03 Jul 17
Originally posted by sonhouse
Is that a serious proposal?
http://spacenews.com/house-panel-takes-first-step-towards-military-space-corps/
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers on Tuesday took the first step towards establishing a ‘Space Corps’ within the Air Force — similar to the way the Marine Corps functions in the Navy — by drafting legislation that would require the new organization to be set up by January 1, 2019.
03 Jul 17
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSomeone has to fight the "Bugs".http://spacenews.com/house-panel-takes-first-step-towards-military-space-corps/
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers on Tuesday took the first step towards establishing a ‘Space Corps’ within the Air Force — similar to the way the Marine Corps functions in the Navy — by drafting legislation that would require the new organization to be set up by January 1, 2019.
04 Jul 17
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIsn't there a UN treaty barring this?http://spacenews.com/house-panel-takes-first-step-towards-military-space-corps/
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers on Tuesday took the first step towards establishing a ‘Space Corps’ within the Air Force — similar to the way the Marine Corps functions in the Navy — by drafting legislation that would require the new organization to be set up by January 1, 2019.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Good. The US more readily spends money for no clear return if it is tagged 'military'.
Will the creation of a new arm of the US armed forces be
good or bad for the development of Space Travel?
The military funded much of previous NASA programs.
Many of the problems with the shuttle were because of military requirements, but then without meeting those requirements it would never have been paid for at all.
Will it save or squander money?
Squander of course, but that's better than 'save' where 'save' means 'tax breaks for the rich'.
06 Jul 17
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut now some of that has been er, trumped🙂 by Elon Musk with his idea of reusable space craft. So the military probably won't be much use for civilians. They would want multimegawatt lasers and space qualified radars and such and fast launch vehicles with 5+ g accel to get stuff up quickly and none of that crap will do any good for commercial space flight, where they would probably not want more than 2 g of accel if that so the poor civilians won't get heart attacks just going into orbit.
Good. The US more readily spends money for no clear return if it is tagged 'military'.
The military funded much of previous NASA programs.
Many of the problems with the shuttle were because of military requirements, but then without meeting those requirements it would never have been paid for at all.
[b]Will it save or squander money?
Squander of course, but that's better than 'save' where 'save' means 'tax breaks for the rich'.[/b]
So squander or not, the military will get its way. Look at the Manhattan project, billons to get the big bomb first. We all see how well THAT turned out. I guess though, just the IDEA a bombs could be possible would spur on militaries to get it any way they can, like how long did it take Soviet Russia to have the bomb once it was proven possible by bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Space weaponry will follow the same path and there isn't shyte we can do about it.
The way North Korea is saber rattling, will just play into the hands of the frothing at the mouth US miltary, SEE, we HAVE to have ten megawatt lasers in orbit 24/7 to counter that cursed NK missile threat.
All that happens in that case is every space country will be armed to the teeth with multimegawatt lasers, X ray lasers, Neutron blasters and it ends up being like two armed biker gangs wanting to drink at the same slut bar....
07 Jul 17
Originally posted by sonhouseThe military are a customer of SpaceX and in general the trend is towards using civilian companies for launches because they can do it cheaper. In five years, either SpaceX will have the whole world market, or all other companies/governments will have to develop similar systems. Obviously a few governments will hold on to their space industries at great cost for economic reasons and so that they can launch military payloads in secret. But they will increasingly struggle to justify it.
But now some of that has been er, trumped🙂 by Elon Musk with his idea of reusable space craft. So the military probably won't be much use for civilians.
So squander or not, the military will get its way. Look at the Manhattan project, billons to get the big bomb first. We all see how well THAT turned out.
It turned out pretty well if you ask me. If Germany or Japan had dropped the bomb first, then what?
Space weaponry will follow the same path and there isn't shyte we can do about it.
There is a lot you can do about it. Start by putting pressure on your government.
07 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf Germany or Japan dropped the first A bomb it would have been much worse especially if they had won, either of them but the world still hangs by a thread now with rogue countries like NK threatening the US with nuke tipped missiles, an empty threat so far but they will no doubt be able to do it in a decade or so. Israel has nukes and hasn't used them to their credit but still the world would be much better off without nukes.
The military are a customer of SpaceX and in general the trend is towards using civilian companies for launches because they can do it cheaper. In five years, either SpaceX will have the whole world market, or all other companies/governments will have to develop similar systems. Obviously a few governments will hold on to their space industries at great c ...[text shortened]... bout it.
There is a lot you can do about it. Start by putting pressure on your government.[/b]