The Pentagon plans to spend roughly $10 billion a year over the next five years on all aspects of missile defense.
I sure would wish and want that much to be spent on the vision.
]]>Feb. 9: The Air Force recently spent $25,000 investigating whether it might be possible to "energize" someone across long distances, as in "Star Trek." Is it money well spent? NBC's Tom Costello examines.
To easy Nasa's budget maybe the military should do like kind as the russians have done. Changing weapons into something that can do good instead of distruction.
Russians harness Cold War demons for space
Military plans test launch of ICBM from Russian missile silo,
as part of peaceful space strategy.
Just maybe it is time to convert some of them also. :;):
]]>Through NATO, they have compromised the band frequency, and the current development of ASW is designed to shut it down if we need to. While it will provide an economic competitive edge, the USA is also busy launching the second/third generation of GPS which will be superior to Galileo.
Galileo also hedges our bets since if GPS is crippled, we can borrow their system. I might add, the more infrastructure that other countries invest in space reduces the liklihood that these same nations will not choose to make space a battleground, lest they damage their own investment.
Current research involves disabiling without destroying sats- blinding them, which Russia, China, and the US are all capable of doing now.
Of course, the military is planning to hedge bets even further by moving towards micro-sats that work in a constellation (kind of like the internet, reroute when one node is disabled), and launch on demand (as in hours and days, not months and years) so that sats can be quickly replaced.
]]>None of those things are free, and none will exist without national security.
But you just just sit tight while we do it, and you can sit safely under the umbrella, so that we can hold one more thing over your head every time you disagree with us. :;):
We know perfectly how much we pay for our social system free services : half of what we earn with our jobs.
Go tell the Spanishes how well you protected them "under your umbrella"...
You're getting paranoîac, India, China, Europe, need you for commercials, not for your so-called umbrella.
With one satellite launcher out of ten exploding at ignition, throw up these nuclear load satellites.
They start from your country.
As a first strike weapon it is excellent especially as the current US first strike stealth weapons are not 100% invisible and certain french systems can see them reasonably easy. This is the weapon that would be used to start to create air superiority.
And this explains the American resistance to Galileo it is a lot more accurate than the US GPS system as it lends itself to industry rather than military applications and will be made available to all. It reduces the USA,s domination of space.
]]>LO
If it wasn't us, sooner or later someone was going to do it.
So lets make them play catch up.
Do it After all, if you have so much money to waste... YOU PAY, we watch
We prefer to have medicare for everybody, free schools, free nurseries, universities which's fare is 300 $ A YEAR.
safe trains that go at 200 miles an hour, owning half the production of Soyouz, 52 nuclear plants that assure us cheap electricityWe're so stupid froggies
None of those things are free, and none will exist without national security.
But you just just sit tight while we do it, and you can sit safely under the umbrella, so that we can hold one more thing over your head every time you disagree with us. :;):
]]>Interesting. Well maybe in the future air power will not be used for the intial strike I am not sure of how easy it will be to target ground based anti-air/space weapons. My guess is if you have a lot of suborbital fighters performing evasive flying patterns. Then once the ground base laser firers once it will be a quickly identified target. Falcon type fighters can get anywhere in the world in what was it 40 minutes? If such wars occurred allot of systems would go down very quickly. Satellites might be easy to target but maybe not suborbital fighters.
Being based on the ground doesn't mean immobile.
D'you mean that you want to go at war at the whole world ?
Or d'you try to convince me you have all gone weaponmaniacs ?
By the way, I said destroying missiles by laserbeams was very difficult, unless impossible,
I never said that destroying satellites by laserbeams was impossible...
Interesting. Well maybe in the future air power will not be used for the intial strike I am not sure of how easy it will be to target ground based anti-air/space weapons. My guess is if you have a lot of suborbital fighters performing evasive flying patterns. Then once the ground base laser firers once it will be a quickly identified target. Falcon type fighters can get anywhere in the world in what was it 40 minutes? If such wars occurred allot of systems would go down very quickly. Satellites might be easy to target but maybe not suborbital fighters.
]]>If it wasn't us, sooner or later someone was going to do it.
So lets make them play catch up.
Do it After all, if you have so much money to waste... YOU PAY, we watch
We prefer to have medicare for everybody, free schools, free nurseries, universities which's fare is 300 $ A YEAR.
safe trains that go at 200 miles an hour, owning half the production of Soyouz, 52 nuclear plants that assure us cheap electricity
We're so stupid froggies
By the way, I said destroying missiles by laserbeams was very difficult, unless impossible,
I never said that destroying satellites by laserbeams was impossible...
I'm inclined to agree, but the troll in me has to disagree.
It's not a major issue if we can shoot down everything. And unless we know who you are, and you have our permission, we will shoot you down.
Yup. So its the US -vs- everyone else.
India wants in http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdet … t=World]on Galileo. Now, in time of war, we US-ians blow up Galileo and make everyone angry.
???
]]>So lets make them play catch up.
]]>Lo
Problem isn't the speed of light, but the speed of the aiming system and atmospheric dispersion and deviation of laser beams , plus the laser beam power supply
While I guess the satellite will have to way a fair amount more then the laser so that it can target just by turning the laser quickly. For a power supply maybe a nuclear reactor charging up a giant capacitor. Maybe. I guess that could mean a low firing rate for the first few models.
]]>