The Blog Expected To Fade To Black Soon

I expect to transition all the archives over to the WordPress version of Songs of Space and Nuclear War in the next week or so.  That site is up and is working better than I anticipated.

Once I get that done, this site will fade to black.

Enjoy it there!

Beta Songs of Space & Nuclear War

WordPress offers lots of advantages...like spell check.

While Google Blogger has been good, expect full migration to the site in the link in the next month or so.

Unless something goes wrong!

Seasons Don't Fear The Reaper; Russian Doesn't Fear A Nuclear Iran

Well after hitting the missile defense reset button, it looks like Russia may be, er, reevaluating their position regarding Iranian sanctions.

Surprised?

Russia will do whatever it thinks it needs to do to improve its position in the region, and if possible, the world.  Glory days, brother, like when the Spetsnaz, was ten feet tall, bulletproof, and invisible. 

Unrest is good for fuel prices, and chaos is great.  And Russia sells fuel.  It seems to be a congenital weakness that Russia is unable to look beyond the present.

That's My Story And I'm Sticking To It

Root cause analysis of the rolled transporter-erector at Minot: a bug flew in the cab, distracted the driver, and caused said driver to lose control.

Peace, Nuke Is Thy True Name

David Von Drehle wastes little time in getting to the money line: "As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we'll be all right."

The persuasive arguement is that industrial-age warfighting has wrought industrial-sized death and destruction on mankind.  But we haven't had many world wars lately?  What keeps many of today's conflicts from tipping into massive chaos?

Brace yourself: nuclear weapons.

So far, nuclear weapons have been possessed by rationale nation-state actors and held with sufficient survivability and in sufficient numbers (to prevent the benefits traditionally reaped from suprise).  As such, history correlates decreased death and destruction with the advent of nuclear weapons.

It seems many are more enamored by the idea of a nuclear free world than they are by the observations of history before their existence.

Of course the effects of deterrence are limited.  "Leaders" like Stalin and Mao were still going create death and destruction of an industrial scale, but they did it with their own peoples.

Funding Issues for Son of SBIRS and MUOS

A third-generation infrared satellite system is already in the works in the USAF FY2010 budget request.

While the Senate appropriators have fully funded the effort, the House version cut the program request by about 30 percent.

An infrared demonstration payload will be launched on a commercial satellite next year, a prudent effort to show initiative in preempting some of the software and hardware challenges that have tormented SBIRS.

The Navy's MUOS satellite system, with its recently revealed one year slip, is fully funded in the Senate's appropriations version and will only have to reconcile less than $5M with the House version. However, about $150M of MUOS funding will be put on withhold until the Navy addresses how they will address a rapidly emerging narrowband shortfall.

Options include using ORS and the Tacsat-4 satellite. Probably more likely solutions include placing a military comm payload on a commercial satellite.

NASA Administrator Says U.S. Risks Losing Leadership Role in Space

There is no revelation here.

The issue rather is what to do about the problem. Issue identification we have skills at; problem resolution and implementation, not so much.

This thrash has been going on since 1998, plus or minus about two years.

The Coming Boom In Commercial Space-Based Radar

Radar is of course useful in seeing through clouds.

Restrictions have been loosened from 3-meter resolution to 1-meter.

Iran's Plan To Launch A Sea Of Satellites

OK, Iran wants to launch a sea of satellites with the next one planned to fly around the end of March 2010.

Stated purpose: aid natural disaster management programs and improve telecommunications.

Real purpose: development of an Iranian ICBM program?

Iran talks about flying satellites from 50 to 150 km. That's about 30 to 90 miles, which is low. I bet they will fly a bit above that.

Check out this youtube of last year's launch.

Intelligence Authorization Bill Held Up by Spy Satellite Issue

It is somewhat befuddling how an NRO buy of satellites that are less expensive and less sophisticated can be reasonably called "untested and therefore riskier."

If you want to say it’s riskier because our security needs mandate we have a mix of satellites including some that provide exquisite capabilities which the Senate bill (and the less expensive satellites cannot provide) does not allow for, I can see that, but I don't think that's the assertion being made.

GeoEye? DigitalGlobe? Radarsat (just kidding...a little).

Gates Hints at More Secret Nuke Sites in Iran

As a former spy-guy, you would expect the SecDef to say something to the effect "I can neither confirm nor deny the U.S. knowledge of any additional clandestine Iranian nuclear program sites." Of course, that would have to be converted into diplo-speak, otherwise it has the sound of a droning Cold War automaton.


But he didn't say that.

Certainly our national technical means are pretty good (actually, you’d probably say they were exquisite), but they get much better when we have Iranian insiders who can confirm our thinking or tell us where (and why) we've gone off course.

One issue from the link that makes no sense is that the SecDef is bluffing and there are no other covert Iranian sites. That would just cause Iranian leadership to look at each other and say (in Farsi, and with glee) "He doesn't know."

The AFA's New Name for UAVs

Note: you will have to go down to the bottom of the AFA web page to see the article linked to in the title.

The mishap report following the 22 Feb crash of an MQ-1B Predator was just released, and electrical failure was the cause.

However, the Air Force Association, instead of calling the Predator an "unmanned aerial vehicle" or "unmanned aircraft system" like the ACC fact sheet calls it, instead appears to prefer the term RPV for "remotely piloted vehicle."

What's in a name?

The Befuddling Cluelessness of Bruce Ackerman

The integrity of General Stanley McChrystal has been attacked. According to the writer, Bruce Ackerman, McChrystal has grievously violated the concept of civilian control by 1) having his Afghanistan assessment leaked and 2) making a speech in which all salient points were already known and much discussed. What’s really going on in Ackerman's article?

Let’s start by looking at what the oath of office actually says.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

So how was the oath violated? Clearly, it wasn’t.

A better question would be who leaked the report and why? Ackerman has apparently used his powers of ESPN (that’s a joke, not a typo) to accomplish a mind-meld investigation of McChrystal and determined he’s the leaker. I don’t know how big McChrystal’s staff is, but I’m guessing it’s pretty big, so there are plenty of potential leakers to run to ground. Likewise, there are those outside his staff who would have had access to the same. So why does Ackerman blame McChrystal?

Does Ackerman want McChrystal to provide his best military advice or to be a voice actuated switch? Voice actuated switch seems to be preferred.

Finally, McChrystal didn’t pick himself for this job. According to previously published reporting, the SecDef and CJCS thought McChrystal was the right man to lead this challenging endeavor.  Chances are excellent that General McChrystal didn’t get to be a four-star by ignoring the oath of office, classification guidelines, common sense, civilian control and yes, politics.

Clown Arrives at Space Station

Finally a mission for the ISS?

The clown "reportedly paid $35 million to become the world's seventh space tourist. "

Ash Carter Nails It

Regarding the defense industry, AT&L's Ash Carter provides a totally on-target money quote (emphasis added):

“At the end of the day we are totally dependent on that defense industry. The government doesn’t make our weapons, private industry makes our weapons.”

The goal of acquisition is for the government to get what it needs, when it needs it, and to pay a fair price for the product. Simultaneously, the government should want industry to make a fair profit.

If industry isn't making a fair profit, they will tend to do other things, which will reduce competition, product selection, and ideas. It all seems pretty straightforward, doesn’t it?

Carter is paraphrased as saying he like as much competition as possible. I bet his real intent is to have as much competition as is useful. There is a point of diminishing, and even negative, returns.

SBIRS Slip Slaps Space

Groan.  Confirmation.

See if you can use the acronyms "SBIRS" and "GAO" with the words "trouble-plagued," "chronic," and "problem" in one sentence.  Bonus points if you can weave in "optimistic" and "award fee."

Would anyone in the defense industry be willing to take on a SBIRS-like effort under a firm fixed price contract?

Things Lining Up Nicely For An Israeli Attack On Iran

The link builds a case for Israel striking Iran's nuclear program.

That case is predicated on the diplomatic, economic, and informational elements of world power failing to dissuade Iran to give up their nuclear program. If no improvement in Iran occurs, could there be an Israeli strike by the spring of 2010?

Given that many folks think Iran has crafted a plethora of secret and dispersed site, the challenge of eradicating the program would be great.

Gore Vidal: ‘We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US’

A really weird article--I had to post it; the headline caught my eye. The guy has a line of hair care products, right?

Using my worst wine and food clichés, I will attempt to capture essence of the man’s thinking as such:

Impoverished, with a half-ordered set of inarticulate opinions, he moves well beyond merely hinting at a manic, yet truly disordered, ethos. Combines the chewy gracelessness of a much-microwaved or even carelessly caramelized cerebellum with a full-menu of stunningly disfocused intellectual assertions that thickly coat the reader's mind with vacuous rants and superlative putridness.

Read the article to capture the full, bold bouquet of a set of furiously freaky ruminations.

Iran: We put nuclear site there in case of attack

The headline brings to mind lyrics from Joe Walsh's Life's Been Good:

"I lock the doors in case I'm attacked."

What's next, Iran?  Another Joe Walsh paraphrase "I wear a lab coat sometimes until four, We just enrich 'cause we can't find the door"?

Could Iran Be Developing A...Nuclear Warhead?

You don't have to be too profound to put this in order:

1. Iran has a clandestine nuclear program.
2. Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapon program. 

Don't they inherently tend to go together?

I'll be posting my resume at analyst.gov any moment now.

Russian Help Is On The Way!

Russia has responded to Iran’s short-range rocket tests by acknowledging that they are “causing concern.”

Likewise, Russia will boldly lead the way on the rogue Iranian nuclear program by encouraging Iran to cooperate with the IAEA.

More beneficial approaches are discussed at Wired here and here.

Also, what are the implications/parallels of the revelation of Iran’s secret nuclear facility with regard to their missile programs? Is it possible we don’t know what we don’t know?

Massive NRO Growth?

DoD Buzz reports on some of the fall-out of the DNI-directed Obering panel as it affects the NRO. Besides the options of 1) maintaining the status quo and 2) rewriting the NRO charter to give it all USAF and intel community space, there is a third option.

The third option will be for the NRO to operate all U.S. military and intel space and ISR assets. If the story is true, this third option would be organizationally revolutionary. Basically, we’d be talking about a Space Corps or something approaching a U.S. Space Force.

Iran welcomes U.S. missile defense reversal

I tend to think Iranian leadership is lying anytime their lips are moving, often to a cartoonish effect like former neighbor Baghdad Bob. But here I am indeed confident they are truly pleased to see the European missile defense effort in Poland and the Czech Republic is being shuttered.

Of course, the reasons behind this happiness are a little more muddled.

Iran welcomes the actions for the same reasons the Russians did: it improves their power within their region of influence.

Really, having observed Iran for thirty years, wouldn’t we think Iran would love it if the U.S. used precious defense dollars chasing our tails in pursuing technologies and strategies that will never work?

So, while there is little doubt Iranian leadership is overjoyed with the missile defense decision, the words behind the announcement are just another part of their strategic communication/disinformation program.

China's Self-Described Quantum Leap In Military Power

China’s Defense Minister has offered some interesting observations, especially in light of Secretary Gates' speech to the Air Force Association earlier this month.

Secretary Gates said we should be most concerned about China's ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options.

This could be done by cyber and ASAT investments, anti-air and anti-ship weapons, and ballistic missiles.

Basically, China is doing or has already done much of this. It’s a gigantic anti-access strategy to keep us from getting in close enough to fight effectively.

U.S. Nuclear Arsenal to Be Slashed?

The Guardian reports a draft Nuclear Posture Review (being performed by the Department of Defense) has been rejected by President Obama for its ‘timidity.’ According to “European officials,” (they're ubiquitous, aren't they?) the rejection regards three reasons:

1. The President wants to measure the U.S. nuclear arsenal in “hundreds rather that thousands of deployed strategic warheads.”

2. The President wants to narrow the range of conditions under which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons.

3. The President wants to explore ways of ensuring the reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or making new weapons.

Why Russia Won't Give On Iran

Russia has worked hard to present themselves as America’s indispensible partner in the attempt to reign in the Iranian nuclear program. While it seems Russia can influence Iran, a better question is will they choose to do so?

Russia is clearly nostalgic for a return to the days when everyone recognized their superpower bona fides. While that time has long past, Russia continues to bluster/take actions which are an attempt to hold it in as superior a position as possible.

These actions include Russia posturing itself as the decider regarding meaningful sanctions (and enforcement) against Iran, as well as toying with Israel. That is, if Russian air defenses are sold to Iran, an Israeli air attack against Iran’s nuclear sites might be much more difficult.

Accordingly, expect Russia to string the U.S., Iran, and Israel along as long as they possibly can.  And when Russia can't or won't go any further, expect China to assume the role.

Europe’s Shelved Missile Defense: Realpolitik, Hedging, Wisdom, or Bad Call?

What is the fundamental importance of a missile defense system? It keeps the fight “over there.” That is, a viable missile defense system keeps an adversary’s missiles from killing its intended victims.

As missiles have proliferated, missile defense has become more important, especially when a rogue (nation or otherwise) has or is going to get nuclear weapons. As such, motherly analogies from the domestic front come to mind: “A stitch in time saves nine,” or even “Kids, if you’re going to fight, do it outside.”

Congress Faces NASA's Shaky Future

A great (and nearly blow-by-blow) description of the Augustine Commission at the House Committee on Science and Technology.

BTW, Wired reveals that Rep. Giffords is married to an astronaut.

Hey, if you have a vision, all it takes is time and money.

Strategy? Strategy?! We Don't Need No Stinkin' Strategy

Author Gaetano Marano says the Augustine Commission only provided options that were already well known and that what's missing is a clear strategy for the future of U.S. manned spaceflight.

What can I say?  When the man's right, he's right.

Lawmakers Criticize Obama Space Panel

The Augustine Commission, the group of government and industry space-experienced folks who have been studying America’s manned space flight plans and found them lacking, have come under Congressional criticism.

The commission feels NASA can’t get to the moon by 2020 with their shuttle replacement rocket, and that other plans need to be pursued. NASA is out of airspeed, altitude, ideas, and is short on cash. The Commission says they need another $3 billion per year to fulfill their charter. However, there are few-to-no shovel-ready ideas immediately available.

Representative Gabrielle Giffords said the options the commission provided were cartoon-like.

Panel chair Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed-Martin shot back with the line of the day to Giffords, saying “I respect your feelings; I must question your facts.”

NASA Appears To Needs More Public Affairs Officers

Using the bully pulpit of the Space Shuttle, astronaut Jose Hernandez says world leaders need to work together, and that the U.S. immigration system needs to be reformed so illegal immigrants can work openly in America and retire in a "traditional U.S. system."

AP author Julie Watson goes on to note (I think without irony) "the American dream for Mexicans and their families is fading."

What Is SBIRS Point Of No Return?

It’s been said that human beings are the only creatures capable of deceiving themselves.

If you agree with that, you may also agree to the human tendency to keep throwing good money after bad product, that is, it’s tough to know just when to cut your losses and walk away. The Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program comes to mind as the poster-child for space acquisition. SBIRS is almost eight years behind schedule and $8 billion over original budget.

Mystery Explained: Glow in Night Sky Was Astronaut Urine

Just one of those things that space-faring nations do.

West of Denver at 96,000 Feet

While this photo is from a 2006 NOAA balloon test, is it possible that near-space can be cheaper, better, and faster than actual-space?

China Goes Heavy

China has broken ground on its newest space launch center. Its lowish latitude gives it significant weight-to-orbit advantages over existing launch sites.

The Hainan Space Satellite Launch Center will be used for launches of the Chinese Long March 5, the new super-heavy launch vehicle capable of putting satellites into geosynchronous orbit, lunar missions, space probes, and heavy satellites.

Having a heavy-lift capability is a space game-changer for the Chinese.

The Army Builds a B-52

Sorry that the link is fee-for-service...but here's my take.

Defense Daily reports Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli is advocating for "platforms that are versatile in complex environments, leverage the power of the network and give crews confidence by surviving that first strike."

Chiarelli goes on to say "Technology is changing too fast to allow new starts to take 10 to 15 years to get into the hands of the soldiers. We must build a platform that can be adapted over time to accommodate future technological innovation."

Sounds like the Army's ground-based version of the B-52 to me. According to Wiki, the Buff first flew in '52.

Dude, Where's My Government Job?

Oh you said I'd be working near the DMZ? I thought you said near the DMV...

You Dropped A Bomb On Me

China shows off a new road-mobile missile-in-a-can.

A few things come to mind:

• Plan your trip carefully. No sharp turns, fellas


• When out of garrison, at all costs, avoid sliding off the road into the culvert. It could take hours for that wrecker to show up from base.


• We used to call the Soviets "Ivan." What should we call you?

Mobile systems certainly complicate targeting schemes and add survivability.

Photoshop Benefits Britney Spears and Outer Space

As most pictures from outer space are taken in wavelengths that are not visible to the human eye, lots of re-work and coloring has to be undertaken to make them 1) visible, and 2) pretty and presentable.

Without these changes, space photos would be analogous to those scary photos of celebrities without their makeup...or worse.

NASA: The Matrix

A interesting snapshot of the manned spaceflight options.

Wait, Maybe We Do Need Exquisite Satellites

How much value does strategic space provide? That is impossible to say, but just for exquisite electro-optical, we're willing to apparently pay at least $20 billion. How long does it take? Up to TWENTY (that is not a typo) years.

So for some applications, it would appear exquisite may actually be the minimum standard.

The link reports the Next Generation Electro-Optical system was not competitively bid and that it will indeed have exquisite capabilities. Since GeoEye can already produce 16 inch resolution commercially, I'm thinking exquisite will be...better.

Joe Rouge Addresses Air War College

Mr. Joe Rouge, Director of the National Security Space Office (NSSO) addressed the Air War College students yesterday and had a separate event with the faculty. Fantastic!

Iran Urges Disposal Of All Nuclear Arms

The subtitle, Plan Ignores Tehran's Enrichment Efforts, says a lot.

Channelling John Lennon, Iran has made a proposal to the P-5 plus-one, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany to eliminate the world's nuclear weapons.

The credibility of Iranian leadership reminds me of the Inspector General teams that frequent Air Force bases. They would immediately hit you with two lies as soon as they were off the plane: 1) "We're glad to see you," and 2) "We're here to help."

The good news is the Iranian plan does not criticize the United States. The bad news is the Iranian plan ignores facts on the ground and does nothing to address the myriad problems associated with Iran's nuclear program and their ongoing defiance of three UN Security council resolutions.

Apparently having misplaced his personal reset button in an interview associated with the release of the Iranian proposal, Samareh Hashemi (described as a longtime confident of Iranian president Ahmadinejad) called on the U.S. to apologize to Iran, attacked the American two-party system, and denounced liberal democracy.

Because Iran is such a closed society and due to their ongoing deception efforts, we tend to worst-case their intentions. Anything less would be imprudent.

UPDATE: read the proposal for yourself. The front-end is pretty freaky.

Clues about mystery payload emerge soon after launch

Enough speculation is bound to hit on the truth.

Let's see. Firm-fixed price launch (saves time and money without government oversight) that the NRO would never agree to.

That leaves a couple of payload sponsors and the last word in their organizational name is "agency."

New NSSC Web Page

Baby steps.

Working on a google based NSSC web site. Wish us luck.

Baby steps.

Worshipping at the Altar of Nuclear Perfection

Strive for excellence, not perfection. Perfection is God’s domain.
- Unknown

The Air Force’s top priority is to restore its nuclear enterprise. This priority has been in place for about a year and accomplishing the task has been an exceedingly challenging endeavor. Just as you don’t become physically fit or highly educated overnight, it is similarly difficult to restore a bureaucratic, flaccid, and far flung nuclear enterprise to a pristine condition in a year or two when it has been in a state of institutional decline approaching two decades.

Part of the restoration included creating an Air Force major command to oversee its nuclear forces. This was realized with the recent activation of Global Strike Command and its dedicated focus on the USAF strategic nuclear deterrence mission. However, the activation has made some nostalgic for a modern-day return of the Strategic Air Command, that not-forgotten Air Force within the Air Force. With its bomber and ICBM fleets, SAC provided the preponderance of the nation’s nuclear deterrence for 40-plus years until its deactivation in 1992.

SAC was notorious for its mission focus. While normal operations included the day-to-day activities of pulling alerts, training, and testing, there were also major but less frequent activities such as implementing revisions to the nuclear war plan and changing the cryptographic codes. However, for many former SAC warriors, the preeminent memory of the command is probably the many months spent in the “inspection prep” mode, readying oneself or one’s organization for a never-ending cycle of inspections and evaluations. First in precedence was the SAC Inspector General, followed by SAC’s command evaluators, with the numbered air force evaluators bringing up the rear. Headquarters Air Force inspectors, you ask? No one ever gave them a second thought.

Inspections and evaluations were SAC’s way of proving to itself that the mission was being performed correctly. Within SAC’s mission focus, two particular areas were emphasized. The first was readiness and the second was compliance. Compliance, in its extreme form, becomes focused on perfection, which for some epitomized SAC’s basic character. However, as with anything, an inordinate preoccupation on perfection can create some unintended consequences which are worthy of exploration.

The first and most dangerous unintended consequence is that any culture which requires exceedingly high achievement as its minimum standard is capable of endangering personal and institutional integrity. Top-level sporting activities provide any number of excellent examples, with many coaches and athletes in professional football, baseball, cycling, and Olympic sports doing whatever it takes to win. While the analogy is incomplete in that you didn’t “win” an inspection, test, or evaluation in SAC, you certainly could lose one. Unqualified or unsatisfactory ratings were able to create dire career consequences that were capable of motivating some to avoid failure “by any means necessary.” However, the SAC IG, to its great credit would almost never write errors for program-type discrepancies--even some whoppers--that had been previously self-identified and documented by the unit. SAC wanted integrity to be preserved and felt that could be done with a robust self-examination program that encouraged organizations to first search out and find problems and then, to take action to solve the issues.

Next, a preoccupation with perfection can lead to an overemphasis on rework. Regarding inspections, and while it’s unlikely SAC intended things to work out this way, the goal for many units was not to achieve true-perfection, but rather, to achieve inspection-perfection. For example, regarding nuclear-associated paperwork and documentation, it was never good enough to merely do something right the first time and file it away until it was inspected; rather, the documentation had to be checked again and again and again. With the seldom-ending litany of inspections, re-checking already done work came to be viewed as a sort of insurance that had to be purchased. While it could sometimes help avoid poor inspection results, fixing things after the fact (but before they were inspected) could in no way ensure excellence. Getting it right to begin with was desirable; having it right for the inspection was mandatory. As Bill Creech would tell us, inspecting for quality at the end of a process is generally much more difficult, costly, and time-consuming than building it in throughout the process.

Finally, an overemphasis on perfection can lead to a reduction in initiative. When much of the focus is on rework and checking (and checking the checkers), it can have the unintended detrimental effect of reducing initiative for other important but less urgent work. Even if there were ways to do things cheaper, faster, and better within the nuclear community, the culture was one of extreme compliance and was not one of improvement. While a checklist mentality can be useful, compliance itself is not sufficient for true excellence. In SAC, there was little time or energy left for institutional processes to improve existing nuclear practices.

This discussion on perfection has relevance given the tone of the Air Force’s February 2009 Communications Background Sheet on the Nuclear Enterprise. The background sheet states “Regardless of the size of the nuclear enterprise we are entrusted with, the standard -- perfection -- remains the same.” Later in the same document, this theme is rephrased as “Perfection isn’t the goal, it is the standard. That’s the demand of the business.” So, is actual perfection a viable standard or is it really a metaphor for excellence and compliance? Certainly that’s an area that can be given some literary clean-up as it seems there should be standards other than 1) perfection and 2) failure. Second, if a unit’s nuclear program actually is perfect, that only means they’ve met the minimum standard. There is lots of stick and very little carrot here, which hearkens back to an old SAC-era phrase “Reward is the absence of punishment.”

For some time, Air Force leaders have been running away from the nuclear mission. This was no doubt due to a variety of factors. First, with the end of the Cold War, the large cuts in the nation’s nuclear weapons inventory signaled the national-level significance of the nuclear mission had diminished. The Air Force’s corresponding de-emphasis--and its consequences--should have been an easily expected and better managed corollary. Second, with the merger of the space operations and missile operations career fields, space and not ICBMs, has become the long-term place to be. Similarly, for bomber crews, conventional and not nuclear missions were preeminent for some time. Third, with more cuts looming in the pending end-of-2009 Nuclear Posture Review and with nuclear modernization serving as a political football, the challenges associated with the long-term viability of the nuclear career fields will be bigger than ever. If the Air Force wants to have enduring and exquisite competencies in the nuclear arena, two elements, promotions and pay, hold the keys and other areas, such as follow-on assignments and education programs will compliment the first two. In the meantime, a reasonable and prudent Airman might see some benefit to moving as far away from a mission area that demands perfection as a minimum standard.

U.S. Space Leadership: Reverting to the Mean?

The phrase ‘reverting to the mean’ is often used in the financial industry to address the nearly-inevitable likelihood that a fund or stock’s spectacular success over the long term (think ponzi-scheme king Bernie Madoff) is simply unsustainable. Reverting to the mean is viewed with such certainty it is sometimes linked two other high-probability events, death and taxes. But just what causes something to revert to the mean? Often it’s because of changed conditions like market competition, consumer preferences, or government intervention (which itself is capable of pulling a company’s returns back to earth or conversely, back from Chapter 11). Gaming is another great example of reverting to the mean: think about how many people had to lose money so that guy shilling for the gambling house on the radio could say “I won a hunnert fifty-six thousand dollars and you can be a winner too.”

For some time, U.S. space programs have been reverting towards the mean. Ok, while there really isn’t a real mean for space programs, the general idea is relative to the U.S., others are catching up, and relative to these others, the United States is not nearly as dominant as it has been. This seems to be especially true regarding the United States as a space launching nation. Need proof? Let’s see--China now has a serious commercial space program and a robust manned space flight effort as well. When they get their heavy lift Long March 5 on line in 2014, they’ll be capable of launching a wide variety of very heavy payloads including up to 55000 pounds to a low earth orbit, as well as to geosynchronous orbit and beyond. Russia? They possess the know-how behind the amazing RD-180 engines and some exceedingly mature space launch systems. Besides the space shuttle, the Russian Soyuz and Proton systems provide rides to the International Space Station. Arianespace? That French-led endeavor, along with its nine other European partners, are probably pretty happy with the Ariane 5’s 32 consecutive successful launches. How about some other space launching nations that few seldom think of like India, Japan, and Iran? So far, indigenous South and North Korean space programs have only been suborbital…so far.

Reverting to the mean for U.S. human space flight isn’t too bothersome--unless you’re NASA--as the value of manned space flight is basically a spectacular stunt, kind of like a grizzly bear dunking a basketball. First you say “Wow!” Then you say “Weird.” Next, it’s “Are you going to eat the rest of that hot dog?” Finally you say “Why is that bear dunking a basketball anyway?” From a military perspective however, a loss of U.S. space launch leadership is more problematic: space launch is that necessary first enabler for all other operations in the space domain, such as the traditional unmanned space missions of providing ISR, communications, weather, and GPS that not only enable the U.S. military but are also thoroughly intertwined with our economy.

Just as the United States has a national security requirement to be capable of performing military missions in the air, on the ground, and on and under the sea, we similarly have a need to be able to get to space and to operate our space systems. If we lose the ability to get to space, we put our capacity to operate in the space domain at serious risk. Because of the decision made to get military payloads off the space shuttle following the 1986 Challenger disaster and because we were then in the Cold War, a number of already developed space launch systems came quickly into great prominence.

The Atlas and Titan programs provided ICBM-based space launch vehicles and the Delta program, which started life as the Thor IRBM did the same. However, these recycled rockets, especially Titan in its heavy-lift configuration, were not particularly responsive nor were they cheap. As their fly-out approached, this afforded the military space community an opportunity to envision cheaper, better, and faster ways of getting to space, which became the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program. But the assumptions associated with the EELV program--that an “explosion” of commercial space activities would provide the military the ability to reduce its own launch costs by sharing expenses with other space launch users--has never come close to fulfillment. The lack of a robust U.S. commercial space launch industry for the size payloads the military and intelligence communities commonly flies has in fact resulted in massive EELV cost overruns and even more consolidation within the U.S. space launch service industry.

Now, the high cost of getting to space (as well as the high cost of satellites and associated space systems) is dragging U.S. space programs back towards the mean. With the DoD space systems, this is the culmination of excessive rework, of a requirements process that has trends towards exquisite solutions, the planned use of not-ready technologies, funding instability, and too often, a lack of government and contractor proficiency. Other nations seem to lack many of the cost-busting challenges the U.S. suffers from including their reduced labor rates and less entangled bureaucracies.

Is there anything that can save us from reverting to the mean? In the long term--50 years or more--maybe not. However, if things are to improve in the next five years, it is almost certain to be caused by market-based competition from U.S. launch systems like SpaceX’s Falcon 9 or Orbital Sciences’ Taurus 2 launch vehicles, or OSC’s Peacekeeper ICBM-derived Minotaur 4 and 5 launch vehicles. These systems, using old-school rocketry like Falcon 9’s RP-1 (kerosene that’s been space-rated) and liquid oxygen burning engines and using similar proven concepts like recycling existing ICBM components a la the legacy Delta, Atlas, and Titan programs have an excellent chance to get our national space launch efforts back on a more affordable footing. While improvements in U.S. launch programs alone won’t preserve our space leadership, they are an essential and compelling starting point to do just that.

First clown in space to advocate for water

While Steve Miller may be known as the space cowboy, the gangster of love, and Maurice, only Guy Laliberte is the space clown.

I have been abducted by aliens, says Japan's first lady

I wouldn't fool you but I've seen the saucers.

World War II? Nothing to do with Stalin, says Russia's President

Perhaps you thought Ramses was the king of denial?

The sort of Russian "thinking" outlined in this article should be a serious caveat emptor for the administration as they work with the Russians on arms control and missile defense issues. If this is the sort of stuff they're selling, I'm hoping we're not buying.

2039's Largest Piece of Space Debris

While Deep Purple sang of Space Truckin', Japan has something else in mind, which in comparison makes Space Truckin' sound like science-fact.

Mitsubishi and IHI plan a $21 billion project to build a solar-power generator in space in the next three decades. The station will microwave electrical power to earth and tests are to start as soon as 2015.

The station will have about 1.5 square miles worth of on-orbit solar panels and will generate one gigawatt, enough to run almost 300,000 average homes in Tokyo. As another reference to help you get your head around that number, you may remember Doc Brown needed 1.21 gigawatts to run the flux capacitor in Back to the Future.

One consultant says the program's costs need to be reduced to one percent of the current estimates for viability.

Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb

Oh the apoplectic comments we'll hear if a pro-nuke Newsweek think-piece should appear.

CJCS’s Searing Critique

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has an article in the most recent Joint Force Quarterly regarding strategic communication called Strategic Communication: Getting Back to Basics. The New York Times called it a “searing critique” while another headline praised Mullen for (finally) elevating the strategic communication debate above the third grade level.

Not to be confused with social media like blogs, Facebook, and Twitter, strategic communication is significantly different. It even warrants a spot in the Joint Dictionary, where strategic communication is defined as “Focused United States Government efforts to understand and engage key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of United States Government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power.”

In short order, Admiral Mullen’s article first says ‘we’re awful’ (my paraphrase) and then advises us to get back to basics, where “we can start by not beating ourselves up.” He then proceeds to beat everyone up. While the article is only about 1300-words, in it Mullen invokes the word “we” around 25 times. In context, he appears to apply “we” to the U.S. military in about 20 of those usages and to the American people in general about three times. However, the tone of “we” as it seems to apply to the military is one of failure. Here are many of the descriptions: we have walked away; we have allowed; we need to; we haven’t invested; we haven’t always delivered; we know better; we could learn; we must know; we hurt ourselves; we must be vigilant; we don’t fully--and don’t always attempt to--understand; we must listen; we should use; we need to worry; we (need to) learn to be more humble, and; we need more…credibility.

Admiral Mullen says our messages lack credibility because we lack credibility and he says the reason we lack credibility is because 1) we haven’t built trust or relationships and 2) because we haven’t always delivered on promises. As the article is written by Admiral Mullen in his role as the U.S. armed forces senior ranking member, and because it appears in JFQ (as well as on the JCS web site) for a largely military audience, it certainly seems the “we” is focused on the military, which after all, owns strategic communication and would be the target for these shortcomings.

Admiral Mullen’s article reflects the universal truth that actions speak louder than words. However, since the article itself is a critique on strategic communication, it warrants being unpacked a little more. For example, there are several photos in the article and in them, what do we see? We see the Admiral addressing the media and we see him interviewing with CNN. However, in the text, he offers the advice “We hurt ourselves and the message we try to send when it appears we are doing something merely for the credit,” the quote appears right above a photo of Mullen (see top of post) handing out notebooks at an Afghan girls’ school. Is it me?

What was missing from the article was the ‘Here is what we’re going to do about it’ part. Other than the vague requirement to ‘build trust and relationships and deliver on promises,’ I didn’t see much about what to do, let alone how to do it. In fact, in that sense, the article was very reminiscent of one he penned a year ago for JFQ called It’s Time for a New Deterrence Model. In that article, again clocking in at 1300-words (I think I see a pattern), the phrase “we must” appeared ten times and the Admiral presented a world-class to-do list. Included in its “we must” listings were: revitalize; hold ourselves accountable; recruit; manage; act proportionally; address our conventional force structure; enhance our capability to rapidly locate and destroy targets; conduct sufficient contingency planning; improve conventional global strike capability; stay engaged globally. All these "we musts" tend to imply "we aren't."

Knowing we’re in a swamp is one thing. Remembering what we came to the swamp to do is another. Providing the illuminating vision to do that job is another still.

Happy Birthday Kellogg-Brand Pact!

On this day in 1928, the Kellogg-Brand Pact was signed. The pact initially included France and Germany (and 13 others including the U.S.). It was signed in Paris and was ratified by the U.S. Senate 85 to 1.

The pact's signatories agreed that all future conflicts would be settled using peaceful means and likewise renounced war as an instrument of policy.

A little less than twelve years later, German troops occupied Paris.

Mail-in the QDR?

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is a legislatively mandated review of DoD strategy and priorities. Some in Congress feel the QDR has been used to avoid DoD transparency and accountability and that an honest review of fundamental national security issues will not be addressed in the QDR, but rather, that the QDR will rather be used to rationalize budgetary and resource allocation decisions which have already been made.

The President's lead for defense is Secretary Robert Gates and he has been quite clear where he thinks the DoD needs to go. So, is the QDR supposed to be a reflection of his vision, or is it supposed to be the independent thoughts of a group of disparate national-security thinkers?

As for me, I think it is the former and not the later. Secretary Gates has presented a consistent path to first win the war we're in and to concurrently prepare for an uncertain future. The fact he was asked to stay on as SecDef almost certainly means he has the total confidence of the President and has been provided an exceedingly long-leash in taking action to shape both current and future activities as they affect the defense community.

For the Air Force, these judgments and decisions have included capping the F-22 program at 187 airframes, procuring more UAV capability, cancelling TSAT, and revitalizing the nuclear enterprise. There is little subtly here--it is all quite plain and clearly announced in speeches and writings.

When we were in the Cold War, we used Cold War strategy, policies, and resourcing decisions. We are now in an era of irregular warfare. While the consequences of war with a near-peer are potentially far more dangerous than IW, the likelihood of that occurrence is less and is a risk the Secretary has assumed. The DoD strategies and priorities he has established will in effect be the QDR and rule the day until other challenges take their places.

Is this QDR being mailed-in? Perhaps, but does it matter?

Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz Visits Air War College

Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, the Director of the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law from the University of Mississippi, School of Law came in to brief the Air War College Space Elective today. Fantastic!

South Korean Space Failure

The link reports half the two-piece payload fairing did not separate from the second stage as it should have. The extra weight turned the effort into another sea-sat (maybe a land sat). The fairing issue sounds analogous to the Orbiting Carbon Observatory failure, which rode on an OSC provided Taurus XL.

South Korea Launches Satellite

UPDATE: The first report from the field is always wrong. Spaceflight Now (via the Korea Aerospace Research Institute) reports the orbital parameters were supposed to be perigee at 186 miles and apogee at 932 miles. CNN relayed perigee may have been missed by almost 35 miles. There may be some data mangling regarding miles and kilometers.

ORIGINAL FOLLOWS:

South Korea's Space Launch Vehicle-1, AKA Naro-1 (what, even rockets have street names?) has launched. The two-stage booster was jointly built with the Russians (at a reported cost of $400million) and the satellite was domestically produced in South Korean.

It was announced the launch failed to put its satellite into its desired orbit. The Times report says the satellite was an extra 36 kilometers farther from the earth than it should have been.

Since the announced mission of the satellite was to observe the atmosphere and ocean, and those sorts of missions are often polar orbits, it would seem likely the satellite may not be optimally positioned, but a plus 20-mile miss distance should be able to provide plenty of functionality.

However, if it is supposed to be a low-flier, and maybe even a spy satellite, this sort of miss distance may well prevent mission objectives being fulfilled.

Bring Your Questions for Buzz Aldrin

Certainly an interesting man who has lived an interesting life. He's an Air Force guy, so you gotta dig him.

Commanding Officer of Navy Nuclear Weapons Facility Fired

The dreaded but ambiguous "loss of confidence." For more, check the Global Security Newswire.

Start-Ups Are Poised For Latest Space Race

Andy Pasztor of the WSJ reports the administration is "leaning towards outsourcing major components of its space program." This would mean some competition (or even cancellation!) for the planned NASA-sponsored Ares programs which (in six to eight years) will be used to resupply the International Space Station with materials and astronauts. To paraphrase Emil Faber, "Competition is good."


The Air Force would like the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle to get man-rated. That would allow them to have some of the cost-burden of that program, which was supposed to provide cost savings of at least 25 percent on USAF launches (cue Bob Euker sound-bite: "Just a bit outside") to other users. Likewise, commercial providers like Orbital Sciences, and SpaceX will be in the mix, too. However, don't expect the Ares programs to go down without a fight.


Also, while the President "has confirmed his commitment to human space exploration," the next part of the challenge will be to understand exactly what the President means by 'human space exploration.'


We are already at the point where human space exploration--currently defined by orbiting the earth in the ISS--fails to satisfy. One manned trip to the Moon may satisfy for a short while, but after that...

"Manned space" needs to provide a vision of space travel that is not completely disconnected with reality. Space tourism may be the start. Perhaps the lessons learned in space tourism and the technologies developed in that aspect of the space economy will be applied to the space domain in general. I think it is space's best hope.

Will the Pentagon Thwart Obama's Dream of Zero?

Dude, where's my unicorn?

While nukes are not our future, they are in our future and will be for a very long time.

Nukes will go away when their value is or approaches zero, which will likely mean when they are made obsolete by anti-nuclear methods yet to emerge or are superseded by superior weapons.

Today, people aren't calling for a world without flaming buckets of oil launched via catapult for the same reasons--it’s just no longer the best way to storm the castle.

Similarly, instead of being made obsolete, nuclear weapons could have their value greatly reduced by affecting the efficacy of their delivery systems, via viable missile and air defense systems.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who work directly for the President, is not mentioned anywhere in the article, despite the fact he is known to advocate for the Reliable Replacement Weapon, a modernization effort to ensure the viability of our nuclear deterrent. Part of the concept of deterrence is possessing a consequence should deterrence fail. If a U.S. adversary has no fear of the U.S. nuclear enterprise because the weapons won't work--or because there aren't any--deterrence is obviously greatly reduced.

For all the purported pushback the President is getting regarding the U.S. going to zero nuclear weapons from "generals in the nuclear chain of command," only two are mentioned, General Kevin Chilton, the Commander of USSTRATCOM and USAF Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz. Chilton is critiqued for correcting the assertion U.S. nuclear forces are on a "hair trigger," which those who have experience in the nuclear community know to be untrue. Then, Schwartz is critiqued for agreeing with Chilton. The author suggests these men are somehow disloyal by correcting an error in fact.

The "bolt out of the blue" scenario the author incorrectly characterizes as "launch under attack" is likewise flawed. We have ways of knowing what's going on well before an adversary gets to the point they would be starting a nuclear war, and it’s called posturing. Tensions would likely take a significant amount of time to reach the point nuclear weapons would be considered and all elements of U.S. power would be put to use to avoid war well before a nuclear attack. Because no rational player wants nuclear war, these parties will be exceedingly reasonable and prudent in taking actions to ensure such a thing doesn't happen.

In the end, the issue is not nuclear weapons per se, rather the issue is national security. As such, the real question is not "Should the U.S. pursue a zero nuclear weapons cram-down?" but rather "Is our national security best served by a world with no nuclear weapons?"

If the answer is yes, a follow on is "How do all those holding nuclear weapons get rid of them simultaneously?" with the final question being "How do we ensure they never come back?" If the follow on questions can't be adequately addressed, the goal of a world without nuclear weapons matters not.

As for me, I dream of a world with no cigarettes.

Ares Needs a Death Panel

(Cue Death Star music--not Death Is A Star)

What can I say? They're right.

STSS Readies for Launch

The Delta II booster for STSS, the Space Tracking and Surveillance System, is on the pad and processing towards a 15 Sep launch. Processing can now proceed as the Air Force Delta II for the recent GPS II R-21(M) satellite was on an adjacent pad. With that mission having departed on the morning of 17 Aug, STSS processing is good to go.

STSS is a system of two low-flying satellites and funding has come from the Missile Defense Agency. The program had been cancelled at one point and there is a five year break in press releases at its web site. According to DoD Buzz, STSS will provide a massive breakthrough in tracking equivalencies: equal to about 50 AN/TPY-2s or 20 sea-based x-band radars.

Though this effort was MDA funded, it has very significant space situational awareness (SSA) implications. Having SSA, broadly and informally defined as the ability to understand what's going on in space, is a major Air Force concern and possible growth-area within the space domain.

Exploration plan doesn't fit in current budget, panel says

NASA is underfunded. They need an extra $50 billion or so across the next ten years to do what they're supposed to do.

Given the anticipated national-level direction and funding trend for this sort of discretionary endeavor, NASA should expect to be riding on a man-rated version of the Delta IV and cancel their Ares programs.

There will be little Congressional consensus towards plussing NASA up to perform their "program of record."

And let's consider the ISS as a point of comparison. As Taylor Dinerman reports, the ISS went from an $8 billion program estimate in 1984 to an actual program costing about $100 billion as we speak. So that $50 billion estimate the Augustine panel has come up might well end up being much more than they've anticipated.

Report: NASA can't keep up with killer asteroids

I knew a guy who'd get asteroids so bad he could barely sit down.

In 2005, Congress gave NASA the job of spotting 90 percent of the asteroids and comets that might threaten life across the earth. These are, by definition, considered to be objects 1km or larger and NASA is getting close to fulfilling that responsibility. More recently, Congress also directed NASA to track any objects 140 meters or larger. However, the administration has not requested, nor has Congress provided the funds to fulfill this requirement. As such, NASA is not on track to satisfying that part of the requirement.

The AP article in the headline, derived from a report from the National Academy of Sciences, again brings to mind my first law of space operations: if it ain't funded, it ain't.

It next brings to mind another shortcoming in the congressional mandate itself: if you don't know how many objects there are, with any confidence, how can you task NASA to find 90 percent of them? Wouldn't the first job be to inventory these objects?

Ok, we'll skip that. NASA estimates there are about 20,000 objects in our solar system big enough to have a major "impact" (so to speak) for life on earth. They know where about 6,000 of them are.

For some reason, the U.S. is the only country with an active government-sponsored effort regarding the threat. I'm sure all the rest of the world thinks this is vitally important work, although it is apparently not important enough for them to spend money on. This raises another question: are we right in trying to solve this conundrum, or are they right in letting us serve as bill-payers and try and solve it ourselves?

Besides praying, what would we do if a comet or asteroid were to threaten the earth? Probably wish we'd funded some "space weapons."

China warns of 'arms race in outer space'

Give China full credit for being disingenuous.

First off, define "outer space."

Second, define "arms race."

Third, let's talk about "space weapons." Almost anything that operates in, to, through, or from space can have the effect of being a weapon. Including the space shuttle.

Finally, let's talk about "peaceful purposes" regarding space.

Is it a peaceful use of space if we use the space domain to stop an adversary's nuclear weapons from hitting the United States? Speaking for myself, I'm thinking...yes.

"N0 arms race in outer space" is Chinese code for "no missile defense." China has made a massive investment in short range missiles and many of them are available for use against Taiwan. These missiles are also useful against other neighbors, even if it is just to sustain the existent relationship. China has become very good at manufacturing things, but is not nearly so good at creating complex and networked effects like missile defense. We are in an era where stopping someone (say, China) from doing something (say, threatening neighbors) we don't want them to do is as important and perhaps much more so, as our own ability to kill people and break their stuff.

Navy Wants Top UAV Billing

UAVs will be like cyber. There will be no definitive leader, but there will be multiple users.

Russia sees U.S. space threat, builds new rocket

Wow. I think the problem of lead-based paint contaminating the food and water supplies (and affecting brain function) in at least some parts of Russia may take years to solve.

Russian news agencies quoted the Commander of the Russian Air Force, General Alexander Zelin, as saying the U.S. will have space-based offensive weapons by 2030 that will be able to hit any target in Russia.

Of course, the Russian Defense Ministry had said in June that President Bush had a plan to deploy weapons in space. However, the Russians ignore one critical fact: because there is no funding for a space-weapons program, there is not a space-weapons program.

Zelin points out that Russia is now developing the S-500, a fifth-generation surface to air missile system. I don't doubt that the Russians desire such a system, but given the non-success of their Bulava SLBM, I'll take a wait and see approach.

Someone Left The Space Out In The Rain

This article first appeared in Air University's The Wright Stuff.

While there are a number of truly awful songs in the inventory of the mind, one of the worst-ever all-timers has to be Richard Harris’ 1968 version of MacArthur Park. In MacArthur Park, Harris evokes the spirit of the true karaoke B-teamer; not nearly as bad as William Hung, but certainly not good, and perhaps more reminiscent of William Shatner’s later-arriving spoken-word version of Rocket Man. While MacArthur Park remains an interesting piece of work musically, the lyrical content is particularly, uh…unusual, especially the semi-famous stanza “MacArthur Park is melting in the dark, oh the sweet green icing flowing down. Someone left the cake out in the rain. I don’t think that I can take it, ‘cause it took so long to make it, and I’ll never have the recipe again.” So what do these bad lyrics have to do with today’s state of affairs? The last line, “I’ll never have the recipe again,” particularly brings to mind two recent events. The first is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon walk.

There are no doubt plenty of space advocates who wonder if the U.S. still has the “recipe” to ever achieve another manned lunar landing. There are others who will claim in no uncertain terms that we still have that recipe, but this compellingly brings up the follow-on question:“why?” While there is a lot of hand-wringing about the retirement of the space shuttle, it has done remarkably little to enhance U.S. space leadership. Generally our manned space program has been constrained to providing things like tune-ups for the aged Hubble Space Telescope or more likely, a ride to the International Space Station. The ISS itself is a low-value (but not low-cost) piece of space debris in search of a meaningful mission. Even consider the moniker the International Space Station. As Dennis Miller used to opine, this is similar to adding International in front of the otherwise unsexy yet functionally descriptive House of Pancakes. But I digress--the slide rule generation has left the building--who, if anyone, will be interested in taking their places?

The second “loss of recipe” regards an essential national security topic, in this case, nuclear weapons. Several months ago the GSA reported that the manufacturing know-how for a product called Fogbank, made at the Y-12 complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee had been lost. Fogbank was made from 1975 until 1989 and is alleged to be a necessary part of the W76 nuclear weapon which rides on the Navy’s Trident II sea-launched ballistic missiles. In the case of Fogbank, it seems the recipe was literally lost (or thrown away). Recapturing that knowledge cost close to $100 million and was no doubt a daunting challenge for today’s scientists and engineers who chances are, had to seek some gray-beard support.

Even the Russians are not immune to losing their recipe mojo. A test of their sub-launched Bulava ICBM failed again earlier this month. This is the sixth acknowledged failure in eleven launch attempts and it occurred about 28 seconds into launch. By the way, the Russians hate our missile defense programs. This is first because they work and might one day be capable of totally neutering their ICBMs, but also because they seem to motivate Russia to try and recapture their past-superpower glories – unfortunately and embarrassingly to demonstrate their catastrophic ineptness. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated he has a 90-percent plus confidence in the U.S. missile defense system. The Russians are now estimated to be spending about one-quarter of their defense budget--money they don’t have--on nuclear weapon and nuclear-delivery systems. Reset, anyone?

While some are concerned about China and India as they are diligently working to create robust manned space programs, there is no way we can stop them, nor should we. For the U.S., our manned space flight program has proven to be a particularly poor investment--essentially a “stunt” program--which was always all about looking good in the shower vis-à-vis the USSR versus providing productive capabilities. While flowery manned space flight language like “to inspire current and future generations” sounded great and served a purpose in its time, future manned space exploration must have a better purpose.

Manned space flight has traditionally lacked an “in order to” imperative. This is because robotic space exploration, with satellites that don’t need air, water, food, or space toilets seem to be doing the job cheaper, faster, and better. Additionally, while finding out about the universe or looking for alien life forms is no doubt fascinating --creating a large intellectual sand-box for scientists to play in--again, it should be accomplished for a purpose. You don’t run diagnostics on your car, computer, or even your body for fun, you do it for a purpose, normally to make it work better. Unmanned space, however--using satellites--provides weather, communications, surveillance, and positioning, navigation, and timing. Look at GPS; unmanned space has proven itself highly valuable in making things work better; manned space has not.

Axis-of-evil states like North Korea and Iran now have space programs--they’re called missiles--with North Korea already having tested nuclear weapons and Iran well on the way. So tell me again how anyone can not be for missile defense? It sure beats MacArthur Park melting in the dark.

MacArthur Park, penned by composer Jimmy Webb, was dramatically improved with Donna Summers’ 1978 cover, resulting in a massive move forward in listenability. The Summers’ version itself follows a common-to-life pattern: over time, things normally get better…but only with effort. Songs, materials, and services like missile defense generally improve, and sometimes the music does as well, provided you keep the recipe well within reach. In music, as in life, if you don’t use it you lose it.

Mark Stout is a researcher at Air University’s National Space Studies Center. The opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and may not reflect the views and policies of the US Air Force or the Department of Defense.

Is Policy Overrated?

If policy is a "goal or aim of government or society," (my informal definition), it is important to bear in mind that goals and aims change all the time. It is also important that "government" also changes over every once in a while. So while I'm not trying to say policy can be dismissed or that we shouldn't have it, to me, its analogous to eating more fruit and vegetables. It generally falls into the "no kidding?" bin.

I recently read an article at The Space Review entitled Elements of a 21st century space policy. Based on what I've already described to you, you can probably imaging that I'm not crazy about the article. I can agree with about 15 percent of it, disagree with about a third, and am ambivalent on the final half. Forgive the rounding error, but its in spec.

The part I agree with has to do with the essential nature of stable and adequate funding for space systems. First, let's be real. To quote myself and many others throughout time, if it ain't funded, it ain't. Next, I can also get behind the article's idea of encouraging commercial enterprise in space, to include property rights. If there are no property rights in space, what is the incentive to build anything with such a low (or negative) return on investment? The whole galaxy doesn't have to be given away a la the railroads and westward expansion, but the fundamental issue of 'what's in it for me?' for the entrepreneur and capitalist should never be dismissed. Cash for comets anyone?

Now, on the other hand...

Mechanically, the article is filled with distracting elements of weirdness, jargon, and gibberish. This includes a quote from Parag Khanna (Who? The guy may have a 20-pound brain, but he's not Britney Spears. Introduce him!) and wonkish phrases like "broad brushstrokes" (groan), and "auto-catalytic development."

Next, the article defers excessively to internationalism and cooperation. Those things are fine as long as they don't interfere with national needs. However, there is a reason current policy is titled U.S. National Space Policy.

Finally, the article seems to think existing U.S. space policy lacks efficacy because of its belligerent tone. That tone, while way too plain spoken, doesn't make the current policy lack efficacy. Instead, what the policy is missing is an executable nature. It simply says the U.S. will do things it either can't or won't. Or both. If our space policy did what it suggested, China would absolutely freak-out. Notice they are much more freaked out about the U.S. economy, borrowing, and the dollar than they are about space.

Since I like to end on a positive note, I'll tentatively endorse the importance the author assigns to space tourism. For space to be most fully exploited, we need a breakthrough in the ways we get to space. I view space tourism as the most likely method for this to happen. Government programs tend to refine existent technologies and current propulsion systems haven't changed too much since Bob Goddard's time. Cheaper access to space is a valuable goal and our current space community (civil, military, and commercial) can be expected to keep doing what they've been doing. The breakout will have to come from somewhere else, and it may well be the space tourism industry.

When a new U.S. National Space Policy is issued, I hope the tone to the world is a little less sterile and a bit...friskier. Along the lines of "Here's what we want to do with regard to space. Wanna go with us?" Policy that over-promises is bound to under-deliver, so a reality-constrained policy is what I'd prefer to see when it gets renewed. Otherwise, people just look at it and say "those goals are not achievable" and lose interest.

Russian subs near US coast pose no threat: Pentagon

Have you ever wondered how we square the presence of Russian subs with the Monroe Doctrine? Nuclear weapons on land in Cuba are not acceptable, but those in the water are waived off.

Just one of those things...

$100,000 Tool Bag Lost in Space Is Found ... Sort Of

Just a thought from a long ago missile accident involving a Titan II ICBM near Damascus, Arkansas: has it occurred to anyone to tether their tools while on a space walk?

Fund It Or Kill It

During the mid and late 1990s, when we were reaping the benefits of the peace dividend, I first heard an ancient and wise programmer (someone who runs a DoD program or series of programs, not a software person) use the mathematical phrase D + I = O. For the uninitiated, that was shorthand for "disconnects plus initiatives equals offsets."

In a era of no DoD budget growth, as the 1990s generally were, any broken or flawed programs (disconnects) or any new programs (initiatives) had to be "paid for" with money coming out of other programs (offsets). This sort of mindset led to money coming out of previously healthy programs with the here-to-for healthy programs themselves becoming chronically drug-out and broken. A planned five year program at $85 million would end up taking eight years and costing $135 million; a 15-year program would take 20.

It was all because the program, previously healthy, now had money taken out of it in order to make something else "executable" or healthy, with the unintended and ironic effect of the previously healthy program then becoming disconnected itself. Basically, programs that are not adequately funded cannot be expected to meet performance, cost, or schedule parameters.

Now, DoD has told the services to come up with $50-60 billion across the next 5-6 years for the purpose of providing "initiative" money for new programs that will fill capabilities gaps. This is not inherently evil, because priorities can and do change, and funding needs to change to match. The sad part is the programs that are "marked" to provide offsets are almost never killed. As such, they just limp along, needing more and more money put into them as them move towards completion, which will almost always be much later than desired.

The taskings to the services should rather be to kill enough programs to save $60 billion across the FYDP. Programs that come in missing the mark on performance, schedule, and cost often do so due to funding instability. While it is really difficult to kill a program, it often makes the most sense to do just that rather than allow it to exist on the margins, where it will be doomed to fail, falling short of providing a particular capability by a certain time. Leadership is all about establishing priorities, and when every program is important enough to save, all programs pay the price.

Showdown At Big Sky

Having reached a not-to-exceed measure of largeness, I have decided to run more. By the way, it is hot here in Alabama. I mean Tarzan couldn't take it, its so hot. Anyway, I've retained an old habit, which is to run with music. Running without music is like farming without tractors. Yeah, you can do it, but it is definitely much more difficult.

So the 1987 Robbie Robertson tune Showdown at Big Sky came up on my shuffle (which not only describes my pace, but also my music machine) and as I listened to the words during a cool-down, I realized Showdown really must be considered as a fully qualified Song of Space and Nuclear War. Although the song is now old enough to drink, Robertson sings insightfully of the era's soon to end Cold War's threats including the big bang, the weapons race, darkness at high noon, and the fact any moment could be our last. Finally, he opines on our need for strength, wisdom, and morality--makes me think about Iran and North Korea today. I'd say Robbie's overall tone was one of concern without being overwhelmed or defeated. Check out the lyrics for yourself.

I had ordered Robertson's CD back in the day when it was new (I had heard Showdown at Big Sky or seen the video, or something and was attracted to it), and I ordered it as a part of my initial buy in the Columbia House Record (not kidding) Club. It was supposed to be in my first delivery lump of 12 or 13 CDs. They all showed up uneventfully, except for one, the Robertson CD, which was inexplicably empty. I never called or wrote to Columbia House--I didn't think it would do any good--but the empty jewel box haunted me for years (but not enough to buy another copy). Not too long ago, I bought Showdown off iTunes or Amazon. I have a to-buy list but I'm pretty much 'bought out.' The only remaining stuff I want is either not digitized or only sold as an "album." I still have stacks of albums that I bought just to get one song.

U.S. Spaceflight Gap Wider Than Thought

The bottom line: the shuttle won't retire on time and its replacement won't be ready on time. Those are some preliminary findings of the U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, led by Norm Augustine and briefed by former astronaut Sally Ride.

In total, the delays could add another year without a U.S. provided ride to the ISS. That gap could be mitigated by adding one or more shuttle missions. Man-rating the Delta IV EELV won't change the timelines appreciably.

The ISS may be a beneficiary of this review. The ISS is planned for deorbit in 2016, but the panel seems poised to advocate it stay on orbit longer. Why? Because the planned deorbit might hurt NASA partners and "U.S. leadership in space."

I cringe at that type of attitude. Rather, what should be considered is how (or if) our partners are helping us achieve the ISS's objectives and what could be done if we didn't have to support the money-sucking ISS.

Intel Lawmaker Urges NRO Fixes

Well, certainly no man-bites-dog story here, as the NRO has struggled mightily for the last decade or so.

The story leads by describing the NRO as a builder of satellites. Please. They are a buyer of satellites. Industry builds them.

Air Force: NASA's New Rocket Unsafe for Astronauts

The Air Force thinks the crew escape capsule for the shuttle replacement, known as the Ares I, will not allow the crew to escape if a low-altitude disaster were to occur. Given the capsule's nylon parachutes might well have to fly through a massive debris-field of flaming chunks of solid rocket motor, that seems reasonable.

Historically, the crew escape module is analogous to a very expensive good luck charm--it really is not up to getting the job done and is rather a kind of tool to ease the astronaut's cognitive dissonance about a near-ground (in this scenario, about 30 to 60 seconds into the flight profile) mishap. What does the shuttle have, you ask? Nothing. Remember? It was engineered to fail only once every 10,000 missions.

NASA says the Air Force's sample size in coming to this conclusion--one mishap involving a Titan IV in 1998--is too small.

A lesson is when you man-rate anything, the costs go through the roof. Likewise, there is no reasonable way to plan for every contingency.

F-35 Fighter Two Years Behind Schedule: Pentagon Panel

The Joint Estimate Team (JET), which is described as "probably more reliable than the (Joint Strike Fighter) program office" has offered findings that say the F-35 is two years behind schedule. If true, this delay could add as much as $7.4 billion in costs to the Joint Strike Fighter program. On the other hand, according to the GAO, accelerating the JSF program--like DoD is talking about doing--could cost up to an additional $33.4 billion. Compared to the $1.75 billion the Senate decided to take out of the F-22 program the other day, these are significant.

The JSF program office has not changed the official production schedule, which calls for full rate production in 2014. The JET thinks 2016 is when that milestone will really occur.

It is often said bad news ages poorly. House appropriators appear to favor the JET's argument--the appropriators reduced the JSF request for FY2010 by $530 million because they don't' think the program can spend all the money it has asked for.

Will this bad news affect the F-22 in any way? And what to make of the fact this information was released only after the Senate's recent F-22 vote? Stay tuned...

Don't Worry So Much About Iran's Nukes

Although ostensibly about Iran, the punch line comes after a long build up: Pakistan has at least 60 nuclear weapons and they are "the most frightening nuclear challenge we're facing."

Sigh. This is one of those articles that counsels the administration to deal with the world as it should be versus as it actually is. Even if you agree with the author's assertion that we should be more concerned about Pakistan, this is the real world and either/or are not the only options.

The way things are, of course, is that Iran is on track to have a nuclear weapon. Some say testing could be done as soon as six-months.