I don't know what this concept of 'US freedom of action in space' means.<br />I hope it doesn't mean a new version of Star Wars and treating orbit like an US airbase. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
- Status
Knowing the american government, that's probably exactly what it does mean. Just with a good thick orwellian paintover. You can validate just about anything to a hardcore republican so long as you put 'patriot' or 'freedom' or 'flag' somewhere in it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>
Bush is big supporter of space exploration. This is the only way to bring to space development enough money and will be accepted by USA population.<br />It is good news for future of USA as space nation. It is like similar how West part of USA was populated, in at the beginning of 19 century Lewis and Clark map west part of USA(we could compare to trip to Moon 1969). But the West was take over by people at the moment when fortresses was build to protect settlers. This the way how our solar system will be bring to our backyard.<br />No democrat will bring us to close to that goal, because there interest group people care more about thing that slow us down. The last one who was supporter at that party was JFK. If you would like to kill space exploration vote democrats.<br />
Cuba fiasco and Gagarins ascent to heaven made Kennedy space loving.Iam interested to know about Lewis and Clark.Please enlighten.
You are quite incorrect. Some of the biggest supporters of NASA and US space efforts are Democrat congress people. This is because most of the aerospace activity in this country is centered in states that are generally blue or Democrat majorities. The only major exceptions being Florida, which isn't as Republican as many think it is, and Texas, which strangely enough is only a big aerospace state because of a Democrat President (LBJ), who also was involved in a losing war effort!<br /><br />As a matter of fact it is this war effort that like Viet Nahm is the biggest threat to ANY American space program, I know this by having the personal experience of living through the gutting of the original program such as Apollo (of which I was a small part) because of all the American Wealth that was being spent in South East Asia. If we had followed what Wherner Von Braun wanted to do we would now have colonies on the moon and bases on Mars! But instead in their infinite wisdom it was more important to congress to blow holes in rice paddies in South East Asia!! <br /><br />And the same thing is just beginning to happen now, as congress (with the Republicans in charge!) is worried already about the costs of the VSE. But of course they don't worry about our actually just "Misplacing" some ten billion dollars in the Iraq fiasco!<br /><br />And so it starts again!<br /><br />And the Republicans are in charge, not the Democrats like Senator Mikulski, who is one of NASA biggest supporters!<br /><br />Sorry about the somewhat ranting edge to this post, but I am an Idealist (leftover 1960's technological hippy) that has seen this happen before, and hated it with a passion that younger people today just don't either seem to have or even understand!!!<br /><br />It is NOT the president Democrat or Republican that is really in charge here, it is the congress that has the purse strings, and the majority is currently the Republicans, who are not about to allow any civilian effort (and NASA by it
All big space projects came under political compusion.The cold war beget sputnik to appollo.After fall of Soviet,US never rose to that height.After China joined the space club,US has increased its space activities,we now hear of going to moon and mars after a long time.
My perception is that this policy was written to address the changing status-quo in space. Space, of course, has already been "militarized" in the sense that the vast majority of the objects orbited to date have been for military purposes (observation, intelligence gathering, early warning, communications, etc.). Until now, if the U.S. put a milsat into orbit, it could pretty much assume that it would remain there, unmolested. With the possibility of increased access to space by smaller nations and by entrepreneurs, those days are coming to an end. <br /><br />The U.S. is thinking about the future - about how it might have to defend its milsats if they are attacked - whether by a military enemy during wartime or by a rich person who buys his way into orbit and has always wondered what a LaCrosse satellite looks like. ...<br /><br />Think about it. As access increases, space could quickly turn into a pirate zone if everything is sent up with no means of defense. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
An excellent analysis. <br /><br />This is something that would have to be done regardless of the party running the country, but IMO another concern is lowball acts by competing corporate keiretsu. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
>"Think about it. As access increases, space could quickly turn into a pirate zone if everything is sent up with no means of defense."<br /><br />I think the energy cost is going to be defence enough. <br /><br />Who the hell would pay to take a capsule up to a 57 degree, 700km orbit just to take a look see? And piracy is completely ludicrous, those Lacrosse satellites weigh over 15 tonnes.
Some degree of defense is justifyable for our military satellite systems, but beyond that I am totaly against the militarization of space! Isn't enough that we can't seem to get along down here, must we (humanity, not just the US) take our worst stupidity (war) into the heavens also?<br /><br />Also, it would almost be totally impossible for a country or other entity to attack our space assets and not know who it was that was doing the attacking! Such an act would automatically be considered an act of outright war, with the consequences to the attacker of having the largest and best equiped military in the world comming down on them! <br /><br />And such countries as China would never do this simply because we are far and away their best customer!<br /><br />Terrorists? Not even remotely possible! Unless such an attack were on our facilities here in the US itself, but in the case of the military, if our people are not ready for such, then we as the taxpayers should fire them for incompitence!!
A small satellite impacting with the relative velocity of a deer slug could easily take out a billion dollar spy satellite, so yes our assets need defending. It's also possible that tritium-3 resources on the moon could become a source of conflict. <br /><br />Uppance: don't leave your head in the sand, someone might come along with a machete. Low tech, but effective. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font color="yellow">An excellent analysis. <br /><br />This is something that would have to be done regardless of the party running the country, but IMO another concern is lowball acts by competing corporate keiretsu. </font><br /><br />I completely agree; excellent analysis and addition. Interesting times are indeed ahead.<br /><br />It is important here IMO to distinguish between what is possible, what is plausible, what is likely, etc. IMO EdKyle is just saying that we cannot be so foolish as to ignore the possible, however unlikely one may consider it to be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Hello frodo, my fellow idealist and technological hippie. 
I agree with your point of view; we may differ in policy details. There are at least two central facts that cannot be repeated too often: Congress controls the purse strings - POTUS proposes and they dispose - and historical support of Space by (at least some) democrats does in fact exist.<br /><br />I'm afraid you can expect to be branded as a liberal from that post, and if I may, on your behalf, I would like to defend your position as a moderate one.<br /><br />My argument in that regard is succinct: a true liberal would denounce the VSE based simply on partisan politics. Liberals in this country have been so outraged by this extremist administration that no amount of love for space flight could possibly overcome that. Thus, you are a true moderate. <br /><br />It is often the case these days that conservatives have lost the ability to perceive anyone to their left as anything but a flaming liberal. It gets old, doesn't it? <br /><br />***<br />An extremely rare edit for content made after subsequent posts: The last sentence was logically garbled; I assume my intent was clear so went ahead and clarified it: added 'anything but'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I agree with your point of view; we may differ in policy details. There are at least two central facts that cannot be repeated too often: Congress controls the purse strings - POTUS proposes and they dispose - and historical support of Space by (at least some) democrats does in fact exist.<br /><br />I'm afraid you can expect to be branded as a liberal from that post, and if I may, on your behalf, I would like to defend your position as a moderate one.<br /><br />My argument in that regard is succinct: a true liberal would denounce the VSE based simply on partisan politics. Liberals in this country have been so outraged by this extremist administration that no amount of love for space flight could possibly overcome that. Thus, you are a true moderate. <br /><br />It is often the case these days that conservatives have lost the ability to perceive anyone to their left as anything but a flaming liberal. It gets old, doesn't it? <br /><br />***<br />An extremely rare edit for content made after subsequent posts: The last sentence was logically garbled; I assume my intent was clear so went ahead and clarified it: added 'anything but'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>"Some degree of defense is justifyable for our military satellite systems, but beyond that I am totaly against the militarization of space! Isn't enough that we can't seem to get along down here, must we (humanity, not just the US) take our worst stupidity (war) into the heavens also?"<br /><br />You are about 45 years too late to worry about the 'militarization' of outer space. Before Sputnik, the rule of law was control of all airspace inside your borders up to infinity which is why the Soviets could legally blast Gary Powers U-2 spyplane out of the sky during his flight over Russia. But Sputnik, ah Sputnik! changed the rules of the game.<br /><br />You see the United States deliberately did not object to Sputnik whizzing overhead when it's orbit crossed above the United States. Why? Because the U.S. already had plans for the Corona spy-satellite program and if the U.S. observed a free-space rule for Sputnik then the Soviets would look awfully bad if they blasted any Corona satellites the same way they blasted the U-2 spyplane.<br /><br />Ever since then this rule of free access to orbital space has revolutionized warfare on the ground. Since anyone and everyone could overfly everybody else, allowing huge networks of satellites for military purposes. Other than the more obvious examples of recon and communications, GPS satellites have revolutionized the ability of American forces to navigate in battle and to guide bombs with perfect accuracy regardless of night or weather conditions. Space is already heavily militarized. <br /><br />"Also, it would almost be totally impossible for a country or other entity to attack our space assets and not know who it was that was doing the attacking! Such an act would automatically be considered an act of outright war, with the consequences to the attacker of having the largest and best equiped military in the world comming down on them!"<br /><br />Well the Chinese seem to think differently. Recent news has revealed that the Chin
"Recent news has revealed that the Chinese, using lasers, have already attacked some of our satellites."<br /><br />Interesting, got a link?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/06/china_satellite_laser/ <br /><br />http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/10/05/china_jamming_test_sparks_us_satellite_concerns/<br /><br />google news is your friend<br /><br />
how can we part space around a planet among us?<br />especially since everything zips AROUND the planet just to stay up?<br />Seems space will be a sort of "no man's land".<br />Main question is...say one of your satellite gets knocked out by an impact with an unknown object. How can you tell exactly where that object originated from and whether it was an attack or just a piece of orbital debris?<br />I agree the Chinese attack deserves a strong response, but in this case it is very easy to see who the culprit is.<br />How are you going to react over situations in which you don't know what has taken out your asset? Start spreading blame? Fry everything foreign that passes over your territory? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
The militarization of space involves objects that remain in space. Rockets such as the V2, or even the much more powerful ICBM's go from a set position on the earth to another set position on the earth. It does not matter how high they go into space, the are designed to come back almost immediately and therefore do not qualify as space nased weapons. Even a rifle that is fired upwards could qualify under the more broad definition!<br /><br />As for lasers, if the Chinese are truly developing lasers with the capability of knocking out spy satellites at such altitudes as GEO, then their would b eno space based weaponry that could stop this anyway!!!<br /><br />But I do take this with a certain degree of skepticism.
Please note that the Chinese did not fire at one of our spy satellites, how then do we repond? Should we go to war just because the Chinese are developing such capabilities?<br /><br />If they are developing this kind of system then the only defense against it is our developing such a system to use on thier sataellites, and we are all back into the same boat! Perhaps the best system would be to make sure that our military didn't depend so totally on these kinds of space based systems, then there could be no jamming of our military operations by such systems regardless of who was behind it!<br /><br />Just another reason to leave space up to the civilians!!
There are plenty of ways to protect satelite assets from ground-based attack and detection. Inflatable shields, highly reflective Earth-facing panels, lens caps, I'm sure there are others. WIRED had an article a while ago about amateur satelite trackers that are trying to track down a stealth sat the DoD launched in the late 90s. Despite "Star Wars" failing and BMD be extremely slow, costly and unneed, please don't think the US military has somehow sat still in protecting American space assets. <br /><br />Space has been militarized from the start. I refer you to Walter A. McDougall's ...the Heavens and the Earth for a broad, dense history of space through the mid 80s. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG<br /><br />Well, I can see inflection points int the budget for the last 4 administrations. Come to your own conclusions.<br /><br />There will always be military and police interests in space, so it doesn't especially bug me. In fact, if it increases the demand for domestic launches, all the merrier.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just another reason to leave space up to the civilians!!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />An idyllic thought... but given enough civilian development (lunar mining, etc), you'd still eventually wind up with corporate combat – and eventual military intervention.<br /><br />This is going to be interesting.<br /><br />Here's a blurb from NewScientistSpace:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>US takes unilateral stance in new space policy</b><br />00:52 10 October 2006<br />Jeff Hecht<br /><br />The US has issued a new national space policy that reflects a more aggressive and unilateral stance than the previous version issued a decade ago by former president Bill Clinton.<br /><br />"There is definitely a difference in approach and mentality," says Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington DC, US.<br /><br />The earlier statement said US operations should be "consistent with treaty obligations". But the new one, issued on Friday, flat-out rejects new agreements that would limit the US testing or use of military equipment in space.<br /><br />The new version also uses stronger language to assert that the US can defend its spacecraft, echoing an air force push for "space superiority" made in 2004. The new policy states the US has the right "to protect its space capabilities, respond to interference, and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests".<br /><br />And it seems to open the door to a new anti-satellite arms race. One idea already in development is a robotic spacecraft that could approach a satellite to check it out, then sabotage it if it seems a danger to US interests.<br /><br />Another concern is plans by the US Missile Defense Agency to orbit a small fleet of rockets with heavy heads to act as kinetic-e</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px"><strong>Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.</strong></p> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px">-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)</p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
SpaceX's Starship could help this start-up beam clean energy from space. Here's how (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
The Artemis Accords: International Cooperation in Space (A Free Virtual Lecture)- Started by Hamptons Observatory
- Replies: 0
-
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
Highly precise atomic clocks could soon get even better. Here's how
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram