Snuffysmith
Oct 19 2006, 03:08 PM
Stephen Day has kindly provided his analysis of the Administration's newly announced space policy. This draws on his 25+ years in the commercial space business.
U.S. National Space Policy
On October 6, 2006, the Office of Science and Technology issued an updated National Space Policy, which supersedes the previous Presidential Decision Directive (Space Policy) of September 1994.
The policy document lays out a complex set of interrelated objectives and constraints regarding national policy - which the typical layman will find hard to decipher. The tone of the Space Policy is heavily oriented to national security and defense, in their many guises. There is a telling preamble of “Principles” that states “The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity. Consistent with this principle, ‘peaceful purposes’ allow U.S. defense and intelligence related activities in pursuit of national interests.” An intelligent reader will smile at the juxtaposition of the two sentences, and ponder the unlikely coexistence of matter and antimatter!
Specific reactions to the new Space policy will depend on who is directly affected. For example, for the U.S. defense industrial complex the news is good – more business and more lucrative Government contracts. For the Defense Department and most national security agencies the new policy is also good – bigger budgets, more surveillance, more clandestine operations. For NASA and its ~$17 Billion budget the new policy is also generally good, though it continues to struggle explaining to the U.S. public the benefits of returning to the Moon and Mars with human missions (e.g., what will we do when we get there?).
For our international partners and competitors (there are no less than six nations currently planning independent human missions to the Moon) the news is mixed. The U. S., under the current administration, will cooperate, as long as our national (defense) interests are not perceived to be in any way compromised. This raises vexing problems as to how long the Moon can realistically remain a military-free zone - and could make the U.S. an unreliable partner for cooperative commercial ventures. The overall tenor of the policy statement is that “we’ll cooperate as long as it’s in our interest - and we reserve the right to do anything we damn well please!”
For industries outside the military industrial complex, the news is likewise mixed. Few in the general public have ever heard of the esoteric State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations, affectionately known as “ITAR” to those in the business, but it remains a major impediment to international cooperation on space missions involving the sharing of certain IT technologies even with close allies. At the absurd level, it has blocked student projects involving building experimental joint mini satellites and control mechanisms between U. S. and Japanese students in a forum known as JUSTSAP. In the case of GPS, the commercial business has blossomed and is well on its way to becoming a $200+ billion business by 2020 in the U.S. However, all U.S.GPS satellites are owned and controlled by the Defense Department and are unlikely to be turned over to the commercial market place any time soon - in contrast to the European system Galileo, that is expected to be commercial circa 2010. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since the US tax payer and businesses are getting a return from their taxes. The potential problem is the degree of uncertainty caused by some rather bellicose statements in the new Space Policy that could cause some to doubt the availability of GPS signals in times of international stress.
Some statements such as reducing orbital debris, coordinating on radio frequencies (ITU), and nuclear power in space are eminently sensible, but these are vestiges of the previous space policies.
In summary, what come across from the new Space Policy is not dissimilar to many of the Executive Branch’s recent other pronouncements affecting international business, law, codes of conduct and rules of engagement, etc. Watch out world, we’re the dominant military and space faring nation, and we intend to stay so with or without you! Perhaps with a more internationally sensitive administration this too shall pass.
Stephen Day
Washington, DC
ssday@aol.com