perfidy

So what does this mean for the frustrated space geek? Well, it's bad news all around. Not only is there no good reason for the government to undertake large scale space colonization, there are several reasons for them not to. 

Firstly, American military dominance is founded to an amazing degree on satellite technology. Our weapons systems use GPS satellites for guidance. Our weapons systems and soldiers communicate with satellites. Our commanders and planners depend on intelligence gathered by satellites. Our Air Forces depend on weather data gathered by satellites. Currently, no other nation has these capabilities.

The Air Force did a study back in the sixties, and realized that a small two man orbital station could do vastly better reconnaissance work with a small telescope than any conceivable (at the time) recon satellite. While computers have vastly increased the capabilities of our spy satellites, the fact remains that if people are up in orbit, a small telescope gives them powers comparable to the most sophisticated military and expensive military or CIA spysats. 

This concept has broad application. People do things better than robots. If people are in orbit, they can do many things that can currently only be done with expensive automated hardware that only the U.S. can afford. If the U.S. government makes it really cheap to get into space, then it will have given away one of the most incredible military advantages ever possessed by a nation. 

Also, when you drop things from very high up, they hit the ground very hard. This basic law of applied physics has already been proven by the use of Concrete bombs in the war in the gulf. Thanks to precision (satellite) guidance packages, a very large lump of concrete dropped from fifty thousand feet (about eight miles) can easily destroy a tank or APC. When you drop things from 150 miles up, in Low Earth Orbit, you can reach out and touch someone, anywhere on the globe, in less than half an hour, with the explosive force of a pony nuke. Access to space gives great power to anyone who can get into there. 

The U.S. Government does not want to lose these advantages. Nor would any sane government. Another reason that the government would be happy with status quo is simply to restrict access to space generally. In this way, only accredited commercial interests will be permitted launch slots. The other three nations that are space capable, China, Russia and France, follow the same restrictive policies. It is an exclusive club, and even run of the mill bureaucratic inertia and turf defense instincts would be enough to shape policy toward keeping things as they are. 

Then, there are all the commonly heard objections: "We need the money to give to crack mothers, or to fund Richard Maplethorpe." Or, "Space is a pristine environment, and we don't want to kill all the space otters with pollution from the combustion of Hydrogen and Oxygen." Or, "Exploiting space is a typical phallic dominance maneuver of the ruling political class, and only perpetuates the oppression inherent in the system." (Johno or Mike, you could probably do the academic bullshit speak better than me, you've been exposed to it more.) Or, "It will upset the French." 

These reasons, as ridiculous as they sound to the passionate space geek, are nevertheless politically potent objections. Along with the first two, they stand as a formidable bulwark against future space development. NASA may continue to design and redesign space vehicles so as to create an illusion of progress, but it truly is not in the government's interest to promote significant space activities. For the near term, government space activities will be limited to satellite deployment - the orbital equivalent of coastal navigation buoys; and the occasional deep space probe.