WASHINGTON - To some, the idea of an independent military service dedicated to national security in space is a logical next step in U.S. national defense.

To others, the idea is a direct attack on the Air Force.

Either way, the idea is one option that will be considered in coming months by a panel of defense experts as they consider the debate between space enthusiasts, who want to spend money on satellite technology, and traditional aviators, who favor investing in new fighter planes.

The recently formed space commission will present Congress with a variety of recommendations on how to proceed with U.S. space policy.

The possible ramifications for Colorado Springs are huge because of the concentration of space-related military institutions in the Pikes Peak area.

Will the Air Force retain control of space or will a new Space Force be created?

Would a Space Force make the Air Force irrelevant, turning pilots into glorified "bus drivers" ferrying troops and supplies around the world while warfare is conducted in the upper atmosphere?

Is a nasty fight ahead, reminiscent of the one after World War II that led to the Army giving up its Air Corps to create the Air Force?

And perhaps most important: Can the Springs retain headquarters of the space operations, regardless of the outcome?

Is Air Force wasting space?

The space commission is the brainchild of one of the Air Force's most vocal critics on how the service uses space for military purposes.

Sen. Bob Smith, a conservative Republican from New Hampshire, says the Air Force makes good use of space for information gathering, communication and surveillance.

But it falls short when it comes to advances in space warfare and training future space leaders, and should be pressured to change, he said.

"If the Air Force can not or will not embrace space power, we in Congress will have to drag them there, kicking and screaming if necessary, or perhaps establish an entirely new service," Smith said in a speech last month to a space industry group. "Drastic as that sounds, it is an increasing real option that may be necessary to put this nation on a course toward space power."

Not everyone shares Smith's views, but there is at least some agreement in Congress that the Air Force could make better use of space.

U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., chairman of a military panel with oversight of space issues, opposes a new space force. He argues it would only create more bureaucracy that would siphon money from much-needed research and development.

"But I do agree we need to think about space for more than just support purposes," Allard said. "We ought to be doing more, but a lot of it comes down to budget problems."

Space Force unneeded: Air Force

The Air Force also opposes the creation of a space force, saying it is committed to integrating its people, air and space capabilities "into a full spectrum of aerospace support," according to a mission statement.

But space clearly is a sensitive topic for the service, creating a chasm between space enthusiasts who favor satellite technology, and aviators who favor programs like the F-22.

The Air Force would not make available an official to discuss Smith's commission, his criticisms or its future in space. U.S Space Command in Colorado Springs also declined comment.

Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters, however, in his address to Air Force Academy graduates Wednesday, touched on the issue, acknowledging that "parochialism" sometimes exists in today's service.

"We need to develop general aerospace leaders, to integrate air, space and information," Peters told the Class of 2000.

"You must not think of just your mission."

Allard said he has seen the parochialism first-hand.

"I would say there's a little bit of bias in the Air Force against space," he said. "Some of the them just don't understand the full capabilities of space, but some are very hawkish on it."

Said a congressional staffer familiar with the issue: "There does seem to be a disconnect between the rhetoric that says space is important, and where the money goes."

Smith, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who used to head the Strategic Forces subcommittee that Allard now leads, wants to eliminate that disconnect.

He has advocated a Space Force for several years. But this is the first time Congress has taken a formal step toward considering it.

Last year, lawmakers approved formation of the space panel, giving it six months to study the matter and report back.

Other options for space defense

The commission is expected to address a number of issues, including how to strengthen America's use of space for national security purposes.

It is also supposed to consider organizational changes, such as a new space service, a separate space corps within the Air Force, or the creation of a new assistant defense secretary for space.

The panel, headed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is expected to begin work soon. It includes retired Air Force generals Howell Estes and Charles Horner, both former commanders of U.S. Space Command.

Smith also wants the panel to address the Air Force culture that he says favors pilots and planes over space cadets and satellites.

He criticizes the Air Force for failing to promote career space officers to top leadership positions and questions why commands like U.S. Space Command are led by former fighter pilots, not space operators.

"There are far too few career space officers in leadership, and too many senior leaders who are serving for the first time in space jobs," Smith said in his speech.

Is history repeating itself?

Smith and others compare the situation to a half-century ago, when the Air Force was born from an Army reluctant to embrace new aviation technologies, roles and missions.

Brig. Gen. Billy Mitchell advocated air power as the future of warfare for years before Congress finally created the Air Force in 1947.

Until then, Congress believed an air force was too expensive, and neither the Army nor Navy wanted to give up its aviation responsibilities to a new service, according to an Air Force history written by Academy historian Elizabeth Muenger.

Mitchell was considered such a pesky advocate for aviation that he was court-martialed for disrespect and insubordination. Today he is viewed as a martyr for the cause.

Similarly, space operators see the Air Force's future in space and want a separate service to get better funding, resources and expertise for the mission.

But space technology is exorbitantly expensive and Congress already is struggling to fund basic military needs in the face of overseas deployments and recruiting and retention problems.

What's more, the Air Force does not want to give up its sexiest job.

"They'd lose this new glamorous mission that a lot of people want to get into," said a congressional aide. "They don't want that."

To be sure, there will be no easy answers for the space commission, and some are skeptical its work will go anywhere.

John Pike, for example, a defense analyst for the Federation of American Scientists, questions the basic premise that the United States - or any nation - will someday be capable of fighting in space.

"I don't think there will ever be a space fighter, the kind of bang-bang-shoot-em-up version" some envision, Pike said. "The medium just won't support it."

Pike noted that 15 years after the Wright Brothers flew the first aircraft in 1903, the U.S. military had a bomber plane.

But 40 years after the Pentagon started exploring space, it is no closer to fielding the equivalent of a space bomber, he said.

Seeking the 'broader view'

Allard, who could have a prominent voice in the debate as a space subcommittee chairman, said he hopes the commission presents Congress with a variety of recommendations on how to proceed with U.S. space policy.

Those recommendations will be culled from top military and civilian defense minds, as well as the private sector and academia.

"Any of the branches of the military will get focused on their own agenda," Allard said.

"That's why Congress is there, to bring in the broader view."

Home Page