NATIONAL SPACE POLICY REVIEW ISSUE PAPER

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 17, 2012
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: October 30, 1987
• Content Type: MISC

Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20: CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
NATIONAL SPACE POLICY REVIEW
ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE
DRAFT 10/30/87
Whether the Administration should endorse as a goal of U.S. space
policy the expansion of human presence and activity beyond the
Earth into the Solar System.
BACKGROUND
On August 15, 1984, the President signed NSDD #144, "National
Space Strategy," which directed, in part, that the civil space
program "identify major long-range national goals for the civil
space program." The Directive states that such goals "are
essential to meeting the national commitment to maintain United
States leadership in space and to exploit space for economic and
scientific benefit." To implement this effort, the Directive
provided that the President appoint a National Commission on
Space (NCOS) "to formulate an agenda for the United States space
program" including "goals, opportunities, and policy options."
Accordingly, a distinguished 15-member Commission was formed,
chaired by Dr. Thomas O. Paine, and submitted its report to the
President in May, 1986. The "Paine report" contains a number of
potential space exploration and exploitation options spanning the
next 50 years. Overall, it recommends a long-range U.S.
direction that clearly expands human presence and enterprise
beyond the Earth into the solar system. The White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy is evaluating the Report.
In the meantime, NASA reviewed its major internal goals and
purposes, and adopted a far-reaching Statement of Goals which
includes, among others, the 21st Century-oriented goal of
"Expanding human presence beyond the Earth into the Solar
System.
It
In March, 1987, NASA's Advisory Council completed a study that
recommended "further expansion of human exploration of the solar
system . . . to provide for enduring value and continuity."
In recent months, NASA and the Administration have come under
increasing criticism for an alleged lack of long-range national
direction and goals to ensure U.S. space leadership and
preeminence.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20: CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
PROPOSAL
NASA is proposing that the Administration formally endorse the
long-range goal of "Expanding human presence and activity beyond
the Earth into the Solar System." The Department of State
supports this proposal. OMB and DOD oppose. (See Pro and Con
arguments below).
As an alternative, OMB has proposed that the policy support
activities to "develop the technology to enable the expansion of
human presence and activity beyond the Earth into the Solar
System." DOD and OSTP endorse the alternative. NASA and State
continue to propose the original language. (see Pro and Con
arguments for the alternative).
IMPLICATIONS
OMB maintains that the proposed language commits the nation to
huge expenditures for space exploration, possibly beginning in
FY 1989, and that, without knowing specifically what programs are
involved, the general language should not be approved. The
National Commission on Space report identified a program cost
which would, if all options were approved, roughly double NASA's
funding by 1995 (to a level in excess of the peak of the Apollo
program in constant dollars).
NASA maintains that the proposed language is consistent with
Presidential statements and represents precisely what the words
say, no more no less. The language neither specifies nor
authorizes any program initiatives. Over time, if the
Administration decides to expand human presence and activity into
the Solar System, specific programs will be proposed by NASA.
ARGUMENTS FOR NASA/STATE PROPOSED CHANGE
o This proposed change is 21st century-oriented, and generally
endorses a much needed overall direction for manned civil
space activity. It carries no specific program objectives,
funding, or implementing timeframe.
o The Solar System is the logical "next frontier" for
expanding mankind's understanding and use of the Universe.
o Human explorers add unique dimensions to the exploration of
the solar system through their ability to observe, integrate
information, take initiatives, and innovate.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20: CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
o Expansion can open up new options for the human species,
outside the limits of planet Earth. These include access
to vast new resources of materials and energy, and the
establishment of new economic enterprises. In the longer
term, humans may be able to establish permanent settlements
on some solar system bodies.
o The advance of space technology is freeing mankind to move
outward from Earth into the Solar System, and space-faring
nations -- notably the U.S.S.R. -- are preparing to move in
that direction. Significantly expanded human presence and
activity is only a matter of time. The proposed change
recognizes this emerging reality. The only real question is
which nation(s) will lead humanity into this historic era.
o The new language projects an outward-looking, strongly
competitive America that welcomes expanding human activity
into the Solar System as an opportunity for productive
challenge and evolutionary progress -- reaping the many
benefits that experience has shown will redound to Americans
and all mankind. It rejects an inward-looking America that
sees future change largely in terms of threat, cost, and
risk.
o The proposed change is the principal theme of the
President's National Commission on Space (Paine Report),
and, although not yet approved by the Administration, the
Report and recommendations add important weight to the
argument that this kind of long-range direction is needed
both for NASA and the Nation. In any event, there is no
reason why this or any other concept cannot be considered in
the NSC Review and endorsed in the new NSDD.
o Opposition to this language is based in part on its
allegedly overly general nature with no approved
implementing programs. This is a "catch-22" procedure,
which, if followed in recent years, would have delayed and
possibly killed many of the President's historic initiatives
such as SDI, Welfare Reform, Tax Reform, and military build-
back from the decline of the '70's. These are all broad
Administration priorities and directions, with approved
programs following in a reasoned, evolutionary manner.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20: CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
4
o NASA disputes the notion that this nation cannot undertake a
major long-term civil space initiative because of SDI
resource requirements and limits on the nation's scientific
and engineering talent pool. In our view, such assertions
also suggest that military and civil space leadership are
now incompatible objectives.
o NASA believes the proposed language is consistent with the
President's statement in January, 1987, on the first
anniversary of the Challenger accident, when he looked to
the future: "In the next three decades NASA will again lead
in mankind's dreams." He said, "The space station will be
our gateway to the universe" and added "With it as our base
camp, we will be able to reach the planets and, perhaps one
day, to the stars."
o In sum; this general and long-range direction of manned
activity in space should be acknowledged as an important
element of U.S. space policy, and be included in the updated
Space Policy NSDD.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST NASA/STATE PROPOSED CHANGE:
o Although the report of the National Commission on Space
contains an explicit endorsement of expansion of human
presence into the Solar System, this report has not been
approved or endorsed by the Administration. It is,
therefore, inappropriate to include any of the
recommendations in a national space policy document.
o Inclusion of language endorsing expansion of human presence
into the solar system creates raised expectations within the
involved constituencies (manned spaceflight, space science,
aerospace contractors). Such expectation inevitably lead to
near-term pressure to commit to specific programs -- whether
or not these programs serve the long-term needs of the
overall national space program.
o This language has been proposed for inclusion in the
"Policy" section of the space policy document. There is no
accompanying language in the "Implementation" or
"Guidelines" section. In the absence of such language,
there is no way of knowing what the implications are to the
current space programs or budgets.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20: CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20: CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
o Inclusion of language that simply proposed to "expand human
presence...into the Solar System" without any specific
implementing programs could call into question the
Administration's credibility. It will be viewed as just
another "pie in the sky" goal with no concrete way to
achieve it. As Sally Ride has pointed out, "leadership
cannot simply be proclaimed -- it must be earned." This
nebulous statement simply proclaims.
o There are no approved programs that would allow the pursuit
of this goal. The budget impacts of any expansion of human
presence beyond earth are enormous, perhaps $50-80 billion,
and are not adequately addressed in the proposals of NASA
and State.
o Commitments should not be made without consideration of
resource requirements. For example, the Administration's
prior commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)
limits the amount of U.S. resources that can be made
available for a major new civil space initiative. Any major
new civil space initiative would have to compete with SDI
for limited resources of skilled scientists and engineers,
other technical personnel, construction of facilities and
infrastructure, and industrial production capabilities.
Choices would have to be made.
o Agencies must be able to identify the resources in their
budgets as currently approved that would be used to expand
human presence beyond Earth. Better costs, benefits, and
technology requirements must be identified, before this goal
is incorporated into the national space policy.
OMB PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE:
DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGY TO ENABLE THE EXPANSION OF HUMAN
PRESENCE AND ACTIVITY BEYOND THE EARTH INTO THE SOLAR
SYSTEM.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE OMB ALTERNATIVE:
o Manned exploration of space has been compared to exploration
of the New World or the American West. There is really
little similarity. Exploration of the surface of the Earth
has never required total life-support systems, or the level
of infrastructure that human exploration of space has and
will continue to require. There is much we don't know. All
we do know is that the fiscal requirements would be large
and probably unmanageable within the context of a balanced
space program.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20: CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20: CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1
o The alternative wording supports the first logical step in
any exploratory activity -- building a firm technology
foundation on which to place program commitments.
o The alternative wording places technology at the forefront.
It allows the technology to drive future commitments rather
than letting a premature, open-ended commitment drive the
technology. This is a lesson we would have hoped had
already been painfully learned in the space program.
o The alternative wording still provides meaningful, strong,
and forward-looking direction to the civil space program.
It provides a wealth of opportunity to challenge, for
excellence and for evolution -- yet without the kind of
near-term budget and program pressure that would be
engendered by the NASA/State proposed language.
o There is a near-term budget impact of the alternative
wording. However, since there is no program commitment,
these impacts can be accommodated within overall agency
budgets, and thus minimize any additional funding
requirements.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE OMB ALTERNATIVE:
o Technology base development is a necessary but not
sufficient element of the Presidential policy and guidance
needed to set the overall long-range direction of the civil
space program for well into the 21st century.
o The OMB "alternative" is in essence not a meaningful
alternative since OMB admittedly would require that funding
"impacts" be accommodated within NASA's overall budget.
o The President deserves to have options brought to him for
decision that are analyzed in more than a budgetary context.
Presidential Space Policy must be based on the full array of
national interest and space goals.
The alternative is not responsive to the national needs
expressed in the case for the NASA/State proposal.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/11/20: CIA-RDP92B00181R001801700021-1