US Space Activities - Notes in the Margin...

On October 5, 2017, US Vice President Michael Pence kicked off the first meeting of the newly re-formed National Space Council. Commercial, Civil, and National Security Space constituents and professionals were all represented. The meeting was preceded by an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, authored by Mr. Pence. Here - and mostly for stimulating discussion among my engineering and policy students - I offer some "notes in the margin" related to the Vice President's recent op-ed. The writing of the Vice President is in italics, my 'margin notes' follow.

"Sixty years ago this week, the Soviet Union launched the world’s first satellite into orbit, changing the course of history. The race for space was on, and the Soviets had taken an early lead. But the sight of Sputnik blinking across the October sky spurred Americans to action. Twelve years later, with “one giant leap for mankind,” the U.S. claimed its rightful place as the undisputed leader in the exploration of the heavens."

This is obviously a familiar version of the boiler-plate narrative of US Spaceflight history. While popular, and generally accurate, it also ignores many important factors: Eisenhower's knowledge of our relative strengths compared to the USSR; His miscalculation of the public's outcry once Sputnik was launched; Kennedy's equivocation on the Moon as a US-only project as early as 1962-1963; the crucial role of Lyndon Johnson; and much more. History doesn't make for nearly the neat and tidy introduction Mr. Pence has provided, of course, nor does the limited space of an op-ed provide sufficient space for a nuanced and full discussion. But absent all of this, it is worth asking: "What does one mean when one asserts a 'rightful place' when it comes to leadership?"

Leadership is not fore-ordained, or bequeathed from above. There is no cosmic pre-ordination of the US (vis-a-vis China, Russia, Japan, India, Europe, or others) in space leadership. The Universe simply doesn't have a view on space leadership. Leadership is a choice - followed by action. The choice must be articulated and the action(s) must be successful, in order to achieve the desired goals and objectives, thereby earning - not claiming - leadership. A more balanced approach should perhaps focus the discussion on how/whether the US has made good choices over time relative to space leadership, or how the impacts of these choices have changed in time, instead of stating something close to that "the natural order of the Universe requires the US to lead." I believe the US should lead in space, and by most measures we still are the leader in space - more on that below. But US leadership must be chosen, purposeful, and sustained - emotionally, politically, and financially.

That pre-eminence in outer space is now under threat—and once again, America must act. President Trump has revived the National Space Council to assist him in developing and implementing long-range strategic goals for our nation’s space policy. On Thursday the council will hold its first meeting in nearly 25 years, and as its chairman, I will deliver a simple message: America will lead in space again.

Whenever one is pre-eminent, the position of pre-eminence is always under threat. This is axiomatic in spaceflight, business, or Major League Baseball. Everyone likes to 'knock off the champ.' And, indeed, to preserve and promote one's own leadership, one has to act. Being inert is not a successful strategy. Furthermore, calls to action, or 'any action' does not secure pre-eminence. One must take the *right* actions.

More than ever, American prosperity and security depend on U.S. leadership in space. Yet national space policy often has lacked a coherent, cohesive vision. The results not only are disappointing; they endanger the well-being of the American people.

The dependence of security and prosperity on space is one of the greatest blessings and most successful outcomes of the space age. Our work in space since the 1950's has gone a long way to fulfill the ideals set forth in the preamble of the US Constitution - providing for our common defense, promoting our general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and those who follow. These benefits are furthermore not unique to America. The planet depends on space - for location, observation, transportation, logistics, economics, clean air, clean water, disaster forecasting and recovery, and much more. Space today is perhaps more of an essential utility - like sewers, electric, and water - than the exclusive club of national pride from the 1960's.

The U.S. pays Russia more than $76 million a seat to carry American astronauts to the International Space Station, since we have no vehicle capable of performing this task.

This outcome - as disadvantageous as it is for the US at this time - is itself the result of many purposeful decisions, across multiple Administrations, and the result of a range of combined factors, including:

1. The need/desire to work collaboratively with Russia and its spaceflight industrial base following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The International Space Station, use of the RD-180 on the Atlas-V, and other factors are also part of this earlier purposeful strategy. The goal at the time was to work with Russia, and to mitigate the likelihood that their skilled spaceflight industry would instead engage in work adversarial our counterproductive to US interests. Today's geopolitical environment on the ground has made our collaboration in space more challenging. But notably, this collaboration continues in a healthy and fulsome way at ~450 km altitude, despite significant disagreements at the surface of the Earth.
2. Cancelling the Shuttle Program, and later the Constellation Program, without having a capability to fill rapidly the US Human Spaceflight gap between them. Constellation was designed initially to follow Shuttle, originally without a gap, and then later with the intent to minimize the gap. The procurement of reliable transportation to LEO on a commercial basis has always been an end-state desired outcome, and is the reason for significant investments started by NASA during the second Bush Administration. However, the continued development and use of a Government launch capability was also pursued, intended both as a stop-gap in the event that Commercial launch was delayed (it has been), and to fulfill US Government spaceflight objectives not as well-aligned with the commercial sector procurement mechanism.
3. Slower-than-desired progress in the readiness of commercial replacement systems to transport astronauts to low-Earth orbit.

The intelligence community reports that Russia and China are pursuing a full range of antisatellite technology designed to threaten our military’s effectiveness. These are only two examples of America’s abdication of leadership in space.

Adversaries recognize that space is one of the United States' essential strengths. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that these adversaries would seek to counter the advantages in any way possible. And with respect to the earlier point, the choice to engage the Russians/Soviets was purposeful. The cancellation of the Shuttle Program was purposeful. The cancellation of Constellation was purposeful. And while schedule challenges are not purposeful, the choice to move to commercial transport of cargo and astronauts to low-Earth orbit was also purposeful. Instead of 'abdication of leadership,' one might alternatively argue that these were informed, pro-active choices - but the totality of their 'add-on' consequences, especially over a longer timeframe, have generated some significant undesired results. However, these decisions are not prima-facia evidence of 'walking away' from leadership in space.

Furthermore, to assert the US has 'abdicated leadership in space' ignores the fact that we spend nearly $20B annually, in civil space alone, and brushes aside the superlative outcomes we have achieved within the US Civil Space Program. We have visited all of the planets. We are exploring Mars. We have had Americans in orbit, continuously, 24/7/365, for over 16 years. We have discovered thousands of planets around distant stars. We have detected Gravitational Radiation, and US Scientists were just awarded the Nobel Prize for this discovery. We are sending cargo to space on the basis of commercial procurement, and the rockets used for this not only take off, they also land(!). SpaceX will launch perhaps as many as 20 times in a single year, with almost as many successful rocket landings to their credit. Blue Origin has flown and landed the New Shepard vehicle to space on multiple occasions, with larger rockets on the drawing board and in development. A new runway-landing spacecraft for cargo and crew - Sierra Nevada's DreamChaser - is in development. And on the National Security side, a different one (X-37) is operating. James Webb Space Telescope is nearly ready for launch. Cassini recently concluded a decades-long tour of Saturn. Juno is exploring Jupiter and Curiosity rolls across the surface of Mars.

One has to reconcile all of this with an assertion that we have abdicated our leadership in space. It is true that we have not returned to the Moon, nor taken people out of low-Earth Orbit, since December 1972. This is also most unfortunate, perhaps bordering on outrageous. However - this decision was made as early as 1969, when Americans were first walking on the Moon, and is therefore at least therefore the equal consequence of decisions made during the Nixon Administration, not just decisions in recent Presidential administrations. The current state of US leadership in space may not be what we would like, and there are always challenges and opportunities associated with the state of our space activities. But in light of all the evidence, it is hard to fully embrace a notion that the US has 'walked away from' or 'abdicated' our leadership in space.

The president has charged the National Space Council with restoring that leadership. The council’s objectives are clear. We will refocus America’s space program toward human exploration and discovery. That means launching American astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit for the first time since 1972. It means establishing a renewed American presence on the moon, a vital strategic goal. And from the foundation of the moon, America will be the first nation to bring mankind to Mars.

The Space Council is, perhaps more accurately, charged with assessing where we are, where we are going, and what to do about it, in order to 'move the needle' on outcomes in a direction believed to be more advantageous to the US. This is likely a good decision, provided that it is well-implemented and sustained. Indeed guidance, strategy, and planning are all things that should be done routinely, on a continual basis, to help the US form the best foreign and domestic policy possible, across all space-related domains. The re-focus of space towards human exploration and (presumably human) discovery is therefore also a choice.

We will renew America’s commitment to creating the space technology needed to protect national security. Our adversaries are aggressively developing jamming and hacking capabilities that could cripple critical military surveillance, navigation systems and communication networks. In the face of this threat, America must be as dominant in the heavens as it is on Earth.

Agreed. Space is essential to both defense and welfare. No question.

We will promote regulatory, technological, and educational reforms to expand opportunities for American citizens and ensure that the U.S. is at the forefront of economic development in outer space. In the years to come, American industry must be the first to maintain a constant commercial human presence in low-Earth orbit, to expand the sphere of the economy beyond this blue marble.

Promotion of regulatory, technological, and educational reforms is not revolutionary. It is - when the reforms are actually improvements - essential to good government. And, as is implied here, the Executive Branch cannot legislate, it can only promote (or enforce). Consequently, success depends on the ability of the Executive and Legislative Branches to work together, in a largely common direction.

The ability to do this remains to be seen, and many have justifiable doubts about the ability or desire of these two branches of government to cooperate in good government. A further important note is that there is no discussion of budgetary reforms, which arguably must happen first, for any of the other activities to follow. "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers." Hence the presence of Mr. Mulvaney, director of the US Office of Management and Budget, might have been the most important one in the room.

If American industry is to be the first to maintain a constant commercial human presence in LEO, this is something the government can support, but not dictate or 'make happen.' Simply switching procurement of transportation to LEO from a government-contracted to a commercially-contracted mode does not fulfill this goal, nor does government-subsidy to develop commercial spaceflight capability ensure the emergence of a vibrant commercial market.

To achieve these goals, the National Space Council will look beyond the halls of government for insight and expertise. In the coming weeks, President Trump and I will assemble a Users’ Advisory Group partly composed of leaders from America’s burgeoning commercial space industry. Business is leading the way on space technology, and we intend to draw from the bottomless well of innovation to solve the challenges ahead.

It's appropriate for Government to get the best people it can. The User's Advisory Group should be comprised of exceptional expertise, not just 'interest,' 'excitement,' or like-mindedness.

Above all, the National Space Council will enable our nation to bring American values to this infinite frontier.

This is not a throw-away line. And, at the end of the day, may be the ultimate point of the whole discussion. The values we have in America, or at least the values we proclaim - individual liberty, tolerance, inclusiveness, democracy, freedom of expression - are not universally shared. Our adversaries - and many of our friends - have different values systems, and in most cases hold their values as fervently as we hold our own. Consider these differences in two major space-faring nations: In the US, "We hold these truths to be self-evident - that all men are created equal" and they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In China, Article 1 of the People's Republic of China constitution reads: "The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. Sabotage of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited." My point here is not to compare one against the other, although I have a strong opinion. Instead, I want you ask yourself: With which set of values shall humans venture beyond Earth and into the Solar System? And how will these be reconciled in the context of global space and international collaboration? Who shall decide? And How shall we decide?

It will renew the American spirit itself, as we lift our heads and reach our hands toward the heavens, in pursuit of peace and hope for all mankind. As the National Space Council meets Thursday, our nation can know with confidence: Under President Trump, America will lead in space again.

We can all agree that the realization of peace and hope for all mankind are among our most important goals. And space is perhaps one of the best ways to pursue these goals. We all share the same water, breathe the same air, look up at the same night-sky, and inhabit the same planet. America is already great in space. And at the same time, our space efforts very much need continual investment, enrichment, dedication, strategic purpose, alignment, and recognition. Will the reactivation of the US Space Council make a difference? Only time will tell.