You are not logged in.
Looks like the Indians might make a race for the moon too.
Indian scientists hold initial talks on unmanned lunar mission
http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/03040412 … j6vn7.html
Indian scientists Friday held a three-hour meeting to prepare a blueprint for an unmanned moon mission, an official said.
The capability that these types of missions demonstrate are what military planners look at.
If you can launch something to the moon, then you can launch just about anything, anywhere on Earth.
As more and more countries gain capabilities to get into space like this, the more America will see the neccessity of securing this place from hostile aggression, real of imagined.
Offline
I just think that your ideas are predicated on a need and a desire for space warmongering, when I think that world opinion is in complete opposition to the idea of war at all.
No more comments from me now.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
For the indians, I have a strategy too. We are talking about the red skins here, right ?
We need to create reservations for them on Mars, preferably in dry desertic areas since they are accustomed to it. That's the good ol' way to do it.
Offline
I don't think there are any aboriginal on this list. If there are, I apologize to them, and to them only. Not to the hypocrit people which support a society making the apology of war, apology of the death and who worship "the warrior" as a model for a society. Of course, I am voluntary provocative, I spoke about the indians, i could as well cite the black people slavery.
By the way, I found completely ridiculous that in america, black people are called "african american" It shows a lot about how deeply implemented is the "politically correct" in america, the mask that everybody has to carry constantly, in short a global brain washing of the american society. You can speak about thousands of dead people in Iraq with a big smile in a public TV, with a music of the far west and the flag in the wing in the backround, but please, try to avoid any painfull episode of the american history.
I know that the "conservative" people here think that they are right, that basically nothing can change their mind and their vision of the world. The brain washing, if done very early, stays permanently. I am not gonna try to change this, but at least, leave me the oportunity to use irony and corosive critism to scoff at the most ridiculous habbits and nonsense of this vision of the world.
Offline
Dickbill, you are wasting your time. Americans are what they are. You can't hope to change them.
At least they react strongly to my posts which is good in a way. There is so much small details in the american everyday life that don't make sense for me. I, too, have been probably imprinted by my european education so I don't have the american brainwashing background to accept all those details without wondering in my head and each time asking myself, why is that, does it make sense ?
I am lucky enough to be buried deep in the american society, for work and family reasons, I can see all the politically correct vernish that I should have if I had been educated in the USA, but I don't have it, I just fake to have it, sometimes.
Offline
No, I am pretty sure that the american people support their president more than they support the war. For the reasons, they just repeat what they are allowed to hear in the US TV, however, I can still hear a lot of critism and contestation against that war, proving that the USA are still a democracy.
It is unfortunate however that before they dare to advance any critics, democrats senators and other politician or activist invited to TV show, have to start by an obligatory "we support our troops and we support the president" otherwise they are automatically suspected of antiamericanism. I can feel an ambiant propaganda in the TV which differentiate "good american republicans" and "bad democrats antiamerican". This is the TV, but in the street things are different, people are much less sure that they don't do a mistake in Iraq, but usually they support the war "in the name of sept 11". Anyway, the war, this one at least, is going to finish soon. After that the trouble begin. I think that the hawks in washington had a very short sight, they didn't mesure the consequences of this war. If everything goes bad, this war can be the perfect setting for a global world wide nuclear conflict and in this case, our dreams to see a human settlement on Mars are over. I forget that in addition, we can be dead, but does it matter to be dead if we cannot go to Mars ? Maybe that's what they want because it's means less contestation allowed, more military credits, more control over the citizens, Mars is not their primary concern obviously. But If everything goes well, no more terrorism, world more peacefull ( I am kidding here) then we have a chance to see a man on Mars. But let's see what's gonna happen now with Iran, North Corea and the Israeli/palestinian problem.
PS: I am watching Rep. former sen. D'amato on Fox right now: french oil compagnies are waiting for the big money (the usual antifrench propaganda) , the US and UK only should rule Iraq, and "we should have a force there for at least 6 months to 2 years".
Offline
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c … 073top.xml
Rapid Response
By William B. Scott
From article:
The approximately $8-million ORS analysis is grounded in a Mission Needs Statement validated a year ago by the Pentagon's Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and a military spaceplane concept-of-operations approved by AFSPC. By shooting for a 2014 initial operational capability, the AOA is bounded by real-world, relatively near-term constraints. These are evident in payload examples that will be used by the AOA team:
Common Aero Vehicle, a munition that can be delivered from or through space.
A navigation payload that could augment or replenish the GPS constellation.
A representative electro-optical payload, such as a low-cost visible-light imager.
A counterspace device--something in orbit that could protect friendly force satellites, or disable an adversary's.
A payload that would augment a space-based radar equipped with a ground moving target indicator, perhaps in a latitude not covered by the primary system.
"[These] examples will affect the campaign model, so we can see the potential military utility of quickly getting these responsive payloads in orbit and available for the joint force commander to use," Stewart said.
U.S. political and military leaders are reevaluating a full spectrum of space-based capabilities and strategic weapons, looking for new ways to counter both rogue nation states and the threats posed by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). For one, they are looking at the potential of existing weapon systems being used to quickly strike a target halfway around the world--especially one that could threaten thousands of American or allied lives if not attacked within hours.
A Nuclear Posture Review released by the Bush administration last year redefined the concept of "deterrence," and put new demands on the Pentagon for dealing with WMD and terrorism threats. It also expanded the role of existing nuclear forces.
As a result of this new environment, the military space community is looking at near-term options to fulfill two objectives: putting systems in orbit quickly, and rapidly striking WMD or other time-sensitive threats anywhere on the globe. Long-term systems, such as rapid-response reusable launch vehicles and space-based laser weapons, for example, are still far from becoming operational realities. Milspace leaders need something now, if they are to answer a battlefield commander's demand for revitalized space support, or a President's call to head off a terrorist-caused catastrophe.
Whether battling a traditional army or radical terrorists, the U.S. can no longer afford the loss of its space-based capabilities--or the luxury of waiting months to put a replacement satellite in orbit after a legacy system fails. Long recognizing how critical these assets are, Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) has made "quick-response space" one of its highest priorities. Ultimately, it hopes to have the means to launch satellites within hours or days of notification, quickly repair a critical system in space and strike an enemy on the other side of the globe in less than an hour, using conventional weapons. The command has embarked on several paths to reach that goal.
Josh,
I just think that your ideas are predicated on a need and a desire for space warmongering, when I think that world opinion is in complete opposition to the idea of war at all.
My ideas? What ideas are those? Again, i have expressly taken steps to NOT give my opinion related to this matter. I am pointing out what is currently going on.
Offline
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=284
Frank Sietzen, Jr.
Sunday, February 11, 2001
(see, this has been ongoing for quite awhile now)
Space Leaders Prepare for Weapons in Space
The theme was echoed by U.S. Space Command CINC Gen. Ralph ?Ed? Eberhart. Eberhart bluntly told the symposium that weapons in space would be inevitable, albeit regrettable. "Space superiority will become increasingly important," Eberhart said last Thursday. "We had better start planning for force application (in space)," he predicted. "We have to plan for bringing weapons in space. ..we may hope that will never be needed." But Eberhart also sounded the theme of a growing imbalance in the use and reliance upon space assets as countered by their vulnerability. "We?re not using space properly," he said. "We can?t just think of space as a higher hill. ..commercial interests are involved in space. We must protect the commercial space assets just like the navies sailed to protect sea commerce."
New Space Control plans and new doctrines are expected to emerge from the recent NSSM report, also called the Rumsfeld report after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who headed the commission. Air Force Major Gen. Brian Arnold, Director of Space and Nuclear Deterrence for the Office of the Air Force Secretary (who has yet to be named by the Bush administration) said that a plan would be announced by the end of April to accelerate the integration of space within the Air Force as recommended by the report. "By a Space Corps, I think the report was urging us to create a group of space-trained professionals within the Air Force," Arnold said last week. But some were skeptical the winged service would be able to fully embrace a new space emphasis.
Offline
The current issue of Wired Magazine - print version - asks the value to either the Indian government or the Chinese government for video images of their astronauts arriving at Tranquility Base and folding up the American flag.
Removing the American flag would provoke a firm response, I am sure, but if the Chinese or Indians merely planted a larger flag, on a taller staff, the world would take notice.
India's acqusition of nuclear weapons and anticipated development of the ICBM technology needed to deliver those weapons is being touted as a reason to grant them a seat on the UN Security Council.
Offline
Launching a man into space?
100 million.
Landing a man on the moon?
1 billion.
... the value to either the Indian government or the Chinese government for video images of their astronauts arriving at Tranquility Base and folding up the American flag.
Priceless.
Offline
Dickbill is back ! with a new weapon device against the indians from india, those are evil, the indians from here are good. I know you are all waiting for it, it is called the cow-shielding device:
I suggest to embark a cow on every US satellite or moon base to protect against any indian hostile missile. The indians never kill their cows, I donno what they do with them, but whatever.
the only problem is the by product of cows, gas and hmmm poopoo. A cow in the ISS could make the atmosphere smells bad quickly, nobody has an idea about that ?
Offline
Removing the American flag would provoke a firm response, I am sure, but if the Chinese or Indians merely planted a larger flag, on a taller staff, the world would take notice.
That will not happen with my devices !
Mr Rumsfeld, if you read the new mars forum, don't be scarred against the devilish indians (those from India, OUR indians are good) and the lemo..., ahem, chineses !
Dickbill provides weapons to protect our satellites in geostationary orbit, even against the most advanced al youseff al akbar indian missiles of a range of 300 km, visually guided by a death condamned prisonner onboard, and their deadly charge of one nanoton.
Offline
http://www.space.com/news/nss_warfighter_030408.html
Military Space Operations in Transformation
By Leonard David
On-going transformation
Lord highlighted military operations in space that are supporting air, land, and sea forces. He also senses growth in future space capabilities, one aspect of an on-going transformation of military prowess.
Regarding access to space, Lord said efforts are now underway to look beyond the newly christened Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles - the Delta 4 and Atlas 5 boosters.
This week, Lord and NASA's Sean O'Keefe will meet to discuss spacelift alternatives. The discussion will focus on coordinating civil and military interests in future access to space.
In a closing remark, the Air Force Space Command leader said: "If you're not in space, you are not in the race."
Offline
The previous article makes mention of the 19th National Space Symposium, from April 7th - 10th, 2003.
Here is a link to a brief summary of the symposium, and what it hopes to achieve:
http://www.space.com/news/nss_overview_030406.html
from the article:
Military, NASA leadership
The 19th National Space Symposium includes the highest-level roster of speakers in the event's history, including robust participation by the national security space leadership and the most broad-based support of NASA leadership ever, Pulham said. Major aerospace industry participation rounds out this year's gathering.
Among those presenting at the symposium:
Peter B. Teets, Director of the National Reconnaissance Office and Under Secretary of the Air Force.
General Lance Lord, U.S. Air Force Commander for the Air Force Space Command.
Christine Anderson, Program Director for the Military Satellite Communications Joint Program Office at the Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command.
Ronald M. Sega, Director, Defense Research & Engineering.
NASA Chief Administrator Sean O'Keefe.
Why so many military speakers at a symposium related to the transformation of our use of space?
Offline
Wasn't quite sure where this would be best placed, so....
link to article
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1858588
NASA chief vows to speed development of space plane
By PATTY REINERT
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
Meanwhile, O'Keefe said, he is pushing the timetable for launching a fleet of orbital space planes that would replace the shuttle's crew-transport function and would be lighter, safer, cheaper and easier to launch than the space shuttle.
The aging shuttles could then be used primarily as cargo vessels.
"We're looking at all the efforts that would be possible to make (the orbital space plane) available as soon as we possibly can," he said.
Current plans for the space plane, for which NASA is requesting $550 million in its 2004 budget -- $2.4 billion over the next few years -- call for a vehicle that could be used as a crew escape pod for the international space station by 2010 and could be used to ferry astronauts to and from the station by 2012.
Last week, NASA announced that Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, the top three U.S. defense contractors, will each receive $45 million to design the vehicle.
A decision on which craft to build will be made next year, and O'Keefe said he hopes that once a design is chosen, the construction could be accelerated by at least a couple of years.
Offline
http://www.space.com/news/nss_hypersonic_030408.html
Hypersonics Work Speeds Ahead
By Leonard David
Speaking here at the 19th National Space Symposium, Ronald Sega, Director, Defense Research & Engineering for the Department of Defense outlined an aggressive, fast-moving agenda. Sega said work in high-speed hypersonics is moving on numbers of fronts, within various organizations and agencies.
"There is opportunity for synergy," Sega said, amongst military services and various agencies. Sega said that an NAI goal is to explore and expand hypersonic flight, moving up mach number speeds each year to Mach 15 (15 times the speed of sound) by 2012.
Coming out of such research, Sega said, is the prospect of a two-stage-to-orbit booster, with the first stage using air-breathing technology.
Furthermore, hypersonic research is going to enable high-speed strikes by military forces around the globe, he said. There is great value in moving weaponry around the globe at high speed to reach time-critical targets, Sega said.
Offline
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_03/space_mar03.asp
U.S. Aims to Deploy Space-Based Missile Interceptors in Five Years
by 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.
China is spearheading efforts at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Disarmament, which operates by consensus, to negotiate an agreement on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. (See ACT, March 2003.) One of the driving concerns behind China?s proposal is the potential deployment of U.S. missile defense elements in space.
The United States is opposing the Chinese proposal, arguing that there is no arms race in outer space and that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which bans the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space, is sufficient.
Offline
Here is a link to the RAND website related to space policy and analysis, RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. It's pretty well respected by lawmakers...
http://www.rand.org/hot/newslinks/space.html
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has announced a plan to reorganize the Pentagon that puts the Air Force in charge of defense programs in space. The plan is designed to manage and protect military and communications systems in space but has drawn charges that it is a step toward militarizing space.
RAND has conducted several studies that examine the role of the US military in space.
The following links lead to pdf reports related to analysis of possible issues related to US militarization of space.
Space: Emerging Options for National Power
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR517/
The Changing Role of the U.S. Military in Space
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR895/
Space Weapons Earth Wars
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1209/
Offline
Project Airforce:
http://www.rand.org/paf/agenda02/aerospace.html
Project AIR FORCE (PAF) is the product of visionary thinking that led to a RAND-Air Force partnership now approaching its sixth decade. Originally known as Project RAND (an acronym for research and development), PAF was established in 1946 by General H. H. "Hap" Arnold as a way of retaining for the United States Air Force (USAF) the considerable benefits of civilian scientific thinking that had been demonstrated during World War II. Since its founding, PAF has remained the only Air Force federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) concerned entirely with studies and analyses rather than systems engineering or scientific laboratories. The special FFRDC status facilitates stable USAF support over an extended period of years as well as in-the-family access by the research staff to relevant Air Force information and management personnel.
Aerospace Force Development Program
FY2002 Research Agenda
-Operational Concepts for Air and Space Forces in Combating Global Terrorism and Homeland Defense*
-An Operational Concept for Air and Space Forces in Combating Global Terrorism: Sustaining Air Force Operations*
-National Space Control Assessment
Offline
Isn't there a convention which bans weapons in space?
Yes. nuclear weapons to be precise.
However, conventional weapons are okay, and are allowed now that we are no longer restrained by the ABM treaty.
Offline
This would be an interesting confrence:
"Briefing for Industry 2003 vy the Professional Aerospace Contractors Association (PACA) of New Mexico"
Basic overview information can be found here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=8833
During this comprehensive two-day event, the participating government agencies will describe their program objectives, discuss emerging technologies, and identify contracting opportunities to the audience of current and prospective contractors.
Organizations invited to participate include: Air Force Research Laboratory (all directorates); Space and Missile Systems Center/Det 12; Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC); 46th Test Group; White Sands Missile Range; NASA?s White Sands Test Facility; U.S. Department of Energy; Sandia National Laboratories; Los Alamos National Laboratory; and High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office.
One thing that stuck out was the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office.
Look at last years agenda topics for a chilling look at what these people are putting together: Please note that this was the discussion from last year (2002)
http://www.unm.edu/~isd/jto/Prog&Registration.htm
SESSION 2: CHEMICAL AND FREE ELECTRON LASER PROJECTS
SESSION 3: SOLID STATE LASER PROJECTS
SESSION 4: BEAM CONTROL COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
SESSION 5: LASER LETHALITY PROJECTS
Here is a link to the DOD 'Laser Master Plan'. An executive review conducted in 2000
http://en.afit.edu/de/OSD%20Mater%20Plan.doc
Findings
1. HEL systems are ready for some of today?s most challenging weapons applications, both offensive and defensive.
2. HEL weapons offer the potential to maintain an asymmetric technological edge over adversaries for the foreseeable future.
3. Funding for HEL Science and Technology (S&T) programs should be increased to support priority acquisition programs and to develop new technologies for future applications.
4. The HEL industrial supplier base is fragile in several of the critical HEL technologies and lacks an adequate incentive to make the large investments required to support current and anticipated Department of Defense (DoD) needs.
5. The DoD should leverage HEL relevant research being supported by the Department of Energy (DOE) and other government agencies and also by commercial industry and academia.
6. It is increasingly difficult to attract and retain people with the critical skills needed for HEL technology development.
Offline