The possible future American "space force"

[vger]

In case you haven't heard about this...https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/06/18/its-official-trump-announces-space-force-6th-military-branch.html

First, I don't want to talk about the moral implications, as this definitely isn't the place for it. I'm only interested in tossing ideas around about practicality and speculating on what the eventual project might end up looking like. We're not living in the Star Wars universe after all. Personally, I don't see any way this could "get off the ground." A lot of people already thumb their noses at NASA as a waste of taxpayer money, talking about how expensive it is and treating it like it provides little of value in return. A Space Force would be outrageously more expensive, unless some "officially-non-existent government agency" is about to announce they've developed a Kraken Drive.

Just knowing how the President thinks, I'm pretty sure he's envisioning having a constant military presence in orbit. It feels reminiscent of Reagan's Star Wars project, but I just don't see the point. Space is pricey enough as it is, and now we'd be talking about adding ordinance to the weight of payloads, and that stuff is prohibitively heavy. Such a military craft would also need enough fuel to be able to switch orbits several times if they're going to be capable of intercepting/responding to threats.

Is there something about this that I'm overlooking here? What could space ships do that we can't do just as easily (and much more cheaply) with missiles launched from the ground?

[Bill Phil]

Project Orion was considered for military applications back in the 60s. (Seriously considered... we came closer than is often believed to using it) 

But that was mostly nuclear deterrence. I mean, they envisaged a squadron of "bombers" carrying loads of nukes and deploying them to glass the enemy nation. 

I doubt that nukes will be placed in space. It may just be as simple as separating Space Command from the USAF, or maybe rods from god might be the goal...

[sh1pman]

Well, if this space force project actually takes off, you can be 100% sure that “enemy nations” will follow suit. Rocket and satellite manufacturers crave for a space race, as military and government contracts are their bread and butter. And the politicians will be more than happy to fund it, because “we need to have a Moon base and train space marines there to protect our nation!”. Win-win situation for everyone.

Edited June 19, 2018 by sh1pman

[vger]

21 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Well, if this space force project actually takes off, you can be 100% sure that “enemy nations” will follow suit. Rocket and satellite manufacturers crave for a space race, as military and government contracts are their bread and butter. And the politicians will be more than happy to fund it, because “we need to have a Moon base and train space marines there to protect our nation!”. Win-win situation for everyone.

Interesting thought. It gives me mixed feelings. I guess you could say that if it gets every competitive nation into dominating space, it can only serve to propel our science forward, and that's a good thing. On the other hand if a fight breaks out up there, Kessler Syndrome is going to transform LEO into a impenetrable blockade, and then nobody will be doing ANYTHING with space anymore.

[DAL59]

4 hours ago, vger said:

What could space ships do that we can't do just as easily (and much more cheaply) with missiles launched from the ground?

Shoot down missiles.  

[Mitchz95]

The Expanse is looking more and more plausible every day. All we need now is an Epstein drive.

Remember the Cant.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Mitchz95

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, Mitchz95 said:

The Expanse is looking more and more plausible every day. All we need now is an Epstein drive.

Remember the Cant.

Ol Boom Boom may suffice...

[YNM]

Rest assured, space colonization will be an even poorer version of the scrapheap challenge.

[Nibb31]

It would really just be a reorg of the USAF Space Command and some Navy and NRO assets into a single structure. This is a presidential order that nobody really asked for and it needs Congress to actually approve it and allocate a separate budget to this new arm. My bets are that it won't happen.

[Gargamel]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the militarization of space banned by international treaty?   Although, And treading lightly on the politics rule here, the current administration has shown their views on international treaties. 

Someday, it might be needed to weaponize outer space, perhaps local colonial police forces and such, but until then, I don't think moving to space with the military is a good idea, but knowing how the human race thinks, it's probably a forgone eventuality. 

[kerbiloid]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Aerospace_Forces

Probably, USAF → USAAF ("... air and airless..")

Just imagine how much money will it take give to rewrite this everywhere.

Common uniform of the reorganized forces.

Spoiler

(The shield is heat-protected, allows to deorbit one person with full equipment)

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by kerbiloid

[ProtoJeb21]

3 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the militarization of space banned by international treaty?   Although, And treading lightly on the politics rule here, the current administration has shown their views on international treaties. 

Someday, it might be needed to weaponize outer space, perhaps local colonial police forces and such, but until then, I don't think moving to space with the military is a good idea, but knowing how the human race thinks, it's probably a forgone eventuality. 

Yes, back in the 60s or 70s (I can’t remember exactly) there was a treaty signed by most nations - including the US - that banned the use of space for military purposes. This is why I hate the idea of a Space Force. It’s not only breaking a treaty that our country signed, but it is trying to turn space into a military ground* dominated by just America and not an open region of exploration. Dividing it up into areas controlled by specific nations just seems wrong.

*that was a terrible word to use because, well, there’s no actual ground in space except for planets and moons

[Terwin]

Unless something has changed that I am not aware of, I would expect this to be mostly a paperwork issue.

Presumably the 'space force' would include all orbital activities that are currently engaged in by the other branches of the military(satellites and that experimental vessel that they send up for months at a time).

Might include GPS and even NASA might fall under that umbrella.

Come to think of it, clumping NASA in with the military might do good things for NASA's budget.

 

Hmmm,

1) change the name of NASA to 'Space Force'

2) Tell a general you need $X billion to build and operate the biggest gun on mars 

3) Build a mars rover with a compressed air 'cannon' to blow dust off of the solar panels and thus have a new science rover paid for from the budget of the military

4) go to step 2, but slightly increase the diameter of the 'air cannon' barrel every time you want a new Mars rover... 

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

It would really just be a reorg of the USAF Space Command and some Navy and NRO assets into a single structure. This is a presidential order that nobody really asked for and it needs Congress to actually approve it and allocate a separate budget to this new arm. My bets are that it won't happen.

This sums it up pretty well and it makes some sense. Was some talk about it during Obama to so its not just something Trump came up with. 
Air force is obviously against it and its not really needed as you say. 

[DAL59]

[Cassel]

In NASA everything is expensive, because NASA has no competition. If every major state introduces its cosmic armed forces, a competition will arise and that accelerates the development of space technologies.

Of course, people working for NASA will criticize this idea because the times of calm salary collection and doing nothing will end.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Cassel

[insert_name]

http://spacenews.com/what-would-the-mission-of-the-united-states-space-force-be/

[TheSaint]

8 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

It would really just be a reorg of the USAF Space Command and some Navy and NRO assets into a single structure. This is a presidential order that nobody really asked for and it needs Congress to actually approve it and allocate a separate budget to this new arm. My bets are that it won't happen.

Yeah, the media (who, in general, understand nothing) have been blowing this all out of proportion. All that is being suggested is to take the space-focused assets that are currently divvied up among various agencies and unify them under one command. All the hoopla about Space Marines and Space Shuttle Door Gunners is typical uninformed tripe. And of course the agencies involved are going to resist, you're taking money out of their budgets. Personally, I think it's a good idea. It's going to happen eventually.

3 hours ago, ProtoJeb21 said:

Yes, back in the 60s or 70s (I can’t remember exactly) there was a treaty signed by most nations - including the US - that banned the use of space for military purposes. This is why I hate the idea of a Space Force. It’s not only breaking a treaty that our country signed, but it is trying to turn space into a military ground* dominated by just America and not an open region of exploration. Dividing it up into areas controlled by specific nations just seems wrong.

*that was a terrible word to use because, well, there’s no actual ground in space except for planets and moons

Space is already "militarized". Communications, weather, navigation, and reconnaissance satellites are critical infrastructure for every major defense department around the globe. The minute a shooting war starts one of the first orders of business is going to be to safeguard these assets for our team and deny them to the other. Wishing with all your might is not going to change reality.

And, just for clarification, the Outer Space Treaty did not ban the military use of outer space. It banned the placement of weapons of mass destruction in outer space. Everything else is fair game.

[ProtoJeb21]

31 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

Space is already "militarized". Communications, weather, navigation, and reconnaissance satellites are critical infrastructure for every major defense department around the globe. The minute a shooting war starts one of the first orders of business is going to be to safeguard these assets for our team and deny them to the other. Wishing with all your might is not going to change reality.

And, just for clarification, the Outer Space Treaty did not ban the military use of outer space. It banned the placement of weapons of mass destruction in outer space. Everything else is fair game.

I meant space weaponry and in-space wars between nations. Sure, there are tons of military satellites used by various countries, but I don’t like the idea of space being turned into a new setting for international war. 

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

In NASA everything is expensive, because NASA has no competition. If every major state introduces its cosmic armed forces, a competition will arise and that accelerates the development of space technologies.

Of course, people working for NASA will criticize this idea because the times of calm salary collection and doing nothing will end.

A number of NASA employees would like a word with you...

2 minutes ago, ProtoJeb21 said:

I meant space weaponry and in-space wars between nations. Sure, there are tons of military satellites used by various countries, but I don’t like the idea of space being turned into a new setting for international war. 

Alright. That's not happening, so we're good. It's probably just a reorganization of already existing assets into a single branch of the military, or something like that. 

But militarizing space may be necessary for large scale space development.

[Cassel]

18 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

A number of NASA employees would like a word with you...

 

No problem I can talk with them.

First topic how to provide astronauts on ISS without Russia's help, almost 50 years after the Americans landed on the moon.

The second topic is how to design space programs, so that they can be expanded, not to announce revolutions in the research of the capsule, then space ferries, only to abandon this direction after many years and return to the capsule.
Let them take an example of the development of cars or sea-going vessels, and not for every time they spend money for new revolutionary research, abandoning the technologies they already have.

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, Cassel said:

No problem I can talk with them.

First topic how to provide astronauts on ISS without Russia's help, almost 50 years after the Americans landed on the moon.

The second topic is how to design space programs, so that they can be expanded, not to announce revolutions in the research of the capsule, then space ferries, only to abandon this direction after many years and return to the capsule.
Let them take an example of the development of cars or sea-going vessels, and not for every time they spend money for new revolutionary research, abandoning the technologies they already have.

Oh, you want to talk to Congress then.

[Cassel]

9 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Oh, you want to talk to Congress then.

Congress has developed technical plans, a estimated costs and made development plans of different technology?
Congress developed shuttle plans that could not be developed further and after losing many years and resources had to abandon the project?

I hope that the military will approach the development of space technologies differently and there will be no revolution, but the evolution of technology development and accessibility to them.

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

Congress has developed technical plans, a estimated costs and made development plans of different technology?
Congress developed shuttle plans that could not be developed further and after losing many years and resources had to abandon the project?

I hope that the military will approach the development of space technologies differently and there will be no revolution, but the evolution of technology development and accessibility to them.

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. 

NASA is very capable of doing great things. But NASA is on a short leash, only allowed to do the things Congress tells it to.

Congress approved the Shuttle, but did not approve nor fund the rest of the STS concept. No space tugs, no nuclear tugs, no eventual Mars missions. This was back in the early 70s or so.

There have been concepts abound for Shuttle replacements. Many were proposed before the Shuttle's retirement. But not a single one was developed, because they needed to be approved by Congress. NASA isn't given a lump sum and then allowed to spend it in any way they see fit. Each program is funded individually. And what those programs are is also dictated by Congress. There's a reason SLS is jokingly called the "Senate Launch System." Congress mandated NASA to develop it. 

Not to mention that the Shuttle was heavily influenced by the military... the payload bay size, the size of the wings, and so on. I wouldn't put any money betting that the military would be any better.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

On 6/20/2018 at 7:20 AM, Terwin said:

Unless something has changed that I am not aware of, I would expect this to be mostly a paperwork issue.

Presumably the 'space force' would include all orbital activities that are currently engaged in by the other branches of the military(satellites and that experimental vessel that they send up for months at a time).

Might include GPS and even NASA might fall under that umbrella.

Come to think of it, clumping NASA in with the military might do good things for NASA's budget.

 

Hmmm,

1) change the name of NASA to 'Space Force'

2) Tell a general you need $X billion to build and operate the biggest gun on mars 

3) Build a mars rover with a compressed air 'cannon' to blow dust off of the solar panels and thus have a new science rover paid for from the budget of the military

4) go to step 2, but slightly increase the diameter of the 'air cannon' barrel every time you want a new Mars rover... 

Now I'm imagining a conspiracy of national space programs faking a martian war to the governments of earth so they can get more budget.