Songs of Space & Nuclear War

The Blog Expected To Fade To Black Soon

2009-10-19T12:00:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-14T10:55:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-13T18:47:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-12T09:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-11T18:56:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-09T14:05:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-09T07:34:00.001-07:00

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

2009-10-09T07:34:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-08T13:47:00.001-07:00

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

2009-10-07T11:10:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-07T08:51:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-05T07:37:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-04T16:41:00.000-07:00

Finally a mission for the ISS?

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

Ash Carter Nails It

2009-10-02T13:08:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-01T07:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-30T14:02:00.000-07:00

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’

2009-09-30T13:45:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-29T13:51:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-29T12:38:00.000-07:00

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

Iran has a clandestine nuclear program.
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!

2009-09-28T11:55:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-28T06:02:00.000-07:00

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.

That by itself makes it unlikely to happen.

First, revolutionary changes rarely happen without a compelling entering argument, which seems to be conspicuously absent in this case. In fact, one could argue the NRO has not been a high-performing organization as of late, especially with regard to the FIA program. Maybe the nation would even be better off with the USAF taking over for the NRO?

Next, while divesting itself of the space mission would make sense for the Air Force in that it would be better able to focus on the air domain, I don’t think the USAF is organizationally or culturally ready for that moment.

Finally, there is the Congressional aspect. The Air Force has lots of friends and the NRO not so many. So again, unless the USAF was “all in” regarding a space takeover, it seems unlikely to happen.

Of course the stories may be mangled. However, I don’t think Bruce Carlson went to the NRO to fold the flag or shrink its mission. He’s been known to question the status quo, to include asking just why the Air Force has uniformed personnel doing space things that might seem better fitted to contractors or civilians.

Iran welcomes U.S. missile defense reversal

2009-09-24T06:23:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-23T08:18:00.000-07:00

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.

The Secretary also highlighted some areas of ongoing and future importance to the Air Force:

• Our military is more dependant on communications, satellites, and data networks than we've ever been. They underpin our ability to execute precision strike, effective command and control, and ISR

• The criticality of space for military operations is at an all time high

• Expertise within the nuclear mission areas has to be sustained

If you really squint between-the-lines, can you almost envision that he might support the emergence of a U.S. Space Force or Space Corps or cyber equivalent?

U.S. Nuclear Arsenal to Be Slashed?

2009-09-22T08:18:00.000-07:00

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.

These three points are interesting to say the least. Here are some things to think about that correspond with each of the three items mentioned above:

1. The arsenal is already measured in hundreds. It’s twenty-one. If we measured it in thousands, we’d call it 2.1. The reality is we need a nuclear arsenal that optimizes our security and meets our defense needs, whether the number is five thousand, five hundred, or five. Nuclear weapons employment should be strategy based and the number of weapons required is a reflection of the strategy, not the other way around.

2. Only the President has the authority to release nuclear weapons (unless we get into one of those de-evolution of command scenarios). As such, the President determines the conditions when nuclear weapons will be used. Was the use of nuclear weapons (some would call them atomic weapons) at the end of World War II against Japan not justified? That’s the only time they’ve ever been employed for effect.

3. Ensuring nuclear reliability without testing is analogous to ensuring your car will run without ever driving. Yes, you can make sure you know where the key is, check the battery, electrical system, air in the tires, and gas supply, but unless you start the engine and move it out of the garage, you’re never quite really sure. And after not moving the car for twenty years, you’re really not sure.

If the article is true, the President’s position may present a challenge for Secretary Gates, who has been a nuclear realist and has in the past advocated for a reliable replacement warhead.

It will be interesting to hear how Thursday’s UN address plays out, but as my mother would say, when nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes. OK, she really doesn’t think in those terms, but it is something beyond a bumper sticker.

It’s been said don’t bring a knife to a gun-fight. How about don’t bring a daisy cutter to a nuclear war?

Why Russia Won't Give On Iran

2009-09-21T12:33:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-18T06:37:00.000-07:00

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.”

If you agree with that intro, see if you can follow along with the thinking and chronology associated with the Wall Street Journal’s report U.S. To Shelve Nuclear-Missile Shield.

Realpolitik: Iran’s long-range missile program is said to be making less progress than previously envisioned. This assessment allows the administration to back out of the planned European missile defense system, pleasing the Russians. Czech Republic and the Poles, meet the bus. Back in the states, the desire to mash the reset button and execute a nuclear arms control agreement rules the day.

Hedging: the assessment still recognizes Iran still has a dangerous shorter and intermediate range missile capability. As such, the Defense Department announces its intent to allow Turkey to buy 72 anti-missile capable Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3s at a cost of $7.8 billion. Outgoing PACOM commander Admiral Tim Keating says missile defense works and that we need it.

Wisdom: the European missile defense system is considered early-to-need as Iran is thought to not have a viable long-range missile system for three or four years, and that timeframe is thought to entail additional Iranian diligence and effort on their long-range missile program. Anti-missile defense groups first said the whole idea won’t work anyway; now they say even if it does, it wouldn’t do any good. Starting around 2015, if funded, land-based SM-3s become part of the solution and by 2018, all is well.

Bad Call: the decision to shelf European missile defense is predicated on the lack of perceived progress with Iran’s long-range missile program. This assessment is made even as conventional wisdom holds the IC does not have a good record at this sort of prognostication.

Next, is a European missile defense system early-to-need if it takes three or four years to build (or even more)? General Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says he’s 90 percent confident in the next two to four years our missile defense systems will be effective against countries with North Korea and Iran-like missile systems. But what will European nations who might have been amicable to hosting the “new” missile defense systems remember regarding the Czech Republic and Poland in 2009?

While Russia says it won’t sell “offensive weapons” to Iran, the Russian current and fifth-generation anti-air systems are of such a concern to Israel that it requires Prime Minister Netanyahu to make a clandestine visit to address the issue with Russian leadership.

The realpolitik, hedging, and wisdom approaches are all powerful, but they are based on assumptions about Iran that may or may not prove to be true. One thing is certain--reality will unfold in dynamic and unexpected ways over the next 10 years, a period of time where we should consider looking to futurists like the Tofflers rather than the intelligence community. Because if the Chinese and North Koreans are providing “ubiquitous” help to Iran (with a bit of Russian support thrown in here and there as well), the long-range missile recipe is capable of changing rapidly.

Congress Faces NASA's Shaky Future

2009-09-16T08:02:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-16T06:10:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-16T05:35:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-15T12:25:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-15T08:52:00.000-07:00

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.

While its may be difficult to define "good enough" missile warning, what is clear is the government's general desire to move away from cost-plus type contracts and to move towards fixed-price contracts. David Berteau of The Center for Strategic and International Studies (reported via Amy Butler at Aviation Week) thinks there are four elements:

• stable, detailed, and technically refined requirements

• a clear understanding of those requirements by bidders

• savvy and skilled contract-negotiation by the government

• a willingness to adjust requirements in order to meet the price

The last item is particularly telling. Basically, it states the importance of the government being willing to give up some amount of performance to meet cost.

Regarding the SBIRS debacle, it would appear in hindsight that pursuing more than one system—that is, completion—might have been developmentally useful to the government. Belatedly, introducing a new space-based missile warning program to “compete” with SBIRS appears to be the likely approach.

Mystery Explained: Glow in Night Sky Was Astronaut Urine

2009-09-14T12:16:00.000-07:00

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

West of Denver at 96,000 Feet

2009-09-14T12:09:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-14T07:20:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-13T12:25:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-13T09:03:00.000-07:00

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

You Dropped A Bomb On Me

2009-09-12T11:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-12T08:47:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-11T11:22:00.000-07:00

A interesting snapshot of the manned spaceflight options.

Wait, Maybe We Do Need Exquisite Satellites

2009-09-11T08:36:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-11T07:14:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-11T06:31:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-09T05:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-08T06:20:00.000-07:00

Baby steps.

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

Baby steps.

Worshipping at the Altar of Nuclear Perfection

2009-09-04T07:29:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-04T06:38:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-04T05:08:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-03T07:06:00.000-07:00

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

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

2009-09-01T07:29:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-01T06:59:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-31T13:21:00.000-07:00

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

CJCS’s Searing Critique

2009-08-28T07:39:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-08-27T06:31:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-08-26T11:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-26T10:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-26T10:13:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-25T05:09:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-24T12:05:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-24T11:45:00.000-07:00

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

Start-Ups Are Poised For Latest Space Race

2009-08-24T10:23:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-08-21T19:16:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-20T07:24:00.000-07:00

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

What can I say? They're right.

STSS Readies for Launch

2009-08-20T05:36:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-13T14:48:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-13T07:02:00.000-07:00

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'

2009-08-12T08:34:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-11T07:59:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-11T07:22:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-10T06:32:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-08-06T14:17:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-06T11:00:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-06T10:40:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-03T12:59:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-31T12:15:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-31T06:43:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-24T11:46:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-24T10:52:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-24T10:31:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-23T08:16:00.000-07:00

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.

Maybe The F-22 Was Not Shovel Ready?

2009-07-22T07:44:00.000-07:00

Possible future growth in the F-22 program suffered what may well turn out to be a fatal blow in the Senate yesterday. In a lopsided 58-40 vote, the Senate accepted an amendment which would cap the program at 187 airframes, the same number currently envisioned in the President’s FY2010 budget submission. Other efforts to plus the program up had been politically pursued--this is likely to end any program growth.

The F-22 follows the model established by the B-2. The B-2 was first planned for a 132 airframe buy. By the time the last plane was delivered, there were only 20 in the USAF inventory.

Any discussion of the current status of the F-22 has to start with Secretary Gates. As a holdover from the Bush administration, it is reasonable to assume he wanted the FY2010 defense budget to have his personal stamp on it, which included marking a “Cold War” program like the F-22. He almost certainly expected both a long leash and top cover from the current administration. Having Gates on the Obama team would in fact be useful in burnishing their defense resume, given the Secretary's significant personal and professional credibility. In return, he would need to have the administration’s support for his positions. As such, having a true “Gates budget” was likely a condition of employment. Likewise, when the SecDef wanted a new Chief of Staff of the Air Force and a new Secretary of the Air Force, their support of the Defense Department’s emerging funding priorities was also likely a condition of employment. The Air Force seems to have read the writing on the wall as seen by the recently released UAV flight plan.

What does the Senate’s F-22 vote mean?

First, the administration picked a fight they knew they had an outstanding chance of winning.

Next, when the pushback was more vigorous than perhaps first imagined, they doubled down with a full-court press from every direction, including the JCS, Air Force leadership, and the media.

Finally, the President now owns the Afghanistan war, and he wants to shape it with resources more likely to bring success. Given the current state of that conflict and expected future movement, more UAVs will be the USAF’s contribution and F-22s would not have helped in that fight.

Celebrity Culture vs. The Right Stuff

2009-07-21T08:05:00.000-07:00

WSJ's Bret Stephens uses the 4oth anniversary of the Apollo 11 moonwalk as a springboard into the topic of American celebrity culture.

While I'm not sold on the utility of manned spaceflight, there is no denying the teamwork, courage, and honor America's men-in-space displayed. They did things that made space real for us in an era when the high-value products space provided were not even acknowledged as "national technical means."

The space culture values composure under pressure. The celebrity culture values decomposure under pressure. Reality TV in 1969 was Apollo 11. Reality TV today is an oxymoron.

Space Program Struggles for Direction

2009-07-20T14:40:00.000-07:00

Struggles for direction is an apt characterization, but it the article should be titled "Manned Space Program Struggles for Direction." The next article in the series could then be Military Space Program Struggles With Affordability.

Just a thought.

Time to Boldly Go Once More

2009-07-16T05:39:00.000-07:00

Former astronaut Buzz Aldrin makes an emotional plea for U.S. space leadership with a goal of establishing an American colony on Mars.

The major shortfall in his plea is why we should do this. While Aldrin uses traditional space advocate language like "galvanize public support," "inspire America's young students," and "renew our space industry," that agreement is as vacuous as the self-licking ice cream cone. If he said "to make life on earth better for Americans by providing revolutionary improvements in energy" (for example) it would be quite a bit easier to get behind.

Additionally, the Outer Space Treaty appears unsupportive of an American colony on Mars, as it says "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." Is an American colony on Mars "use or occupation"?

A better offer would be to create a new Outer Space Treaty which would allow for the creation of property rights and sovereignty claims in order to incentivize private citizens, industry, and consortiums to explore space for a purpose other than...exploring it.

Finally, as with many of his era, Mr. Aldrin proposes we explore space as part of an international coalition and for the benefit of all mankind. That is little more than code for U.S. taxpayers providing for free-riders to benefit from space. China holds about $2 trillion in U.S. currency--if they want to play, let 'em pay.

I think Mr. Aldrin perhaps stands a little too close to the issue.

Space As A Contested Domain

2009-07-15T10:14:00.000-07:00

The National Space Studies Center will be leading a seminar and attending the Air Education and Training Command's Symposium in January 2010.

Our focus will be on Space As A Contested Environment, which is a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Special Area of Emphasis.

Feel free to visit

http://space.au.af.mil/symposium

http://www.aetcsymposium.com

Former 'N Sync member Lance Bass still hopes to go into space

2009-07-15T10:05:00.000-07:00

Lance, all it takes is time and money.

Obama Puts Arms Control at Core of New Strategy

2009-07-15T09:00:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure why the WSJ ran this article. It will not provide any profound insights and contains a number of non sequiturs. The title is eye-catching (well, to some), but the lead paragraph immediately launches into nuclear deterrence, which we know from our studies is not the same as arms control. The article's purpose is further opaqueified when it then moves into the human rights arena.

Author Peter Spiegel points out the administration's attempt to link human-rights and U.S. democratization efforts, using President Ronald Reagan as a model, since he "engaged with Soviet leaders on arms control even as he condemned their human-rights record." Left unsaid was that President Reagan was able to engage from a position of strength, having plussed-up the nation's nuclear capabilities with the Pershing II , Ground Launched Cruise Missile and Peacekeeper ICBM. systems.

The take-away is the assessment by Brent Scowcroft, who thinks the world is at a tipping point regarding nuclear proliferation. If Iran goes nuclear (anyone think they won't?), will Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey follow? North Korea's already gone nuclear and Japan has responded by buying more missile defense. Will they reach a point when they go nuclear, too?

Obama's Space Policy Review

2009-07-14T05:35:00.000-07:00

Amy Klamper, writing for Space News (subscription required) has said President Obama has given his administration until 1 Oct to review the existing U.S. Space Policy, which was issued under the Bush administration in 2006.

Given the tone of the administration in the article, expect any revised space policy to de-emphasize national security space and to emphasize commercial space, cooperation, and "no kidding" issues like mitigating space debris, space situational awareness, and improving the industrial base. Don't expect any discussion regarding "space weapons," whatever they are. During the campaign, Obama endorsed a ban on space weapons--that statement has since been removed from the White House web site.

While space policy is interesting, space funding is important.

Will The F-22 Destroy The USAF?

2009-07-10T05:47:00.000-07:00

R. Jeffrey Smith's WaPo article has so much that should be discussed. Here are a few things that come to mind:

F-22 maintenance costs per flying hour are about 150% of the F-15. Ok, but is the F-22 twice again as good? That is, if we only need half as many F-22s, that would make it a bargain, right?

Most importantly, will the plane's massive cost preempt most other USAF modernization, driving the Air Force towards long-term obsolescence? Will this create what former Pentagon tester Thomas Christie characterises as "unilateral disarmament"?

The prime, Lockheed, farmed out over 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more than 40 states. Everyone can feed at the F-22 trough and cancellation becomes much more difficult.

Former OSD Comptroller John Hamre says the F-22 program was approved despite the fact it was underfunded. Telling Congress what the real costs were would have been politically unpalatable.

One unnamed DoD official says its a disgrace the F-22 can only fly 1.7 hours on average before it has a critical failure. I'm thinking that official is one of the folks who supports capping the program at 187 planes.

In many ways the F-22 is emblematic of almost all our space systems. It has the characteristics of an exquisite system that make it difficult to design, engineer, build, and employ.

Imagine A World Without Information

2009-07-09T08:52:00.000-07:00

A world without information is what it will take to achieve the President's stated goal of a world without nuclear weapons. That's because the information for nuclear weapons exists and given the terrible utility of nuclear weapons, it seems reasonable to think there are and will always be parties interested in pursuing that information to achieve knowledge and thereby increase their power. Theorists posit that information seeks to be freed--and free—and while it may be misapplied, laid aside, or even forgotten, it does not cease to exist. Information enables knowledge, which likewise enables all the precursor steps that are required to create nuclear weapons, whether they are associated with nuclear power production, precision manufacturing, industrial development, science and engineering, or computational power.

The President has been both applauded and chided for his recent vision for a world without nuclear weapons. Applauded by the anti-nuclear/anti-defense community who support his vision, but chided by those who in an ironic twist, would be called the realists, something the President would perhaps describe himself as. Often uncommented on by the no-nukes advocates is the fact President's position is effectively endorsed by Russian and China, and is no doubt a source of great, if tacit, joy from emerging nuclear weapons powers North Korea and Iran. After all, if the U.S. will only disarm, other nations' power and leverage relative to the U.S. is bound to increase. For Russia, until oil prices rise, they can neither pay for the creaky nuclear enterprise they have, nor modernize. Ignore what they say--that they will modernize--and watch what they do.

The United States is at a point in history where there it seems imprudent to draw down its strategic nuclear forces or delivery systems. While there is trade-space for discussion--if it unarguably benefits our national security--the President should consider the medical maxim: first, do no harm.

Space Traffic and The Growing Space Surveillance Mission

2009-07-08T05:44:00.000-07:00

Air Force Space Command is responding to the on-orbit collision of a dead but still orbiting Russian Cosmos satellite and a functional Iridium satellite back in February 2009. The response includes plussing-up the number of operators working conjunction analysis from five to nine. Eventually AFSPC is looking at a 24-person staff to perform this mission which as currently envisioned, will support collision analysis of 800 maneuverable satellites. At the time of the collision, only about 140 satellites were being monitored for possible collisions.

Enhanced space surveillance will also involve hardware: more servers and computational power, of course, but also the new $1B Space Fence, which is planned to be employed in 2015 and the near-term Space-Based Space Surveillance satellite, which is to surveil each satellite residing in the geosynchronous belt once a day.

The Cosmos-Iridium event was indicative of Space Command's less-capable-than-desired space surveillance and conjunction analysis capabilities. According to Lt Gen Larry James, AFSPC wants to eventually be able and track everything in space from launch to deorbit. All it takes is time and money...

ITAR and the Law of Unintended Condequences

2009-07-07T14:20:00.000-07:00

ITAR--the International Traffic in Arms Regulation--is the guidance intended to keep U.S. businesses from selling potential adversaries the proverbial ropes from which they would hang us. To say the least, ITAR is a business-unfriendly, rule intensive, and cumbersome process. Now it seems ITAR is up for a wire brushing.

Within the defense industry, ITAR has become an industry-wide pariah--something approaching "it whose name cannot be spoken." The U.S. space industry--and in particular, space launch--have especially demonized ITAR, as huge chunks of market have been lost to foreign competitors. It probably doesn't help that State runs ITAR.

Is it possible the U.S. space industry has confused correlation with causation? The answer can't be known with certainty, but GM and Chrysler do come to mind.

Tanks For The Memories. Kenya Dig It?

2009-07-07T13:39:00.000-07:00

Piracy has been joined by intelligence in the fee-for-service realm. Anyone, or any nation-state, with a credit card now has an excellent chance to buy top-notch overheads. Add analysis in the form of people paying attention and bam! you have intel.

Cyber Can Kill SAMs

2009-07-07T09:12:00.000-07:00

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Mail In The Nuclear Posture Review?

2009-07-07T08:18:00.000-07:00

Tally ho on the reset button? Well, at one level, it may appear so.

Per public law, the purpose of the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review is to establish U.S. nuclear deterrence policy, strategy, and force posture for the next 5 to 10 years. It seems unclear how the NPR's call for a measured, deliberate, consultative, and "whole of government" approach squares with the President's proclamation that U.S. nuclear forces will be categorically reduced.

Satellite, Writ Large

2009-07-07T07:50:00.000-07:00

The 15,000-plus pound TerreStar satellite, about the size of a small school bus, is now on orbit. According to the satellite's manufacturer, Loral, over a million man-hours went into its creation. The satellite is designed to serve North America with "blended" terrestrial and space based communications and provide better service than either method alone.

Turn And Face The Strain--Ch-Ch-Changes

2009-07-06T12:42:00.000-07:00

Philosopher-savant Forest Gump gave a reasonable analogy regarding the global security environment with the now ubiquitous “you never know what you’re gonna get.” With the world now trending towards less stability and more interdependence, with lot of wicked problems, fundamental questions regarding how much security is needed, how much can we afford, and what can we do are moving towards the front of people's thinking.

To address the issue, at least in part, the Defense Science Board (DSB) was chartered to examine what was referred to as “capability surprise” which looked at an adversary’s ability to generate capabilities that were unexpected or unanticipated. With the DSB release of its report which will address the broader issue of surprise, along with assessments and recommendations to 1) evaluate the surprise mechanisms, 2) reduce the potential for surprise, 3) better prepare to respond to surprise, and 4) look at rapid, unique, and cost-effective ways the U.S. might impose surprise on adversaries.

Surprises are inevitable, but although the future is inherently unknowable, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about it. In the DSB report, ten items are listed as reasons why the U.S.--and just about anyone else, for that matter--gets “strategically surprised.” Depending on how you categorize these items, most of the reasons for surprise can be described as risk assessment or judgment failures. A couple of the reasons for surprise are attributable to the failures of our own imaginations, and only one is due to an awareness shortcoming. So if the DSB’s assessments are correct, at least by category, this means almost all the nation’s security surprises are due to improperly assessing the information already available, as opposed to breakdowns in technical intelligence or a lack of information.

So just how do we keep ourselves from being surprised? To paraphrase portions of a recent leadership polemic, if America wants to avoid surprise, it needs to create systems that develop and reward the characteristics that help avoid surprise. That is, it must create incentives within the Department of Defense and the Services which fully develop and value honesty and openness, enhance judgment and assessments, and improve imagination among its individual members. At the same time, the system has to be able to accurately sort through a global pipeline of noise, data, and clutter. Identifying what needs to be done conceptually is the easy part--the hard part is figuring out just how to do these things and who leads and who follows.

Organizationally, changing a massive bureaucracy like DoD towards avoiding surprise has great obstacles. They include chain of command (who works for who), organizational issues (the generally separate and distinct capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities each group possesses), and differing institutional cultures. For each individual within the huge national defense team, avoiding surprise leads to subjects like career paths, self-mastery, and an attitude embracing lifelong learning, to include coaching, teaching, mentoring, and language skills. While Secretary Gates has laid out his ideas to address future threats (a balanced force; having allies and host nations carry more of the burden; more soft power; etc.), these are largely ways of responding to challenges, and tend to only deal indirectly with avoiding surprise.

If we reap what we sow, what will DoD and the military branches have to sow in order to reap improved creativity, maturity of thought, and more fully developed skills needed to enhance national security? Conversely, if we keep doing what we’re doing, we’ll keep reaping what has already been sown, to the detriment of our ability to address the issue of “surprise.” Emblematic of this concern is the defense acquisition system, which moves at a glacial pace, and often culminates in products that are over budget and obsolete.

Apart from creating a system that rewards creativity, maturity of thought, and essential skills--that'll be hard--what else can be done to reduce surprise? The DSB will certainly endorse some of the usual suspects, including more meaningful red-teaming, war-gaming, exercises, and experimentation; the continued or increased use of gray-beards (after all, that’s what the DSB is); attempts to more rapidly field new capabilities; and, of course, organizational changes. Effectiveness has to retain its paramount position, but a massive push for efficiency in fielding capabilities should also be required, although the details are devilish.

While total control all factors involved is an illusion, influence over them is achievable. A world full of wicked problems has no easy, stop, reset, or uninvent buttons to push, regardless of the desire to reduce and simplify. While the military services understand their need to think through problems, the disconnect is we’re convinced we already do. Convincing the DoD to actually accomplish what it already says it does is – to use another farming term – a long row to hoe. Sometimes it’s not what you don’t know that will kill you; it’s what you think you know that isn’t really true.

GPS, Unlike Scotland, Is Not Free

2009-07-02T12:37:00.000-07:00

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

The Press Ain't Free, Its Expensive

2009-07-02T06:11:00.000-07:00

This is sad and pathetic. For fees ranging between $25,000 to $250,000, the Washington Post will provide access to government and media insiders. It should be some sort of man-bites-dog story, but instead it is simply a confirmation--if more stupidly accomplished and disgraceful--of both the traditions and the challenges of the old media.

If You Fund It, They Will Come

2009-07-01T11:33:00.000-07:00

The U.S. National Space Policy says the government shall use U.S. commercial space capabilities and services to the maximum practical extent, to include purchasing commercial capabilities and services when available and meeting needs.

Regarding communications and followed to a logical extreme, that policy direction means that most and perhaps all space-based military communications should be commercially provided. To meet that need, U.S. Space LLC is trying to get their nose under the tent and provide services that are both responsive and meet military needs. Traditional "exquisite" satellite capabilities--especially for something like comm, which has taken on commodity-like characteristics--won't cut it, and if you don't believe it, take a look at the demise of TSAT in the FY10 President's Budget.

If Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, and Lockheed-Martin are the Infinity, Lexus and BMW of the space industry, U.S. Space appears to be looking to be the Hyundai...domestically produced, of course.