The language in the new policy is very strong - demanding to be noticed, both by those working on space in the United States, and by potential international partners.

The policy is officially a revision of the policy issued ten years ago by the Clinton Administration and, in content, it makes relatively minor changes from previous U.S. policy. But is not the content that has attracted so much attention-it is the tone in which it is expressed. It is belligerent and bellicose, and reminiscent of a schoolyard bully.

There has been a great deal of negative reaction and hand-wringing about the new policy, both in the U.S. and abroad. (Rather than cite any particular editorial and article, let me suggest you use a search engine to find recent news about U.S. space policy).

Some of the criticism is based on misunderstanding or naivete - not knowing that "space policy" has always had both a national security and a civil side, and has been led in the White House by the National Security Council or by the Space Council, when it existed. National security has always been a strong component and is mostly concerned with communications and remote observation satellites.

The Administration policy is summarized here (PDF). The full policy, which likely includes many aspects of national security is classified.

The new policy does not break much new ground in either civil or military space. Notably, it does not assert any new move towards weapons in space (as near as we can tell from the unclassified version). Nor, surprisingly, does it mention any of the new directions announced in the Administration's earlier Vision for Space Exploration. You can't find the words "Moon," "Mars," or "vision" in the document.

But the policy is couched in language that is, frankly, scary (or, as Society Vice-President Bill Nye said last week in his blog, "creepy."). To wit (all quotes):

+ Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.

+ ...rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space;

+ ...will view purposeful interference with its space systems as an infringement on its rights;

+ ...oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space.

+ Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests;

+ Enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there.

The Administration's position is not new. In a recent blog entry, I cited White House Science Advisor John Marburger's statements. "...we want to incorporate the Solar System in our [the U.S.] economic sphere..." and, "[The Vision] subordinates space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security and economic interests.? Yet, this year, as part of the Administration, NASA is supposed to be pursuing international cooperation in the Vision for Space Exploration. In a recent speech in Europe, Administrator Michael Griffin said cooperation happens "only when it does not threaten national security" -- another way of promoting something positive with negative language.

Presumably, one purpose of enunciating a governmental space policy is to guide the people and institutions who carry out space programs. Another is to tell whomever you might be working with in other nations what your intentions and goals are. My big question is what will they think?

After reading this new policy, will potential international friends and partners dismiss this bellicose language as domestic politics or rhetorical clumsiness? Or might they instead conclude the schoolyard bully is someone to be avoided? Or worse, will the hostile language create potential international enemies? Domestically, will young people in the U.S., choosing careers and goals for the future, be inspired by this call to explore and understand our universe? Or will they think that, to create a positive future, they must look outside the space program?

It is not the legalistic wording of the policy that distresses me; it is the implicit message that is being sent. The people who wrote this policy are experts in messages - they didn't do this by accident. That is what I find scary.

There is a lot positive in the new space policy, and I should note that I am proud to live in a country that states, "The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity," and "...will seek to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful use of outer space to extend the benefits of space, enhance space exploration..."

The verbal support of science, studying the Earth, and international cooperation adds to that pride. Goals cited include:

+ Implement and sustain an innovative human and robotic exploration program with the objective of extending human presence across the solar system;

+ Increase the benefits of civil exploration, scientific discovery, and environmental activities;

+ Encourage international cooperation with foreign nations and/or consortia on space activities that are of mutual benefit and that further the peaceful exploration and use of space, as well as to advance national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives.

The American program of space science and exploration, of conducting missions throughout the solar system, and observing the universe and studying the Earth from space is second to none. We are indeed, fortunate.

But the reaction to the policy is not just based on the specific words and how they might be defined by lawyers; it is largely determined by the tone. The Administration could be concluding that tone doesn't matter. But, if that were the case, why adopt a belligerent one? That must be the message they want to send.

Politics change, as do politicians. The disposition of the Vision for Space Exploration and the ideas for space policy may now rest in what a new Administration in 2009 thinks. There is plenty of positive direction to build on in this space policy, but it will require a change of tone if space exploration is to have a strong domestic and international constituency for its accomplishment.

Afterthought

What I am saying is that the way you express yourself counts. One of the mysteries in our Save Our Science battle with NASA is why Administrator Griffin has been so hostile in his comments about scientists and the science program. He could have taken all the same actions with a simple (albeit gratuitous) statement to the effect, "I share your pain.? Instead, he has virulently and defensively rejected the pro-science argument. Language counts - and he too is sending a message.

Related Links
Lots of Space For Opinion
Military Space News at SpaceWar.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News