House Democrats: U.S. Must Continue to Lead in Space
PRESS RELEASE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Today, the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on the growth of global space capabilities. Members and witnesses discussed how the growth of global space capabilities may affect the future of the U.S. space program, including opportunities to partner with other nations to share costs and expertise, and the risks of losing the U.S. leadership in space.
“At a time when some in the United States seem to be questioning whether we should sustain a strong commitment to investing in our space program, the rest of the world has not hesitated to embrace the promise that the exploration and utilization of outer space can offer to them,†said Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). “Those other nations recognize that space activities can spur innovation, help improve the quality of life of our citizens, promote national security and economic competitiveness, and advance geopolitical objectives. That recognition echoes the aspirations of our congressional predecessors when they established NASA and undertook other related actions some fifty years ago.â€
The U.S. and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) dominated the first fifty years of the space age as the only nations capable of launching humans into space. Recently, however, other countries have entered the space arena or are quickly displaying increasing technical capabilities for space activities. China launched a human into space in 2003 and performed a space walk in 2008. China and India have successfully launched their first lunar probes, India has announced plans for a human space program, and numerous countries around the world have established space agencies. A number of foreign nations have acquired the capability to develop satellites and instruments and to deploy them with independent launch systems. Others have purchased space assets such as communications satellites on the commercial market and operate them as part of their national infrastructure.
As more nations pursue an active presence in outer space, the global space landscape is becoming increasingly interdependent and competitive economically and geopolitically. There is also a growing drive to finding global solutions to some of the most pressing societal challenges.
“We can just look at the myriad ways that our space investments have transformed our economy, our defense, and our quality of life over the last fifty years to realize the space has become woven into the very fabric of our daily life,†said Giffords. “So it’s no surprise that other nations, seeing the benefits that space investments have delivered to our nation want to share in those benefits. I, for one, see that as a positive development and not one to fear. While we must always be vigilant against those who would use space capabilities to threaten others, we should not turn away from opportunities for constructive engagement in peaceful space cooperation.â€
“Yet if we are to harness global space capabilities in cooperative ventures, the United States needs to make clear to the rest of the world that we are not wavering in our own commitment to space exploration and to the path we have started down,†concluded Giffords.
For more information on the Committee’s work on NASA or space, please visit our website.
3 responses to “House Democrats: U.S. Must Continue to Lead in Space”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“…we must always be vigilant against those who would use space capabilities to threaten others…”
Translation:
We should put lethal satellites in orbit capable of taking out any target on the surface of the Earth with mere hours of notice, and research ways to destroy other nations satellites should we suddenly not like them anymore.
Seriously, Russia and China keep trying to push a resolution through the UN security council to ban weapons in space, and guess who keeps vetoing it? The US.
Any space vehicle that can manouver can be used as a weapon, anti-satellite weapons can be launched from the ground as well, no new technology need to be researched for destruction, as the capacity already exists and in many places. No modern army can function without space based communications structures, hence the strategic importance. What we need are international agreements for space security and usage, collaborative structures that create levels of mutual assurance. With such oversight long term global stability can be enhanced, although international oversights might not necessarily preclude against the denial of space assets to rouge agents or protagonists.
US is not voting for space weaponization, they are voting for confidence building measures and transparency in order to obtain a collaborative space usage and security protocol.
http://usun.state.gov/brief…
“Seriously, Russia and China keep trying to push a resolution through the UN security council to ban weapons in space, and guess who keeps vetoing it? The US.”
What exactly is their definition of a ‘weapon?’ Can I take a sidearm on my spaceship?
We’ll be lucky to continue to keep ‘weapons of mass destruction’ out of space (which is part of The Outer Space Treaty, to which the US has longbeen a signatory).
We all know what orbital debris can do unintentionally. In an environment where there will easily be significant differences in velocity between objects, a certain inherent weapon potential is unavoidable (we’ve already seen how a few people can turn a commercial aircraft into a manned cruise missile). And some people misread ‘weapon’ as ‘military,’ when there have been NON-weapon military assets in space almost fromt he begining. (Why else has anyone, including Russia and China, conducted ASAT tests, but with the intent of denying somoeone else those assets in a crisis? And which nation is the MOST dependent on those assets…?) The need for those assets, which are as much for peacekeeping (how else do you know that someone is living up to a treaty but space-based reconnisance?) as they are for warfighting, will not go away.
Keeping ‘space’ (which, without qualification, is the entire Universe, except for the first 100km around this one planet) free of ‘weapons’ in some general sense is an unattainable (and possibly even undesirable) fantasy.