You are not logged in.
I was going through the 'Airforce 2025: Executive Summary' at:
Some real interesting stuff for any interested in the long range planning of US military forces.
What is particulary interesting are the 6 different world scenerios that they developed, and the challenges the US faces in each scenerio. This is the stuff that military guys plan for, and look to to make decisions today.
Most of the interesting stuff is lcoated on the bottom of Page 21, and on.
A lot of of the higlighted technologies to deal with predicted problems rely on development of space based weapons and/or capabilities.
Things like solar powered high energy lasers, or piloted trans-atmosphereic vechicles.
Offline
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.
Duckbill, your franco anti-americanism gets old after a while. Your old ally Saddam Hussein is gone now, and so are the oil contracts and weapons contracts your president signed with saddam.
As for flaws in US society, it pales to the deep problems in France right now. 2002 saw a *quadrupling* of racial attacks in France. Synagogues and mosques are being burned down in racially-motivated hatred. Tourists, as always are attacked and spit on by the violent french who believe they are superior to everyone else.
When France has elected a president who isn't going to go on trial for corruption after he leaves office, or when France has an election where there are no Neo-fascists like LePenn, then you will have room to criticize the USA.
Offline
I would appreciate it if you stick to the topic of this thread, or cease posting. If you have a personal bone to pick with someone, PM them, or start a new thread. This thread is not the place for it.
I appreciate everyone's cooperation. Thank you in advance.
Offline
I would appreciate it if you stick to the topic of this thread, or cease posting. If you have a personal bone to pick with someone, PM them, or start a new thread. This thread is not the place for it.
I appreciate everyone's cooperation. Thank you in advance.
Looks to me like 1/2 this thread is unrelated "lemon face" posts and related junk. I assume that's why it was moved to "Free Chat".
Offline
No, I started this thread in this area, it wasn't moved.
The previous posts you refrence are questionable, but I would prefer that this not be the place where you piss a line in the sand about it. If you want to comment about the topic, fine. You want to start a personal tit for tat session, start another thread.
Thank you for respecting my simple request.
Offline
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/st … 30417.html
Columbia Board Releases Two Recommendations to NASA
By Jim Banke
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, speaking in Washington, D.C. at the National Press Club, embraced the recommendations and said one will offer a "technology challenge" and the other is essentially already a done deal.
And money to pay for these recommendations and the ones to follow, it seems, will be no object.
"Resources necessary to do this are going to be available and we'll assess whatever else is necessary as we go along," O'Keefe said.
The NASA chief added he anticipates a "significant increase" in the agency's budget during the next few years, not only to pay for the aftermath of Columbia but to move forward with an Orbital Space Plane and nuclear power initiatives that will set the stage for exploring Mars.
O'Keefe said NASA's budget is expected to grow from about $15 billion in the next year to almost $18 billion within the next few years.
Bill, it *sounds* likle my bet with you is all but certain now. And Josh, my odds keep sounding like they are improving too...
Let me also add about the OSP:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11305
NASA is expected to proceed with full-scale development of the OSP before the end of 2004. In addition to this contract effort, Boeing is preparing to compete for the next phase of the program in 2004.
Offline
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/magaz … gewanted=1
The Unmanned Army
By MATTHEW BRZEZINSKI
That's one reason it became a preoccupation for a generation of military planners to devise new means of combat that no other country -- neither America's current allies nor its potential foes -- can match. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld came into office as a self-avowed champion of these ideas. The dream, held by Rumsfeld and his top civilian aides, is of quickly fought, technology-driven, low-risk wars, and though nobody imagines that the dream is fully attainable, it is being used as a vision to shape the future of the military. In Iraq, Rumsfeld prosecuted this vision to the greatest extent possible with the forces and technologies at his disposal.
Iraq, in fact, may be remembered as the first true war of the information age, when command-and-control technology took over the battlefield. For television viewers, the revolution was manifested in gripping videophone reports from charging tanks, live broadcasts of skirmishes, close-ups of Saddam International Airport from commercial satellites and up-to-the-minute coverage of the assault on Baghdad. Never before has a war been seen this close, this fast, with so little fog.
A lengthy report on where our military is heading. Ny times, reg required, but worth it.
Offline
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/ … sile01.htm
US developing superfast missile to deny escape to future Saddams
By Maxim Kniazkov
The program harks back to the long-forgotten Copper Canyon project launched by former president Ronald Reagan with a lot of fanfare in 1982.
Technical problems and cost overruns eventually forced the US government to move the ambitious plan to the back burner.
But advances in propulsion technology, the availability of new materials and the need to boost US strike capability in the context of the war on terror have prompted US officials to have another look at the old designs, the sources said.
"I think that their conclusion from that exercise was that a Mach 12 suborbital air-breather might be within the realm of possibility," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington area think tank.
Offline
http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/03042901 … ka2bc.html
Unmanned moon mission could catapult India to global league: space chief
"The recommendation by and large was that India should undertake this mission," Kasturirangan said.
He said the major spin-offs from the programme would include the creation of a new cadre of planetary scientists in India during the next three years.
"It is not an individual's programme, not an organisation's programme. It is a programme defined by the community who are interested in the scientific aspects. A programme which has been examined by technologists as being feasible.
"It is a programme which is understood as timely because that is where the international programme is going. And it is a programme which is affordable to a country of this size and resource," he said.
Many analysts predict a lunar race between India and China, which seems to be substantiated. This further establihes the renewed and growing interest in going back to the moon. If this continues, the US wil have no choice but go back to the moon and beyond to reaffirm their superiority in space sciences, as well as improve upon our current capability.
We are no longer going to be the only ones who can "get there".
Offline
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/ … -war01.htm
Without space, we're back to World War II
By Nora K. Wallace
Hoping to prevent a "space Pearl Harbor," the nation's first squadron designed to protect military satellites is now working at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
"Everybody in the world has been watching this Iraq war, and the Gulf War before that," said Lt. Col. White in an interview after the ceremony. "And they know what space does for the U.S. military. That is a key enabler. Without space, we're back to World War II. Anyone who wants to take on the United States knows they've got to handle us in space."
Agencies such as the Defense Space and Missile Analysis Center, the National Aerospace Intelligence Center, the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency will all provide information to the squadron to help it determine potential threats and ways to respond to those concerns.
But because of the successes of space-based information in the past decade, including the war in Iraq, those systems are more of a target.
"Our very dependence on space has not been lost upon our adversaries," Maj. Gen. Hamel said. "One of the lessons of this war we will be most surprised by is that there were not more efforts made by the adversary in trying to deny some of our capabilities. The fact of the matter is, we can never take for granted that we'll ever have a free ride again in terms of the use of space in future conflicts."
Offline
And the answer to all that, predictible, expected and so not very surprising, is :
"...... On Sunday, Yakovenko also said that Moscow was pushing for a new U.N. treaty to ban weapons in space and at space facilities. Yuri Koptev, the head of Russia's space agency, said that the United States wanted to militarize space.
"This is a destabilizing factor," Interfax quoted Koptev as saying. "If such programs are developed, our doctrine and plans will have to be reviewed in order to deal with the potential threat."
..."
I took that from yahoo.news. So it seems that the russians military are going to spend more money on space weapons too, because I guess that the US will never accept to go back and cancel their space militarization projects. So, russian weapons in space, of course, what to expect ? if the US make the russian weapons completely obsolete, the russians are just gonna develop new ones. I just feel that it's not the best direction that humanity should take, but I donno, I am everything but surprised.
Offline
I don't see any american official talking about a Luna base. (or maybe i missed those articles?!).
The only *overt* indication for a lunar base comes from NASA's 'Next' program which is calling for a L2 base.
The first post for this thread is a prediction of a lunar base built by 2020, or started by 2020. The rationale behind the prediction is based on the militarization of space. It will become neccessary to develop lunar facilities to help support the expansion of our LEo and GEo assests.
The military will want a base to increase their capabilites- that's the point of a lot of the posts and links.
the US military wants more manuveriability, more flexibility. The moon makes the most sense to meet a lot of their long range plans.
Offline
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03v.html
SpaceDev Announces Streaker Launch Vehicle
As part of this SpaceDev propulsion program, SpaceDev is designing and building a previously announced highly innovative and unique Shuttle- and EELV secondary compatible orbital transfer "space tug" under a contract with the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL).
"We expect the market for hybrid-based products to grow because of their low-cost and increased customer interest in safety, responsiveness and affordability," said Richard Slansky, chief financial officer for SpaceDev. "There are numerous emerging applications for this technology."
SpaceDev's high performance hybrid rocket propulsion, and its orbital maneuvering and orbital transfer technology, is of growing importance for space situational awareness, satellite inspection, counter measures, satellite rescue, refueling, small launch vehicle boosters and upper stages, and other applications, both commercial and military.
The Airforce wants to place constellations of small micro/nano sattelites to replace the current mega-sat's.
Looks like SpaceDev is poised to deliver exactly what the US military has been requiring to begin large scale deployment.
Offline
And even if the Chineses would land on the Moon a few times, i think it will all happen just like Apollo: a few missions with a fanfare and that's all.
The chinese on the Moon OK, but not the devilish indians from india !
Imagine the scene, an indian astronaut named Athramapayanpourkamasouthra lands on the moon and a journalist from FOX cannot pronouce his name ! at least our indians have normal names. Our indians are not devilish !
Offline
I don't see why weapons in space is any worse than ballistic missiles or even cruise missiles. Yes, they have a shorter launch time, assuming they are in LEO and are over the desired location at the instant you want to launch.
I have no problem with space-based offensive weapons, but I have not seen any mention of the US building them. I have seen plenty of talk about building anti-missile lasers and kinetic interceptors. Who cares? Especially if it pours cash into the space industry.
Offline
I agree Dickbill, you've intimated before that you are 'joking' with your off-color remarks, please stop posting these comments in this thread, thank you.
Why would anyone want/need to establish a moon base to support GEO/LEO ?!
Fuel production, and it increases the ability to respond to threats in GEO or LEO. It alos makes for a great location to observe any other space assessts in space that do not belong to the US.
What does the moon has so precious?
Water and location.
But how do you retaliate from the Moon?
You don't. You use the Moon to help *secure* LEO and GEO assests.
Do you think that the current advancements of India and China in the space industry will persuade the US Gov to put a permanent base there?
Partly. Other reasons are Russia, the ESA, North Korea, Pakistan, and any other nation capable of placing a nuclear device in LEO. The proliferation of balisstic technology allows countries to *hit* space based assessts with anti-sats- a huge worry for the US military.
Some of the worst China-Tawiian-US scenerio's involve China destroying most of our space based assessts- this would effectively neturilize our 'modern' military.
We could not have done what we did in Iraq, the way we did, without our 'eyes in the sky'.
And even if the Chineses would land on the Moon a few times, i think it will all happen just like Apollo: a few missions with a fanfare and that's all.
Possibly. Right now though their *public* plans are to utilize the moon. Utilize it for what? The moon can either be a great place to start exploring the universe, or it can be a great military assesst. The Chinese space effort primarily exsists to serve their military.
And even if US sets up a military base on the moon, i think it will be automated (robotic). Putting men there would be much too costly.
All true, and I agree that a robotic base is most likely. I'm not guessing on what type of base it is, only that there *will* be a base.
I have no problem with space-based offensive weapons, but I have not seen any mention of the US building them.
Our withdrawl from the ABM treaty allows us to *now* place weapons in space. Various programs are in different phases of development, however, most of the long range plans for our military all involve more space based assessts, and options in LEO and GEO.
Sat launches are increasing for the military. Funding for *next generation* military hardware is being secured, or is already funded. You want another indication about the direction? Look into the resignation of General White, the now former Army Chief of Staff- he is being replaced with someone from the Airforce i believe (i saw Navy somewhere else). His replacement was picked by Rumsfeld, who has made no secret his desire to *modernize* the military. Look into the policy papers related to space that Rumsfeld CHAIRED, and you'll get an idea of what he thinks is important.... which is weapons in space.
Offline
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=816
Research Commissioner Busquin says Space Policy critical to European defense
The Iraqi crisis reinforces my conviction that the EU needs an increased degree of independence in the space field. We have, on the political level, a responsibility and a duty towards European citizens to ensure the best conditions for their security and that of the generations to come."
In his speech, Busquin described the current situation in European space and defence policy, warning of an increasing imbalance between European and American investment.
"To redress this imbalance," he said, "Europe must develop a more coherent and structured approach to research in the field of security. If China can send men into space at the end of this year, I do not see why Europe cannot develop advanced space tools in support of its own political objectives. Defining European ambitions in space is what the current Green Paper process is all about.
According to Busquin, the European Convention , the body charged with preparing the next Treaty of the Union, recently presented a first outline of the future Treaty that includes a specific reference to space activities. In addition, the European Convention working group on defence has recommended the creation of a European Agency for Armament and Strategic Research whose competence would extend to the development of space-based military systems.
Offline
The DOD has *implemented* 9 of 13 recommendations made by the 'Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization' (aka Space Commision).
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9046
Organizational changes completed include creating a focal point for space by naming the Under Secretary of the Air Force as Director, National Reconnaissance Office,4 and charging this individual with responsibility for integrating space activities across DOD as well as milestone decision authority5 for major space acquisitions; creating a separate position of Commander, Air Force Space Command, to provide increased attention to the organization, training, and equipping for space operations; and creating a mechanism to identify space spending across the department.
DOD has taken some actions to address long-term management challenges, but the extent of progress in identifying and implementing needed actions has varied. For example, DOD plans to increase its budget for space science and technology by 25 percent between fiscal years 2003 and 2007 and almost double it by 2009.
For more information on the findings and *recommendations* made by the Space Commision, please go to this link:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/space20010111.html
I suggest any who do not want to read the entire report focus on Chapter 7: Conclusions of the Commission
The overall message is that our increased reliance of space based assessts require that we develop the means to 'deter and defend hostile acts in and from space'.
Offline
Well sorry guys, you know my opinion. I think space militarisation is not good for anybody, american, non american, nor it is good for the purpose of the Mars society. Some here see it like an "oportunity" to embark aboard military space experiment their dream to Mars, I have the biggest doubts about that.
The russians don't have a single cent to waste in military development, they have already wasted enough and have enough trouble to recover, why is it good to force them in a new race for space militarisation when we were almost close to make a durable peace and be friend with them ?
If they spent one million dollar to put a laser or a bomb in orbit, that's one million dollar less for a possible collaboration for a mission to Mars. What's more unfair, it forbid the russians to invest more in peacefull development program.
What can possibly Puttin say to the russian military lobby if they constantly show him all these threat ? Puttin gonna have no other choice than to obey those guys nostalgic from the old USSR empire and spend more money for the russian army. Same for the Chineses, same for Indians. The military lobbies are the big winners, always. I can do nothing else than to try to ridiculise such underjacent idea that the world should be ruled by force and fear.
Back to basics, in the Case for Mars, Zubrin mentions international collaboration as something good to promote Mars exploration. Obviously I think he's right. But to promote collaboration you need to promote peace first, that's not exactly the same than launching a new space militarization initiative for hundred of billions of dollars. 20 billions dollars, that was the price estimated by zubrin for a Mars Direct mission, that's nuts compared to the military budget. The Mars Rovers, yes, that's better than nothing but I said it before, if the world is not peacefull, Mars becomes suddenly superfluous, less important. In the present time, it is already like a joke to talk with passion to other people about Mars and all the possibilities and secrets this planet holds. Is that gonna be worst in the future ? I think so.
Offline
I'm with you dickbill, though I have always felt and known that military budgets and so on are dependent on a four year cycle (ie, to whatever president gets elected). clarks feelings are wholly unpredictable, given obvious factors (like the state of the economy and the electablity of Bush Jr. in a few years). I feel as though the space commission stuff he's talking about are basically taxpayer blackholes.
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
I'm with you dickbill, though I have always felt and known that military budgets and so on are dependent on a four year cycle (ie, to whatever president gets elected)
thanks Josh, I know there are a couple of guys here who think that the space militarisation is not "necessary", at least in the extend suggested in the multiple articles that Clark has posted.
regarding the 4 years cycle, once a budget is voted in the congress, say a certain amount a money is allocated for a military moon base, and the money start to be spent, it would be a waste that the congress canceled the project in 7 years.
It's like canceling the founding of the ISS in 4 years, it would be foolish. If further funds are allocated for space miltarisation, I just hope it will stay into reasonnable amount and projects and that it will not desequilibrate the fragile equilibrium reached with the russians. But you know that the miltary lobby needs some new toys to play from time to time, you have to give them something.
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. I don't know if the guys in the Bachelorette would adapt easily to the new concept of going slowly, safely, for the purpose of a clean environment. Talking about money, that's not gonna be cheap, probably in the order of 100 of billions of dollars to change the entire parc of automobiles in the USA. That should be the priority in the USA now: clean cars for the environment and independance from the oil producers. But I havn't heard nothing about it since its anounce in the presidential adress. I hope the project is still there.
Offline
clarks feelings are wholly unpredictable, given obvious factors (like the state of the economy and the electablity of Bush Jr. in a few years). I feel as though the space commission stuff he's talking about are basically taxpayer blackholes.
I would be more inclined to agree with your assessment if it were not for the endless amounts of policy papers, position statements, and the on-going research being conducted.
The "Space Commission" reccomendations all validate several years of previous policy papers and research. Rumsfeld is in charge of guiding defense policy- he chaired other space policy development, all calling for increasing our military ability in space.
Look at reports, they keep talking about a "space Pearl Harbor"; they keep pointing to our economic and military reliance on space for our way of life. Hell, even our civilian emergency response programs are dependant on space. Agriculture, dependant upon space (weather sats).
Look into the policy papers on the militaries future for the next 30 years. Yeah, budgets are passed every few years- but programs are funded for decades.
The last Iraq war saw about 10 of our munitions as reliant on our space assessts- the second Iraq war? 80%. All of the victories we are claining- small force, minimum casulaties, fast response, flexible movement- these are ALL predicated on our civilian and military space assests. Even the ISS played a part in the Iraq war.
The military IS planning for harsh economic times- Rumsfeld wants to cut TWO divisions (from 12, to 10). They are planning for smaller footprints, "lilly-pad" base structuring for forward deployment, etc. Yet inorder to effect a similar capability with a much smaller force REQUIRES that we increase our space based capabilities as a force multiplier.
They want to build tommorrow's army, today. And now we are begining to truly see what that will mean.
I'm not interested in debating the neccessity, or the wisdom of this development in this thread. My opinion dosen't matter- it dosen't change the direction of these developments.
Offline