It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What branch of service would produce combat astronauts?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Well the entire notion of a secret space fleet is speculation, so anything contained in this thread is going to be speculation...




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

They would be drafted from the navy and airforce largely speaking. But there would have to be several crew members on each mission who had little to no military background, if only because operating a space ship requires a certain psychology and education of a sort which very few persons trained in combat ever get hold of, in the same way in which very few doctors of physics, chemistry, and engineering ever get trained in how to kill a man with his own bootlaces.

The ships pilots would be drafted mostly from the airforce, one would assume, while the technical specialists operating spacewalks and making external repairs and what have you, would probably be navy trained, as has been pointed out, the submariners would be a great crop of potential candidates for such roles. But its fair to say that existing on any large navy vessel would probably go at least some way to preparing an individual for extensive periods cut off from normal society, and having to navigate a plethora of aggravating walkways and corridors, not to mention dealing with bulkhead doors more than ought to be necessary in a human lifetime.

But I believe that space travel will not be possible without the crew also having at least a few purely academically experienced members. Put another way, there should never be a space mission flown, no matter whether it be civilian or military, where there is not at least one genius scientist on board, because in space having a brain which can compute approach angles without a calculator comes in more handy, in a pinch, than being able to slot a sucker from two hundred yards away with a single shot from an assault rifle, and those skill sets do NOT tend to overlap too often.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Well, puttering around the solar system in the larger patrol craft isn't much like flying a fighter jet...NASA picked pilots for the Space Shuttle program because they have to "fly" the orbiter back to Earth and land it.

Commanding a larger interplanetary ship would be much more like captaining a boat or submarine I would imagine.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I can see your reasoning, but I think the controls of a spacecraft are more likely to resemble the controls of an aircraft than the controls of a submarine, and pilots are likely to be much better able to keep their composure under excessive G-Force during takeoff and or landing, because of their training and experience in flying combat aircraft and pulling insane moves in the fastest, and most nimble aircraft available.

Remember, a combat pilot has to have reaction speeds so intensely fast, that the only people on planet earth who routinely offer comparable results, are F1 drivers. That being said, for those periods between planets, you are probably right that a submariner would be a better fit to steer the ship, because they are used to the laborious turning speeds of nautical vessels, and controlling significant tonnages of machinery through a given area.

Perhaps it will work out that combat pilots deal with the high G manoeuvres, transiting in and out of atmospheres, slingshot acceleration actions, during actual combat, where as the submarine helms person could be employed for navigating interplanetary distances, setting up approaches to target locations from millions of miles off, and arriving on time and at the perfect angle of approach...

Perhaps it will be a joint effort. Even so, neither branches operatives would get very far without dedicated science personnel, and I do not believe that even the military has people who are both polymaths, AND hyper capable soldiers. Not enough of them, anyway!
edit on 30-9-2015 by TrueBrit because: Totally awful grammar corrected.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Did you poop in an MRE bag doing 40?

A friend of mine has some stories from the stan.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JacKatMtn

I would imagine that any space force would be more like the Navy Submersible service.
In particular nuclear class subs.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
These guys..?




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

No I ate MRE peanut butter so I could pretty much choose where I needed to ,WE DID piss in bottles all the time but in the middle of nowhere WHO cares?



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

One more thing to remember...

There is no up or down in space, there is no horizon or ground, it's quite similar to being on a submarine.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

There is most definitely an up and down in a submarine. Too low and you hit high pressure or the ground, to high and your advantage of stealth will be lost.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Combat Astronauts?

Probably U.S.A.F. Most likely U.S.A.F. Special Operations.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I would say the same service that already provides NASA with a lot of it's astronauts. The Airforce. Many astronauts are ex-Airforce pilots.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Air Force supplemented with Delta Force.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Air Force would assign Space Pilots to fighter ships in space.

Navy would assign Space Sailors to massive command centres.

Army would train Soldiers up to be Space Soldiers.

Then the Marines would have Space Marines.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are all utilised to some degree, if only through SAP's & CAP's. When you really think about it, the coast guard is probably in on it too, if for no other reason than to properly coordinate joint operations. I'd guess that it's more involved than that, though. The Navy's fielding the majority of the equipment. The Air Force has its own fleet for near planet operations mostly, perhaps a small expeditionary operation. The Marines have the necessary equipment to fulfill their specialized mission requirements. The Army has a seperate, all encompassing program similar to the Navy's though not as extensive or robust, and slightly more oriented toward planetary defense than patrolling open space.

There may also perhaps be a seperate branch, perhaps just evolving or perhaps not as new as we might think. Recruitment could be from any of the branches, or the civilian population as well, for that matter. This is mostly speculation on my part.
edit on 9-12-2015 by engineercutout because: edit



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: sycomix

The Army shoots pop-up targets
The Air Force Bomb pop-up targets
The navy screw pop-up targets
and the Marines are pop-up targets

Space.......the final frontier......... just another place to foot-slog in the end it seems. Marines would still be security, navy would still be transport, airforce would still have all the cool gear, and army would still be underpaid.

War..... War never changes......



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
We just call them Russians LOL.

I remember some news article about the Russians putting together a space force.


That was an April Fool's joke.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Honestly, it seems like a tie between the Navy and Air Force. Both have similarities. I was a Marine, and the extent of my interactions with Navy personnel was whenever they were patching me up. I remember talking to Doc Yamawaka and he was talking about Navy "Boot Camp" and I remember him stating that they used to train with shotguns clearing a navy deck. Never once did I think that a shotgun is the perfect weapon for the confines of a naval ship, but after he told me it made total sense.

On the flip side of that, we have the Air Force which has the most experience in three dimensional warfare. Yes I know the navy can shoot down airplanes, but I wouldn't call that true three dimensional war as war ships are on a one dimensional plane, while fighter jets are in the true 3D plane.

Maybe a joint training.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join