Using the ISS To Do Military Recon?

Anyone know if this would be of much military value?

I do suppose the cosmonaut corps may find it useful to mention, the next time they have to justify their budget.

Here are two related quotes from a Spring 2002 Air Force Law Review article by Christopher M. Petras titled Military use of the International Space Station and the concept of "peaceful purposes."

"...'peaceful purposes' does not exclude military activities so long as those activities are conducted as part of an enforcement action authorized by the U.N. Security Council,3 pursuant to the right to individual or collective self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N Charter, or consistent with the inherent right of self-defense under customary international law."

"While analysis of the language of the 1998 IGA and the international law which institutes the requirement that outer space shall be used 'exclusively for peaceful purposes' lends strong support to the position that the ISS can be used for military purposes provided such actions are 'nonaggressive,' the permissibility of military use of the Space Station will ultimately hinge on how the term 'peaceful purposes' is interpreted and applied by the Partner States, both individually and collectively."

Also, the latest Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against NASA claims that NASA refused to release documents regarding the space station because of ITAR regulations. ITAR controls the import and export of defense related materials.

Rog noted: "Also, the latest Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against NASA claims that NASA refused to release documents regarding the space station because of ITAR regulations. ITAR controls the import and export of defense related materials."

Note that ITAR covers any technology that could be used in arms-- it's been known to cover milling machines, the computer chips used in the Play-Station, solar panels, the technologies used to control Mars Rovers, and (in an earlier post on NASA watch) even a four-legged aluminum stool that's indistinguishable from a coffee-table.

And it's not NASA that gets to decide what's exempt from ITAR-- a technology is ITAR controlled until the State Department says it's not, and saying "well, I didn't know" is explicitly not an allowable excuse: you can go to jail for not obeying the ITAR laws.

ITAR is mandatory, not optional.

In short, ITAR is a major pain in the a$! if you're trying to collaborate with anybody outside the US, or if you're trying to sell aerospace technology or components. One non-US satellite manufacturer proudly announces "No U.S. Components!" Is this helping the US keep its technology edge, do you think? The fact that non-US manufacturers actually consider it a selling point to not incorporate any parts made in the US?

If this imagery is used by the Russians for assessing the "effectiveness" of their military actions (i.e. destruction of key targets, etc.), then the ISS has become a military observational asset. Damage assessment for purposes of reconstruction planning might be a different matter.

Rog: Anything and everything that is launched into space by the US is subject to ITAR restrictions because spacecraft systems are part of the US Munitions List. This applies to Mars rovers, commercial satellite technology, launch vehicles and, yes, the ISS. The US State Department and NASA have a special arrangement in place among the ISS partners to allow technical assistance for accommodating flight hardware (and software) especially for interfaces. For US science missions with foreign contributions (instruments from Russia, ESA, etc.), detailed Technical Assistance Agreements have to be approved by the State Department before technical data can be provided (hardware, software, design information, test procedures, whether written or verbal). Even when allowed by the TAA, any and all disclosures must be recorded and reported. The presence of ITAR restrictions on a space program doesn't necessarily imply that the program is engaged in military operations or even has military value. ITAR is designed to prevent technical information that COULD have military application from moving into the hands of countries, organizations or individuals who may posed a threat to the US. ITAR complicates the lives of those involved in projects with foreign partners, but in our world, it's a price we're forced to pay.

Does that mean that NASA can get some of that gold at the end of the DoD funding rainbow?

The link below is a photo taken of Paris from the ISS. I suspect that level of resolution would be useful for bomb damage assessments at the very least.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-16/hires/iss016e021564.jpg

The timeline looks as if Russian forces were caught by surprise by initial Georgian actions to regain control within their own borders. Post-conflict Moscow press accounts denounce the Russian military for its inability to use space-age assets in combat.

For these and other reasons I find the notion that the photography was made on behalf of the Russian military, implausible.

"Rog: Anything and everything that is launched into space by the US is subject to ITAR restrictions because spacecraft systems are part of the US Munitions List..."

Does this mean that the Buzz Lightyear action figure that went to the ISS on STS-124 is covered under ITAR also?

Has the DOD visited PIXAR yet...or Disney World?

Slight change of subject - all of these things we are sending up nowadays - Buzz Lightyear dolls, Darth Vader light sabers and such - do they have to undergo the same rigid testing as other equipment we send up - such as out gassing and flammability?

David: Regarding your last question, the answer is "yes". Buzz went to WSTF for materials testing/approval and, although the saber wasn't accessed during flight (stowed in middeck for duration of mission), it was also required to go through approval process for materials, safety, etc.

"The timeline looks as if Russian forces were caught by surprise by initial Georgian actions to regain control within their own borders. Post-conflict Moscow press accounts denounce the Russian military for its inability to use space-age assets in combat."

Yep. The Russians had no clue what was going on and their response was ham-fisted ancient Soviet era doctrine. They never fully attained air supremacy, loosing at least one large bomber used as recon platform to Georgian air defenses.
While it really was bad for the Georgians is was very revealing to the west as to how the Russian army operated on a rapid response: poorly. They basically bum-rushed the Georgians.