Trump directing Pentagon to set up "Space Force" as a "separate but equal" branch of the military

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
Do you have any idea how this is playing outside the US?

I'm surprised you can't hear billions of people laughing.

I'm more interested in how it potentially allows us to achieve national security goals and saves time/money than I am interested in Pew-Pew comments from people who have zero experience in how the government's procurement process works.

The universe of people that can answer that question as stated (requirements) is pretty slim here mon ami.

At least grab some beer and pizza while you're waiting. It's salve for the soul where I come from...

a reply to: Riffrafter

Let me get back to my laptop and I'll link the pdf I was using. It'll be a little bit but I'll get there.

originally posted by: olaru12
By the time the American Government Bureaucracy allocates the money for a Space force, the Russians and Chinese will already have on in place and operational.

Then we can have Star Wars for realzy. Pew Pew indeed....


Shall we call it..."Project Bonespurs" ???

I absolutely understand why you would say that.

But no.

Just no.

We got this, whether people believe it or not.

Belief is not required.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Riffrafter

Let me get back to my laptop and I'll link the pdf I was using. It'll be a little bit but I'll get there.

No worries my friend.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Gryphon66

It actually only prevents you from placing nukes in orbit. You can still have your pew, pews!

Pew, pews represent an extremely small portion of space acquisition and R&D dollars.

True.

But yet pew pews are what we have in space now.

And it's all that's needed in case of...

So far, no pews have ever been needed. That's a *very* good thing.

Maybe we already have a space force,and this is actually a disclosure??

a reply to: Riffrafter

US Space System Competetiveness

This was published in October of 2017. It's pretty interesting to see the different prices of payloads.

a reply to: Riffrafter

I don't know.

I think it's kind of redundant.

U.S. Space Command

a reply to: reject

And there's Navy Space Command and Army Space Command. We don't need three of them, with overlapping missions, not talking to each other.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

Because the funds have to come from somewhere.
Unless the overall military budget is increased it means that funding for each service will have to be reduced to fund the SPACE (space...space...space) FORCE (force...force...force).

Or is there some interdimensional arithmetic involved?

But the upfront costs will be more than offset by eliminating the redundancies that exist between the divisions.

Specifically, exactly what redundancies exist?

Sorry if that was already answered, the thread's grown considerably since I last read it.

a reply to: Nyiah

A portion of the Air Force Space Command mission is also done by the Navy Space Command, and the missile defense portions are done by all three commands. A large part of their missions are not really talked about publicly, but they involve satellite reconnaissance as well as things like weather forecasting, and monitoring other satellites.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: reject

And there's Navy Space Command and Army Space Command. We don't need three of them, with overlapping missions, not talking to each other.

They could nuke us from orbit just to make sure.

OMG!! We all gonna die!!!


WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

Because the funds have to come from somewhere.
Unless the overall military budget is increased it means that funding for each service will have to be reduced to fund the SPACE (space...space...space) FORCE (force...force...force).

Or is there some interdimensional arithmetic involved?

But the upfront costs will be more than offset by eliminating the redundancies that exist between the divisions.

Specifically, exactly what redundancies exist?

Sorry if that was already answered, the thread's grown considerably since I last read it.

Actually it wasn't asked or answered - good question.

I'll let Zaph speak to the .mil aspects as he's far better versed in that than I am, but from a recon perspective, it's not just wasteful, it's flat out dumb and can even be dangerous.

We're all shooting images of the same patches of ground anyway for the most part. There's some coordination, but it isn't codified and depends greatly on who's working that shift. We can do better.

And metaphorically speaking we all worship in the same church anyway, we just sit in different pews. It's about time the congregation started talking. And in this case we can probably remove some of the pews and put in a Tiki bar or something.

Hey - that's a great idea terrestrially too. It might be just the thing that gets me back in church.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

Because the funds have to come from somewhere.
Unless the overall military budget is increased it means that funding for each service will have to be reduced to fund the SPACE (space...space...space) FORCE (force...force...force).

Or is there some interdimensional arithmetic involved?

But the upfront costs will be more than offset by eliminating the redundancies that exist between the divisions.

Specifically, exactly what redundancies exist?

Sorry if that was already answered, the thread's grown considerably since I last read it.

There were recently 60 some different organisations with a finger in the pie when it comes to our space assets! Sixty! That's from the GAO, two summers ago. The consensus is there are too many people who can say, "no*, and too few people with the authority to push for expansion of capabilities. Everyone sees the missions as vital (how much dependence do our branches have on GPS these days? Recon?), but when it comes to protecting those assets, making them survivable, being able to rapidly replace them, expanding capabilities, those voices get lost at the table when it comes time for budget priorities.

There has been a bipartisan push out of the Armed Forces Committee for a unified command structure. - ie, an independent space force. It's a thirty year old discussion. It was also one of the offered solutions from the GAO report (multiple actually, this being the most recent). The Pentagon will never do it willingly anymore than they happily created an independent air arm. So that's just noise.

originally posted by: Astrophysicist
Maybe we already have a space force,and this is actually a disclosure??

Yes, apparently there already is a significant Space presence.

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: Astrophysicist
Maybe we already have a space force,and this is actually a disclosure??

Yes, apparently there already is a significant Space presence.

Yup.

Now it's time to bring them all under the same umbrella and the same command.

Seriously tho?? Instead of finding and funding more exotic ways to kill our fellow man, we could use Space to collectively lift humanity into the next stage of civilization, there is mining to be done, building anti asteroid defense system plus a whole lotta stuff I can't even think of just now, why does it always have to be war!! Or the threat thereof.

a reply to: Spider879

Technology has no need to progress without war. That is and always has been.

The Air Force sent out a letter basically saying "We're going to slow roll the hell out of this directive".

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Spider879

Technology has no need to progress without war. That is and always has been.

Mostly true Big guy, but we need to change our out look on things or maybe the species to replace us could be cockroaches.. Oooh yucch!!