Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Space Force

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G David Bock
    replied
    One thing the "look out" function of a Space Force might deal with ....

    Not large enough for EOTWAWKI, nor Tunguska level destruction, but could still do some damage had it come closer enough to strike us.

    RV-size asteroid to get closer to Earth than the moon
    ...
    An asteroid will get awfully close to Earth this Thursday (Sept. 24), when it whizzes by our planet closer than the moon orbits.

    The asteroid — known as 2020 SW — isn't expected to collide with Earth, according to the Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. But it will get close, passing about 16,700 miles (27,000 kilometers) away from Earth, according to the Virtual Telescope Project.

    To put this in perspective, the moon hangs out at an average of 238,900 miles (384,000 km) from us, or about 30 Earths away. This asteroid will pass at a distance of about 2.1 Earths. This means that asteroid 2020 SW will pass even closer than TV and weather satellites, which orbit at about 22,300 miles (35,888 km) away from Earth, according to EarthSky.
    ....
    https://www.livescience.com/asteroid...than-moon.html

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Yes, the new Space Force is definitely in the news these days.

    The American people have been rocked by revelations that Galactus, god of oblivion, devourer of worlds, was detected today approaching our galaxy at a speed that can only be described as ludicrous. . . . .

    “I wanted to always play it down,” a smiling [Pres Donald] Trump told Fox and Friends. “But really, no President before me has better prepared the country to repel this big guy… Some folks call him Galactus, the hunger that does not cease, but I call him the big guy. I don’t want to scare people and create a panic.”

    The President cited the creation of Space Force and recently a UFO task force as further evidence of his preparation, which would cement his place as “the best president the country will have ever had.” Military leaders mumbled agreement while looking faintly embarrassed. . . . .

    In a campaign speech, former Vice President and avatar-in-training Joe Biden pledged to focus on ways of nullifying the existential threat, as well as promising fewer fires, floods, rockslides and tornado[e]s and a $10,000 world-devoured tax credit to families earning less than $175,000 per year.

    He also criticized the President’s inaction regarding Galactus the World Eater, and specifically questioned his recent decision to replace Dr. Reed Richards with Dr. Victor von Doom as UFO task force director.

    Critics complained that most of Biden’s speech was plagiarized from an Isaac Asimov novel. . . . .

    "Trump downplays impending arrival of Galactus, Devourer of Worlds," by Perpetual Captain, Duffel Blog, 23 Sep 2020

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
    More space news courtesy of our old friends at Strategy Page.

    https://strategypage.com/htmw/htspac.../20200921.aspx
    Now that's an interesting source and thanks for presenting. As an old subscriber to Strategy and Tactics, along with SPI games, I kick myself for not knowing about this site for all these years. Some familiar names from the past decades of military history and wargaming.

    Strategy Page
    The News as History
    (HOME): https://strategypage.com/strategytalk/default.aspx

    EXCERPT:
    About Us

    StrategyPage provides quick, easy access to what is going on in military affairs. We cover armed forces world wide, as well as up to date reporting on wars and hotspots wherever they may be. All the news you need, written so that it fits into the time you have for it. The information is organized logically, with categories for different weapons systems (armor, artillery, naval aviation, etc.). We also cover the software of war, often ignored items like leadership, peacetime operations, intelligence, information warfare and the like. And we keep the information online, with archives going back to the early 1980s. A search capability gives you quick access to whatever you need. We put it all in context with military history, maps, country background and useful links.

    Wars and rumors of war. Get it straight, get it fast at StrategyPage.com

    Editor in Chief
    Jim Dunnigan
    Contributing Editor Quick & Dirty Guide to War and On Point columnist
    Austin Bay
    Senior Editor and CIC columnist
    Al Nofi
    Publisher and StrategyWorld.com President
    Dan Masterson
    Staff biographies at the bottom of this page.
    ....
    https://strategypage.com/aboutus/default.aspx

    Leave a comment:


  • GCoyote
    replied
    More space news courtesy of our old friends at Strategy Page.

    https://strategypage.com/htmw/htspac.../20200921.aspx

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
    Some thoughts not just about the rank structure but about the mission.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...les-will-tell/
    Thanks for the interesting find of a thought provoking and insightful article. Select excerpts follow with my comments, in blue 'ink'.
    Title:
    Order from Chaos
    Is Space Force meant to “look down” or “look out”? Titles will tell
    Michael Sinclair
    Wednesday, September 16, 2020
    ....
    Actually, more than titles will tell ...
    ....
    Over the last two weeks, there has been much written about whether America’s fledgling Space Force should use naval ranks to organize its structure and hierarchy, or stick with the traditional rank titles of its parent service, the U.S. Air Force. The issue is subject to draft legislation that recently passed the House of Representatives (technically subtitle C of Title IX of the upcoming annual National Defense Authorization Act). This so-called “Starfleet Amendment” would require the Space Force to use naval ranks. There are principled, reasoned arguments on both sides, and even William Shatner, who for over 40 years has played the fictional Star Trek universe’s most famous and accomplished starship captain has weighed in — unsurprisingly in favor of incorporating a more sea-going rank structure.

    Those who argue in favor of keeping Air Force ranks — I’ll call them traditionalists for simplicity’s sake — generally believe that military space defense and control operations (and increasingly space dominance) has its roots primarily in the culture of the Air Force. Thus, to help protect the clear overlap between air and space missions, keeping the same rank structure makes the most sense to help facilitate close cooperation between the Air Force and the Space Force. There is also apparently some concern that trending too closely to science fiction tropes could undercut the legitimacy of the Space Force, just as it’s getting off the proverbial ground.

    On the other side of the argument, are those — let’s call them optimists — who are more interested in “leaning in” to the distinction between Space Force and Air Force missions and, for that matter, culture. In advocating on behalf of naval ranks, these optimists hope that doing so will help separate the Air Force and Space Force in much the same way that the Marine Corps (which uses a land-based rank structure that ostensibly has the advantage of facilitating operations with its Army counterparts) and Navy, are separate. More substantively, the optimists are also seemingly more likely to take a long view, in that they acknowledge that outer space, as a domain, shares more in common with the maritime than the air, and thus are thinking forward to a future that will no doubt include manned ships to undertake sea-power-like missions, where naval ranks would make more sense than land-based ranks.
    ....
    Some red highlights (click-links) will be found in original article, others are mine for emphasis.
    ....
    Leaving aside for now the relationship between the Space Force and Space Command, what underlies all of the discussion about which rank structure to use is the concern, on both sides, that this decision will help shape the culture, and in some respects, the likely functional prioritization of the service for the immediate years to come. That is of course the more important question, much more so than how we intend to refer to an E-5 or O-3 in the Space Force.
    ....
    There lies the main factor, the ranking and pay grades remain common to all USA military services, despite what "name" any may have.
    ....
    As the start to a solution, it may make sense to simply separate out functional areas using a broad distinction between “looking down” and “looking out.” The “looking down” mission space could include most of what the Air Force had been doing in space for more than the last 50 years — largely the exploitation of the domain to support terrestrial defense operations, be it advanced warning, missilry, ready access to precision navigation and timing information, communications, reconnaissance, imagery, or data collection/signals intelligence. This would also necessarily include the ability to defend against threats to these capabilities.

    Alternatively, “looking out” would capture the near future of space operations, likely starting with the inevitable increase in cislunar traffic between the Earth and the moon, some of which will be manned. As the future space operations — both civilian and military — extend outward, there will of course be a foreseeable need to project military power into the expanse, hortatory languageof the Outer Space Treaty notwithstanding.

    Further, applying this “looking down” versus “looking out” analytical paradigm may also help answer the question we started with regarding which rank structure to use, to which I’d propose: Why not both? Those Space Force members trained in executing “look down” missions could use a terrestrial rank structure because doing so marries nicely with their Air Force counterparts both in terms of mission execution and cultural legacy. And those who will eventually be trained to conduct “looking out” missions can use naval ranks, in recognition that “look down” functionality of the space domain is but one aspect of the broader potential of outer space. Both would be Space Force members, but their honorifics and titles would change based on their mission responsibilities, which could be visually depicted using easily distinguishable uniform patches or devices in addition to the traditional military collar insignia or striping. Indeed, developing uniformsthat employ either collar insignia or sleeve striping/shoulder boards may in fact be an easy way to accomplish this distinction in that the same uniform would simply use differing indicators of rank — collar devices for “look down”-type Space Force members and sleeve striping/shoulder boards for “look out”-type Space Force members.
    ....
    Use of a mission focus division of the two types of rank labeling makes sense to me, for now anyway. Down the road as the future developments play out, it could be revised if such is found essential.
    ....
    Ultimately, while the discussion over which type of rank structure the Space Force should use is interesting and arguably important to help shape the trajectory of the Space Force’s cultural identity, more pressing issues remain, including how the Space Force plans on collaborating with U.S. allies and other departments and agencies in the domain, the development of the necessary express statutory and legal authority to operate across the full spectrum of foreseeable space defense operations, deeper discussion on the interaction between commercial space and military space operations, realistic budgetary needs that will help insulate the Space Force from the specter of future de-prioritization within the Department of Defense, clarity around what role the Space Force will play in planetary defense, and of course furtherdoctrinal development. Thinking about organizing the Space Force using a “look down” and “look out” analytical paradigm may also help better frame these issues for further analysis as well.
    ....
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...les-will-tell/
    .........
    A couple of main areas of concern focus to me would be;
    1) The 'United States Space Force' (USSF) might likely be the core/foundation of a more organized international effort and organization along the lines of a space based "NATO" of sorts ....
    2) The matter of "planetary defense" would include more than just a terrestrial focus. While large object impacts may seem rather rare in regards to the last few years of human recorded history, on the geological timeline they are rather frequent and often have major consequences (impact, pun intended). Developing and deploying capabilities for detection, deflection and/or destruction of major impact threats from beyond Earth should be a primary reason for an 'Earth Defense Space Force' and such could also be a major persuasion factor for the establishment and funding of such.

    See this thread for more information and details;

    Impact ~ NEO; Near Earth Objects

    As for the commercial aspects and implications, these two threads are also great for additional information and considerations;






    Leave a comment:


  • GCoyote
    replied
    Some thoughts not just about the rank structure but about the mission.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...les-will-tell/

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Geopolitics & Space Force

    ....
    In the first half, geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert spoke about the creation of America's sixth branch of the military, the US Space Force, and why he believes it's the country's last chance to preserve the superpower status it fought two world wars and the Cold War to build. The Trump administration has done a lot to develop the Space Force (which was passed by an act of Congress), though another president might try to undercut the program from within, he cautioned. Weichert sees the 21st century as being all about space power and believes that maintaining and expanding such a force is essential. He suggested that Russia and China have already weaponized space to some degree in the form of co-orbital satellites that can tailgate US satellites and potentially push them out of their orbit.

    A potential war in space could knock out or disrupt cell phone service, he noted. In such a conflict, satellites could be attacked by lasers or missiles, and the subsequent debris field might damage additional orbiting objects. Eventually, he said, "we're going to need to develop a strategy for putting actual Space Force members in orbit to man military space stations," which would make it harder for countries like Russia and China to knock out US satellites. A deterrent to nuclear attacks, he added, would be putting up a viable space-based missile defense system. Weichert reported that China has become very interested in space-based solar power, and may want to use it to provide energy to contentious man-made islands in the South China Sea. Establishing a robust US Space Force, he added, will also be helpful for the burgeoning fields of space mining and tourism.
    ...
    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2020-09-09-show/

    See also;
    THE WEICHERT REPORT

    https://theweichertreport.wordpress.com/

    Space Force must make satellite defense a priority, ensuring protection against Russia and China


    In my July 13, 2020 op-ed for The Washington Times, I warn about the threat a Russian or Chinese Space Pearl Harbor–and advise the new Space Force how to best defend us from that.

    https://theweichertreport.wordpress....sia-and-china/

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Star Trek's Captain Kirk calls out Space Force in rank debate
    ....
    William Shatner, famous for his role as Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise on Star Trek, doesn't want to see a future where the real-life Space Force has colonels in command of spaceships.

    Shatner delivered an op-ed in Military Times on Wednesday titled "What the heck is wrong with you, Space Force?" It's even more entertaining if you imagine him reading it in his distinctive cadence and voice.

    The Canadian-born actor suggests Space Force should use a Navy-style rank (captain) for ship commanders rather than Air Force or Army nomenclature (where the equivalent rank is colonel). In the missive, he calls out the long history of captains on spaceships in science fiction. He even goes all the way back to seminal 1902 space film A Trip to the Moon, which featured a rocket captain.
    ....



    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...7?ocid=msnbcrd
    I'd say a mix would be best. Some navy-style rank for ship crews and command with Army / Marine ranks for other positions. Add in a set of purely technical ranks for those in support positions. This would give three career paths to people in the service that are separate and in turn allow each path to not have to compete with the other two.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Thing is that the movie "StarShipTroopers" had very little in common with the book. The book is a much better and thoughtful read.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    I always think of the 90s series 'Above and Beyond' when I think of Space Force. That or 'Star ship Troopers'.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    A good probability they might have to deal with this ...

    If: "The Truth is Out There" & includes a "Them" from other worlds ;



    There's a good chance that "politics" will enter the equation of Disclosure and Contact;
    ExoPolitics
    https://exopolitics.org/

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Star Trek's Captain Kirk calls out Space Force in rank debate
    ....
    William Shatner, famous for his role as Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise on Star Trek, doesn't want to see a future where the real-life Space Force has colonels in command of spaceships.

    Shatner delivered an op-ed in Military Times on Wednesday titled "What the heck is wrong with you, Space Force?" It's even more entertaining if you imagine him reading it in his distinctive cadence and voice.

    The Canadian-born actor suggests Space Force should use a Navy-style rank (captain) for ship commanders rather than Air Force or Army nomenclature (where the equivalent rank is colonel). In the missive, he calls out the long history of captains on spaceships in science fiction. He even goes all the way back to seminal 1902 space film A Trip to the Moon, which featured a rocket captain.
    ....



    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...7?ocid=msnbcrd

    Leave a comment:


  • lakechampainer
    replied
    Link to US Space Force Web Site.

    https://www.spaceforce.mil/
    Last edited by lakechampainer; 13 Aug 20, 07:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    The all US long-range ballistic missile units should be transferred as well. That would make the remaining USAF all but superfluous and as a service should be returned to control of the Army. I doubt the USN would miss having the SSBN's under their control, and the USAF units wouldn't be afterthoughts when it comes to career and promotion like they are now.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    See also, thread;

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X