Some Space Force Fans Actually Want To Build Starfleet
A Speech For The Next SECAF To Launch A New Era Of Spacepower, Peter Garretson, War On The Rocks
“But Congress also has a much broader view concerned with comprehensive national power. Our Congress and our industry have vast visions. They want to mine the Moon and asteroids, to build giant solar power stations, to move industry off Earth, to become a multi-planetary, even star-faring species, and for millions of Americans to live and work in space. They want to transform it from a mere $500 billion industry to an industry worth tens to hundreds of trillions. And, here is the kicker: They want a U.S. Space Force up there to protect it. They aren’t just talking about support for terrestrial warfighting — not just spotter balloons for artillery. They aren’t just talking about satellites circling the planet — not just coastal fishing vessels forever in sight of the shore. They are anticipating blue water operations in the great beyond. … Congress has given us a task — to build a Space Corps. We all have a lot to do. But if you really think about it, it is pretty exciting — our generation gets to build Starfleet.”
“Dream no small dreams for they have no power to move the hearts of men.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
With apologies to my Air Force comrades-in-arms, I think we need to consider building a Space Force/Star Fleet Academy, to train officers totally oriented to space operations and research. Now where would a good location for such an academy? Armstrong Base (nee Edwards)? Johnson SFC? Have to be sure the roof on the chapel doesn’t leak! I can hear it now, “Space Academy, USA, Planet Earth, in the World Beyond Tomorrow, 2050 AD” (With apologies to “Tom Corbett, Space Cadet”.) Oh, and what rank should a graduating cadet come out, 2LT or Ensign?
Ad Astra!
In Robert Heinlein’s novel the location of the academy was in New Mexico by WSMR. Spaceport America would work as a location. I am sure they could buy some SpaceshipTwos and New Shepards to use as trainers at the Academy.
I can still remember the T.V. show opening of Tom Corbett…I mean who could ever have spaceships backing down to land using their exhaust plumes?
OTOH, in his book, “Space Doctor”, Lee Correy (aka G. Harry Stine) has his launch site “East of Truth-or-Consequences and Elephant Butte”. I’m not familiar with the geography, but it sounds close.
“Congress has given us a task — to build a Space Corps. We all have a lot to do. But if you really think about it, it is pretty exciting — our generation gets to build Starfleet.”
I take exception to this. Starfleet was merely a part of the United Federation of Planets. One nation building a Space Corps to protect its own national interests in space is not Starfleet.
Yeah, but other nations have already built theirs, so we’re behind the curve for the moment.
They have built what? Space stations? We have part ownership of one already and we flew SkyLab. Anti-satellite weapons? We tested one already. What are we behind the power curve on again?
He was replying to the statement about nations “building a Space Corps”, so that’s probably what he was talking about building. As far as anti-satellite weapons go, the one you’re talking about was last tested 33 years ago. It was launched from an aircraft which isn’t in service anymore.(Technically, at least. They used a modified F-15A. I’m not sure how compatible it would be with the F-15 versions currently in service.) That’s not an extant capability.
fcrary If we work hard enough we could twist David’s words into something that made sense but the discussion is not about the details but about the larger picture.
We have military space units today (I was in one starting in 1978) even though they are not in a separate Service. They do their jobs today so we are NOT behind in anything – we fly GPS satellites, communications satellites, etc etc.
By the way, last time I heard the “Celestial Eagle” was still flying with the Florida Air National Guard. Putting the capability back together would be possible in a few months. In the meantime we could use Navy missiles to take out at least low orbiting satellites. There is also electronic interferences, etc etc. What are other countries ahead of us on again? Building unique signs and issuing unique uniforms?
David says that we are behind the power curve and I would like to know what we are behind the power curve on exactly. I know that we are NOT behind the power curve on anything.
You keep telling yourself that. We have a lot of great assets, but we currently lack focus and determination. Those are the things that win conflicts.
Do you have any evidence that we lack focus? You have yet to give an example. And vague mentions of programs that have not run well will not suffice – the Navy has had lots of problems with their carriers but no one suggests a separate Carrier Force. The Army has had lots of problems with various systems but no one suggests splitting them. After the mines we saw in Vietnam you would think that the original HMMV would have been more resistant but that is hindsight I guess.
I was in an Air Force space unit back in 1978 and I think it was determined.
You want a new Service with new uniforms and new insignia – I want to spend money on tooth and not tail.
“… I want to spend money on tooth and not tail.”
And you will never see either, for MilSpace, from the USAF Air Staff, beyond what they do today. At least not at the rates needed to adapt to a space environment in which PLASSF is tasked with making that environment hostile to US MilSpace. *That* is why a new Service is needed. You cannot change human nature enough to totally get rid of parochialism. So, we work around it, and build a new Space Service that focuses on MilSpace, instead of “things with wings”.
I have to agree here. This is certainly anecdotal, but…
Back in the 90’s I was working for a major contractor where we built the satellites and the AF flew them. I worked with a lot of young AF officers who, after our training and their experience at the consoles, were now knowledgeable about flying and operating spacecraft.
Toward the end of my time with these young officers, several of them got notice they were going to be transferred out of the space wings to work on ICBMs. Apparently there was a re-org in the AF at the time and the logic of the top generals in charge was that space involved rockets and ICBMs were rockets, so their space personnel were interchangeable with their ICBM personnel.
As you can imagine, after spending so much time learning space, the guys were not happy about the impending transfer. I changed jobs soon thereafter and quit working directly with the AF, and so I do not know how that all turned out. To me, however, it illustrates one example why we need a separate force with “space-centric” thinking that reaches to the top of the organization.
Built their military space organizational structures. Russia since 1994, China since 2016. UK and France are now planning them as well.
First let me apologize for the length and number of quotes from the article, but I think it’s telling about what these excerpts say and the breadth of it’s visions all contained in one article.
“…the Air Force has is looking beyond the tactical to a strategic vision for humanity in space…”
“We are not thinking small — we are going full speed on mission growth.”
“In the process, we are going to develop the propulsion and refueling capabilities that will equip us for deep space operations and will create technology that will enable America’s private sector to mine asteroids, adding trillions of dollars in value to our economy.”
“…we are going to create, or at least accelerate, a revolution in transportation.”
“…then we must realize that doing anything in the domain requires ever-improving access. Earth to orbit is just one part. We need to be capable of deep space operations — beyond low Earth orbit, in CIS-lunar space – the volume of space that includes Earth’s moon and its gravitational influence — and anywhere the sphere of American commerce expands…”
” We will be first to demonstrate and field an operational in-space refueling capability, and we will develop and field deep space propulsion…”
“We won’t let our own visionaries be outclassed. We must think ahead. “
“…make no mistake about it, we are taking a bold step in our history. This is about our generation’s responsibility to a future. There is a manifest destiny articulated by visionaries across society: that it is the destiny of America to be a spacefaring nation, and a second-generation industrial space power.”
There is a sentence about building an American Starfleet, I really considered that rather tongue-in-cheek and of course, not realistic for the immediate future.. But it’s the rest of the text that really matters since there is so much vision and enthusiasm. It is so nice to see that expressed.
While I am supporter of creating the Space Force, I find it ironic and not a little saddening that this is (potentially) the Air Force talking and not NASA. Even when I worked at NASA, I never heard such sweeping visions about the future of America in space.
A weird thing happened to my world view as I aged: my attitude towards the military came into much better focus. And these guys you’ve quoted have a good picture of what will be required.
Some could criticize, accusing the AF of dragging feet by citing huge, lengthy goals. I’d say they have a much better idea of what is required.
I personally take offense to them comparing any of this to
Star Trek. First, this would assume that there would be some functional Federation of Earth, which current Nationalism completely admonishes. And in the Star Trek’s world, Starfleet’s principal functions included the advancement of knowledge about the galaxy, the advancement of science and technology, and for diplomacy and defense of the “Federation”. As the intro says, to “…seek out new life and new civilizations,” and “…go boldly where no man has gone before.” So, the “Space Force” is not chartered to do any of the overarching aspects of Starfleet because NASA already does those or they would be directly competing for the same funding.
Additionally none of the overarching cultural aspects, ethics and mores of Starfleet, such as the Prime Directive, are likely to be driving factors for any Space Force. In fact, as a strictly military branch it is quite the
opposite; it can’t even be considered a police force. And since we likely will not encounter any other sentient species off Earth the need diplomacy is also mute; and as Sci-Fi has shown if any space-faring species actually gets here we will be like ants to them and that outcome is never good for us. So please stop comparing the Space Force to Starfleet.
For the non-military organization that Gene Roddenberry envisioned, Starfleet sure packed a lot of weapons on a lot of warships.
Starfleet was a military organization. Who said that Gene envisioned a non-military one? Did I miss something?
For a recent discussion, see: https://slate.com/human-int…, but I recall reading in the Making of Star Trek back in the 1970s, that his intention was that Starfleet would be a scientific exploratory organization with only a paramilitary structure.
That is how you sell a show to a society and culture mired in violence and violent media. Notice how many people really liked or like the first Star Trek Movie.It is rather sad that humans are incapable of moving beyond our base animalistic tendencies. One of the whole driving
and hopeful points of Star Trek was that maybe, someday we could learn and grow into a better sentient species. Oh well.
Indeed. Taking it one step further, the very same “base animalistic tendencies” entirely inform capitalism, which is widely accepted, owing to inherent greed, one supposes, and which has wiped out half the animals on our planet in a mere 50 years, among other planetary atrocities.
On the other hand, there is a more or less linearity to social maturity, though certainly it neither uniform nor planet wide. Here I make no excuse for anointing Western Europe as something of a leader, because she has earned a leadership role. Her stumbles have been staggering.
Western Europe was a base society only a few centuries ago, but managed, until recently, to find footing as she sought an equitable future in which trust and equality were accepted as sine qua non .
Looking around, one sees entire societies, here in the 21st century, in which men leap to the opportunity to die for letters on a page, and in which women are stunningly debased as chattel; nobody dares breathe a word of religious disagreement.
Yep, and more so after Roddenberry died, for example DS9 introduced Defiant class starship, which is a pure warship with no role in exploration. But hey the Federation has powerful enemies, they got to adapt or they won’t survive for long, the same is true for the US.
In regards to your “police force,” comment….while that may be true within the borders of the United States, it is not true outside of them. Post-World War II, the Army converted a number of cavalry regiments into constabulary units, serving as a gendarmerie in Germany and Austria for around eight years.
I’ll have to see the money investment first, although it would be pretty great if the government dropped billions in additional space development engineering funding. Build the Orion Battleship Space Force!
There’s only one thing holding humans back from dominating space: energy density. And we’ve a very long way to go.
Within the limits of current physical models, there’s only one place where very high densities are to be found. Once nuclear fusion is tamed, our energy problems will very quickly become yesterday’s issue, both here and in space. And heck! it’s only 25 years in the future!
Meanwhile, we use the tools that we have. Yes, we are flailing about, running, as we do, our crude sailing vessels against a heavy sea.
Still, an entire New World was discovered in a wooden craft merely 100 feet long.
Actually there are many more than one things, but I completely agree with the energy point.
And Columbus did not wait for the steam ship to be invented to explore across the Atlantic – use the tools we have and plan to mitigate the risks even if it costs more.
Steam ships: yes. It’s a bit like buying a computer, knowing that faster ones are coming.
But, darn it, it is NOT the feature set that has me tangled up, although I suppose reusability is a ‘feature’. It’s failure to use the best available.
Mr. Barker: I meant that energy density as the only impediment in a broad way; but your rebuff makes me wonder what you have in mind. What impediment, aside from the political ones, aren’t made moot by sufficient energy?
Peter has definitely lost his grip on what is possible. He says a lot that “we” are going to do a lot of things – like planetary defense. Is the Space Corps or who ever going to deflect an asteroid? How? This also means that the Space Corps will take over the effort to locate all of these? With what resources? And “we” are going to develop propulsion and refueling technology? Why not let the commercial sector do that?
The speech is full of very challenging things that “we” are going to do – the speech makes it apparent that the Space Corps (ie the Federal government) is going to do this – sounds like a huge expansion of government programs. Sounds like “we” will need additional billions and billions to do all of this.
Tax the corporations that exploit lunar resources and that would use the military cover.
Sure – as soon as they start making profits. That will be in about 30 years, so far we do not even know for sure of recoverable resources anywhere except on the Earth. Right now Peter says “we” will be doing a LOT of things but does not say where the money will come from to do any of these things.
You cant sell a resource in a market with no users. That is all of space right now. Cart before the horse.
Yes! This has troubled me as well. I’ve accepted as fact that moving raw resources to planetoid makes zero sense.
Like Mr. Bezos, I’d like to imagine a (far) future of space dwellers, all making whatever is needed by using the resources found all over the solar system. But talk about horses and carts! Decades will be required while all sorts of fundamental techniques are invented, or adapted from earth, starting with ore extraction and heavy fabrication.
We don’t know what innovative methods will be developed to make what seems less than feasible today, much more feasible tomorrow. And sometimes those revolutions come upon us quickly.
Ha… “Peter has definitely lost his grip on what is possible.” You ain’t lying. There is a lot of that going around. Welcome to 2019 =)
While I don’t disagree with that long-term outlook, baby steps first.
Maybe somebody get us back to the Moon first, soon!
Actually, given the materials and methods of construction, I suspect the cost of a Starship would probably be in the $100 million range. So a fleet of 300 would only cost about $30 billion. If the Space Force took delivery of only 30 a year that would be about $3 billion annually, about the same NASA is spending on SLS annually. Of course outfitting then with needed weapons would raise the cost significantly.
I wonder if Peter Garretson wrote this article facetiously mixing Star Trek, SDI (and Space Patrol?) fantasies then kicks back watching all kinds of really smart people in business, military, academia debate the policy of it all.