And that time is today.
Serious Space Force discussion
- Thread starter This_person
- Start date
And that time is today.
They aren't being met, they are being facilitated on a very basic level. Trump, like others before him, is talking about taking a resource that hasn't gotten much attention and exploring it to its full potential.
When we talk about our tax dollars, we typically refer to spending. We don't talk about investment, which is something else entirely. Throwing money at #### bags who are a detriment to our society - not to mention those foreign #### bags who are a detriment to our whole world - is spending money on something that will never yield a return; it is not investment. It's waste. Might as well flush it down the terlet. THAT is what we should be insisting our government cut way down, if not eliminate.
Space exploration and utilization creates jobs - good ones, not McDonald's cashier level. It advances technology and attracts our brightest minds. If we don't do it, other countries will and then they can rule to world for awhile while we go the way of the Roman Empire. Plus it's freaking cool. Feeding some crack baby who will grow up to pop out multiple crack babies of her own isn't cool, nor is bribing terrorists to not kill us today. But the space program is super cool and worth every penny of investment.
They have the best clubs and golf courses though...nothing to scoff at there.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Ok, I think we sound like we are arguing when we are saying the same thing: people are out there doing the stuff, and putting it all under one hat will only make what is there better, while putting a spotlight/focus on those actions.
Of course it will take more money. Starting up anything takes money. I'm merely suggesting shifting monies from other services. There are definite wastes in other services, and things that could be combined. Do we have to have separate schools, or could we do like we do with a lot of the Coast Guard and train them in Navy schools, for example?
I find no flaw in any of this.
PsyOps
Pixelated
This is just one of a thousand for me. But instead of reducing government, we just keep adding on. Something has to give; and typically it ends up being us - the taxpayers.
If anyone claims to be a conservative, they would be against this, along with so many other government expansions born out of some fictitious need for it.
PsyOps
Pixelated
PsyOps
Pixelated
Well, there is that.
You liberals are driving me crazy.
check yourself old man .... I am not a liberal
This_person
Well-Known Member
You liberals are driving me crazy.
Defense is a required action of the federal government. Suggesting we keep doing what we're already doing, only better, is not really a liberal thing.
It can be done with little or no cost increase, simply by reallocating current funding. Rack and stack the DoD budget, take the wrong things out, and voila - the new branch with little to no cost increases.
It was mentioned above to cut things like Education, HUD, etc. Those would be great places to start. "Pass-through costs" given to primes for sub-contracting could be automatically limited to 50% of whatever they get today, and that would save more than enough to pay for a new branch, with money left over.
gary_webb
Damned glad to meet you
Ok, I think we sound like we are arguing when we are saying the same thing: people are out there doing the stuff, and putting it all under one hat will only make what is there better, while putting a spotlight/focus on those actions.
Of course it will take more money. Starting up anything takes money. I'm merely suggesting shifting monies from other services. There are definite wastes in other services, and things that could be combined. Do we have to have separate schools, or could we do like we do with a lot of the Coast Guard and train them in Navy schools, for example?
I find no flaw in any of this.
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?
glhs837
Power with Control
That would be akin to asking NOAA to assume the Navy and Air Forces role, I think. They are the science and exploration arm, not the "break stuff and kill people" arm.
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
In a separate thread I addressed the need to gain the "high ground." Space is the next logical domain for the National Interest to gain and hold the high ground. For if we don't China or Russia will. And while you could argue about the merits of anyone holding the high ground in space politics (like Nature) abhors a vacuum so someone is going to grab it. Frankly and unashamedly, I prefer it be us rather than China or Russia (and so do most other governments; anti-U.S. and/or anti-Trump posturing is just that - political posturing and should not be seen as an accurate reflection of what's going on behind the scenes).
As to the need for a sixth Service (if you consider the USCG as the fifth - and I do) post-WWI, post-WWII, and post-Irag (2003) point the way. Space will require a coordinated, integrated, and directed focus that an Inter-Agency (IA) or civilian agency-led approach can't provide. The U.S' highly successful military occupations of Germany and Japan built on the Rhineland experience the military undertook (disn't want to, but State didn't either) contrasts sharply with the State Department's fiercely fought for this time (to prove that the State Department had not lost relevance; yes, still institutionally smarting over Germany/Japan) yet highly disastrous administration of post-Phase III (i.e., post-combat) Iraq.
For me this tells me that NASA (as a possible lead agency) would be unable to be our Space Force lead: underfunded in the currency of experience and leadership required to handle the disparate tasks the Space Force will be assigned (and make no mistake this will be a complicated endeavor) and culturally unsuited for the job as an institution. And the IA...; well, the IA would be really problematic. Serves an excellent purpose (i.e., the sorting through of equities), but as an administrative lead, well, nope.
In an example of life potentially imitating art there was a reason why it was (eventually) Starfleet Command and not Earth Space Agency.... Even a 1950s lib like Gene Roddenberry understood that....
So two questions:
1) Is a Space Force necessary? Yes. And if it is, then mission requirements should dictate appropriate funding. I have always - literally - hated the bean counter argument and this is what I see re: Space Force more than any other argument. "Lack of beans" is a disingenuous argument against because it's so vague as to be meaningless.
2) If necessary, how should it be organized? To me, history and current events continue to show that only a military Service would have the cultural temperament, organization, and ethos to pull it off.
--- End of line (MCP)
As to the need for a sixth Service (if you consider the USCG as the fifth - and I do) post-WWI, post-WWII, and post-Irag (2003) point the way. Space will require a coordinated, integrated, and directed focus that an Inter-Agency (IA) or civilian agency-led approach can't provide. The U.S' highly successful military occupations of Germany and Japan built on the Rhineland experience the military undertook (disn't want to, but State didn't either) contrasts sharply with the State Department's fiercely fought for this time (to prove that the State Department had not lost relevance; yes, still institutionally smarting over Germany/Japan) yet highly disastrous administration of post-Phase III (i.e., post-combat) Iraq.
For me this tells me that NASA (as a possible lead agency) would be unable to be our Space Force lead: underfunded in the currency of experience and leadership required to handle the disparate tasks the Space Force will be assigned (and make no mistake this will be a complicated endeavor) and culturally unsuited for the job as an institution. And the IA...; well, the IA would be really problematic. Serves an excellent purpose (i.e., the sorting through of equities), but as an administrative lead, well, nope.
In an example of life potentially imitating art there was a reason why it was (eventually) Starfleet Command and not Earth Space Agency.... Even a 1950s lib like Gene Roddenberry understood that....
So two questions:
1) Is a Space Force necessary? Yes. And if it is, then mission requirements should dictate appropriate funding. I have always - literally - hated the bean counter argument and this is what I see re: Space Force more than any other argument. "Lack of beans" is a disingenuous argument against because it's so vague as to be meaningless.
2) If necessary, how should it be organized? To me, history and current events continue to show that only a military Service would have the cultural temperament, organization, and ethos to pull it off.
--- End of line (MCP)
Who's going to do Search and Rescue in space... the Space Guard!!!
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Who knows? Will it be better as a separate arm of the military?
My parents used to sing military songs when we were growing up. One of them was the "Off We Go Into the Wild Blue Yonder".
Except they sang that nothing can stop the Army Air Corps. Because those were the original words.
We created the Air Force, even though each branch had - and largely still does have - its own pilots and planes.
Is it better, with an Air Force?
I have no idea what shape this thing will take - but like the centuries where when the ruler of the seas ruled the world -
and when the ruler of the skies ruled the world - whomever is ruling space will do the same, and second place isn't
going to work.
I think that may be the problem. There is a large segment of our society that thinks we *shouldn't* rule anything. Nobody should. If we stop ruling stuff, all other countries will follow suit because they only want to rule stuff because we're imperialistic ruler hogs and a bad influence. Then we can all live in global peace and harmony, because that's what everyone in the world (except for Donald Trump - and George Dubya before him - and Reagan before him - etc) wants.
They've been listening to too many John Lennon songs and fed hate-America their whole lives. And this is the result.
I'm probably not going to live long enough to see space utilization reach its full potential, but it's still very exciting. It was only a generation ago that the folks were scoffing at the internet and calling it a worthless fad - why on earth would anyone ever want to do internet things??? What kind of crazy person buys stuff online? Whyn't you just call someone if you want to talk to them?
Those are the same types snarking and scoffing about Space Force and NASA.
glhs837
Power with Control
Well, between SpaceX and ULA that shouldn't be a thing much longer.