Remembering the Space Age. - Black Vault Radio Network (BVRN)

Remembering the Space Age. - Black Vault Radio Network (BVRN) Remembering the Space Age. - Black Vault Radio Network (BVRN)

documents.theblackvault.com
from documents.theblackvault.com More from this publisher
05.02.2013 Views

IMaGINING aN aerOSpaCe aGeNCY IN the atOMIC aGe facing the drafters of the atomic energy act of 1946 (informally known as the McMahon act) would be fruitful. to Galloway, the similarities were obvious: atomic energy and outer space are alike in opening new frontiers which are indissolubly linked with the question of war and peace. they combine the possibility of peaceful uses for the beneft of man and of military uses which can destroy civilization. Both are national and international in their scope. they involve the relation of science and government, the issue of civilian or military control, and problems of organization for the executive branch and the Congress. If only their similarities are considered, the legislative task would appear to be the easy one of following the pattern of our present atomic energy legislation. 32 according to Galloway, the dissimilarities between the two are centered around the problem of delineating military and civilian aspects of aerospace technology. While the boundaries are reasonably clear in the atomic case (bombs versus reactors), nearly every aspect of aerospace technology overlaps the two sides of the military-civilian divide. this is perhaps an oversimplifcation in that much efort had gone into the atomic energy act of 1954 to allow the development of a civilian atomic energy industry and the civilian-military divide in practice was quite problematic. Still, it remains true that, in the case of atomic energy, a relatively clear boundary between civilian and military applications could be established through strict regulation of nuclear materials. In the case of NaSa this was not true, yet still a formal divide was automatically assumed to be of paramount importance. In part this was due to concerns of needless duplication of efort and bureaucratic infghting over jurisdictional matters. however, previous experience with the aeC weighed heavily on lawmakers, particularly in the house of representatives, who now saw science as intimately tied up with national security and felt a need for such a relationship to be codifed in law. the administration favored a more informal relationship, as had been the case with the NaCa. Both sides weighed heavily on precedent to reinforce their arguments. the debate surrounding the obligations of the new space agency to the Department of Defense and vice versa has long been the center-point of the history of the National aeronautics and Space act of 1958. this is for the reason that the delineation of the role of military and civilian agencies has obvious current political implications, but it remains true that much of the contemporary debate also surrounded the issue. the wording of §102(b) of 32. eilene Galloway, The Problems of Congress in Formulating Outer-space Legislation, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government printing Ofce, March 1958). 65

IMaGINING aN aerOSpaCe aGeNCY IN <strong>the</strong> atOMIC aGe<br />

facing <strong>the</strong> drafters of <strong>the</strong> atomic energy act of 1946 (informally known as <strong>the</strong><br />

McMahon act) would be fruitful. to Galloway, <strong>the</strong> similarities were obvious:<br />

atomic energy and outer space are alike in opening new<br />

frontiers which are indissolubly linked with <strong>the</strong> question<br />

of war and peace. <strong>the</strong>y combine <strong>the</strong> possibility of peaceful<br />

uses for <strong>the</strong> beneft of man and of military uses which can<br />

destroy civilization. Both are national and international in<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir scope. <strong>the</strong>y involve <strong>the</strong> relation of science and government,<br />

<strong>the</strong> issue of civilian or military control, and problems<br />

of organization for <strong>the</strong> executive branch and <strong>the</strong> Congress.<br />

If only <strong>the</strong>ir similarities are considered, <strong>the</strong> legislative task<br />

would appear to be <strong>the</strong> easy one of following <strong>the</strong> pattern of<br />

our present atomic energy legislation. 32<br />

according to Galloway, <strong>the</strong> dissimilarities between <strong>the</strong> two are centered<br />

around <strong>the</strong> problem of delineating military and civilian aspects of aerospace<br />

technology. While <strong>the</strong> boundaries are reasonably clear in <strong>the</strong> atomic case<br />

(bombs versus reactors), nearly every aspect of aerospace technology overlaps <strong>the</strong><br />

two sides of <strong>the</strong> military-civilian divide. this is perhaps an oversimplifcation<br />

in that much efort had gone into <strong>the</strong> atomic energy act of 1954 to allow<br />

<strong>the</strong> development of a civilian atomic energy industry and <strong>the</strong> civilian-military<br />

divide in practice was quite problematic. Still, it remains true that, in <strong>the</strong> case<br />

of atomic energy, a relatively clear boundary between civilian and military<br />

applications could be established through strict regulation of nuclear materials.<br />

In <strong>the</strong> case of NaSa this was not true, yet still a formal divide was automatically<br />

assumed to be of paramount importance. In part this was due to concerns of<br />

needless duplication of efort and bureaucratic infghting over jurisdictional<br />

matters. however, previous experience with <strong>the</strong> aeC weighed heavily on<br />

lawmakers, particularly in <strong>the</strong> house of representatives, who now saw science<br />

as intimately tied up with national security and felt a need for such a relationship<br />

to be codifed in law. <strong>the</strong> administration favored a more informal relationship,<br />

as had been <strong>the</strong> case with <strong>the</strong> NaCa. Both sides weighed heavily on precedent<br />

to reinforce <strong>the</strong>ir arguments.<br />

<strong>the</strong> debate surrounding <strong>the</strong> obligations of <strong>the</strong> new space agency to <strong>the</strong><br />

Department of Defense and vice versa has long been <strong>the</strong> center-point of <strong>the</strong><br />

history of <strong>the</strong> National aeronautics and <strong>Space</strong> act of 1958. this is for <strong>the</strong><br />

reason that <strong>the</strong> delineation of <strong>the</strong> role of military and civilian agencies has<br />

obvious current political implications, but it remains true that much of <strong>the</strong><br />

contemporary debate also surrounded <strong>the</strong> issue. <strong>the</strong> wording of §102(b) of<br />

32. eilene Galloway, The Problems of Congress in Formulating Outer-space Legislation, (Washington, DC:<br />

U.S. Government printing Ofce, March 1958).<br />

65

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!