Most of the major, and minor, western communities date their founding to railroads.
Richard White author of “Railroaded”
I think one of the first things we need to do is to clean up all the extra junk in orbit!!!! It will make it more safe for all the working stuff up there!
There’s certainly a precedent for that. The US Corps of Engineers is responsible for quite a bit of dredging and otherwise keeping harbors and waterways navigable. I presume that also includes clearing wrecked ships, so they don’t pose a hazard. I’d say that makes orbital debris management a legitimate task for the Space Command.
While it can be legitimized, such a task will be incompatible with the primary mission of the present conception of Space Force/Corps. That mission being the integrity of US MilSpace assets already in orbit and those of the future, as “force multipliers” for military activity here on Earth. The reason it is incompatible is that it requires intensive intercommunication with other space-faring nations, at least 2 of which are strongly interested in degrading US MilSpace capabilities.
Both PLASSF and the Russian “Space Troops” are tasked with *both* Space War *and* Cyber War. That means that close contact with them is contraindicated for making sure your bandwidth is secure from Cyber War. A different solution is needed.
IMHO, that solution should be a Commerce Department based “Space Guard” that will be linked to the space regulatory Administration being built inside Commerce Department, as well as to all the groups that must be cooperated with to get orbiting “junk” cleaned up. It will also have a definite “air gap” at all times between its bandwidth and that of Space Force/Corps. Thus, both jobs will get done, and no incentives for penetrations of our Space Force/Corps computer systems will be added to the situation.
I disagree. I think we are talking about different approaches to orbital debris. When it comes to preventing the production debris, I agree that it should be an international effort. The Departments of State and Commerce make much more sense leading that effort.
But I was thinking about active efforts to remove what is already up there, or what someone might deliberately put up there. (Anti-satellite weapons which deliberately produce as much debris as possible are technically easy and an effective form of space denial.) I think that job is very closely tied to protecting our military space assets. It’s analogous to saying the State Department should negotiate treaties again mines, but that the Navy needs to have minesweepers. And minesweepers don’t need to have their computers networked with those of foreign nations.
I’m glad to know I misunderstood you the first time, then. Certainly the necessary US efforts against devices designed to disable our assets in orbit are a proper part of any Space Force/Corps.
The childlike naivete of this snark is amazing. You want the age of green enforced poverty or untold plenty? The post want world where things made of now rare materials become essentially free by comparison. The metals and materials of space will change the world. For the better. Like the discovery of fire order of magnitude change. And the space patrol shark is all you can come up with.
You did not even read what I wrote “docscience”.
Keith, Space Command and Space Force are two different animals. USSPACECOM is a combatant command, responsible for warfighting and other operations in the space domain. USSF will (and currently the USAF mostly is) be responsible for force generation, doctrine, training and organization, as other services are.
Not in the President’s mind – there is only SPACE FORCE 😉
Understanding Trump’s mind is an ability I would neither claim, nor seek.
Nonetheless, I think he’s incapable of such differentiation.
Just as the Admiralty and the Ordnance Board were the institutionalization of the Royal Navy, the Space Force/Corps will be the institutionalized support for Space Command, ensuring it gets what it needs in planning, budgets, training and doctrine. Trump’s affect on Space Force/Corps will cease on January 20th 2025 at the latest, so what is in *his* mind will only matter till then. After that, the rest of the Century will determine how the organization grows. Continually tying this to one personality aborts any discussion of the future beyond the person.
The opinion piece on The Hill is indeed just oozing testosterone. Peter doesn’t consider the many many obstacles in the way of mining minerals in space, he apparently wants us to charge out there and see if it works out.
Up in the air, Junior Birdman!
Manifest destiny. But in space.
More like post-WW2 responsibility for freedom of the seas, …without having to wait for war to get us to move ahead on it.
The concept of a combatant command is to utilize the assets of all those available (Air Force, Army, Navy, NSA, et al) in a combined, organized way of defending space from any potential adversaries who might wish to dominate the domain to our detriment. That is what SPCom will be! And anyone who thinks there isn’t a potential (or actual) threat to GPS, communication satellites, weather satellites, etc, doesn’t understand the situation we have in Cold War 2.0…RIGHT NOW! Whether, at some future time, there is a need for a separate Space Force, will depend upon how space exploration and economic growth develops visa vis other countries’ plans, including whether they plan to exclude our own efforts!
Creation of Space Command primarily depends on the orders of the president through the SecDef (oh, sure, money will be needed from Congress, but only in a limited fashion). Space Command will probably survive through administration changes, just as Strategic Command, and others have, due to the need for them. A Space Force will require acts by Congress. Could that come about eventually? Possibly. But if it comes to pass, it will be because there was a definite need to separate it, just as the Air Force was separated from the Army in 1947. In the meantime, let’s just see what happens.
Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!
>Cold War 2.0
Seems to me version 2 was fabricated unlike version 1. However, with version 1 there was plenty of opportunity for common people to participate i.e. lots of openings in the armed services so much they had to draft. Nowadays it has about 1 percent or less of the population. And industry employed lots of people plus many subcontractors. There may have been slow periods but there were times when if you had both a degree and a pulse, you were hired.
General public will probably be aware of Space Force because Trump will tweet it weekly. Unlike Artemis and SLS which they are not aware of. Will be interesting to see how funding goes with congress, and what candidates may say (or not) next year. Meanwhile NASA still in uphill battle to get money for Artemis.
I’m not convinced that Peter Garretson’s argument is incorrect. He is correct about the importance of economic and commercial drivers – including resource utilisation – to sustain space activities. If we ignore that, and only focus on the science and exploration, I think we are missing out on a key means for sustaining human space exploration. Politicians get prosperity – to put it bluntly. Space resources can deliver the long-term funding for human space exploration.
You can’t dismiss the prospect of inter-state or commercial competition for access to, and control of, space resources either. I know space is big, and there are plenty of resources, but think astrostrategically. The terrain of space matters, and key resources in key locations will be a source of competition.
We can assume, of course, that space law and ‘norms’ means everyone will cooperate but frankly, human nature and rising geopolitical competition will mean its more likely that states and commercial actors will compete. Hope is not a strategy.
The reality is that space is not a peaceful commons, or sanctuary, that sits serene and untouched by geopolitical rivalries. Its been militarised since the 1960s, and is fast emerging as a warfighting domain in its own right. The US has to protect its national security – whether that is ensuring access to key space support from the ‘LEO to GEO’ region, or protecting astrostrategic interests out to Cislunar space and beyond. Space Command is a first step in that process. I think Space Force will happen too. In 2120, we’ll probably look back at the first 100 years of the US Space Force, and consider not only its operational experience but also how its shaped a more mature and considered approach to astrostrategic thinking.
Ya. It is tempting to make fun of it, especially with Trump doing it and Keith ridiculing it.
But this is neither Trump’s idea nor Trump’s vision. He’s listening to his advisers and getting stsrted on something that will be needed soon but takes time and legislation to setup.