![Visit MIIS [ Image: MIIS Logo ]](/_navimages/logos/miis_logo_white_260x55_80percent.png "Visit MIIS [ Image: MIIS Logo ]"){kind=logo}
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
|
| You are here: HOME > Publications > Story Archives > Story |
CNS Research StoryMoonstruck: What's Up with U.S. Space Policy?
by James Clay Moltz February 2, 2004
The president's speech offered funding from his administration of only $1 billion over the next five years--a pittance toward a mission estimated to cost some $400-500 billion to complete. Other contributions would be taken from scaling back existing NASA commitments and redirecting them to the new goals. However, almost all of the additional costs would have to be borne by future U.S. presidents. Polling after the NASA speech uncovered serious public doubts about the need for such a move in the current deficit environment, leading the president to remove any mention of the space initiative from his State of the Union address on January 29, 2004. Still, given the amount of planning involved, there are clearly strong political forces behind the Moon venture, meaning that it may return later in the year or in a possible second Bush term. Since China's successful launch of its first man in space in October 2003, some influential Republican members of Congress have called for moves to counter China's recent entrance into human space activity, suggesting a resurgent U.S. manned program and possibly new military measures.[2] Such factors have led arms control analysts to wonder whether the Bush speech is simply the camel's nose under the tent for an even more aggressive U.S. space effort, particularly given past statements by senior members of the Bush administration on the need to deploy missile defenses and other weapons in space. As critic Bruce Gagnon argues, "The military has long eyed the Moon as a potential base of operations...."[3] Undoubtedly, more thinking and more specific planning will be required to implement the Bush plan, and Americans will need to have a good reason to back it. At this point, however, it is worth walking through some of the background to the president's speech, examining possible options for implementing a major U.S. Moon initiative, and discussing some of the trade-offs involved in different courses of action (whether civilian or military). Preventing a Surging Chinese Space Presence? Perhaps the most fundamental question in regards to the Moon/Mars initiative is "Why now?" It is clear from press reports that the Bush administration had hoped the initiative would spark popular interest and help Americans see the president (like John Kennedy, who called for the original Moon program) as a man with a "vision" for the country's future, particularly in the run-up to the 2004 election. At the purely functional level, the concept has certain merits. The Moon's extremely low gravity would make it much easier to send a spacecraft capable of carrying a great deal of supplies and equipment toward Mars. Moreover, putting such a flight more directly on NASA's agenda provides a cogent rationale for beginning to ramp down the costly and controversial U.S. space shuttle fleet, whose accidents and limited mission capability have made it a political liability for NASA. It would also limit U.S. participation in the International Space Station to experiments on long-duration human spaceflight. Finally, a Moon base could lead to the development of new power sources, drawing on elements found on the Moon. Such new technologies could benefit industry on Earth as well as future space exploration. But how can these goals be accomplished, given their extremely high costs, estimated at $400-500 billion to complete an eventual Moon-Mars mission agenda? In his NASA speech, the president seemed to provide an opening to participation by other states in future U.S. plans. As he noted, "The vision I outline today is a journey not a race, and I call on other nations to join us...."[4] Yet, when journalists asked NASA chief Sean O'Keefe after the president's remarks if that might include China, Mr. O'Keefe hedged his bets by saying, "I wouldn't want to speculate."[5] An anonymous NASA source has stated that competitive fears and Beijing's plans to land a man on the Moon actually provided the key incentive behind the recent U.S. initiative.[6] Reliable press reports say that some of the most conservative members of the administration--such as Vice President Dick Cheney--led the efforts to craft the new space policy.[7] Thus, while a few journalists have quoted unnamed administration sources saying that China might be involved in future programs,[8] the bulk of evidence suggests that the aim of this effort is largely competitive. Notably, to date, China has not been allowed access to the International Space Station, due to U.S. opposition. If competitive theories regarding China are correct, the Bush vision seems to be one of seeking out Western allies, plus Japan and possibly Russia, to beat China back to the Moon and then beyond. If key Western space powers do join, the effort could lead to new forms of scientific and commercial cooperation and the development of valuable new technologies and materials. However, it is not clear if others will buy this option for two reasons: 1) they may not accept the notion of a space competition with China; and 2) the now-planned rapid U.S. exit from the International Space Station is likely to leave a bad taste in the mouths of many erstwhile partners. Thus, without careful management of the diplomatic side of this equation, the United States could be left isolated from others in space. Military Components and Existing Treaties In this regard, given the dual-use nature of any spacecraft that might be built to go to the Moon, there is the possibility that plans for a peaceful Moon base might shift to create a military one, particularly if the competition with China were to heat up. Some critics fear that potential threats might be manipulated by future administrations to justify a military approach. (One online humorist joked recently that President Bush plans to "occupy" the Moon since its desert environment could make it an attractive new training base for al-Qaeda.)[9] More seriously, actual military uses of the Moon might include protecting U.S. astronauts and mining operations on the Moon or conducting "policing" activities against spacecraft in near-Earth space more efficiently than could be done from Earth. While there was no mention of such plans in the president's speech, this would not be the first administration to consider such ideas. Information made public in the past few years reveals that during the late 1950s the United States envisaged a Moon base run by the armed forces, equipped for possible battle against other space-faring countries.[10] However, cost concerns and the lack of a clear threat killed the program, and the United States instead signed the Outer Space Treaty in 1967. Article IV of this treaty states clearly that "The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the test of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies [such as the Moon] shall be forbidden."[11] Politically, the Moon remains a symbol, and having a U.S. presence there (especially if the Chinese fulfill their plans of reaching the Moon within a decade) could be important for keeping the United States as a leader in the future of space exploration. But moving in a military direction is highly problematic, if doing so gives other members of the Outer Space Treaty an incentive to violate the agreement and deploy WMD in orbit around the Earth or engage in other banned behavior. It is still too soon to evaluate fully the Bush administration's plans, as much information is not known and many details have certainly not been worked out. What can be reasonably accomplished at this point in time is to develop a set of questions to guide future debates. Some of the information that needs to be gathered before the United States can make reasoned decisions about a Moon base and future U.S. space strategy (either competitive or cooperative) include answers to the following questions:
In the coming years, U.S.
presidents, their administrations, the Congress, and other interested parties
(including industry, the science community, and the informed public) will need
to examine the trade-offs of various courses of action and offer specific
responses to these questions. Space still offers unique opportunities for
international cooperation and conflict prevention, unlike other new frontiers
where weapons have tended to lead human activity rather than follow. However,
cooperation takes work, mutual understanding, and trust. At present, these
pre-conditions do not yet exist among all leading space powers. Thus, it remains to
be seen whether national leaders and other influential actors (including in
science and industry) will be able to develop them and thus avoid military
confrontation.
|
| Return to Top |
Illustrations of possible Moon bases.
@CNS Updates