In this week’s issue of The Space Review Dwayne Day provides a thorough critique of new national space policy and some of the media attention it received. He notes that “in terms of actual policy positions, the 2006 National Space Policy is not fundamentally different from the 1996 Clinton-era policy that it replaced. Equally worth noting is that the new policy document is not really different than the overall Bush administration national security policy of the past five years.” Day does identify the differences between the old and new policies and their significance; an appendix provides a section-by-section review of the two policies, putting them side-by-side.
The media attention the new policy did receive focused on language that appeared to open the door (or open it wider) to the deployment of space weapons that would allow the US to deny other countries the use of space. In a companion article James Oberg examines those claims, including allegations that the US is actively developing space weapons (not really, says Oberg), and reviews a history that shows that the former Soviet Union was far more serious about developing such weapons than the US has ever been. In a separate MSNBC article, Oberg reviews the attention the new space policy received, particularly in Russia, where it has been perceived as a sign of aggression by the US in space, adding that it is not “the first time such mistaken fears paved the way toward genuine dangers.”
Excellent essay, Jeff, on the Utne reader. Did you send your review to them? If not, I think you should.
As a social liberal who strongly supports human spaceflight for social and largely “liberal” reasons, I have found the reasoning you describe extremely frustrating. It appears also to be the opinion of an ever smaller minority (possibly a philosophical relic from the 1960s?), as the bipartisan support for the VSE shows. I hope you have noticed that there are several “liberals” contributing to your site with generally constructive comments: to say that liberals are opposed to human spaceflight (which, lest I be misunderstood, I realize you didn’t) would be a gross oversimplification.
I found “The 20th century’s greatest myth, space exploration is the only true new religion since the Bronze Age.” to be a fascinating insight, if not an entirely new or accurate one. This idea of advocacy for human spaceflight is not as unusual as you suggest — I have heard it stated many times, and to a degree I even agree with it. (It plays an important part of my final set of interviews on whether the Space Station is worth doing, at the end of my article “Building the Space Station” on my Web site.) Many of us advocating human exploration of the Solar System are not doing so for well thought-out or economic reasons. We are doing it because a) we want to go ourselves or b) we believe in some variation of humanity’s “manifest destiny” in the Solar System and the stars. The latter, certainly, is a religious motivation and we find reasons to justify our emotional position after the fact. I freely admit that is the case with me.
Where I would disagree with Mr. Dery is that I don’t think the “exploration religion” is particularly new. It’s been around since long before the Bronze Age!
— Donald
Jeff,
Excellent job! I also want to commend Dwayne Day and Jim Oberg for their analysis of the new national space policy, and the opinions of that policy, and you for providing a forum for them to publish their analysis that was easily accessible to this community.
The combination of the three different “reviews” was quite refreshing in this day of “hack and slash” opinion that tries to substitute for analysis.
You are providing a very useful service here.
– Al
Just when I think Americans have reached the highest level of vanity possible, they surprise me be raising the vanity notch even higher.
It has got to be lead and mercury and the PCBs in the air and water, there is no other credible explanation for it.