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.

 

Trump directing Pentagon to set up "Space Force" as a "separate but equal" branch of the military

page: 14
43
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

The reason for moving stuff from the government to private, is that is a matter of money and all within the treaty that was signed. There is nothing in the Treaty that prevents a private organization from launching and travelling to space, only that a government can not place ownership on anything out there. The bottom line is that Space is open to all, and bars from non one.




posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   
The Air Force announced yesterday SpaceX will launch AFSPC-52 on their Falcon Heavy. The winning bid was $130M. ULA was over twice that according to reports.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I would agree with that, however, there are several things that limit the US and Trump from getting the strategic space assets, and one is the laws of Physics, and position. The Earth is a large body in space, and most watchers of the sky and things over it, is done with a joint effort on the part of different stations. Space Command, headed out of NORAD, gets their data directly and from other posts around the country, to get a better picture of what all is in the air, and above. And even then it has to get more specific data from other allied countries around the world.

Even Nasa, during the space race had to have help from other countries, like Australia, to triangulate and plot out where the various vehicles and satellites were in the sky.

So unless he is going to set up key sites around the world under US military control, with millions of dollars of equipment, and additional satellite's that are further out to give the data back to the US, then the other conclusion would be that the man is intending on breaking the treaty and militarize space with persons and weapons. This will spark a new arms race with the other 2 major powers in space, that being Russia and China.

Now if the man is wanting to increase more exploration into Space, then why is the budget for NASA so small, and not increased to give it the funds needed to do the R&D, to educate the people needed to make this happen, to push the Technology to achieve this goal? And why has many of the presidents speech's on space, taken on a tone that suggests if not outright borders on breaking the treaty?



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

The treaty is very specific on what is and is permissive when it comes to weapons in space. But it is also specific on how Space is to be treated, along with the celestial bodies as well. In short no country or nation can claim say the moon or another planet like Mars to be under their sole jurisdiction.

And most nations have launched billion dollar satellite along with the multi billion dollar support infrastructure, and most do not have a means or a way to defend itself from either other satellites, beyond moving or the any other number of threats to said satellite, that could destroy said piece of equipment.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




So unless he is going to set up key sites around the world under US military control, with millions of dollars of equipment, and additional satellite's that are further out to give the data back to the US, then the other conclusion would be that the man is intending on breaking the treaty and militarize space with persons and weapons



That's, erm, well, uh,... A hell of a conclusion.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Not conclusion but science. The first thing to realize is that the Space command only covers North America not all around the world. Any real way to get any further coverage would require either far more installations or to get more satellites in space, however to get that, would require a far greater distance to where it can cover a wider area, and communicate with other satellites for pictures of what all is going on in the blind spots.

One can see that with 2 different examples, the first is during the early days of Space flight, there were times when due to the position of the earth and the capsule, there was no direct communications, so they used other countries to keep in touch, especially when the position was south of the equator, thus Australia was the nation that provided the communications bridge. We can see that with the Sol satellites, where there are several that are in orbit to monitor the sun and they use the relay system to communicate between the satellites. The same would be true for any real control and monitor of space, it would require a network of either ground bases or satellites in orbit at a far greater distance to keep an accurate eye on the earth to monitor and watch. Too close and then there is the problem of orbit and all of the debris and other things floating around the earth in high concentrations, that provide problems for the satellites already.



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




And most nations have launched billion dollar satellite along with the multi billion dollar support infrastructure, and most do not have a means or a way to defend itself from either other satellites, beyond moving or the any other number of threats to said satellite, that could destroy said piece of equipment.


True.

Most. Almost all of them actually.

But, there may also be one or two satellites up there whose sole purpose is to protect the other satellites we have.

But you didn't hear that from me...



edit on 6/23/2018 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




The first thing to realize is that the Space command only covers North America not all around the world


Think of the money that would save if we made it true.

What do you think Milstar is? Just one example...
edit on 23-6-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
This more or less sums it up. Heh.




posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
This more or less sums it up. Heh.



Zaph with a ‘Space Force’ meme — well done, sir!

I knew you had a healthy sense of humor.




posted on Jun, 23 2018 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BeefNoMeat

This is the second one, of two that I can post without causing trouble. Heh.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   
The Sunday NY Times had a thoughtful article about this.

Some members of congress as well as the military also weighed in.

Bottom line - the idea has a lot of merit. Our satellites are or will be vulnerable soon.

They are the eyes of the military - both pre-engagement and post engagement.

Space Force? The Idea May Have Some Merit, Some Say



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I figure the assets are already there and just need a unified control structure. Instead of Army and Navy and and and.






posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 04:55 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Part of the command/communications satellites in orbit that are also spy satellites. However due to the position the size of the earth make it difficult to maintain communication with just one, so the others up there would act as a relay system to get information from and commands to, and relay such to units that go to the surface.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Oh I am aware that there are satellites that are there to protect and to attack. However there is one thing that is making it harder for most things in orbit to be. The number one thing is all of the trash and debris in orbit around the earth, that can rip a satellite to shreds, if not out right render it dead, not to mention the solar winds, radiation and the occasional solar flare that can cause havoc on it all.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

So can we agree that the existence of a large global array of geostationary communications and relay satellites would make the following not true?




So unless he is going to set up key sites around the world under US military control, with millions of dollars of equipment, and additional satellite's that are further out to give the data back to the US, then the other conclusion would be that the man is intending on breaking the treaty and militarize space with persons and weapons



Not conclusion but science. The first thing to realize is that the Space command only covers North America not all around the world. Any real way to get any further coverage would require either far more installations or to get more satellites in space, however to get that, would require a far greater distance to where it can cover a wider area, and communicate with other satellites for pictures of what all is going on in the blind spots. 

edit on 25-6-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58


OMG!

That was epic!

Not sure how much more coffee and bourbon this poor keyboard can take...



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Now us Brits will have to have our own Space Squadron.
Super Space Squadron Squad Seventy Seven ...yup that will do.
The S.S.S.S.S.S for short.
edit on 25-6-2018 by testingtesting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
Now us Brits will have to have our own Space Squadron.
Super Space Squadron Squad Seventy Seven ...yup that will do.
The S.S.S.S.S.S for short.

It would quickly become just 6S or "Sixes", I promise you. The only time you'd see it called "Super Space Squadron Squad Seventy Seven" would be on the letterhead.





top topics



 
43
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join