The possible future American "space force"

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

I wouldn't be so sure about martian troops.

Look.

An early Martian scientific outpost.
What are duties (and abilities) of the scientific outpost personnel?

They must/can:

• An extremal cross-country driving of different types of rovers  Everybody (pilots, engineers, geologists, maybe except the doctor) - each of them.
  Spoiler

  

   

• Repair them (sometimes - just in field, wearing spacesuits, in vacuum) and any other electrical and mechanical equipment. (Engineers and pilots).
• Dig the ground.
• Fortify position with sandbags or walls of ground, from small dusters for field equipment to a whole sandbag fortress for the base itself. Against both dust storms and radiation.
  And set tents as dust screens.
  Spoiler

  That's how they do live on Mars, typically.

  

   

• Pilot flying vessels, from a heavy dropship to a light recon drone and a heavy cargo drone.
• Daily get injures from digging, drillng, driving, repairing, toxic substances (all of them except doctor) and heal them in field (doctor).
• Work/move for whole days in physically challenging conditions.
• Prepare and use explosives on the expert level (geologists, engineers).
• Support the long-range radiocommunication on scheduled sessions
• Do this in a small group, far from the main forces.
• Do this on another planet with no chances to surrender.
• Do this in small recon groups, periodically sent to field from the base camp
  Spoiler

  Say, they have 2 field groups (pilot/driver, engineer/driller, geologist/powderman) and a staff (doctor, chemist).

Also the Martian researchers are not brains. They are hands and eyes. Brains stay on Earth and use these eyes and hands remotely.
You don't need scientists on Mars, you need scientist assistants.
So, the Martians don't need a strong scientific background, but just do routine job and primary lab research between communication sessions.

So, a typical Martian scientific (indeed, scientific) outpost is not that different than an officer sabot-and-recon squad.
So, the natural depot of Martian scientific outpost is a spec-ops. Like fighter pilots were for early spaceflights.

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Cassel]

11 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

No. Congress is responsible for NASA's budget. NASA can only do things Congress allows them to do, and NASA can only dedicate the resources that Congress allows for each project. 
 

Members of the congress are designing missions and new vehicles or are NASA employees doing it and the congress chooses one of several options prepared by NASA?

In this way, NASA can prepare a space shuttle, which initially will be a good plan, but later add expansion plans that will be meaningless and the Congress will cut funds for this project.
The problem with the NASA-congress relationship is that there are no aternatives for NASA projects, and the congress chooses only option 1, 2 or 3, that are prepared by agency employees.

That's how it works?

 

 

[Terwin]

7 hours ago, Cassel said:

Members of the congress are designing missions and new vehicles or are NASA employees doing it and the congress chooses one of several options prepared by NASA?

In this way, NASA can prepare a space shuttle, which initially will be a good plan, but later add expansion plans that will be meaningless and the Congress will cut funds for this project.
The problem with the NASA-congress relationship is that there are no aternatives for NASA projects, and the congress chooses only option 1, 2 or 3, that are prepared by agency employees.

That's how it works?

You forgot the parts where several congressmen refuse to vote for the bill unless a certain minimum amount of the $$ gets spent in each of their districts, often in very specific ways(keep these SRB related factories working!)
And how this is probably a necessary component for any plans being proposed to congress that they actually want to get funded.

[LordFerret]

On 6/19/2018 at 4:45 PM, vger said:

Just knowing how the President thinks

Right off the bat, here's the problem with this thread... none of you knows how the President thinks. I have no clue how he thinks, nor of how you think - any of you. I only know how I think.

"Because we're doing a tremendous amount of work in space, maybe we need a new force," he said. "We'll call it the space force." - from your linked article.
There's the answer at face value right there; Protecting the investment.

"This [Air Force] budget accelerates our efforts to deter, defend and protect our ability to operate and win in space,"

 

And on that note,

"The situation we are in as a nation, the vulnerabilities we have to China and Russia, I'd like for the American public to know more, [but] I can't because I don't want to go to jail for leaking classified info. But we're in a really bad situation,"

 

From the git-go this is a political discussion, and I'm very surprised the mods are permitting it.

[Cassel]

2 hours ago, Terwin said:

You forgot the parts where several congressmen refuse to vote for the bill unless a certain minimum amount of the $$ gets spent in each of their districts, often in very specific ways(keep these SRB related factories working!)
And how this is probably a necessary component for any plans being proposed to congress that they actually want to get funded.

Anyone from NASA raised this issue and criticized the congress for such action?
He presented the problem to the public and explained why it slows down the development of technology and that NASA wants to develop other vehicles, but someone forces such and not other solutions? Do you have any links with such statements?

This "space force" is part of US Air Force and Enabling Technologies for High-speed Operable Systems project or something new?

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, LordFerret said:

Right off the bat, here's the problem with this thread... none of you knows how the President thinks. I have no clue how he thinks, nor of how you think - any of you. I only know how I think.

"Because we're doing a tremendous amount of work in space, maybe we need a new force," he said. "We'll call it the space force." - from your linked article.
There's the answer at face value right there; Protecting the investment.

"This [Air Force] budget accelerates our efforts to deter, defend and protect our ability to operate and win in space,"

 

And on that note,

"The situation we are in as a nation, the vulnerabilities we have to China and Russia, I'd like for the American public to know more, [but] I can't because I don't want to go to jail for leaking classified info. But we're in a really bad situation,"

  

From the git-go this is a political discussion, and I'm very surprised the mods are permitting it.

Note that the space force reorganizing idea was active during Obama. Yes Trump might like the idea more also an dawn of an second space race make it more relevant, also the war on terror and the need for fast tactical satellite recon and loads of communication. 

As I understand this does not involve NASA, just military satellites, perhaps some NRO birds too but probably not all as an larger organization would make it harder to keep stuff secret. 
 

[Just Jim]

8 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Note that the space force reorganizing idea was active during Obama. Yes Trump might like the idea more also an dawn of an second space race make it more relevant, also the war on terror and the need for fast tactical satellite recon and loads of communication. 
 

I'm not going to get into the politics of it... but as far as the history, I think one could make the argument it really goes back to Reagan, and the original "Star Wars defense plan"... or whatever it was called. 

It is definitely not a new idea... 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Just Jim

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

2 hours ago, LordFerret said:

none of you knows how the President thinks.

Unless he plays KSP and is registered on this forum. If so, one of them knows.

Spoiler

This requires a lot of metals, and could explain the current story with metalurgy import taxes, as well as the new Space Force vision.

 

[adsii1970]

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

This "space force" is part of US Air Force and Enabling Technologies for High-speed Operable Systems project or something new?

Something new. It would be a co-equal branch within the Department of Defense.

 

2 hours ago, LordFerret said:

"Because we're doing a tremendous amount of work in space, maybe we need a new force," he said. "We'll call it the space force." - from your linked article.
There's the answer at face value right there; Protecting the investment.

I would love to respond but since it is a Geo-political discussion, I'd better not. Or else I'll get another 2.2 infraction.

12 hours ago, Cassel said:

No. Congress is responsible for NASA's budget. NASA can only do things Congress allows them to do, and NASA can only dedicate the resources that Congress allows for each project.

No. It is an executive branch agency and has concurrent responsibilities with the DOD and as a stand-alone agency. Congress funds it but the executive branch sets the priorities for NASA. Always have and always will.

[Cassel]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

Something new. It would be a co-equal branch within the Department of Defense.

 

Ok, that is interesting, my guess is that they will double some parts with other forces.

 

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

No. It is an executive branch agency and has concurrent responsibilities with the DOD and as a stand-alone agency. Congress funds it but the executive branch sets the priorities for NASA. Always have and always will.

Fix quote please, it wasn't me.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

Something new. It would be a co-equal branch within the Department of Defense.

It would be a transfer of competency. There will be no Viper starfighters or Space Marines.

USAF Space Command, USAF ASAT capability, some parts of NRO, Navy, and other arms would be transferred into this new Space Force. Anything else is presidential fluff, and the whole idea is being pushed back by the Pentagon and Congress as it would likely increase costs and reduce operational efficiency and coordination capability. For example, US ASAT capability is based on USAF or Navy assets that are also used for other missions.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Nibb31

[vger]

14 hours ago, Cassel said:

In this way, NASA can prepare a space shuttle, which initially will be a good plan, but later add expansion plans that will be meaningless and the Congress will cut funds for this project.
The problem with the NASA-congress relationship is that there are no aternatives for NASA projects, and the congress chooses only option 1, 2 or 3, that are prepared by agency employees.

Wasn't that same kind of committee debate what resulted in the shuttle slowly evolving from a sleek 100% reusable space plane in early development into the "flying brick" we eventually wound up with?

4 hours ago, Just Jim said:

I'm not going to get into the politics of it... but as far as the history, I think one could make the argument it really goes back to Reagan, and the original "Star Wars defense plan"... or whatever it was called. 

It is definitely not a new idea... 

Unless there was a lot more he put on the table besides "rapid response missile interception," I don't think Reagan's idea classified as anything in the realm of a 6th branch of the military "Space Force."

Edited June 22, 2018 by vger

[Just Jim]

10 minutes ago, vger said:

Unless there was a lot more he put on the table besides "rapid response missile interception," I don't think Reagan's idea classified as anything in the realm of a 6th branch of the military "Space Force."

Agreed. It's just Reagan was the first to actually seriously propose putting money into any kind of "Space defense" system... I look at it sort of like Sputnik being the first step in going to the moon, so to speak. Had to start somewhere.  

Edited June 22, 2018 by Just Jim

[Bill Phil]

9 hours ago, Terwin said:

You forgot the parts where several congressmen refuse to vote for the bill unless a certain minimum amount of the $$ gets spent in each of their districts, often in very specific ways(keep these SRB related factories working!)
And how this is probably a necessary component for any plans being proposed to congress that they actually want to get funded.

Yep. Using SRBs was a mandated requirement for SLS. At least for Block 1.

[SpaceMouse]

<rant>   A little surprised this hasn't been deleted for delving into politics slightly. That said... It's yet another meaningless waste of money That will double our national debt, and drastically increase taxes brought back by a guy (being kind here) that has absolutely no fraking idea what he's doing.

And nearly more annoyingly, the number of Sci-Fi fans that think the world works anything like a Sci-Fi franchise.

It's the stupidest idea yet.

Now, taking that extra money and dumping it into NASA I would PROBABLY support. </rant>

Edited June 23, 2018 by SpaceMouse

[kerbiloid]

The sole problem of Space Forces would be to find another Space Forces to oppose.

[Cassel]

24 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The sole problem of Space Forces would be to find another Space Forces to oppose.

Anyone who offers satellite placement in orbit will also have to offer protection for this satellite, space force will be needed for that.
In my opinion, it will rather be like a guard/security than the army used to attack.

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Anyone who offers satellite placement in orbit will also have to offer protection for this satellite, space force will be needed for that.
In my opinion, it will rather be like a guard/security than the army used to attack.

I.e. not arms, but eyes.

Battle of beholders.

[vger]

 

8 hours ago, Cassel said:

Anyone who offers satellite placement in orbit will also have to offer protection for this satellite, space force will be needed for that.
In my opinion, it will rather be like a guard/security than the army used to attack.

Hopefully not. That sounds strikingly similar to a "protection service" which means a really lame new way to tax vehicles for services provided by the Space Force (whether you actually want it or not).

[Cassel]

45 minutes ago, vger said:

 

Hopefully not. That sounds strikingly similar to a "protection service" which means a really lame new way to tax vehicles for services provided by the Space Force (whether you actually want it or not).

This approach would ensure budget revenues and all energy and resources put in space force would be profitable?

The fact that the US allows private companies to the space sector also suggests entering a tax in this sector is only a matter of time. It seems to me that tax would also be covered by other countries using space, and if someone would refuse, his satellites would be "damaged".

[vger]

1 hour ago, Cassel said:

This approach would ensure budget revenues and all energy and resources put in space force would be profitable?

The fact that the US allows private companies to the space sector also suggests entering a tax in this sector is only a matter of time. It seems to me that tax would also be covered by other countries using space, and if someone would refuse, his satellites would be "damaged".

You realize how dangerous that is, right? That means turning orbit into a frantic territorial "land grab." Outer space has been "free" since humans first touched it.

[Nuke]

lets spend money we dont have on stuff we dont need. yay!

[Xd the great]

How are we even gonna be able to launch anything we need? The sls is still years away.

[KG3]

On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 6:18 AM, Gargamel said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the militarization of space banned by international treaty?  

 

Maybe we can get another international treaty that says the military can ONLY operate in space, preferable at a safe distance from innocent civilians. 

[Cassel]

13 hours ago, vger said:

You realize how dangerous that is, right? That means turning orbit into a frantic territorial "land grab." Outer space has been "free" since humans first touched it.

So space will be treated the same as land and sea on Earth. You occupy a orbit and consider it as part of your state, and everyone who uses it pays the customs tax.

Profitable enough to accelerate the development of technologies that are to help control the movement in orbit?

4 hours ago, KG3 said:

Maybe we can get another international treaty that says the military can ONLY operate in space, preferable at a safe distance from innocent civilians. 

Hahaha I suggest a law that allows you to fight only on uninhabited areas in the seas and deserts, would that work? :-)

Edited June 24, 2018 by Cassel