Trump’s Excellent Space Force Adventure, Washington Post
“The creation of a Space Force is still being negotiated in Congress, where different versions of it have passed the House and Senate. As of press time, it’s unclear whether the new military service will be included in the upcoming defense authorization act — but, with bipartisan support, America’s extraterrestrial military efforts are, one way or another, poised to accelerate.”
Congress, White House near deal to create Space Force in exchange for paid leave for federal workers, Washington Post
“Congressional lawmakers and the White House are on the verge of reaching a sweeping agreement that would extend 12 weeks of paid parental leave to federal workers in exchange for making “Space Force” the sixth branch of the U.S. military, according to four people with knowledge of the tentative deal. The deal is part of a defense authorization bill that is slated to pass this month. If consummated, the agreement could mark one of the biggest deals President Trump has cut with Congress. It would secure a massive expansion of benefits for federal workers, something Democrats have long sought, in exchange for a realignment of the U.S. military that Trump has sought to secure as part of his legacy.”
Dear Space Force Fans: Please Chill Out, earlier post
“With a little less of this hyperventillation and crass political favoritism – and perhaps a little more basic wartime defense/prevention discussion – maybe a few more people might support this Space Force thing. Otherwise this sort of breathless op ed arm waving invites nothing more than mockery on a slow news day.”
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
This is an interesting talk by Steven Kwast about the need for a Space Force. At least interesting in the sense of lack of political associations and him sticking to strictly practical arguments. Most of his arguments have been aired here but it is nice to see them aired outside of the space community
We need a Space Force because China has a lunar orbiter and is therefor “mapping minerals and resources so they can build an infrastructure” we need a manufacturing industry in space…. so therefore we need a space force. Nobody lives on the Moon. It has massive amounts of everything Earth has. And China is racing to turn it into a marketplace.” “If we try to go there they can shoot us down.” “They will be able to see and kill anything that flies above the trees.”
Therefore we need a Space Force….
We need more rigorous thinking on this. I have spent my life in this industry. The development of space is exciting and the potential is great. And I am serious about defense; I spent nine years in the USAF Reserve. The last thing we need is an emotional appeal to begin an eternal war against anyone who looks different from us. It only guarantees unlimited power and wealth to nationalistic leaders and arms manufacturers.
Democracy thrives on objective reasoning and dies with instinctive fear.
Don’t want to debate the “good China” vs “bad China” thing since it has been covered in this forum several times, but I agree more than disagree with his points.
Kwast is very high on Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and the other space entrepreneurs and the need to expand our economic sphere into space. He believes (as I do) that if we don’t do that, somebody else will, and if we are passive and let someone else lead the way, it will be to our detriment.
His argument for the Space Force is that historically, wherever countries have expanded their economic interests into new areas, the need for a military presence has also been required. Whatever your position on that, his argument has nothing to do with “looking different” and everything to do with actions taken by the CCP here on Earth over the last several years and projecting that behavior into space if they get into a position of dominance.
“Democracy thrives on objective reasoning and dies with instinctive fear.” Don’t disagree, but I also assert that democracy thrives on forward thinking actions and dies on inaction due to unrealistic fears.
Maybe we should tell Elon Musk. I don’t see him asking for troops. He gave an interesting speech at the new Shanghai plant, which is entirely owned by Tesla, not the Chinese government. He addressed the Chinese workers and managers and said the next CEO of Tesla might be sitting in the audience, if he or she had the extraordinary qualities required. He had no problems with that. In fact two of the very first satellites SpaceX launched were for Chinese customers, an export market he would have pursued had not regulations made it impossible.
The fundamental belief Kwast is selling is a return to tribalism. We are loyal to our leader. Those who are not loyal are enemies.
Deals are always cut to get things done in Washington. I am sure similar deals were cut to create NASA and NACA, they have just been forgotten to history as we view both as good ideas now.
Sure. It’s the sausage principle of politics. I’ll support your idea even if I don’t really care about it, as long as you’ll support my idea which you don’t really care about. I’m not sure what sort of deals were involved when the NACA was established. And, to be honest, they might have been as trivial as my local city council trading favors over prairie dog resettlement and bus route changes. But in the case of NASA, I think there were some real serious issues. Eisenhower wanted a civilian front for America’s space program and something to support the “free skies” proposal. So I think, in that case, there were some real issues, not the usual resort to Van der Wect’s (sp?) machine.
Eisenhower’s NASA compromises were with Senate Majority Leader Johnson, …who got most of what he wanted, and had his staffers write the first draft of the NASA Charter. In fact, without Johnson, spaceflight would probably have stayed inside DoD, probably the USAF, where even he couldn’t manipulate the money as easily, because of established hierarchies.
NASA was a clean slate for Johnson to write on when he became Vice President, and was virtually “President for NASA and OSTP”. That said, Eisenhower’s quick approval of it may have deprived Johnson of the political issue needed to make him the (D) Presidential Nominee in 1960.