A Dangerous Step toward Space WarfareContinued from page 1
The topic of weaponizing space is a sensitive one, and Arquilla, who is privy to much classified military information, would not comment on whether the U.S. plans to launch weapons into orbit. But he notes that many defensive methods don't require offensive capabilities--in particular, a proposed system called the Autonomous Nanosatellite Guardian for Evaluating Local Space (ANGELS), which will allow the United States to move its satellites to safer locations. The new space policy does more than just re-assert America's freedom of action in space. It also calls on NASA and other agencies to gear up for technological innovation and "human and robotic space exploration programs." "The policy is in its early stages, and at this point we are continuing to go forward with the programs currently in operation, such as the Mars Rovers and several of the long-term missions," says Robert Mirelson, a senior NASA official. "There are no real big 180-degree changes under the national space policy as it pertains to us, [and] the time line remains the same." As part of that time line, which runs until 2030, NASA plans to complete the International Space Station and shuttle program by 2010 and to develop a new crew exploration vehicle (CEV) for a return to the moon. The CEV, named Orion, is part of the new Constellation Program, which is scheduled to be ready for testing in 2008. If all works well, Constellation will launch in 2014. "We depend on Congress for our budget, and that affects programs," says Mirelson. "Until you see that in black and white, you can't talk specifics across the board. I mean, nobody is expecting any radical reductions and certainly not any radical expansions for [fiscal year] 2007." Despite experts' concerns about the new NSP, most are also hopeful that the United States will collaborate and cooperate with other space-faring nations if technology, budgets, and policies permit. These experts hope that the use of space, as the NSP states, will continue to "enhance security, protect lives and the environment, speed information flow, serve as an engine for economic growth, and revolutionize the way people view their place in the world and the cosmos"--not just for the United States but all "hosts of nations, consortia, businesses, and entrepreneurs" that use space. |









Comments
Colin
10/27/2006
Posts:7
Monsterboy
10/27/2006
Posts:89
gabrielg01
10/27/2006
Posts:405
The real question is what have we already got up there??Does it really have nuclear capability?If you dont believe its there just keep your head in the sand.
oh ya McCain 4 prez believe that too who else is there//Hillary ??not this lifetime!!!
McMillan968
10/27/2006
Posts:38
jsessex
10/27/2006
Posts:13
Be strong without offending anyone (or at least try to minimize offensive things), that is the nature of diplomacy. That is what Bush does not comprehend (among many, many other things).
We should be minding our business quietly. No need to publish inflammatory documents, like this useless space policy document (the policy is useful, the document itself is useless).
gabrielg01
10/28/2006
Posts:405
England's "Peace In Our Time" was a classic example, that we should not repeat. Space is not sacrosanct. We must be as innovative above the earth as on it.
Phineas
10/28/2006
Posts:85
Here's a good definition that makes the distinction clearer:
http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/2149/
schnippy
10/29/2006
Posts:1
De Burnett.
edburnett32
11/07/2006
Posts:1
anubabu
12/03/2006
Posts:1
The answers are not easy. If your Squadron Leader KK Nair could come up with great recommendations, he would have been made UN Secy general.
All said and done, his was the only cry in the wilderness with regards to China's space weaponisation drive. Point is, where does one go from here.
Shyamsunder ...
01/29/2007
Posts:1
Look big picture,PLEASE.
Zhong
03/06/2008
Posts:1
Radhamani
08/13/2008
Posts:1
The USA need a living space: who really is attacking the US? The Czeck, the Polish? Let us read history to know what to expect.
This is all so offensive to the common sense of an honest mind (common sense is not appropriate in this particular case, we should say "bon sens", the "common" here being obviously not the "good")
Cheers,
Yunastic
yunastic
03/09/2007
Posts:2