Since the end of the Gulf War, the debate over whether there should be a separate space service, equal with the Air Force, Army, and Navy, has grown in proportion to the indispensable value of space operations to our nation's defense. Increasing dependency on space-systems is a fact of military life. In this we-documented essay, Col. Michael C. Whittington compares the leading arguments for a separate space force to the cogent arguments for an independent air force made by airpower advocates during the interwar years of 1920-1940. The airpower issues in 1920 and the space power issues of today are strikingly similar, revolving around four key issues: leadership, doctrine, technology, and funding. The irony, or course, it that these arguments, which helped created an independent air force in 1947, are challenged by many within today's Air Force leadership, which leads Colonel Whittington to ask, "if there were cogent in 1920, would they not be relevant today?" Interestingly, the author, though a professional Air Force officer, is neither a space operators nor a pilot. Colonel Whittington's purpose is not to propose a separate space force but rather to provide the reader with an unbiased perspective of the arguments for and against. Though all agree that aerospace power is at a critical juncture, senior leaders are divided as to which direction the Air Force should pursue regarding space. Space separatists want space warfare freed from control of "air" commanders, argue that space power doctrine cannot be built upon airpower doctrine, contend that space is a wholly different technological medium, and want to free space funding from competition with Air Force fighter and bomber programs. Whichever road is taken - whether a separate space force or an Air Force with a greater emphasis in space - the shift from an airpower to a space power culture is inevitable. And, when this shift occurs, the author argues, the Air Force "would do well to remember its own history."