Bush Reveals New Space Policy 510
Josh Fink writes "Space.com is reporting that President Bush has unveiled his new space policy. From the article: 'U.S. assets must be unhindered in carrying out their space duties,' the Bush space policy says, stressing that 'freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.'... As a civil space guideline, the policy calls upon NASA to 'execute a sustained and affordable human and robotic program of space exploration and develop, acquire, and use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe.' While this policy does seem to push for more civil involvement in space for exploration and research, the article does go on to say, 'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."' So it will push into the intelligence community, and will supercede a similar policy from 1996. You can read the entire policy."
I do find it quite amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that like one tenth of what we blow on a war
Mod this to oblivion, regardless of what positive action he takes, I still don't like him.
Is this possible? (Score:2, Interesting)
For example can the US claim the Moon or Mars (in future) just because they landed their countrymen on the body, and planted some flags?
Are there any legal guidelines for this?
Re:I do find it quite amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
You might be surprised, but a lot of space advocates would agree with this. The ISS, for all it's design and hardware, is a useless space station that can only be serviced properly by the Space Shuttle. Had compromises not been made earlier, the station would be worth holding on to. But as it is right now, the station sits in an orbit that's incredibly hard to reach, cannot be used as a lunar launching point, and isn't even all that spectacular for scientific endeavours.
A much more useful future would be to take that $200M per mission, and spend it on lots and lots of inexpensive, inflatible space stations [bigelowaerospace.com]. These stations could provide all the facilities of the ISS, but at a lower cost of launch and operation. If a particular station outlives its usefulness, a new one could be launched rather than trying to maintain aging hardware.
The ability to spread our resources across multiple stations would also mean that we could put Space Stations where-ever they're useful. Need one to support moon missions? Done. Need a different orbit to support Mars missions? Done. Need a temporary construction yard for a spaceship? Done.
Those options simply don't exist with the current station. So believe it or not, there may be some method to Bush's seeming madness about space.
jesus. (Score:3, Interesting)
We would get rid of all these useless interesting topics about technology and we could all just bitch with reckless abandon about our favorite politician.
I mean FUCKING HELL. If any other president had said this most of you asshats would be having fucking orgasam on the spot.
Re:Is this possible? (Score:1, Interesting)
Unless significant changes have occurred in recent years, the status of outer space is roughly equivalent to what the High Seas have been for a long time: "res communis," or community property. This means, effectively, that space should be open to anyone who can get there. It also means that any crimes committed there in the future probably could not be prosecuted unless the prosecuting country had some connection, to the victim for instance. Google for the "1967 UN treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space." That should give you all the information you want
Effectively: Space is "the province of all mankind" and "not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty." I don't think this treaty will hold forever, as eventually (I hope!) mankind will go to other planets and stars en masse, but for now this is the general rule of thumb. Note that it seems to go against President Bush's comments.
Oh brother (Score:2, Interesting)
Chinese Laser US Satellites - now this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:jesus. (Score:5, Interesting)
FTFS: develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries.
He was doing pretty well up to that point, assuming that you ignore the fact that he's spent all of our money performing escalatio on the Iraqi insurgency.
What I read was "I want to jumpstart the manned space program, even though we don't have any money to do so, because it's such a feelgood topic to bring up right before the election. Also, I'd like to make sure we spend a good bit of money on space weaponry, because we just might have to saddle up to dispense some justice should someone we don't like start muscling in on this whole 'outer space' thing we've got going."
Its disingenuous to propose a large increase in manned space (high $$$, high popularity, low science) when the budget deficit is so large. It also runs counter to most of the non-military goals of space exploration to talk about engaging in warfare in orbit. Those of us who have memories longer than a year or two remember his goal to get to Mars, but have yet to see the $2T line item in the budget for such an undertaking. Hey George, Show Me The Money.
Space can be made inaccessible (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I could say all of those things, but the fact remains that we have dropped 120,000+ soliders and $300+ billion into a foreign country to interdict nuclear weapons that did not and do no exist, and stop an alliance with Al-Qaeda that also did not exist. Also, this is the same administration that advocates for the creation and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. So at this point, there is very little room left for 'overreaction'. Things really are that insane in the White House, and will probably only get worse once the Republicans lose control of Congress in November.
Re:Scientific knowledge? (Score:2, Interesting)
Arms race in space (Score:3, Interesting)
Previously there have been some trial balloons by the Airforce (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,13 45460,00.html [guardian.co.uk] and http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /higher_ground_040222.html [space.com]) who really wanted to add "space warfare" to their portfolio, and now it's been enshrined in national policy.
Ensuring US superiority in space ... that's what the new policy boils down to.
I just wonder what the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians the Brazilians, the Japanese, and the Europeans are going to think of it. Will they agree to US space superiority or might they perhaps start space weaponisation programs of their own?
And what about the cost? Could it be that in the long run it will cost the US less to secure its national interests by aiming for parity and a reasonable deterrent instead of starting yet another arms race in search of superiority? I wonder.
I'll say one thing for the current administration ... if there is even a remote chance of turning a conflict on interest into a real conflict they can be relied on to identify it and steer that way.
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, there are a couple of hundred countries in the world...what have they contributed to a peaceful solution?
Where is the massive influx of European or Canadian aid? Did they even try?
Why is it the role of the US to clean this up (or prevent it) in the first place? As we are continually told, the world doesn't want us to be some self-appointed policeman..but now they want us to confront the bad guy with a big gun.
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:2, Interesting)
100% Flamebait
I react to some Bush worshipper who says nothing but
"Can you say wild overreaction? Can you say schizophrenia? Can you say lift the tin foil full face helmet so you can breathe?"
by pointing out their denial, and that's "Flamebait". TrollMod denial is nuclear powered.
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fallacious reasoning. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you decided on your own to ignore the speed limits for a time, and by any luck if you escape the ticket, does it make speeding laws unlawful ?
This is a non sequitur. The correct analogy would be that there were no speeding laws and that you or a predecessor had agreed to limit your vehicle's speed or perhaps to create internal laws in order to comply with the terms of the speed limit treaty. Later you decide not to comply with the speed limit treaty. What laws are broken? Perhaps your internal law, it might be illegal in your country to break a treaty once made. But there's no external law to break.
On the other hands, nations can (and did) ally at UN level to enforce a rule against a non-UN member nation ; that's pretty much as making laws as can be.
It was a one time rule. Using your analogy, it's like there's no constraint on speeding, but I did something so wild and dangerous (say, drunk driving a rocket powered car into the side of a house) that a bunch of my fellow drivers got together and made me pay for the damage. But there's no formal restriction on anyone else doing the same thing. They might get away with it or not depending on who's willing to deal with them. Further, no one's really keen on making such rules because after all, they might have a good reason for drunk driving a rocket car.Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually it did work really well when the Clinton administration did it. North Korea didn't resume their nuclear program until 2002 - when GWB was well in the white housse. Read more here [talkingpointsmemo.com].