Now Space Force Wants To Take Over KSC
Space Force considers merging Cape Canaveral with Kennedy Space Center, Ars Technica
“Would NASA be willing to listen as well? The space agency administrator, Jim Bridenstine, said yes. “I’m glad to see big ideas being proposed such as a potential merger,” he told Ars. “This, and other ambitious concepts for the future should all be given due consideration. However, such a proposed merger would require a great deal of work and effort. For the time being, NASA will continue to focus on enhancing the efficiencies and capabilities at our existing launch facility. Our team at KSC has already done a great job creating a thriving spaceport to serve both NASA and commercial needs.”
Keith’s note: Every time you turn around it seems that Space Force is trying to grab a piece of NASA’s turf. First it was floating the idea of putting military soldiers in orbit and on the Moon, now they want to start grabbing NASA launch facilities. I get the whole efficiency thing but it sure sounds like Space Force is in the driver’s seat on these ideas and NASA is playing catch-up in responding to them. The idea originated with Space Force because of their needs – not NASA’s. NASA did not seek out this activity. Funny how everything works just fine for 60 years – then Space Force appears and starts to try and change everything to suit their needs. Just sayin’.
– Space Force Says That It Plans To Send Troops To The Moon, earlier post
– NASA And Space Force Are Collaborating, earlier post
– Space Force Fans Want To Implement The “Green Agenda”, earlier post
– Space Force Is Obsessed With Being Space Force, earlier post
– Military Space Guys Argue Over The Whole Space Force Rank Thing, earlier post
– Space Force Really Wants To Be Star Fleet, earlier post
– Now Space Force Wants Its Own Starfleet Admirals, earlier post
– Space Force Really Wants To Take Over All Of NASA’s Stuff, earlier post
– TV’s Space Force Looks Like More Fun Than The Real One (Or Artemis), earlier post
– More Space Force postings
Quite the sensational headline, and histrionic commentary. “Take over KSC” – the actual article says nothing of the sort; it’s about an emerging need to operate the Eastern Range more effectively, and how to better facilitate commercial leases of Range infrastructure (which both NASA and Space Force do). The implication is not a Space Force takeover, but potentially a new entity that would manage the range, analogous to quasi-public institutions that manage airports, or the Port Authority in New York. NASA has never operated the Eastern Range (nor the Western; the only NASA operated range is on Wallops Island, VA).
KSC has a broad array of capabilities, none of which are really threatened by a migration of Eastern Range control from DoD/Space Force to a new entity. The only potential impact would be direct control of the pads themselves – only 39A and 39B are on NASA property (oh, and “39C” and LC-48) – remind me what NASA launch vehicles fly from those pads?
A move to make Eastern Range management more efficient, and better support U.S. commercial space development, is a move in the right direction. This shouldn’t be sensationalized as a Space Force attack on KSC’s turf.
The idea originated with Space Force because of their needs – not NASA’s. NASA did not seek this activity. Funny how everything works just fine for 60 years – then Space Force appears and starts to try and change everything to suit their needs.
Ideas have to come from somewhere.
NASA has been fairly bogged down in bureaucracy, and pretty risk-averse for decades.
Change could be good, you never know.
Some of that risk aversion is for good reason. When the military loses a pilot, its a story for a day or so. You get an astronaut killed, there are congressional hearings.
” Funny how everything works just fine for 60 years”
Did it? … Really?
We lost 14 astronauts in flight, and more in ground test and training.
We expended Hundreds of $Billions, a lot of it at KSC, and we are constantly told the salt air is rotting it away.
“then Space Force appears and starts to try and change everything to suit their needs.”
Did you expect a new organization, needing launch facilities, for its on-coming new constellations, that don’t have to be passed through the eye of EPA’s permitting needle, to be acquiescent to whatever is there already? If NASA’s probes and stations and outposts still get into Space, then why are you worried? Do you think that a Space Port that launches more vehicles each year is a bad thing? Do you think NASA’s present pork train through KSC (remember all that refurb and rework for SLS?) must stay in place?
This is a *normal* type of event when a new entity is organized. Both new ideas, and old ideas that were set aside because they were stopped by political restrictions, can now be tried. Let us not have NASA reacting like the mandarins of Japan’s Bakufu when Commodore Perry’s Squadron sailed into Tokyo Bay. These are *our* ships, as long as you don’t see NASA as an insular hierarchy that must be preserved at all costs in its last 50 years of perfection.
Oh my, you invoked Mandarins.
Yup!
I had the joy of once interacting with the Contracts and Grants Division at HQ, … so the word comes naturally to the mind.
In fairness Keith the current picture is dramatically different: private interests now dominate near-space*, which is stunningly becoming crowded. Rockets don’t routinely blow up any more, either.
*Edited: I don’t know if it’s accurate to say that near-space is ‘dominated’ by private interests. I suppose the mode of measurement would matter (mass vs. count, for instance). A future in which private companies in fact do dominate is close enough, though.
Rockets fail less often today but we have LOTS of objects in space (satellites like the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, upper stages like many of the Russian ones) that have (and probably will) explode. There are some “newer” functions that need to be done but no one is realistically doing them yet.
I wasn’t even thinking of the left over garbage but of course you are right.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is certainly a legitimate argument, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t possibly a better way. “That’s the way it has always been done” often leads to stagnation (IBM or Sears, anyone?) but changing it also sometimes leads to a fiasco (“New Coke” anyone?) so there is risk here. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a look and see if it is time for a change. With the rapid expansion of commercial space since SpaceX stormed the scene, I don’t see anything wrong with looking at KSC/CCSFS/Space Florida to see if there isn’t a better way. “Cape Canaveral Spaceport” does have a pretty nice ring to it.
Almost certainly this is an attempt by SF to get large enough that they can’t easily be eliminated by a Biden administration. Having a military force in charge of KSC is a terrible idea – I have done a LOT of testing on KSC (in the O&C Building) and a military administration would greatly increase administrivia.
As a retired USAF officer, Space Command and the Air Force in general have done a terrible job with CC AFS – by trying to make the Range “operational” and trying to make everything simple enough that an “operator” could run a launch range. They tried to assign ICBM launch crew alumni and airplane people to run the launch range – the result was expensive space launches that splash down in the water.
Re-reading the article (I try to NOT read anything by Eric Berger) it sounds more like NASA and the SF would spin off the range to a separate organization – and it would just be the range? Now that might be a great deal.
But we do NOT want a military organization to control KSC (access to the site, management of the buildings, etc etc) and it would be better if we could also take CC AFS away from the military. Things that the military control get bogged down in bureaucracy.
Eric Berger is one of the finest reporters covering space.
Indeed. With a book, finally, have to wonder what his next opportunity might bring.
Curious, Mr. H: I’m wondering what drives your distaste for Mr. Berger, who generally enjoys a fine reputation? This is simple, straight-up curiosity on my part?
Probably I am just being difficult, I have spoken to him several times on the Johnson Space Center and he seemed to have arrived with his mind made up of what the facts were. Maybe he didn’t want to burn all of his bridges?
“Difficult”? Welcome to the club!
You have the advantage as I have no direct knowledge of anything that goes on in Houston or anywhere other than what Keith, and others, chiefly Mr. Berger, write about (which is why I haunt this and similar sites). From that POV Berger appears informed and dispassionate.
Not knowing your background, is it possible that he has a more informed view? He just doesn’t seem to be predisposed in either direction.
Perhaps Jim Bridenstine is just a bit too independent-minded for the regime.
If the regime you speak of is the Congress-based LBJians, wanting NASA budgets “adjusted” to prove how much their voters need their power, then that’s certainly true. In regards this article, though, the reception Bridenstine gave the idea indicates he’s not the one holding things up!
That’s not what the article says. It’s a proposal to merge Cape Canaveral AFS with Kennedy Space Center under a “national spaceport authority,” mentioning the Metro Washington Airports Authority as a model. That definitely ≠ a Space Force “takeover.”
It’s not even that; it’s merging Eastern Range operations. As I said above, most KSC functions would remain 100% NASA under this approach.
NASA “works fine”?
Uh, huh.
Range Ops don’t work fine, for sure, and that’s the problem here. There are significant bottlenecks, particularly on the east coast, to increasing the flight rate; 2 launches in a week puts a SIGNIFICANT stress on the system (45th SW and NASA). To wit, the ambitious goal established a while back by the 45th was to get to a rate of ~1 launch/week on average.
Some of this is why Rocket Lab chose to build out east coast capability at Wallops Island, despite it being farther north, and why Antares launches from there as well – no scheduling constraints in the Florida bottleneck.
We should remember that KSC and CCAFS had a joint Base Operations Contract (15 years ago?).. It did not work well for either party.
Space Florida has been promoting itself as the better choice for Range and KSC management for years.
Space Force: a solution looking for a problem.
Not slightly true. Pay attention to what our adversaries are doing.
I was initially quite put off by the idea of Space Force, mostly because I was extrapolating current geopolitical situation into the decades ahead.
More useful I think would be to look into the past, particularly setting the New World, with attendant jockeying about. The European Age of Discovery is instructive but not the only example. Leaving aside any discussion about the effect on indigenous people, the European powers were broadly analogous to the current situation of shifting alliances within an overall structure dominated by a few quite powerful interests.
And that’s the central motivation here: powerful interests intent on maintaining/ expanding relative strength.
In modern times, it’s possible that we will hear talk about ‘the good of mankind’, or whatever, as the first tentative steps are taken; but as soon as true value is found anywhere in the solar system we will witness militarization, and indeed possibly independent actors behaving as pirates. It’s easy to play nice (ie, ISS) when the activity is costly. Let it become profitable and a different POV takes hold.
Far fetched? No. The parallels from history might not bear deep analysis, perhaps; but the broad strokes are certainly apt: the opportunities for fabulous wealth are that great.
We are awaiting invention of key technology analogous perhaps to the Caravel (and others), after which all hell will break loose.
One key tech is organization. In 1546, to extend your Naval analogy, the Navy Board was founded in England, and for 250 years several wealthier States scorned to follow that example. When combined with Ordnance and Victualling boards, this combination formed a permanent core of the Royal Navy’s capacity to organize a growing list of successful efforts for the safety of that polity.
That is the role I see for Space Force, today, *if* they can pull it off. Its interaction with other hierarchies in government will be more diffuse, simply because of the proliferation of the State’s organizations throughout the 20th Century. NASA, needing so many of the same things as Space Force, is naturally a more frequent cooperator with the new organization.
Wasn’t Autonomous Flight Safety System or AFSS supposed to improve range operations?
NASA has been hobbled for over 50 years now with a budget barely sufficient to do what it is mandated to do, much less expand its most noble intentions and goals of expanding humans off Earth and garnering knowledge of science and the universe. NASA’s budget remains fractions of a penny of the dollar budget. We are in a culture of instant gratification, decreasing attention spans, accountability and empathy, increasing violence in thoughts and action, and a failing education system that does not motivate youth to take the hard paths of deep, committed education. Where a culture spends its wealth is all telling, and will show its commitment to the future and its survival. This is even more imperative today in a world approaching 8 billion humans (tragedy of the commons), and technology running amok with the development of our children’s brains and societies operations. There are deeper threads here that must be unraveled and made transparent. The future is and will not be as rosy as so many seem to think, heads in the sand.
https://whnt.com/news/redst…