SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Don't get your hopes up too high about becoming a space marine quite yet. But if the House of Representatives' version of the 2018 defense budget goes through, you may soon be able to enlist in the US Space Corps.
Back in January of 2001, days before the inauguration of President George W. Bush, a commission headed by future Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned of a "space Pearl Harbor" and urged a reorganization of the military to put a greater emphasis on warfare in the space domain—defending US communications and intelligence satellites, and if necessary taking out the satellites of adversaries. In their report, the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organizations told Congress, "The US is more dependent on space than any other nation... Yet the threat to the US and its allies in and from space does not command the attention it merits."
A few things happened that derailed efforts to change that perceived neglect. But now the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) has breathed new life into those old plans by including a provision in the House version of the 2018 US defense budget that would create a separate military service dedicated to the cause of space as a warfare domain: the US Space Corps. It would also create a separate joint command, the US Space Command, breaking the role out of the US Strategic Command much in the way that was done with the US Cyber Command.
Source: Ars Technica
Previously: The United States Space Corps Wants You...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:47PM (19 children)
Honest question: hasn't the US (and every other major space capable power) already crossed the line of militarizing space?
Didn't China demonstrate an anti-satellite weapon a few years ago -- creating a cloud of debris?
Wasn't GPS originally primarily a military application of space? Isn't good satellite weather forecasting and good global weather models a military application? Aren't spy cameras a military application of space? Or are they just to spy on US citizens? And only US citizens on the beach?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kaszz on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:56PM (12 children)
The red line is in essence placing or testing weapons of mass destruction in space or taking out other countries satellites.
From the Outer space treaty of 1967 [wikisource.org]:
The treaty bars countries "from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. /../ prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military manoeuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV)."
Dunno if spy satellites can be considered "installations". But any space corps may run into trouble with "conducting military manoeuvers" and if they stay overnight there's a "establishing military bases". This move could easily open a can of worms. The most compliant move would be to train on the ground and have a high degree of readiness. That way any adversary would have to make the first move and the US would then literally only defend themselves. For all the usual twisting of words..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 05 2017, @11:27PM (11 children)
The WMD are already there. There are literally millions of kinetic weapons, just floating around up there. All that is needed are some thrusters to nudge them into intercept orbits. The WMD come in many sizes, small enough to wipe out small villages, to large enough to crack the earth's crust. Some of those weapons don't even need much of a nudge. We had a "near miss" recently, when a rather large rock passed close by, inside the orbit of the moon.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:35AM (5 children)
And no one would know about it? covertly wiping out cities and facilities for fun and imperialism.
Just a small rocket on the side facing away from the earth.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:48AM (1 child)
What does anyone knowing about it have to do with anything? We see terrorist acts almost every day already. We have terror organizations taking credit for stuff that we don't even think they did. Someone wants to drop a rock on - ohhhhh, Hong Kong, or Washington, or just anywhere. At this point in time, only a few actors are capable of pushing rocks around. Given time, say another fifty years, there will be more people up there, with various allegiances to various organizations. Or, maybe even just some nutter who has lost it. As I say, some of those rocks come very close to earth anyway. Just a small nudge, and it will hit the earth. If the nudge is done far enough in advance, like a year before impact, the authorities may never figure out for sure what happened. But, most likely, half a dozen religious groups will take credit for their gods, and some terror organization will take credit for itself.
Secrets? No secrets necessary, really.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:33AM
All it takes is some secret rocket launch. Even SpaceX do those for the US military. It would not be a stretch to think those capabilities will be available for more persons further ahead.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Weasley on Thursday July 06 2017, @06:29PM (2 children)
Well, we would if an asteroid with a well known orbit suddenly changed course. Maybe that's why funding Pan-STARRS [wikipedia.org] dried up.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 06 2017, @09:43PM (1 child)
It could of course happen because another asteroid hit the first asteroid.
(Score: 2) by Weasley on Friday July 07 2017, @01:32AM
It "could". But the odds of an asteroid being hit and then promptly smashing into the Earth are mind-blowingly astronomical.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:55AM (4 children)
I disagree. Asteroids are no more weapons than steel is. You have to go through considerable effort to weaponize an asteroid. Currently, it's easier to build a nuclear bomb than it is to divert an asteroid onto an Earth intercept course (much less an Earth intercept that hits a particular target).
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday July 08 2017, @03:21AM (3 children)
The point is not ease or cost of destruction. But stealth.
"Oops seems a random asteroid blown away your city, shit happens!"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 08 2017, @04:21AM (2 children)
Still looks about the same except the stealth approach with nukes is easier and cheaper.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday July 08 2017, @11:44AM (1 child)
When a nuke blows up you know foul play is present.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:01PM
Not necessarily. Maybe the country in question accidentally blew up a nuke. Nor do you automatically know who did what even when you have evidence of foul play (false flag operations where someone else can easily take the blame can be quite convenient). Meanwhile an asteroid strike is probably going to be treated as an attack anyway. And how many players can divert asteroids again?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 05 2017, @10:03PM (5 children)
The Outer Space Treaty banned weapons of mass destruction in orbit and outer space but does not ban conventional weaponry in orbit. So any laser, shrapnell, or gun type satellite weapon is still legal under this treaty.
Then there is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome [wikipedia.org] which any out of control geostationary satellite (like the recent one in the news) could domino into a full blown take down of every com-sat.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 05 2017, @11:02PM (2 children)
Almost sounds like "The China syndrome" ;-) It would be a dismal world where no satellites can exist and space travel would be extremely hazardous from a debris point of view.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 05 2017, @11:21PM (1 child)
It would force the development of what will be inevitable sooner or later: Some sort of de-orbit plan for this junk.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:32AM
Which seems to require a solar powered laser satellite. Which would perhaps violate the outer space treaty. I doubt any de-orbiting on this scale can be accomplished with a one-shoot-fixes-it-all. Rather it's a long term game where re-supplies won't cut it economically.
And it could be financed on a per organization ownership of satellites.
(Score: 2) by xpda on Wednesday July 05 2017, @11:13PM (1 child)
It seems like if a geostationary satellite was hit by another satellite, it's change in velocity would force it into an elliptical orbit, almost certainly missing the other geostationary satellites for the next few thousand years. I haven't run the numbers, but it a domino effect seems impossible in our lifetime.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:50AM
Better minds have already looked into it and its a real possibility. Follow the link posted above. The math has already been done.
We are not talking billiard balls here.
Think fragmentation grenades!
As one comes apart and drifts into another, setting it spinning because the solar panels present the biggest targets. More parts fall off. Rinse Repeat uncontrollably.
I can't see how you come up with such certainty of an elliptical orbit that never crosses any other orbit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4664228/A-satellite-falling-apart-Mexico.html [dailymail.co.uk]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.