With so much of the US military advantage depending on the multitude
of space systems it's deployed, I wonder if their is any reticence
from military planners on the prospect of Cheap Access to Space?
02.html
Consider how a genie unleashed is difficult to put back in the
bottle.
In the 80's, the US supplied the Afghani Mujahadeen with stinger
missiles so enable them to take down Soviet aircraft. Last year, two
stinger missiles were fired at an El Al aircraft in Kenya, and there
are palpatable fears of such missiles attacks on US passenger
aircraft, so much so, that gov't funds have been allocated to start
retrofitting passenger aircraft with flares and other
countermeasures.
Extrapolating from this one example, and I'm sure you can come up
with others, to the CATS situation, consider a cheap launch, perhaps
one that doesn't require a launch complex, and the payload is a
kinetic weapon targeting US satellites. Poof! US military supremacy
is taken down a notch.
Or, economic sabotage of commerical satellites. Terrorism striking
the pocketbook rather than the lives of citizens.
If you were a policy maker would you encourage CATS? Your own
budgets would benefit from lower launch costs, but you would be
handing your enemies a stick to strike you with. You may be intent
on keeping control of the technology, but I would bet that once
available, other countries would also set up competing concerns and
then proliferation of services would follow.
Would it be wiser to try to restrict access to space by keeping it
expensive?
I hope this post gets a few responses!
TangoMan
An interestng new point, but it appears that for a long time to come,
terrorists will have easier ways to distrupt society, while space-based
terrorism should be easier to counteract. In general, just about every
new technology can be used by terrorists. If we forgo progress
because of this threat, that in itself is a victory for terrorists.
-Michael Mautner
the multitude
of space systems it's deployed, I wonder if their is any
reticence
from military planners on the prospect of Cheap Access to
Space?
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/higher
_ground_0304
02.html
Consider how a genie unleashed is difficult to put back
in the
bottle.
In the 80's, the US supplied the Afghani Mujahadeen with
stinger
missiles so enable them to take down Soviet aircraft.
Last year, two
stinger missiles were fired at an El Al aircraft in
Kenya, and there
are palpatable fears of such missiles attacks on US
passenger
aircraft, so much so, that gov't funds have been
allocated to start
retrofitting passenger aircraft with flares and other
countermeasures.
Extrapolating from this one example, and I'm sure you can
come up
with others, to the CATS situation, consider a cheap
launch, perhaps
one that doesn't require a launch complex, and the
payload is a
kinetic weapon targeting US satellites. Poof! US military
supremacy
is taken down a notch.
Or, economic sabotage of commerical satellites. Terrorism
striking
the pocketbook rather than the lives of citizens.
If you were a policy maker would you encourage CATS? Your
own
budgets would benefit from lower launch costs, but you
would be
handing your enemies a stick to strike you with. You may
be intent
on keeping control of the technology, but I would bet
that once
available, other countries would also set up competing
concerns and
then proliferation of services would follow.
Would it be wiser to try to restrict access to space by
keeping it
expensive?
I hope this post gets a few responses!
TangoMan
of Service.Michael N. Mautner
Senior Research Fellow
Soil, Plant and Ecological Sciences Division
Lincoln University
Lincoln, New Zealand
Telephone (64) (3) 325-2811 ext 8352
Fax (64) (3) 325-3844
E-mail mautnerm@...
Senior Fellow
Department of Chemistry
University of Canterbury
Christchurch 8001
New Zealand
E-mail m.mautner@...
Interesting, but I think the argument defeats itself. That is, if
launch costs come down to the point that Al Qaeda could take out the
spy satellites, well then the price is also low enough that the Air
Force, Army, Star Force aboard the Yamato, or whatever could launch
replacements (and more modern ones) for much, much less than what the
ones that were hit cost to launch all those years ago.
Any physical entity relevant to space launch capabilities is considered
an "armament" by the US government, and since 1996 or so subject to
state department approval for export licenses - and if the export is to
China or a few other countries, I believe the approval has to come
directly from Congress. That's likely, right. Any technical discussion
between a launch component enterprise in the US and one overseas (for
example between a satellite manufacturer and any non-US rocket launch
company) is subject to onerous regulatory paperwork and potential jail
time for violations of the information-sharing restrictions agreed upon
in the paperwork. ANY launch that includes a US component (even a
non-space-specific component like a semiconductor chip) is supposed to
be subject to these US regulatory contraints - which has made overseas
satellite manufacturers, launch service providers, etc. very careful
about the components they use.
argument was avoidance of the spread of ICBM-type missile launch
capabilities; the clamp-down in 1996 was because Republicans in Congress
raised a huge stink about supposed missile technology transfer to the
Chinese by various US corporations. But now it just means the US is
falling behind other countries in conventional launch technology - our
companies can't compete, and they can't even talk to their counterparts
elsewhere, and the rest of the world has plenty of capability not to
need our stuff any more. To say that Congress has been paranoid about
the whole business is probably an understatement.
The relevant regulations are under "ITAR" - international traffic in
arms regulations - see http://pmdtc.org/reference.htm
Arthur
Any physical entity relevant to space launch capabilities is considered
an "armament" by the US government, and since 1996 or so subject to
state department approval for export licenses - and if the export is to
China or a few other countries, I believe the approval has to come
directly from Congress. That's likely, right. Any technical discussion
between a launch component enterprise in the US and one overseas (for
example between a satellite manufacturer and any non-US rocket launch
company) is subject to onerous regulatory paperwork and potential jail
time for violations of the information-sharing restrictions agreed upon
in the paperwork. ANY launch that includes a US component (even a
non-space-specific component like a semiconductor chip) is supposed to
be subject to these US regulatory contraints - which has made overseas
satellite manufacturers, launch service providers, etc. very careful
about the components they use.
argument was avoidance of the spread of ICBM-type missile launch
capabilities; the clamp-down in 1996 was because Republicans in Congress
raised a huge stink about supposed missile technology transfer to the
Chinese by various US corporations. But now it just means the US is
falling behind other countries in conventional launch technology - our
companies can't compete, and they can't even talk to their counterparts
elsewhere, and the rest of the world has plenty of capability not to
need our stuff any more. To say that Congress has been paranoid about
the whole business is probably an understatement.
The relevant regulations are under "ITAR" - international traffic in
arms regulations - see http://pmdtc.org/reference.htm
Arthur
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:19:27 -0500
>
> Any physical entity relevant to space launch capabilities is considered
> an "armament" by the US government, and since 1996 or so subject to
> state department approval for export licenses - and if the export is to
> China or a few other countries, I believe the approval has to come
> directly from Congress. That's likely, right. Any technical discussion
> between a launch component enterprise in the US and one overseas (for
> example between a satellite manufacturer and any non-US rocket launch
> company) is subject to onerous regulatory paperwork and potential jail
> time for violations of the information-sharing restrictions agreed upon
> in the paperwork. ANY launch that includes a US component (even a
> non-space-specific component like a semiconductor chip) is supposed to
> be subject to these US regulatory contraints - which has made overseas
> satellite manufacturers, launch service providers, etc. very careful
> about the components they use.
>
One of the most prominent early cases was when the USA refused to launch the French
Symphonie satellite in the 1960's - this motivated France to develop Ariane.
Export restrictions were well established in the early 1980s (from personal experience).
>
>The ITAR regulations predate 1996 by a long time, they just became somewhat tougher.
>
Right - well the regulation moved from the Department of Commerce to the
Department of State, which is a rather signfiicant bureaucratic change,
and from what I hear, made things about 10 times worse.