How Are We Doing?

[g.w.]

The 1996 National Space Policy document states that, “The goals of the U.S. space program are to:

(a) Enhance knowledge of the Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic explorations;
(b) Strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States;
(c) Enhance the economic competitiveness, and scientific and technical capabilities of the United States;
(d) Encourage State, local and private sector investment in, and use of space technologies;
(e) Promote international cooperation to further U.S. domestic, national security, and foreign policies.”

So how are we doing?

[g.w.]

This topic didn't attract much attention, did it?

With the pending release of a new National Space Policy (which we've only been expecting for the last year), we might ask ourselves if we're chosing the right goals....

[t.]

The current goals are fairly generic. I guess what I would like to see is the How.

[Gray Rinehart]

I'm not sure this is the right thread for this post, but neither am I sure it warrants a new thread of its own. Anyway, one of my old bosses -- and one of the best engineers I've ever known -- sent me the link to an Aviation Week article by Amy Butler entitled, "Panel Wants Massive Milspace Reshuffling." (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/SHAKE08148.xml&headline=Panel%20Wants%20Massive%20Milspace%20Resh uffling)


A blue-ribbon panel of national security space experts is calling for a number of "bold steps" - including the abolishment of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) as they exist today - to shake up today's ineffective national security space procurement and operations structures ....

The most radical of the group's recommendations fall in the area of leadership .... First, the re-establishment of the National Space Council, chaired by the National Security Advisor .... would shift senior authority for space policy from the vice president's office and puts it only one step removed from the president.

Yet, perhaps even more radical is the recommendation for .... [a] new layer of management, called the National Security Space Authority (NSSA) .... The NSSA chief would be dual-hatted, reporting into the Pentagon as an undersecretary of defense for space and reporting to the DNI as the deputy for space.

That NSSA role seems eerily familiar. It sounds like an elevated version of the DoD Executive Agent for Space established by the Rumsfeld Commission, which was a third hat worn by the Under Secretary of the Air Force and Director of the NRO.*

I'm leery of suggestions that add management layers; sometimes it seems as if too much oversight falls prey to the "too many cooks" syndrome. Still, it might be advantageous for that position to reside in DoD rather than in a single service. The question is, how much of a difference would this really make?

___
*Full disclosure: I wrote speeches for the USecAF/DNRO as my last assignment in the Air Force.

[Gray Rinehart]

This Reuters story was unsurprising, really: Executives concerned about U.S. dominance in space (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5310AQ20090402).

The article quotes Jim Maser of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, whom I seem to remember was President of Sea Launch when I was a space technology control monitor for DTSA. I think I met him once, during one of the readiness reviews for the launch of some satellite or other. (Not that it matters, really.)