Serious Space Force discussion

[This_person]

It would seem to me that the organization in the USA that is most familiar with space is NASA, and yes I know we undertake international missions with other countries, Space Station is first to mind, so would this preclude us from renaming it the NSF 'National Space Force' and assigning it military/defense responsibilities as well as humanitarian? The Army engages in humanitarian missions, so if not what would be the difference?

I do think that NASA should fall under a newly-created Space Force, as should everything land-, sea-, and space-based defense systems against attacks to satellites, etc.

 

[This_person]

Who knows? Will it be better as a separate arm of the military?

At least it would be focused on that area.

I think that is more than enough reason right there. Who develops the best procedures that the other forces follow in terms of fighter pilot tactics? The Air Force.

 

[glhs837]

I do think that NASA should fall under a newly-created Space Force, as should everything land-, sea-, and space-based defense systems against attacks to satellites, etc.

Hmmm, no, NASA should remain it's own thing. Again, just like NOAA, whose products are used by the military and who cooprates with them, a cilivilian science agancy should remain just that.

At least it would be focused on that area.

I think that is more than enough reason right there. Who develops the best procedures that the other forces follow in terms of fighter pilot tactics? The Air Force.

Right, but whose entire history has been spent develping the ways and means of operating long duration crewed vessels in hostile environments? But this points out why it should be it's own thing, it will need to draw on differing aspects of both of those branches to effect it's charter. Trying to operate a month long mission or better in the same way you operate a B-52 or AWACS aircraft wont really work. And of course the Navy brings the Marines to the party.

 

[Hijinx]

Hmmm, no, NASA should remain it's own thing. Again, just like NOAA, whose products are used by the military and who cooprates with them, a cilivilian science agancy should remain just that.





Right, but whose entire history has been spent develping the ways and means of operating long duration crewed vessels in hostile environments? But this points out why it should be it's own thing, it will need to draw on differing aspects of both of those branches to effect it's charter. Trying to operate a month long mission or better in the same way you operate a B-52 or AWACS aircraft wont really work. And of course the Navy brings the Marines to the party.

Are they still into space?
I thought they were placed in charge of kissing Muslim ass.

 

[This_person]

Hmmm, no, NASA should remain it's own thing. Again, just like NOAA, whose products are used by the military and who cooprates with them, a cilivilian science agancy should remain just that.

I'm not sure we can call NASA a civilian science agency anymore.

Right, but whose entire history has been spent develping the ways and means of operating long duration crewed vessels in hostile environments? But this points out why it should be it's own thing, it will need to draw on differing aspects of both of those branches to effect it's charter. Trying to operate a month long mission or better in the same way you operate a B-52 or AWACS aircraft wont really work. And of course the Navy brings the Marines to the party.

Well, as I work in Submarines (for now), I agree the Navy can give a great insight into space ships, and vice versa. I've heard the Navy described as Uber for men (giving Marines rides to fight), but I can tell you the Navy does an awful lot of its own fighting, so I'm not sure I agree with that

But, this is why a Space Force, to me, is a good idea and initially filling it with existing agencies and their expertise seems the best way to go.

Again, I think this could be done at a very limited cost, such that the cost could be spread out as a mark against other branches is fully absorbed and the net cost to the taxpayer is $0.

 

[glhs837]

I'm not sure we can call NASA a civilian science agency anymore.



Well, as I work in Submarines (for now), I agree the Navy can give a great insight into space ships, and vice versa. I've heard the Navy described as Uber for men (giving Marines rides to fight), but I can tell you the Navy does an awful lot of its own fighting, so I'm not sure I agree with that

But, this is why a Space Force, to me, is a good idea and initially filling it with existing agencies and their expertise seems the best way to go.

Again, I think this could be done at a very limited cost, such that the cost could be spread out as a mark against other branches is fully absorbed and the net cost to the taxpayer is $0.

Why cant we call NASA civilian? Any military launch customer os just that, another customer. The A/F autnomous spaceplane thing, after launch, is wholly owned and operated by the A/F.

I didnt mean to insinuate that the Navy doesnt do any fighting, just that the carriage of your own baked in assault force on your vessels is again, a Navy staple. Has anyone ever heard of Space Soldiers, or The Space Army? Of course not, it's always Space Marines. Becuase the very nature of close quarters space combat is that of breaching, boarding, and/or landing under fire from vessels, Marines bread and butter. While battle between vessels in space more closley approximates naval ship to ship combat, or even sub to sub, not battles between aircraft like the A/F is used to.

 

[Clem72]

there is no way the Chinese are not going to weaponize space ....
an orbital platform that can neutralize America's ICBM threat
[well land based anyway, SLBM are still short ranged enough]

As a weapon of last resort, sure. But I don't see it neutralizing anything. A Geosync orbit satellite is almost as far away from the earth as the earth is round. That means a single satellite likely wouldn't be able to intercept any missile fired on the earth, unless it could go substantially faster than an ICBM or we fired from the complete opposite side of the planet from our target and the satellite was directly above the target.

In a lower orbit they would have to wait for their satellite to be positioned correctly and would need to know where our missile(s) would be coming from (hard to do with all our bases or subs). And of course, this would be a decaying orbit.

They would be much better off just doing ground based intercept like we do (there's a reason we never went through with the star wars initiative)

 

[stgislander]

For all those fans of the Space Force out there.