President Obama is pursuing a global ban on space-based weapons while promising to protect U.S. satellites from harm, according to a Jan. 26 announcement from the White House.
    The pledge includes contingency plans to keep information flowing from U.S. satellites and to take steps needed to protect spacecraft against attack. It also contains language that the administration is interested in reviewing complex and expensive space projects but outlines no specific measures or details on what kind of review would be facilitated.
    While the Obama administration has not formally discussed this measure with the U.S. Department of Defense, the issue is being watched closely by J.P. Stevens, vice president, space systems for the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), who told Via Satellite that aerospace companies welcome the measure but are worried about the new challenges this policy would present them.

Via Satellite: Is this proposal a positive development for the industry?

Stevens: For some time, the AIA has called on the U.S. government for more protective measures for our space assets, and we are happy that the Obama administration is addressing the issue. We recently released a report listing our recommendations to the new administration [“The Role of Space in Addressing America’s National Priorities”] and along with more protection for our space assets, we recommend that the government create a national, singular coordinating body dedicated to looking at space issues with direct access to President Obama.

Overwatch Systems – Tomorrow’s Communications, TODAY! Overwatch Systems LTD, a subsidiary of Textron Systems, provides state of the art satellite communication terminal, antenna, and feed solutions (both single band and simultaneous multi-band) for maritime, flyaway, transportable, and teleport applications. Visit us at SATELLITE 2009 in booth 481. For more information visit: tactical.overwatch.com/business_areas/communication_systems.htm or eMail [email protected]

Via Satellite: Was there communication between the AIA and the Obama administration on a space weapons ban policy?

Stevens: The administration is currently in transition, so we have not talked to them on this particular issue. They don’t even have a deputy director in place yet. We have, however, remained in contact with the Obama transition team, which we worked closely with on our most recent report. We have also been talking to Gary Payton, the deputy undersecretary of the U.S. Air Force for space programs, to ensure that communication remains open and that we maintain our access to the administration.

Via Satellite: Looking at the language of Obama’s pledge, how will the government, or even the industry, put an exact definition on what constitutes a “space weapon?”

Stevens: That’s the key question here. It will not be easy to outline the terms of what makes a space weapon. You not only have to look at weapons in space but weapons on the ground that can affect space. For example, the United States destroyed the USA 193 spy satellite with an SM-3 missile launched from a cruiser in early 2008. Since an SM-3 can destroy a satellite, does that mean we should ban all SM-3s?
    Another example of how this could be tricky can be seen on commercial satellites. Some of those satellites carry transponders used by the military. Could those be defined as a space weapon? The fact is, the policy is vague right now, and I can’t see what that exact definition will be. It needs to be coordinated across all of the related agencies and the government.

Via Satellite: What are the global implications of this policy? How would this affect interaction with China, which also has demonstrated space weapons?

Stevens: We rely so heavily on our space assets in that region for military satellite communications with our troops in Afghanistan. China’s use of [anti-satellite weapons] is a concern and creates the need for this kind of complicated policy. This policy would give us the ability to mobilize our resources to defend our space assets if necessary. It is not intended to tie our hands or leave us vulnerable. Discussions like this on the government have a positive affect because they give the needed attention to the importance of our space assets.

Via Satellite: When President Obama mentions in the same policy that he would review “complex and expensive” space programs, is he hinting that he would give himself a reason to terminate a project by declaring them space weapons?

Stevens: I do not believe that President Obama is going to use it to shoot down projects, and I do not think his interests here are to cut anything. There are rumors flying around that some space and defense funding will be cut, but they are just rumors and we have yet to see what will happen. I do not think these two types of government actions are linked.