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: 9
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It actually only prevents you from placing nukes in orbit. You can still have your pew, pews!

Pew, pews represent an extremely small portion of space acquisition and R&D dollars.




posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   
There is one small tiny problem with that, or a big problem with it.

When there was the race for space and the nuclear arms race, there was a treaty that was signed in 1967, called the Outer Space Treaty. In short there can be no, placing of weapons, no militrization of space. No country can claim any other planet or anything in space as their own.

So with that being the rule of law, what all is the purpose of this space force?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Gryphon66

It actually only prevents you from placing nukes in orbit. You can still have your pew, pews!

Pew, pews represent an extremely small portion of space acquisition and R&D dollars.


Right ... in reading it, I see that there is a distinction between orbit and weaponizing actual "celestial bodies."

So you can put anything but nukes/biological/chemical weapons in orbit ... just not on the Moon.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

The purpose is to streamline the operations and acquisition process for strategic space assets like satellites on which all branches of service now rely.
Space Command does not have the power to prioritize their mission.
All the pew, pew and astronaut, space battleship talk is entirely off subject.

Also, the treaty only proscribes weapons of mass destruction. So you can, in fact, put pew pews in orbit.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Correct. Although if you decided to start a moon colony or mining operation and decided it was worth defending, I don't know why you wouldn't just drop out of the treaty. It's a feel-good piece of paper.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Gryphon66

Correct. Although if you decided to start a moon colony or mining operation and decided it was worth defending, I don't know why you wouldn't just drop out of the treaty. It's a feel-good piece of paper.


Yeah, it turns out that most treaties are... thanks for the info!



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
There is one small tiny problem with that, or a big problem with it.

When there was the race for space and the nuclear arms race, there was a treaty that was signed in 1967, called the Outer Space Treaty. In short there can be no, placing of weapons, no militrization of space. No country can claim any other planet or anything in space as their own.

So with that being the rule of law, what all is the purpose of this space force?


You speak as though there are no weapons in space as we speak.

Is that what you meant?

If not, my apologies. If so - umm...

Do you think any nation would launch a billion dollar satellite along with a multi-billion dollar support infrastructure and not give it a way to defend itself?

"Now who's being naive, Kaye"....

(Apologies to Al Pacino & Francis Ford Coppola).



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Men Who Stare at Goats Space Force.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
So with that being the rule of law, what all is the purpose of this space force?

Law, schmaw. Laws get removed or rescinded all the time.

My question is, why a space force when we're already actively trying to move a lot of that stuff into private industry?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Because they're not. They're moving launches to the private sector, the actual mission is still being carried out by the military.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Because they're not. They're moving launches to the private sector, the actual mission is still being carried out by the military.

You don't think there is a high degree of collaboration there? I can't imagine giving a payload to a launch firm without telling them what it is, and how they should handle it. So either way, they're a part of the mission.

And what about the idea that the government is switching to private firms for space missions specifically to bypass those various space non-armament treaties since they only apply to nations and not private firms?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

How does the increasing privatization of launch platforms mean privatization of acquisition process and operations of space assets?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Of course they do. That doesn't mean that private firms are doing anything with them beyond putting them into orbit. They're not operating them, or doing anything beyond connecting them to the rocket and putting it up into space.

What non-armament treaties? The only non-armament treaty doesn't apply to anything but WMDs, or weapons on planetary bodies. And they'd still apply to private firms, because they apply to the payload and who is operating it, not who is launching it. They're switching to private firms because it's cheaper to put them into orbit, not for anything else. SpaceX is below $10,000/kg, into a 200km orbit, with a payload over 10,000 pounds. The shuttle was in the $25-30,000/kg range for a slightly heavier payload.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58



You have far more patience than I.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




SpaceX is below $10,000/kg, into a 200km orbit, with a payload over 10,000 pounds. The shuttle was in the $25-30,000/kg range for a slightly heavier payload.


Wow.

Really?

Costs have *really* come down.

Thank god that's one thing I don't have to worry about. I have enough to worry about and there are far more knowledgeable folks than I in that arena...



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Do you have any idea how this is playing outside the US?

I'm surprised you can't hear billions of people laughing.


(post by Whodathunkdatcheese removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Blue Shift

How does the increasing privatization of launch platforms mean privatization of acquisition process and operations of space assets?


Now *that's* a good question.

I shall refrain from responding because it is not in my wheelhouse and I'm already getting "spanked" a little for this thread.

I get more cantankerous and less forgiving as I get older. The only saving grace for me is that everyone that matters already knows I can be a loose cannon when provoked or the the topic is a passion of mine.

It's good to be Popeye from the get go...and then no one is surprised.

Zaph...you may have to carry the flag from here on out. You ok with that?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   
By the time the American Government Bureaucracy allocates the money for a Space force, the Russians and Chinese will already have on in place and operational.

Then we can have Star Wars for realzy. Pew Pew indeed....


Shall we call it..."Project Bonespurs" ???

edit on 19-6-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
Do you have any idea how this is playing outside the US?

I'm surprised you can't hear billions of people laughing.


I'm more interested in how it potentially allows us to achieve national security goals and saves time/money than I am interested in Pew-Pew comments from people who have zero experience in how the government's procurement process works.




top topics



 
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join