The ESA has been awarded record funding, dropping its civilian-only focus and branching out to military and security missions.
The European Space Agency (ESA) will begin working on defense projects for the first time, in a move it is describing as “historic.” A resolution by its 23 member states says the agency has the tools to develop space systems “for security and defense.”
The EU and NATO are pouring tens of billions in taxpayer and borrowed money into supporting defense firms and churning out weapons, claiming Russia poses an imminent threat. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that EU leaders are inflating the alleged danger to push their own political agendas and funnel cash into the arms industry.
Next year’s budget allocates a record €22.1 billion (around $24 billion) to the ESA for the next three years.Its member states include virtually all European NATO countries, as well as non‑NATO members such as Switzerland and Austria.
The new budget is a sharp rise from the previous €17 billion. Germany is the top contributor with €5 billion, followed by France and Italy at over €3 billion each.
According to ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher, Poland was instrumental in promoting the agency’s new strategic direction. He confirmed that Warsaw is currently in discussions to host a new ESA center dedicated to security-focused projects.
Across the EU, defense budgets are surging as Brussels and its allies push for rearmament under the banner of security. The European Commission’s ‘ReArm Europe’ plan aims to pour hundreds of billions into joint weapons procurement and infrastructure, while member states have boosted arms purchases by nearly 40% in just one year.
Research and development spending is also up sharply, signaling a full-speed shift toward a greater military focus.
Europe is taking its biggest step yet into space militarization. The centrepiece of this shift is European Resilience from Space (ERS), a new dual-use program intended to build a military-grade “system of systems” combining national satellites for secure surveillance, communications, navigation, and climate monitoring.
ERS received $1.39 billion of the $1.56 billion ESA sought. In February, ESA will ask European defense ministries for an additional $290 million.
ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher called the decision “a clear defense and security mandate,” noting that support from 23 member states — including non-EU countries such as the UK — was nearly unanimous.
At the ministerial summit in Bremen, ESA member states also approved:
a total transportation budget of $5.09 billion (4.39 billion EUR) to develop reusable European rockets;
$4.18 billion for commercial space partnerships;
continued funding for the Rosalind Franklin Mars mission, now slated for launch in 2028 with NASA’s confirmed support;
initial studies for a mission to Saturn’s moon Enceladus, seen by astrobiologists as a prime target for finding extraterrestrial life.
Germany — already planning to invest $40.6 billion in military space capabilities by 2030 — extended its lead as ESA’s largest contributor. In exchange, Berlin secured a commitment that a German astronaut will be the first European to join NASA’s Artemis lunar missions.
Space consultants note that while ERS funding is substantial, it remains politically delicate. “The coming year will be decisive for whether Europe can truly stand up a sovereign, rapid-response intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance constellation,” said Maxime Puteaux of Novaspace.
Earlier, Maj. Gen. Paul Tedman, head of the UK Space Command,reported that Russia was routinely shadowing and trying to jam British military satellites.
Star Wars is back in vogue with President Trump’s executive order to establish the “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. It will feature an ambitious space-based boost-phase interceptor program in addition to terrestrial systems. While admittedly the holy grail of defense against ballistic missiles, the obstacles that plagued its discontinued predecessor, “Brilliant Pebble,” under the Strategic Defense Initiative, remain unaddressed. The technological breakthroughs in launch capacity, decreasing costs of sending mass into space and faster data transfer have led to renewed hope for space-based missile defense, but the fundamental hurdle — physics, not technology — remains to be effectively overcome.
Recurrent interest in space-based missile interceptors (SBI) is driven by the motivation to neutralize the missile in the boost phase, contrary to the other air defense systems that intercept either in the mid-course or the terminal phase. This offers numerous advantages: it is substantially easier to detect and target as the booster has not detached yet, making the target bulkier; the plume from the burn makes it visible; its speed is slower compared to other phases; and the target has not hardened yet, making it more vulnerable. Once the missile enters the midcourse, it deploys decoys with a similar radar cross-section as the actual warhead, which float at similar trajectories, making it exponentially harder to achieve an effective kill. Additionally, the deployment of multiple warheads in case of a Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle or zig-zag moment of hypersonic glide vehicles adds another layer of complexity to successful interception.
However, this lucrative promise is heavily outweighed by the drawback of what could be termed the absenteeism problem in physics. These satellites, carrying kill vehicles, must be stationed in low Earth orbit (LEO) to reach the target in the boost phase, which only lasts from three to five minutes after launch. The fundamental problem is that objects in LEO cannot be parked above one point on Earth; they revolve around Earth, completing a cycle between 90 and 120 minutes. To cover the entire stretch of potential launching points and establish a genuinely global air defense, a constellation of 950 satellites has to be deployed, according to conservative estimates. The estimated cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, is $542 billion as opposed to the $175 billion claim by President Trump.
Not only is the scaling dynamic flawed, but the system is also easy to defeat. The constellation is easily overwhelmed by simultaneous launches. Even if each satellite were to carry more than one interceptor, the system still saturates quickly. Once that happens, instead of a linear increase in required satellites to intercept additional hostile launches, the requirement jumps exponentially, which is untenable. Besides, the enemy can simply punch holes in the chain by employing anti-satellite missiles, as the satellites can be tracked.
Furthermore, attempts to field even a limited number of SBIs for tests could pose a security dilemma for other states. These SBIs can be effective ASAT vehicles as they would require high thrust and maneuverability, allowing them to potentially reach and attack satellites in geosynchronous orbits. This can trigger an arms race of satellite-based weapons as well as counter-space capabilities, resulting in a net effect of added insecurity for all, including the U.S. itself, which depends heavily on its space capabilities. Challenging the effectiveness of an adversary’s deterrent would have profound strategic implications, at least insofar as it would either find qualitative ways to evade the newly developed defense architecture, or increase the number of their missiles to overwhelm the systems, or both. Ultimately, durable security cannot be achieved alone but in concert with others, including the adversary, and perhaps the only way to prevent attacks and ensure long-term stability remains deterrence by punishment.
The proposal for SBIs has also triggered sharp international reactions. China has already fielded its own “Golden Dome” prototype, which is essentially an early warning system with enormous big data computation ability, that uses the present capabilities in a more integrated and efficient manner, rather than seeking new platforms for interceptors. Criticizing the American approach, Beijing has asserted that SBIs would disturb “global strategic balance and stability” and turn “space into a war zone”, while Moscow has called it “very destabilizing.”
The desire to secure the homeland drives this saga, undergirded by the belief that technology could fundamentally alter defense logics. Yet despite significant progress in almost all the technological components needed to improve the cost-benefit equation, the physical — and perhaps insurmountable — barriers remain as formidable as they were three decades ago. The return to space-based interceptors thus reflects a recurring faith in technological solutions to strategic problems that are, at their core, governed by physics and deterrence. Rather than investing in an orbit-based missile shield that risks instability and imposes exorbitant costs, pursuing balanced security arrangements may offer a sustainable path toward long-term stability.
Najam Ul Hassan is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies, Lahore.
Modern conflicts are already being fought in space and the next wars will begin there, French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday, singling out the threat posed by Russia and announcing a multi-billion euro increase in spending on military activities in space.
“The war of today is already being fought in space, and the war of tomorrow will begin in space,” Macron said in Toulouse, France’s space and aviation hub, which is home to its new space military command centre.
“Space is no longer a sanctuary, it has become a battlefield,” Macron said.
He said that Russia in the wake of its 2022 full scale invasion of Ukraine was carrying out “espionage” activities in space.
Russian space vehicles were monitoring French satellites, there was mass jamming of GPS signals and cyberattacks against space infrastructure, he added.
Macron also pointed to the “particularly shocking Russian threat of nuclear weapons in space, the effects of which would be disastrous for the whole world”.
Without giving specific details, Macron announced an additional 4.2 billion euros ($4.9 billion) in funding for military space activities up to 2030.
In a “fragile” European space sector, he also stressed the need to “encourage our European champions to be competitive on the global market”.
The priorities outlined for France’s space strategy included “developing future launchers” that are reusable, have low-cost propulsion and high-thrust engines.
In a nod to the ambitious programmes of American billionaires Elon Musk who leads Space X and Jeff Bezos with Blue Origin, Macron said: “Depending on a major third-party power or any space magnate is out of the question.
“Let us be ready: this will be a condition for the success of military operations on land, in the air and at sea.”
He also said France was accelerating the development of advanced warning capabilities in cooperation with Germany, strengthening space surveillance with the Aurore radar system to reduce dependence on other states.
“We are investing in means of action from the ground and space while respecting international law, but without any naivety,” he said.
I read with interest the Sept. 17 op-ed by Thom Moore, “Maine should vie to be the next US spaceport,” arguing for Maine to become a place where rocket launches occur regularly.
It’s not surprising that a retired NASA scientist who is not from Maine feels our state would be improved by toxic industrial activity of the sort Texas and Florida have to deal with regularly. Moore writes: “… a space industry could make beneficial contributions to Maine’s economy and to the national supply of viable launch sites.”
Let’s examine those claims.
Claims of benefit to Maine’s economy must be weighed against the harms to our traditional economy. Maine’s economy is highly dependent on commercial fishing on the one hand and tourism on the other. Even with the government shutdown, tourists are still flocking to Acadia National Park from all over the world. It’s a uniquely beautiful spot where one can witness the first rays of dawn light in the continental U.S.
Residents of nearby Steuben earlier this year rejected a bid to build a rocket launch site offshore of their village, citing the threat to environmental health of waters where food is harvested and also significant noise pollution. And as far as optics, who wants to see a rocket launch facility within sight of Acadia? Not locals.
Previously, Jonesport rejected a launch site after passing a moratorium to halt development while local residents had time to study the proposal. Which town will be next to say it does not want to hear or see rockets launching from its coast?
At present there is almost no regulatory oversight of such potentially harmful uses of Maine’s shoreline. Look what SpaceX has done to Boca Chica, Texas, over local objections: littered bird nesting grounds with debris from rocket explosions and prevented local residents from access to their beach.
“National supply of viable launch sites” is a backhand acknowledgement of the central role of the Space Force branch of the Pentagon in pushing for launch sites to be constructed. No rocket launch site would be financially viable without military spending, and the U.S. military plans to benefit from the investments of private industry as much as it can with so-called public-private partnerships.
At least two rocket firms in Maine have acknowledged they’ve already received funding from the U.S. Space Force: bluShift Aerospace in Brunswick and VALT Enterprizes in Presque Isle.
But when the Maine Space Corporation was established, legislators were told that its purpose was research and development for civilian and educational purposes. They were explicitly told by the bill’s sponsor that there would be no military use.
This is also what locals in Kodiak, Alaska, were told when a rocket launch site was built there more than 20 years ago. Now, the site has expanded to multiple launch facilities and is most often used for Israeli military satellites and Pentagon payloads. Personnel are brought into Kodiak to oversee these launches, and the only local jobs generated are for custodians and security guards.
Wealthy people looking to profit from using Maine’s natural resources is nothing new. The CMP corridor is being built through the North Woods — over the objections of a majority of Maine voters — in order to enrich CMP and Hydro Quebec.
As you and your neighbors struggle to fund schools and heat your homes amid soaring inflation, ask yourself who would really benefit from building a rocket launch site on the coast of Maine
Joe Wasserman interviews Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator and co-founder of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_ps6sJI1XM
Conibio, which partners with federal conservation programs, expects to see the loss of more endangered turtles because of launches from Starbase. “It’s like launching bombs on their habitat,”
A Mexican conservation group says Elon Musk’s rocket launches from South Texas are killing turtles, damaging homes, and littering Tamaulipas beaches with debris.
Three miles south of Starbase, Texas, where SpaceX launches rockets into orbit, the beaches of Tamaulipas begin at the mouth of the Rio Grande. Further south along the water’s edge, generations of families from northern Mexico have spent Sundays on the shores of Playa Bagdad’s recreational area, renting small wooden palapas for shade. Local fishermen live off the seafood they catch nearby in the Gulf of Mexico. They sell their fried fish, spicy shrimp kabobs, and raw oysters to visitors who sunbathe and swim on the beach.
Many Tamaulipecos have grown up with fond memories of Playa Bagdad, and Jesús Elías Ibarra Rodríguez is one of them. Rodríguez is a Matamoros-based veterinarian and the founder and president of Conibio Global A.C., a nonprofit conservation organization based in the state of Tamaulipas.
For several years, residents of Brownsville and other border towns have protested losing access to public beaches and the harm to the environment and communities caused by many SpaceX rocket explosions. In August, several Texas border organizations demanded that the Federal Aviation Administration halt more rocket launches until a complete environmental impact statement is conducted.
A protest movement is also building in neighboring Mexico, Rodríguez said, as the number of launches and tests has increased. “We’ve been here years before SpaceX, working to conserve these precious ecosystems,” he said. “But everything is changing now. The beach is changing. Even people’s homes, old houses going back generations, are getting damaged from the launch vibrations.”
In 2019, SpaceX launched its first rocket prototype from Starbase, called Starhopper. Rodríguez said that during early tests, most noise and debris were contained north of the U.S.-Mexico border. But in recent years, SpaceX “began building rockets of great size, considered the largest rockets ever constructed on the planet.” It was around this time that communities in Tamaulipas began to feel the greater effects from the vibrations of engine tests and rocket launches.
A 2024 study from Brigham Young University found that the rocket launches at Starbase produced sound levels similar to “a rock concert or chainsaw” up to six miles away. The data also showed the blasts were powerful enough to cause structural damage to nearby homes and buildings.
Concerns increased in Mexico as residents in Tamaulipas began to find industrial debris on the beach, some labeled with the names of manufacturers of materials used in the space industry. “They started letting debris fall into Mexican territory,” said Rodríguez. “That was what really worried us, alarmed us, and upset us.” Rodríguez says that his organization has documented debris from SpaceX rocket launches along a 40-kilometer stretch of Tamaulipas beach.
Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said in June that the federal government was looking into a possible lawsuit against SpaceX based on damage sustained in the region from rocket launches. That same month, El País reported that Elon Musk had reached out to the Mexican government in the days after Sheinbaum’s comment for help in recovering any debris found in Tamaulipas that might still belong to the company.
Rodríguez says that Sheinbaum has assigned a local task force that is now present during launches along with Conibio staff and will soon make available a special team of divers to prepare reports on any major debris that is still under Mexican waters.
Rodríguez says that Conibio, which partners with federal conservation programs, expects to see the loss of more endangered turtles because of launches from Starbase. “It’s like launching bombs on their habitat,” said Rodríguez. “You have the sound and vibration of the explosions, and you have tons of millions of little pieces of plastic that are bait for them. And we worry about sea life in general consuming all that.”
Conibio reports that some 900 endangered turtles have died this year because they were trapped in their underground nests by compacted sand from Starbase launch and test vibrations, including from an accidental explosion of a rocket in June that occurred on the ground while it was still attached to its launch arm………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
While some community members in South Texas have rallied behind the Starbase project in hopes of jobs and economic benefits, that tradeoff does not exist for people in Tamaulipas.
As the space community awaits the upcoming deadline for a Golden Dome architecture, perhaps the biggest story on Golden Dome is how the program is resonating through the industry.
Last month, a new report by the Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy identified Golden Dome (and its prominence within the Trump administration’s fiscal year 2026 defense budget request) as a significant turning point for American space policy, Pentagon spending priorities and the role of the Space Force.
The report said that “the introduction of Golden Dome is arguably the most important development affecting the defense space budget since the inception of the Space Force.”
As SpaceNews’ Sandra Erwin wrote:
For the relatively young Space Force, established in 2019, Golden Dome represents a significant expansion of resources and responsibilities. Sam Wilson, budget analyst at the Center for Space Policy & Strategy and author of the report, views the initiative as creating “a major opportunity for the Space Force as it brings extra resources for some of Space Force’s priorities such as missile warning satellites that the service already was planning to develop.”
“This is an opportunity to get those funded at higher levels,” Wilson told SpaceNews.
The article describes how Golden Dome’s prominence – and the level of attention paid to it – is elevating space issues within broader defense planning. It’s also a program that could benefit new and old space firms alike while calling broader public attention to the military’s role in and influence over space.
Investors feel the same. A note from Capital Alpha Partners this week highlighted that “Golden Dome gave something new for U.S. contractors to talk about and position for,” but so far details are scarce. At last month’s industry summit in Huntsville, Alabama, defense firms got little more than high-level overviews.
While in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, I read the infamous Pentagon Papers that revealed how our government lied to the public, the Congress and the media to create the support for the war. We witnessed a similar story repeated in 2003 with “shock and awe” in Iraq and supposed weapons of mass destruction.
I’ve been coordinating the Global Network since its founding in 1992 while then living in Florida. In 1997, we obtained a copy of the Space Command’s internal document “Vision for 2020” that declared the U.S. would “control space, dominate space and deny other nations access to space.” Since that time the Pentagon and the aerospace industry have done everything possible to create a new arms race in space that they long ago stated would be “the largest industrial project in human history.”
For more than 30 years, China and Russia have gone to the United Nations proposing a new space treaty called PAROS (Prevention of an Arms Race in Space). At the general assembly, in a vote on the nonbinding resolution, it overwhelmingly passes despite the U.S. and Israel voting “No.” The treaty proposal is then sent to Geneva’s Conference on Disarmament for negotiation. There the U.S. and Israel block the treaty.
The official position of the U.S. (through Democrat and Republican administrations) has been “There are no weapons in space, we don’t need a new treaty.” The Global Network’s position has always been “Close the door to the barn before the horse gets out.” But the U.S. has always intended to be the dominant power in space. That is how wars are created.
China and Russia have steadily responded, telling the U.S. that they will not allow Washington to be the “Master of Space” — a slogan over the doorway at the Space Command HQ in Colorado.
NASA has long predicted that war in space will create the Kessler Syndrome — a cascading field of space debris as satellites are destroyed. The outcome would be that much of the Earth would go dark as so many things in our high-tech civilization are linked to space satellites.
While in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, I read the infamous Pentagon Papers that revealed how our government lied to the public, the Congress and the media to create the support for the war. We witnessed a similar story repeated in 2003 with “shock and awe” in Iraq and supposed weapons of mass destruction.
I’ve been coordinating the Global Network since its founding in 1992 while then living in Florida. In 1997, we obtained a copy of the Space Command’s internal document “Vision for 2020” that declared the U.S. would “control space, dominate space and deny other nations access to space.” Since that time the Pentagon and the aerospace industry have done everything possible to create a new arms race in space that they long ago stated would be “the largest industrial project in human history.”
For more than 30 years, China and Russia have gone to the United Nations proposing a new space treaty called PAROS (Prevention of an Arms Race in Space). At the general assembly, in a vote on the nonbinding resolution, it overwhelmingly passes despite the U.S. and Israel voting “No.” The treaty proposal is then sent to Geneva’s Conference on Disarmament for negotiation. There the U.S. and Israel block the treaty.
The official position of the U.S. (through Democrat and Republican administrations) has been “There are no weapons in space, we don’t need a new treaty.” The Global Network’s position has always been “Close the door to the barn before the horse gets out.” But the U.S. has always intended to be the dominant power in space. That is how wars are created.
Advertisement
China and Russia have steadily responded, telling the U.S. that they will not allow Washington to be the “Master of Space” — a slogan over the doorway at the Space Command HQ in Colorado.
NASA has long predicted that war in space will create the Kessler Syndrome — a cascading field of space debris as satellites are destroyed. The outcome would be that much of the Earth would go dark as so many things in our high-tech civilization are linked to space satellites.
The Pentagon has a plan, though. Its strategy is to fund a slew of launch providers around the world to, in a short time during a war in space, put into orbit new military mini-satellites to replace those that were destroyed. One such potential launch provider is bluShift Aerospace in Brunswick.
The CEO of bluShift, in answering a question from me, admitted that his corporation was being funded by NASA and the U.S. Space Force to launch mini-satellites in a time of crisis in order to keep China and Russia from filling up the already overly congested Lower Earth Orbit (LEO).
The only way to peace and security in space is via a new treaty to ban all weapons in space. We delay such a move at our own peril.
You have until Thursday August 21 to respond if you do
The Register, Richard Speed, Fri 15 Aug 2025
NASA’s plans to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon have moved on – the agency has now put out a Request For Information (RFI) to gauge industry interest in the project.
An RFI is not an invitation to bid for the work. Interested parties need to register their interest by 21 August, and only later, there’s a chance that they could be used to “finalize a potential opportunity later this year.” It comes after a directive from NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy that called for the US to be the first to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon.
Things will need to move fast if the agency is to meet the goal of being ready to launch by the first quarter of fiscal year 2030.
Dubbed the Fission Surface Power System, the reactor must have a mass of less than 15 metric tons, have a minimum power output of 100 kWe, and utilize a closed Brayton cycle power conversion system.
NASA is no stranger to nuclear power. It had rovers and spacecraft powered by the technology and has looked into Brayton cycle power conversion for nuclear electric propulsion on Mars missions [PDF].
The Apollo missions used Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) to power experiments to be left on the lunar surface. These contained plutonium-238, and one returned to Earth on Apollo 13, remaining on the lunar module. The container for the plutonium is now at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, and no release of radiation has been detected.
One hundred kilowatts of power is, however, an order of magnitude greater than the nuclear power sources launched by NASA to date. It would be enough to power the International Space Station (ISS), which currently charges its batteries using electricity generated by solar arrays attached to the outpost………………………https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/15/nuclear_moon/
The U.S. Army will begin recruiting soldiers for its first dedicated enlisted specialty in space operations. This is part of a broader push by the service to build organic expertise as satellites become increasingly critical to modern ground warfare….
…The initiative comes as military leaders increasingly view space capabilities as essential to ground operations, driven in part by lessons from the conflict in Ukraine, where electronic jamming, cyber threats and satellite-denied environments have become routine challenges for forces.
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The U.S. Army will begin recruiting soldiers for its first dedicated enlisted specialty in space operations. This is part of a broader push by the service to build organic expertise as satellites become increasingly critical to modern ground warfare.
Army officials at the Space & Missile Defense Symposium this week said the 40 Delta (40D) Space Operations Specialist military occupational specialty is moving from planning to implementation, with full operations expected by October 2026.
Lt. Gen. Sean Gainey, head of the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command, said the service is just weeks away from the official launch of the new specialty. The goal is to “build long-term, institutional knowledge and to retain noncommissioned officers (NCOs) with space expertise,” Gainey said.
The 40D program was approved in December and will begin accepting applications early next year, with selection boards starting in May, according to Command Sergeant Major John Foley, the Army’s senior enlisted leader for space operations. Selected soldiers will receive specialized training in Colorado Springs to become space operations specialists.
The initiative comes as military leaders increasingly view space capabilities as essential to ground operations, driven in part by lessons from the conflict in Ukraine, where electronic jamming, cyber threats and satellite-denied environments have become routine challenges for forces.
Organizational structure
Beyond the new enlisted specialty, the Army is developing what it calls a “space branch” – a professional category similar to existing branches like Infantry, Armor and Artillery. Foley said the space branch would initially encompass about 1,000 enlisted soldiers and officers and would allow space professionals to advocate for programs and resources. The branch is not officially in place yet but should be coming soon, he added.
These organizational changes build on the evolution of the 1st Space Brigade and expansion of “multidomain” task forces, which Gainey identified as significant developments in Army space capabilities. These units have integrated space operations with ground maneuver formations through exercises and collaboration with special operations and cyber elements, giving soldiers hands-on experience in spectrum awareness and techniques to deceive and disrupt adversaries’ satellite use.
The Army’s own labs also have produced weapons like BADGR, a portable system that combines surveillance sensors and jamming devices for electronic attack missions. Brig. Gen. Don Brooks, deputy commander for operations at the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said five BADGR prototypes have been delivered to Army units based on feedback from ground forces requesting specialized equipment for “electronic attack.”
A joint endeavor, not a turf war
The Army’s push to develop internal space expertise has drawn criticism from some observers who view it as creating a “mini Space Force” that could duplicate the newer service’s mission. Army leaders have pushed back against such characterizations, emphasizing their goal is to cultivate organic space competencies rather than compete with the Space Force.
Army officials argue that having soldiers on the ground who understand space-based assets and can immediately translate satellite data, communication support and threat warnings into real-time action is essential for modern warfare. They contend that waiting for external support, even from an expert service like the Space Force, is often impractical when ground units need instant solutions integrated into their tactical operations.
The Army continues to rely on the Space Force for satellite launches, advanced systems and global networks, but maintains that a land component with skilled space professionals can make the entire joint force more capable and resilient.
Gen. Stephen Whiting, head of U.S. Space Command, offered support for the Army’s approach during remarks at the symposium. “I’m gratified to see that all of our military services are understanding the criticality of space,” Whiting said. “The Army recognizes that for maneuver elements to be successful, that there needs to be soldiers who understand space.”
Whiting emphasized that the Space Force maintains its “global space mission to provide space capabilities to the entire force and also to protect and defend capabilities in the domain,” while acknowledging that “all of our services have real institutional strengths.” Rather than viewing the Army’s efforts as competitive, Whiting said, “I don’t see it as being an overlapping and competitive set of responsibilities … but I do see them being complimentary.”
“Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth,” – Henry David Thoreau
The moon is in trouble. And so are we.
Bruce Gagnon:
NASA is not really looking for the ‘origins of life,’ as it tells school children today. Instead, it is laying the groundwork for a new gold rush that will drain our national treasury and enrich the big corporations that now control our government. It is beyond time for the American people to wake up to the shell game underway.[1]
Americans haven’t awoken, despite the environmental damage these projects already inflict and the peril to Earth’s future and that of other planets. That damage will dramatically escalate with the U.S. Space Force and Artemis Accords.
The moon is key to the U.S. and other countries for commercial mining, military bases to control access to Earth and space, and for launching military and commercial conquest of space. On April 6, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of State to “take all appropriate actions to encourage international support for the public and private recovery and use of resources in outer space”.
“Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law. Outer space is a legally and physically unique domain of human activity, and the United States does not view it as a global commons.” [2]
The Artemis Accords are being drafted to establish legal justification for commercial space resource extraction, exploitation, and ownership [3] (reminiscent of the Bush administration memos by Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury on torture). They would be an international pact for “like-minded nations”, foregoing the United Nations treaty process.
Vice President Mike Pence:
“The United States has always been a nation of restless pioneers, from those Americans who crossed the western frontier to settle in California to those who first stepped onto the Moon. We are ever striving to explore uncharted lands, reach new horizons, and venture into the unknown.
Today, we are renewing the legacy of those courageous space pioneers and all they represent. As part of our re-engagement in human space exploration, the Trump administration’s policy is to return to the moon by 2024, ensuring that the next man and the first woman on the moon will both be American astronauts. From there, we plan to put men and women on Mars.
To accomplish this next big leap, we will develop the technologies to live on the moon for months and even years. We will learn how to make use of resources that the moon has to offer. That includes mining oxygen from the lunar surface and rocks to fuel reusable landers, extracting water from the permanently shadowed craters of the south pole, and developing a new generation of nuclear-powered spacecraft that will help us fly further and faster than ever before. [4]
Former Nazi Major General Walter Dornberger, head of Hitler’s V1 and V2 program, told Congress in 1958 that America’s top space priority ought to be to “conquer, occupy, keep, and utilize space between the Earth and the Moon.”[5] The Apollo missions were the first phase — on-site assessments to gather samples, run experiments, and test human interaction with the lunar environment.
Since 1959, lunar missions and crashes by the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, India, Israel, and European Union have left over 413,000 pounds of debris and toxic substances on the formerly pristine lunar surface,[6] including 96 bags of bacteria-laden human excrement dumped by the Apollo missions.[7] Apollo also left a nuclear generator on the moon.[8]
Governments have intentionally hit the moon 22 times as part of experiments and conducted 17 other post-mission crashes. The U.S. did the majority — 16 post-mission crashes and 14 intentional strikes, including the 2009 LCROSS hit, equivalent to 1.5 tons of TNT, to blast 350 tons of rock and dust and create a six-mile-high cloud for data gathering and public relations. That mission cost $49 million, and NASA’s Ames Research celebrated with an all-night party.[9] In the 1950s, the U.S. even planned to drop an atomic bomb on the moon — Project A119 – but cancelled it as too risky.[10]
Why should the moon be protected? There are many reasons.
The moon
stabilizes Earth’s rotation
has a major role in maintaining the Earth’s magnetic field
regulates the climate
creates the tides
affects plant cycles and likely affects all biology and human cycles in profound ways
regulates the procreation of some creatures, including coral [11]
The light of the moon is essential for life, and the moon may well be a stabilizing force for every living being on the planet,
The moon is also a sovereign body with its own rights, and it belongs to no one. It is revered by Earth–based indigenous peoples and has been considered a living, sentient being by people worldwide throughout human history. The moon and earth’s self-protective systems demonstrate far more intelligence, wisdom, and life than “civilized” society understands.[12]
None of this matters to NASA, the U.S. government, other countries, and related businesses. Laser-focused on their mission objectives, with virtually no checks or public oversight, they wield the ultimate in “big toys.” The United States alone budgets millions of tax dollars every year to develop space technology for future outposts and has spent billions on the Artemis Program. For their space program, the overarching priorities are American supremacy, empire, and profit — the unflinching mandate of manifest destiny projected into space.
The United States is by far the biggest threat to space and the moon.
When you don’t initiate the boys, they burn down the village. — African saying
The 1979 United Nations Moon Treaty prohibits military bases and national appropriation of territory but only minimally protects the moon environmentally. It enshrines depredation “on the basis of equality” — “The Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind.” [13] Former astronaut Harrison Schmidt, who formed his own company to mine the moon, complained the treaty would “complicate private commercial efforts.”[14] He was not alone. The U.S. did not sign, and only 18 nations have ratified it.
“…the United States does not consider the Moon Agreement to be an effective or necessary instrument to guide nation states regarding the promotion of commercial participation in the long-term exploration, scientific discovery, and use of the Moon, Mars, or other celestial bodies. Accordingly, the Secretary of State shall object to any attempt by any other state or international organization to treat the Moon Agreement as reflecting or otherwise expressing customary international law.” [15]
Companies such as Bechtel and Bigelow Aerospace [16] are securing contracts from the FAA and other agencies to own land on the moon and mine the moon. Helium-3, used for nuclear fusion, may be worth $3 billion per metric ton, and there are millions of tons of helium-3 in the moon’s upper layer. This is one cause of the new gold rush to the moon.[17] Lunar water deposits are being assessed to see if they can provide drinking water for military and commercial bases there. Moon tourism is being pursued internationally.[18] A Japanese startup even wants to put billboards on the moon.[19]
There are direct and immediate impacts to Earth from these space programs. They accelerate climate change and will eventually torch the climate if allowed to continue. Each fossil-fuel-burning rocket launch not only uses toxic chemicals and causes toxic fallout. They also put particulate matter and exhaust into the atmosphere, and destroy part of the ozone layer.[20]
For example, before leaving Earth’s atmosphere, each shuttle spewed thousands of pounds of metals and other chemicals into the air, including lithium, nickel, mercury [21], bismuth, manganese, aluminum, iron, and zinc. “People think of a shuttle launch as a short-term, finite event, but each launch expels a huge amount of debris into the atmosphere with the potential for long-term effects on the surrounding ecosystem. The plume contains hydrogen chloride, a strong acid. After launches, the pH of the [nearby] lagoons may plummet for a short time, rendering the water nearly as caustic as battery acid.” — John Bowden, environmental chemist at Hollings Marine Laboratory in Charleston, S.C., 2014 [22]
The Earth and its atmosphere have never experienced the sheer volume of launches planned. Dramatically worsening this are the thousands of rockets to put Wi-Fi and 5G satellites into earth orbit that began last year by Elon Musk/SpaceX and others.[23]
This is sheer insanity.
Congress continues to divert more taxpayer dollars into these extremely costly space projects — the next moon visit could cost trillions. This resource extraction from taxpayers robs cities, counties, and states of critical financial resources to solve real problems right here, especially now, while ignoring the planetary environmental cost.
Where are the environmentalists, the biologists, the ocean scientists, and consumer advocates?
We must break out of the NASA trance. Everything that is done to the moon has repercussions to Earth. “National security” is protecting Earth and the moon.
Human history with empires and invaders that subjugate and plunder is being repeated again, with an addiction to “command and control” permeating these space programs. These values and policies are opposed to life, peace, and a future. The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space just sponsored a webinar on these plans “War in Space — Weaponising the final frontier”.[24]
The film “Independence Day” got it wrong, and Pogo got it right – the enemy is human. Tell children the truth: astronauts are not heroes.
Humans must repair Earth and themselves first with all available creativity and resources, and the COVID19 shutdown has worsened everything. If humans are incapable of fixing the dire messes they’ve created on Earth, incapable of stopping wars, incapable of living cooperatively with their neighbors, then they cannot go off planet or contaminate anything else.
The future is at stake. The moon must be defended. Shut NASA and these space ventures down.
Nina Beety is an investigative writer and public speaker on governmental policy, the environment, and wireless radiation hazards. She has written two reports for officials on Smart Meter problems which are on her website www.smartmeterharm.org. She lives in California.
Notes
[1] 2006. Bruce Gagnon is co-founder of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.
In the years of the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union tussled to prove their superiority by rushing to become the first nation to put a man on the moon.
While America might have claimed that particular prize in 1969, a new and even more dramatic space race is only just beginning.
But with Russia and China targeting 2036 as their completion date, the three superpowers are now locked in a head-to-head race to get there first.
This comes as the US makes a rapid and unexpected shift towards prioritising human exploration in space.
Despite slashing scientific missions and giving NASA the smallest budget since 1961, the agency has allocated more than $7 billion for lunar exploration.
Mr Duffy will give NASA 30 days to appoint an official to oversee the operation and 60 days to issue a request seeking proposals from commercial companies for the project.
Nuclear power is seen as key for establishing a lunar presence because it is plunged into complete, freezing darkness for two weeks every month.
At the South Pole, where NASA is planning to establish its operations, the sun never rises high above the horizon and some craters are shrouded in permanent darkness.
That makes it practically impossible for spacecraft or bases to survive on the moon using solar power and batteries alone.
However, this sudden swing back to lunar exploration may be a product of increasing competition from other superpowers.
Tellingly, Mr Duffy warned that ‘the first country to do so could potentially declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first.’
This is almost certainly a reference to Russia and China’s recent plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, announced in May.
That reactor would be used to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), which should be completed by 2036 according to the latest plans.
Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, wrote in a statement at the time: ‘The station will conduct fundamental space research and test technology for long-term uncrewed operations of the ILRS, with the prospect of a human being’s presence on the Moon.’
The groundwork will be laid by China’s upcoming Chang’e-8 mission, which will be the nation’s first attempted human moon landing.
This means that the moon, and especially the south pole, is now becoming the target of a new international space race.
Dr Mark Hilborne, a security studies expert from King’s College London, told Daily Mail: ‘The Moon is a place where nations will have competing interests. There will be parts of the moon that are more valuable than others and, therefore, could be particular points of competition.
‘The Moon is valuable as a low-gravity staging base where future space developments can be built. Lunar materials, mined in situ, would be valuable in building elements that would further lunar exploration.
‘If these could be built on the Moon, rather than sent from Earth, the cost would be far cheaper.’
The big concern for the US, and presumably Russia and China, is that whatever country starts building on the moon first could effectively claim it as its own territory
Countries’ dealings in space are governed by a set of rules called the Outer Space Treaty, which was first signed in 1967.
Signatories to the treaty agree that space is ‘not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.’
This explicitly means that nations are not legally able to make territorial claims on celestial bodies like the moon.
However, in practice, America has recently doubled down on a far more assertive version of the law by signing a series of rules called the Artemis Accords in 2020.
Critically, the Artemis Accords also gives states the power to implement ‘safety zones’ – exclusive areas which members of other states will not be able to enter or use without permission from the owner.
While the US insists that these boundaries will end ‘when the relevant operation ceases’, for a permanent colony, this would function almost exactly like the borders of a sovereign territory.
These rules essentially create a principle that whoever gets to a part of the moon first gets to keep it for their own use.
Dr Jill Stuart, an expert on space law from the London School of Economics, told Daily Mail: ‘Countries could use a part of the lunar surface for a scientific base – without claiming long-term ownership of it – but must communicate to other users where that base is and be transparent about its purpose.
‘Although this seems like a potentially “fair” way to allow for future activity on the moon, it also creates a “first mover advantage” in that those who can set up bases first have the right to claim a safety zone around it.’
While these safety zones might be essential for a nuclear reactor, experts say this may lead to an increasingly risky space race.
Dr Fabio Tronchetti, a space law expert from Northumbria University, told Daily Mail: ‘It is evident that we are heading towards a space rush.
‘The United States is attempting to act quickly and get to the Moon first, at least before China and Russia, so as to be able to unilaterally claim the right to set out the rules of the game.’
This has the serious potential to spark conflict between the nations since China and Russia, having not signed the Artemis Accords, have no legal requirement to respect the US ‘keep-out zones’.
Dr Tronchetti says that international law ‘does not recognise the possibility’ of the US’s claims, adding that the US is attempting to ‘force its [China’s] hand to set out rules favourable to its own interests’.
How this conflict might play out on the lunar surface remains to be seen, but in the future, we might see the conflicts here on Earth extend out into space.
There are already many complications in this proposal, which has not been officially released yet. The Trump administration proposed a budget that would devastate NASA’s multiple science programs, and while it asked for more funding for human spaceflight in the short term, it would cancel the Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft, making NASA exclusively reliant on private companies to get to the Moon. As yet, we don’t have one of those that won’t stop exploding.
US space agency Nasa will fast-track plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030, according to US media. It is part of US ambitions to build a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface. According to Politico, the acting head of Nasa referred to similar plans by China and Russia and said those two countries “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” on the Moon. But questions remain about how realistic the goal and timeframe are, given recent and steep Nasa budget cuts, and some scientists are concerned that the plans are driven by geopolitical goals.
Boeing lands $2.8 billion deal to build next-gen nuclear communications satellites
The ESS satellites are central to U.S. nuclear command, control and communications.
Space News, 3 Aug 25,
WASHINGTON — Boeing won a $2.8 billion contract to develop a new generation of secure military satellites (Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications spacecraft) that will serve as the backbone of the United States’ nuclear command, control and communications network, the U.S. Space Force announced July 3.
The award marks a major milestone in the Pentagon’s effort to modernize its most hardened space-based communication infrastructure. The contract is part of the Evolved Strategic Satellite Communications program, or ESS, which will ultimately replace the current constellation built by Lockheed Martin under the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) program.
Boeing edged out Northrop Grumman after a nearly five-year competition that began in 2020, when both aerospace giants were selected to develop prototype systems. The Space Force selected Boeing as the prime contractor for the next phase of the ESS program, which includes development and production of two satellites, with options for two more. If all options are exercised, the contract could reach $3.75 billion.
The first satellite delivery is slated for 2031.
Critical infrastructure for nuclear command
The ESS satellites are designed to provide jam-resistant, always-on communications for the U.S. military’s nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) architecture. These satellites must function under the most extreme conditions — including in the wake of a nuclear strike — ensuring the President and senior military leaders can communicate securely with deployed forces anywhere in the world.
“The strategic communication mission requires protection, power and always-available capability, even through adversary attempts to interrupt our connectivity,” said Cordell DeLaPeña, the Space Force’s program executive officer overseeing the ESS effort.
Broader $12 billion program
While Boeing’s $2.8 billion development contract is the most visible component, it is only part of a broader $12 billion ESS program that also includes ground systems, cryptographic infrastructure, and user terminals. The terminals, which allow individual military branches to access the ESS network, are acquired separately.
Boeing said its satellite design draws on technology developed for its Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellites and commercial spacecraft it built for SES’s O3b mPOWER broadband constellation.
“This win validates all the investments and innovations we’ve made in our satellite technology,” said Michelle Parker, vice president of Boeing Space Mission Systems.
The ESS satellites will operate in geostationary orbit — 22,000 miles above Earth — where they can provide persistent coverage to specific regions. The full constellation is expected to support global coverage, including the Arctic, an area of growing strategic interest.
The ESS constellation is being built to replace the AEHF network, which was designed and launched over the last two decades to provide similar survivable communications capabilities. Military leaders say growing threats from advanced anti-satellite weapons and electronic warfare systems demand more modern, flexible platforms.
The Space Force is using a cost-reimbursement contracting model for the initial satellite development, a structure more suited to high-risk, high-complexity projects. Under this arrangement, the government pays for allowable costs plus a negotiated profit margin — an approach often used when requirements are not yet fully known and involve extensive non-recurring engineering.
However, future satellites under the ESS program may be procured using fixed-price contracts, which shift more cost risk to the contractor and are generally used once designs mature and production stabilizes.
nuclear-news 