http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspxFor most political junkies, the recently announced national space policy is hardly a blip compared with the congressional page scandal and the war in Iraq. But at least one political heavyweight, former Vice President Al Gore, sees the White House’s newen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8353Tue, 24 Oct 2006 02:02:59 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8353Charles Rusher, Honolulu, HawaiiSpace is a big and new horizon that will take many generations to explore. We need new and big ideas in which all people can live. The short sightedness of one nation (my country) shouldn't dictate how others explore this new and vast frontier. Weapons should only be employed for defensive purposes only. Life as we are learning is rare and precious.http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8360Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:32:33 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8360Bryan, San Diego CAIt is disappointing to hear that our arrogance is going to ruin the last frontier that we have to unify the world. Space, and for that matter our solar system, belongs to all mankind. It should be a global effort to explore and if we want to colonize space. It is our last great opportunity to leave all of our flaws and disagreements that plague the current global society behind and start anew with a unified existence.http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8361Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:55:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8361JC, Fairbanks, AKLouis Friedman of Planetary Society has written a well-thought-out commentary on this 'policy statement,' where he points out its fundamentally belligerent overtones; he also point out that the administration that issued it may soon lose a lot of its power.http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8364Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:13:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8364Allan, Kalamazoo, Michigan USALow earth orbit and earth to moon space will be controlled by whatever country puts the most money and effort into establishing permanent bases there. Not these tinfoil contraptions that they have been nursing for the last 25-30 years. The huff and puff hubris of the Bush administration means nothing without the investment in time and money to back it up. Many of the cutting edge projects that could have made it possible had their funding cut as soon as the going got tough. (project Prometheus for example.) Can you imagine the outcome if the US were to shoot down another countries satellites, let alone a manned mission to build an outpost that "threatend" US space superiority. As for weapons in space, after all the cold war years and rocket launches with "military satellites" on board, it would be foolish to assume they are not already up there.http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8365Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:02:42 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8365Daniel M. Gilsdorf, Kayenta, ArizonaNow that GPS works correctly, the US military has become hugely dependent on it - and a war-time president is hugely dependent on his military might. The new policy, as much as it inspires other nations to fear US leaders, expresses the fears that haunt those US leaders. Other nations have voiced concerns that the US government has deep pockets for research and development of military space concepts - but forget that the US government also has a climate that wastes money and stifles innovation. If technological progress were all about budgets, Robert H. Goddard's minimally-funded team would not have led the way on liquid-fueled rocket research - and if the new US space policy seeks to deny space access to any other nation, it underestimates our competitors in space enterprise. This policy is just an exercise in lightsaber-rattling.http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8367Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:51:53 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8367Jim ObergProtecting yourself with a paper shield (a treaty that you know other nations have disregarded in the past) is not an attractive strategy to many people, who remember a long history of Russian space weapons developments that did NOT trigger a 'space arms race' only because they made no military sense. But Russia always seems to get a 'pass' for its transgressions from space arms control advocates -- who then act baffled about why the US government is less than confident in the efficacy of such paper protections.http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8424Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:14:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8424Robert, Rochester, NY"Weapons for defensive purposes"?? Against whom, the Alpha-Centauris on the march? (I'm sure there are people out there in fear of that). There should be an international law against any military platform or weapon of any sort over a certain height (15 miles, 20 miles?). And that should also be extended to cover any planetary exploration in the future. Keeps the weapons on Earth, they have no business anywhere else.http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8431Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:43:44 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8431George CernigliaroGore might well be on to something here. I guess we're not happy just trashing our own planet with shortsighted political gamesmanship; now we're moving into the higher plane. Beware...something might be watching...haven't we seen this one already? Klaatu-barada-nikto! http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8441Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:30:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8441Brian Fisher, Boardman, OregonI think that Mr. Gore is right. Short sighted policies that will inevitably affect the future seem to be the trademark of the current administration. I read a study that stated by the year 2050 humans will need two Earths to supply what we use. This new policy will undoubtedly affect that (most likely in a bad way).http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8466Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:40:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8466Monte Davis, PAMuch ado about very little. For all the heavy-breathing talk since 1957 about "high ground" and "Pearl Harbor in space," the only military functions in orbit that make sense are the same as the civilian functions that pay for themselves -- remote sensing, communications, and navigation -- and for the same reasons. Nobody can afford to orbit either the mass or the power sources needed for orbital battle stations and all the rest of the zoomy Powerpoints. And even if we could: do we really want a future in which *no one* can get to space because the bloodless Pyongyang-Caracas-Islamabad Orbital Skirmish of 2037 has filled LEO with debris for centuries to come? As Jim Oberg says, the Russian initiatives made no military sense. Where we may differ is that I don't lose much sleep over policies or treaties under which we would give up the right to do equally senseless things. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8468Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8468Frank, Dallas, TXSince when is it belligerent to declare that US assets will not be unhindered in the use of space? Belligerent would be if we declared that we will hinder other countries' use of space - there's nothing like that in the policy. This is spin, and shame on Gore for perpetuating it. He didn't even have the backbone to go on the record with it, and for good reason - his comments won't stand up to scrutiny. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8471Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:52:14 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8471Alan Sheets, Loveland COHere's something for the North Koreans to try... they can't load a nuke onto one of their missiles and get it to Japan, much less the US, but they probably can send a nuke straight up ~150 miles. So, every time a nice big cluster of GPS sats, spy sats, polar orbiting sats, etc (or even, on a good day, a Space Shuttle or an ISS) floats overhead, NK shoots up a nuke, detonates it overhead, and EMPs the heck out of the satellites. Sure, they screw up their own ground-based infrastructure, but So What? They are probably still using vacuum tubes anyway.http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8482Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:22:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8482Guy Newell, Niles, MIThe Pentagon designed and paid for the GPS system. For the first few years they purposely introduced jitter in the carriers accessed by the civilian recievers. They don't have to "look into" ways to shut it down. All they have to do is reach over and flip a switch and they can selectively shut down any portion of it they want to. That's why the EU has been trying to figure out how to pay for one of their own. The real genius of the whole plan was to make it available to civilians so as to short-circuit any investment in a competing system. I thank God that we finally have a president that puts America first in all our policy decisions, even when it makes our "allies" angry. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8496Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:15:44 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8496Don Schumacher, Jr., Melbourne, FLPutting weapons in space at this point in time and justifying it by saying it is in our 'national security interests' would only provoke other nations to do the same. Look what happened with nuclear weapons. The US built a ton of them, then said no one else can have them; but when we look today more an more countries (and more unstable countries) are getting nukes every decade. Placing weapons in space will in fact not ensure our national security, but only force the hand of other countries to place weapons in space to be on equal footing with us. I for one would rather have no weapons in space instead of possibly provoking others (say China) to put weapons in space.http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8530Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:56:54 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8530RobinIt seems that "off the record" these days actually means "subject to exclusive media coverage." Hey Alan, didn't you get the email warning media to stay away from the Summit? http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8538Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:59:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8538Frank GloverThere are valuable military and civil assets in space (at this time meaning Earth orbit, but not necessairily always limited to this). It's perfectly reasonable to want to protect these assets and have everyone know that you will do so. (and as the gentleman ftom Texas noted, we may expect others with the means, to do the same) And what do we mean by 'weapons?' For what it may be worth, the US and many others are already a signatories to a 1967 treaty* that forbids basing 'weapons of mass destruction' (back when that really only meant nuclear weapons) beyond the atmosphere. At the other extreme, does 'weapons' mean a station crew's sidearms? With the difference in velocities objects in orbit can easily have, even throwing a pail of sand in the right direction, at the right time, can be devastating to something colliding with it (consider the effects of orbital debris, done with deliberation). If we want spaceflight to become common in the future, we must acknowledge now, that we cannot know who is carrying what in every launch from every country capable of either building, or eventually, buying and operating spacecraft. Human nature won't change just because humans (and/or their valuable assets) operate beyond the atmosphere. A policy that states that interference with those of the United States will be defended against, is simple acknowledgement of that. And failure to acknowledge it, to assume that nothing but good will always prevails in LEO and beyond, enhances no one's security. * http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ost/text/space1.htm http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8539Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:06:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8539Alan BoyleI missed that e-mail, Robin. As a matter of fact, I had naively assumed the shindig would be open to press coverage. The organizers were kind enough to let me in at the last minute, and I (mostly) tried to behave myself. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8546Wed, 25 Oct 2006 06:07:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8546Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PAThe US's change in foreign policy has put the entire world on edge. Even before 9/11 and Iraq they took extremely provocative measures when they sent spy planes and a naval ship 20 miles off the coast of a Chinese naval base. I very much agree with the EU's decision to fly its own GPS system in the event the US decides to shut own its own. I personally don’t know much of anything regarding weapons in space these days. Anti satellite systems have been around for many years. Back in the Mid 1980s the soviets had lasers that could interfere with them so drumming this up as a new threat seems a bit political. I am admittedly very surprised there is not more criticism of the flag-waving race back to the moon. Even if you agree with this plan, there are serious issues with how they are going about it and what they are cutting to get it. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8548Wed, 25 Oct 2006 06:54:02 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8548Chris Muir, Modesto CAAlmost half the readers who have registered their opinion in our unscientific Live Vote think militarizing space is a bad idea - but because the "bad idea" vote is split, it at first glance looks to be less than the "Yay starwars" vote. Total "bad idea" was 48% vs. 47% for "Yay starwars". http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#8887Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:47:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:8887Harry Gavin ShickleWhy does anyone even listen to Al Gore? Why should we take seriously a man who travels the globe telling everyone how bad and nasty we are for consuming energy. Am I the only person who believe's that if Al Gore is so concerned with energy consumption he should be riding in a horse drawn buggy and traveling oversea's in a sail boat without a motor? Maybe next time Mr. Why does anyone even pay attention to this man?http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/23/8349.aspx#9315Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:16:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:9315Tom Ulcak, San Marcos, TXWith the republicans, its always about money and war. How do you exploit it?. If this thinking persists, we will be more like the borg than the UFP.