Bridging Space Technology With Military Power

Space News | June 24, 2002

[Stand Watch Listen]

U.S. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Chairman, U.S. Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee

In the year since he took over as chairman of the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, Jack Reed has distinguished himself more on nuclear weapons policy and missile defense issues than in the area of military space.

The first-term senator’s criticism of the U.S. national missile defense program, for example, helped win him the endorsement of the Council for a Livable World, a leading arms control advocacy group in Washington. A former military officer, Reed also has called for increased funding for theater missile defense systems, which are designed to protect U.S. forces and allies overseas.

But Reed, whose subcommittee also has oversight of U.S. military space programs, is paying attention in that arena as well. He surprised some observers during a hearing last year when he grilled senior Pentagon officials about a small effort to study space-based anti-missile technologies that was buried in the multibillion-dollar, overall budget request for missile defense programs.

A Harvard-trained lawyer, Reed has been branded as "very liberal" by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, but he rejects any suggestion that being a Democrat means he is not a strong backer of military space. In fact, he says the Pentagon should allocate more funds to space programs, and supports fielding new capabilities such as a military space plane.

Reed graduated from the U.S. military academy at West Point in 1971 and served as a Ranger and paratrooper with the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division. He says the Army experience, which includes a teaching stint at West Point, instilled in him a respect and understanding for the military that helps shape his handling of issues today.

While mindful of the contribution that space has played in the ongoing U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, he is quick to note the bravery and skills of the soldiers on the ground. At the same time, Reed wants to ensure that the benefits of space technology are realized by all of the U.S. military services, not just the Air Force, which runs most of the programs.

Reed, who is up for re-election this autumn, spoke recently with Space News staff writer Jeremy Singer.

Q. What is your assessment of the status of military space programs?

A. I think it’s clear that military space programs are in disarray. We have important programs that are behind schedule. We have a real challenge to maintain the quality of our space effort.

Q. Will the organizational changes recently made within the Air Force help to address this issue?

A. They may, but I have some concerns about the reorganization. One thing we did with our authorization bill this year was to try to make sure that Pentagon leaders in the Office of the Secretary of Defense continue to play an oversight role on space programs.

Peter Teets, the undersecretary of the Air Force, is a competent leader for space programs, and is a dedicated individual who is trying to get his hands around a lot of very difficult problems, and is very candid about those problems.

But space programs are not just Air Force systems designed to provide data to Air Force pilots. Unless Pentagon leaders maintain some supervisory role, then I don’t think we’re going to optimize space capabilities for all of the different components of the military.

Q. Is there enough money available for all of the things Teets wants to do to bolster U.S. military space capabilities?

A. My sense is that the Pentagon needs to allocate more money in its budget requests toward space programs. Missile defense is one area where money could be redirected toward space programs.

Q. Why did your subcommittee recommend reducing the Pentagon’s 2003 budget request for several space programs, including the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High?

A. We looked at some of their proposals, and decided that they were asking for too much money based on the status of the programs. So we throttled back the money until they get their act together. But generally speaking, we’ve tried to be supportive of their efforts.

We begin our work at the point where the administration makes the request and I would hope that in the next budget cycle Mr. Teets would get more support within the Pentagon.

Q. Mr. Teets is likely to request a sizable chunk of funding next year for the Air Force’s two primary launch contractors to ensure U.S. access to space. Would you support such a request?

A. Well, first he has to sell that idea within the Pentagon, because the Air Force doesn’t make the final funding decisions. The commercial launch market has softened considerably because of many factors, most significantly the downturn in commercial space activity, and we have to be prepared to support our launch capability.

The exact dollar figure still remains to be determined, and we’d have to hear more about this from the Pentagon, but I wouldn’t reject a proposal to do that out of hand.

Q. Are you concerned that the Pentagon might delay its next generation of Global Positioning System satellites?

A. Yes. They would have to come back to us and explain how this doesn’t undercut their future plans.

Q. Do you get a lot of feedback from your constituents on space issues?

A. I hear more from my constituents about the nuclear policy issues that the strategic forces subcommittee handles. I think most folks assume we are predominant in space, and that the necessary technologies are there. In a sense they take what’s going on in military space for granted. But that’s to be expected. The major media outlets do not devote a lot of attention to stories on satellite programs.

I think most people associate space with Lance Bass of *NSYNC going up to the space station. I’m not surprised that people don’t approach me on the street and say "gee, I’m really worried about SBIRS High and SBIRS Low."

[Free the USA]

Bump list