Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 11:15:33

Much has been discussed in many threads about the possibility of wars being waged in space and the rights to protect not only ones self but also of property.

I ask is space to be the next battlefield or can we avoid the issue with a new space race? Do we dare leave this all to chance and of best wishes or intentions?

Battlefields past and future: Veterans Day — the 11th day of the 11th month — provides an opportunity to reflect on the wars of the past. You can fuel your reflections by clicking through the Veterans History Project at the Library of Congress, then watch a Webcast of the observance at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington starting at 1 p.m. ET Thursday.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, U.S. soldiers are hoping that their technological edge can translate into success. One of the best and most up-to-date resources on the technology of warfighting is Defense Tech, maintained by Noah Shachtman. Today, Shachtman announces the launch of Defense Tech 3.0, now published under the aegis of Military.com.
"Readers can expect an expanded roster of news, tidbits, rumors and analysis about the future of national security. We're also setting up a forum, so you can discuss the latest in military technology, defense news and security trends," Shachtman says.
Among this week's top links: Slate's on-the-scene report about "the Watchdogs of Fallujah," a Marine unit that is using camera-equipped robot planes to look out for insurgents on the Iraqi city's streets. The prose reads like a sci-fi novel in the style of "Starship Troopers," but the subject is deadly serious.
There's also an update from Aerospace Daily on the near-space surveillance technology that could be fast-tracked for Iraq. JP Aerospace had been involved in the project, but after the company's Ascender airship was damaged by high winds in Texas, the project was relocated to Oregon, the publication reports.
When the U.S. Air Force Space Battlelab recruited Global Solutions for Science and Learning as a new partner, JP Aerospace reportedly bowed out of the project. A redesigned airship is due to get its first flight tests next May, Aerospace Daily reports.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-11 11:24:26

Do we dare leave this all to chance and of best wishes or intentions?

We have no real choice. We cannot ordain what the future will hold, we cannot compel future generations to behave as we would like. When man lives in space, he will fight in space. The expansion of humanity into the cosmos will at times be violent, destructive and bloody as hell, but it will be worth it.

It then follows that trying to avoid weaponizing space is futile, we'd be better served by making certain that our weapons get there first and in quantity.

With an appropriate level of "concern" and cooperation, of course.

Palomar · 2004-11-11 11:41:30

*Yeah, I've seen the near-future of "space exploration" (notice I put that in quotation marks): Still stuck in LEO as the wealthy/well-to-do have their honeymoons and joy rides while governments arm to the teeth to protect the space junk floating around in LEO and the rich people cavorting in near to zero-G.

In the meantime, actually getting a manned expedition to Mars and resultant science (and preparations for a permanent colony) are shuffled out of the picture (once again).

Oh well, it was a nice dream I guess! :rant:

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-11 11:59:38

In the meantime, actually getting a manned expedition to Mars and resultant science (and preparations for a permanent colony) are shuffled out of the picture (once again).
Oh well, it was a nice dream I guess!

And that's my cue to say something totally at odds with accepted "doctrine".

In many ways the present use of space, communications satellites and a playground for bored billionaires is the direct and inevitable result of some of our accepted, cherished and fundamentally non-pioneering attitudes about how the world should work. If we look back at expansions into new frontiers of the past we see either the conquest of lands at the expense of their native occupants or the settlement of frontiers out of national pride and to beat others to it.

As no one else lives in our immediate solar neighborhood and we've turned expansionist nationalism into a heresy we can't help but be stuck in LEO. Can you make money farther out? sure. Can you make it back quickly enough to justify the enormous expense of getting out there and setting up an industry? Not at present. In the absence of huge profits or national expansion/pride there's no motivation. All this "international exploration for the good of mankind" makes for a nice header on glossy mission proposals and internal memos but it doesn't fly. No pun intended but there it is. To move out into the cosmos is by definition an action taken by a vigourous, expansionist civilization, yet we villify the very attitudes that make it possible. We've neutered ourselves and then sit around complaining that we're going in circles, it's absurd.

Palomar · 2004-11-11 12:20:18

All this "international exploration for the good of mankind" makes for a nice header on glossy mission proposals and internal memos but it doesn't fly.

*That's not what I'm talking about. We have the capability of getting a manned mission to Mars.

I don't care about fad followers; to hell with them.

We've neutered ourselves and then sit around complaining that we're going in circles, it's absurd.

*Nix the collectivist talk. There's no "we" here. If I and others like me had our way about it, there'd be no sitting around complaining and we wouldn't be going around in LEO circles. We'd be doing something on Mars right now.

And we needn't arm up to go to Mars. Who else could follow the U.S. there currently? Europe perhaps...we're still on relatively friendly terms with them. No need to be armed currently against a current nonexistent threat.

Ah well, we've discussed this before in my colonization/militarization thread ... buried somewhere here at New Mars ...

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 12:35:13

Historically war has been a major driving force behind technology. There is no strong reason to believe it won’t continue to do so. Unlike most people I am for the weponization of space because how else are we going to get into space in a relatively short timeframe.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-11 12:39:25

*That's not what I'm talking about. We have the capability of getting a manned mission to Mars.

we have the technological capability. We seem to be lacking in other areas.

And we needn't arm up to go to Mars. Who else could follow the U.S. there currently? Europe perhaps...we're still on relatively friendly terms with them. No need to be armed currently against a current nonexistent threat.

No, certainly not. Yet the motivations and attitudes that lead to "arming up" are tied to those that would make us land on some barren rock and try to live there.

*Nix the collectivist talk. There's no "we" here.

Just trying to bring people back together.

But I get your point, and it most certainly wasn't my intent to imply that it is people like yourself that are somehow hindering efforts, quite the contrary. Unfortunately we have a situation where many space advocates have an odd set of beliefs about human nature while the so-called "progressives" in our society disdain space exploration as a waste of money that could be better used to help the poor/feed the hungry/ save a tree, whatever.

Ah well, we've discussed this before in my colonization/militarization thread ... buried somewhere here at New Mars ...

Indeed we have, to a standstill if I recall. Standing down.

Palomar · 2004-11-11 12:41:54

*My apologies, Cobra. I came off a little too strong in my response to you.

I see some of your points, like this:

In many ways the present use of space, communications satellites and a playground for bored billionaires is the direct and inevitable result of some of our accepted, cherished and fundamentally non-pioneering attitudes about how the world should work. If we look back at expansions into new frontiers of the past we see either the conquest of lands at the expense of their native occupants or the settlement of frontiers out of national pride and to beat others to it.

But I still don't think militarization need preceed colonization, at least as things currently stand.

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 12:57:08

But I still don't think militarization need preceed colonization, at least as things currently stand.

I agree but I just want to see people get there whatever the driving force.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 13:15:21

Right now the almighty force is the dollar and there seems to be few to go around, unless it is for wars or there weapons of choice.

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 13:22:42

In many ways the present use of space, communications satellites and a playground for bored billionaires is the direct and inevitable result of some of our accepted, cherished and fundamentally non-pioneering attitudes about how the world should work. If we look back at expansions into new frontiers of the past we see either the conquest of lands at the expense of their native occupants or the settlement of frontiers out of national pride and to beat others to it.

This is why I like the modularity of the CEV. Part of the development cost of missions to mars or the moon are spread out over LEO missions. I also like the proposed mission by the planetary society that gives an incremental approach to space exploration doing new science with each step.

http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-s … mmary.html

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-11 13:27:29

I also like the proposed mission by the planetary society that gives an incremental approach to space exploration doing new science with each step.

While this approach has merit, it also has a serious flaw built in. We can't settle space until we make a conscious decision and deliberate effort to do so, and as long as our primary focus is on science that won't happen. It has to be about more than spectral analysis of rocks or we'll never move people out there permanently.

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 13:30:24

While this approach has merit, it also has a serious flaw built in. We can't settle space until we make a conscious decision and deliberate effort to do so, and as long as our primary focus is on science that won't happen. It has to be about more than spectral analysis of rocks or we'll never move people out there permanently.

But at least is a start. It means the development of the technology to get us there. This coupled with improved IRSU, robotic repairs and construction, research into propultion , increased privatization and a higher and higher push by the military might just give us enough momentum to expand beyond this plant. Let all forces work to gether.

I also think there is a paradigm shift into focusing more on settling as opposed to exploration. IRSU can be used to enhance robotics missions but it can also be used to support people.

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 13:49:59

Anyway the best example about how the military is going to help speed up the push into space is Falcon. The first falcon may only skip along the top of the atmosphere but just wait until its upgrades. Additional the military gives a market for any rockets produced helping to increase economies of scale. Combine this with standardized parts like is occurring in joint strike fighter and things get better and better.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 13:59:40

A slight flaw is also in thinking that after core complete in approximate 3 years by there number of flights, is that we are seeing that the funding level is sustained and that congress does not lower the amounts to fund the space programs with.

One can only hope that this would not occur and that if anything the funding level should increase a little for each year until we can have manned missions to the moon.

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 14:05:38

A slight flaw is also in thinking that after core complete in approximate 3 years by there number of flights, is that we are seeing that the funding level is sustained and that congress does not lower the amounts to fund the space programs with.

I am hopping people will see how research into technology benefits their life.

Grypd · 2004-11-11 14:17:34

Maybe i should put this down

TOO LATE, space already is militarised, it is the medium we put our surveilance, communication, guidance systems. Our ultimate weapons that can annihalate cities go through this medium. Countries have the ability to shoot down and damage satellites. In this space is a medium we have militarised. But we can still avoid the space fighters and star destroyers of science fiction. If we create these things then they will be used. But there still will be a need for an armed prescence if only to act as a police force.

How do we stop space becoming the place for wars to start and to be the main battlefield. In the end we cant. International treaties do not work as the USA has shown.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 14:30:12

But those same items have peaceful purposes as well and do no direct harm by any. They only provide the means to obtain data that is required for within the frame work of battle.

Now laser targeting satelites, or orbital scram jet bombers now that is a problem...

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-11 14:39:23

Now laser targeting satelites, or orbital scram jet bombers now that is a problem....

Well... why? Seriously, I don't think it's a portend of doom. If the military builds a scramjet bomber that's great as far as I'm concerned. Not only does it give us the capability to bomb anything on the planet in 90 minutes with no warning but on a more basic level it means that a working, practical and servicable scramjet exists. It'll make it's way into civilian use just like the jet did before it. Military R&D is a good way to develop complex and expensive technologies that the free market just wouldn't shell out the dinero for, but once they figure out how to make it work it always finds broader applications.

Build a scramjet bomber, put a terawatt laser in orbit, build the friggin' Death Star if you can, it all adds up to increased space presence and technological capability for our species.

International treaties do not work as the USA has shown.

Like no one else has ever junked a treaty before.

Trebuchet · 2004-11-11 18:06:11

I completely agree with Cobra on this one. If Boeing builds a scramjet space bomber, they'll be building a scramjet SSTO almost immediately thereafter. The military will even be doing us the favor of training the pilots for the things, developing the techniques and protocols necessary for frequent space travel, and assuring insurers of the relative risks of each particular flight.

Anyways, look on the bright side... right now you need to navigate NASA's lengthy process for becoming an astronaut, which only the most miniscule number of people will pass. However, if the Air Force is recruiting people to fly orbital/suborbital bombers, your chances are much, much higher... and you're likely to fly a lot more than those astronauts.

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 18:11:43

Anyways, look on the bright side... right now you need to navigate NASA's lengthy process for becoming an astronaut, which only the most miniscule number of people will pass. However, if the Air Force is recruiting people to fly orbital/suborbital bombers, your chances are much, much higher... and you're likely to fly a lot more than those astronauts.

Cool. Makes me almost want to sign up for the air force. Of course only the very elite will get to fly these things.

Euler · 2004-11-11 18:23:48

Build a scramjet bomber, put a terawatt laser in orbit, build the friggin' Death Star if you can, it all adds up to increased space presence and technological capability for our species.

I am generally in favor of improving technology, including military technology, but I draw the line at Death Stars. Anything that can annihilate the human species with a single attack is simply too dangerous to build unless there is no other choice.

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 18:28:36

I am generally in favor of improving technology, including military technology, but I draw the line at Death Stars. Anything that can annihilate the human species with a single attack is simply too dangerous to build unless there is no other choice.

Makes sence but why would someone buid one that big? Well anyway somethink we can do that a few times over with ICBMs. I hope they are wrong.

P.S. Would a terawatt laser really destroy the earth. Doesn’t the earth receive much more power from the sun?

Trebuchet · 2004-11-11 19:42:40

Cool. Makes me almost want to sign up for the air force. Of course only the very elite will get to fly these things.

Odds are still better than the astronaut corps.

Euler · 2004-11-11 19:47:36

Well anyway somethink we can do that a few times over with ICBMs. I hope they are wrong.

I think they are wrong. We only really have enough ICBMs to destroy all of the major cities in the US, Europe and Russia. I would not want to test it though.

.S. Would a terawatt laser really destroy the earth.

No, but a Death Star would. Destroying planets is what Death Stars do.

I don't think using a laser would be a reasonable way to destroy a planet. However, there are other technologies that we should be very cautious about developing, such as black hole generation or grey goo.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-11 11:15:33

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#2 2004-11-11 11:24:26

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#3 2004-11-11 11:41:30

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#4 2004-11-11 11:59:38

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#5 2004-11-11 12:20:18

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#6 2004-11-11 12:35:13

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#7 2004-11-11 12:39:25

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#8 2004-11-11 12:41:54

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#9 2004-11-11 12:57:08

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#10 2004-11-11 13:15:21

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#11 2004-11-11 13:22:42

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#12 2004-11-11 13:27:29

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#13 2004-11-11 13:30:24

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#14 2004-11-11 13:49:59

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#15 2004-11-11 13:59:40

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#16 2004-11-11 14:05:38

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#17 2004-11-11 14:17:34

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#18 2004-11-11 14:30:12

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#19 2004-11-11 14:39:23

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#20 2004-11-11 18:06:11

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#21 2004-11-11 18:11:43

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#22 2004-11-11 18:23:48

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#23 2004-11-11 18:28:36

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#24 2004-11-11 19:42:40

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#25 2004-11-11 19:47:36

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

Board footer