Elon Musk approves of the US Space Force, eyes 'Star Trek' potential

[Admin]

SpaceX's billionaire founder and CEO said he's onboard with the sixth branch of the U.S. military, which President Donald Trump officially established in December 2019.

Elon Musk approves of the US Space Force, eyes 'Star Trek' potential : Read more

 

[rod]

SpaceX's billionaire founder and CEO said he's onboard with the sixth branch of the U.S. military, which President Donald Trump officially established in December 2019.

Elon Musk approves of the US Space Force, eyes 'Star Trek' potential : Read more

["We gotta make Starfleet happen," Musk said, referring to the United Federation of Planets' space force in the "Star Trek" universe. "When the public hears 'Space Force,' that's what they think. It's like, 'OK, we're going to have some sweet spaceships and pretty good uniforms and stuff.'"

We all want these exciting developments to happen within our lifetimes — and that does seem achievable, as long as we push for big innovations in spaceflight tech, Musk said.

"Warp drive and teleportation, probably not," he said. "But big spaceships that can go far places? Definitely. That can be done."]

Go for it Musk

 

[Surak]

Musk's rather immature remark shows why we can't trust profit-driven billionaires with our future in space. He is clearly trying to suck up to the Trump administration in the hopes that any space weapons programs resulting from the Space Force will mean new launch contracts for Space X. As any Star Trek fan knows, Starfleet's primary mandate is space exploration--'to seek out new worlds and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before'. It is more like NASA than Trump's Space Force. It is the product of a world in which human-against-human war has been abolished, and humanity turns its energies outward into the galaxy. Of course, many central aspects of Star Trek (such as a galaxy chock full of improbably anthropomorphic aliens) aren't scientifically plausible, but it does represent an important cultural metaphor for a positive space-faring future, which is why Musk's remarks are distressing.

At the beginning of the space age, president Eisenhower, concerned about the growing power of the military-industrial complex, wisely placed control of our space program in the hands of the civilian NASA. He sought to limit military space efforts to matters such as reconnaissance and communication. Today, the United States and many other countries are heavily dependent on satellites for their military and civilian infrastructure. A space arms race, which the Space Force makes more likely, would place all of those assets at risk. The simplest way to protect them is a treaty banning space weapons. Space weapons might make military contractors even richer, but they won't make anybody more secure. Besides putting our satellites at risk, such programs will suck resources away from the sort of exploratory ventures that Star Trek symbolizes, and will poison the Star Trek-style international cooperation needed to make them happen, though it may give Musk big contracts for hauling weapons into orbit. Trump seeks to supplant Eisenhower's wisdom with his own incompetence. Before taking office Trump remarked that he eagerly sought an arms race because he thought the United States would win. 'We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all", he said. No one "wins" an arms race, all sides lose-- and risk doing so catastrophically. All of this is about deadly serious global security issues, not "sweet spaceships and pretty good uniforms and stuff". Sorry, Elon, but this is the kind of irresponsible thinking that will make the world into a post-apocalyptic wasteland, not a Star Trek-style techno-utopia. Grow up.

 

[Hari]

Musk's rather immature remark shows why we can't trust profit-driven billionaires with our future in space. He is clearly trying to suck up to the Trump administration in the hopes that any space weapons programs resulting from the Space Force will mean new launch contracts for Space X. As any Star Trek fan knows, Starfleet's primary mandate is space exploration--'to seek out new worlds and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before'. It is more like NASA than Trump's Space Force. It is the product of a world in which human-against-human war has been abolished, and humanity turns its energies outward into the galaxy. Of course, many central aspects of Star Trek (such as a galaxy chock full of improbably anthropomorphic aliens) aren't scientifically plausible, but it does represent an important cultural metaphor for a positive space-faring future, which is why Musk's remarks are distressing.

At the beginning of the space age, president Eisenhower, concerned about the growing power of the military-industrial complex, wisely placed control of our space program in the hands of the civilian NASA. He sought to limit military space efforts to matters such as reconnaissance and communication. Today, the United States and many other countries are heavily dependent on satellites for their military and civilian infrastructure. A space arms race, which the Space Force makes more likely, would place all of those assets at risk. The simplest way to protect them is a treaty banning space weapons. Space weapons might make military contractors even richer, but they won't make anybody more secure. Besides putting our satellites at risk, such programs will suck resources away from the sort of exploratory ventures that Star Trek symbolizes, and will poison the Star Trek-style international cooperation needed to make them happen, though it may give Musk big contracts for hauling weapons into orbit. Trump seeks to supplant Eisenhower's wisdom with his own incompetence. Before taking office Trump remarked that he eagerly sought an arms race because he thought the United States would win. 'We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all", he said. No one "wins" an arms race, all sides lose-- and risk doing so catastrophically. All of this is about deadly serious global security issues, not "sweet spaceships and pretty good uniforms and stuff". Sorry, Elon, but this is the kind of irresponsible thinking that will make the world into a post-apocalyptic wasteland, not a Star Trek-style techno-utopia. Grow up.

Can you blame Musk? He's been pitching Starship to NASA and the Pentagon for years without success. When they both turned him down he went begging for investors, albeit unsuccessfully, from Saudi Arabia to Wall Street. The only outside funding Musk has got so far is from his Japanese lunar tourist client -- which isn't enough. I reckon the venom coming from Bernie Sanders about billionaires and Greta Thunberg's weather alarmism have rattled Musk to the point where he needs urgent investment before his dream of making humanity an interplanetary spieces dies. Time and again he's warned there's only a short window of opportunity, which I agree with. Anyway, the Space Force may one day need suborbital drones and troop transport capability.

 

[Surak]

Bernie Sanders and Greta Thunberg are trying to save our democracy and our global technological civilization from an increasingly corrupt and predacious corporate capitalism. Becoming an interplanetary society is the project of a successful society because it requires extensive international cooperation and a major commitment of resources in order to succeed. It is not the project of a failing society that is forced to spend all its resources on 'suborbital drones' and 'troop transport capability' or on the vast costs of dealing with the consequences of unchecked global climate change. Terraforming another planet or building O'Neil-style habitats in space requires the ability to build an artificial biosphere. Ecosystems with greater biodiversity are more stable and successful. Earth's biodiversity is thus a vital resource for future space settlement. We are rapidly destroying this resource through global climate change and a variety of other environmentally harmful activities. I agree with you that it is tragic that the reusable starship isn't receiving more support from NASA, but this is yet another product of the corporate corruption that Bernie Sanders and others on the left rightly decry. NASA is spending billions on the obsolete SLS as a handout to its well connected corporate contractors. The innovative Starship would be a much better deal for the American taxpayer. Space X is a new and relatively small company outside the traditional military-industrial complex. It lacks the connections of an established corporation like Northrup Grumman. Musk would be better off joining in the criticism of establishment corruption than turning to the dark side and embracing Trump's Space Force. The notion that it will help us build a 'Star Trek' future is pernicious nonsense.

 

[Hari]

Sanders and Thunberg want to save the world for socialism not democracy. And since the majority of all those who support them have nothing positive to say about space travel, and progress in general, I fear for humanity's future.

 

[SonyaWiley]

Elon, family
I'm holding it down for you with Kristin @ Fox News, step up please!

Sonya Wiley here:

 

[Captain Twerk]

Musk's rather immature remark shows why we can't trust profit-driven billionaires with our future in space. He is clearly trying to suck up to the Trump administration in the hopes that any space weapons programs resulting from the Space Force will mean new launch contracts for Space X. As any Star Trek fan knows, Starfleet's primary mandate is space exploration--'to seek out new worlds and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before'. It is more like NASA than Trump's Space Force. It is the product of a world in which human-against-human war has been abolished, and humanity turns its energies outward into the galaxy. Of course, many central aspects of Star Trek (such as a galaxy chock full of improbably anthropomorphic aliens) aren't scientifically plausible, but it does represent an important cultural metaphor for a positive space-faring future, which is why Musk's remarks are distressing.

At the beginning of the space age, president Eisenhower, concerned about the growing power of the military-industrial complex, wisely placed control of our space program in the hands of the civilian NASA. He sought to limit military space efforts to matters such as reconnaissance and communication. Today, the United States and many other countries are heavily dependent on satellites for their military and civilian infrastructure. A space arms race, which the Space Force makes more likely, would place all of those assets at risk. The simplest way to protect them is a treaty banning space weapons. Space weapons might make military contractors even richer, but they won't make anybody more secure. Besides putting our satellites at risk, such programs will suck resources away from the sort of exploratory ventures that Star Trek symbolizes, and will poison the Star Trek-style international cooperation needed to make them happen, though it may give Musk big contracts for hauling weapons into orbit. Trump seeks to supplant Eisenhower's wisdom with his own incompetence. Before taking office Trump remarked that he eagerly sought an arms race because he thought the United States would win. 'We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all", he said. No one "wins" an arms race, all sides lose-- and risk doing so catastrophically. All of this is about deadly serious global security issues, not "sweet spaceships and pretty good uniforms and stuff". Sorry, Elon, but this is the kind of irresponsible thinking that will make the world into a post-apocalyptic wasteland, not a Star Trek-style techno-utopia. Grow up.

Privateers relish the thought of skimming our hard earned tax dollars to occupy space first from a military standpoint and create Star Trek like weapons to sustain perpetual war and maintain a global hold on Mother Earth and its denizens! It's even light years ahead of what Orwell predicted in "1984." That's why Grover Norquist lamented he'd like to, "shrink government small enough to drown it in a bathtub"....sure, that leaves the Spaceport wide open for accruing unlimited wealth with no oversight!
Space will become the Neo-de facto Maytag washer for laundering the 99%'s greenbacks....meanwhile, everyone is dying because we can't afford Medicare for all or education to keep people smart enough to prevent voting these pezzonovantes in! Terraform Mars, HA! We have 30,000+ bridges that are condemned; just waiting to fail here on earth.......hey, but climate change is a chinese hoax!

 

[Fetabor]

Musk's rather immature remark shows why we can't trust profit-driven billionaires with our future in space. He is clearly trying to suck up to the Trump administration in the hopes that any space weapons programs resulting from the Space Force will mean new launch contracts for Space X. As any Star Trek fan knows, Starfleet's primary mandate is space exploration--'to seek out new worlds and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before'. It is more like NASA than Trump's Space Force. It is the product of a world in which human-against-human war has been abolished, and humanity turns its energies outward into the galaxy. Of course, many central aspects of Star Trek (such as a galaxy chock full of improbably anthropomorphic aliens) aren't scientifically plausible, but it does represent an important cultural metaphor for a positive space-faring future, which is why Musk's remarks are distressing.

At the beginning of the space age, president Eisenhower, concerned about the growing power of the military-industrial complex, wisely placed control of our space program in the hands of the civilian NASA. He sought to limit military space efforts to matters such as reconnaissance and communication. Today, the United States and many other countries are heavily dependent on satellites for their military and civilian infrastructure. A space arms race, which the Space Force makes more likely, would place all of those assets at risk. The simplest way to protect them is a treaty banning space weapons. Space weapons might make military contractors even richer, but they won't make anybody more secure. Besides putting our satellites at risk, such programs will suck resources away from the sort of exploratory ventures that Star Trek symbolizes, and will poison the Star Trek-style international cooperation needed to make them happen, though it may give Musk big contracts for hauling weapons into orbit. Trump seeks to supplant Eisenhower's wisdom with his own incompetence. Before taking office Trump remarked that he eagerly sought an arms race because he thought the United States would win. 'We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all", he said. No one "wins" an arms race, all sides lose-- and risk doing so catastrophically. All of this is about deadly serious global security issues, not "sweet spaceships and pretty good uniforms and stuff". Sorry, Elon, but this is the kind of irresponsible thinking that will make the world into a post-apocalyptic wasteland, not a Star Trek-style techno-utopia. Grow up.

Sadly, you are at least 10 years too late regards protesting a space based arms race, and protesting to the wrong country.
The USA is playing catch up on that one.
Fortunately, the country that is most actively pursuing an armed space presence stole most of the technology from us 20 years ago and is rumored to be less creative for developing new. I doubt people are any less creative in other countries.
Top leaders tend to become top leaders because they enjoy being in charge. Dictators have little motive to keep people happy, "scared worker-drones" works fine for them. If only from personal habit, dictators expect "scared" to be a universal power effect, and missiles in space are good for threatening neighbors.
Our last three presidents determined excess space money to be unpopular, therefor not worth pushing. We were lucky to get the very few relatively low budget satellites and planetary probes we got.
Pray our Space Force is not too late to the game.