American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

clark · 2003-03-14 10:39:14

Another link to a report quoting military offical on Military reliance of space based assests.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0303/S00172.htm

Col. Steven Fox, director of the Army Space Program Office and the project manager for the exploration of national capabilities, said the Army considers itself the largest user of space capabilities.

"And most recently, our Afghanistan involvement highlights how much we rely on space," Fox said. "Space enables everything we do, from detection of missiles immediately upon launch so we can prepare to intercept them or to deal with the effects. We collect data for analysis and use space for dissemination of intelligence capabilities. We use GPS for other space-based systems to locate targets, to guide our weapons and for navigation."

clark · 2003-03-14 10:41:36

Another link:

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_03/space_mar03.asp

U.S. Aims to Deploy Space-Based Missile Interceptors in Five Years

Printer Friendly
U.S. Aims to Deploy Space-Based Missile Interceptors in Five Years
Wade Boese
The United States is exploring concepts for basing missile interceptors in space with the objective of beginning deployment of three to five armed satellites for testing purposes as early as 2008, according to recent Pentagon briefings and statements.

An official for the Pentagon?s Missile Defense Agency (MDA), which oversees missile defense research and development, stressed in a February 6 interview that the effort to create a so-called space-based test bed, comprising at least three satellites, is in the preliminary stages. The official said no design for the satellites yet exists and that MDA will seek to draw up specifications for possible systems this year. The agency plans to award contracts to private companies as early as next winter to start work on design proposals.

The guiding idea is to field satellites armed with multiple hit-to-kill interceptors capable of destroying a ballistic missile through a high-speed collision shortly after its launch. Ideally, the interceptor would hit the missile in its boost phase, when the rocket engines are still firing and the warhead has not yet separated from the missile.

clark · 2003-03-14 10:42:55

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/ … 78174.html

U.S. Pentagon sees space as military 'high ground'

Space is the new military "high ground," and the United States must work hard to develop a space-based radar system, reusable spacecraft and offensive space weapons to protect national security, the head of the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office said on Wednesday.

"Our space assets now are probably more important to warfighters and more important to our ability to win this global war on terrorism than they ever have been historically," said Air Force Undersecretary and NRO Director Peter Teets. "For us to be secure as a nation, we are going to need better eyes, ears, warning, rapid ability to respond to crisis."

Teets said 2003 would be an active year for military space operations,...

clark · 2003-03-14 10:49:04

If you have the time and are interested, I suggest you look at this site:

http://www.afrl.af.mil/

It is the Airforce research website. It lists current airforce research projects, where they are in development, what their goals are, etc.

Projects range from overall concepts like Space Vehicles, Proplusion, Directed Energy, etc.

Or, just go here:

http://www.vs.afrl.af.mil/Demos/

http://www.pr.afrl.af.mil/technology.htm

it shows the direction of the research.

Bill White · 2003-03-14 11:45:45

What's your plans to deny the "- ahem - Chinese" access to Mars ?

By 2005 the US will deploy powerful chemical lasers in 747s. Its not fiction, its fact, and is known as boost phase intercept.

Deploy a few of those same lasers in LEO capable vehicles and punch a hole in any Chinese spacecraft that you want to while using those nice new nuclear engines to get close enough.

clark · 2003-03-14 11:52:15

A small manueverable satellite that can be deployed over possible orbital access windows of our advesaries is all we need.

Fill it with small steel ball bearings- hundreds of them.

When the rocket, or anything else for that matter, tries to reach orbit, it would go through the small cloud of ball bearings- ripping it to shreds. The small balls then burn up on reentry. Think of it like deploying a small targeted asteroid field.

A fleck of paint can do damage in space. The opportunites for destruction are limitless... with a bit of imgaination.

clark · 2003-03-14 12:04:11

I also noted that Japan may play a greater role in our future space development, rather than the ESA or Russia. I also feel that Australia may play a more significant role in our future space plans.

I think there will be some realignment of emphsis in terms of US national interests- to be exact, South East Asia and the Middle East will become the new centers of concern- much like Europe was in the 20th century.

I point to Australia becuase one, they are in lock step with current US policy. Two, they contribute significantly to our military power in the Pacific- there just is no ignoring them. Three, they are currently leading the world in scram jet technology- a key component of space access for the future.

Japan will be involved to a greater extent becuase of their direct stake in the geographics of the situation. They are on an acclerated development of their space launch capability. They are working with the US in developing missle defense technology. And they are looking to undo their pacifict constution. Japan is the second largest spender on military (in terms of real dollars) after the US.

From UPI:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 0831-5646r

"The Japanese government, fearing North Korea's new Rodong ballistic missiles, is to change the current law on Self-Defense Forces that forbids the military from intercepting incoming missiles without a direct order from the prime minister. In effect, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi will hand over firing authority for Japan's new upgraded Patriot PAC-2 missiles, due to start deployment in July, to the military so they can shoot down the incoming Rodong missiles without delay. A new clause on missile defense is to be added to Article 85 of the current law, which should suffice, but Article 76, defining the conditions on mobilizing Japan's Self-Defense Forces, is also to be amended -- which has rather wider implications. Japan's retreat from the post-1945 pacifist tradition continues. The Aegis-class destroyer 'Myoko' is being dispatched to the Sea of Japan to monitor North Korean missile tests, and the Navy has been deployed to the Arabian Sea to aid the U.S.-led anti-terrorism campaign. Tokyo has now agreed to refuel warships from Italy, Spain, France, Germany and New Zealand, in addition to those of the United States and Britain. "

dickbill · 2003-03-14 15:18:16

OK, I apologize for the russians and chineses people who might have read my posts and are in shock. If you read my posts before, you know that this is not what I think.
I strongly believe and I said it before, that China will become more and more integrated in the global world as a responsible country and that they will pose no particular threat in the future. For Russia, I see a country which supports peace NOW, as opposed to the US. Russia is certainly a country which, if it allies with the EU, can have a future in space even greater than its past.
The reason why I did post so rough was obviously to fight Clark. He uses a very agressive language coated by american politically corectness, except when he insults me. He gonna say that he only reports facts, it is obvious that he also supports the US militarization of space.
You don?t deny that, right Clark ?
So I called a cat a cat, supporting space militarization in the extend presented by Clark, can only lead to such things as imperialism and something close to the nazism ideology. I consider that space militarization is the ULTIMATE disaster. The best incentive for a new cold war, if not just war. We can?t go nowhere else than in the grave and certainly not on Mars with such policy. The countries that play that stupid game should be denounced.

We cannot live in a world where everybody has a gun pointed on somebody else?s head. The USA cannot justify everything on the name of an unilateral national security, decides who can live, who must die and use its technical advance to scare every foreign countries with nuclear bombs or lasers in space. Spy satellites are enough, why to make it worst ? The chinese can destroy a spy satellite when they see one just over their heads, so what ? The US airforce would do the same if they had a chinese spy satellite right over them too.
I just agree that some treaty should restrict or control the space just vertical to the national territories until the geostationary point, so that if any country want to post a spy satellite on top of another country, it couldn?t complain if the satellite is destroyed.

And to finish about my bad words, I just observe that now in america, it is as much politicaly correct and accepted to insult the french in the worst words (best Saddam?s friends, traitors, cowards and more recently I read that the french will be the cause of the war, I am not kidding !) than is is incorrect to use the same words for other contries. So politically correctness in america is like fashion. You just have to know what to wear to look good in the present time.

clark · 2003-03-14 16:11:45

I understand your point of view Dickbill.

Please point to where I gave my opinion on these developments. Please.

I am merely pointing to what is going on, and what the reasoning for it is. I didn't say if it was a good thing or a bad thing.

These are developments, and all should be aware of them. Most are not.

Something that repeasdly happens on this board is I get linked as supporting whatever it is I am discussing. My stance is irrelevant. The issues though are.

Don't shoot the messenger.

dickbill · 2003-03-14 17:31:19

Clark, if I misundestood completely what you said, I have to apologize to you too. But something in your first post in this thread give me the feelling that you were speaking for yourself. Maybe you could be more precise when you expose something like a political opinion. First, specify if this is, or not your position, or if you are just reporting the facts, like it was obvious in your last posts. As you point out, english is not my primary language but since other people get trapped in similar cases, I don?t feel that bad. That would avoid people to misunderstand my posts and think that I am the worst newmars member after...no I am not gonna start here.
Anyway, no one really enjoyed my jokes ? I cannot believe that.
Regarding space militarization, I gave my opinion to answer your posts. But we got the point, space gonna be like another battle field soon.

clark · 2003-03-17 10:50:50

I believe there has been a misunderstanding on both our parts. I am sorry for my insults, and I will delete them from the previous posts.

I didn't realize that you were a non-native english speaker. Ah, the irony of facilitated communication...

I am not sure quite how I feel about the militarization of space. I think it has the very real potential to develop into a Devil's deal for space advocates though.

Should the Mars Society support canadites, or policies that lead to the militarization of space, but would also lead to a manned mission to mars?

dickbill · 2003-03-17 13:07:39

Hi Clark,
yes we are just human beings. This shows that human relations are very important to deal with problems. I guess you are very red blooded are you ?
Well, my jokes were very provocatives too.
I adopted an extremist anti space-militarization position but I realize that like all extremist position, this is not tenable. For example, I consider a space shield like the one initially planed by R. Reagan (I think) almost like an offensive weapon since it protects for any nuclear impact for a time, but in a second time, the countries just devellop another system to bypass the space shield. In the long term, this is nothing else than a cold war with an incentive to race for new expensive weapons. The links for USAF that you've provided clearly show that the USAF think about something like that again. So I am very against that.
Spy satelites are very acceptable, but nobody should complain if it is destroyed by the observed countries.
Nuclear bombs in space too ! I mean if they are controled by the UN (or what remains of the UN after the war) to deal with asteroids threat. After all, I see nothing bad to be able to blow up an incoming asteroid approaching too close with a nuclear warhead. But then, it should be a very limited number of those weapons in space and everybody should know where they are.
Regarding to deny access to any country, it's like denying access to technology and education, it's not acceptable, but the good point is that the countries with access to space are also usually very advanced and educated so that they shouldnt represent much of a threat.
I really think that the regime in China will slowly become less and less militarized, but It will take time. Once the chinese go over the "space for prestige" race, they will enter the more thougher "space with goals and purpose" race.
Maybe they will realize that they don't care about Mars or the Moon.

clark · 2003-03-25 09:46:09

Reported from Space Daily

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-03g.html

"We need to develop some defensive capability (for our space systems) and also be thinking about offensive (capabilities)," he said. "The time may come when we must take action to preclude an adversary from their use of the high ground of space."

-Lt. Gen. Brian A. Arnold, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif.

dickbill · 2003-03-25 11:51:28

"We need to develop some defensive capability (for our space systems) and also be thinking about offensive (capabilities)," he said. "The time may come when we must take action to preclude an adversary from their use of the high ground of space."
-Lt. Gen. Brian A. Arnold, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif.

well, it's clear that the space weaponization is a natural extension of the Air Force capabilities of any country as long as it is defensive. I think that any US administration, democrat or republican, will most likely continue to invest in a defensive or observational system. However, offensive capabilities, such as lasers or nuclear warheads in orbit, is a completely different issue. As I said before, I think it can only feed a new era of cold war, but this time it won't be only between the USA and the USSR, but between the USA, Russia, China and some other minor countries, more players in the game. During the Cuban missiles crisis, the world was lucky, now I see that the military found that game funny.

dickbill · 2003-03-26 09:32:02

About the cold war, indeed it seems I was right. Check at spacedaily com.

Japan has launched a spy satellite and North Corea has reacted violently by menacing japan of ?self destruction? because they consider this as a forecoming for a ?pre-emptive strike from the US?.
India launched a nuclear missile, Pakistan reacts by lauching its own nuclear missile immediatly after.
Russia/ America relations have never been so good since.... By the way, I expressed some concerns earlyer that Russia wanted to disengadge from the ISS, now I am sure, Russia will disengadge from the ISS.

China ? I am sure they are preparing some good surprise.....

And G.W. Bush said that ?after that? the world will be more secure and more peaceful.
Sure, but for me it?s clear, the new cold war has already begun.

dickbill · 2003-03-27 08:42:34

And today march 27th, Russia just launched a ballistic missile for "test purpose". Of course, russian officials said this has nothing to do with the war. Yeah... I believe that.

We follow the path, slowly but surely.

clark · 2003-03-31 16:08:30

"The U.S. Air Force has kick-started a major study on quick-to-launch boosters capable of enhancing the nation's warfighting abilities, such as dropping munitions from space onto enemy targets here on Earth." -space.com

http://www.space.com/busines....28.html

dickbill · 2003-03-31 17:08:40

"The U.S. Air Force has kick-started a major study on quick-to-launch boosters capable of enhancing the nation's warfighting abilities, such as dropping munitions from space onto enemy targets here on Earth." -space.com
http://www.space.com/busines....28.html

Frightening, each time I read stuff like that I feel a little bit further away from my dream to see a human being on Mars.

clark · 2003-04-01 15:13:43

http://www.msnbc.com/news/893575.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1

From article:

March 31 -The U.S. Air Force launched its latest Global Positioning System satellite on Monday, and it will begin service to U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf in record time.

Brig. Gen. Greg Pavlovich, commander of the Air Force's 45th Space Wing, said the GPS constellation has effectively extended the battlefield into Earth orbit since the first Gulf War, when GPS took a back seat to more traditional guidance and radar systems.

"The battlefield really does start here," said Pavlovich. "Space is critically important to national security and you simply can't fight wars without it." [

clark · 2003-04-03 06:45:33

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … 30402.html

article link to space.com

In Fiscal Year 2002, the Secretary of Defense directed DARPA to begin an aggressive effort to ensure that the U.S. military retains its pre-eminence in space by maintaining "unhindered U.S. access to space" and "protecting U.S. space assets" from attack.
DARPA is focusing its efforts on five thrusts:
Access and Infrastructure: rapid and affordable access to space.
Situational Awareness: Knowing what else is in space and what it is doing.
Space Mission Protection: Protecting U.S. assets in space from harm.
Space Mission Denial: Preventing adversaries from using space to harm the U.S. or its allies.
Space-Based Engagement: Sensing, communications, and navigation to support military operations down on Earth.

dickbill · 2003-04-03 11:16:19

Space Mission Denial: Preventing adversaries from using space to harm the U.S. or its allies.

Hi !
Here it is, the so long awaited dickbill?s method to deny access to Mars to the chi-ne-ses (still difficult to pronounce).
It is based on Red planet the movie. Remember Val Kilmer when he wants to escape in the russian capsula ? He has trouble to find the right button because it?s all in russko... Russian I mean, like ?Gorbatchowasky enieff atropopoff...? stuff like that. First of all, can somebody explain why they don?t speak english the russkian ? This is an obvious threat if we cannot understand what they ?say? and I hope that Ms Rice will advice Mr president to fix that. Anyway, Val Kilmer found the right button to ignite the launch sequence, by chance I guess. Personnaly I wouldn?t mind if he had hit the ?auto destruction? button instead, since he said something very bad at the end against our favorite planet.
But that gave me the idea of how to trap any taikonaut who would dare to venture in OUR property. We just have to put a capsula with picture and odor encoded buttons.
An icon with a BIG HUGE steak on the charcoil with FREEDOM fries and mayo and cans of Buttweiser, hmm yummy yummy, (for safe launch ignition) versus icons of roten fishs and stinky rice and rice beer, beeerrk (for the nuclear autodestruction ignition). Obviously, any normal person, even french, will choose the ?right? button, but not the lemo.. Chineses, I mean.
This is a simple device and very efficient I think, it should be implemented in any future robots or probes we send on Mars.

dicktice · 2003-04-03 11:16:37

So...we're gonna to get off the planet it seems, for all the wrong reasons...but get off we will. And none too soon, either! So let'um do it their way...since we don't seem to be able to get anywhere without 'em. Because, once off, they won't be able to prevent us from following 'em into space, see...?

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-03 14:37:08

dicktice, clark is wrong. Just wait, we're either going to enter into a third world war, or the warmongering will fizzle out (like after Vietnam) and we'll move on. In any case, we'll have learned our lesson.

clark · 2003-04-03 14:49:26

dicktice, clark is wrong.

What am I wrong about?

All I have done here is list links to articles detailing what our policy makers are thinking, or what they are being advised.

I can certainly agree that I might be misinformed, but then we have to start questioning the media that is reporting this information.

Policy makers in washington are hearing the same thing over and over and over again. That is, Space is a National Priority, and Integral to continued military dominance now, and in the future.

The current policy of the administation is to leap frog into next generation capabilities. All of the military assessments all are predicated on increased reliance of space based assests, and an expansion of those assests and capabailities. I wish I was making this up, but I am not.

Everyone is sayng the same thing. They all are pointing to the sky and saying, "we need to secure this place to ensure our interests."

Is it any surprise that any media report you read about our military actions tend to highlight the use of JDAM bombs? Do me a favor, start counting the number of times you hear the word "space" associated with military reports.

dicktice · 2003-04-03 21:00:52

I'm wholly supportive of future military, manned-space programmes, entailing long-duration living in space. That would fund the microgravity habitat research. And the China landing-on-the-Moon "threat" should incite U.S. funding of interplanetary engine/drive new development. We would then be able to merge ours, with any new developments of theirs applicable to Mars Direct...always assuming our habitat analogue work has continued apace.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-03-14 10:39:14

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#27 2003-03-14 10:41:36

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#28 2003-03-14 10:42:55

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#29 2003-03-14 10:49:04

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#30 2003-03-14 11:45:45

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#31 2003-03-14 11:52:15

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#32 2003-03-14 12:04:11

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#33 2003-03-14 15:18:16

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#34 2003-03-14 16:11:45

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#35 2003-03-14 17:31:19

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#36 2003-03-17 10:50:50

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#37 2003-03-17 13:07:39

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#38 2003-03-25 09:46:09

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#39 2003-03-25 11:51:28

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#40 2003-03-26 09:32:02

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#41 2003-03-27 08:42:34

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#42 2003-03-31 16:08:30

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#43 2003-03-31 17:08:40

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#44 2003-04-01 15:13:43

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#45 2003-04-03 06:45:33

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#46 2003-04-03 11:16:19

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#47 2003-04-03 11:16:37

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#48 2003-04-03 14:37:08

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#49 2003-04-03 14:49:26

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#50 2003-04-03 21:00:52

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

Board footer