If only...

[Joseph Kerman]

Do you think NASA and the military should do a joint collaboration in making space-bound craft and weapons? Right now, NASA has a low budget of $18.5 Million and the military having a high budget of $666 Billion.

[Galileo]

NASA already works pretty closely with the military, especially the Air Force. A lot of technology, past, present and future come directly from the collaboration. The budgets, while wildly offset, are a bit misleading. NASA only gets what the government deems necessary, but you can rest assured that in a time of need, the budget will expand.  

BTW, the budget of $18.5 million you stated above for NASA is incorrect. NASA is actually receiving roughly $20 BILLION this year, which is actually more than NASA requested.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Galileo

[p1t1o]

As far as I know, the US air force is capable of developing+launching its own stuff without NASA at all.

Edited May 5, 2017 by p1t1o

[NSEP]

But then other people start disagreeing.

[razark]

13 hours ago, Joseph Kerman said:

Do you think NASA and the military should do a joint collaboration in making space-bound craft and weapons?

No.  NASA should not be in the weapons business.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, razark said:

No.  NASA should not be in the weapons business.

So that's why we don't have beefy propulsion systems. /sarcasm

The problem with space is that a lot of the cool stuff we want to see involves some pretty high energies, and it turns out that the tech, even the civilian stuff, would make decent weapons. Plowshares into swords.

[razark]

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

...it turns out that the tech, even the civilian stuff, would make decent weapons.

True.  The agency always had, and always will, a tight connection to the military.  After all, the only difference between a space launch and a missile launch is what's programmed into the guidance system.  The first manned flights were flown on modified ballistic missiles, and high speed/high altitude flight has it's uses.  NASA and DoD have a lot of the same contractors working for them, as well.

 

However, I feel that NASA should be a civilian agency.  I'm fine with them putting up military payloads and sharing research, but I'd have some serious issues about them directly developing or launching a system intended for use as a weapon.

[Bill Phil]

3 minutes ago, razark said:

However, I feel that NASA should be a civilian agency.  I'm fine with them putting up military payloads and sharing research, but I'd have some serious issues about them directly developing or launching a system intended for use as a weapon.

I agree. NASA shouldn't do anything with the intent of using their hardware as weapons.

[ZooNamedGames]

The ULA is generally the USAF's go to service. As seen with the X-37 and most USAF payloads.

[MiffedStarfish]

No. What use would orbital nukes have, except to terrify the entire population, and accomplish nothing more (from the military's point of view) than can be done with conventional cruise missiles? Focus on the things that NASA should be focusing on, like Mars, and Mars. Literally the only reason making weapons in space would be in anyway justifiable would be if lifeforms from europa's oceans attacked us.

[Bill Phil]

10 hours ago, MiffedStarfish said:

No. What use would orbital nukes have, except to terrify the entire population, and accomplish nothing more (from the military's point of view) than can be done with conventional cruise missiles? Focus on the things that NASA should be focusing on, like Mars, and Mars. Literally the only reason making weapons in space would be in anyway justifiable would be if lifeforms from europa's oceans attacked us.

Or if Mars attacked us. Which makes no sense, but neither does colonizing Mars, at least to me.

[Guest]

Space should be weaponized.

If it isn't, countries will still invest little in it (compared to other budgets), as you can't claim territory there.

What drove Colombus to the Americas? It wasn't for science. He was looking for a new route to trade with India (economic gain). Why did the Americas get colonized? Not for learning about the ecosystem or the natives, that's for sure. It was so that Europe could make a profit out of the New World and expand their territory.

The OST prohibits these (claiming territory or using weapons outside Earth), and it's the very thing preventing another space golden era.

And no, if space gets weaponized it won't rain nukes, there's this thing called "Mutually Assured Destruction". As long as there aren't completely reliable ways to disarm/destroy nukes that have been fired at you, nobody will try bombing other countries in fear of getting nuked back, not to mention that the attacker's image would be ruined by most.

TL;DR: the outer space treaty is hindering space exploration, no new space golden era as long as we cannot claim territory/use weapons outside Earth.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Guest
i disapprove of the outer space treaty with a passion

[p1t1o]

On 5/6/2017 at 11:13 PM, Aperture Science said:

"Mutually Assured Destruction"

Which as the cold war showed, works totally fine........

[Bill Phil]

On 5/6/2017 at 5:13 PM, Aperture Science said:

Space should be weaponized.

If it isn't, countries will still invest little in it (compared to other budgets), as you can't claim territory there.

What drove Colombus to the Americas? It wasn't for science. He was looking for a new route to trade with India (economic gain). Why did the Americas get colonized? Not for learning about the ecosystem or the natives, that's for sure. It was so that Europe could make a profit out of the New World and expand their territory.

The OST prohibits these (claiming territory or using weapons outside Earth), and it's the very thing preventing another space golden era.

And no, if space gets weaponized it won't rain nukes, there's this thing called "Mutually Assured Destruction". As long as there aren't completely reliable ways to disarm/destroy nukes that have been fired at you, nobody will try bombing other countries in fear of getting nuked back, not to mention that the attacker's image would be ruined by most.

TL;DR: the outer space treaty is hindering space exploration, no new space golden era as long as we cannot claim territory/use weapons outside Earth.

The OST is not enforced, however, and is only followed by the good will of the nations which signed it.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Which as the cold war showed, works totally fine........

Not really sure whether this is sarcasm or not, but I don't remember anyone getting nuked during the Cold War.

[p1t1o]

13 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Not really sure whether this is sarcasm or not, but I don't remember anyone getting nuked during the Cold War.

It was sarcasm. We didnt get nuked, but we did come too close many times, and we got rid of MAD as soon as it was possible specifically because the risk of nuclear war was too great.