Some time ago, one of us asked, "Where is the theory of spacepower? Where is the Mahan for the final frontier?"1 Over 10 years later, such an exhortation still has resonance as the realm of spacepower still lacks a "space focused strategic theory" and a "binding concept" that can "aid understanding of what it is all about."2 This chapter seeks to provide an explanation, or at least plausible reasons, as to why such a theory of space-power has yet to transpire. First, we shall discuss the difficulties involved in creating a theory of spacepower that is able to endure the test of time and that has universal applicability. The chapter then examines recent attempts at theorizing on spacepower by James Oberg, Everett Dolman, and John Klein. Lastly, the chapter outlines what a theory of spacepower should look like, and just as importantly, what it should not look like, as a guide for future theorists.
It should be noted that an exhortation of an "Alfred Thayer Mahan for the final frontier" is not to be confused with an endorsement of a Mahanian style of theory. Such a style of strategic theory may yet suffice (for the present, at least) for the purposes of guidance for spacepower, but we do encourage all plausible methods of elucidating a theory of space-power, be it directly influenced by the thought and style of either Mahan or of any other strategic theorist. Instead, the call for a Mahan for space-power is in fact a call for a theory that can match the stature of Mahan's collected thoughts on seapower.
This chapter uses the word strategy in an unashamedly Clausewitzian sense, and for clarity of meaning we offer up a definition of strategy as well as spacepower. Strategy is defined here as the use that is made of force and the threat of force for the ends of policy. 3 This definition is preferred because it takes into account the instrumental character of strategy