Christopher (Chris) Stone, Sunday, 11-10-13 November 11, 2013Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: advocacy cheerleading, advocacy expectations, advocate organizations, Chinese lunar probe, Chinese space goals, Chinese space policy, Chinese view of space settlement, Christopher Stone, Cold War, NASA Chinese policy, national space programs, public attitude toward space, responsive space strategies, SLS, space advocacy, space deterrence., space frontier, space policy priorities, space strategic planning., space technology, space weapons, The Space Review
Christopher (Chris) Stone, Sunday, 11-10-13
Your Amazon Purchases
Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm
Guest: Christopher Stone. Topics: Space advocacy and National Security Space regarding Chinese and American perceptions on space deterrence. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.
We welcomed Christopher (Chris) Stone to the program for a 1 hour 44 minute discussion on space advocacy and an analysis of his recent Space Review article, “Re-thinking the National Security Space Strategy: Chinese vs. American perceptions of space deterrence” which appeared on TSR November 4, 2013. You can read the article at www.thespacereview.com/article/2395/1. Don’t forget to read the comments associated with the article. During our first segment, we mostly talked about space advocacy issues. Chris was asked about advocacy groups both supporting and opposing SLS as an example of their possible effectiveness in influencing policy. As you will hear, it seems that the influence regardless of the position is marginal. Chris suggested that many advocacy groups are not that understanding as to who is in charge of space policy and how policy is made and how it works. He talked about policy coming from the congressional side, the White House, and industry. Often, both the Senate and House have at least a slightly different view of policy than the other policy participants. We also talked about unrealistic advocacy expectations and priorities.
In the second segment, we talked about the article written by our guest for TSR per the URL above. Chris provided his perspective on our space deterrence policy as well as his perspective on the Chinese program, plus he talked about the Chinese perspective based on his readings and work in the field. Listeners asked questions such as the Chinese view on space settlement and their lunar plans. Another listener asked about the policy prohibiting NASA from talking with their Chinese counterparts. Doug called to talk about ASAT tests and the vulnerability of LEO, MEO, and GEO satellites. This discussion took us to one about the goals of responsive space strategies. Christ talked about space weapons and possible conflicts in and around space resource utilization. He was asked about a possible China cislunar type of program and here he referred to a 2011 Chinese White Paper regarding space resources including space solar power. As the program drew to a close, Chris was asked about other national space programs and his perspective on them in contrast to his thoughts on the China policy. Don’t miss his closing comments.
Post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog per above. You can contact Chris through me at email@example.com.