In response to President Bush's proposed space odyssey, one must ask why? Why now, at a time of ongoing war and record budget deficits? Why head off into space at a time when any number of domestic issues -- from health care to unemployment and education -- are more urgent priorities?

Bush's vague plan to "gain a new foothold on the Moon" and send astronauts to Mars, may seem benign, even visionary. Speaking at NASA headquarters, Mr. Bush explained, "mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea." However, if we look beyond the rhetoric, there is cause for concern. Anyone familiar with recommendations from a commission on military uses of space chaired by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, before his appointment, or the U.S. Space Command's strategic planning documents, is raising eyebrows.

The Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization was released in January of 2001. Chaired by Rumsfeld until his appointment as Bush's Secretary of Defense, the commission claimed that the U.S. is at risk of a "space Pearl Harbor" due to a lack of "celestial" military preparedness. It also made a number of concrete recommendations ranging from the need to develop new technologies to defend U.S. space assets, to ensuring the U.S. can deploy weapons in space. The Commission's findings and recommendations are echoed in the U.S. Space Command's strategic master plan, posted on its web site, which lays out the overall goal of U.S. domination of space to protect U.S. interests and investments. The document warns, "we cannot fully exploit space until we control it."

Although President Bush has made no mention of the military implications of his new proposal for a Moon base and a Mars mission, the President's sudden emphasis on space could mark the first step down a dangerous path. The Space Command's strategic plan clearly states, "this capability (space) is the ultimate high ground of U.S. military operations. Air Force doctrine views air, space, and information as key ingredients for dominating the battlespace and ensuring superiority." As Bruce Gagnon, director of Global Network Against Nuclear Power and Weapons in Space, aptly noted "there is legitimate reason to question the plan for the establishment of bases on the moon. The military has long eyed the moon as a potential base of operations as warfare is moved into the heavens."

What also needs to be discussed is the fact that no fewer than eight Pentagon military contractors were represented on Rumsfeld's space commission. Companies such as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), the Aerospace Corporation, Litton Industries, Boeing Corporation, Northrop Grumman and Alliant Techsystems, were represented on the commission -- all companies that stand to benefit from the commission's findings. In addition to this previous commission's recommendations, Bush has decided to form a new presidential commission to look at how to make his vision a reality. Heading this commission will be Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge Jr., a former Air Force secretary, AND current board member of Lockheed Martin -- one of the nation's top aerospace and military contractors.

Meanwhile, over at the Air Force, the assistant secretary in charge of acquiring military space assets as part of Rumsfeld's new emphasis on space as a place for exerting strategic dominance is none other the Peter B. Teets, a former chief operating officer at Lockheed Martin. On at least one occasion, Teets has told gatherings of corporate, military, and Pentagon officials that the weaponization of space is inevitable. It may or may not be inevitable, but if representatives of companies who stand to profit from it continue to be put in charge of our space policy, the likelihood of an arms race in space will be a lot higher. The Bush administration's heavy reliance on defense executives with interests in military space ventures calls into question the objectivity of the panel's recommendations. The true intent of President Bush's rallying cry to further space exploration could simply be in the name of science, but these issues need to be seriously discussed beforehand.

Michelle Ciarrocca is a Research Associate at the World Policy Institute

###