Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for Pentagon
August 14, 2008 at 5:31 pm · Filed under Pentagon
A Congressionally-mandated commission studying US national security space policy is recommending significant changes to how military and intelligence space efforts are run, AviationWeek.com reported today. The Allard Commission, named after retiring Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), who pushed for the commission, is calling for a major reorganization that would result in the abolition of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the Air Force’s Space and Missiles Systems Center (SMC), and perhaps other organizations. In its place would be a new entity, the National Security Space Authority (NSSA) that would handle both open and classified programs. The commission also called for re-creating the National Security Space Office (NSSO), currently a relatively small organization with limited influence, into one that would take over managing programs currently handed by NRO, SMC, and the Air Force Research Lab’s Space Vehicles directorate.
The full report has not been published yet, but will be soon, according to the AviationWeek.com article. What’s uncertain is whether the Bush Administration, in its final months in office, will take any steps to try and implement the plan. What role Congress will play is also unknown. Certainly anything that takes away power (and money and jobs) from some of these organizations, particularly SMC in Los Angeles, will be opposed by the likes of Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), a key member of Congress on defense and intelligence issues who also has SMC in her district.
January 3, 2008 at 1:17 pm · Filed under Other, Pentagon
Today’s Wall Street Journal has a commentary by Richard D. Fisher, Jr., a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, discussing claims of Chinese work on a military space plane of some kind and its implications for US national security and space policy. (Those without a WSJ.com subscription can read Fisher’s essay on his center’s web site.) Fisher strings together evidence from Chinese military publications, blogs, and other sources that suggests China is developing something called the Shenlong, or “Divine Dragon”, spaceplane. (More of this evidence is discussed in a previous essay by Fisher, which includes some photos that suggest the Shenlong right now appears to be roughly equivalent in size and capability to the X-34 or X-37.)
To Fisher, Shenlong is an ominous development, giving China the ability to strike quickly and without any defense: “A larger unmanned space plane based on the Shenlong could easily be designed to carry out precision ground-attack missions at speeds and at altitudes that would avoid interception.” He adds: “Today the U.S. has no capability to deter China’s potential use of military space planes.”
It’s difficult to gauge how accurate these claims are—Chinese military planning is hardly transparent, as Fisher notes—but assume for the time being that these claims are accurate, and China is indeed developing a spaceplane of some kind for military applications, including weapons delivery. How, then, should the US respond? “At a minimum, Washington should delay the planned 2010 retirement of the Space Shuttle until a new space plane can replace it, as a way to retain a deterring potential military capability,” he argues. In his earlier essay, he added, “It may instead now be necessary to consider retaining one or two Shuttles and to develop defensive and offensive payloads for them, until a less expensive and perhaps smaller unmanned or manned space plane can be developed.”
That’s a difficult recommendation to take seriously. The shuttle is expensive, hardly responsive, and all but disowned by the military for nearly two decades. How the shuttle could “deter” any Chinese military spaceplane isn’t at all obvious. If the Pentagon was truly concerned about the threat posed by such a Chinese capability, a better approach might be to put more money into the Falcon program, both for the small launch vehicle and hypersonic cruise vehicle that could have “prompt global reach” (or, sometimes, “prompt global strike”) capabilities. However, Fisher doesn’t mention Falcon in his essays, and only makes a passing reference to the X-37.
October 2, 2007 at 7:19 am · Filed under Pentagon
One of the more troubled military space programs, the Space Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) system, appeared to get back on track earlier this after problems got so severe the number of satellites the Air Force planned to procure was cut and the military started studies of alternative approaches. Well, so much for that process. Space News reported online late yesterday [subscription required] that SBIRS is facing a delay of up to one year and additional costs of up to $1 billion because of problems with a similar satellite. The details are a bit vague: the article cites a memo from Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne to John Young, acting undersecretary of defense for acquisition, logistics and technology, issued last week announcing the impending delay and cost increase. “The problem is a safe hold that did not work on a current satellite, causing mission termination; and the design similarity to the [geosynchronous] satellites, which caused a no fly condition,” Wynne said in the memo, not identifying the satellite that failed. That satellite has a similar design to the SBIRS geosynchronous satellites, according to the report, requiring an as-yet undefined effort to correct the problem; a plan is expected to be completed late this month by prime contractor Lockheed Martin.
Expect some more scrutiny in the months to come of SBIRS; the Alternative Infrared Satellite System (AIRSS), a potential replacement concept whose future had appeared uncertain once SBIRS appeared to be on track; and milspace procurement in general.
April 26, 2007 at 7:11 am · Filed under Pentagon
It seems a little cottage industry is forming in the area of reviews of US military space programs. The Defense Department is planning an outside review of its military space programs, the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported today. The panel, the article notes, will be the third such review in five years. This panel, though, will have a broader scope than previous ones, including a review of overall space policy and the relationship between the defense and intelligence communities. The review is supposed to be complete by the end of the year although the Pentagon is still deciding who should serve on the panel.
March 29, 2007 at 12:48 pm · Filed under Congress, Pentagon
Tucked away in the Missile Defense Agency’s 2008 budget request is a small amount of money dedicated to beginning study of space-based missile defense component. Air Force Lt. General Henry “Trey” Obering III, director of the MDA, included this passage in his opening statement before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee earlier this week:
Finally, I am deeply concerned about future threat uncertainty and worldwide ballistic missile proliferation. I believe the performance of the BMD system could be greatly enhanced by an integrated, space-based layer. Space systems could provide on-demand, near global access to ballistic missile threats, minimizing the limitations imposed by geography, absence of strategic warning, and the politics of international basing rights. A space layer would apply pressure on launches from land or sea, depriving the adversary of free rides into midcourse with advanced countermeasures. While deployment of such a system must be preceded by significant, national-level debate, that debate must be informed by science. To that end, we are ready to begin a focused investigation of the feasibility of having an integrated space-based layer, and I am requesting $10 million for FY 2008 to begin concept analysis and preparation for small-scale experiments. These experiments will provide real data to answer a number of technical questions and help the leadership make a more informed decision about adding this capability.
This got major play in an article by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti yesterday, but little else, primarily because it’s a small part of a much larger program, with more concern about the status of near-term terrestrial elements. (And because the Russians have been beating the drum pretty hard recently about US proposals to place regional missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.) Space-based missile defense has been a sensitive issue for years, out of concern by some that the same system that could be used to knock down enemy missiles could also be used to disable or destroy satellites, hence the statement by Gen. Obering that any space-based system “must be preceded by significant, national-level debate.”
February 28, 2007 at 6:43 am · Filed under Congress, NASA, Pentagon
If you like Congressional hearings (and who doesn’t?), then today’s your day. The most obvious space-related hearing is the one by the Senate Commerce Committee’s space subcommittee on the NASA budget. NASA administrator Mike Griffin is the sole witness scheduled to testify; it will be his first opportunity to discuss the FY08 budget request, and perhaps the effects of the final FY07 budget on NASA, before Congress.
(The same subcommittee also has a couple hearings of interest scheduled for next month: one on Earth sciences research on March 7 and one on “Transitioning to a Next Generation Human Space Flight System” on March 28.)
There are, though, a couple of other hearings today with tangential space policy relevance. This morning the House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the Air Force FY08 budget, with the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff scheduled to testify; there may be questions about military space programs and/or the effects of the China ASAT test.
Wednesday afternoon the new Antitrust Task Force of the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled “Competition and the Future of Digital Music”. What does that have to do with space? One of the witnesses will be Sirius Satellite Radio CEO Mel Karmazin, who will be asked about his company’s plans to merge with rival XM Satellite Radio; the hearing was announced in the wake of last week’s merger news. Some see the XM-Sirius merger effort as a pathfinder for a much bigger space business deal: a second attempt at a merger between satellite TV companies EchoStar and DirecTV. If the XM-Sirius merger founders on antitrust worries (there is also a separate, and perhaps bigger, FCC regulatory hurdle that merger has to overcome), then it seems unlikely a DirecTV-EchoStar deal would pass muster. If XM-Sirius does go through, though, don’t be surprised to see a DirecTV-EchoStar merger deal, with better odds of passage than their effort several years ago. That would have ripple effects on the industry, including satellite manufacturers and launch service providers as well as their component suppliers, further down the road.
February 27, 2007 at 6:15 am · Filed under Pentagon
An article in Monday’s issue of Aerospace Daily caught my eye with this lede: “The Defense Department’s fiscal 2008 budget request includes just more than $1 billion in programs that could support the development of anti-satellite and space-based weapons capabilities, according to a new analysis from the Center for Defense Information (CDI).” The report references a CDI press release from late last week and accompanying budget analysis to support that conclusion. CDI uses this analysis to conclude that “In the absence of a clear national strategy to secure the future use of space, the development and testing of such technologies and the deployment of dual-use capabilities without rules of the road for their operations will threaten other nations and drive U.S. policy toward space weaponization.”
A review of their budget analysis shows that CDI has a very expansive definition of “anti-satellite and space-based weapons capabilities”. They include some technology demonstration programs, like XSS and NFIRE, which could enable future space weapons (although that’s not necessarily their only application). CDI also throws in systems with any application to potential space-based missile defense. The analysis, though, also includes programs like Operationally Responsive Space, which, one can argue, could support the development and launch of ASATs and such, although ORS has seen a lot of interest recently as a way to respond to ASAT systems by providing a means to quickly deploy gapfillers and temporary replacements in the event on-orbit assets are attacked. CDI also counts relatively benign systems, such as a ground-based jammer and a surveillance systems, which are not considered space weapons, at least in the conventional sense. At least they didn’t include EELV funding: after all, a lot of these proposed space-based missile defense and other weapons systems may be too big to launch on small boosters, and a space-based weapon does no good on the ground…
February 12, 2007 at 7:12 am · Filed under Pentagon
Lost in the discussion last week about NASA’s FY08 budget proposal (which itself was quickly overshadowed by more sordid matters) was the space portion of the Defense Department’s FY08 budget proposal. The budget includes $11 billion for Air Force space programs in 2008, up from $9.5 billion in 2007, as Aerospace Daily and Space News [subscription required] reported last week. The budget includes more money for Transformation Satellite Communications (TSat) program compared to 2007, although less than what the Air Force had previously planned, given new plans to slip the launch of the first TSat spacecraft from 2014 to 2016. There’s also more money for SBIRS, Alternate Infrared Satellite System, EELV, and GPS 3, but less for the Wideband Global (née Gapfiller) Satellite system, as it moves towards its first launch this year.
One of the smaller, but highly visible, gains in the budget is for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS), penciled in for $87 million in 2008 compared to $35 million in 2007. One reason for the increase, according to Space News, is because the Air Force plans to order as many as ten launches for future small satellite payloads. Given that there was some concern as recently as this fall about the future of ORS, this is a big win for responsive space proponents.
The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] highlighted one policy issue of note in the budget proposal: greater cooperation between the Air Force and NRO on radar imaging programs, while the Air Force slows down its ambitious (read: expensive) Space Radar effort.
