Trump's Space Force

[Mikeallison]

I feel like this topic hasn't gotten the attention it deserves with all the other political shenanigans going on at the moment. Space Marines are one of my favorite Sci Fi tropes from childhood, but I'm far from sold on the idea being implemented at the moment (or ever).

What do you guys think?

[jacob]

This is---within the universe of my perception of future probability space/distribution---actually a good idea and way overdue!

There are two issues, namely, outward facing and inward facing.

Outward facing relates to interplanetary threats aka comets and asteroids. Right now humans are running blind and have no way to defend the planet against civilization killing events ( think Jurassic extinction). We're one killshot away from being the last of the mammalian line.

Inward facing relates to commanding the high ground. Space weapons (currently against treaty) would constitute a significant and permanent advantage to whoever gets there first. Smart nations would likely already be installing these [in orbit or on the moon] because once one nation takes control, it would be hard to wrest it away once taken. It's hard to get things into orbit if someone can shoot everything down from above.

That said ... we have way bigger/destructive problems on the surface. So in terms of day-to-day politics, the space force is a mere distraction compared to the continuous punting on climate change and demographic issues. If we can't even control our own numbers and pollution what business do we have in space anyway?

Basically, space is for the adult stage of a species ... but humans are still acting like baby-teenagers on the surface---a lot closer to being deer or yeast than being an interplanetary species ... so ... priorities, first.

[Mikeallison]

@Jacob

Ya, my biggest issue with it is the priorities part, seems like we have more than we can handle here on earth at the moment. I also worry about the militarization of space while we are still at each other's throats (although maybe it would act in the role of deterrent, like nukes?)

The nerd in me loves the idea though. If you were at the helm, how would you allocate the funding? Asteroid defense first?

[IlliniDave]

No idea what the new branch's charter will be. Satellites are vulnerable from the ground. I expect priority one would be trying to protect space-based infrastructure.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/2 ... shootdown/

Priority 2 would likely be a rejuvenation of Reagan's "Star Wars" (SDI) anti-ballistic missile capability.

I don't know how much of a priority space-ground offensive capability is, or how practical.

I'd be more interested in setting up an early warning and anti-meteor/asteroid capability, but no one asked me.

Guys fighting with light sabres is a way off, I'm afraid.

[prognastat]

@jacob

I agree with most of this in that having a larger investment in space would actually be good as it would hopefully increase funding an interest in things such as the comets and asteroids you mention and other possible extinction events caused by external factors which would be good. Also hopefully it would increase an interest in cleaning up our orbit from some more debris as it would be a hindrance to the military which would be beneficial to other space programs such as NASA.

Although having weapons in space can be helpful unless you have a weaponised satellite already in and orbit that passed over a target it is much slower to deploy than an ICBM and you don't get much more destructive than the nuclear ICBMs we already currently have and despite some close calls we are still trucking despite this. Also as mentioned you don't want to be the second one to decide to militarise space if it's going to happen.

[jacob]

In terms of shooting things down from above, think from geosynchronous orbit. This is hard to reach from the ground. However, it's easy to reach the ground from above. You can reach select targets on the ground with a few guiding thrusters. Think of it as a sticked spaceX landing with a tungsten crowbar++++++kinetic energy(*). This would be an new kind of warfare. Like super-droning power. Whoever gets there would have a de facto hegemony for non-nuclear activities. It's MAD assured: You abide or everybody dies.

(*) Whatever comes out of GMm/R-GMm/r

[The Old Man]

Back in the old days, the Air Force element (i.e. aircraft) were contained within the Army (Army Air Corps) and the Navy (Naval Aviation). The Army Air Corps eventually became the Air Force. As far as the Naval Aviation I am uncertain if any elements (i.e. land based aircraft) were transferred over to the Air Force.


These days there are very substantial space forces contained within the Air Force and Navy (although I am uncertain about the Army). It would only make sense to consolidate all the space forces into a separate service, much as was previously done for the aircraft forces.

[daylen]

Neil deGrasse Tyson touches on this topic in his most recent Joe Rogan Podcast at 2:12:40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGc4mg5pul4

[Campitor]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but the US or the Soviets have enough nukes to kill us all by just blowing them up in their silos simultaneously. The resulting fires and debris filled mushroom clouds would plunge us into a nuclear winter. An anti-ballistic system may be good against a “one off” but will do diddly against a massive nuclear launch. And a shoreside launch by a sub using a low flying high speed missile would have a high probability of success.

[The Old Man]

@Campitor: It is called the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) strategy.

[Mister Imperceptible]

can i have lite saber too plz

[JamesR]

I hope we're not crabs in a bucket.

What's the cost of colonizing space? Maybe we should do it anyways.

Planet's already kinda screwed with global warming and pollution, what is it gonna look like 50 years from now?

[Mister Imperceptible]

I remember reading that Steven Hawking said violence was built into the human hardware, and that the best hope for human survival was to colonize space, rather than wait to create a utopia on Earth. I agree with him.

[daylen]

One question I have been pondering for a while is just how dependent a space civilization would be on earth and how this dependence would evolve. I am highly sceptical that we can spawn off sustainable micro-civilizations that are independent of earth within the next 100 years. So, it seems to me that the best we can do is to focus inwards for the next 50-200 years until a more sustainable eco-technic future can emerge. The global system should work on reducing the impedance between technological and biological networks if it wishes to reconfigure the values of its agents into a more stable distrubution that allows for a more flexible transistion into adulthood (at which point it can reproduce with a higher probability of success).

[7Wannabe5]

I can't for the life of me remember the title, but controversial futuristic work by French novelist, written about 20 years ago, suggested that all humans becoming female would be easier solution than space colonization.

[fell-like-rain]

This is one of those things where I actually agree people are being too hard on Trump. Like, if Obama set up a Space Force, liberals would say he was a forward-thinking genius, and he'd give a speech about humanity's destiny in the stars, then there'd be a nice photo op with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Whereas now I see all these posts like "Why are we making a SPACE FORCE when FLINT doesn't have CLEAN WATER???"

The one issue I see is that of jurisdiction. When they split off the Army Air Corps, it was a pretty clean distinction- fixed-wing went to the Air Force, rotary-wing (with a few exceptions) stayed with the Army. Whereas with this, it's unclear exactly what assets the space force will have. Obviously, they get Air Force Space Command, but there's all kinds of other potential gray areas. We've got anti-satellite missiles that are launched by fighters, spacecraft that launch from B-52s, ICBMs that are sometimes used to deploy satellites, sub-based ICBMs... there's a lot of overlap. Could lead to inter-service rivalry, who knows.

Right now, space stuff is like the redheaded stepchild of the Air Force combat commands, so they can't get enough funding, but what if it just becomes the redheaded stepchild of the major service branches, and they can't access any of the Air Force assets?

[Kriegsspiel]

I can't for the life of me remember the title, but controversial futuristic work by French novelist, written about 20 years ago, suggested that all humans becoming female would be easier solution than space colonization.

The Forever War books had sexual relations becoming weirder and weirder as time went on. IIRC when the novels first picked up they had the squad passing around each member to the others for sex-on-request, and at the end they were all homosexual clones with young hatched in a crèche.

[daylen]

... suggested that all humans becoming female would be easier solution than space colonization.

Reminds me of the Rick and Morty episode "Raising Gazorpazorp". The episode features a planetary civilization where the females rule from an aerial vehicle while the males reside in anarchy on the surface of the planet. The females control reproduction by sending down sex-robots that get rapped then recollected to harvest and transform the semen into baby Gazorpazorp's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPDjO_T ... SRB5z770u-

[Mikeallison]

Think of it as a sticked spaceX landing with a tungsten crowbar++++++kinetic energy(*).

Are you talking railgun? How would it be powered?

[jacob]

No, you just drop a mass from orbit. The kinetic energy alone will do it. Think of it as a worldwide ability to call in artillery strikes. Currently this is done with many many carrier groups and military bases/outposts all around the world launching drones and cruise missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

Note that the first nation to get such a system into orbit would be able to deny other countries by bombarding their launch sites resulting in a space force monopoly.