Space Defense

Governments have sought the help of its citizens for years. The best example is when Britain published codes and puzzles in the newspaper as a contest to see who would be best suited for their secret project, which now we know was, Breaking the German enigma machine. This would be along the same lines, having the public try to solve a problem plaguing a huge community. The whole premise of having a lunar base is such a strategic and groundbreaking task to achieve. I think that with the founding of the US Space Force, The US has a good chance of figuring out this potential problem or situation but with the help of the public, it would be much easier as the public often comes to conclusions that many government officials cannot see. This might be in part to the public seeing this as a challenge and a game, so they are willing to act out of normal parameters to gain a successful “mission”. Space’s atmosphere is harsh to many earthly objects so a potential problem would be finding some way to mitigate the effects of spaces’ corrosive nature. Also just for fun, I am attaching the codes Britain sent out to gain participants for the enigma group.

I have been trying to follow NASA’s future plans for some time now. I find myself genuinely excited at the prospect of a lunar base in my lifetime. The Artemis program is something I am extremely hopeful about. My expertise is not the most transferable to designing robust cargo systems for lunar deployment. However, I can argue on the value of ensuring robust cybersecurity to protect the intellectual assets associated with this challenge. Losing the cargo-handling system designs and blueprints to cyberespionage would cause significant erosion of the US space power. It is paramount that those involved with the design of these systems are well protected from cyberspace actors. I am sure that designing and testing these systems require significant internet-based resources. After reading the challenge in full, I do not believe my experience with auto-CAD is going to be enough when it comes to designing a cargo-handling system. I am glad to see that NASA is hosting challenges like this. I hope to see an update of their work.

I really like the idea behind this challenge. One thing that came up in the key virtual training a couple of weeks ago was the question of how we would supply a theoretical lunar base, and it seems as though NASA is taking this question seriously. Honestly, the idea of having to transport and unload supplies to the moon is not one that I would have thought of.

The environment on the moon poses many significant challenges to the movement of materials from the surface of the earth to the surface of the moon. There is less gravity on the moon, for starters, which I imagine would make porting any system on Earth to the moon very challenging. Beyond that, the environment on the moon is subject to micrometeor blasts and extreme temperature variations, meaning that any structures or systems for unloading cargo would need to able to withstand some force and pressure. The variation in the size and mass of the transported objects also poses a challenge, as any theoretical system would need to be incredibly adaptable.

Then there are also very minute challenges. For example, drilling on the moon is challenging due to the lack of air on the moon, which can increase friction and generate massive amounts of heat, possibly causing the fusion of the drill bit to fuse with the rock. Then there is also the issue that excess movement of any material may kick up dust, which could contaminate machinery and potentially be toxic to workers.

An interesting idea that this article brought up was that a potential space transportation system could be built on roads. In this line of thought perhaps building some kind of platform (shipping it from earth to the moon?) to load and unload cargo could limit the challenges posed by dust. Or perhaps a system that does not include any surface contact could be helpful.

I really have no idea as to whether or not a system that is transported with each payload or one that sits permanently on the moon is better. And if we were to add a system that includes landing point to point of use transportation, that adds an additional dynamic into the whole thing. And of course, if this system is to be used by multiple countries, it would require an impressive amount of standardization between spacecraft and cargo storage.

I am not an engineer, and I have a very hard time visualizing any system that could adapt to all of these issues. I am curious to see if anyone else has any ideas for how to adapt to any of these solutions.

The conquest to build a base camp on the moon is very ambitious but could be highly beneficial for space science and innovation. Sending several payloads of materials to prepare for development is an innovative idea though dealing with the conditions of the Moon will make this task very difficult. As the article mentions there is no atmosphere, large variations in temperature, uneven terrain, aggressive dust, and reduced gravity. Striving to build a camp on the Moon seems like a logical next step to me, and far more practical than the United Arab Emirates' Mars 2117 plan to create a civilization of 600,000 people on Mars.

The most specific goal for the Artemis camp after it is built includes sustainably exploring the Moon. This more permanent camp will also allow NASA to send astronauts around every year to familiarize themselves with their work and allow them to stay for up to two months. Scientists are hoping that this level of comfort will allow astronauts to open up and study and explore past what their boundaries would have been otherwise. The base camp will be placed on the South polar side of the Moon that remains heavily unexplored, further motivating this program's success.

NASA's extension of an opportunity for people to submit plans for the unloading system is in line with other goals we have read about in space science documents for the United States. Not only is this project engaging citizens, but also is contracted through several private sector companies, Blue Origin, Dynetics, and SpaceX. Engagement with United States companies supports the economic growth of the technology sector as well as maintains positive venues for innovation between the public and private sectors as well as furthers the capabilities of both.

Reading today’s reading was super interesting. I completely agree with Acting deputy assistant secretary Johnson on the grounds that the United States’ Space strategy would build and foster a strong military advantage in space. This is not a new arena for the US, The air force has been sending people to space for many years this new strategy would just dedicate people to solely work on space projects thus making our space program more momentous. The United States could make great strides in the area of climate control or research regarding the ecosystems if we utilize the fourth pillar and work with allies, partners, industry and other US agencies. Tis like I stated yesterday could be along the same lines as the UAE’s plan to research weather satellites to help track arctic thaw. As the world changes, new strategies must be enacted to ensure compliance with national security expectations and also ecological demands. The third pillar of integration of space in the joint forces and allies and partners could do some major good in the United States as much of our daily lives revolve around technology and Space could be used to place more satellites in and create a network of devices to help the world as a whole to be better interconnected. With more interconnectivity, banking would be easier as systems would be connected, healthcare could extend to hard to reach areas via telemedicine and satellite uplinks as well as communication with distant partners either for personal or business reasons. In essence, Space could open up new avenues to improve not only the US’s defense but also improve citizen’s lives.

Space becoming a recent frontier for military strategy and defense is an interesting development. Much of our information technology and communication relies on satelitte technology in space. If a foreign actor wanted to sabotage the US or its allies' communications, satelittes in space would be a suitable target. This is why Space Force is a necessary development for the US defense strategy. Countries such as China and Russia which have space capabilites equal to ours play an important role in our defense strategy regarding space, while countries like Iran who are eager to develop technologies to interfere with US defense also must be considered. Given that the United Arab Emirates is developing an advanced space program, in part to counter Iran's capabilities, I wonder if space technology and space military capabilites will be the next proliferation issue. While the "space race" of the 1960s and 1970s accelerated space technology, it was limited to only Russia and the US and, as far as I am aware, did not prioritize military capabilites in space.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy Johnson made a solid case for giving the Space Force a more prominent seat at the table. Space is an incredibly important part of our economy, and we rely on satellites for everyday tasks, such as navigating to work, watching the news, or performing business communications. As Johnson said, "Our $20 trillion U.S. economy runs on space."

This could be a reason to move them out from under the Department of the Air Force and grant them their own distinct seat within the Department of Defense. this would increase their influence and get them closer to the ears of the president.

However, it could also be argued that the Space Force is too young and still too reliant on the Air Force to justify such a drastic reorganization of the Department of Defense. As was brought up previously in the space discussion, the Space Force still relies on many air force personnel for conducting day to day operations. But as we have also discussed, the point of the Space Force was to create specialists in space and give them a seat at the decision-making table. As such, ultimately I see the best move in the future to be to grant them their own department. This way, these specialists can have their voices heard, and we can be assured that space interests are being taken into account. Which is why we made the space force in the first place.