America’s High Frontier
On May 25, 1961, in a speech before Congress, President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of sending an American to the moon and back before the end of the decade. Eight years, one month, and twenty-five days later, on July 20, 1969, American astronaut Neal Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface, joined a few moments later by Buzz Aldrin.
To fully appreciate how much the Americans accomplished in just over eight years, consider the situation in mid-1961. On April 12th, the Russians had embarrassed the U.S. by blasting cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin into space. And while American astronaut Alan Shepard followed Gagarin into space a few weeks later on May 5th, his mission was only a 15 minute suborbital flight. Gagarin’s flight lasted 108 minutes and completed a full orbit around the planet. We were way behind.
Moreover, compared to what eventually became the Apollo lunar spacecraft, these early forays into space were extremely primitive. Basically the entire Mercury program, designed to achieve spaceflight in low earth orbit while keeping an astronaut on board, consisted of putting an aerodynamic pressure vessel atop a souped-up intercontinental ballistic missile. By contrast, the many modules and maneuvers required to safely deliver three astronauts to the moon and back, was orders of magnitude more complex. Yet America made all that progress in just over eight years.
Back in 1969, if you told anyone that nobody would return to the moon for another fifty years, they would have laughed. The nation had high expectations for the high frontier. But while progress in manned spaceflight since Apollo has been impressive, it’s been slow. Skylab was launched, using left over Apollo boosters, in 1973, tumbling back to earth in 1979. In 1981, the first of five space shuttles were launched. After 135 missions, including two ending in catastrophe, the last shuttle flight took place in 2011. Since 1998 the U.S. has been a partner in the International Space Station, but for the last eight years our astronauts have been getting there and back on Russian rockets.
The Case for Aggressive Spending on Space Development
Back in the days of the Apollo program, there was no budget request that was denied. It was a top priority of the federal government, and through setbacks including the deadly capsule fire during a test in 1967 that killed three astronauts, the spending never slackened and the commitment never wavered. Was it worth it?
By nearly all accounts, yes. To build a craft capable of leaving earth, delivering humans to the moon, then getting them home again, within eight years, is probably the greatest human engineering achievement of all time. An excellent summary of the most significant spin-offs coming out of the Apollo program is a Computer World article from 2009, which focuses on the IT advances. We have the Apollo project to thank for the integrated circuit, dramatic advances in rocketry, “remarkable discoveries in civil, electrical, aeronautical and engineering science,” complex software, lightweight and incredibly durable composite materials, and, for a few specifics – everything from CAT scanners to liquid cooled garments to freeze dried food.
Needless to say, all these innovations would have eventually been made, with or without Apollo. But they would have been made years later, and quite likely by some other nation. The technological spin-offs that would accrue to a new 21st century national endeavor pursued with the fervor of the Apollo program would help America immeasurably in its possibly existential race to stay technologically ahead of powerful rising nations, China in particular.
The Military Urgency of Space Development
In 1984, during the heyday of President Reagan’s promotion of a Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”), James Oberg, writing for Omni Magazine, published an article entitled “Pearl Harbor in Space.” He explained how a single enemy spacecraft, launched from earth around the moon to slingshot back to earth in order to achieve a retrograde orbit (counter to earth’s rotation), could in a few days destroy every geosynchronous satellite.
A killer satellite in a retrograde orbit, would circle towards what are now hundreds of geosynchronous satellites stationed at 22,300 miles above the earth – which is the only orbital altitude at which they remain positioned perfectly stationary, moving at the same exact orbital speed as the earth – like “a car hurtling the wrong way on a superhighway.” Because the cross section of the geosynchronous great circle is only about 100 kilometers, a killer satellite in retrograde orbit could easily identify and destroy everything in its path, one by one, using optical or radar guided missiles, or maneuverable kinetic energy “brilliant pebbles,” or a laser, or a particle beam, or an electromagnetic pulse. Within days, communications across the planet would be crippled.
This is just one vulnerability that national space defense has to counter. China and Russia have already tested ground based and airplane hosted weapons to take out America’s other layer of space based communications and surveillance satellites in low earth orbit. The impact of one major EMP burst over the North American continent would likely fry what remained of land based communications assets. In all three instances, space based military defense is the only countermeasure.
A recent American Greatness article by Angelo Codevilla further explains the urgency of creating an American Space Force. He mentions protecting our satellites, and for defense against ballistic missiles. He correctly emphasizes that space is the new high ground in warfare, and that “we are not seeking it even as China and Russia reach for it.”
Codevilla also notes that “for a variety of tactical reasons, their needs for satellite protection are not as great as ours.” One of these tactical reasons bears note: the U.S. is a maritime power. Our vital national interests are served by maintaining open sea lanes and air traffic corridors across the planet. Russia and China, by contrast, are land based powers, between them controlling most of the Asian continent, with interior land lines for control and logistics.
Establishing military supremacy in space should be an explicit goal of the United States, but this effort, which has hopefully been ongoing for decades via classified programs, can be furthered by a new wave of exploration and commercialization.
Other Reasons for Space Development
Where NASA has faltered, private concerns have stepped up. Entrepreneurial billionaires are racing to bring tourism and commercial development into outer space. Richard Branson has founded Virgin Galactic, building a spaceport in New Mexico and expecting to operate private space tourism flights “within the next few years.” Jeff Bezos has founded Blue Origin, for purposes of space tourism as well as build rockets to launch cargo into orbit. Most ambitious of all, Elon Musk has founded SpaceX, which after operating for several years has just successfully tested the Falcon Heavy, capable of launching 63,800 kilograms into low earth orbit. The Falcon Heavy’s payload capacity is more than twice that of any active rocket, yet is less than half what the Apollo Saturn V could lift into orbit, 140,000 kilograms. While today’s rockets are mostly reusable and far more sophisticated, when it comes to raw lifting capacity, we still have a long way to go, just to get to where we were.
Space tourism, space exploration, and space colonization are reason enough for America to expand operations in space, but there’s much more. With the cost to place a kilogram into low earth orbit down to $5,000, compared to $30,000/kg during the Space Shuttle era, many types of zero gravity manufacturing are being tested. Among the mind-boggling new possibilities are using 3D cellular printers to build replacement human hearts and other organs. Another zero gravity innovation is cost-effective production of exotic fiber optic cable that is extremely difficult to manufacture on earth. In zero-gravity environments gallium-arsenide semiconductors can be built, or grown, in layers one atom thick, with no distortions, yielding solar power at efficiencies that could be as high as 60 percent. Zero-gravity combined with high temperature smelting available on demand using solar thermal collectors makes high-quality metallurgy feasible in outer space.
It may also be possible to generate solar electricity in orbit and beam the power to receivers on earth, potentially delivering inexhaustible clean energy. With the advances in robotics and AI, along with steadily decreasing costs to deliver payloads into orbit, it is likely that by the end of this century an entire self-sustaining economy will be in space, much of it automated, mining the moon and asteroids for materials, and constructing manufacturing facilities and power stations to create great wealth.
The Synergies of Commercial and Military Initiatives in Space
The high ground of space will eventually render most conventional military assets obsolete. Weaponized satellites in orbits with perigees as low as 125 miles will be able to release swarms of robotic, intelligent drones, or brilliant pebbles, or fire lasers or particle beams. Ships, planes, and land based weapons systems including missiles, will be no match for a military that controls space.
Not only will military assets in space protect national interests on earth, but they will be increasingly necessary to protect national interests in space. The commercialization of space to the point where it becomes an economic engine of vital benefit to the earth-bound economy is not a question of if, but when. It could happen within a few decades.
America needs a bold vision for space that incorporates exploration, industrialization, and militarization. The cross-pollination of technologies developed in each of these three areas will catalyze development in the others. The technological spin-offs will more than rival those of the Apollo project. Satellite solar power stations. Orbiting industrial parks. A moon base. A Mars expedition. And a Space Force. We need to do it all, ASAP.
Or someone else will.
This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.
* * *
Edward Ring is a contributing editor and senior fellow with the California Policy Center, which he co-founded in 2013 and served as its first president. He is also a senior fellow with the Center for American Greatness, and a regular contributor to the California Globe. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Forbes, and other media outlets.
To help support more content and policy analysis like this, please click here.
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!