Hey – Let's Build A Space Force!
Keith’s note: President Trump spoke to military personnel at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego and starting talking about a new “Space Force”. [Video] [Larger image]
“My new national strategy for space recognizes that space is a war fighting domain. Just like the land, air, and sea. We may have a Space Force. Develop another one. Space Force. We have the Air Force – we’ll have a Space Force. We have the Army, the Navy. You know I was saying it the other day because we are doing a tremendous amount of work in space. I said ‘maybe we need a new force – we’ll call it the Space Force – and I was not really serious – and then I said what a great idea – maybe we’ll have to do it. That could happen. That could be the breaking shore. Look at all those people back there. Look at that. Ahhh – that fake news. Ugh. They know – they understand. So think of that: Space Force. Because we’re spending a lot – and we have a lot of private money coming in – tremendous. You saw what happened the other day – tremendous success. From the very beginning many of our astronauts have been soldiers and sailors, airmen, coast guardsmen, and marines. And our service members will be vital to ensuring that America continues to lead the way into the stars. It will lead the way in space. We’re way, way behind – and we’re catching up fast – so fast that nobody even believes it.”
.jpg){kind=link}
Well you know weed is legal here, maybe he had a nice piece of fudge.
Yes, there is a need for the new US Space Force with Space Force Space Station, SF Space Plane, SF Big Telescope,.. and more space jobs.
They will have their pick of new generation rockets to buy since NASA could never make use of their capabilities. Could you really imagine NASA sending a 100 astronauts to the Moon at a time on a BFR? NASA still thinks they will be doing something amazing sending 4 into a lunar orbit on the SLS/Orion…
To be entirely honest, I think I’d feel more comfortable with a lunar base built by the Corps of Engineers or the Seebees than by NASA. The Seebees did a good job building and operating all the US bases and stations in Antarctica (expect, I think, for the current Amundsen-Scott station, which post-dates the Navy’s involvement.)
I am afraid NASA would try to figure out how they could keep a minimalist program going for 3 or 4 decades with nothing to show for it at the end. Personally I have lost all confidence in NASA’s human space flight program. They are no longer trying to accomplish anything; they are happy enough just to waste money.
You’re conveniently ignoring that US astronauts are going to be returning to the vicinity of the Moon fairly soon onboard the Orion spacecraft which will be launched on the new SLS rocket. They will be crewing a new space station orbiting the Moon. The first component of three that will complete the Deep Space Gateway is scheduled to be launched in 2022 on a commercial flight. The Gateway will be a first step towards landing humans on Mars in 2033. You couldn’t be more wrong!
Sounds like the very process that NA described.
Which reminds me of an SF story in which a generation ship, arriving at a far-off star, is greeted by a thriving Earth colony.
Substitute players in the modern era: an Orion capsule, finally (2022 being “soon”) arrives at the Moon, greeted by a thriving installation populated by SX, and perhaps a few others; some have arrived in full reusable spacecraft.
“Hey! What took y’all so long?”
Um… are you being sarcastic??
No. Apparently you’re unaware of what’s planned for the 2020’s otherwise you wouldn’t have to ask that.
Of course the Air Force has been trying for decades to do exactly that, create its own space system to fly its own astronauts into space. In the early days there were long range plans for space stations manned by Air Force astronauts, and even an Air Force base on the Moon. Various planned projects over the years included placing an X-15 on top of a Navaho missile, a capsule on top of a Thor missile, X-20 Dyna-Soar on top of a Titan missile. There was Blue Gemini, MOL and Blue Shuttle. The last gasp (for now anyway) was the Military Man in Space research program in the 1980’s. Although some of the hypersonic research programs over the years seemed to include the possibility of eventual manned versions.
The big question that could never be answered was what exactly would Air Force astronauts actually do once they were in space. That and the fact that these projects were often duplicating what was already being done by NASA led to eventual cancellation.
All of us USAF (retired) people will have to dispute your contention – the Air Force has often flirted with having a military person in space (flying under USAF or other DoD sponsorship) but has always pulled back.
You say that the “last gasp” was the Military Man in Space, you do know about MANY DoD people that flew on Shuttle? The DoD had the Manned Spaceflight Engineer program and flew two mission specialists – and flew other DoD officers and civilians. The DoD flew Shuttle missions that had classified payloads, etc – such as 51-C. They flew unclassified payloads on Shuttle.
Even today the DoD flies payloads and experiments on ISS.
But the Air Force (IM HO) wants money for pointy nosed fighters – where people fly them and shoot down other airplanes. They promote fighter pilots to run space organizations (Major General Guastella are you listening?) – give them some PowerPoint briefs and they are space experts.
Absolutely the Air Force had a major role in the development of both manned and unmanned spaceflight, I didn’t intend to imply otherwise. Going all the way back to the late 1940’s when the USAF School of Medicine began space medicine research. Followed by tremendous contributions by the Air Force to space technology development. And of course the Air Force has supplied a large number of astronauts especially pilot astronauts. Whose skill (along with Navy and Marine) proved invaluable especially in the early days when the automated systems were not always up to handling unforeseen circumstances.
When I mentioned Air Force astronauts I was referring to plans for a separate astronaut corp trained by the Air Force flying on Air Force equipment. I was alluding to the very early plans in the 1950’s and continuing somewhat into the 1960’s where the Air Force expected to have a separate presence in space, in the earliest days even a belief that space could be a future battleground. It seems this idea started to diminish even during the 1960’s and the last gasp that I was referring to was perhaps the end of that concept. But certainly not the end of military and especially Air Force involvement in spaceflight.
The Air Force originally intended to fly Space Shuttles from Schreiver AFB in Colorado, the Shuttle would have been a shared resource between the USAF (DoD really since Army astronauts, etc flew) and NASA.
Few DoD astronauts who flew as NASA astronauts ever came back to their services (some exceptions like the wonderful Susan Helms did exist).
I thought they were going to fly shuttles from Vandenberg. They were in the midst of building a shuttle launch facility there when the Challenger accident happened.
They were planning to fly the Shuttle out of Vandenberg, and the facilities were almost complete at the time of the STS 51-L disaster. I suspect you’d have to go way back in the Shuttle’s design history before a launch from Colorado was in the cards. But that doesn’t mean it was never something people considered. Very early design concepts involved a flyback carrier and (I think) horizontal takeoff. At that stage, imagining flights out of any place with 10,000 feet of runway would have been possible.
Piloted!
I did some work (for about a week, IIRC) on Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., in the 1971-72 timeframe. The concept was in deed for a manned fly-back booster. Of course, it never went anywhere.
I guess I figured that re-usable boosters like SX depended on quite recent technology as well as on ideas like super-cooled fuels.
But if you were involved in such a program I suppose that, at least on paper, the type of system you describe was feasible?
Such a case puts a different light on 50 years’ of throwaway tech.
I assumed he meant that mission control for Air Force shuttle missions would have been located at Schriever. Schriever (formerly Falcon) became operational in 1985.
Even in the early design concepts I am not aware of any plans for horizontal launch of the shuttle. I’m sure there were all kinds of wild ideas, but as far as what was being seriously considered they were always planned to be launched vertically as far as I know. However since there would be no booster pieces falling into the ocean, and since the manned booster would have flown back using jet engines, inland launch sites for the shuttle were not ruled out. Although I assume they would not have been located near populated areas.
Maybe NASA could be folded into the US Space Force, functioning much like the ONR does in the Navy. Then Congress won’t have to worry about approving a NASA Administrator anymore since a Space Force General will be running it 🙂
No. Divergent missions.
No, a return to what was NASA’s basic mission when it was the NACA, providing aeronautical, and under the Space Force, astronautical technology for national defense. 🙂
BTW the ONR was much like NASA in the 1960’s, sending humans to the deepest part of the ocean, running SeaLab, developing exploration submarines like the Alvin…
https://www.onr.navy.mil/en…
After all, what will you do with NASA after SpaceX, Blue Origin and Bigelow Aerospace take over its HSF exploration mission?
The Naval Research Laboratory also does quite a bit of pure space science. Well, largely pure: Things like solar physics research do have a fig leaf justification in terms things like space weather and its effects on satellites…
Almost all plasma physicists are familiar with the NRL Plasma Formulary (or the Book Book, after the first editor, Dr. Book.) It’s a wonderful, pocket format book of all sorts of equations and physical constants used in the field, and they distribute it for free. My only reservation is keeping in in the bag with my laptop; when I travel out of the country, I worry someone might see the NRL seal on the cover and mistakenly think it’s export controlled material.
Yes, the ONR does a lot with its budget of about $2 billion. I was impressed with their list of Nobel Laureates…
https://www.onr.navy.mil/Ab…
It shows what could be done when an agency is not the prisoner of the Senate Pork Masters.
That’s a list of the Nobel laureates who had some funding from ONR. A more direct connection to the Navy would be Albert Michelson, who was a Navy officer and a professor at the Naval Academy when he did some some of the initial work which he won a Nobel prize for.
I’m not sure “exploration” will go to commercial (private) enterprise…just yet. There has to be a profit motive for commercial entities to do things, although they may not initially return a profit. OTOH, NASA may still have a function in HSF, but using commercial hardware (as it is now doing by hiring SpaceX to launch some payloads). This will probably depend on the speed of development and the scale of economics of the commercial outfits versus SLS/Orion. It may take some educating of Congress to see that NASA’s role is NOT building hardware, but managing programs in conjunction with the commercial outfits. The military aspects will also affect and be effected by the commercial side. After all, military systems aren’t BUILT by the military (although the legacy contractors act more like the old Soviet design bureaus!!!).
As far as creating a “U.S. Space Force”, whether patterned after the USMC, expect the Air Force to fight it, just as the Army fought against a separate Air Force prior to 1947, and President Truman at first tried to disband the Marines. There is also the point that the divide between “air” and “space” is somewhat arbitrary, and the Army argued that ICBM were simply longrange artillery, while the Air Force argued they flew through space. IF a Space Force IS created, does that mean we will need a Space Academy? Tom Corbett, stand by! Stay tuned!
planetary and space science?
Well, I hope planetary and space science will still be supported. But in this ideal future of cheap launches, things might be very different. Even today, many of the lower-budget missions are not exactly NASA. That is, NASA funds Explorer, Discovery and New Frontiers missions, and retains a management role in them. But most of those missions involve a science team and PI who don’t work for NASA and a spacecraft build by a commercial contractor. I can imagine a world where planetary and space science resemble field geology on Earth. In that case, a government agency pays the bills, but the scientists work for universities, buy their gear from REI and fly to the location on United.
Cheap launch means NASA gets to fly more fuel for faster missions. I look to NASA moving away from a bunch of smaller ones and will be focused more on larger ones… Jupiter Icey moons .. modular telescopes etc ..
I’m not sure that would be a good idea. If I look at a mission like Cassini, I really love the way it studied all aspects of the Saturn system. But I also know how many compromises that involved. (E.g. equatorial orbits are a poor choice for studying the rings, since you see them edge on; inclined orbits are a poor choice for studying the atmosphere, since the rings block you view of a sizable part of the planet.) If it had been possible, I think a squadron of four or five smaller spacecraft could have done an even better job.
Large missions also have a problem controlling cost. Simply because they are so big and high profile, they tend to be very risk adverse. If you’re spending a billion dollars on a mission, why not spend two billion and make really, really sure it works? And then there is the whole “to big to fail” mentality a big mission can develop.
Overall, I think my preference is for lots and lots of small missions with frequent opportunities to revisit places in the solar system (and build on the discoveries of past missions.) I wouldn’t mind if sending someone to do a survey of magnetized rocks in Reiner Gamma was no more exotic than sending someone to study volcanism in Santorini.
“Large missions also have a problem controlling cost”
That is exactly my point, if congress loses SLS orion where will they find their development pork? Large missions… or as bill nelson says ..
“monster” missions
So much here is not new in any way. Talk of a “Space Force” goes back at least 20 years. And how can we simultaneously “lead the way” and be “way, way behind?” By the way, one author argues for folding the USAF into the Army and Navy to eliminate duplication (saving money) and further the work already done on how the services’ assets already cooperate. As all services depend on space assets as well … should they be part of the spinoff too??
More here on that: https://www.airspacemag.com…
“From the mare of Luna to the sands of Mars… The United Space Marines!” With ALL due respect to the US Marine Corps and the Hymn.
Hey, its just money. We will print some more. Don’t worry about it.
It sounds like donald now thinks that creating a Space Force was his idea? He says ” I said ‘maybe we need a new force – we’ll call it the Space Force” and it sounds like he feels it was an original idea.
Trump’s an idiot but 1) This was not his idea, 2) there is a legitimate military argument for a space-oriented service and 3) The Russians have had such a service for a couple of decades.
I think, technically, the Russians have an “Aerospace Force” rather than an “Air Force”, and the space service is a branch of that.
The Space Forces of Russia have existed in various forms since 1992. It has been both an independent service and subordinate to the VVS. It came back under the VVS as a quasi-autonomous branch in 2015.
Um:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/…
Someone has seen too many movies… https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Musk could be the next Drax. You never know.
You also have to remember things like distributing flame throwers and concerns over artificial intelligences taking over the world, as well as having his own, private space program. Mr. Musk does have many aspects of a Bond super-villain. But, at least we can say that only one of his companies is boring.
Space Farce?
3. Ridiculous or empty show; as, a mere farce. “The farce of
state.” –Pope.
[1913 Webster]
The first US astronaut to die in training was USAF Maj. Robert W. Lawrence, who was in the DODs Manned Orbiting Laboratory program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…. Ironically it would be many years and a lot of behind the scenes politics before his name was finally added to the Astronaut Memorial.
DOD has IMO been more pragmatic about human spaceflight than NASA, having tried every possible mission for military personnel in space (even spotting targets from orbit with binoculars) and finding that robotic systems were more practical, they ended the program.
As far as the servces are concerned, integration of the services rather than division has always been the more rational path. We already have the 45th Space Wing which controls the DOD (including Navy) and occasionally Coast Guard (DHS) assets that support both human and unmanned launches and and includes Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, which includes all the actual launch and landing sites except LC-39A (Falcon) and LC-39B (SLS), and Vandenberg (Delta, Atlas, and Falcon) and Edwards in California. We also have a large NRO facility, part of DOD although not a “service”. DOD already spends more total money on space activities than NASA. So creation of a separate service branch would obviously be a waste of resources, and has only been seriously proposed as a way to get more money out of Congress.
We discussed this last year, when the idea was (temporarily) written into an appropriations bill. But I don’t remember the answer to a key question.
Does an Air Force officer’s career run into a brick wall at some point if he (or she) never flew a plane? Or does a Navy officer have to have commanded a ship to become an Admiral? I’m not sure if there is an official requirement, but I strongly suspect the lack of such experience would become an obstacle above a certain rank.
If I’m right about that, then it might make sense to consolidate the 45th, the NRO and possibly the ballistic missile squadrons (and missile defense?) into one organization. That could be more efficient, give them a more direct funding path (elevate the new satellite versus new aircraft debate to a higher level) and provide a career path for people who don’t fly the fast jets.
As a former Air Force space guy – we did have quite a few flyers and missile guys come over to be squadron commanders, etc etc. When I was at Clear AFS, Alaska our commander was a missile guy from SAC (at the time). Some of those people were good but many just came over to get a command and go “home” in my opinion. They did take a lot of education before they understood decisions that they were making.
And I never knew an experienced space guy that went to some command role in a missile wing, maintenance squadron, etc etc. So every leadership role taken by a pilot, etc was one that was not available to an experienced space guy.
This is the key point.
Air is different to space.
It is correct that Robert Lawrence was killed in a 1967 training accident, although technically so were Gemini astronauts Freeman, Bassett and See when they were killed in T-38 crashes in 1964 and 1966. In both T-38 crashes the astronauts were flying either to or from training in St. Louis. But besides just travelling, the fact that they were flying or even just flying in a high performance aircraft such as the T-38 was considered part of SFRT (Spaceflight Readiness Training). That’s also why you often see Clifton Williams’ T-38 crash in 1967 (two months prior to Lawrence) listed as a training accident, even though Williams was flying the T-38 to Mobile, AL to visit his parents.
However in my opinion Lawrence’s flight was even more directly spaceflight related, even though it wasn’t specifically MOL training. ARPS (Aerospace Research Pilot School) at the time was flying rocket assisted NF-104A’s in what was essentially an X-15 type of program to train pilots for future planned spaceplane vehicles, as well as to gather data. Boost training flights up to 120,000 feet had a ballistic apogee using RCS for control. Separate landing training flights were accomplished by cutting the turbine engine to idle, opening the speed brakes, and lowering the landing gear. This configuration actually created a lower lift to drag ratio and higher wing loading than even X-15. And with no computers to assist like on the later Gulfstream STA. It was during one of these steep-descent landings in a two-seat F-104D that the fatal crash occurred. Lawrence was actually acting as the trainer on the flight, sitting in the back seat while a (non-MOL) pilot attempted the steep-descent landing but hit the runway hard, collapsing the landing gear and causing the aircraft to rebound back into the air. Both pilots ejected however only the front seat pilot survived.
Along with Lawrence, X-15 pilot Michael Adams’ name was also missing from the mirror memorial when it was dedicated in May 1991, at least according to the Bill Harwood UPI article from that day which listed only fifteen astronauts. Later sources indicate that Adams’ name was added in 1991, but not specifically when. So it appears that Adams was added later that year. By the way neither Adams nor Lawrence’s names were included in the Fallen Astronaut plaque that was left on the Moon during Apollo 15.
As for Lawrence not being added to the mirror memorial until 1997, apparently the complication was that even though he had been selected for MOL, only pilots that actually flew in space were officially considered astronauts by the USAF. Michael Adams on the other hand had been awarded astronaut wings posthumously, since his fatal X-15 flight exceeded 50 miles, the Air Force threshold. As for Freeman, Bassett, See and Williams, none of whom flew in space, apparently the fact that NASA considered them astronauts was enough to qualify for the mirror memorial. I suspect another reason was that Lawrence was in a program which did not achieve space flight. Combined with the fact that MOL was by nature quite secretive, so Lawrence’s death was not as well known as the others. At least I hope those were the only reasons. Lawrence was African-American, I certainly hope that had nothing to do with it.
In 1997 the USAF changed Lawrence’s official status and he then received the honor that he deserves.
The House Armed Services Committee actually included the creation of a United States Space Corps in this year’s Defense Authorization Act. The concept was very loosely modeled after the USMC and would have fallen under the USAF. The proposal was ultimately killed in Conference Committee but it did gain some traction.
Militarization of space is a really bad idea.
I’m afraid it’s a bit late for that. The first manmade object to enter space (cross the Karman line) was a V-2, on 20 June 1944. Today, it’s generally understood by astronomers most of the telescopes in orbit point down, and are operated by people who don’t publicly talk about the data.
The President’s statement is a little thin details. He may be thinking of simply reorganizing the current military assets in space. Or he may think we need to stop Marvin the Martian from destroying the Earth (it blocks his view of Venus…) It’s hard to say based on his words.
That seems unlikely.
The United Nations should have a space force and call it the U.N. Spacey. All kidding aside space has been militarized for some time, but with more of a passive force. It’s likely it will become an active arena in any war with our reliance on communication, GPS, and information from satellites no to mention future orbital weapons platforms. Dosen’t China already have a “killer satellite” up there now that can take out other satellites?
The US, Russia (well, the Soviet Union) and China have all demonstrated anti-satellite weapons. The US and Russian work was done in the 1980s, so the hardware is probably gone and the technology obsolete. But killing a low Earth orbit satellite isn’t hard.
The trick would be doing it without shooting yourself in the foot. This sort of thing creates lots of orbital debris. I think one estimate said the Chinese test doubled the debris risk in low Earth orbit. I’m not sure if that’s correct, but it certainly was a very noticeable increase. Unless a country is trying to deny space to everyone, themselves included, just blowing up satellites might not be a good idea. Other options include jamming, overloading or burning out sensors and other sorts of non-explosive disruption.
I would imagine that black budget funding, that runs at 80 billion a year .. has already passed shooting them down to blinding them with lasers or sats with robot arms to grab a sat and deorbit it ..
I would be very disappointed if people haven’t come up with ways to disable spacecraft without explosive debris production. It’s sort of an obvious idea and the agencies whose names may not be spoken do get quite a bit of funding.
Lasers are a nice idea since the difference between disabling a spacecraft in low Earth orbit and in geostationary orbit isn’t too great (it is for a missile.) But I wouldn’t go for grabbing or deorbiting. Satellites are delicate. If you get near them, you can break them. Quenching a small superconducting magnet produces an electromagnetic pulse that wouldn’t be good for electronics within a few meters. Just pushing on a solar array could leave it dangling and the spacecraft without power. Given all the effort it takes to make a spacecraft work, it shouldn’t be surprising that making them _not_ work isn’t hard.
A more interesting question is how you could prevent that sort of attack on space assets. That’s probably so deeply black that speculation is pointless. It would be a classified response to a sort of attack whose nature is based on classified intelligence information.
Don’t worry, Trump will have forgotten all about it by this time tomorrow. Either that, or he’ll try to appoint Buzz Lightyear to head it up. To Infinity! And Behind!
I doubt Buzz would have sufficient Russian ties to meet Trump’s standards.
I elect the Space Patrol, they were able to solve all sorts of crisis in less than 30 minutes. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Good find. You must be as old as I am…
Especially, with chicks!
From what I’ve read (The Final Reflection – John Ford), the Klingons have Space Marines! And you forgot Tom Corbett, Space Cadet and Capt. Video!
Nice outfits. In Heinlein’s short story “The Long Watch”, the Space Patrol was an international peacekeeping force threatened by a nationalistic leader who had no reservations about using a few nuclear weapons to intimidate those who might not accept his authority.
I think it is inevitable that the major spacefaring nations (US, Russia, and China) will develop a space corps or a space force. However, I think it is probably too soon for that, and would be a waste of money right now; everything that is needed is being done by the Air Force and others (NSA). However, consider the purpose of a space force (similar to the Navy): to project American power throughout space. Say, for instance, the US sets up a moon base on the most favored lunar real estate, at the south Lunar pole, where there are a few ridges that receive daylight continuously. Then, say, the Chinese set up a base right next door, and start to use their solar arrays on prime real estate that the US had considered theirs to use. There would be a major international dispute. The US needs to have the ability to send a squad of US Space Marines, right now it looks like via a SpaceX BFS or something similar, to ensure that no encroachment happens. That is only one example, there are numerous others. The mere capability to project this power should have a deterring effect. If there is no capability, then there is no deterrence at all, and a foreign power can do whatever they like.
Wow this will go up there with Gore invented the internet .. trump invented the space force it will go down with trump inventing the economic term/theory “priming the pump”
“ECONOMIST: But beyond that it’s OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?
TRUMP: It is OK, because it won’t increase it for long. You may have two years where you’ll… you understand the expression “prime the pump”?
ECONOMIST: Yes.
TRUMP: We have to prime the pump.
ECONOMIST: It’s very Keynesian.
TRUMP: We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?
ECONOMIST: Priming the pump?
TRUMP: Yeah, have you heard it?
ECONOMIST: Yes.
TRUMP: Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just… I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.
ECONOMIST: It’s—
TRUMP: Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.”
The difference being that major internet players actually supported Gore’s lighthearted claim, crediting him with major government policies that led to the web and commercialisation of the internet.
Evidence? Recall the Internet was created in 1969, eight years before he was first elected a Representative.
I’m not sure that’s relevant. Paul541’s comment wasn’t that Gore actually did invent the internet; it was that “major internet players” credited him with creating a regulatory environment which made it a commercial success. I’m not sure I believe that claim, but it’s possible and definitely related to events which happened much later than 1969.
Gore never claimed to have ‘invented” the internet, he claimed to have sponsored legislation that was critical to creating the internet, in particular the High Performance Computing Act of 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
My experience of that period supports the position that Gore’s claim is accurate. We had multiple incompatible proprietary digital networks running over slow audio modems and voice telephone lines. Left to its own devices industry could not make either the business decision or the economic investment to implement a unified compatible infrastructure. The HPCA was critical in making the transition to a unified network with compatible standards and pure digital communication links.
“There is no question in our minds that
while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. His initiatives led directly to the commercialization of the Internet. So he really does deserve credit.” – Vint Cerf, you know, the guy who created TCP/IP. The commercial world wanted silos, like Compuserve and AOL. (Hell, they still do with things like Facebook.)
“If it had been left to private industry, it wouldn’t have happened, at least, not until years later.” – Netscape founder Marc Andreessen, talking about Gore’s efforts in the Senate. Gore was also critical in legislation to fund the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, where Andreessen and his team created Mosaic.
“”It’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.” – Newt Gingrich, in 2000.
“Gore was the first politician to grasp the potential of the Internet. Gore wrote the High Performance Computing and Communications Act which helped spread the net beyond computer science professionals by providing key funding to Internet projects, including the groundbreaking Mosaic browser which led to the dot-com boom.” – The Internet Society, inducting Gore into their Hall Of Fame in 2012, along with Vince Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Linus Torvalds, Phil Zimmermann, and the like.
The first packet-switching network was created in 1969, a hard-coded connection between two small networks. But the “internet” didn’t really exist until 1981 with the project to link US supercomputer centres, creating the first backbone, and 1982 when the TCP/IP standard was established. TCP/IP is what made the internet, separating the hardware, network and application layers.
It is particularly odd since Trump actually has a degree in economics.
Service guarantees Citizenship
https://youtu.be/49OZ0M_0fhg
Sheesh, every time I glance at the thread title my eye sees “Space Farce”.
I need different colored lenses, I guess.
If the money is there, then I’d say its an idea worth pursuing. But budgets are so tight at the moment for DoD. They are struggling to balance competing demands for sustaining operational readiness, force size, deployments and modernisation. Add in a ‘space force’ or a ‘space corps’, creates a new organisational and bureaucratic structure, which impacts on personnel and resources from within DoD, USAF, USN, Army USMC. So everyone else loses capability to deliver a space force that effectively does what USAF and DoD do already.
If additional funds were made available to do new types military space missions, and which in turn, led to new types of military space capability, then suddenly a space force makes sense. But I don’t see that happening, at least not in the next few years.
Maybe Trump has been watching ‘the Expanse’ and thought that that vision of military space capability is a cool idea. I would agree – but its about 200 years too soon for that to be reality.
“budgets are so tight at the moment for DoD. They are struggling…”
That made me choke on my yogurt. And I suppose there’s much to say about exactly what the military mission ought to be, but still: nearly $700 Billion remains a lot of money.
I’m not too sympathetic for the Department of Defense. When a single fighter aircraft costs $150 million (and over $350 million, if you include the whole development program), you’re going to have budget problems no matter how much money you’re given. NASA picked up many of its “performance regardless of cost” bad habits from the military.