Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon Sets Tone For Future Space Exploration

coondoggie writes "It obviously leans heavily on the military's concerns for outer space exploration, but the National Security Space Strategy (PDF) released yesterday by the Department of Defense outlines concerns like protection from space junk and system security that all space travelers in theory would want addressed. The NSSS document emphasizes the Obama administration's desire to protect US space assets and to further commercialize space but also to ensure that the US and international partners have unfettered access to outer space."

20 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. OK, fine by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds perfectly reasonable. A couple of high sounding, moral high ground arguments (space is for everyone), a few sops to Boeing, et. al (need for continued government support for x,y,z), a sop to NASA and the inevitable "don't mess too much with our playground, we're bigger than you".

    Now. Where's the money?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:OK, fine by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering that the Chinese have yet to complete an in-orbit rendezvous and some have argued that the "space walks" conducted by the Chinese astronauts may have even been faked or staged, they have a long way to go before I need to worry about the Chinese joining up with a secret Nazi Moon base in an attempt to start world conquest.

      This isn't to say that China is completely backward, but don't ascribe more to them than is really true. Furthermore, all China has been doing is to essentially copy the efforts of other nations. There is very little new or original being done by China as they are now up to about 1960's technology for what Russia and America were doing.

      As for the "American" space program, I'd give it a decade before private individuals are walking on the Moon. SpaceX already sent a capsule into orbit and now merely needs FAA approval to put some people into the capsule to start its own manned spaceflight program. With Bigelow Aerospace supplying the space stations and Moon bases along with a dozen more private companies nipping at the heels of SpaceX to get into space, it is just a matter of time before the Moon and elsewhere is covered with people and human constructs. A whole lot is happening with regards to American spaceflight, it just isn't being done by the bankrupt government who doesn't care to go into space any more.

    2. Re:OK, fine by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Don't get your hopes up.

      While it's possible that private industry could get us into space in my life time, I won't be surprised if I die before we've even mastered trips to the moon. It's depressing to think I'll have lived my entire life without having anything on the level of the experience my parents' generation had with the moon landing. And it won't be enough to just get back to the moon (which seems iffy, itself, currently). To me, minimal progress would be the ability to regularly travel from earth to the moon. Maybe not you and me, but at least astronauts in general. Feels like an entire generation of wasted space exploration.

      On the other hand, advancements in science and technology have exponential impact. Therefore, it's quite likely that we could cease 95% of all NASA-related endeavors and while not making big jumps in the near future, combine the advances in the rest of the fields to make a significant leap farther in the future. Sort of like how you could have started a calculation with your computer in 1990 and just now be finishing it, while I could have waited until today to perform the same calculation with a modern computer and finish in two minutes.

      So . . . maybe do get your hopes up.

      God damn gemini.

    3. Re:OK, fine by damburger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Please, don't indulge in conspiracy theories about the Chinese spacewalk. The same deal applies to this as to with the moon landings; if it were faked one of the countries competitors would've used that to score an immediate propaganda coup.

      Unless you can account for the silence of the US, Japan and India on the matter, don't take this crap seriously. Shenzhou 7 happened, and there was a spacewalk.

      You seem to not believe the evidence supplied for a Chinese spacewalk, accepted by nations with every reason to portray China as more backward than it is, yet you unquestioningly accept the vastly over-optimistic projections of private space companies that are yet to put a single human into orbit. Your skepticism is rather selective, betraying your bias.

      If Shenzhou can be called 1960's technology because it looks like the Soyuz, then SpaceShipOne can be called 1950's technology because it's basically a nicely painted X-15.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:OK, fine by trickyD1ck · · Score: 2

      Maybe the Moon landing of your generation is called "The Internet." Or "Personal Genomics." I don't think that Space exploration is the only measure of human achievement.

    5. Re:OK, fine by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Yes, the internet has precluded all sorts of threats to the existence of mankind. Putting men, and colonies, into space wouldn't help to ensure mankind's survival is the least, in the event of a cataclysmic impact, would it? Get your priorities. Playing with computers is exactly that - child's play for the most part. Putting a gene pool onto another planet is vastly more important, by many orders of magnitude.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  2. commercial space products by khallow · · Score: 2

    A key conclusion is that the US military should purchase more commercial space products. In the overall economy, government contribution to GDP is something like 20%. In space-related industry, it is more like 50%.

    If somehow we could instantly increase commercial activity in space so that it were 80% of the space-related GDP (that would be a factor of 4 increase in private space GDP contribution), that not only would result in a huge increase in global economic activity in space, but also at least 1% increase in US GDP (I estimate that it currently would be at least $200 billion per year), even in the absence of growth otherwise in space economic activity.

    Similarly, a significant fraction of the US's economic activity in space would give the US an advantage over countries that don't have this. It's worth noting that the US is the only country with commercial oribtal launch businesses that aren't, even in part, owned by a government. Europe and the former Soviet countries have commercial launch businesses, but these have significant ownership (Arianespace, for example, has significant French and German ownership, Russia owns a share of all launch businesses that work out of the former USSR).

    In conclusion, I think there is considerable room for improvement in US commercial space from the current, heavy reliance on US government expenditures and further that a large commercial space products sector would be beneficial to the US and to the world at large. This DOD report supports progress towards the goal of a larger commercial space products sector in the US.

    1. Re:commercial space products by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      While there is certainly a distinction to be made in structure and style between the US and countries with partial or total state ownership of launch businesses, I have to wonder how much is mere distinction and how much is actual difference...

      A company's formal level of "privateness" is defined according to its ownership; but its de facto level of "privateness" is really a function of who owns it, and who it depends on for its business, and the process by which is solicits that business. A state-owned company is obviously not private. A privately owned company whose primary, or only, customer is the state is dubiously private. If it exists in a properly competitive market, with other suppliers; but just happens to focus on state contracts, it may be considered essentially fully private. If it exists in an incestuous revolving-door relationship with the state entities whose contracts it fulfills, it is less a "private" entity and more a sort of ideologically motivated "government laundering" arrangement where(in exchange for a cut for the shareholders) the state gets to keep part of its size off the books.

      Obviously, a company doesn't instantly become "state" just because it has state customers(just because the state uses some Dells, dell isn't exactly turning into The People's Patriotic Whitebox x86 Manufactury). On the other hand, some of the defense/aerospace guys, and highly-evolved Beltway symbiote/parasite entities like SAIC are, de facto, state organs with shareholders.

      It seems to me that that is the real trick with space-related business. It will be comparatively easy to make space "more private" by shifting the lofting of military and state scientific payloads to private entities; but, unless there is a substantial uptick in end-to-end-commercial uses for space, such a move will be basically cosmetic. This raises the question of what sorts of activities in space can pay for themselves without military or state-funded-astronomy justifications...

    2. Re:commercial space products by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      This is true to some extent, but fungi's point is interesting. Money spent in space is really due to three lines of business - communications satellites, monitor satellites (camera or multi mode) and whatever NASA and the Air Force are up to. Of the three areas, really only communications has a strong truly private sector. There are a couple of private imaging satellites but only a few.

      SpaceX and Bigelow may be able to toss a few rich tourists into LEO but I don't see that keeping much of the space infrastructure busy - the money just isn't there.

      The people that make the civilian communications satellites are the same people that make the military ones - again, it's a small, very capital and intellectual property intensive business.

      So much of the posturing about the 'commercial sector' of space exploration is posturing. Mind you, it may well serve the excellent purpose of kicking the big boys out of their comfort zone and moving faster and cheaper. However, I don't see anyone but the various governments pulling off major space programs at least for the next several decades. IMHO, the best thing we can do is encourage China and India to push their programs. We do things best when we're 'scared' of something.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:commercial space products by khallow · · Score: 2

      This is true to some extent, but fungi's point is interesting. Money spent in space is really due to three lines of business - communications satellites, monitor satellites (camera or multi mode) and whatever NASA and the Air Force are up to. Of the three areas, really only communications has a strong truly private sector. There are a couple of private imaging satellites but only a few.

      First, communication satellites covers a lot of ground. You have satellite TV, internet, phone systems, etc, Several of these systems use or plan to use dozens of satellites. Commercial imaging satellites are a growing business. Where the market is a "few" now, it was "none" ten years ago.

      SpaceX and Bigelow may be able to toss a few rich tourists into LEO but I don't see that keeping much of the space infrastructure busy - the money just isn't there.

      Global tourism is on the order of a trillion dollars per year. The money is there. And once you have a vehicle that can put tourists into space, it can be used for other purposes, such as putting workers or researchers into space.

      The people that make the civilian communications satellites are the same people that make the military ones - again, it's a small, very capital and intellectual property intensive business.

      In other words, high fixed costs. Such businesses do much better with greater volume to spread those costs around.

      So much of the posturing about the 'commercial sector' of space exploration is posturing. Mind you, it may well serve the excellent purpose of kicking the big boys out of their comfort zone and moving faster and cheaper. However, I don't see anyone but the various governments pulling off major space programs at least for the next several decades. IMHO, the best thing we can do is encourage China and India to push their programs. We do things best when we're 'scared' of something.

      I said nothing about space exploration. There's a common myth that space activity is space exploration. I'm interested in space development, the creation of economic value in space through space activity and the development of appropriate infrastructure.

    4. Re:commercial space products by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      States, at least in the US context, certainly are subject to different financial constraints than is the federal government. There are some other differences as well. At least for stuff that can be stamped "national security" the feds have greater leverage over private sector actors: It is perfectly legal for Yoyodyne LLC. to say "Dear Florida, give us the land to build a spaceport, some cushy tax breaks, and exemption from certain local zoning restrictions, or we will take our precious, precious jobs to New Mexico". That is, in fact, entirely standard practice for corporations siting facilities. On the other hand, were Slaughtertek industries to say "Well, if you don't like the price of our proposed air-defense missile package, perhaps China will be more cooperative...", they would likely find themselves in legal hot water.

      This tends to create a countervailing pressure on state governments: As you say, even if they are willing to take the macroecomic consequences, they cannot print money and are generally limited in their ability to run debts. On the other hand, state governments are often much easier to play against one another in competition for the most generous public/private "partnerships". In non-defense industries, some of the same stuff happens nation to nation; but there are still barriers like language, tariffs, currencies, etc. that states either are powerless to erect(interstate commerce is federal, so state x can't impose a tariff on goods from state y) or that don't exist(all states use USD and have high concentrations of available native English speakers, say). Unfortunately, there is some evidence from empirical economic study that this countervailing pressure often ends up with state governments being made into what amounts to a corporate booty call. Governors just cannot resist the electoral value of cutting the ribbon at some new plant with some shiny new jobs for their constituents; but often end up paying out alarming sums in taxpayer money per job, and long-term retention(once the goodies run out) can be surprisingly low. Apparently, southern states have it particularly bad; but others are not immune(Municipalities that shell out to build stadiums for private sports teams are in a similar boat and that seems to be a universal vice...)

      This isn't just a US phenomenon: Euro-zone nations, because of comparatively low borders, often face some of the same problems and national governments generally are not exempt, though they have somewhat stronger tools to work with.

    5. Re:commercial space products by Teancum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There certainly are enough billionaires building mega yachts that have a price tag similar to a genuine spaceship, if put up by a private company like Bigelow Aerospace. It isn't nearly as unknown as you are saying and there are people who wouldn't mind grabbing some extra-terrestrial real estate for themselves in a provable way.

      The trillion dollars was in reference to the whole tourism industry, not space tourism, but the point is still there that there is a market for people wanting to get into space, and the number of people willing to pay at least a million dollars for the opportunity is a bit higher than you would think.

      The real advantage of space tourism is that it is one of the few areas of spaceflight where lower costs bring about a huge increase in revenue. Let me explain in perhaps another way:

      Communications and weather satellites are pretty rare things, and generally not too many of them are needed at any given time. As a result, they are big but expensive things costing billions of dollars to make. Ditto for "spy satellites" and even probes to other planets. For most of the existing "proven" markets for spaceflight, the "customers" are willing to pay a premium for getting into space, but generally not too many flights are necessary to get everything up. That is one of the reasons why spaceflight is so expensive, and has been stuck at about $10,000/kg (give or take) for almost 50 years. Any "competition" getting into the market mostly shoots themselves in the foot (like SpaceX) by grabbing market share, but once they start to land the big projects and have a flight tested piece of equipment, they start raising launch prices to meet the market of seldom flying rockets to LEO. Other companies go out of business, but essentially the price stays the same. These companies and government agencies have a pretty fixed budget for launches into space, and as long as it is a fraction of the price of the vehicle they are sending up, the cost of the launch itself is meaningless.

      Space tourism, on the other hand, responds very well with lower cost where a 50% drop in the price more than doubles the overall revenue received. That is the key thing here, and a missing ingredient in terms of spaceflight financial models. You might have a dozen potential astronauts at $20 million each going to LEO, but a thousand or more with a price of $2 million and hundreds of thousands of customers at $200,000 for the same trip (perhaps even more). Even at $200,000 each, the cost of paying for fuel and the crew is trivial compared to the costs of the vehicle itself. Fuel costs for spaceflight right now are so trivial that the cost of the press conference catering service is usually more on most launches. The ground crew is generally expensive because most of the time they are doing nothing but training.... not launching vehicle. If you change that equation, you can see the cost for access to orbit drop considerably and still make some serious money for those companies wanting to get involved. It can be done, but it takes rethinking the market.

      If you take an historical analogy, it cost on average about $3,000-$10,000 in order to buy a Conestoga Wagon with a couple of pair of oxen, some sheep, chickens, food, ammunition, and other supplies in order to cross the western plains in order to get to Oregon or California. Considering that an average laborer earned about a dollar a day, that represented about 10-15 years worth of life savings in order to get that kind of money together, or about 5 years worth of savings for a skilled tradesman. If you start to think in that fashion, with a "skilled worker" today earning about $100k/year, a $200k ticket to space is quite comparable to a trip across the great plains of America from a century and a half ago in terms of effort needed to make the trip. Sure, no 3rd world citizen is going to make a trip like that, but it is in the realm of an ordinary person in a 1st world country. Give those folk

  3. Good news for space buffs by Third+Position · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering that the DoD's budget makes NASA's look like a rounding error, getting the military involved in the space program must be warming the hearts of space buffs everywhere. One thing's for sure, the DoD never lacks for funding.

    --
    American Third Position
    Finally, a real choice!
    1. Re:Good news for space buffs by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      DoD has always been intricately linked to NASA efforts. While, the separation of civilian and military space programs was an important policy decision by Eisenhower, it was never completely separated. Doing so, particularly at the infrastructure level, would have been unnecessarily expensive and inefficient.

      DoD launch requirements are the reason we have robust and fairly reliable EELV services, which are great for NASA as they insulate NASA's unmanned programs from the drama associated with the shuttle program, and give the manned program a good option for the future of the manned program. However, they're also responsible for the huge wings on the shuttle (USAF wanted cross-track landing capability for military operations), and the continued use of solid rocket motors for the shuttle (since this subsidizes military missile production). Sometimes its good, and sometimes its bad, but having military concerns involved in NASA is nothing new.

      What is new here is that DoD is getting behind the idea of encouraging competition and market-based reforms within the space-related portion of the defense industry. And this does warm my heart since these policies will enable a capable and flexible space program without Apollo-level funding.

    2. Re:Good news for space buffs by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      DoD launch requirements are the reason we have robust and fairly reliable EELV services, which are great for NASA as they insulate NASA's unmanned programs from the drama associated with the shuttle program, and give the manned program a good option for the future of the manned program. However, they're also responsible for the huge wings on the shuttle (USAF wanted cross-track landing capability for military operations), and the continued use of solid rocket motors for the shuttle (since this subsidizes military missile production).

      With regards to the DoD and the Shuttle - you're absolutely wrong on both points, you're doing nothing but repeating urban legends.
       
      If actually go back and study the evolution of the Shuttle - you'll find that wing steadily grew across the entire period. Why? Because wings allow greater cross track which allows for more re-entry and landing opportunities and greater abort margins. I.E. increased safety. Yeah, the DoD determined the final size and performance, but the difference between the DoD specs and NASA specs is much less than urban legend would have you believe.
       
      Same thing for the SRB's. Liquid boosters were taken off the table long before the DoD came onboard because of their great expense and fragility.

  4. Re:which way is Mecca? by Teancum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That will be an interesting thing for a faithful Muslim to have to work out if they go to some extra-terrestrial location. Frederick Pohl mentioned the concept in one of his Gateway books where some group of Muslims landed on another planet and had to locate the Sun (Sol.... the Earth's Sun) in order to orient themselves properly to Mecca.

    There have been a couple of Muslim astronauts who have already been in space, so the idea isn't completely theoretical. I'm sure the idea was at least addressed, as at least a few astronauts have discussed their religious experiences in an extraterrestrial setting. I know that Catholic Mass was held on the Moon at one point (wine and wafer previously blessed by a priest), as was a Mormon sacrament service in the Space Shuttle. Why is some faithful Muslim considered weird in that respect?

  5. War, Sex and Religion by The+Cosmist · · Score: 3, Funny

    Given that two things drive human civilization above all others -- war and sex -- I have concluded that a new space race and space hotels offering the possibility of sex in zero g may be our best hopes of getting off this planet. The only other thing I can think of that could provide the right motivation is religion, which is why I'm in the process of founding a new cosmic religion to inspire new generations of cosmic missionaries to reach for the stars. See thecosmist.blogspot.com for more information.

  6. Obligatory Planetes Comment by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 2

    Planetes is a manga (and anime adaptation) about people in the not-so-distant future who clean up space debris. It prides itself on its realism and plausibility. Along with the issue of space junk itself, it has quite a few things to say about military presence in space.

    I believe a comment about Planetes is required by law in any article that mentions space junk.

  7. Re:Let's See ... by Teancum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Constellation Program was doomed from the beginning and deserved to be shut down and replaced with something else. In the words of the Augustine Commission, even if the spaceflight vehicles were ready to fly today, their first recommendation would be to cancel the program as too expensive and dangerous. On top of that, it was billions of dollars over budget and years behind in terms of getting anything done. The earliest that the Ares V would be ready is 2020 with a very optimistic timeline.

    It is also a project that keeps coming back from the dead, but I'll leave that zombie where I can shoot it from time to time... like this thread.

    As for shutting down the Shuttle program, that is something which was decided by the Bush administration following the destruction of the Columbia. Simply put, there aren't enough orbiters for a viable Shuttle program, and the loss of any future shuttle orbiter would be its termination anyway. Perhaps a "next generation" shuttle could have been made to continue the lessons learned, but the Shuttle program as has been flying for the past 30 years simply can't continue as it has been flying. The loss of two orbiters is bad enough, and some serious reconsideration for its design was desperately needed. The Constellation Program was not a shuttle replacement but rather a return to.... something else. I'm not even sure what. George W. Bush is the person to blame, not Obama.... not that Obama is helping out here either but that is besides the point.

    As for radioisotopic generators (RTGs), the largest problem there is that the nuclear bomb factories have been mostly shut down as the number of warheads in the U.S. arsenal have been gradually reduced through attrition (getting old and having to be refurbished) and various treaties with several countries, including the SALT treaties and the START treaty negotiations with the former USSR. If you are going to blame a U.S. President, you can blame Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Both are indirectly responsible for the current situation with regards to RTGs, unless you are also blaming the anti-nuclear activists who have kept domestic nuclear reactors from getting built. Breeder reactors in particular as a major solution to both RTGs and to reducing or eliminating nuclear waste. There is no need for Yucca Mountain, but for the fact that nuclear engineering is all but a dead discipline now in America.

    While I'm not a fan of Barak Obama, his problem has been mainly one of apathy and benign neglect of NASA and U.S. space policy. It took him nearly a year to appoint Charles Bolden as NASA administrator, and Obama certainly hasn't been reining in people like Gabrielle Giffords (when she chaired the sub-committee with oversight of NASA and federal spaceflight policy.... yes the same lady who has been in the news more recently) nor has he really given Charles Bolden the political support necessary to make some of the really tough changes needed at NASA to put everything back on track either. He had the chance and blew it, but the problems remain. He had the chance to set American space policy for the next several decades, but instead has half-heartily reinstated George W. Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration" by setting NASA into auto-pilot.

    As demonstrated by this policy directive by the Department of Defense, if NASA doesn't "boldly go", the DoD will. About bloody time I might add. At least somebody is showing some leadership in the area. Such leadership certainly isn't coming from the White House. Obama has been transparent with regards to NASA.... he just isn't doing anything worth caring about and thus doesn't matter if it was published or not on Wikileaks or anywhere else for that matter.

  8. Space Junk is surely a cover story by damburger · · Score: 2

    Random, often small, bits of metal flying around LEO are a hazard, so you want to get rid of them. The military kindly offers to develop a way to track and bring them down, whilst conveniently developing the capability to do the same to enemy ICBMs, re-entry vehicles, satellites etc..

    I think the US wants to control all human access to space, tbh. The Russians and the Chinese will have to ask for 'clearance' to launch anything and won't be allowed to do military stuff up there (whilst the US will be free to).

    Of course, there is the possibility that China gets there first.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?