Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-23-2019, 09:33 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So, speaking with him tonight, it's more of a "There was no 4-star General advocating for Space capabilities within the DoD. Space capabilities were at the whim of the AF, who would rather have money for traditional AF things, and since the 3-star AF Programmer is always a pilot, money always went to non-space AF capes first."
Oh sure, Iíve heard this before. A few problems with it:

1. The last two SecAFs were off-the-charts pro-space. Investment in space programs went up by something like 30 percent over the last two years.

2. Congratulations, you now have the weakest four-star general in the Pentagon. Letís see how powerful he will be.

3. Thereís a one-to-one relationship with increasing overhead costs and losing buying power. The defense budget is likely to be flat for the next several years, so we are actually moving backward on buying any capabilities, be they space, air, land, or whatever.

4. The overriding problem with space capabilities is NOT money. It is acquisition problems. SBIRS is probably the worst acquisition program in DoD history. GPS III satellites were robustly funded, but the PNT payload was screwed up so the whole program was delayed; and oh yeah, the ground control system doesnít work, was supposed to cost $2 billion, and is now costing $6.5 billion and rising. And, the Pentagon created a monopoly on military space launch on purpose and years later we ended up paying two to three times as much as we should have for rocket launches (though with extreme reliability!) Those are not money problems, and arguably they are the result of too much money.

The main problem with space isnít that there arenít enough satellites. The problem is that we have a long way to go with integrating space into war fighting, and need to come up with better options for what happens when we lose access to space because the Chinese or Russians are blowing up, blinding, or jamming our satellites. The bulk of those issues (not all) are best dealt with through the new combatant command. The loss of access to space is actually best dealt with by non-space people. For example, the Army has been doing interesting work on surviving the loss of GPS.

Anyway, I know we agree on this. I just had to get it off my chest.
  #52  
Old 12-24-2019, 10:39 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Seems it's gonna be a thing, sorta: Space Force will start small but let Trump claim a big winThe crux of the biscuit is this: I don't believe that this will remain it's own entity for very long at all. I doubt that 10 years will pass before the personnel and mission are absorbed into an existing branch of the military and/or NASA. I give even chances that is Space Force survives, they try and absorb NASA into the military but I don't think that 60%+/- would continue to work there if that happened.

So how much will this cost us and how long will it last, do y'all think?

As a secondary debate/point of contention: does Space Force have any value at all and why/why not?
In time , it will absorb the airforce. The jump from 5 gen to 6 gen fighter is going to be more aerospace than pure airbreather, while the follow on bomber to the B-21 will be aerospace as well.

Pure airforce missions will be allocated to cargo flights and predator drones and will most likely be National Guard.

Time on station beyond 5 days and exo orbital will be Navy.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #53  
Old 12-24-2019, 10:41 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by outlierrn View Post
I dunno, STAR fleet, isn't that a bit like calling it the world series?
Navy called dibs on star fleet
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #54  
Old 12-24-2019, 10:42 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
You're all ignoring the most important question: what are the uniforms going to look like?
Im betting its going to be right out of Ad Astra
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #55  
Old 12-25-2019, 01:22 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,062
Haven't seen that yet.



I have to say, though, every time I see the title of this thread I hear it shouted by Benny the 80's Space Guy from The Lego Movie. SPACE FORCE!!
  #56  
Old 12-26-2019, 03:15 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The main problem with space isnít that there arenít enough satellites.
The main problem is we don't have enough Space Marines on bug hunts!
  #57  
Old 12-26-2019, 03:49 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,320
Not to detract from the piledriving Trump, but isn't he just giving everyone on the planet carte blanche to militarize space and escalate henceforth ? I thought that was a big no-no since the Cold War. Also I thought they were treaties about that (not that it matters one iota to Trump obviously, but yanno) ?
  #58  
Old 12-26-2019, 03:53 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
There are actually 5 domains - land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace.
Your utter lack of foresight is why the Molemen/Morlock Concordat will annihilate us.
  #59  
Old 12-26-2019, 04:03 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Not to detract from the piledriving Trump, but isn't he just giving everyone on the planet carte blanche to militarize space and escalate henceforth ? I thought that was a big no-no since the Cold War. Also I thought they were treaties about that (not that it matters one iota to Trump obviously, but yanno) ?
Indeed: the US ratified the Outer Space Treaty in 1967.
Quote:
Among the Outer Space Treaty's main points are that it prohibits the placing of nuclear weapons in space, it limits the use of the Moon and all other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. The Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military space forces, or the weaponization of space, with the exception of the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.[6][7] It is mostly a non-armament treaty and offers insufficient and ambiguous regulations to newer space activities such as lunar and asteroid mining
It's filled with nice thoughts but is also a toothless. Still, as the Wikipedia article notes:
Quote:
The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law.
  #60  
Old 12-26-2019, 06:23 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty
I think we should run with this theme and create an “Undersea Force”, which is just like the navy except underwater, and then we can create a “Shore Guard”, which is just like the Coast Guard but just stays right next to the shore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
Littoraly right next to the shore?
OK. I'm sorry but I have to do this:

So I don't get no mad props for my little literally littoral word-play? Damn!! What's up with that?!?!

After years of watching puns being tossed about with abandon here on the Dope I finally come up with a good one and nobody even notices it. Rats!

Maybe I'm doing it wrong.


ETA: I prolly shoulda gone with: "Are you serious? A littoral 'shore guard'?"

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 12-26-2019 at 06:26 PM. Reason: But I got you ALL beat when it comes to editing posts!
  #61  
Old 12-26-2019, 09:02 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,879
You probably should have gone with "Clittoral Combat Ships"
  #62  
Old 12-26-2019, 11:39 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
You probably should have gone with "Clittoral Combat Ships"
Wait....so maybe I really DID do it wrong. You don't even get my pun? I haz the sadz

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 12-26-2019 at 11:41 PM.
  #63  
Old 12-27-2019, 09:55 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
Wait....so maybe I really DID do it wrong. You don't even get my pun? I haz the sadz
I got it. I littorally laughed out loud.
  #64  
Old 12-27-2019, 10:17 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Anyway, I know we agree on this. I just had to get it off my chest.
I agree with you from an acquisitions/funding perspective, but I think the USSF makes the most sense looking at it from the personnel side. It comes down to why we need a uniformed service in the first place, which I put into two basic categories -- we need people who can't just up and quit if they get an unpleasant and/or dangerous assignment (e.g., we need grunts to go fight in Afghanistan), and we need people with command authority to engage in lawful warfare (e.g., we have commissioned officers flying armed drones for legal reasons). I'm not sure which category matters more for spacecom but the DoD sees fit to keep it as a military (and not a civilian) function, and yet AFSPC is where careers go to die. It's the red-headed stepchild of the Air Force, because it's not planes and it's not even a support function that people see on a day-to-day basis. If breaking AFSPC off into a new branch helps prevent some of the brain drain in that domain, it would be a good thing IMHO.

Whether or not that's worth the added overhead, I can't say. I just know that the space people I've talked to seem to thing this is a good idea. Of course, they would say that, but I think their gripes about the lack of opportunities are reasonable.
  #65  
Old 12-27-2019, 10:59 AM
Intergalactic Gladiator's Avatar
Intergalactic Gladiator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 12,130
The worst thing about Space Force is that you just know that Space Force's new sergeant major just PCSd from Germany and he wants his base to have nice green grass just like he had there so some poor schmuck privates are going to get stuck trying to make the grass look nice on the moon.
  #66  
Old 12-27-2019, 12:53 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intergalactic Gladiator View Post
The worst thing about Space Force is that you just know that Space Force's new sergeant major just PCSd from Germany and he wants his base to have nice green grass just like he had there so some poor schmuck privates are going to get stuck trying to make the grass look nice on the moon.
I recall a probably apocryphal story of a general, pissed off that his plane had to wait to have the waste tanks emptied at Thule airbase, ripping on the poor guy who came to empty it. After he said he would make the guy's life unbearable, the airman replied, "It is 30 degrees below zero, and I am pumping shit out of an airplane. What could you possibly do to me?"
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #67  
Old 12-27-2019, 02:07 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I'm not sure which category matters more for spacecom but the DoD sees fit to keep it as a military (and not a civilian) function, and yet AFSPC is where careers go to die. It's the red-headed stepchild of the Air Force, because it's not planes and it's not even a support function that people see on a day-to-day basis.
I donít know how many missileers the Air Force has, but I donít think of that as a career with particular upward mobility. Speaking of mobility, how many mobility pilots have moved to top positions in the Air Force? I can only think of Norty Schwartz, and while Iím sure they are others, it doesnít seem like a long list.

And while AFSPC has been around for lo these many two and a half decades, the current Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a space guy and a former commander of Space Command.

Lastly, if the idea is to create more General Officer billets for space professionals, well, my point is proven: more generals is by definition more bureaucracy. We ought to be cutting GO slots overall across the services and spending that money on combat capability, not making more billets so people can feel proud of themselves or make more money in retirement.

And really lastly, Iím starting to think of Air Force officers as generally being whiners. Iím pretty sure that Space Force officers are just going to ramp up the whining to National Guard Bureau levels when their dreams of limitless money for new stuff starts getting crushed by reality.
  #68  
Old 12-27-2019, 03:31 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I got it. I littorally laughed out loud.
Get out. NOW.
  #69  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:57 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
So I don't get no mad props for my little literally littoral word-play? Damn!! What's up with that?!?!
It was a shallow effort at best.
  #70  
Old 12-28-2019, 04:36 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
More piledriving: Did this POTUS watch CAPTAIN MIDNIGHT when he was youngish?

I've followed the suggestions that USAF will devour USSF or vice-versa; that the US Army has more boats than the USN and more aircraft than the USAF; that all services should be joined under one command - and let's not be shy, but return to the old name: US Dept of War.

What do I expect? Yet more commands and commissions, for Army, Air and Space, Navy and Marines, Coast Guard, Cyberspace, Public Health - and that latter could include biological warfare. These balkanized realms will grow yet vaster bureaucracies and acquisition programs, all competing for funds and power. I do not expect improved audits or accountability. Let the Pentagon fund itself with the last trillion unaccounted for? Sure thing!

Then there are proprietary limits. Without right to repair, the military can't fix its own battlefield equipment.
Quote:
Captain Elle Ekman is a US Marine Corps logistics officer; ...she describes how the onerous conditions imposed by manufacturers on the US armed forces mean that overseas troops are not permitted to fix their own mission-critical gear, leaving them stranded and disadvantaged.

Instead of fixing their equipment as armies have done since the time of the Caesars, US armed forces personnel ship their faulty gear back to the USA for warranty repair, waiting months to get it back into service. She describes maintenance bays full of broken equipment and idle 3D printers, water-jets cutters, and lathes that were once used to effect field repairs. Now, the gear just waits to be shipped stateside.

She traces this to monopoly power among manufacturers, which has allowed them to erode the historic right to repair, and to impose onerous conditions on their customers -- even the Department of Defense.
Got a problem in orbit? Ship that broken part back to the factory, right? How long can you breathe vacuum?
  #71  
Old 12-30-2019, 11:09 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Got a problem in orbit? Ship that broken part back to the factory, right? How long can you breathe vacuum?
Perhaps you can explain how a comm troop is supposed to repair a burned out chip in a mission critical router?
  #72  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:48 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Perhaps you can explain how a comm troop is supposed to repair a burned out chip in a mission critical router?
A critical device should be designed with field repair in mind. Swap chips or modules. BTW did you follow the link?
  #73  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:29 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
A critical device should be designed with field repair in mind. Swap chips or modules. BTW did you follow the link?
Sorry, I don't read informative news from sites called boingboing.net.

Could you perhaps explain how a 55" flat screen monitor can be designed with field repair in mind? I can't imagine how one could be designed for normal consumer-level repair, let alone battlefield conditions. Perhaps I'm just not that imaginative.
  #74  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:07 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sorry, I don't read informative news from sites called boingboing.net.

Could you perhaps explain how a 55" flat screen monitor can be designed with field repair in mind? I can't imagine how one could be designed for normal consumer-level repair, let alone battlefield conditions. Perhaps I'm just not that imaginative.
Firstly, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of the thread, and RioRico bringing up problems with "right to repair" issues feels like a hijack.

Secondly, the boing boing article was written by Cory Doctorow, who's not unheard of, and has a link at the bottom to a NYT article covering the same issue.

Thirdly, to help your imagination, imagine a router that upon entering a failure condition -- say an internal (and easily replaceable) power supply with a slight voltage issue -- refuses to reveal the error code to the end user. It just says "err state," and a proprietary code reader must be used to effectively diagnose the issue. If the router manufacturer doesn't make these proprietary code readers available to end users, then in order to diagnose the problem it must be shipped to a manufacturer-approved repair facility.

But wait, there's more! In the interest of "ensuring the best possible routing experience," the router manufacturer has placed a trusted computing module in the router, which only allows it to turn on if it validates that the power supply is a Genuine Manufacturer Part (tm) that has been paired to that specific router using a public/private key pair that only the manufacturer has access to. Thus meaning that even if a plucky field tech recognizes the telltale signs of a dying power supply, and she has all the tools and parts available to replace it, the router must, nevertheless, still be shipped to an approved repair facility.

"Right to repair" is an ongoing issue for all kinds of consumer products, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1972 made it illegal for manufacturers to place restrictions on when the manufacturer could void a warranty (e.g., Ford can't say your warranty is voided if your local shop does the oil changes under this law), but in 1975 nobody foresaw manufacturers effecting the same sorts of limitations with technology. That is, what if you couldn't remove the oil drain bolt without entering a proprietary password only available at authorized Ford service centers.

Apparently, based on the link posted above, this problem is affecting the military as well as normal consumers, but the extent of the problem, or what this has to do with a thread on the space force, is beyond me. Carry on.

Last edited by steronz; 12-30-2019 at 05:09 PM.
  #75  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:28 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,489
Space Force ainít gonna repair jack shit in orbit. This hijack is as relevant as the color of my grandmaís socks.
  #76  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:32 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post

Apparently, based on the link posted above, this problem is affecting the military as well as normal consumers, but the extent of the problem, or what this has to do with a thread on the space force, is beyond me. Carry on.
I would think that in a military situation there would be back up pre-configured routers or switches on hand that could be swapped out.

Modern equipment is designed to be replaced rather than repaired. I recall the circuitry in an ancient mass spectrometer where transistors and their attendant resistors and capacitors were mounted on an octal plug. Repair consisted of removing the damaged circuit and plugging in a new one. Of course, plugs and sockets cost money. Sockets for ICs cost money, increasing the cost of the product. HP would rather sell me a new printer, or a new PC rather than have me repair a damaged one. There are military grade components, but building a military grade device with sockets requires a different design and assembly line from which less product will be produced, so there is a problem with the cost of military, field repairable equipment.
  #77  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:44 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
I would think that in a military situation there would be back up pre-configured routers or switches on hand that could be swapped out.

Modern equipment is designed to be replaced rather than repaired. I recall the circuitry in an ancient mass spectrometer where transistors and their attendant resistors and capacitors were mounted on an octal plug. Repair consisted of removing the damaged circuit and plugging in a new one. Of course, plugs and sockets cost money. Sockets for ICs cost money, increasing the cost of the product. HP would rather sell me a new printer, or a new PC rather than have me repair a damaged one. There are military grade components, but building a military grade device with sockets requires a different design and assembly line from which less product will be produced, so there is a problem with the cost of military, field repairable equipment.
Sure, -- and again, this is all irrelevant to the topic of the thread -- but we're not talking about a piece of equipment that's unrepairable due to design, but rather a piece of equipment that IS repairable, but only by the manufacturer. To your example, it would be like the octal plug in a mass spectrometer that is easily replaceable, but has a TPM chip inside of it so that you yourself can't do it solely because the manufacturer has added extra technology with the sole purpose of preventing you from doing so. And where this issue has made the news is with John Deere industrial farm equipment, so I imagine we're talking about things like APCs and F-35s rather than consumer-grade routers.
  #78  
Old 12-30-2019, 07:54 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Firstly, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of the thread, and RioRico bringing up problems with "right to repair" issues feels like a hijack.

Secondly, the boing boing article was written by Cory Doctorow, who's not unheard of, and has a link at the bottom to a NYT article covering the same issue
I'm fairly certain that the link at the bottom is to an opinion piece.

Quote:
Thirdly, to help your imagination, imagine a router that upon entering a failure condition -- say an internal (and easily replaceable) power supply with a slight voltage issue -- refuses to reveal the error code to the end user. It just says "err state," and a proprietary code reader must be used to effectively diagnose the issue. If the router manufacturer doesn't make these proprietary code readers available to end users, then in order to diagnose the problem it must be shipped to a manufacturer-approved repair facility.

But wait, there's more! In the interest of "ensuring the best possible routing experience," the router manufacturer has placed a trusted computing module in the router, which only allows it to turn on if it validates that the power supply is a Genuine Manufacturer Part (tm) that has been paired to that specific router using a public/private key pair that only the manufacturer has access to. Thus meaning that even if a plucky field tech recognizes the telltale signs of a dying power supply, and she has all the tools and parts available to replace it, the router must, nevertheless, still be shipped to an approved repair facility
Most of my time in the military, things were shipped to a repair facility because my unit purchased the warranty, or the "3 years same day service option" or similar. We didn't have to ship them to replace a hard drive, or swap bad memory, or add expansion cards, or replace connectors.


Quote:
Apparently, based on the link posted above, this problem is affecting the military as well as normal consumers, but the extent of the problem, or what this has to do with a thread on the space force, is beyond me. Carry on.
I agree, sorry for continuing the hijack.
  #79  
Old 12-30-2019, 07:56 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Space Force ainít gonna repair jack shit in orbit. This hijack is as relevant as the color of my grandmaís socks.
Of course it is! There are going to be Space Force techs in orbital space station maintenance yards fixing Space Force equipment. I mean, why have a Space Force if we are not actually going to have Forces in Space?


  #80  
Old 12-30-2019, 08:54 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I mean, why have a Space Force if we are not actually going to have Forces in Space?
To spend a lot of public money that could be much better allocated elsewhere on things nobody on the planet needs but will make some contractor/personal friends/kickback buddies VERY happy ?
Oh wait, that was one of those rhetorical question, wasn't it ? Nevermind then.
  #81  
Old 12-31-2019, 01:31 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
I'm not opposed to the idea of "Space Force" if it means we can trick Rs into funding space technology.


SF would just be doing what the Air Force (or the US space command) is doing already anyway.

Trump thinks his SF is going to be all about pointing weapons at our foes, but really, it will be more about launching GPS satellites, asteroid defense, and cleaning up space debris.
Yep, this.

While the jokes basically write themselves on something like this, I've read a number of analyses of why this is not a new idea and that there are good reasons for separating out the command of space defence.

Mainly that the various threats have been neglected while it's been just a side issue on the air force's plate. It was China shooting down one of their satellites in 2007 that focused minds on the various What ifs?

So for the second time in a day a stopped watch is displaying the right time -- Trump may not be doing something entirely stupid and self-serving.
  #82  
Old 12-31-2019, 04:19 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
...I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of the thread, and RioRico bringing up problems with "right to repair" issues feels like a hijack.
I brought up a USMC logistic officer's concerns over corporate control of military systems because a space force precluded from field maintenance due to supplier contracts - that's a nightmare! I've read of horrendous maintenance backups with much military hardware left unfit for service. That's bad enough in atmosphere. When (say) a vital pump blows as your USSF warcraft is boosting past Luna, can you wait for Dynex to ship one up to you?

My point: the current travails of surface forces don't bode well for a combat-ready USSF.
  #83  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:03 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,112
For the purposes of "do something now" I'd have renamed the Air Force the Aerospace Force and the only expense would be on whatever stationery and signage spells it out completely.

But I could see the notion of taking Space Defense Command and gradually elevating it to a more autonomous form in a similar way as the Navy/Marines relationship evolved with time, but that's the thing, it should happen with time.

And as far as the distinguished CinC's dreams of glory, well as mentioned before, the real primary interest of Space Defense should NOT be as a "fighting line" force but rather a big-picture/crucial details outfit regarding access/denial/optimization of space resources -- so yes, it would help if there is a dedicated budget line for space defense interests that does not have to compete with keeping the fighter jocks happy (and BTW the transport people feel similarly about theirs). But in turn that means that we've better avoid letting this new outfit's outlook grow from preconceived notion of what is it to be a "fighting force". As someone else said, for instance, one critical Space Defense planning component is "what do we do down here if the GPS/weather/recon satellites are knocked out?" That is a critical thing to deal with, but I can just imagine the vote-seekers (prez, committee chairs, reps from the districts where Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, etc. have plants) thinking that's boring and prosaic and wanting to promise real-life space battle and rod-bombardment capability. I pity the experts trying to tell them that in our real world, the Space Force cannot and should not waste time and money preparing for the third act of Moonraker.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 12-31-2019 at 12:08 PM.
  #84  
Old 12-31-2019, 07:26 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
For the purposes of "do something now" I'd have renamed the Air Force the Aerospace Force and the only expense would be on whatever stationery and signage spells it out completely.

But I could see the notion of taking Space Defense Command and gradually elevating it to a more autonomous form in a similar way as the Navy/Marines relationship evolved with time, but that's the thing, it should happen with time.
Okay, but why?

I mean, there is a reason the Marines evolved to be essentially separate from the Navy, and there's a reason the USAAF became the USAF.

It is unclear to me why SPACE FORCE! needs to be its own thing, separate from the USAF. One could say "well, one's for air, and one is for space," but that is no logically different from arguing that the US Navy should split off the submarine arm into SUB FORCE! There isn't any reason for this based on economy of scale; there just aren't that many personnel, but U.S. standards, involved in fighting in space. There is at present, indeed, no fighting restricted to space at all. It has no peaceful purpose, because that's why NASA exists.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #85  
Old 12-31-2019, 08:35 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Okay, but why?

I mean, there is a reason the Marines evolved to be essentially separate from the Navy, and there's a reason the USAAF became the USAF.
There is ?! Pray tell !
  #86  
Old Yesterday, 09:18 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,805


Trump unveiled the new Space Force logoÖ and it's ripping off Star Trek.



I... I'm trapped in a spoof of early 21st-century American culture and politics, right?
  #87  
Old Yesterday, 10:13 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post


Trump unveiled the new Space Force logoÖ and it's ripping off Star Trek.



I... I'm trapped in a spoof of early 21st-century American culture and politics, right?
Yes.
  #88  
Old Yesterday, 11:12 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,258
We're in the universe where Onion articles become real
  #89  
Old Yesterday, 11:17 PM
blue infinity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 550
The Starfleet logo? Those socialist hippies?

I think the Ferengi symbol would be more apt.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017