You are not logged in.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-03f.html
Northrop Grumman Signs For Initial Solid State Laser Development
Northrop Grumman's Space Technology sector has received a U.S. Air Force contract for the first phase of a three-year program to develop the Strategic Illuminator Laser, or SILL -- a four-kilowatt-class, solid-state, pulsed laser with excellent beam quality.
The Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency is providing the funding under a contract managed by the Air Force."The SILL will provide the Missile Defense Agency with a higher-power illuminator laser, which is a critical component of laser systems such as the Airborne Laser, as well as future space-based programs," said Jackie Gish, director of DE Technology at Northrop Grumman Space Technology.
The third phase will culminate in 2006 with delivery to the government of a rugged, flight-qualifiable brassboard laser with a development path for space applications.
Execution of the SILL program will build on Northrop Grumman's extensive experience in developing and delivering high-power solid-state lasers with near-diffraction-limited beam quality, which results in more energy delivered on target.
It has developed high-power solid-state lasers for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Air Force and various other government and commercial enterprises.
The company delivered a flight-qualified Beacon Illuminator, containing two kilowatt-class solid-state lasers, to the ABL program in 2002. In December, Northrop Grumman won a Joint Technology Office contract to develop the high-power, solid-state laser, a program that will result in demonstration at the end of 2004 of a 25-kilowatt electric-powered laser.
Offline
You are talking about He3 ? Well indeed, this is the one and the only reason one would really want to establish a base on the moon. But again, is this directly linked to the military ? Were you talking about something else than He3?!
Water and moon dirt. Both can be utilized to support LEO and GEO activities.
How is this going to happen? {respond to threats in LEO or GEO}
It allows the military to respond in the case where sats are taken down by hostile action, they can refuel sats that change orbit, they can repair or replace sats as well.
And then, it's much more easily to place radars/detectors in GEO and LEO than on the Moon.
You're missing the point. Everything you point to is relying on the very "space" that is threatened. Going to the moon is another location from which to operate from. What good are a bunch of sats watching the same area they orbit? An anti-sat disables them, and <poof> you've got nothing. Having facilities on the moon provides alternatives and more locations from which to operate.
Do you think that once countries begin developing rockets capable of busting sats it will be a long step till they develop rockets (nuclear warheads probably) capable to strike on the Moon?
We have that capability now. It takes 30 minutes or less to launch something into LEO- it would take two or three days to reach a lunar target. That provides a lot of time for a counter response. Right now, our assessts are all in one place, in a very fragile place. These are reasons to move *away* from LEO and GEO.
Indeed water foraged from the Moon would be extremely precious (as in expensive), even compared to water brought from Earth.
Water can create breathable air, and rocket fuel. Water is by far the most exspensive commodity in space. It is a basic requirement of life. Water produced on the moon offers the opportunity for mass amounts of fuel, air, and water in space- it means we do't have to launch it.
About 1000 times more expensive? Now compare that with the costs of putting a intelligent, self-sufficient, self-powered (not with solar cells - by a nuclear reactor) 10 MW radar on the Moon. Will 10 MW even be enough at that distance?
The major cost for just about any space venture is tied primarily to launch costs. It wouldn't cost all that more to send anything to the moon than say GEO.
Why would water be so precious to a robotic base? Why would you be so full of enthusiasm is the base was robotic?
One, I am not 'enthusiastic' about any of this. I am making a prediction based on information freely available. I am posting it so others can learn.
Water is precious too us, and any human-space venture. It's a 'show-stopper' if there is no water.
The Moon is at this point a great place to sink your money into. And it will be like this as long as don't use something better than chemical rockets on a very large scale.
No, chemical rockets are idellay suited for the moon. Production on the moon supports the use of chemical rockets- remember, rocket fuel? But this is tangental to the thread.
It's barren, no atmosphere, almost-no-water (hardly picked up by scientific instruments), extremely-irradiated, almost 0-oxygen-contents environment.
It might as well be Mars...
The moon is closer, offers *direct* benefits to Earth, human exploration of the solar system, commerical ventures, energy production for human use, communication arrays, telescope arrays, and countless other benefits. It's a damn gas station hanging in the sky that will teach us how to live on other planets. But again, this is a side issue, and I would rather not start a moon-mars debate in this thread.
Offline
Who would establish a very expensive base on the Moon when you could send fuel from Earth, at a much lower price and much more safely and faster ?
Okay, every proposal I have seen regarding expanded utilization of LEO and GEO revolve around lunar facilities that are able to provide support services to LEO and GEO. The primary cost to access space is the actual launch itself. Once free from gravity, it becomes cheaper to ship mass from the moon than from earth. It takes less fuel becuase there is less gravity to deal with.
How? Do you really think a base on Moon could ever provide the same accurate tactical informations as a GEO/LEO spy satellite?! At least in the next 50 years ?
The moon isn't going to be some 'death star'. I see no indication that is even considered as plausible. The moon is a good *logistical* base to support LEO and GEO space assessts.
If the sats are shut down, what's the point of having a refuel station on the Moon?
To help you replace, or repair the sats.
And if they're not, what's the point to send an automatic craft all the way from the Moon to refuel a satellite in Earth' orbit, when you could do the same from the Earth in 30 minutes as you said (compared to days from the Moon)? Repair or replace them from there?
Becuase it is cheaper to send this stuff from the moon. Time frames on the order of minutes is only meanigful fro humans and target aquisition/destruction.
We don't need the capability to launch a bunch of fuel really fast into orbit. We do need the capability to move large quantites of logistical material for use in LEo and GEO.
Or how much it would cost, and how much technology you would need to produce fuel there to send back spare parts and so on?
I don't know how much it would cost. The technology is there though. If we can seriously contemplate placing humans outside of earth- even colonies, then the technology is there.
Most people on this board clamor to point out all the nifty technology that will allow us to do all these nifty things- if funded.
Yes, and it's true vice-versa. You need 2 or 3 days to send something useful from the Moon. Till then all your satellites could be dead already. And sending a hole satellite? It would be taken down like the rest of'em.
Take the blinders off- Earth dosen't stop exsisting in the scenerio. The Moon allows for extra capabilites not offered by Earth, or LEO or GEO. It adds another layer of flexibility and response options. IE the sats get wiped out in LEo and GEO- Earth launches new sats which are maintained by Lunar facilities... think of LEO and GEO as a ravine. Earth is on one side, the moon on the other. If you wish to build a bridge, is it easier to build from only one side, or from both sides?
Exactly how much water is on the Moon? And where? And how do you collect it? How much does a facilitty like that cost and how you send it there?
How much water is on the moon is currently being investigated. Several moon probes are slated for the next few years. The first two private ventures occur in the next two years. I have no idea how much a facility would cost becuase I have no idea what form the facility will take.
Well, IMHO if another way of transportation is not found than this plan of yours could become the biggest money hole in US history. That's the BIG point.
This isn't *my* plan. All you need is a heavy lift vehicle to put tons into an escape velocity from earth.
We're learning how to construct large vehicles in space NOW.
Offline
Clark: Only one comment ... I hope by "we" you include the Russians, not only because it is they who are sustaining the ISS in LEO, but their Energia heavy-lifter already exists. I'm for eventual maglev stratovolcano track launching (Kilimanjaro seems best) but since I may not live to see that, I endorse what's available (properly funded, as you say) here and now!
Offline
I don't know about the military use of the moon, but if the purpose is to have a new base for a launcher (of course, i agree for the gravity well) or to support sats in GEO, then I say: better be cheap, because you forget that there is the ISS to fund. The ISS is not cheap.
So asking the US congress to vote additional funds for a moon base, some might ask: another one ? don't we have enough with the ISS and the satellites in orbit ?
If you can barely justify the huge cost of the ISS, IMO it's gonna be even more difficult to justify the cost for an additional base on the moon. Even the military needs to justify their needs ( at least I hope ) and nothing that what can be done from the moon cannot be done cheaper from LEO.
Offline
Okay, every proposal I have seen regarding expanded utilization of LEO and GEO revolve around lunar facilities that are able to provide support services to LEO and GEO. The primary cost to access space is the actual launch itself. Once free from gravity, it becomes cheaper to ship mass from the moon than from earth. It takes less fuel becuase there is less gravity to deal with.
One of the nifty points made by Zubrin in "Case for Mars" is that in terms of delta-vee the surface of Mars is closer to LEO than the surface of the Earth. In other words, it is easier to send mass from the surface of Mars to Earth's LEO than it is to send mass from the surface of the Earth to LEO.
Let that sink in.
Mars is closer to Earth LEO than Kennedy Space Center or Kouru. GTO and the other orbits are all even closer to Mars (and farther from Vandenberg) than is LEO. And, compared to the lunar surface, Mars is very far away indeed.
Luna to Earth's LEO is astonishingly inexpensive in terms of delta-vee. Thus, low energy missile launches from the lunar surface would be much harder to detect or track than launches from facilities on Earth. The key there is STEALTH.
To my mind, a lunar base could readily accomplish the following missions:
(a) Attack the satellite capability of hostile nations;
(b) Stockpile replacement satellites to launch after friendly sats are destroyed;
Suppose WW3 - Kennedy and Vandenberg are both nuked - US satellites are all hit with anti-satellite technology and our GPS system and the MilStars go down. If replacements are stockpiled at a undisclosed locations on the moon, our LEO space war capabilities can be restored in hours or days and not weeks or months.
Don't forget that the officially published strategic doctrine of the United States is nothing less than "full spectrum dominance" of all potential arenas of military conflict. Like clark says this is not an issue for debate - it is already established as US doctrine. Its not "should we" -- US Space Command has already begun to implement this doctrine.
Offline
I don't know about the military use of the moon, but if the purpose is to have a new base for a launcher (of course, i agree for the gravity well) or to support sats in GEO, then I say: better be cheap, because you forget that there is the ISS to fund. The ISS is not cheap.
True, but remember, the major cost is in the actual construction of the station... which is slated to be US core complete next year.
So asking the US congress to vote additional funds for a moon base, some might ask: another one ? don't we have enough with the ISS and the satellites in orbit ?
All true, which is why I keep pointing to how this issue is being framed- it is a matter of national security, it is a matter of maintaing economic dominance, it is a matter of national interest, etc.
Even the military needs to justify their needs ( at least I hope ) and nothing that what can be done from the moon cannot be done cheaper from LEO.
You can't make rocket fuel in LEO. You can't make sattelite components in LEO.
Things start getting cheaper when you look at the economics of a moon base as part of the equation. Any exsisting space infrastruture that can produce ANYTHING in space for other uses alters what we have to launch, how we have to launch, etc.
Say the military wants to keep a manned space platform in LEO or GEO to assemble complex spy sats? What would be the best way to support the people there?
LEO and GEO are the 'high-ground', but the problem is that other people will have the same access the US has now. It's no longer just our playground, so the next step is the moon.
Offline
Things start getting cheaper when you look at the economics of a moon base as part of the equation. Any exsisting space infrastruture that can produce ANYTHING in space for other uses alters what we have to launch, how we have to launch, etc.
Say the military wants to keep a manned space platform in LEO or GEO to assemble complex spy sats? What would be the best way to support the people there?
It was said for the ISS too, and after a while it was evident that the cost was underestimated.
Maybe the USAF can propose a lunar base for, say, 10 billions, and then, after a couple of years, it turns out that the real cost is 50 billions. People (like for the ISS) will say that once again they have been screewed.
now, a general remark about a manned military base in LEO or GEO. It seems to me that the time is for drones and all automatic military devices, men are slow to react and make mistake. So a maned base for military purpose looks like a come back to the past.
But after all, the USAF has its budget, they do whatever they want with it. If they decide to invest half on it on a lunar base, that's half of the budget gone, and if they realize, 5 years later, that it wasn't a so good deal after all and the base is not so convenient, then, too bad, the money is gone.
Look at the french, they fund 1 (or maybe 2) nuclear aircraft carrier which cost an arm for a small country like France. But these ships can be destroyed in 1 nanosecond by a missile. I don't see the point in 2003 to build aircraft carriers anyway, but they choose it, well, too bad if it is sunk, "you had to think about it before". I hope the french taxpayer will refuse to give a cent more for a third one. It's a good lesson for the military. They have to be careful how they spend OUR money !
Offline
Maybe the USAF can propose a lunar base for, say, 10 billions, and then, after a couple of years, it turns out that the real cost is 50 billions.
It's rather pointless to discuss the economics at this point, no plans have been made public. I would liek to point out though that "Space" is being given a larger budget in terms of military aquisition. The Airforce's long term planes are to transition from Airforce and Space Command, to Space Command and airforce.
The creation of actual department heads (space commision stuff), and officers prepares the way for budgeting requests and project aquisitions. The first graduates of the Airforce space training are now entering into their officer positions- they are now in the position to make decisions on what needs to be procurred.
All of this has been ongoing since the 80's, and it is only now bearing fruit. Most of the policies papers coming out after 2000 are based on ten years of previous policy papers.
now, a general remark about a manned military base in LEO or GEO. It seems to me that the time is for drones and all automatic military devices, men are slow to react and make mistake. So a maned base for military purpose looks like a come back to the past.
True. However, the irrational argument for "men in space" is based on emotion. If you read up on UAV (unmanned vehicles) you will discover how the airforce really isn't all that happy about them- why? Becuase airforce procurement officers are all aviators, and are a bit put off by being taken out of the equation. B-2 crews are in their plane for up to 38 hours at a time- most of it is spent playing cards or sleeping- yet the human crew serves a vital function during those moments their are needed.
Yet, most estimates and predictions do not have a great deal of people in space- the moon might be a different story if the time lag is an issue though.
If they decide to invest half on it on a lunar base, that's half of the budget gone, and if they realize, 5 years later, that it wasn't a so good deal after all and the base is not so convenient, then, too bad, the money is gone.
Here is something to consider: The next airforce aquistion- the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter are both expected to be the LAST major airforce procurement.
So, if they ain't gona be buying new planes, what do you think they might do with all that money?
Look at the french, they fund 1 (or maybe 2) nuclear aircraft carrier which cost an arm for a small country like France. But these ships can be destroyed in 1 nanosecond by a missile.
And we buy dozens of "billion dollar" bombers... and we still have cash to spare. If any honestly doubt that we could finance something like this, let me point to 9/11 and the 20 billion dollar payment given to NY from the Federal government.
We have the ability, we have the means, all we need is the will.
Offline
It's rather pointless to discuss the economics at this point, no plans have been made public. I would liek to point out though that "Space" is being given a larger budget in terms of military aquisition. The Airforce's long term planes are to transition from Airforce and Space Command, to Space Command and airforce.
I wouldn't believe seriously nothing less than 10 billions dollars.
based on the price of the ISS ( 70 billions now I think), this is very cheap.
10 billions dollars, only if the cost of development of the launcher and the base has been already absorbed by other agencies like NASA. I mean, if the lunar base has to be set up from A to Z, then 10 billions is not realistic. After all, whithout a saturnV to launch that military base and without a shuttle, the first thing to devellop is a launcher. Are the new deltaV and Boing rockets enough for that purpose ? I doubt.
ShuttleC is the cheapest thing I can see, but it is still not there.
Offline
Look at the french, they fund 1 (or maybe 2) nuclear aircraft carrier which cost an arm for a small country like France. But these ships can be destroyed in 1 nanosecond by a missile.
Why, don't they have a Phalanx system ?!
It's me who said that. I don't know what's a phalanx, anti missile system i guess. My point was that an aircraft carrier is a very expensive system, maybe 2 billion dollars and crewed by 2000 men. A single missile, cheap 1 million dollar, can sink it and kill those 2000 men in one second. Ridiculous. Aircraft carrier seems concept of the past...whatever.
Attention !
At ease !
I am just against space militarization, against against against. End of story for me.
Offline
There was a project launched by GW Bush that is more ambitious and usefull: the H2 cars you remember ?
If americans want challenge, that is a big one. it involves a change of spirit/mind in the american customer because I think that an hydrogen car could never be as performant, sportive, if you want, than a regular gaz car. Those car will be less "machist" because their performance will be more like a grandpa or grandma oldsmobile, no more fast BMW or SUV.
Hydrogen cars would have a lot more torque and pizzaz than current cars, hands down.
Generating hydrogen is that hard part - most of the people talking about a hydrogen economy don't realize that you have to use nuclear, wind, or solar power if you want to generate hydrogen cleanly. Generating hydrogen from coal or natural gas will be an environmental nitemare.
Offline
Sorry for upsetting you clark, but what you say here looks more like a disperate attempt to convince somebody that we really need,...... actually, US really needs to go to the Moon. Space advocates will have to come up with some a better reason for putting a base on the Moon. This one looks too far-fetched right now.
But this is just an opinion, don't kill me for it.
I respect your opinion BGD, however you still seem to be mistaken- this isn't *my* reason. *I* am not advocating *anything*. *I* am giving a scenerio that *I* believe will happen, and the reasons that *the people who do advocate weapons in space* are using.
*THEY* say the US national security is at risk.
*THEY* say our economic intrests are at stake.
*THEY* say our military is highly reliant on space, and that it has now become a legitiamte military target, which means that the military needs to secure space assessts.
*I* am giving numerous links for others to see this information first hand.
*I* am showing you all policy papers, research programs, and reports related to this issue. No where have I said that this scenerio is a good thing, or a bad thing.
This has nothing to do with advocates of space, if anything, space advocates need to be aware of these events so they are informed.
As I have said before, my opinion on these events are irrelevant. This IS happening.
Offline
As I have said before, my opinion on these events are irrelevant. This IS happening.
With such a low gravity well, Clark is right that you could deliver fuel and replacement satellites easily to orbit. Also think about having a NORAD-type command bunker buried deep in the moon. It would provide a great fall-back in case all earth-based assets are taken out.
But to build up this infrastructure on the moon would cost so much with such a marginal benefit, it would be outlandish if they actually did it. For security, we have military bases all over the world, including right up against the borders of our so-called "enemies". If nukes were to fly, they'd have to nuke right on their own borders in order to take out our command-and-control facilities.
Rather than an outrageously expensive moon bases, it's more likely that the air force will invest the money in building a first-class space plane (or bringing one out of the black world) so that we can easily accomplish the same thing from here on earth.
Offline
Spacelift Washington: The First Bush Space Policy
Frank Sietzen, Jr.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=821
Commercial sources of high resolution images will now be Uncle Sam's primary way of obtaining such images. The so-called "National Technical Means", in English government-owned satellites, will focus only on that capability that cannot be commercially bought. It is a landmark step in the evolution of the remote sensing industry, and if matched with budget resources-something that must be defined in the next several weeks in Washington- could trigger actual growth in that space business sector.
Administration sources told this column yesterday that the lead agency to implement the policy would be NIMA, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Even it will get a new shine under the conservative administration: it's new name will be the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. More space policy changes are ahead, in space transportation and possibly navigation and communications. One by one the Bushies are getting around to space. The appointment of Sean O'Keefe was one step. This new space policy is another.
But stay tuned.
Offline
Lunar Ice Explorers Could Power Up With Solar Over Laser Transmission
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-comm-03a.html
NASA/MSFC has a requirement for laser-photovoltaic wireless power transmission research and development for a near term application in investigation of ice resources in dark, cold lunar polar craters. NASA/MSFC intends to purchase the items from The Boeing Company, Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power, 6633 Canoga Avenue,Canoga, Park, CA 91309-7922
Why would they need a "near-term" application for powering machinery to hunt for ice on the moon?
"Boeing has already assisted NASA/MSFC with bench top and system level ground demonstrations and has existing laser WPT test facilities related to Space Solar Power. They also have the critical SSP technologies to quickly develop WPT tests to demonstrate distances up to 20km.
What's the rush? ???
Offline
I read an op-ed from the Washinton Times:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200305 … -2028r.htm
While the review board investigating the Columbia disaster still has more work to do, the outlines of the failures have become clear. The board recently issued a "working scenario," under which a breach in the lower left wing ? possibly caused by a piece of foam from the external tank which fell off during liftoff ? allowed hot gas to enter the cavity during reentry. That penetration caused a progressive series of failures which culminated in the breakup of Columbia.
Investigators may never know the exact cause of the initial breach. The satellite photos that may have helped assess wing damage were never taken despite repeated requests from dozens of safety personnel. As Adm. Hal Gehman testified before the Senate this week, "there were missed signals going up, and there were missed signals going down." Putting aside questions of whether or not anything could have been done to save the astronauts (a question the investigation board is now looking into) NASA's failure to even try for a damage assessment merits a tough reevaluation of the organization's decisionmaking processes and safety program. Adm. Gehman noted, "The safety organization is, on paper, perfect, but when you bore down a little deeper, you don't find any 'there' there."
That makes it more difficult to assess whether or not the remaining three shuttles are safe to fly. Rep. Joe Barton, a member of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, said the shuttles will never be safe to fly. That opinion has been seconded by numerous scientists and engineers ? perhaps most notably, Max Faget, a pioneer of the shuttle and the director of engineering of human spacecraft for two decades at NASA. The 81-year old recently told The Los Angeles Times that "The bottom line is that the shuttle is too old."
NASA engineers dispute that notion, but no one knows, and uncertainties will remain even after rigorous testing. In the interim, the only way for astronauts to travel to the half-finished International Space Station (ISS) will be either Russian or Chinese rockets (China's first manned space launch is expected later this year).
Thus, by what means will the ISS be finished, if at all? NASA's greatest challenge is not making a final determination of the failures that led to Columbia's demise, nor is it rejuvenating a safety program that was simply not up to task. It is not even in finding a safer replacement for the shuttle. After all, space travel is an inherently risky enterprise. No amount of planning can account for every contingency, and no amount of preparation can avoid every eventuality.
NASA's real challenge is determining in which direction the manned program shall go, whether a voyage to Mars, a permanent manned base on the moon, or even an intermediate step, such as a series of manned missions to potentially earth-threatening asteroids.
That decision, and the resolution to see it though, can only come from the top. Several months ago, we called for Mr. Bush to give the space program a tangible target in his next State of the Union address. Now that the fighting in Iraq has finished and the tax cut has passed, Mr. Bush must make the direction of the manned space program a priority.
While this isn't 'news' with facts and such, it is interesting that the Washington Times editorial staff are calling for a 'tangible target' for the future of the US manned space program.
The Washington Times is correct in asserting that only only a decision by the President can achieve anything. This sentiment is also expressed by the Space Policy Council (see previos posts and links), which notes that only the office of the President has the authority, and the ability to implement many space related policies or goals.
A few months ago, Bush quietly backed a NASA reoriention of direction, such as looking more towards 'enabling' technology.
Might we see in a few months what exactly the President and NASA *want* to enable?
Offline
The militarization of space has already occured. Well, yeah, it can be debated, but the fact remains that the US military is growing ever more reliant on space. This fact is only underscored by the recent approval of the "Future Combat Systems program". the FCS is a 15 billion dollar investment in the next generation army.
Here is a link regarding the recent approval for funding the development phase (production is planned for 2010).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … May19.html
The FCS is expected to become a lethal family of manned and unmanned air and ground weapons interlinked and tied to forces from other U.S. military services over a sophisticated command network. It aims for an initial operating capability by 2010.
Defense Undersecretary Edward "Pete" Aldridge, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, signed an acquisition defense memorandum on Sunday approving the second phase, Army officials told reporters at a Pentagon news conference.
If you look into this, you will discover that the main principle of our next generation is to be lighter, faster, and more lethal. In order to achieve these goals, the future US military will have to rely on more information systems.
In other words, they will have to rely on drones- which rely on sattelites. They will have to rely on mobile communication, which rely on sattelites. They will simply need more sattelites- just the bandwidth alone will require more investment in space.
Now, this reliance on space is also the Achilles heel of the future US military. in simple terms, if an advesary attacked LEO, there is very little the US military can do. The result of a loss of our sattelites, both economicaly and militarily would litteraly grind the US to a halt.
from Scientific america:
http://www.sciam.com/article....588EEDF
Along with the lighter, faster vehicles of FCS must come a mobile network--think of it as a moving Internet. The network would travel with the vehicles as they progress across rough terrain, through forests and around hills. This technology is critical because it provides the "situational awareness," or knowledge of the enemy's location, that will compensate, along with speed, for an FCS vehicle's reduced armor. Unlike tanks, FCS vehicles won't be built to withstand withering fire. Their mission is to locate the enemy with sensors and then be first to fire.
I am linking this information becuase I am trying to show you what the military rationale is for *weaponizing* space. The US 'terrestrial' military is made a paper tiger with the loss of space based assests because the terrestrial military is so highly reliant on space based assests as a force multiplier.
What we are doing on Earth would be incredibly short-sighted if it *wasn't* accompanied by an increased ability to operate in an d out of LEO and GEO.
The policy papers I have seen do not lead me to believe that anyone is being short-sighted about this, and are anticipating the next steps neccessary in order to maintain US military dominance.
Offline
I have a doubt, do the military have thought about the alien menace ? I mean the devilish aliens from alpha centaury, which dream is to invade america ?
Offline
Dickbill, I believe your message is lost in your style. Perhaps you may be more effective in getting your ideas across if you approach this subject matter in something other than sarcasm or meaningless derision.
Offline
Dickbill, I believe your message is lost in your style. Perhaps you may be more effective in getting your ideas across if you approach this subject matter in something other than sarcasm or meaningless derision.
no humour...
Offline
I have a doubt, do the military have thought about the alien menace ?
If this *isn't* humour, then should I take this seriously?!
I am taking the time and effort to provide substaniated evidence of ongoing developments- to which you respond with half ass remarks about 'lemon' faces and 'our' indians (an immature name for Native Americans)... and now aliens.
? I mean the devilish aliens from alpha centaury, which dream is to invade america ?
Again, if this isn't humour, what is it?
Becuase all i can think to call it if it isn't a joke is just pathetic and sad.
Is it too much to ask you either refrain from posting in this thread altogether, or at the very least, keep your posts relevant?
Offline