Monthly Archives: March 2021

International Space Station making an appearance over CNY this weekend – WSYR

Posted: March 21, 2021 at 5:01 pm

Posted: Mar 17, 2021 / 12:02 PM EDT / Updated: Mar 20, 2021 / 09:42 PM EDT

SYRACUSE, NY (WSYR)- The International Space Station, or ISS for short, is expected to make an appearance in Central New York this weekend.

The ISS is one of the most visible man-made objects in the sky. Close up, it looks like a large spacecraft where some astronauts live and work. According to NASA, the space station is as big as a five-bedroom house!

The space station, which several nations worked together to build, circles earth at 17,500 mph about 250 miles up in the sky. Here on land, it looks more like a slow-moving star.

The timing of visibility of the ISS and a large area of high pressure over the Northeast will align this weekend. This will provide us with great viewing conditions.

Viewing the ISS

When Appears/Disappears Visible How Long

Sunday (3/21) at 7:53 p.m.WSW moving towardNE7 minutes

For more sighting times, click here.

Excerpt from:
International Space Station making an appearance over CNY this weekend - WSYR

Posted in Space Station | Comments Off on International Space Station making an appearance over CNY this weekend – WSYR

ISS Space Station to be Seen from Earth Next Week … Weather Permitting | House – DodoFinance

Posted: at 5:01 pm

The ISS is only visible when it is dark. The moment the station itself is illuminated by the sun, this light is reflected back to the earth. In the next few days, this will be the case in the Netherlands between 5.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. The ISS can then be seen on a clear day and looks like a fast moving star.

But, says Wouter van Bernebeek of Weerplaza, until Tuesday, clouds dominate in the Netherlands. Especially during the night. For the next three nights, therefore, it is unlikely that we will see the space station. If it does, it will be in the south of the country. This is where the chances of clarification are greatest. large.

This is because a northerly wind will blow until the middle of next week. The cold water of the sea brings forth many clouds. Also, the ISS cannot be seen all night long. So its a snapshot. And then there just has to be an authorization.

On the night of Tuesday to Wednesday, the chances of clearances increase everywhere in the Netherlands, explains Van Bernebeek. On Wednesday and Thursday evenings, the orbit of the ISS is also the most suitable for spotting. However, Van Bernebeek warns: it is still so far away that the prediction is very uncertain.

Watch our most important news videos in this playlist.

Bacon trailblazer. Certified coffee maven. Zombie lover. Tv specialist. Freelance communicator.

See the original post:
ISS Space Station to be Seen from Earth Next Week ... Weather Permitting | House - DodoFinance

Posted in Space Station | Comments Off on ISS Space Station to be Seen from Earth Next Week … Weather Permitting | House – DodoFinance

Heights business helps get cheese to astronauts on the ISS – KHOU.com

Posted: at 5:01 pm

The cheese distributor says they are now working on releasing a special edition space cheese so you can try the same cheese that was sent to the space station.

HOUSTON A Belgium cheese maker and distributor are "out of this world" excited after finding out their cheese has been sent from Belgium all the way to the International Space Station.

It all happened through a Heights cheese shop called Houston Dairymaids.

NASA astronaut Shannon Walker had requested for them to send her cheese for her 210-day journey on the International Space Station.

They did, and she loved the cheese so much, she requested a second shipment!

Now the Belgium maker and distributor of that cheese are feeling the love.

They say the cheese is made on a small dairy farm in West Flanders, and then, they age the cheese in their facility.

They never wouldve thought their cheese would make from Belgium through Houston and up to space.

Very often, Belgium people are not as proud as they should be about their products so it was a very local story and now its international, so yeah, thats great," said Frederic Van Tricht with Kaasaffineurs Van Tricht. "Just delivering it all over the world is already great, but space is something that we never couldve dreamed of."

And get this: the cheese distributor says they are now working on releasing a special edition space cheese so you can try the same cheese that was sent to the space station.

But be patient. They say it could be two months before you see it back in the Houston Dairymaids store.

Read more:
Heights business helps get cheese to astronauts on the ISS - KHOU.com

Posted in Space Station | Comments Off on Heights business helps get cheese to astronauts on the ISS – KHOU.com

Podcast: Nanoracks’ CEO on Commercializing Space – Aviation Week

Posted: at 5:01 pm

Nanoracks CEO Jeff Manber predicts that by the end of the year, private space companies will have more discretionary money to spend than the U.S. federal government. Listen in as heprovides an update on his companys acquisition by Voyager space and more.

Don't miss a single episode.Subscribe to Aviation Week's Check 6 podcast iniTunes,Stitcher,SpotifyandGoogle Play.Please leave us a review.

Transcript:

Jen DiMascio:

Hi and welcome to the Check 6 Podcast. I'm Jen DiMascio, the executive editor for Defense & Space. I'm here with Space editor, Irene Klotz, and a very special guest, Jeff Manber, the CEO, co-founder, and chairman of the innovative space company, Nanoracks. Manber has been a pioneer in helping to bring commercial ventures to outer space. He was the CEO of MirCorp, which leased the Russian Space Station Mir and so is one of the architects building a space economy in low Earth orbit, and I guess that's where we'd like to start, Jeff. Where does the effort to build a space economy in LEO stand right now, and where do you see it headed?

Jeffrey Manber:

Hey, it's good to be here with everybody. Boy, what an open question. The effort to make LEO commercialization a genuine market stands better than I would have thought of a few years ago, but frustratingly slow nonetheless. We've made remarkable progress in the last decade, as your listeners know, in making the government a customer, and that's been the radical breakthrough. For me, it's a frustrating time because so many people, especially at NASA say, "Oh, commercial, that's Adidas soccer balls going to space," or "That's a DoubleTree cookies going to space." And that is not what commercial is about.

What commercial is about is changing the public-private partnership between the government and industry and where you have cargo being delivered to the International Space Station by the private sector, but the government's the important customer there. And as we look at International Space Station, which Nanoracks is focused on and as we look at private space stations and as we look at so much happening in the industry today beyond that, it's about making the government a commercial customer, and there we have done we remarkable things and made remarkable progress.

Irene Klotz:

Jeff, so speaking of DoubleTree cookies and Adidas soccer balls, NASA recently put out revised pricing for ISS services that landed with a bit of a thud amongst the commercial suppliers. I understand there's been a bit of a walk-back or a clarification of what that means. Where does that stand for you, and have you been affected by the price increases?

Jeffrey Manber:

Great question. We were affected with the realization that our good friends at NASA still behave at times like Soviets. Okay, so in that sense, we were affected. As you say, the policy came out with all the grace and all the subtlety of what one would expect from a different sort of government agency and something we might've expected 15 years ago.

So first, the way it was released is what has disappointed me the most. It did not, and I'll talk about how it affects us and how it affects others in a moment. First off, they determined to raise the prices for media branding and entertainment. They did not run that by the NASA [NASA Advisory Council], on which I served for commercial. They did not reach out to stakeholders beforehand. There were all these calls going back and forth between people like myself and my colleagues saying, "Did you know about this?" And so I was, I am terribly disappointed that they felt it was not necessary to discuss this with the community.

Okay, having said that, the question is what is the new policy, and who does it affect? So it came out of concerns on the Hill in Congress, that when they heard about Tom Cruise going into the Space Station and NASA has a very advanced, very forward-thinking and important policy of subsidizing prices for things like tech demo, education, STEM, new products, and I'll talk about DoubleTree cookies in a second because it's an important point. As you begin to look at true commercial, Hollywood movies, I support that that should not be subsidized by the taxpayer on board a government platform like the International Space Station (ISS). So the increase in prices affects only fully commercial projects, whether it's a movie involving Tom Cruise, let's say, or whether it's a makeup like L'Oreal. It does not affect others efforts.

Let me say that at Nanoracks. We always work in educational, and let's look at the, if I may, quickly look at the DoubleTree cookies. We went to NASA and said, we have an opportunity with a sponsor, DoubleTree, when you go into their hotels, they bake cookies. They want to send those cookies to space. What did Nanoracks do on its own? Nanoracks persuaded DoubleTree, owned by Hilton, to strike an educational deal with Scholastic. Scholastic spent close to a million dollars in sending out curriculum to 50,000 kids to teach them how baking in zero gravity is different than baking on the Earth. That money going to Scholastic to do that program is more important to me than the U.S. Treasury getting more money, let's say half a million dollars, if it had gone purely commercial.

So number one, I personally do not believe that almost anything should be purely commercial at this time. It is a government program. We're in the midst of an education multi-year effort to educate people. So we at Nanoracks will continue to support having it be educational programs as well. Even for things you may think is completely commercial, there's always an opportunity to get people in the public, the taxpayer, to understand the cool things and how space is different as we educate kids for the next generation. It's my long answer for saying, to sum it up, number one, it went out into the public horribly. Number two, it doesn't really affect Nanoracks. Three, I support the price increase. And four, we continue at Nanoracks to have the subsidized pricing because what we do is God's answer to good things.

Irene Klotz:

Thanks, Jeff. That's a great perspective on a really big issue. So maybe in that light, NASA is taking a much more cautious approach next week, when it's setting up a briefing to discuss, I guess, its plans, maybe some options for a Free Flyer LEO platform. Does Nanoracks have an interest in that, and what do you think that might look like given that so far there hasn't really been strong financial support from Congress to help NASA get a commercial LEO platform in orbit?

Jeffrey Manber:

We are passionate that we cannot have a Space Station gap. You just cannot. Your listeners are sophisticated in the industry. They know about the Shuttle gap. We still are dealing with commercial crew and foreign policy implications for having to rely on the Russians. We don't know how long the Space Station is going to last, and I told that personally to Senator Cruz before the pandemic hit. And I thanked Senator Cruz for his support of Space Station Program, and I said to him, "But we don't know how long this is going to last." It's a mechanical engineering question as well as a political funding question.

And so today is the time that we need to start having players in the private sector, look at how you would do a free flyer that supports and builds it up and stimulates utilization in low Earth orbit, one that does not subtract from the ISS program, but makes the case for further utilization and to assure continuity in the event that something goes wrong with ISS. So we're looking forward to the dialogue with NASA.

Jen DiMascio:

Thanks, Jeff. I wanted to ask you a Nanoracks question, and Nanoracks is in the process of being acquired by Voyager Space. What's the status of that right now, and why did you choose the path that you did? What will it bring to Nanoracks?

Jeffrey Manber:

Let me answer the second first. The explosion taking place in the private sector capabilities presents one with the question of whether you wish to go it alone with the limitations or you wish to be part of a team that you believe in that allows for scalability and growth. And we went out to do a series B at the start of the summer, and we were talking to people, space is hot, and we were talking to people that were quite willing to give Nanoracks capital. But at the end of the day, at one point, as we began to talk to others, we spoke to Voyager. I spoke to Dylan Taylor who was kind enough to come to the office, and we spoke for about four hours. And I went to my colleagues and said, "As we look for going out further into the industry, I'd like us to align. I think it really makes sense to align with someone with whom you have a shared vision."

And so I'm sort of answering both parts of the equation. So we elected, we were fortunate that we could sit down with Voyager and discuss why we should join and reached the decision to. It's going very well. We expect the tender to be finished in the next, let's say, six to eight weeks. And I see that there's been a public conjecture, and Voyager has said that they're going to go public. And we're going down the public pathway at the same time. And it's an utterly fascinating time in the industry, and Voyager and we have a choice whether to do SPAC or do a more traditional IPO. And I know Voyager's looking at that very closely, but however, we go, one of the, so I'm answering... So let me stop and say, it's going well. Voyager's going to tender, and then immediately we're on the pathway for the IPO.

So if I may, I'd like to say something else about the implications for all these companies going public. And you can't see it on the podcast, but everybody's nodding. Yeah, so you're nodding, so I can continue. It's an utterly, as I've said, fascinating time where, I may be wrong here and push back on me, but I think that with all these entrepreneurial space companies going public and tapping the liquidity and the capital of private markets, by the end of the year, there will be more discretionary capital in the private sector than at DOD and NASA. How cool is that?

I've said that to a number of people and they look me. I said discretionary. NASA doesn't have several hundred million. You said a moment ago, they haven't had funds for LEO commercialization. Well, with Spire going public, Momentus going public, Astro going public, Virgin going public, the Lockheeds and Boeings don't have discretionary capital, nor are they inclined their shareholders wish to spend it the way. I am struck by the fact that you're going to have a billion dollars roughly in the hands of entrepreneurial space companies. How does that change the relationship with the American space agencies and those concerned? It's an extremely interesting question that I'm giving some thought to now.

Irene Klotz:

Jeff, would you say that the availability of private capital is kind of the single biggest difference between the commercialization efforts underway now and what you worked on and experienced 20, 30 years ago back when you were trying to commercialize the Mir Space Station? Or what else has kind of changed in the years?

Jeffrey Manber:

It's the second biggest, the ability of having this capital is a new phenomenon. It's happening now as we speak in March of 2021. The first is, as I said, at the start of this conversation, is government is customer. Okay, for those who remember the Shuttle era, no offense to those associated, but it was a launch vehicle built by committee. Wait, wait, a launch vehicle built by a government committee. And it's showed, unfortunately, sadly tragically. And so it was not a vehicle that a space-faring nation wanting to show leadership should hinge its future on.

But as we made the transition to government is customer where government became more willing to buy goods and services, what did you get? We went from a closed monopolistic situation on launch vehicles and satellites to the present era of extraordinary opportunity, services, pricing across the board in launch vehicles and satellite and Earth observation, and it only took a decade.

After 40, 50 years of the space program being closed and monopoly driven, and within 10 years, we have the situation today where I bet U.S. government worries about a lot of things, but right now they're not so worried about access to and from space. And for those of us who remember the Shuttle era, you worried. And we had times when the United States of America was, after Challenger, was basically grounded. And we had some abilities with Delta and other things, but the big change Irene is that the government has been a customer for a decade, and it's showing wonderful [inaudible 00:14:59].

Irene Klotz:

Jeff, I don't mean to put you on the hot seat, or maybe I do, but there's that SLS hot fire coming up this afternoon. And as you're talking about NASA's shift to buying commercial services, of course, the agency still has its legacy programs, I think, for programs like JWST and the Mars Rovers, which are fabulous. And there's doesn't seem to be a lot of controversy about government committee, government scientists, government programs, but what about SLS? What about the investment that the taxpayers have made in this program for more than a decade and still not at the launchpad?

Jeffrey Manber:

First, I'll give a somewhat poetic answer because I read a somewhat poetic column. And I forget who wrote it in The New York Times the other day. It might've been... Well, it doesn't matter to the podcast, but it was the other day that there was a columnist in The New York Times who had a piece on SLS, and I thought he phrased it very nicely. He said, "No matter the situation, SLS is the last launch vehicle program NASA and the government will ever build, be a part of."

So, first off I would like to celebrate that even the august New York Times recognizes that the future is in the private sector and development and probably more mature public-private partnerships. So in general, I'm an observer here. Both at Nanoracks and Voyager, we've been an observer. We have not been a participant in the program. And I'm sorry that, I'll put it in a more philosophical way, I'm sorry that still in 2021, we're pushing through programs where the government has had such a limited, allowed for such a limited contribution from private sector in design and stuff. But it has a momentum on its own, and it's really going to be a question for the administration, the new administration, of how forward they want to go with this. I don't have a crystal ball, but I have to believe that, as it was said in The New York Times, this is the final government launch program.

And I look forward to the next decade where science missions will be more decentralized, smaller. They'll be more innovative, quicker. You'll be allowed to fail. Fail fast, learn, move forward. So I think the next 10 years even programs and science will be more innovative. And there'll be far more things we can do on the limited budget we're going to have once we begin to recognize that debt is debt no matter who suggests it, Democrat or Republican, so.

Jen DiMascio:

Since we are at the start of a new administration, what would you like to see policy-wise to support the momentum that's been built in terms of commercializing space?

Jeffrey Manber:

Number one, recognize that not all that [former President Donald] Trump did was bad. I'm very, very worried that this administration will dismiss some things accomplished in space because it was done during the Trump administration. I thought there was some very good, the focus on space, the high level focus on space was good. I thought the creation, not my area, I'm not an expert on this, but the creation of a dedicated sector in DOD to space was a positive thing. I did not applaud the fashion and all the publicity on it and all that. The way that the Trump administration worked I'm not a fan of.

I thought space councils are good. I think clearly we're not going to have a space council in the Biden administration. And if the Office of Science and Technology policy is being elevated, and they can have cross-government discussions on space issues, that's critical. You cannot allow one or two agencies such as NASA and units within DOD to dictate policy for the United States. So I welcome the having the cross-agency discussion with Transportation and Commerce and other agencies.

And so our government is customer. We need to understand. We need to extract ourselves from artificial deadlines. "Returning to the moon by," put in any date, I'm against it, any date whatsoever. I'd rather just say it is the policy of the United States of America to return to the moon, this time to stay. First boots on the ground will be by a woman. And we will be working with our friends at Congress and the private sector and internationally to set realistic goals based on technological and budgetary challenges. Boom! I mean, so I'm against any date. And I thought the 2024 was ridiculous, and it's proven. And some good people were sacrificed on the altar because of their feeling that an artificial date wasn't good.

So the message I would like to give, and I've given to some friends coming in the administration is, as I said at the start of this conversation, commercial is not simply frivolous things. It's a procurement reform. It's a new way of doing it, doing space. It's working. Let's keep it going.

I'd like to see more international. I'm a believer in international because it becomes more credible, and it's some of our big ticket items in space are going to be multi-year, decades in the making, and it's good to have international support. So I'm excited to see what the folks bring. At the same time, I have the realization that it's not key in importance, that it was the previous administration.

We've unveiled a new initiative, if I may say quickly. We're working with friends in Abu Dhabi on a space farming initiative. And we have a five-year program to look at innovations in ag tech, and we're doing it not only to sustain, to have, let's say, greenhouses on the moon, we're doing it to green the Earth's deserts. And there's been some fascinating research within the harsh environment of space. Micros, bacteria, and crops survive in the harsh environment of space. They can survive in the deserts of Earth, which are being subjected horrifically to climate change. And so I think we see new ways to communicate with this administration and meet its priorities. I started this two years ago. I'm not doing it because of the new administration, but I think space is on the cusp of a one to... It's a legitimate marketplace now, and that's exciting.

Irene Klotz:

Jeff, in the little time we have left, do you want to give us an update on the newest Nanoracks hardware to get to orbit, Bishop? How have sales been going, and is there a broader market for the Airlock beyond supporting NASA?

Jeffrey Manber:

The little engine that could. Okay, in December the Bishop Airlock arrived at the station and is now permanently attached to the ISS or as one of the mission control folks said when we were attached, they said, "We're delighted at NASA to be permanently attached to the Bishop." So I thought that was really cool. So now we at Nanoracks say, "Yeah, the ISS is permanently attached to Bishop." It's the largest module or hardware commercially done. It was done without government funding. Somehow through the grace of space gods, we funded it internally, but we could only do it with the help of NASA.

And so we have our first commercial customer announced is Japanese robotic company GITAI, and they're coming down to our shop in a couple of weeks to begin working on their first payload on the Airlock. We have a NASA as a customer for a variety of things. We have the European Space Agency as a customer. And now that it's up there, we are going out to satellite folks and others to explain how you can use the Airlock both to put things out into space and bring things in, talking to NASA about allowing us to bring things in.

And so it's a great example of the public-private partnership and that NASA did not put out, envision an airlock, but when we went to them and said, "We'll be five times larger than the current airlock, and here's how we see using it." We're already talking to our friends in Abu Dhabi in ag tech using the airlock for research labs. It has Wi-Fi, it has power. There's all sorts of things. So I know the astronauts have delighted about the additional real estate.

We did a very cool downlink with NASA, last week I think it was. And one of the things Shannon Walker said, by the way, which was very intriguing, she said, "We weren't expecting how much it would change the airflow within the Space Station." So that was interesting, but it brings us closer to NASA. And so far we're pleased with the sales, and we look forward and like Free Flyer saying, how do we take this public-private partnership and build it now for other things in LEO?

Jen DiMascio:

Well, thank you so much. Unfortunately, that's all we have time for today, but I hope you'll come back and join us again, maybe in the fall later this year. And I just wanted to thank our listeners for tuning into another edition of Check 6, which you can download on iTunes, Stitcher, and Google Play.

Excerpt from:
Podcast: Nanoracks' CEO on Commercializing Space - Aviation Week

Posted in Space Station | Comments Off on Podcast: Nanoracks’ CEO on Commercializing Space – Aviation Week

Nano Dimension and L3Harris send 3D printed radiofrequency circuit to the ISS – 3D Printing Industry

Posted: at 5:01 pm

Additively manufactured electronics (AME) manufacturer Nano Dimension has announced its first 3D printed integrated radiofrequency (RF) circuit has been flown to the International Space Station (ISS) for space effects studies.

Printed on Nano Dimensions DragonFly LDM system, the RF circuit will transmit data to and from the ISS, providing the project partners with systematic analysis of the RF properties of 3D printed High-Performance Electronic Devices (Hi-PEDs) within the rigors and demands of space.

Nano Dimension collaborated with communications technology firm L3Harris on the two-year project, which ultimately aims to demonstrate the viability of using new technologies such as multi-level and multi-material AMEs for use in space.

This project has been a significant opportunity to qualify our additive manufacturing technology for space applications by fabricating a fully integrated communications board enabled by the multi-material and multi-layer technology of our DragonFly LDM system, said Dr. Jaim Nulman, Nano Dimensions Chief Technology Officer.

The collaboration with L3Harris has increased the technological readiness of our system towards the TR-9 level, which is the highest technology readiness level that indicates the capability for volume deployment in a LEO environment.

AMEs for space applications

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) refers to a region 1,200 miles above Earth that is home to the ISS and other communications satellites, all of which utilize RF communications systems. Using AME technology to produce lightweight, high-performance electronic devices for use within these RF systems has the potential to yield several advantages, including rapid development time and the ability to create complex shapes and systems unachievable with traditional manufacturing techniques.

Typically, the traditional production of RF circuits is a tedious trial and error process involving multiple design iterations. As such, the development of AMEs for potential space applications is an area that is seeing mounting interest.

In 2017, 3D printed metal and electronics firm Optomec was awarded a NASA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract to develop its post-processing Adaptive Laser Sintering System (ALSS) and enable electronics 3D printing onto a wider variety of temperature-sensitive substrates for use on the ISS. Elsewhere, Silicon Valley-based startup Space Foundry has been exploring how its plasma 3D printing technology could be applied within the space and electronics industries.

In October last year, Swiss RF component supplier SWISSto12 delivered a large batch of 3D printed waveguide signal interconnects to Thales Alenia Space for use in the Eutelsat KONNECT Very High Throughput Satellite (VHTS) program. Manufactured using 3D printing and electroless plating, the waveguide components saw weight and cost savings alongside enhanced RF performance.

Fabricating the RF circuit

The project between Nano Dimension and L3Harris was issued by the ISS US National Laboratory to test the durability of 3D printed RF circuits in space for potential use in future small satellites.

Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, is playing a critical role in advancing the development and applications of small and nano satellites and the overall LEO economy, said Dr. Arthur Paolella, Senior Scientist in the Space and Airborne Systems segment of L3Harris. The applications of 3D printing are broad, touching almost every aspect of research, design, and manufacturing.

Utilizing its experience in RF circuit development for satellites and communications systems, L3Harris designed the RF circuit board and, once printed by Nano Dimension, mounted the component to the exterior of the orbiting laboratory of the MISSE Flight Facility launch module.

Nano Dimension 3D printed the RF board using its DragonFly LDM system which is equipped with the companys proprietary AME technology. The system features two individual printheads that simultaneously deposit a conductive silver nano-ink for the bulk of a printed circuits connections, and a dielectric photopolymer ink, which provides mechanical support, thermal resistance, and electrical insulation for the surrounding structure.

The multi-layer 3D printed communications device, which is 101 x 38 x 3 mm in size, is comprised of an antenna, electronic traces for mounting functional components, and a signal ground plane. According to L3Harris, when compared with a conventionally manufactured counterpart the 3D printed RF circuit displayed a similar transmission performance while delivering reduced costs and a faster time to market.

The device will be tested at three program points pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight and will be exposed to the LEO environment on the ISS for six months before being brought back to Earth for evaluation.

The major objective of this project is to fly an experiment consisting of an integrated communications circuit fabricated by additive manufacturing and analyze the RF properties of those materials in a space environment, added Paolella. The communications system now on the ISS went through extensive testing in order to prepare it for the mission. Nano Dimensions contribution to this project was extremely important, as their additively manufactured capability is technologically advanced and superior to existing technologies.

Subscribe to the3D Printing Industry newsletterfor the latest news in additive manufacturing. You can also stay connected by following us onTwitterand liking us onFacebook.

Looking for a career in additive manufacturing? Visit3D Printing Jobsfor a selection of roles in the industry.

Featured image shows Nano Dimensions First Ever AME RF communications circuit has been sent to the ISS. Photo via Nano Dimension.

Read more:
Nano Dimension and L3Harris send 3D printed radiofrequency circuit to the ISS - 3D Printing Industry

Posted in Space Station | Comments Off on Nano Dimension and L3Harris send 3D printed radiofrequency circuit to the ISS – 3D Printing Industry

NATO Headquarters hosts first-ever conference on LGBTQ+ perspectives in the workplace – NATO HQ

Posted: at 5:01 pm

NATO Headquarters hosted its first-ever internal conference on LGBTQ+ perspectives in the workplace on Friday (19 March 2021). Organised by the staff-led Proud @ NATO volunteer group, the online event brought together around 130 participants across civilian and military staffs, as well as national delegations, to discuss the experiences and challenges of LGBTQ+ people at work.

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg addressed the conference on the importance of inclusive leadership, saying every member of the LGBTQ+ community at NATO is a valued member of our staff and family, because diversity and inclusion is at the heart of who we are and what we do... drawing on all resources and all experiences makes us stronger, and better equipped to face the future. The Secretary General also expanded on the concept of allyship in the workplace, defining allies as people who do not identify as LGBTQ+ themselves, yet want to see a more inclusive world. He added: you will always have an ally in me.

NATO is committed to diversity. Organisation policy strictly forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as sex, race or ethnic origin, religion, nationality, disability, or age. NATO was also a world leader in recognising same-sex marriage. The organisation extended equal spousal benefits to same-sex couples in July 2002, at a time when only one country in the world the Netherlands recognised same-sex marriage.

Original post:
NATO Headquarters hosts first-ever conference on LGBTQ+ perspectives in the workplace - NATO HQ

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO Headquarters hosts first-ever conference on LGBTQ+ perspectives in the workplace – NATO HQ

NATO Killed Civilians in Libya and Must Face Responsibility – Foreign Policy

Posted: at 5:01 pm

Attia al-Juwaili may never know which countrys laser-guided bomb killed his young daughter. It could be a British, French, or American pilot who struck, but until he finds out, his familys hopes for justice are forever on hold.

It has been 10 years since the NATO-led coalition dropped the first bombs targeting Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafis forcesturning the tide in Libyas civil war and playing a critical role in bringing down the dictator. The merits of that intervention have been long debated, with foreign meddlers and local rivals and extremists thriving in the vacuum ever since.

But there was a more direct cost. In a war fought expressly to protect civilians, NATOs airstrikes inadvertently killed dozens. New research by the civilian casualty monitoring watchdog Airwars, where I am the senior investigator, lays out for the first time the estimated number of civilians killed by all parties to the 2011 warincluding both Qaddafi forces and Libyan rebels. Almost none of the families left behind have received compensation or an apology.

While NATO insists it took steps to avoid killing civilians, when there were casualty allegations it had limited mechanisms to assess on the ground, with one former official saying they really had no idea.

And those seeking an apology have instead found themselves trapped in a nightmare in which NATO itself does not make condolence payments but insists accountability must be sought from individual nations. Yet, even a decade on, countries including the United Kingdom, France, and the United States still refuse to accept public responsibility for any harm they caused.

Juwailis family and a few others had sought refuge in the village of Majer in northern Libya a few weeks before the deadly strike, after fleeing the encroaching ground war between Qaddafis forces and NATO-backed rebels.

It was Ramadan, so prayers lasted late into the evening. Afterward, the women and children went inside, while the men sat in the August heat chatting.

Then everything was black, we couldnt see anything. After the smoke subsided it was clear the second floor was destroyed, Juwaili told Foreign Policy.

The men rushed forward, searching through the rubble for survivors. Fifteen minutes later, another strike killed many of the rescuers.

Juwaili hunted frantically for his 2-year-old daughter, Arwa, eventually finding her lifeless under the rubble. Thank God her body was not ripped apart, he said.

The United Nations later concluded 34 civilians died at Majer that night, including Arwa. NATO called the site a command and control node for Qaddafis forces. The residents denied this, and U.N. investigators found no evidence of military activity.

My message to NATO is that yes, mistakes happen, but you need to correct such mistakes, Juwaili said. I feel that we were treated as if we were nothing and they did not look back. I hope when Libya is back on its feet, we get justice.

NATOs seven-month intervention in Libya in 2011 was ostensibly carried out to protect civilians.

Qaddafi had brutally crushed an Arab Spring rebellion against his four-decade rule and was closing in fast on Benghazi, the last bastion of the uprising. The U.N., fearing a new Srebrenica, voted to intervene to protect civilians.

NATO led a subsequent international bombing campaign, with the U.S.-dominated alliance claiming to take significant steps to avoid killing civiliansemploying rigorous target monitoring and delayed-fuse weapons. At the end of the war, its head Anders Fogh Rasmussen boasted of no confirmed civilian casualties caused by NATO.

Human rights groups and U.N. investigators on the ground unearthed a more complicated story. They found multiple cases of civilian harm, with a U.N. commission concluding that while NATO fought a highly precise campaign with a demonstrable determination to avoid civilian casualties, the coalition had killed at least 60 civilians in the 20 events the commission investigated.

New research from Airwars concludes that this number could be higher still. Using hyperlocal open-source material to assess for the first time the entirety of reported civilian harm by all parties during the 2011 war, it found NATO strikes resulted in between 223 and 403 likely civilian deaths in the 212 events of concern reviewed.

View Airwars interactive map of civilian fatalities in 2011 here.

This paled in comparison to the killings by Qaddafis forces; according to local communities, they were responsible for between 869 and 1,999 civilian deaths. And rebel actions resulted in between 50 and 113 fatalities.

The real Qaddafi and rebel numbers are likely higher still; documentation of NATO strikes was more comprehensive at the time, and much online social and local media from 2011 has disappeared.

View Airwars interactive map of strikes by belligerents in 2011 here.

Few of those killed by Qaddafis forces were struck by airstrikes or artillery, likely due to NATO imposing a no-fly zone and taking out the regimes heavy weapons.

Instead, violence had spiked at the beginning of the uprisingwith security forces indiscriminately firing on protestersand again in August as Qaddafis forces lost the capital, Tripoli. They carried out a series of massacres, including reportedly using grenades to kill more than 60 prisoners packed into a warehouse.

Rebels also committed atrocitieskilling at least 24 civilians while forcing all 48,000 residents of Tawergha to flee after accusing them of Qaddafi sympathies. Gabriel Farag, a man from the town, told Foreign Policy more than 100 men detained by rebel forces are still missing, including his brother. A decade later, Tawergha remains largely deserted.

Libyan authorities proved largely incapable or uninterested in pursuing post-conflict justice. The first post-Qaddafi government established a mechanism to compensate victims but shelved it as the country slid further into civil war in 2014, a former Libyan government official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Several of those interviewed for Foreign Policy said they received compensation from the government for damage to their homesbut no official condolences for loved ones killed.

After the U.N. investigation into the 2011 war, NATO carried out its own six-month internal review of alleged cases of civilian harm, retired British Army Maj. Gen. Rob Weighill, the Combined Joint Task Force head of operations during the conflict, said in an interview. On one or two occasions they found misfires, but for the other events, including the Majer attack that killed young Arwa, they concluded that their actions were justified.

We went to ultra lengths, Weighill said. I know for a fact that the targeting pack, the data, everything that went toward striking those targets was sufficiently accurate and timely to warrant a legitimate strike.

He insisted that even the second NATO attack in Majer, which killed many of those rushing to rescue the injured, was justified. Such so-called double-tap strikes are often criticized for killing civilians. It was still operating as a command and control bunker, Weighill said. We wouldnt have hit it if it hadnt been.

Yet with the campaign fought almost exclusively from the air, NATO had no on-the-ground mechanisms for measuring civilian harm post-strike, he acknowledged.

Weighill described a conversation he had with the then-supreme allied commander Europe, U.S. Adm. James Stavridis, after the war. He said, What level of confidence do you have that you didnt kill people? according to Weighills recollection. And I said, Zero level of confidence.

We really had no idea, he adds. If you look me in the eye and say, Were there any missions you undertook that edged outside the targeting directive or were not legal? I would say, No. Now, did we kill civilians? Probably.

Long a military taboo, admitting to killing civilians has become more common in recent years.

The U.S. Department of Defense has led the way, admitting that its forces killed more than 1,300 civilians in the U.S.-led coalition campaign against the Islamic Statethough watchdogs such as Airwars estimate the real number to be far higher.

Other key allies remain in denial. The U.K. has admitted to just one civilian fatality in six years of bombing the Islamic State, and France none.

NATO itself now has a dedicated Civilian Casualty Investigation and Mitigation Team for Afghanistan. Mark Goodwin-Hudsonwho as a lieutenant colonel in the British Army headed that team in 2016 and is now a consultant for the Center for Civilians in Conflictsaid it was not just morally right but made military sense to compensate families.

In terms of winning the war, you have got to admit mistakes, particularly in the case of committing civilian harm and appropriate reparations, he said. Especially in contexts where you are meant to be fighting for hearts and minds.

But victims of NATO strikes in Libya find themselves caught in a bind. To seek an apology, they have to know which individual country carried out the strike, yet states still hide behind the anonymity of the coalition.

Eight NATO nations carried out airstrikes in Libya during 2011: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Airwars submitted Freedom of Information requests and press questions to each regarding individual strikes that reportedly killed civilians, including in Majer. Denmark and Norway provided partial information, while all others either did not respond, or declined to answerciting collective responsibility.

The U.S. military said all questions should be answered by NATO. Current NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu did not respond to requests about specific incidents.

NATO as an organisation does not make condolence or ex-gratia payments, she wrote by email. As a voluntary gesture to ease civilian suffering, NATO Allies have made payments to victims of military operations in Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq, she added. We hold no records of Allies making payments in relation to the Libya operation.

Lungescu insisted that NATO had no mandate to investigate inside Libya after the 2011 conflict ended. At the time, the Libyan authorities indicated that they were establishing their own mechanisms to review incidents which affected civilians. We offered to support that process but the Libyan authorities did not take NATO up on the offer, she wrote.

In theory, international coalitions such as NATO are about collective responsibility. Yet for the civilians they harm it often feels like collective evasion.

When a 2015 Dutch airstrike killed dozens of civilians in Iraq, the Netherlands hid behind the anonymity of the anti-Islamic State coalition for four years, despite knowing within hours that it was culpable. When this was eventually exposed by investigative journalists, it nearly brought down the Dutch government. Crucially for survivors, the country has since agreed to an unprecedented 4 million euro fund (nearly $5 million) to rebuild the town, and it has launched a review to improve military transparency and accountability for civilian harm.

Both NATO and individual member states almost certainly know which countries carried out which strikes that led to civilian harm in Libya. A new NATO Protection of Civilians handbook issued on March 11 notes the need to prevent, identify, investigate, and track incidents of civilian casualties from [our] own actions, while also providing amends and post-harm assistance when civilians are harmed as a result of these operations. Yet a decade of silence on Libya suggests NATO has little real willingness to follow that path.

Some cases should have been simple to apologize for. At around 1 a.m. on June 19, 2011, a bomb hit the Gharari family home in Tripoli, killing five people. NATO immediately announced a weapons system failure that caused the weapon not to hit the intended target, and reportedly resulted in a number of civilian casualties.

But an apology in English a continent away did not translate in the chaos of Libyas 2011 war. Angry neighbors spread rumors that the family had caused the strike by being Qaddafi sympathizers.

Mohammed al-Gharari, whose sister and her two children were among those killed, decided to fight for an apology and clear the family name. But he soon learned there was no clear route to justice.

Without knowing which nation dropped the bomb, he couldnt even ask for reparations or medical support for those injured in the NATO attack.

In desperation, he eventually traveled to Brussels, home to NATO headquarters. He paid a Belgian lawyer thousands of euros in a futile attempt to find out what the alliance knew about his familys tragedyincluding which nation had killed them. The money is long gone, but that information remains classified. Yet as Weighill noted, the nation that conducted the strike which killed Ghararis family had internally admitted, almost immediately, that the operation didnt go well.

Gharari is angry that he may never be allowed to know which nation is responsible, and he says they are hiding behind NATO anonymity. This state has to assist the wounded and compensate them as soon as possible. Their admission will also clear my name, said Gharari, speaking recently from Libya.

If there is any justice I will get my apology.

See original here:
NATO Killed Civilians in Libya and Must Face Responsibility - Foreign Policy

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO Killed Civilians in Libya and Must Face Responsibility – Foreign Policy

NATO Deputy Secretary General highlights long-standing and mutually beneficial partnership between NATO and Bosnia and Herzegovina – NATO HQ

Posted: at 5:01 pm

Today (18 March 2021), NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoan talked about the development of relations between NATO and Bosnia and Herzegovina and about the Alliances continued commitment to stability in the Western Balkans, at an international conference on Euro-Atlantic Processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina organized by the University of Mostar.

The Deputy Secretary General underscored NATOs firm support to Bosnia and Herzegovinas ongoing efforts to reform their defence and security institutions, through the daily activities of NATO Headquarters Sarajevo. He highlighted other important areas of practical support from NATO, including new technologies, disaster response, explosives detection, cyber defence, countering disinformation and scientific cooperation. Deputy Secretary General Geoan also welcomed Bosnia and Herzegovinas important contributions to euro-atlantic security and restressed that cooperation will continue to be informed by NATOs full respect for the countrys sovereignty and independence.

Read the full transcript here.

Read more:
NATO Deputy Secretary General highlights long-standing and mutually beneficial partnership between NATO and Bosnia and Herzegovina - NATO HQ

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO Deputy Secretary General highlights long-standing and mutually beneficial partnership between NATO and Bosnia and Herzegovina – NATO HQ

Russia warns it will ‘have to react’ if Bosnia moves to join NATO – Reuters

Posted: at 5:01 pm

FILE PHOTO: Banners displaying the NATO logo are placed at the entrance of new NATO headquarters during the move to the new building, in Brussels, Belgium April 19, 2018. REUTERS/Yves Herman

SARAJEVO (Reuters) - Russia will react if Bosnia takes steps towards joining NATO because Moscow would perceive this as a hostile act, the Russian embassy in Bosnia said in a statement on Thursday.

Bosnia has long proclaimed integration with NATO and the European Union as strategic goals. But the Bosnian Serbs, led by pro-Russian Milorad Dodik who currently chairs the countrys tripartite presidency, want the country to remain neutral and stay out of the U.S.-led military alliance.

In the case of practical rapprochement of Bosnia and Herzegovina and NATO, our country will have to react to this hostile act, the embassy said.

It continued that the purpose of NATO was a fight against Russia and joining NATO will force Sarajevo to take a side in the military-political confrontation.

Bosnia and Serbia are the only two Western Balkan countries that remain outside NATO after North Macedonia joined the alliance last year.

On Thursday, the new Russian ambassador to Bosnia Igor Kalabuhov met Zeljko Komsic, the Croat presidency member who advocates Bosnias integration into the alliance.

A statement from Komsics office did not mention NATO integration as a topic of the meeting, but said they discussed reforms that Bosnia needs to make to get closer to EU membership.

Russia has long maintained its opposition to Bosnia joining NATO.

Komsic and Bosniak presidency member Sefik Dzaferovic declined to meet visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergej Lavrov in December, saying he has shown disrespect to their state after his meeting with Dodik outside Sarajevo with no Bosnian national flag on display.

Reporting by Daria Sito-Sucic; Editing by Alexandra Hudson

Read the rest here:
Russia warns it will 'have to react' if Bosnia moves to join NATO - Reuters

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Russia warns it will ‘have to react’ if Bosnia moves to join NATO – Reuters

#SpaceWatchGL Opinion: NATO Space – Recognition versus Current Reality – SpaceWatch.Global

Posted: at 5:01 pm

By Lieutenant Colonel Henry Heren, US Space Force, JAPCC

People see what they want to see and what people want to see never has anything to do with the truth.1

Introduction

On 4 December 2019, the North Atlantic Council announced in London: We have declared space an operational domain for NATO, recognising its importance in keeping us safe and tackling security challenges, while upholding international law.2In the months since that declaration, NATO developed an Initial Implementation Plan for Space, while outside NATO there have been numerous opinion pieces published recommending how NATO should proceed from both policy and strategy perspectives. The goal of each of these efforts has been to normalise Space within NATO, to recognise NATOs reliance on Space-based capabilities and to promote greater understanding and appreciation for safeguarding the use of those capabilities. Questions abound concerning how NATO should integrate Space-based capabilities into existing policy, doctrine, strategy, operations, and exercises.

Germany concluded in its 2010 released Space Strategy that a paradigm shift has occurred within space: once a symbol of the technology race and a contest between opposing systems, it is now, in every sense, a part of our everyday lives and an essential instrument for the achievement of economic, scientific, political and social goals.3In 2019, France released its Space Defence Strategy which outlines the future of our space defence in accordance with a roadmap that looks to 2030 and beyond.4This document marks a turning point for the future of our armed forces and for Frances capacity to act in all domains and maintain its strategic autonomy of assessment and decision.5Most recently, in June 2020, the United States (US) released its Department of Defense (DoD) Space Strategy which states: This strategy identifies how DoD will advance spacepower to enable the Department to compete, deter, and win in a complex security environment characterized by great power competition.6Collectively, these nations and others are experiencing a renewed interest, excitement, and focus on Space-related activities. It is both natural and understandable that this enthusiasm will cross over into NATO organizations and discussions.

Several Alliance Nations have increased promotion of Space within their own militaries. France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the US have moved to establish Space Commands to varying degrees, and the US took the additional step of establishing an independent military service, the US Space Force. The combined national activities, accompanied by growth in the commercial Space sector, have created an excitement surrounding Space endeavours not seen in several decades.

However, the various advancements in the commercial sector, national militaries, and NATO with regards to Space are far from equal. The enthusiasm felt across communities of interest does not mean all nations are at the same stage of development and capacity with regards to Space-based capabilities. This article will discuss the unique challenges facing NATO with regards to Space strategy, exercises, and personnel as compared to other national entities which in some cases possess more mature capabilities. The goal being to allow for discussion on a way ahead for Space in NATO based upon NATO requirements.

Strategy

Even as NATO recognised Space as an operational domain, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg emphasized: NATO has no intention to put weapons in space. We are a defensive Alliance.7He further clarified, NATO will continue to by and large draw on national space capabilities in support of its missions and operations.8Currently NATO receives Space-related Data, Products, and Services (DPS) from several member nations, and does not own or operate any Space-based capabilities. This means, currently, when it comes to the legal authority to operate Space-based Capabilities, including command and control, the NATO Command Structure (NCS) does not play an active role.9

However, this does not mean the NCS has no role to play with regards to Space. The NCS recently approved a concept for a NATO Space Centre, which will serve as a hub for Space-related information, expertise, and activities and directly liaise with the several nations providing Space DPS. Once operational and fully staffed, it will provide greater ability for NATO to coordinate requests for Space DPS.

In the meantime, with regards to Space Strategy, the focus must be on how NATO ensures the flow of Space DPS within the NCS. Calls for additional NATO Space Strategies10in parallel to its maritime and airpower plans11to help NATO align members states on key tactics, tools, and procedures12are premature at best as this role is currently fully the purview of the member nations. In the future, if NATO reconsiders its position and seeks to acquire NATO-operated Space-based capabilities, then a strategy on how to utilise those capabilities will not only be prudent but necessary. NATO is currently better served focusing on how it will work with the nations to ensure interoperability and access to Space DPS across the Alliance, and not pursuing strategies that require both capabilities and authorities that it does not currently possess, and is unlikely to in the near future.

Exercises

It has been suggested that NATO develop large-scale Space-focused exercises, akin to the several Air, Land, and Maritime focused exercises. As previously noted, NATO does not own nor operate any Space-based capabilities, and calls for NATO to host large-scale Space exercises ignore the lack of capabilities present to necessitate such an exercise. NATO could benefit from sending personnel in an observer role to Space-focused exercises conducted by the nations, but that is significantly different from what is being suggested.

Recommendations for these exercises cite the ability to systematically develop and refine space contingencies against red cell adversaries13to signal allied resolve.14While laudable, these ideals overlook not only the lack of authorities within NATO regarding Space-based capabilities, but also the fact that NATO forces are reliant on Space DPS which should be the focus of increased Space-participation in exercises.

With only 19 Space Billets spread across the NCS, and some of those filled by other than Space educated, trained, and focused professionals, for the time being NATO would be better served in ensuring its leaders understand the role Space plays in their operations beyond the mere acknowledgement of Spaces role as an operational domain. The Space Professionals who have served in the NCS have done an admirable job conveying that Space is important, to the extent that exercise controllers are not permitted to fully exercise degradation of Space DPS as it affects the exercise too significantly.

Space Professionals participating in exercises need to be given the latitude to meaningfully impact Space DPS so the entire exercise team can not only gain increased appreciation for how reliant they are upon Space-based capabilities, but also so Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP) can be developed from valuable lessons learned. Those TTPs will be critical if NATO finds itself in a conflict with not only peer-competitors, but also those competitors who are able to exploit asymmetric seams to reduce NATO Combat Capabilities.

Personnel

The creation of any new policies, strategies, doctrines, and expanded exercises will rely on educated and trained personnel to create and maintain them. Within the NCS, as previously noted, there are currently 19 Space Billets. The validity of that number drops precipitously when considering some of these positions are not filled, while still others are filled with people who are not educated, trained, nor experienced in Space Operations (as conducted by NATO nations). Add in the fact many personnel assigned to those positions are double-billeted, which means they work primarily on other activities and responsibilities, and focus only occasionally on Space-related issues, and the effectiveness of that already limited number of personnel is further reduced. The result is NATO has only a handful of Space-proficient personnel dedicated day-in and day-out to Space-related activities.

A concept calling for the establishment of the NATO Space Centre was recently approved by the Defence Ministers in October 2020. That concept includes an increase in Space personnel billets within the NCS, at the Space Centre and at the Joint Force Commands and subordinate organizations. Space educated and trained professionals are desperately needed to fill these billets if NATO is to increase its interoperability regarding Space.

Several challenges stand in the way of a trained and ready NATO Space cadre. Aside from the obvious funding concerns, the primary nations to which NATO would look to provide these professionals are, as noted earlier, reorganising their Space communities internally to their respective nations. They are therefore currently ill-suited to provide additional personnel to the NCS. This could result in personnel being assigned to the Space Centre without the requisite Space education and experience, requiring an increase in training and additional funding. It also means NATO may have a Space Centre severely lacking in resident Space Operations Expertise.

Conclusion

As Space Professional and policy-makers seek to influence and guide NATOs approach to Space, they must be careful not to project ideas compatible within their national Space approaches onto NATO organizations, in other words to see what they want. This will include understanding that NATOs use of Space is almost completely as a utility to support operations in other domains, not operations in the Space Domain. The Alliance has not placed an emphasis on Space significant enough to generate personnel and capabilities comparable to several of its member nations, and thus requires a different approach. National Space Professionals need to ensure they understand the capabilities and capacity within NATO, before promoting recommendations which NATO might not be prepared to incorporate or execute at this point in its integration of Space-related capabilities and expertise.

1. Bolao, Roberto. 2666, Picador; Reprint edition (1 Sep. 2009).2. NATO London Declaration, 4 Dec. 2019. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_171584.htm. [accessed 20 Aug. 2020].3. German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, Making Germanys Space Sector Fit for the Future: The Space Strategy of the German Federal Government, Nov. 2010, p. 3.4. French Ministry for the Armed Forces, Space Defence Strategy, 2019, p. 8.5. French Ministry for the Armed Forces, Space Defence Strategy, 2019, p. 12.6. US Department of Defense, Defense Space Strategy, June 2020, p. 1.7. Paulauskas, Kestutis, Space: NATOs Latest Frontier, NATO Review, 13 Mar. 2020. Available at: https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2020/03/13/space-natos-latest-frontier/index.html. [accessed 30 July. 2020].8. Paulauskas, Kestutis, Space: NATOs Latest Frontier, NATO Review, 13 Mar. 2020. Available at: https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2020/03/13/space-natos-latest-frontier/index.html. [accessed 30 Jul. 2020].9. The NATO Communications and Information Agency (NCIA), which exists outside of the NATO Command Structure, does operate the payload of some communications satellites. However, the satellites themselves are control by a consortium of nations (France, Italy, and the United Kingdom). Additional information available at: http://www.eu2015lu.eu/en/agenda/2015/11/25-seminaire-SatCom/3_Presentation-Tom-PLACHECKI.pdf. [accessed 26 Aug. 2020].10. In addition to NATOs Overarching Space Policy approved on 27 Jun. 2019.11. Silverstein, Benjamin, NATOs Return to Space, War on the Rocks, 3 Aug. 2020. Available at: https://warontherocks.com/2020/08/natos-return-to-space/. [accessed on 3 Aug. 2020].12. Silverstein, Benjamin, NATOs Return to Space, War on the Rocks, 3 Aug. 2020. Available at: https://warontherocks.com/2020/08/natos-return-to-space/. [accessed on 3 Aug. 2020].13. Bowman, Bradley and Andrew Gabel, NATO Declares Space Operational Domain, but More Work Remains, Defense News, 16 Dec. 2019. Available at: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/12/16/nato-declares-space-operational-domain-but-more-work-remains/. [accessed on 3 Aug. 2020].14. Silverstein, Benjamin, NATOs Return to Space, War on the Rocks, 3 Aug. 2020. Available at: https://warontherocks.com/2020/08/natos-return-to-space/. [accessed on 3 Aug. 2020].

See more here:
#SpaceWatchGL Opinion: NATO Space - Recognition versus Current Reality - SpaceWatch.Global

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on #SpaceWatchGL Opinion: NATO Space – Recognition versus Current Reality – SpaceWatch.Global