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: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 07:16 AM
link   
They better get going on that warp engine then.





posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

So, that big increase in military spending that Trump touts will be watered down. Because, Pew! Pew!


Why would allocation of funding from multiple orgs with overlapping requirements to one org water down increased spending again?


How dare you bring facts and logic to this thread?!?

I'm cheering you on from the sidelines RadioRobert.

I have a feeling we work for the same company but in different unions, so to speak - n'est pas?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Yeah yeah Navy Rulz all..
plus we make better flyers than the airforce, better fighters than the army ..we own the Marines, and top it off with the Seals..now what!!;..



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

Because the funds have to come from somewhere.
Unless the overall military budget is increased it means that funding for each service will have to be reduced to fund the SPACE (space...space...space) FORCE (force...force...force).

Or is there some interdimensional arithmetic involved?


True - the funds have to come from somewhere.

But the upfront costs will be more than offset by eliminating the redundancies that exist between the divisions.

Let each bring the best it has. And we'll build whatever's missing.

And I bet it still doesn't increase the overall amount of $$ spent upfront and in the near term future. Beyond that - we'll do what we have to do.


edit on 6/19/2018 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

Operations. Yes. Oversight. No.

But by all means, create a new bureaucracy to do something that's already being done. That's the Republican way. Right?



Talk about missing the point.

But it's not being done, Phage. Not in any coordinated fashion that lends itself to economies of scale, knowledge transfer (no need to share if you all worship in the same church), etc.

Let me ask you an honest question:

Is it the idea you don't like or is it just Trump?

Because I bet if you pulled Trump out of the equation you'd bring a more logical frame of mind to bear on this issue.

Emotions tend to cloud decision making.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Phage

It is a good excuse to design some cool sci fi space uniforms though.
Big space hats.


Absolutely!!

You gotta have big hats and very cool and enigmatic mission patches if you want to run with the big dogs...



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
Hay if he's gonna do that ,put it under Naval command and not just because I'm positively biased in favor of the Navy, but it makes better sense.


There's a lot of merit to that line of thinking.

But it has to be the NRO. They have the people, the equipment, the knowledge and the ability to get it done. Plus there's a great view of the sky from Chantilly and it's the perfect distance from DC. Close, but not too close.

Remember, this is going to be a massive undertaking. It's not a trivial exercise to find, catalog, prioritize, plan and finally execute something like this. It has never been attempted before. But we should do it - no, we must do it.

"Not because it is easy, but because it is hard" to quote a great man.

And we're the only ones that *can* do it.

edit on 6/19/2018 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: Spider879
Hay if he's gonna do that ,put it under Naval command and not just because I'm positively biased in favor of the Navy, but it makes better sense.


Why?

"We have ships to command, and captains and sh*t!" (Navy)
"Yeah, but your ships are FLYING. So they are at least in a very crucial part airplanes!" (Air Force)
"And then you start shooting bullets and throwing stones!" (Marine Corps)
"Aren't you protecting the borders with those space thingies?" (Coast Guard)
"Uh.. we could put tanks into space, too?" (Army)

Yes, this is futile, as even laying the bottom foundation of this Armed Forces will take DECADES, knowing buerocracy and infighting parts of the Armed Forces (see above).


I disagree that it is futile. We can do it.

We have to do it.

And America has a habit of getting something done when it *has* to get done. Think Apollo Space program, The Manhattan Project, Two world wars, etc.

And the list goes on...



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

So, that big increase in military spending that Trump touts will be watered down. Because, Pew! Pew!


Why would allocation of funding from multiple orgs with overlapping requirements to one org water down increased spending again?


How dare you bring facts and logic to this thread?!?

I'm cheering you on from the sidelines RadioRobert.

I have a feeling we work for the same company but in different unions, so to speak - n'est pas?



I don't think people know how much politics enters this. And overlap in spending and programs exists on stuff like this. And worse, the knowledge isn't being shared. You have millions, easily billions over the past 30 years, spent on R&D deadends that someone somewhere already did the figures for, but can't share with you even though they know you are pursuing the same angle -- or doesn't know that you're wasting your time. Or they already have the solution sitting on a shelf somewhere.

"Oh, that? We tried that in 1997. Here's what the problems are. We haven't revisited it because you'd need X, Y, Z, and they don't exist yet".
"Oh, you developed material/process/system Q? And it works? We have an unique application for that material/process/system in 2004, but could never find a material/process/system that would work"

Those are conversations that need to be happening (across a variety of fields) that are not.

Then you have the whole issue with everyone wants to have the ability to keep space assets under thumb. If the day ever comes that a decision is made on a particular asset or it's prioritization betwsen missions for support, the branch it is currently managed by does not want to have the decision made by someone else in the future. They will fight tooth and nail to ksep the mission for that reason, not for any particular love of the mission or operation.

USAF will pitch an unholy fit to keep Space Command, not because they prioritize Space Command, but because it represents a narrow slice of their kingdom, and they will never agree to liberate even the smallest fiefdom. If the day ever comes that a decision needs to be made on tasking of a SpaceCommand satellite, the USAF intends that decision be made in favour of, and by, the USAF. The same across the other branches.

So when Space Command, just for an example, really needs someone to go to bat for them, they have to rely on the USAF to recognize the need and set the same priorities. When the question of survivable satellites or quicklaunch replacements come up, the SecAF and staff weigh the money needed against their other requirements (need to recap the entire fleet?), and then come to the conclusion that it would represent a larger chunk of the USAF budget, and might result in less money allocated for their pet project or recap, so they'll make due and kick the can down the road for someone else on the whole satellite idea. Noone in the heirarchy will go to bat in front of Congress to ask for that money, because it is absolutely seen as a zero sum game, and that might mean less money for your personal fiefdom. It may be vital, but not vital enough to hurt your own career over.

These are the same reasons we eventually got an independent air arm. The mission outgrew the battle over fiefdoms. It needed it's own kingdom to meet requirements.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Is Solar Warden about to come out the closest?


Let's face it "They" wanted a hold of Gary McKinnon for something?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Trump just created unnecessary bureaucracy. All this was handled by the Joint Functional Component Command for Space. It is a branch of the air force. Works exactly the same as the marines they are a branch of the navy.

Trump was speaking a couple of months ago about a space force and you could tell he just thought it sounded cool. Creating more bureaucracy for the sake of being cool is stupid.

Cant wait for those new uniforms on the space force i hope they go with apollo outfits armed with lasers that would be cool. Oh wait there we go again.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I agree with everything you said.

But the below actually already has an answer if folks would only listen and follow their model:




"Oh, that? We tried that in 1997. Here's what the problems are. We haven't revisited it because you'd need X, Y, Z, and they don't exist yet". "Oh, you developed material/process/system Q? And it works? We have an unique application for that material/process/system in 2004, but could never find a material/process/system that would work"

Those are conversations that need to be happening (across a variety of fields) that are not.


I absolutely agree. But there is a group within the government that does this *very* well.

DARPA

They have the ability, the knowledge and the reach to make it happen. Their biggest problem is their size (i.e. full time DARPA employees not contractors like me). They once described themselves thusly:

"We're 100 people tied together by a travel agent". No bullsh#t.

They know how to connect the dots. And they do so successfully often. They simply don't have the scale and they are absolutely terrible at playing the political game.

Which is both a blessing and a curse.

I so so love them though...

ETA - In addition to the link above to the DARPA official .mil site, Wikipedia has some really good info on the background and importance of the role they have played....and continue to play.

DARPA Wikipedia page
edit on 6/19/2018 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Riffrafter

Is Solar Warden about to come out the closest?


Let's face it "They" wanted a hold of Gary McKinnon for something?


My lips are sealed.

Or one better...

"I don't know what you're talking about."




posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: RadioRobert

Trump just created unnecessary bureaucracy. All this was handled by the Joint Functional Component Command for Space. It is a branch of the air force. Works exactly the same as the marines they are a branch of the navy.


The unnecessary bureaucracy already exists. It gets in the way of the mission. It is handled. Poorly.

Ask the Marines how happy they were with the acquisition and budget process before the current SecNav (Marine).

I know you guys are in love with painting this as a Trump idea, but it is actually comes from the House Armed Forces committee and Strategic Forces subCommittee where it has been blessed with bipartisan sponsorship and support, but has fallen in the Senate.

I know that robs you of the chance to point and say, "Trump! Pew, pew! Astronaut suits!" I'm sorry.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Dont try to say because people t huh ink this is stupid ots because we hate Trump im sure many here has seen me defend him though reluctantly i might add. Problem is now hes created a space force its budget will be poor. Dont think the joint chiefs arent going to underfund it they will. Under the airforce it had a position because they also handled missile development. The air force isnt going to give that up trust me.

So then we jave thr space agency they will be restricted to launching satellites. Problem there is your going to see army navy and airforce simply use thongs like space x for launches. Meaning our space force will be sitting there with their thumbs up their rears and nothing to do.

Trump just likes the idea of creating a new branch though all he has done is destroyed the militaries ability to move into space. Cant wait for those interstellar battleships. Wonder if their side arms will be light sabers. Vvvvroooommm zaaapppp. What a joke.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

That's stunning analysis.

Also got in a "Trump! Pew, pew!" paragraph . Good work.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Maybe he just found out about all the classified stuff about aliens and alien tech that the U.S. has accumulated over the past 60+ years.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MorpheusUSA
Maybe he just found out about all the classified stuff about aliens and alien tech that the U.S. has accumulated over the past 60+ years.


Stranger things have happened in the darkened hallways of certain gov't agencies.

And I mean *stranger*.

Skinwalker Ranch comes to mind...as do many others...



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Joint Functional Component Command for Space is defunct, by the way. The latest National Defense Acquisition Act killed it amidst DoD griping, giving the roles to Stratcomm in a reorg and tried to streamline various other orgs (ie- quashed them) on the way to an independent command. It was sponsored by Jim Cooper (D) and Chair of the Strategic Forces subcommittee Mike Rogers (R).

Here's a .pdf copy of the GAO report on space acquisition that offers a unified and independent space force as a possible solution to a Byzantine process that included some 60 orgs who had a voice at the table for every decision.

edit on 19-6-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Let's forget for the moment that the Great Defender of the Constitution (aka Donald Trump) doesn't realize that he can't just create a new corps ad hoc ... isn't the US still party to the so-called Outer Space Treaty at least as of April 2018 which forbids the militarization of the Moon and other celestial bodies and limits use to peaceful purposes?

What kind of Space Force wouldn't be able to use any weapons?



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join