The Space Force and political realities

This week, the U.S. House and Senate passed a bipartisan bill and sent it to the President for signature. I could stop right there and we would have the proverbial “man bites dog” story, but I’ll continue.

The “2020 National Defense Authorization Act” covers appropriations you might expect, like ships and aircraft, construction costs, operating expenses, military personnel, and healthcare. Policy issues like nuclear sanctions against Korea, Saudi Arabian human rights and the newsworthy changes to paid federal family leave policies are spelled out. Of more local interest, the bill also includes funding for repairs to DOD properties affected by the floods in eastern Nebraska.

What is most noteworthy about this year’s bill is the formation of a new Space Force. At an additional cost of $2 billion over five years, the dollar amount isn’t significant as compared to the rest of the budget, but the move is an important one. Before I tell you why I think so, I need to make a couple of disclaimers.

First, I know just enough about interservice rivalries to know not to get caught in the middle of one. I support an additional focus on space defense in general, but take no position as to whether it should be organized under NASA, The Air Force, or the Camp Fire Girls. It makes no difference to me whatsoever.

Second, I don’t pretend to know what assets we already have in space. In 1988, the Pentagon rolled out the futuristic, otherworldly looking F-117, and played it like they were being complimented on a party dress: “This old thing?” As it turns out, the Nighthawk had been flying since 1981 and I have thought differently about UFO sightings ever since. We don’t know what our military has, and I kind of like that.

So, the harsh reality is that space has become the new military high ground. As the hilltops that men once gave their lives to gain have given way to air superiority, we now find that our valuable assets in low-earth orbit, those providing photographic intelligence, communications and GPS data are our upper-hand on the modern battlefield. While those are our strengths, our adversaries also recognize them as our vulnerability. Consequently, they have developed technologies that are less sophisticated (and costly) than ours, but are designed to destroy our “birds” and remove our eyes and our ears, and our precious advantage.

We are also finding that people and commercial infrastructure require security further from home than in the recent past. Although counts vary, most estimates put the total number of satellites currently in orbit at around five thousand. The majority are from the U.S., and a substantial number of those are privately owned, deployed for commercial use. Like our military satellites, they are vulnerable to attack and would benefit from protection.

Looking forward, space tourism becomes a factor. The efforts of Virgin Galactic and SpaceX seem to garner the most attention, but Wall Street is watching Blue Origin, Orion and Boeing as space tourism plays as well. Others will soon enter, and as these enterprises proliferate, security concerns will follow.

Last, but by no means least is the role of mining. We are only beginning to understand the variety of natural resources available beyond our atmosphere, but it’s only a matter of time before we make use of them.

The most valuable resource identified so far is water, which is not only necessary for human sustenance but can be split with solar power to produce hydrogen fuel for further, farther exploration.

The availability of water is believed to be China’s motivation for committing assets to the Von Kármán crater on the far side of the Moon. Given China’s use of rare earth metals as a bargaining chip in the current trade battles, it follows that they would seek an upper hand by claiming a suspected water resource. China’s slow, methodical expansion of power in the South China Sea might also be a harbinger.

They began by constructing man-made islands, then unilaterally extended their claims to territorial waters accordingly. In doing so, they have encroached on Vietnamese claimed zones and are seeking control of ever-larger areas of international waters. If this tactic is effective on earth, why wouldn’t they try as much in space?

Other governments competing in the space race include the European Union, India, Japan and our new campaign advisors, the Russians. They will all, at times, be partners and competitors, but the People’s Republic of China is already demonstrating a slow, methodical will to gain dominance in space.

The establishment of an agency dedicated to counteracting those efforts is a welcomed improvement and some would argue, overdue.

There will be days, no doubt, when the cost seems high. We will ask ourselves if we shouldn’t be using our resources to address challenges here on earth.

Those are fair questions, and they need to be asked, but even those of us who advocate for limited government recognize national security as a legitimate use of public resources, both down here on earth, and in space.