Comments on: Pentagon reportedly gives nod to ULA

By: Brent

Brent — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:13:36 +0000

Kevin,

Oh, you meant the experience of aircrew vs space people. Aha! I think that was figure 1. I couldn’t agree more. It is unfortunate that so many people in Space Command have so little space experience.

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:23:28 +0000

“You by any chance read the article immediately after that?”

No; interesting… It’s a debate for another day and I’ll have to give it some thought. And Alistair’s point is well taken too.

In the meantime, perhaps fig.2 was the wrong figure. Forget the best and brightest for now, I am more worried about _everyone’s_ lack of experience in space relative to their air counterparts, regardless of technical level. What does a comparative lack of experience on the space side lead to? Nothing?

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:10:47 +0000

What I’ve heard (no links to anything, and this is through many layers of rumor, and includes some of my own hypothesizing(sp?)) is that the whole rank structure of the Air Force is being changed, with only two commands “combat” and “support.” The commanders of each of those would be four-star generals and there would be few others. If true, this is a huge shift from the 11 four-star structure of today. Based on that structure, missiles would fall under combat while space would go under support.

I’d need to know more of the story before I made a call on the wisdom of the plan.

By: Alistair

Alistair — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:52:24 +0000

As an early 2005 AFIT grad, I have first hand knowledge of process. AFSPC sent me to AFIT to get said space ops degree. Given that I had a very similar masters from UCCS, I opted for a physics degree. Word from AFSPC POC was that there were not enough qualified applicants for the program I was selected for. AFIT is a fire hose: easy for 2LTs, tough for senior Captains/Majors (10+ years removed from undegrad). There will be a ramp up in the number of space Masters degrees starting in 2005. The article you refer to is using 2004 data.

AFSPC does, however, need to do a better job of identifying which positions require an Advanced Academic Degree. My current position was supposed to be a directed energy AAD position. However, the day after I got here, they moved me to an orbital position (unrelated to DE for you conspiracy nuts) because I had perfect experience for the new position (nothing to do with the degree I had just earned).

By: brent

brent — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:22:15 +0000

Kevin,

Interesting that you chose LtCol Staats’ and Maj Abeyta’s paper. You by any chance read the article immediately after that?

I don’t see what Fig 2 proves. The drop in AFIT space grads seem to generally follow the personnel end strength trend of the USAF total. In any case, I have serious disagreements with the opinion that space leadership must have technical graduate degrees. More than math knowledge must an officer have, even a space officer.

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:42:04 +0000

Brent, I have no reasoned argument I’m afraid. In the absence of information I rely on the opinions of people I respect.

I think the real worry here is just where this Space Cadre is headed. Take a look at this:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj05/win05/staats.html

Figure 2 says it all.

By: Brent

Brent — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:52:05 +0000

Kevin,

You mind explaining why the demotion to a 3 star in Space Command makes sense? I’m opposed to such an idea, but I’ll listen to a reasoned argument in case I missed something.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:14:55 +0000

I agree with Brent, for shame. This is a bad deal in any meaningful sense. Combined with NASA’s decision not to use the EELVs, this decision is guaranteed to result in higher launch prices for everyone, not just the military. Let us hope that SpaceX succeeds this week, because, with affordable EELVs effectively out of the picture, we will need their vehicle.

— Donald

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:42:27 +0000

“Doesn’t help that the rumors are that the next AFSPC CC will be a 3 Star, and not a 4 Star.”

I’ve been convinced elsewhere that this is actually a good rationalization of the command structure. What I am not convinced about however is AF’s dedication to space. The Space Cadre, to the extent they exist, still have only of fraction of the experience that their correpsonding aircraft guys have in their respective fields. Why?

By: Alistair

Alistair — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:20:06 +0000

Doesn’t help that the rumors are that the next AFSPC CC will be a 3 Star, and not a 4 Star. That, and it has been said that AFSPC will be suborindate to ACC.

I can see it now, the 3 Star (rumored to be a pilot) complains to BoLockMart who in turn runs to the ACC 4 Star (pilot flying BoLockMart airplanes)…

I’m just waiting for the first EELV under ULA to blow up on the pad… If congress had a spine, they’d knock some heads about.

The Space “Cadre” is more like the red-headed step child of the Air Force all the time. Time for an independent Space Force, not suborindating space to the pilots (akin to recombining the Air Force and the Army). Space is fundamentally different from aircraft and ground-pounders. It’s next to impossible to scrub a launch after it’s lit and we can’t repair on-orbit spacecraft. The sooner the pilots and congress realize this, the better off we’ll be.