Political Commentary, Space

Nooooooo!

31 Comments

Defending the planet is too important a job to give to NASA:

Owing to a 2008 law passed by Congress, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has until 15 October to decide which agency will be responsible for protecting the planet from an asteroid strike. Members of the task force say NASA expects to be given part or all of that responsibility. To meet it, the panel discussed the creation of a Planetary Protection Coordination Office (PPCO) within NASA, with an annual budget of $250 million–$300 million. It would detect and track asteroids — and develop a capability to deflect them.

It’s not just an issue of competence — it comes down to the appropriate role of the agency, particularly in light of the Space Act. We really need to set up a Space Guard to take care of things like this. In fact, this could be an opportunity to do so, and then expand its charter to do a lot of other things that NASA isn’t doing well, such as space rescue and infrastructure maintenance.

[Update a while later]

Via Justin Kugler in comments, here’s a link to a paper written about ten years ago discussing the Space Guard concept. This is going to be elaborated upon in the coming months, because I’ve read a currently unpublished piece that will be released soon, and I think that there will be an article in The New Atlantis about it this winter.

31 thoughts on “Nooooooo!”

  1. Personally I always saw planetary defense as a mission for the U.S. Air Force which has both the focus and organizational culture to be successful at it.

  2. I bet the “Space Guard” concept (and Thomas’ idea of letting the Air Force handle the matter) were shot down at least in part to avoid the appearance of “weaponizing” space.

    At least someone has a budget for asteroid defense. That’s an improvement. I hope it’s not entirely wasted.

  4. Does the Coast Guard give the appearance of “weaponizing” the sea?

    There is an Outer Space Treaty, you know. However, I don’t think the treaty limits the deployment of conventional weapons in space, only nukes. The Honorable Dennis Kucinich (“America’s First Martian Presidential Candidate”) has been pushing a Space Preservation Treaty which would extend the ban to cover all weapons.

  5. bbbeard Says:,

    [[[However, I don’t think the treaty limits the deployment of conventional weapons in space, only nukes.]]]

    It doesn’t and the Soviets had an aircraft cannon they tested on Salyut 3 as defense against attack.

    http://www.astronautix.com/details/sal31678.htm

    [[[On 24 January 1975 trials of the on-board 23 mm Nudelmann aircraft cannon (other sources say it was a Nudelmann NR-30 30 mm gun) were conducted.]]]

  6. Rand,

    [[[Does the Coast Guard give the appearance of “weaponizing” the sea?]]]

    No more then the other branches of the military.

    http://www.uscg.mil/history/uscghist/CombatVictoriesWWII.asp

    [[[The U. S. Coast Guard, long one of the nation’s armed forces, has seen combat in virtually every conflict fought by the United States since 1790.]]]

    But the reason I suggest the U.S. Air Force is not only because of the culture and capability match, but also a willingness to undertake the mission. All they need is the green light, and that would only take an executive order so there is no need for some long philosophical debate on it.

  7. There is an Outer Space Treaty, you know.

    Yes, I do know. It has no relevance to the topic of whether or not we should have a Space Guard.

    But the reason I suggest the U.S. Air Force is not only because of the culture and capability match, but also a willingness to undertake the mission.

    That’s not the Air Force I know. And it’s not an appropriate task for them. It’s not a military task. If we were being attacked by Marvin the Martian, it might be an Air Force job, but then it would really be a Space Force job.

    But the Space Guard could have the same relationship to the Air Force (and eventually the Space Force) that the Coast Guard does to the Navy. There’s actually an interesting document on this subject due to be released soon, based in part on a paper a few years ago by AF Colonel Cynthia McKinley.

  8. It is a defense issue even without marvin the martian. The advantage of a space guard is that, like all government programs, its budget would grow over time and this is an area that needs a larger budget (which will be obvious after a big rock hits us.)

  10. There’s no way the voters will stand for the creation of yet another free-standing Federal department, and you’d have a hell of a time wrestling all the USAF space-oriented assets and responsibilities ino it. This is not the time for that. So I’m with Thomas; create it as a separate branch of the USAF, much as the Coast Guard gets transferred to the Department of the Navy in wartime, and then think about splitting it off as events dictate and allow, the way the USAF itself was split off from the Army after the Big One. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    One additional side-benefit might be that if it’s constituted as a branch of the USAF, there might be some useful reluctance in Congress to give it substantial domestic law-enforcement authority, and I’m reluctant to see such an agency suddenly acquire jurisdiction over everyone trying to get off the planet.

    As for weaponizing space: I’m all for it, and screw any idiotic treaties signed by fools of the past. I’ve never heard yet of a society that prospered without bad-tempered suspicious men holding nasty weapons at the border.

  11. There’s a long history of weaponizing the sea.

    I suspect there’s a lefty contingent that looks at space and with a quasi-religious fanaticism says: “Finally, a frontier that humanity can enter without ever polluting with militarism. We can change the course of human history by keeping space peaceful.”

  12. It is a defense issue even without marvin the martian.

    No, it’s prevention of a natural disaster. If any existing military entity would be responsible, it would be the Army Corps of Engineers (shudder…).

    Thanks for the link to the paper, Justin.

    Carl, it wouldn’t be a free-standing federal department. It would report to the Department of Transportation or Commerce (or perhaps DHS, as the Coast Guard is currently, though I’d like to abolish that department), and absorb a lot of the current things that both NASA and the Air Force are doing (many of them badly). For instance, I’d take down the wall between KSC and Patrick, and give the whole thing to it.

  13. Rand,

    [[[That’s not the Air Force I know. And it’s not an appropriate task for them. It’s not a military task. If we were being attacked by Marvin the Martian, it might be an Air Force job, but then it would really be a Space Force job.]]]

    You must know a different Air Force then I have worked with. Also, if that is the case then why is the U.S. Army in charge of defending against natural disasters like floods or Hurricanes? An USAF Corps of Engineers could preform the same function of planetary defense and infrastructure the Army Corps of Engineers does now. And again you won’t need a Congressional debate to do so.

  14. Thomas, Colonel McKinley’s paper explains why the Air Force isn’t well suited to this role, and it needs to be hived off (just as the Air Force was split out from the Army Air Corps after the war).

  16. There’s a long history of weaponizing the sea.

    Not by the Coast Guard, except during war time.

    Not exactly. I watched a program about Coast Guard snipers a couple months ago (some info available here). They ride in helicopters and shoot to disable the engines on drug smugglers’ boats. Sometimes, they shoot the smugglers if they fire on the helicopter. Many of the Coast Guard boats are also armed for the same reason.

    I’ve worked as a defense contractor supporting Air Force Space Command for many years and before that, I was in the Air Force working on space systems. I don’t believe the Air Force is the best fit for this particular mission and neither do many of the people I’ve discussed the matter with at AFSPC.

    The overwhelming majority of the effort of protecting us from asteroids and other impactors is early detection. That means establishing and running a deep space surveillance network. The military Space Surveillance Network (SSN) is primarily focused on LEO with some ability to track deep space satellites but other than some GEODSS sensors, the SSN isn’t equipped for real deep space work. This job could likely be better and more cost effectively conducted using a consortium of university and independent astronomy departments.

    As for mitigation efforts should an impactor be identified, there are a range of options depending on how much warning you have. Nukes are likely to be of limited utility and likely a last ditch effort. Those must always be under the control of the military and directed by the civilian leadership. Other options should be studied and even tested in space to see if they work, then put on the shelf so they’re ready when needed.

  19. Rand,

    [[[it needs to be hived off (just as the Air Force was split out from the Army Air Corps after the war).]]]

    But it took a World War and the A-Bomb to do that. That is why just setting it up first under the USAF is much more practical.

  22. I tend to agree with Matula here about the preparedness of the USAF to take on this role. Certainly, USAF is better suited than NASA for the role, and either is somewhat more preferable than a new space version of the Office of Homeland Security, whether that be called Office of Space Guard or something else.

    However, there is a significance in the title between USAF and Space Guard. The despot third world leaders that operate the UN will take issue to a military organization of the USA putting weapons in space for any reason. Selling the idea internationally may require establishment of an entity that wouldn’t be utilized in times of war. The despot leaders will still complain, but their socialist enablers will be more supportive.

    Alas, it is nearly impossible to avoid expansion of government in this endeavor. There is no private reason to develop such capability regardless of what Sci-Fi writers may suggest.

  23. Once we’ve settled the table of organization issues, and acknowledging that Starfleet is a tad premature, name-wise, can we at least call it the High Guard?

  24. Unless you are talking about intercepting very small rocks, or preparing a capability to intercept comets detected soon before impact (rather than asteroids detected many orbits ahead of time), global impact defense will likely consist of (1) building and operating a handful of telescopes, (2) not finding anything that will hit soon, (3) breathing a sigh of relief and spending the money elsewhere.

  25. I’ve never heard yet of a society that prospered without bad-tempered suspicious men holding nasty weapons at the border.

    Great line; but Carl, our motto is come here illegally and give yourself and your dead relatives the vote. Vote early and often in as many states as you can. Don’t forget to use absentee ballots. We keep a bunch in the trunk of the car for use in close election after the first count.

    There’s no way the voters will stand for… Is that a bug or a feature?

    No, it’s prevention of a natural disaster.

    True today, but not perhaps always. It could be the perfect stealth attack.

    The national guard is often called in, in the aftermath of natural disasters. Well, any of our military might depending on the situation. An aircraft carrier is a great source of fresh water.

    building and operating a handful of telescopes

    Clearly insufficient, but that may have been your point?

    Selling the idea internationally may require establishment of an entity that wouldn’t be utilized in times of war.

    Great point even though it could turn out to have a great impact on future wars. What would we think if China suddenly announced a space guard to protect humanity? (leaving aside the question of if they had any such capability.)

  26. Well, our current President isn’t likely to do anything in this endeavor. I’m sure he’ll just presume we can absorb the hit.

  27. Paul D.,

    [[[Unless you are talking about intercepting very small rocks, or preparing a capability to intercept comets detected soon before impact (rather than asteroids detected many orbits ahead of time), global impact defense will likely consist of (1) building and operating a handful of telescopes, (2) not finding anything that will hit soon, (3) breathing a sigh of relief and spending the money elsewhere.]]]

    Good point, and another argument in favor of the USAF since they already have a core of tracking stations for satellites and space debris that could be built on and expanded versus another agency that would have to do so from nothing.

  28. Good point, and another argument in favor of the USAF since they already have a core of tracking stations for satellites and space debris that could be built on and expanded versus another agency that would have to do so from nothing.

    No, they don’t other than a handful of GEODSS optical sensors scattered around the world. The SSN only has a few radars that are capable of tracking objects out at geosynch. They aren’t at all suitable for sky surveys to detect possible impactors. Optical sensors have their limitations (nights with few or no clouds) but they’re much better suited for sky surveys.

  29. Larry J,

    [[[No, they don’t other than a handful of GEODSS optical sensors scattered around the world. ]]]

    Yes, and the USAF has already put the one at WSMR to use for NASA in NEO hunting with very good results. The sites they are located (WMSR, Korea, Diego Garcia) already has the infrastructure to support better quality instruments and the organizational structure to use them.

    http://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/space/linear/

    LINEAR Observations, Detections, and New Discoveries
    Totals as of December 31, 2007

    Observations to MPC 22,349,515
    Asteroid Detections 5,370,805
    Asteroid Discoveries 225,957
    NEO Discoveries 2019
    Comet Discoveries 236

  30. The Korean GEODSS site was closed a long time ago. It was so cloudy there that the site was essentially useless. The third site is in Maui along with a collection of other powerful optical sensors. The Air Force also has several other optical space surveillance sensors but they’re more for R&D than operations. If they ever get it launched, they’ll also have the Space Based Space Surveillance (SBSS) Block 10 orbiting optical sensor.

    What the Air Forces really doesn’t have is the desire for the asteroid mission. I’m a contractor who supports Air Force Space Command. I talk to these people all of the time.

  31. The first Pan STARRS telescope (in Hawaii) went operational this year. This and other wide area, high data rate survey scopes will be able to detect NEOs at a tremendous rate. The rate’s been increasingly steadily over the past few years anyway.

Comments are closed.