New USAF Spacecraft flies to orbit 4/19

[CuttingEdge100]

Clint_G,

Better it happened on land, sea, and air than space, land, sea and air. Whoever dominates space dominates the whole world.

 

[sojourner]

Griffin, who wrote a textbook on spaceflight wanted Ares.
The USAF wanted EELVs.

Guess who got what they wanted.

Griffins merits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin

http://obamanasa.uservoice.com/foru...99437-mike-griffin-bs-ms-phd-meng-ms-mba-meng-

Griffin's blind pursuit of Ares was self defeating. If he had listened to his own damn engineers NASA would have abandoned Ares on it's own and switched to Direct/Jupiter. Now it's too late.

A better link for insights into the space program: www.nasaspaceflight.com
Read the forums there to see what the engineers think.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Clint_G,

Better it happened on land, sea, and air than space, land, sea and air. Whoever dominates space dominates the whole world.

The militarization of space is just another form of air superiority, which is just another version of "high ground" advanage. Iron-age armies used siege towers and/or Earthworks, walls, castles and hills to get this advantage. In WWI it was provided by biplanes and airships, and in WWII it was monoplanes and heavy bombers. Afterwards in Korea and Vietnam and other battlefields it was jet aircraft as well as helicopters. In the Gulf War, helicopters, satellites and TBMs. Now in the Global War of Terror it's provided by spy satellites and UCAVs.

Getting even higher ground for the release of weapons and/or observation wouldn't change anything about the reason for doing so, nor would it change the nature of warfare in any way shape or form. Primarily this is because nobody lives in space, therefore anyone who tries to militarize space does so strictly for the purpose of conducting war on Earth.

When we start colonizing the moon and Mars and building space outposts, THEN militarization becomes worrying. Not so much because it shouldn't be done, but because it is the inevitable first step towards many inevitable bad things.

 

[drychlick]

can't want to see it fly

 

[clint g]

Clint_G,

Better it happened on land, sea, and air than space, land, sea and air. Whoever dominates space dominates the whole world.

The militarization of space is just another form of air superiority, which is just another version of "high ground" advanage. Iron-age armies used siege towers and/or Earthworks, walls, castles and hills to get this advantage. In WWI it was provided by biplanes and airships, and in WWII it was monoplanes and heavy bombers. Afterwards in Korea and Vietnam and other battlefields it was jet aircraft as well as helicopters. In the Gulf War, helicopters, satellites and TBMs. Now in the Global War of Terror it's provided by spy satellites and UCAVs.

Getting even higher ground for the release of weapons and/or observation wouldn't change anything about the reason for doing so, nor would it change the nature of warfare in any way shape or form. Primarily this is because nobody lives in space, therefore anyone who tries to militarize space does so strictly for the purpose of conducting war on Earth.

When we start colonizing the moon and Mars and building space outposts, THEN militarization becomes worrying. Not so much because it shouldn't be done, but because it is the inevitable first step towards many inevitable bad things.

Yep. Also, I think people are looking at this too narrowly if they think military involvement in space is a bad thing. Were already seeing some benefits in the form of things like GPS.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Newtype Alpha,

Yeah, but if you were able to secretly position a certain number of weaponized satellites (they need-not be nuclear and thus would not violate the 1967 Outer-Space treaty. I should note that there has been a lot of money poured into laser development, and we're not just talking about the huge chemical laser aboard the YAL-1, but more compact, efficient, solid-state lasers and other such devices.) into space in key positions you could pretty much deny flight to any nation on earth (except yours) which could also double as a missile-shield, as well as rain death on any target on the globe. You could completely dominate the globe.

If I was the head of a country, I'd love to have that kind of power -- as most true heads of state would; if I was the head of an opposing country, I'd want to high-tail it and develop such weapons of my own as fast as I could to allow myself to protect myself from them, as would most developed nations. With that said, we would have a new cold-war. To make such matters even worse, since spaceborne weapons of this type would allow one nation to completely dominate the globe (as well as protect themselves from any missile threat no matter how large), other nations might decide to preemptively attack the nation developing such spaceborne weapons so as to prevent them from being able to get the system online and dominate the globe, thus turning this cold-war into a hot-war.

This is why I'm opposed to weaponizing space.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Newtype Alpha,

Yeah, but if you were able to secretly position a certain number of weaponized satellites (they need-not be nuclear and thus would not violate the 1967 Outer-Space treaty. I should note that there has been a lot of money poured into laser development, and we're not just talking about the huge chemical laser aboard the YAL-1, but more compact, efficient, solid-state lasers and other such devices.) into space in key positions you could pretty much deny flight to any nation on earth (except yours) which could also double as a missile-shield, as well as rain death on any target on the globe. You could completely dominate the globe.

It's extremely clear to me you haven't thought this idea through very well, since you are seriously overlooking the twin problems that 1) it would take a FUCKING ENORMOUS amount of satellites to produce anywhere near that kind of functionality and 2) it is much much easier for people on the ground to shoot down space craft than it is for space craft to shoot people on the ground.

For that matter, there's no logical reason why "weaponized satellites" would be more efficient in this task than, say, a massive fleet of UCAVs with stealth characteristics, or the fortuitous positioning of an aircraft carrier and/or U.S. military base in just about every country on Earth. And even that ignores the fact that total domination of the globe or even of a particular region usually boils down to the exploitation of natural resources, population control or strategic positioning against one's enemies, NONE of which can be accomplished via satellite.

If I was the head of a country, I'd love to have that kind of power -- as most true heads of state would

Most heads of state would also like a billion dollar paycheck and a blowjob from Zoe Saldana, but there are alot of practical reasons why obtaining such a thing is massively infeasible.

The overall point is that "the weaponization of space" is little different from the weaponization of the air, only it's a lot more expensive and a lot less useful. It really only becomes an issue when one speaks of the NUCLEAR weaponization of space, in which case the problem word is "nuclear," and the fact that these weapons are in space is pretty much irrelevant (India and Pakistan have ICBMs in hidden pontoons on the bottom of the sea; same difference if they were in orbit, except orbiting missile platforms are alot easier to destroy).

This is why I am not concerned about the weaponization of space until and unless somebody lives in space. When that happens, I'm not worried about the domination of Earth by space weapons, since you cannot dominate a country just by flying over it (you can't even do that with conventional aircraft, let alone space ships). I worry about the domination of spaceborne communities by Earth-bound governments using military power projection to impose colonial policies outside the atmosphere and export the various petty rivalries of the nations into their proxies in space. THAT possibility worries me, because it means the exploitation of space is reduced to yet another battleground for the pettiness of politicians, and space exploration is too important a thing to be sidetracked into all that bullshit.

 

[publiusr]

A better link for insights into the space program: www.nasaspaceflight.com
Read the forums there to see what the engineers think.

Griffin is an engineer with more street cred than Jim from there--he wouldn't back up some of the Ares bashing claims, said that Delta IVs black zones had been closed out when that is still not the case, ignored Ares V's engine-out capability, and wouldn't back up other arguements as I did over at Bad Astronomy Universe today's forum. You remember me and how I posted links on ULA's own man doubting refueling depots, Delta IV's disposal issues and so forth.

If you dispute ULA hype like I did on nasaspaceflight.com, you get thrown off the board like I did by Chris, even though he initially thanked me in a PM for popularizing his site in its early days. I still have the knife in my spine as it were. Antice and others at www.bautforum.com saw that I was very careful in posting links that engineer Griffin knew what he was doing. Ares I I'm agnostic on--but Ares V is a must. The Presidents' speech just called for a make work study prgram on heavy Lift that will result in a sub-par shuttle C. Hanley himself explained in one of my links why Ares V was superior.

Cutting edge, I wouldn't worry about weaponizing space anytime soon. Space advocates are somewhere below the janitor in the Pentagon's pecking order. Let's say Ares V placed a handful of massive space based lasers in orbit that could instantly strike targets on the ground as soon as they were spotted. Missiles could be lased perhaps on the ground. Or Kascade type rods from god proposals launched by HLLVs

Fighter jocks would be out of work. That's why space won't be weaponized--as it would actually be LESS expensive than the current Cold War/WWII-level logistical monster that is America's military Industrial complex. We have multi-billion dollar carriers launching 200 million dollar airplanes to drop million dollar munitions atop the heads of a few insurgents wearing rags. Coyote Smith and others who wanted SPSS systems were ignored.

 

[MANT!]

More information..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

this appears to be a major program...larger in scope to that previously reported...

 

[BolianAuthor]

Why in the world would you want to launch a fifty million dollar satellite to spy on Americans? That's like me buying a Blackhawk helicopter just so I can fly my kids to school.

Of course we all know the one thing government would NEVER do, is waste money...

 

[Enrage]

Clint_G,

Better it happened on land, sea, and air than space, land, sea and air. Whoever dominates space dominates the whole world.

Really?

I'd say we are dominating in space vis-a-vis the Taliban and their supporters. It sure has helped us win a quick victory in A-stan.

To dominate the world, you need millions upon millions of soldiers on the ground, making things happen. You can't do that in space.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Indeed, you can't even dominate an entire country purely through air superiority (it's been tried MANY times, and it's never worked so far). You can terrorize a country, sure. Kill its citizens, definitely. Bankrupt it, absolutely. The problem is your enemies can do all of the same to you with a couple of precocious guerillas and a bomb maker.

Even in Star Trek, it's probably the case that space superiority is only the first step to supporting a concerted GROUND operation. No matter how good your sensors are, you can't control a planet without actually standing on it and directly bossing around the people who live there.

 

[MANT!]

Clint_G,

Better it happened on land, sea, and air than space, land, sea and air. Whoever dominates space dominates the whole world.

Really?

I'd say we are dominating in space vis-a-vis the Taliban and their supporters. It sure has helped us win a quick victory in A-stan.

To dominate the world, you need millions upon millions of soldiers on the ground, making things happen. You can't do that in space.

Sorry, but "Millions and Millions?...not really..

But I really think you should read the following quote from Lyndon Johnson..

And as I was sayin', whoever controls the high ground of space controls the world. The Roman Empire controlled the world because it could build roads. Later, the British Empire was dominant because they had ships. In the Air Stage, we were powerful because we had the airplane. And now the Communists have established a foothold in outer space. Pretty soon they'll have damned space platforms so they can drop nuclear bombs on us, like rocks from a highway overpass.

Control of space makes lesser numbers of ground troops more effective..by intelligence, navigation, and communication..so one doesn't need "millions and millions" of ground troops to secure an area..

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Clint_G,

Better it happened on land, sea, and air than space, land, sea and air. Whoever dominates space dominates the whole world.

Really?

I'd say we are dominating in space vis-a-vis the Taliban and their supporters. It sure has helped us win a quick victory in A-stan.

To dominate the world, you need millions upon millions of soldiers on the ground, making things happen. You can't do that in space.

Sorry, but "Millions and Millions?...not really..

But I really think you should read the following quote from Lyndon Johnson..

And as I was sayin', whoever controls the high ground of space controls the world. The Roman Empire controlled the world because it could build roads. Later, the British Empire was dominant because they had ships. In the Air Stage, we were powerful because we had the airplane. And now the Communists have established a foothold in outer space. Pretty soon they'll have damned space platforms so they can drop nuclear bombs on us, like rocks from a highway overpass.

Control of space makes lesser numbers of ground troops more effective..by intelligence, navigation, and communication..so one doesn't need "millions and millions" of ground troops to secure an area..

To be clear, goldbug: you need millions and millions of ground troops to secure AN ENTIRE PLANET (and at least a million to dominate a country the size of Iraq, hence our present status of "epic fail").

Even Johnson is obviously exaggerating when he says the Roman Empire controlled "the world." They controlled their little sphere of influence, sure, but they still ended up getting their asses kicked by the Huns.

Having control of space might make that somewhat easier, in the same way that having a baseball bat might make it easier to win a fight with Mike Tyson.

 

[clint g]

what newtype says is absolutely key. You will never control a country without having an overwhelming amount of soldiers on the ground. In sci-fi you can have giant space lasers and what not that can cause you to win but in reality space is utilized in a completely different way to help win wars. Space based assets are a tool to help ensure that soldiers on the ground receive accurate information and that's a bout it. Maybe within the next hundred years it will also be utilized to project power. It definitely will not be the means by which a country can dominate the world though.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

what newtype says is absolutely key. You will never control a country without having an overwhelming amount of soldiers on the ground. In sci-fi you can have giant space lasers and what not that can cause you to win but in reality space is utilized in a completely different way to help win wars. Space based assets are a tool to help ensure that soldiers on the ground receive accurate information and that's a bout it. Maybe within the next hundred years it will also be utilized to project power. It definitely will not be the means by which a country can dominate the world though.

But I have to go back to what I said earlier (a point that was, I admit, more of an afterthought) that when we start having countries IN SPACE, then domination of the world becomes possible. In this case, only because access to space-based resources might become important enough to terrestrial nations that their orbiting counterparts are able to use the restriction thereof to gain POLITICAL dominance.

That can become the root of many wars, firstly when orbiting nation states decide they want to have a monopoly on space's resources, and secondly when terrestrial nations decide they want a bigger share. It becomes possible in that case for Earth politics and governance to be dominated by weaponized space-based governments or even dominated by whoever on Earth has the best space force (and therefore, the best access to, say, the Moon's helium-3 reservoirs) but that kind of weaponization is a FAR cry from mere air superiority being discussed here.

 

[clint g]

Hence why I put my caveat about the next hundred years Some of the fears being brought up in this thread are so far off in the future that it's hardly worth worrying about right now. I'll deal with that what if's involved with space colonization when it looks like it might happen