Star wars or lost in space?

As Trump pushes plan for new military force, key questions remain about implementation, costs

WASHINGTON — With his demand that the Pentagon create a new military service — a Space Force to assure “American dominance in space” — President Donald Trump has injected urgency into a long-meandering debate over the best way to protect U.S. interests in space, both military and commercial.

At the same time, his approach has left many struggling to understand the basics, such as what a Space Force would do and how much it might cost.

The Pentagon is expected to have enough details filled out by early next year to include a Space Force plan in its 2020 budget request to Congress. Until then, the idea has taken on a life of its own at Trump’s political rallies, powered at least in part by his conflating of the nation’s civilian space program with the military’s separate role of providing space-based navigation and communications satellites.

At a June rally in Minnesota, for example, Trump alluded to his decision in December 2017 to refocus the civilian space program to human exploration as a first step toward returning an astronaut to the Moon. This prompted some in the crowd to chant, “Space Force, Space Force!” Trump responded by ticking off the names of the current military services and adding, “Now we’re going to have the Space Force. We need it.”

Earlier this month Trump told a rally in Kentucky, “One of the biggest applause I get wherever I go is when I talk about the Space Force.” But just what is this thing? Some may think it would assemble a razzle-dazzle new army for the heavens that would deploy soldiers in space or arm astronauts with galactic superweapons. Analysts say the reality is that building space muscle is more about reordering the way the Pentagon already uses space than about combat.

In fits and starts, the military has been trying for decades to reorganize and accelerate technological advances in space. Some blame the Air Force, which has had the lead, for underinvesting in space because it prefers spending on warplanes.

Details are still in play, but the main idea is this: find more effective ways to defend U.S. interests in space, especially the constellations of satellites that U.S. ground, sea and air forces rely on for navigation, communications and surveillance. These roles make them increasingly tempting military targets even as China and Russia work on ways to disrupt, disable and even destroy American satellites.

“This isn’t science fiction. This isn’t about creating space marines or some expeditionary space force that is going to go out and conquer the universe,” says Todd Harrison, director of the aerospace security project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “This is simply a reorganization” of existing space assets so that they can be use more effectively in a unified chain of command with one person in charge.

Still, questions abound as some in the Pentagon talk about someday basing anti-missile weapons in space.

Would a Space Force, which has yet to be authorized by Congress, consume an intelligence agency such as the National Reconnaissance Office, responsible for building and operating reconnaissance satellites? What about the Missile Defense Agency, which runs ground-based anti-missile systems that rely on space to defend U.S. territory?

Also to be determined is how it would connect, if at all, to the security policy goals of U.S.