IntenseDebate - weedenbc

3 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Russ... · 0 replies · +2 points

We already know Russian ground-based space EW systems are far ahead of where the US is, particularly in operational integration. It is definitely not unreasonable to think they could do the same for space.

3 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: From... · 1 reply · +8 points

This conclusion makes a big assumption that these are the only countries who will ever sign the Accords. You might be surprised how many other countries have approached NASA with interest and are currently working through the process...

3 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Saus... · 0 replies · +2 points

Good piece, but I take exception to the notion that this is "deregulation". That may be the political term the White House is using, but nothing in space will stop being regulated. If anything, MORE activities will have some sort of formal licensing process than before. This is much more about reforming oversight and licensing to keep up with the big changes in the commercial sector than anything else.

And it's also worth pointing out that many of these reform efforts started under the Obama Administration. The Trump Administration (and in particular Scott Pace) get credit for providing more emphasis and pushing through on the implementation, but there's still a lot left to do. For example, none of the SPD-2 efforts fix the oversight "gap" presented by new commercial activities such as private space station, lunar rovers, and satellite servicing. The Obama Administration proposed a "mission authorization" concept but implementing that has been caught up in all the debate over space traffic management and Commerce vs Transportation: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/defaul...

3 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: The ... · 2 replies · +10 points

This entire article is based on a complete misunderstanding of what the Artemis Accords are actually about.

3 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: The ... · 2 replies · +8 points

It seems everyone is ignoring (forgetting?) the reasons why we have space cooperation with Russia through the ISS Program in the first place.

The Clinton Administration saw an opportunity to create broader Congressional support to fund what was originally Space Station Freedom by adding a foreign policy/security rationale. By bringing in Russia as a partner they were able to sell the ISS as a way to build a better relationship with Russia, keep Russian scientists and engineers productively employed instead of building weapons for the highest bidder, and give Russia a reason to stop proliferating missile technology. See this testimony from Marcia Smith: https://history.nasa.gov/isstestimony2001.pdf

All of that ended up working out very well for building the current US-Russia relationship, but it only really exists in the context of the ISS program. And while the ISS is still going on, many of those underlying drivers and rationales have changed.

So I think the US-Russia space cooperation will last for as long as the ISS does and the relationship is likely to be much different post-ISS.

3 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Pere... · 1 reply · -1 points

Another great piece of research and one that reaffirms my assessment that Russia is more of a counterspace threat than China. Russia has more deployed systems and much more operational experience from Ukraine/Syria on how to effectively use counterspace alongside other military capabilities.

4 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: To a... · 0 replies · +3 points

I very much agree! And that was a big reason why we starting publishing our Global Counterspace Capabilities report three years ago: https://swfound.org/counterspace/

4 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: To a... · 2 replies · +3 points

Great article. I had a similar discussion of these same policies in this twitter thread back in 2018: https://twitter.com/i/events/972522309025193984?s...

I was thinking about turning into an article but you beat me to it! For me this shows just how wrong the claims are about how space was never contested before and how all this thinking about space warfighting and doctrine is completely new. Obviously various parts of the US government and DOD have thought about this stuff a lot in the past, and it seems we've done more forgetting about history than learning from it.

4 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Raci... · 0 replies · -1 points

Bravo, Dwanye. Well said.

4 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: The ... · 1 reply · +6 points

This is not correct:

"Pursuant to Article IV of the Treaty, that freedom is not unrestricted, and does not allow nations to place nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in orbit or elsewhere in outer space, nor to establish military bases, test any kind of weapon, or conduct military maneuvers, especially on the Moon and celestial bodies."

The prohibition on military bases, testing, and maneuvers ONLY applies to the Moon and other celestial bodies. It does not apply to outer space itself.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with weedenbc

People I'm following

weedenbc