When the space shuttle Columbia made its near-perfect landing in the Mojave Desert in April, most Americans felt a sense of triumph not completely associated with the accomplishments of the venture. National pride, as measured by technological prowess, held more import than the achievement itself. The French newspaper Le Figaro summed up the attitude: "After their political and military failures of recent years, our friends needed a big technological success. And they've got one."
Although the success of the Columbia may have provided, at least temporarily, a shot in the arm for national prestige, the real impact of the mission was probably lost to most Americans.
Some would, no doubt, be aware of the potential scientific advancements the shuttle will make possible. Among the shuttle's scientific payloads will be a 45-foot-long orbiting telescope capable of peering deeper into space than ever before, and a multifaceted space laboratory for research impossible on earth.
Less known are the commercial exploitations of space that the shuttle enhances. While the communications industry, increasingly dependent upon satellites, is the biggest beneficiary, other industries (the electronics and pharmaceutical, for example) are lured by the profit potential of zero-gravity research.
However, the most portentous effect of the Columbia success lies in its inevitable military usefulness. Indeed, almost from its inception the shuttle has been primarily a military space craft.
Since the spectacular moon landing in 1969, the civilian National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has found little congressional support for space exploration. The only significant NASA proposal to survive has been the space shuttle, and it too would have been dropped were it not for the Pentagon. Realizing the military usefulness and financial feasibility of a reusable space plane with a very sizable payload, the Pentagon put its full political weight behind the shuttle, ensuring its passage through Congress. The craft's design and specifications were even altered to meet military needs.
The Pentagon's continued reliance upon the space shuttle is resolute. The Air Force is building its own shuttle launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base near Santa Barbara, California, from which future military flights will originate. The shuttle has even escaped the Reagan budget cuts. While NASA's budget was being whittled down from $6.7 billion to around $6 billion, the space shuttle went virtually unscathed. The only cuts to affect the shuttle were of a purely scientific nature.
Central to the Pentagon's space efforts are military satellites. Currently more than 40 circle the earth: Communications satellites connect U.S. military command headquarters around the globe; early warning satellites can detect the launching of land-based or sea-based missiles; intelligence satellites supply extensive, detailed information about the Soviet Union and other countries; weather satellites provide useful data for planning military operations; and navigational satellites plot precise locations of ships and submarines.
The Pentagon has become heavily dependent upon these satellites for its military operations. For example, each stage of former President Carter's ill-fated attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran, from the initial planning to the decision to abort, relied substantially upon the satellites.
More to the point, satellites play an essential role in the Pentagon's ability to wage nuclear war. Contour maps of the Soviet Union derived from intelligence satellite photographs increase the likelihood that a cruise missile will hit its target. Knowing the precise locations of submarines is critical for accurate firing of sea-based ballistic missiles. Instantaneous communications during a nuclear war would be impossible without satellites.
The space shuttle is key to this dependence. No longer will satellites be launched by expensive non-reusable rockets. Moreover, the 65,000-pound capacity of the shuttle's bay will allow bigger, and hence more sophisticated, satellites to be placed into orbit. According to current plans, the shift from rockets to space shuttles will make the Pentagon "almost totally dependent" upon the shuttle by the mid-1980s. No wonder Columbia captain John Young could say about the shuttle after its return to earth: "It will allow us to do in the '80s and '90s things we must do for defense."
For more than two decades the United States and the Soviet Union have been placing military satellites into earth orbit. But now both countries are engaging in the development of "killer" satellites to be used to defend their own satellites and possibly attack those of the other side. The result is a new and rash extension of the arms race into space.
Although such an expansion of the arms race would create wasteful spending by both sides, the biggest danger is the increased likelihood of nuclear war. Using laser beams, particle beams, or explosive devices, "killer" satellites could, without warning, disable or destroy the other side's military satellites, crippling its capacity to conduct a nuclear assault. If either side seriously fears such an attack in space, it may decide to launch its earth-based nuclear warheads.
The triumph of the space shuttle gives the United States an undisputed advantage in space. Both technologically and militarily, the Soviet Union is now far behind. Indeed, Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev has already urged resumption of the previously abandoned space arms treaty talks. Even by the most conservative yardsticks, we can now, with little risk, help forge a meaningful agreement with the Soviets aimed at keeping weapons out of space.
On the other hand, we can exploit our military advantages and refuse serious negotiations, thereby guaranteeing a dangerous expansion of the arms race into space. The burden of responsible action is now in the hands of the Reagan administration.
Joe Roos was on the editorial staff at Sojourners when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!