CSIS Report-National Security & Commercial Space 7/26/10

[sftommy]

This report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies Defense Industrial initiatives Group came out late July and is very sobering. The arguments for encouragement of the private sector are irrefutable. Might be nice to see every member of Congress have a copy on their desk next time a NASA funding bill is being rushed through.

I believe this document is further evidence of NASA being underfunded at $19B, but I invite discussion from those who actually read it;

http://csis.org/files/publication/10072 ... ce_WEB.pdf

Politically, a fully funded NASA before November might be turned to a good reelection pitch for both conservatives and liberals.

 

[sftommy]

While I believe the report stands best when viewed in its entirety I find several trains of thought relevant to the contentions frustrating Congress.

• 1.) From 2014-2020 DoD and NASA are not projected to launch enough medium and heavy lift vehicles so as to ensure the economic viability of secondary and tertiary suppliers essential to DoD missions unless commercial investment is added.
  2.) Russia, China, Europe, India, and South Korea are all developing commercial launch industries that are subsidized by their respective political entities. This subsidized competition strangles American industry creating the highly probable possibilities of future missions for American National Security being reliant on foreign hardwares and softwares for success (some such state already exists today).
  3.) The weakness of the American economy is a threat to national security. Hi-tech drivers such as NASA have proven historically to drive innovations which drive increased economic activity.
  4.) Of the four options presented in the end, that for increasing demand in the period 2014-2020 by investing in commercial holds most national promise while ensuring a healthy industries survival for DoD needs. Key to creating that demand, and securing a strong place for American industry in the decades to come, is establishing commercial destinations in space beyond that of satellite orbits. Investment in Bigelow does that by enabling it to create just such destinations; hotels, fueling depots, casinos, etc.
  5.) Current internal American launch capability is virtually non-competitive. The risk of a single element in entirely removing that capability is a risk to national security. Multiple launch providers helps ensure fewer gaps in American space access should misfortune befall.
  6.) In the event of a National Emergency, DoD resources would be immediately augmented by a friendly and capable space force enhancing America’s ability to project its power worldwide.
  7.) To the extent that commercial space industry is developed under US auspices, controls of that industry will develop under US auspices. It is in our national security interest to be first in commercial space and establish these controls if we can.
  8.) Technological superiority is the cornerstone to America’s success for at least the last century. Investing to continue that technological superiority is perhaps the apex of all American National Security missions feeding into education, economic opportunity, and multinational competitiveness.
  9.) Finally; a vigorous American commercial space industry/policy ensures that the United States has the capability and resources in space to ensure American interests won’t be compromised as other nations strive to project their national powers in space.

I find this report, for these and other reasons contained therein, to mandate full investment in commercial and technological innovation. The papers position would also seem to support the immediate development of an evolutionary heavy lift launch vehicle.

The missions being required of NASA in terms of National Security are not being met by the $19B budget currently being presented by any arm of government.

Thomas S Rudder
SF, CA

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Very intriguing report, but yeah... 80 pages :shock:

But from what I read it seems very important and beneficial for us to encourage public-private cooperation to expand our presence in space. Should be required reading for all congressmen about to vote on any NASA bills.