I'm proposing a discussion on 45's push to create a U.S. Space Force. Whether it will happen is yet to be decided. What could it look like in organizational terms and resources? What capabilities woud it need to stand on its own if there was a will and a need to do so? How will it break apart components from other branches of the U.S. armed services?

And most importantly, what could its primary mission be?

I'm all for a Space Force and allocating more military resources to space. It could mean giant leaps in technology. Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will oversee the creation of the U.S. Space Force, so it's in good hands.

There's already an international ban on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in space.

But there are other types of weapons that could be stationed in space. Project Thor is one of them. The problem with Project Thor was the cost of launching ammo to space. But that cost is going down significantly with multiple use launch vehicles.

I am against it, however if done, I think last year's congressional proposal of a Space Corps, under the Dept of the Air Force (similar to the Marine Corps being part of the Navy Dept.) as that allows slightly better budget sharing and coordination in my opinion.

JetBuddy wrote:

It could mean giant leaps in technology.

Physics is Physics is Physics. The cost of a rocket launch for a large mass object (manned spacecraft or ~18 Ton robotic/unmanned orbiter) to LEO is still in the hundreds of millions per instance. What would be the size of a recurring budget for launches to maintain operational tempo? I read on this forum complaints of F-35 costs vs. capability. What are the proposals to sustain possibly mega millions to provide a continuous presence up there.

We don't have Space 1999 Eagles in the production lines. (Remember? http://www.collectormodel.com/round2-models/2448-space1999-models-22-eagle-update/). Besides they were designed by the British And I used to own an Eagle model ... and they were the coolest design ever, apart from Rangers in Interstellar. So what is going to be our possible chariot to the space battlefield?
.

"Space Force" is both a dumb name and a poor choice for a name. Of course this is Trump and he likes whatever and makes up whatever he wants and doesn't care about discussing with others for details, money, or budget, or treaties, or partners etc. I suspect he envisions a USA led "Space Thing" made up of other subjugate nations driving into space and defending earth and most importantly the USA, etc. (its all in his mind). And of course if anyone disagrees he'll double down and call it something worse ("US Space Defense and Settlement Force"). I doubt he really understands that the desire and hope of the world is to not militarize space (and more importantly even if he did understand he won't support that or care, he will state the "obvious fact" that it'll happen anyway and we'd better be the ones leading it.... etc).

The Air Force already has a good name and group for what has been the US military's connection to space: Space Command
A coordinating command that works to ensure the aspects the military needs addressed in space or by spaced based elements are covered and managed appropriately. They work with partner nations and within agreed protocol to achieve the needed goals. Without directly militarizing space.

Tugg

I think Space Force will look a lot like the Air Force, but with gold-plated toilets on the rockets...

They should get FN90 weapons, grey uniforms and a patch showing a pyramid and a circle.

The last thing we need is to militarize and weaponize space.

Not that this is anything more than another publicity stunt/ego trip from a President who has, once again, absolutely no clue what he's on about and no serious or informed advisor on the subject. Just as everything else he comes up with, this is just whatever came off the top of his head and sounded cool to him.

His dictatorial tendencies also tend to steer him towards an even more militarized state.

Not to mention that there is no way the US would be able to fund that, seeing how he's working hard to decrease federal revenue and pushing to massively increase military spending already.

If he wants to spend money the US doesn't have on an ego-boosting space project, why doesn't he fund a moon research base?
That would give him the credit he so craves and be helpful to humankind as a whole...

Any military force in space should be run by the UN. I am all for travelling through space for QRFs to get to the other side of the globe in the future by any nation, but not a dedicated force to control space itself. Space should be left alone for human exploration, not an extension of mans wars.

Tugger wrote:

The Air Force already has a good name and group for what has been the US military's connection to space: Space Command

All this effort so airmen can wear flight suits again...

Francoflier wrote:

If he wants to spend money the US doesn't have on an ego-boosting space project, why doesn't he fund a moon research base?
That would give him the credit he so craves and be helpful to humankind as a whole...

The US wants to be (global) Dom not Scientist.

seahawk wrote:

They should get FN90 weapons, grey uniforms and a patch showing a pyramid and a circle.

A matured MacGyver Canuk lead wouldn't be en vogue in this MAGA environment.

It will certainly look like this:

Will not happen, even the Pentagon is against it. I think people are just shaking their heads and leave it at that.

Francoflier wrote:

The last thing we need is to militarize and weaponize space.

Space is already weaponized and militarized.

TWA772LR wrote:

Any military force in space should be run by the UN.

The UN should not run anything. They've lost all credibility over the last 15 years and should be defunded.

Dutchy wrote:

Will not happen, even the Pentagon is against it. I think people are just shaking their heads and leave it at that.

I believe it will happen, but maybe not as a seperate "Space Force" on equal terms with the Air Force. Maybe a "Space Corps" under the Air Force, just like the Marines under the Navy is more realistic.

Gotta love them space uniforms....

Of course they will be screwed up by the US military:
https://taskandpurpose.com/pentagon-sil ... -uniforms/

, past attempts by military branches to introduce new uniforms, the product invariably looks closer to something The Evil Intergalactic Empire would field than Jedi Knight attire. Consider this 2006 picture of two airmen wearing the proposed Billy Mitchell heritage coat became an internet sensation after someone inserted Darth Vader into the photo.

“That’s the silliest thing in the world,” Rogers said during a Feb. 28 panel discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington. “It’s the Air Force. Air Force got blue uniforms? Make the space corps black. Everything else be the same, except instead of having wings you’ll have an orbit or something. I don’t care. Done. It’s over.”

I mean the uniforms of course should look something like these:


or

or maybe




or perhaps even:


Tugg

JetBuddy wrote:

Space is already weaponized and militarized.

The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.

Tugger wrote:

Gotta love them space uniforms....

There seems to exist some inner yearning to reflect what you are on the outside.
Appearance is not accidental

Francoflier wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Space is already weaponized and militarized.

The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.

Yes, as far as the public knows. But there are many reports and rumors about weapons in space, some more believable than others. It would really surprise me if the Chinese or Russians hadn't already put a weapon system of some sort in space, at least for testing purposes.. We know Soviet Union experimented with it during the Cold War. And probably the Americans as well.

Francoflier wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Space is already weaponized and militarized.

The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.

Would surprise me immensly if the US don't already have something up there.

More than likely he received a good piece of intelligence that China intends on creating a "Space Force" and he's just getting the ball rolling so that we can stay competitive. Same with the tariffs, a lot of the moves you will see from this administration is the US finally making the Pacific Pivot to contain China's rise. Always gotta look at the bigger picture.

Francoflier wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Space is already weaponized and militarized.

The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.

Mortyman wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Space is already weaponized and militarized.

The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.

Would surprise me immensly if the US don't already have something up there.

I'm doubtful there is anything permanent up there but I would say the X-37 shows how the US could probably maintain a weaponized presence if they chose to.

JetBuddy wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Space is already weaponized and militarized.

The only military presence in space are spy and military communication satellites. There are no weapons systems deployed in space, at least as far as the public is aware.

Yes, as far as the public knows. But there are many reports and rumors about weapons in space, some more believable than others. It would really surprise me if the Chinese or Russians hadn't already put a weapon system of some sort in space, at least for testing purposes.. We know Soviet Union experimented with it during the Cold War. And probably the Americans as well.

The Soviets did mount a modified TU-22M tail gunner cannon on to an Almaz space station. I believe it managed to successfully destroy an old satellite in a test.
https://www.google.com/amp

DigitalSea wrote:

More than likely he received a good piece of intelligence that China intends on creating a "Space Force" and he's just getting the ball rolling so that we can stay competitive. Same with the tariffs, a lot of the moves you will see from this administration is the US finally making the Pacific Pivot to contain China's rise. Always gotta look at the bigger picture.

Indeed, the bigger picture

I think this particular administration seems more pr-savvy than intelligence-savvy. While developing and testing some space weapons might actually make military sense, if you are looking for rationale for the creation of these forces, you'll probably find it more in the area of how it will look to the public, and whether it can focus discussion on this action rather than some other issue.

DigitalSea wrote:

More than likely he received a good piece of intelligence that China intends on creating a "Space Force" and he's just getting the ball rolling so that we can stay competitive. Same with the tariffs, a lot of the moves you will see from this administration is the US finally making the Pacific Pivot to contain China's rise. Always gotta look at the bigger picture.

Yep, if there's not already a secret "Space Force", I'm pretty sure it's inevitable. I understand those who are concerned about militarization of space, but I'm pretty sure it has already happened.

Ozair wrote:

I'm doubtful there is anything permanent up there but I would say the X-37 shows how the US could probably maintain a weaponized presence if they chose to.

Definately!

TWA772LR wrote:

The Soviets did mount a modified TU-22M tail gunner cannon on to an Almaz space station. I believe it managed to successfully destroy an old satellite in a test.
https://www.google.com/amp

Yes I saw that in a documentary I believe. It worked perfectly.

AirlineCritic wrote:

Indeed, the bigger picture

I think this particular administration seems more pr-savvy than intelligence-savvy. While developing and testing some space weapons might actually make military sense, if you are looking for rationale for the creation of these forces, you'll probably find it more in the area of how it will look to the public, and whether it can focus discussion on this action rather than some other issue.

I'm very happy this administration is more space focused than the previous one, at least publically. With the re-creation of the Space Council, clear goals of creating a moon base and setting foot on Mars, it's clear that this is a focus area. Trump even said he'd be happy if one of the "rich guys", meaning Bezos or Musk goes to Mars before any government missions reaches the same goal.

You might be right that it's mostly PR, but either way it's a good thing in my opinion.

A truly space cadet bone spurs idea !

boacvc10 wrote:

I'm proposing a discussion on 45's push to create a U.S. Space Force. Whether it will happen is yet to be decided. What could it look like in organizational terms and resources? What capabilities woud it need to stand on its own if there was a will and a need to do so? How will it break apart components from other branches of the U.S. armed services?

And most importantly, what could its primary mission be?

I have two thoughts on this. One, it's a shiny metal object being used to distract us. Two, how much would this boondoggle cost and where are you going to get the money for it? IMHO you either raise taxes or take it out of the three branches share of the DOD budget.

LMP737 wrote:

boacvc10 wrote:

I'm proposing a discussion on 45's push to create a U.S. Space Force. Whether it will happen is yet to be decided. What could it look like in organizational terms and resources? What capabilities woud it need to stand on its own if there was a will and a need to do so? How will it break apart components from other branches of the U.S. armed services?

And most importantly, what could its primary mission be?

I have two thoughts on this. One, it's a shiny metal object being used to distract us. Two, how much would this boondoggle cost and where are you going to get the money for it? IMHO you either raise taxes or take it out of the three branches share of the DOD budget.

I believe there already is a military space program. Trillions of USD go missing to various Pentagon "black budgets" that nobody can account for. By creating a Space Force, I think Trump will force some of this to the surface.

The Pentagon Black Budget: $21 Trillion Dollars Gone Missing
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-penta ... ng/5623553

For those interested Aviation Week discussed the "Space Corp/Force" this week in their Check 6 podcast. Puts a bit more context to the creation as well as the reasons for it. You can access it at the link below and is approx 10 minutes in length.

http://aviationweek.com/check-6-podcast

Things I noted was the initial plan to move to a Space Corp managed by the USAF but separate in its intent similar to the USN/USMC and move from there to a separate branch "Space Force" a few years after that. It appears that Trump has decided going to the separate branch straight away would be the intent. The Space Force will not subsume the Intelligence Space Mission (NRO) but roll up the separate space capabilities of the services and essentially function as a service provider. Finally the intent is to ensure space is prioritised and speed up development and acquisition, which is according to the Senator is not currently so via the USAF managed programs, as well as create a cadre of space focused professionals who can move through the ranks all the way to general in space orientated roles.

In that context, I see some merit to the concept if it can break away from the current procurement quagmire. Not confident that will happen though.

Francoflier wrote:

Not that this is anything more than another publicity stunt/ego trip from a President who has, once again, absolutely no clue what he's on about and no serious or informed advisor on the subject. Just as everything else he comes up with, this is just whatever came off the top of his head and sounded cool to him.

I respectfully disagree. I think this is a concept that has been brewing and been waiting for someone to float a trial balloon in public. And President Trump will definitely fly a trial balloon! However, whether it actually gets anywhere, as with most trial balloons in the past year and a half, is very much to be seen. I'm looking in the direction of USAF and how much squirming they are doing in their chairs: USAF Space Command dominates the other services and believes itself to pretty much carry the Space Banner for the military. I would think the USAF brass would be thinking along the lines of "over my cold dead body" and so bureaucratic sluggishness and backpedaling may try to deflate this trial balloon.

Besides, NASA can tell you all about one critical problem: the wide gulf between space dreams and space budget. NASA itself gets grandiose direction but it has never been matched with serious $$$ - at least not since the 1970s when NASA sold the nation on the Space Shuttle. I would fear that a Space Force would suffer from the same problem. Big dreamy plans that are actually uneconomical and a budget only big enough to let it wiggle a bit.

Ozair wrote:

In that context, I see some merit to the concept if it can break away from the current procurement quagmire. Not confident that will happen though.

No confidence here about that. That is Air Force bureaucracy at work, which is ensconced in the system, and the USAF rule book would be the first thing to make the jump into Space Force.

The reluctance of the pentagon (specifically the USAF) to support a type of space force is quite similar to the army's objections post world war 1 when it was suggested we create an air force.

I'm in favor of first moving to a space corp with eventual divestiture and formation of a space force (or whatever you want to call it). I think it will help spear head the focus and intent of our mission in space as well as help consolidate and make more efficient the existing missions being performed across the services. It would also help draw visibility to the money spent in space. Now it's buried in the budgets of the various branches.

I'm usually in favor of shrinking things down, but in this case I can see multiple positive out comes.

I have yet to hear anyone talk about how this is all going to be paid for.

LMP737 wrote:

I have yet to hear anyone talk about how this is all going to be paid for.

Mexico will pay for it, believe me!

Moose135 wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

I have yet to hear anyone talk about how this is all going to be paid for.

Mexico will pay for it, believe me!

I don't believe you.
The Martians will be the ones forced to pay.

neutrino wrote:

Moose135 wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

I have yet to hear anyone talk about how this is all going to be paid for.

Mexico will pay for it, believe me!

I don't believe you.
The Martians will be the ones forced to pay.

I may get shot for suggesting this but I don't think the idea of the service being funded by commercial sources is crazy. How about a small levy on every GPS device sold above a certain dollar threshold? That should provide sufficient capital and ongoing revenue to a service who may end up maintaining the navstar constellation anyway.

Awesome ! Now only find the enemy justifying it.

JetBuddy wrote:

I'm all for a Space Force and allocating more military resources to space. It could mean giant leaps in technology. Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will oversee the creation of the U.S. Space Force, so it's in good hands.

There's already an international ban on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in space. .

Space weapons are a good way to bankrupt a country.

You shoot at someone, hit, and according to the Space Liability Convention you get to pay for the damage you have caused.

Best regards
Thomas

Good. About time he does something about the arachnid threat. The only good bug, is a dead bug!

Ozair wrote:

I may get shot for suggesting this but I don't think the idea of the service being funded by commercial sources is crazy. How about a small levy on every GPS device sold above a certain dollar threshold? That should provide sufficient capital and ongoing revenue to a service who may end up maintaining the navstar constellation anyway.

Would only work to a certain extent. GPS has to compete with GLONASS (free), BeiDou (free) and Galileo (free down to a certain precision). A pricing model similar to Galileo might be worth looking into though. Would you like to know more?

tommy1808 wrote:

You shoot at someone, hit, and according to the Space Liability Convention you get to pay for the damage you have caused.

Best regards
Thomas

I have a suspicion that's not gonna happen in reality.

JetBuddy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You shoot at someone, hit, and according to the Space Liability Convention you get to pay for the damage you have caused.

Best regards
Thomas

I have a suspicion that's not gonna happen in reality.

In that case the country not paying will default, that happens when you have debts and don´t pay, and stop having an economy

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You shoot at someone, hit, and according to the Space Liability Convention you get to pay for the damage you have caused.

Best regards
Thomas

I have a suspicion that's not gonna happen in reality.

In that case the country not paying will default, that happens when you have debts and don´t pay, and stop having an economy

best regards
Thomas

You think the U.S. economy would default if they used a weapon based in space? I'm not sure if you're serious or not. Just because a clause is written in an international treaty document somewhere, doesn't mean it will actually be effective. You have too much faith in supranational organizations.

If the Project Thor program is already in effect, and Mad Dog Mattis told the generals to shoot a tungsten rod into a nuclear site in North Korea, the U.S. economy won't go bankrupt. They would not pay for the nuclear site either.

JetBuddy wrote:

...the U.S. economy won't go bankrupt. They would not pay for the nuclear site either.

This isn't about international institutions, this is about courts. Federal judges in the US have to apply US law in a way that doesn't violate international law. International law says the US has to pay. US government refuses to pay, and automatically defaults like Argentina. They where not bankrupt at that time either.
I know international enforcement mechanisms are almost non-existend, but do I do think most judges apply the law, and in this case that says pay.
North Korea may be one of the few states outcast enough to get away with it, but in most other cases you'd pay up or many fonds and such won't be buying treasury bonds anymore, because they legally can't.

Best regards
Thomas

Ozair wrote:

I may get shot for suggesting this but I don't think the idea of the service being funded by commercial sources is crazy. How about a small levy on every GPS device sold above a certain dollar threshold? That should provide sufficient capital and ongoing revenue to a service who may end up maintaining the navstar constellation anyway.

The United States in reality can't afford the military it has now. That however does not stop it from flushing billions of dollars down the drain on one boondoggle after another. Nor does it show any interest in paying for it all. So the idea it can afford "Space Force" is ludicrous.

keesje wrote:

Awesome ! Now only find the enemy justifying it.

We'll find one, trust me.

tommy1808 wrote:

Federal judges in the US have to apply US law in a way that doesn't violate international law.

This must be you believing you know everything about the US and its problems sitting in your basement in Germany after visiting the US once. As usual, your perceptions are wrong. There is no such requirement.

https://www.cfr.org/interview/supreme-c ... tional-law

-or-

The Supreme Court as a Filter Between International Law and ...
scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4344...californialawreview
by CA Bradley - ‎2016 - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
Dec 1, 2016 - This Essay describes and defends the Supreme Court's role as a filter between international law and the American constitutional system. In this role, the Court ensures that when international law passes into the U.S. legal system, it does so in a manner consistent with domestic constitutional values.

tommy1808 wrote:

This isn't about international institutions, this is about courts. Federal judges in the US have to apply US law in a way that doesn't violate international law. International law says the US has to pay. US government refuses to pay, and automatically defaults like Argentina. They where not bankrupt at that time either.

That's not true at all. For the USA or for any sovereign nation. For judges in the USA, including the USSC, the requirement is to not violate the US constitution as current interpreted. I suspect that the EU also doesn't require to follow "international law". And this is simply because there is no "sovereign international law", just treaties that nations will follow for international (inter-nation) disputes and legal issues.

Tugg

I'm all for the US Space Force. Space Dominance is what has allowed us to keep such a watchful eye over the world. With it getting cluttered with adversaries, we'll need to take a step back and re-evaluate our methods of control. (Of course, I'm welcoming Ozair's input on this subject because he's always a source of plentiful knowledge on these forums. Please do post in response to this!)