AN ASSERTIVE NEW NATIONAL SPACE POLICY

from www.fas.org's Secrecy News

AN ASSERTIVE NEW NATIONAL SPACE POLICY

The Bush Administration has issued a new National Space Policy that
stresses unilateral American freedom of action in space. The new
policy is intended to "enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through
space to defend our interests there."

The policy affirms "the use of outer space by all nations for peaceful
purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity."

But it declares that the United States will "take those actions
necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference;
and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities
hostile to U.S. national interests."

The policy, which supersedes a 1996 Presidential Decision Directive,
was almost certainly promulgated in a National Security Presidential
Directive (NSPD), which has not been publicly disclosed. Instead, a
ten page unclassified summary was released late last week.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/space.html

In large part, the new policy tracks closely with the previous Clinton
policy. But it also departs from it in significant and surprising
ways.

The previous policy prudently reserved judgment "on the feasibility and
desirability of conducting further human exploration activities" beyond
the International Space Station in Earth orbit.

But in a rhetorical flight of fancy, the new Bush policy purports to
adopt a new national "objective of extending human presence across the
solar system," no less.

Like the earlier policy, the new policy continues to authorize the
sometimes controversial use of nuclear power sources in space, but it
also goes on to prescribe approval procedures for the extremely
improbable scenario of "non-government spacecraft utilizing nuclear
power sources."

The 1996 policy stated that "Space nuclear reactors will not be used in
Earth orbit without specific approval by the President or his
designee." This provision seemed to embrace a 1989 proposal by the
Federation of American Scientists and others to ban nuclear reactors in
orbit as a means of forestalling deployment of high-power orbital space
weapons.

The new policy rejects that or any other infringement on unilateral
U.S. freedom of action.

"The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or
other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use
of space," the Bush policy warns.

The new policy also addresses the problem of space debris, and the
classification and declassification of space-related defense and
intelligence information, among other important topics.

The text of the 1996 National Space Policy may be found he

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/doco...nal/nstc-8.htm

A September 26 NASA Notice on the development of Advanced Radioisotope
Power Systems may be found he

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/09/fr092606.html

The FAS proposal to ban nuclear reactors in Earth orbit was introduced
in "Space Reactor Arms Control" by Joel Primack, et al, in Science and
Global Security, Volume 1 (1989):

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/pu...1-2Primack.pdf

In article . com,
"Mike" wrote:

But in a rhetorical flight of fancy, the new Bush policy purports to
adopt a new national "objective of extending human presence across the
solar system," no less.

Well, even an idiot can get something right now and then, even if purely
by chance.

"The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or
other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use
of space," the Bush policy warns.

That's good too.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Joe Strout wrote:
"Mike" wrote:

But in a rhetorical flight of fancy, the new Bush policy purports to
adopt a new national "objective of extending human presence across the
solar system," no less.

Well, even an idiot can get something right now and then, even if purely
by chance.

Yes once I did notice that just once he got something right. What it was,
I do not recall, so it must have been a minor concern, Bush's the once in
a blue moon flip flopping from staying the course.

"The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or
other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use
of space," the Bush policy warns.

That's good too.

Unfortunately Bush is announcing US reserves the right to use space for
war. If ever they start shooting up there, LEO will be littered with so
much high speed trash, that access to space would be most difficult.
Even placing of satellites in LEO or in geosync could become costly and
very iffy. In other words, the war president doesn't care if he makes
access to space impossible for future generations. Nor does he care about
anything: US citizens, jobs, health care, environment. Not even about
vets nor even GI's in service.

"Joe Strout" wrote
Well, even an idiot can get something right now and then, even if purely
by chance.

Still waiting for your turn to come up, I see.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Gene Cash wrote:
"Jim Oberg" writes:
"Joe Strout" wrote

Well, even an idiot can get something right now and then, even if purely
by chance.

Still waiting for your turn to come up, I see.

Damn. That's colder than a Siberian winter.

I bet you're so old fashion, you don't know about arctic sea cruises. ;-)

In article om,
William Elliot wrote:

"The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or
other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use
of space," the Bush policy warns.

That's good too.

Unfortunately Bush is announcing US reserves the right to use space for
war. If ever they start shooting up there, LEO will be littered with so
much high speed trash, that access to space would be most difficult.
Even placing of satellites in LEO or in geosync could become costly and
very iffy.

Yes, I wouldn't say actually militarizing space is a good idea -- but
opposing *legal* restrictions on space development is certainly a good
idea.

In other words, the war president doesn't care if he makes
access to space impossible for future generations. Nor does he care about
anything: US citizens, jobs, health care, environment. Not even about
vets nor even GI's in service.

Come now, I'm sure he cares about something. War and oil profits, for
example.

In article ,
"Jim Oberg" wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote
Well, even an idiot can get something right now and then, even if purely
by chance.

Still waiting for your turn to come up, I see.

Dang it Jim, I had respected (though not always respected) you up till
now.

Oh well, one more entry for the killfile just means that much less time
wasted in this noisy group.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Joe Strout wrote:
William Elliot wrote:

Unfortunately Bush is announcing US reserves the right to use space for
war. If ever they start shooting up there, LEO will be littered with so
much high speed trash, that access to space would be most difficult.
Even placing of satellites in LEO or in geosync could become costly and
very iffy.

Yes, I wouldn't say actually militarizing space is a good idea -- but
opposing *legal* restrictions on space development is certainly a good
idea.

Give corporations their Bushy Brat temper tantrum ways, you'd wish they
relocate to another galaxy.

In other words, the war president doesn't care if he makes
access to space impossible for future generations. Nor does he care about
anything: US citizens, jobs, health care, environment. Not even about
vets nor even GI's in service.

Come now, I'm sure he cares about something. War and oil profits, for
example.

Let him buy his own xmas presents, US can't afford 'em.