The National Space Policy is not a plan.  I think the rumor-mongering and anticipation leading up to its release yesterday show just how disconnected most of us in the technical world really are from how policy is made and what it actually is.  I even saw one person say on Twitter that there was a rumor going around that SpaceX was going to get a sole-source, non-competitive contract for US launches out of it.

The National Space Policy is an outline for the goals, objectives, and guiding principles of all US government activity in space.  It is a high-level executive document that is intended to bring together the various disparate elements under a single framework that generally explains the Administration’s thought process.  Nothing more, nothing less.

As the newspapers and many other bloggers have already reported, the Obama Administration’s document largely returns to the language of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton with its focus on collaboration and eschews the “no one else can tell us what to do” language of Bush II.  Instead of rehashing the boilerplate verbiage, I’d instead like to examine the various elements of the National Space Policy that stand out to me.

First, the very Introduction gives attention to the increasingly inter-related nature of space activities.  In particular, the problem of space debris is mentioned.  I find this interesting in light of recent articles that suggest the Kessler Syndrome may be closer than we realize and, especially after the Iridium-Cosmos collision, the powers-that-be are taking the issue much more seriously.  By putting this topic front-and-center, the Administration seems to be telling the space community that we have to recognize the impact of our activities and shape the way we work to be more conscientious and sustainable.

The section on Intersector Guidelines reads pretty blandly, at first.  At least, it did until I got to the part on “International Cooperation.” It lists “space nuclear power to support space science and exploration” as a potential area for international cooperation.  That caught my attention given our country’s tenuous relationship with nuclear power.  We haven’t really embraced it like some other industrialized countries, but I think it’s increasingly being seen as an alternative in an era where we’re trying to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

“Preserving the Space Environment” directs NASA, the Department of Defense, and other related agencies to work together to prevent conjunction events, minimize the creation of debris, and devise measures to “mitigate and remove” the orbital debris that’s already there.  I think this is likely to be a significant growth opportunity for entrepreneurs and innovators.  It’s going to take some very creative thinking to tackle the problem of orbital debris in a cost-effective manner.  Sadly, there’s plenty of work to be done on the problem, too.

“Space Nuclear Power” does, in fact, get its own section.  The direction is reasonably unambiguous, too.  “The United States shall develop and use space nuclear power systems where such systems safely enable or significantly enhance space exploration or operational capabilities.”  This is a serious commitment at the policy level, as lightweight nuclear reactors developed for space exploration could be just as useful for helping address America’s concerns about meeting base power load needs while reducing fossil fuel emissions.

I think it’s encouraging that the Department of Energy is specifically directed to “Maintain the capability and infrastructure to develop and furnish nuclear power systems for use in United States Government space systems.”  For the time being, I’m sure most of that effort will be focused on maintaining our radioisotope thermoelectric generator capabilities, but this also means DoE has an explicit directive to work with NASA if the agency determines space nuclear power systems are a key element for Beyond Earth Orbit exploration.

As we move into the Sector Guidelines, the first section is on “Commercial Space Guidelines”.  More or less, it says that the US Government should develop its own space systems only when there is overriding national interest and there is no existing or adaptable commercial service that is suitable.  This is very much consistent with the Space Act that governs NASA, but now a standing policy directive across the Executive Branch.  Unlike what was suggested in the rumor mill, the policy encourages prizes, competitions, and innovative, nontraditional methods of acquiring services.

The “Civil Space Guidelines” largely cover NASA’s area of responsibility. NASA is chartered to set the exploration milestones, with direction to begin crewed exploration of asteroids by 2025 and to Mars and back by the mid-2030s.  The blogosphere is largely reading what they want to in this statement, but I find it interesting more in what it doesn’t say.  It doesn’t say NASA can’t do these things sooner.  To me, they read more like “No Later Than” dates than “No Earlier Than” dates.

The subsection on Near-Earth Objects also catches my attention because it doesn’t just address the issue of hazard mitigation.  I think that’s important in and of itself, but the National Space Policy takes this a step further and recognizes the potential for asteroid mining.  Some studies have shown that a single metallic asteroid could have more recoverable rare earth metals, nickel, and iron than have been mined in the history of all civilization.  Given growing concerns over China’s dominant market position with the rare earth metals that are essential to modern technology, this could become an increasingly attractive prospect.

The National Security Space Guidelines are fairly boilerplate. I suspect the really interesting bits are in the classified annex that most of us will never see.

While the National Space Policy is neither the blueprint that some were hoping for or the travesty that some expected, I do think there are nuggets in there that suggest we have an opportunity to make American activity in space more sustainable, more widespread, and more relevant to national interests.  The question before us is whether we are willing to take advantage of this opportunity or not.  We now have the policy directives to do it.