Trump Directs Pentagon To Create Space Force Legislation for Congress (wsj.com) 259
President Donald Trump signed a directive on Tuesday that ordered the Department of Defense to create a Space Force as a sixth military branch. From a report: With a directive signed Tuesday, Mr. Trump was positioning the Space Force much as the Marine Corps fits into the Navy, officials said, with the result being lower costs and less bureaucracy. The plan would require congressional approval. Mr. Trump is to propose funding in his proposed 2020 budget, and spell out a goal of eventually establishing the Space Force as a separate military department, a senior administration official said. "Space, that's the next step and we have to be prepared," said Mr. Trump, who added that adversaries were training forces and developing technology. "I think we'll have great support from Congress."
The order Mr. Trump signed, Space Policy Directive 4, calls for a legislative proposal by the secretary of defense to establish a chief of staff of the Space Force within the Air Force. That officer would be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to an outline. There also be a new under secretary of defense for space to be appointed by the president. The proposal calls for the Space Force to organize, train and equip personnel to defend the U.S. in space, to provide independent military options for "joint and national leadership" and "enable the lethality and effectiveness of the joint force," according to the administration's outline.
The order Mr. Trump signed, Space Policy Directive 4, calls for a legislative proposal by the secretary of defense to establish a chief of staff of the Space Force within the Air Force. That officer would be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to an outline. There also be a new under secretary of defense for space to be appointed by the president. The proposal calls for the Space Force to organize, train and equip personnel to defend the U.S. in space, to provide independent military options for "joint and national leadership" and "enable the lethality and effectiveness of the joint force," according to the administration's outline.
Maybe not a bad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
But with recent readings about how China really seems to be upping their space game, and apparently looking to set up a base on the moon, this actually might not be a bad idea.
China is definitely doing military groundwork for space, and we don't want to be caught with our pants too far down.
And this actually might boost conventional space progress for us...something we've lost over the past decades.
If you have military $$ behind it, it might give the regular NASA stuff a boost too.
Re:Maybe not a bad idea... (Score:5, Funny)
I agree it's a direction to take, but the name.. Space Force. I feel like I'm starting to live in a Mel Brooks film.
Re: (Score:2)
Air Force, Space Force. Would you rather call it the Space Navy? The Space Corps? The Space Guard?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Space Patrol, of course.
http://nightflight.com/wp-cont... [nightflight.com]
Gotta love the hats.
Re: (Score:2)
Colonial Marines so to match Aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
Air Force, Space Force. Would you rather call it the Space Navy? The Space Corps? The Space Guard?
Space Fleet, boldly to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Imperial Church MAGArd has a ring to it. Who better to sit atop the Throne-Temple Arcology Complex than the God Emperor himself.
Now there's a Globalization project people could rally behind. Globalization, American Imperialism style.
Re: Maybe not a bad idea... (Score:2)
Re: Maybe not a bad idea... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe not a bad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree it's a direction to take, but the name.. Space Force. I feel like I'm starting to live in a Mel Brooks film.
Why? Air Force; Space Force. It's what the Russians called their agency (well, in Russian).
When military airplanes became a mature part of warfare, it was time to split off the Army Air Core and make a new uniformed service. These days, the Air Force has a mature group within it that launches and uses spy satellites (and other secret missions). It's enough of a disjoint specialty that a new uniformed service makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm nitpicker enough that I have to toss in this correction "Army Air Corps" (although it is pronounced "core"). In 1941 its was changed to "the Army Air Forces" and generally referred to as "the Air Force," though it would not become the "US Air Force" and an independent branch until 1947.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For those of us who grew up reading science fiction, the "Space Force" should be called "The Navy," with the existing navy changed to "The Wet Navy."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny sounding it may be, but we're not the only ones to use it. There's been a "Royal Air Force" since 1918.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why? Air Force; Space Force"
So lets rename the coast guard "Coast Force" the Navy, "Water Force", and the Army "Ground Force" right?
A couple hundred years of both Science and Science Fiction from NASA to Star Wars to Star Trek to Asimov's Foundation to Warhammer 40k to Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama to Jules Verne's From Earth to the Moon to 1970s Space lego, and Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers comic strips -- we've pretty solidly settled on space craft and space travel being like to ships, not planes.
A naval equivalent or metapho
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have a space navy, nor will we any time soon. We do have a lot of military satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
"We do have a lot of military satellites."
Exactly. Satellites -- which are basically just radios and cameras slowly falling back to earth. We hardly need a whole new uniformed and separately chartered division of the armed forces to manage that.
It's got less going on then the internet based electronic warfare "cyber warfare" (and we don't need a separately chartered cyber force either).
Re: (Score:2)
It will grow though, as launch costs continue falling. I don't know that it needs to be it's own branch, but it's not a crazy idea, any more than the Coast Guard.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Air Force; Space Force. It's what the Russians called their agency (well, in Russian).
I've always been partial to Star Force. Is it too late?
Re: (Score:2)
I've always been partial to Star Force. Is it too late?
(angrily) You can call it "Star Force" when you can send it to the stars. Until then, you might want to contain your hubris and just call it "Planet Force", or perhaps "Near Earth Force", or just "Fifty Mile High Club".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck me. Nothing but "Orage Man Bad" on Slashdot these days. Can't we fucking discuss the topic?
Trump's name is literally in the headline, and you're complaining that someone said something about Trump? You whine the internets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TDS is rampant here.
Yes, Trumpanistas who drank the orange kool-aid are everywhere. Oh, is that not what you meant? Maybe you meant that Trump is deranged?
Re: (Score:3)
How will this new force be funded? What will be their mission? Doesn't the airforce already have this covered?
Yes, space operations are currently part of the Air Force. They will be split off. I expect they'll be quite small at first, like our other small uniformed services (NOAA and USPHS). It will continue to grow over time, though.
Traditionally the air force has had this covered. Seems like we could have necessary defenses with a specialized unit without the overhead of an entire military branch.
Perhaps so, but amateurs almost always guess wrong about questions of military logistics, so I'll avoid guessing.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it's a direction to take
It is a dumb direction to take. It will add an enormous layer of bureaucracy, with a new hierarchy going all the way to a four star general on the joint chiefs of staff and a top level political appointee as the "Secretary of Space". Every decision will traverse up that hierarchy, until the buck stops at the person least qualified to make it. The primary job of all the bureaucrats will be to deal with all the infighting and turf battles with both NASA and the USAF.
As our space priorities shift to the mil
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes and no.
Any bureaucracy is going to spring forth from any new entity created within government. That much is a given.
However, the USAF can focus on everything in the atmosphere. Satellites (and let's not forget the two space shuttles the USAF has) can go to its own branch and not cause too much of an issue. With its own Chain, the Space Force can bypass the pilot-heavy-to-the-point-of-religion circle-jerk that Big Blue's chain of command has always been, and get its initiatives through without having to
Re: (Score:2)
Given the budget deficit and the last tax giveaway and the demographics for SS and Medicare, expect deep cuts in everything. The Democrats are pushing Medicare for all, they'll be lucky to keep Medicare as it is. The only thing that might fund Medicare for all is totally restructuring U.S. medical care. While that isn't a bad idea, it isn't a real idea because no one knows how to do that without a massive disruption and sending the Blue Haired out into the streets. The Me Generation want their pie and they
Re: (Score:2)
Why not call it Star Fleet?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they could grab up those unused Star Wars storm trooper uniforms.
Re: (Score:3)
Of all his dumb ideals this is the one I want to succeed the most.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it's a direction to take, but the name.. Space Force. I feel like I'm starting to live in a Mel Brooks film.
Perhaps Republican Space Rangers would be better?
Re: (Score:2)
After all, this is the man who brought us Clayton Bigsby...
Re: (Score:2)
If you have military $$ behind it, it might give the regular NASA stuff a boost too.
Why not just make a division in NASA responsible for defending us from "space" too. There would certainly be overlap between what NASA does/can do and what the Space Cadets will be doing.
I don't think we're at a point justifying a whole new military division. Letting NASA have a few more responsibilities to monitor our "Space Defence Readiness" would be far more practical than creating more bureaucracy and institutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just make a division in NASA responsible for defending us from "space" too.
Because NASA is an independent agency not part of the Department of Defense, and the military space budget is *already* larger than than NASA's budget.
It was a terrible idea from day 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Defense is a moot point now. Pakisitan keeps turning a blind eye to domestic terrorists in India and nothing ever comes of it because the ruling class isn't going to let you and me have another big war and break all the stuff they own. Unless globalism breaks down completely we're done with World Wars.
You won't see much new research out of this because the point isn't get get ahead of the curve or to defend the nation or even to attack others. The point is to soak up taxpayer dollars and distract from the ever worsening economy. Works too.
Re: (Score:3)
weaponizing space helps nobody except the Military Industrial Complex. We had treaties to prevent this sort of thing.
We HAD treaties. We've been tearing all our treaties up the last few years. The current mission is to treat the rest of the world as rivals rather than try and make them our allies and friends.
God I hope we stop that crap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Military Industrial Complex died back in the 1990s and 2000s when those companies realized they could make much more in the private sector. Right now, DoD almost has to beg them to produce stuff that isn't a big boondoggle like the F-35.
Re: (Score:3)
But with recent readings about how China really seems to be upping their space game, and apparently looking to set up a base on the moon, this actually might not be a bad idea.
Increasing military involvement in space, good idea. Separating military involvement in space from the air force, premature idea.
Re:Maybe not a bad idea... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's idea of a Space Force isn't your idea of a Space Force. His is more akin to playing with plastic soldiers.
Re: (Score:2)
Its first and foremost a more sensible way to manage mil space infrastructure with a shorter and dedicated chain of command.
You can have that by promoting everyone currently involved in mil space infrastructure, and having the person at the top start reporting directly to the commander-in-KFC.
It's budget will no longer be cannibalized for terrestrial Air Force projects.
Easily done by congress declaring how the money shall be spent. Also easily undone by congress declaring how the money shall be spent. So no, there's no guarantees there.
And moving forward they will be better prepared to defend our satellites.
Still no need for a separate branch for that.
One of the chief complains placed on the Air Force has been their total neglect in dealing with these new threats.
No it isn't.
Everything else you said was irrelevant, and everything relevant that you said was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
"Guard" not "Force", ala USCG not USAF (Score:2)
https://spacenews.com/space-fo... [spacenews.com]
Re: Agreed (although could be done better) (Score:2)
So many U.S. military systems make use of space-based resources that their destruction would have an immediate and profound effect on our ability to defend our own country or win in war elsewhere.
Furthermore, we are on the verge of launching a number of missions to the Moon, Mars, and Deep Space by a number of different commercial agencies. We need infrastructure up there and defensive capabilities. ESA is working on a permanent Moon base, ULA is working on a permanently manned space station for zero-G ma
National Emergency! (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe, now that national emergencies can be handed out like candy and resources reallocated from their intended porpoises to other species.
A Space Force could help to build the new Donaldson Sphere.
A Donaldson Sphere is a mega structure that surrounds the earth. Sort of a planetary wall. To keep aliens out. And make the aliens pay for it.
But it has secondary benefits. While it would keep out all sunlight from the earth, this would result in the need to burn more clean coal for energy. All of those left wing liberal solar panels aren't going to work so well with a Donaldson Sphere protecting the planet from sunlight.
It's a great plan! What could go wrong? It's a fantastic use of resources. The best resources. The most brilliant plan, I tell you. Trust me. People call all the time saying that we should build the Donaldson Sphere. Believe me. It would be the biggest bestest project that shows how great American truly is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fight aliens and foreign countries that are attacking our satellites: $many_trillions
Fight election interference: $0
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not as long as the Bad Orange Man keeps having thought-free outbursts that fuck up and negatively affect everyday life for people and make no sense due to their extreme idiocy.
As long as those poor decisions affect us, they will be reported here for all to point and laugh at. Maybe something will change, probably not, but at least we'll have a good laugh along the way.
Plus the salt in GOP's fake tears are the sweetest treat of all!
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Ad hominem.
It's not a good idea to repeat in writing things you've heard grown-ups say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A Donaldson Sphere is a mega structure built around the Earth. To keep the aliens out. To protect the Earth from sunlight.
Finally ... (Score:5, Funny)
I can't wait to join (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure which color shirt I want to try for at this point. Definitely not the red one, though.
Re: (Score:3)
You're showing your age. Now red shirts are the sign of command and authority. Yellow shirts are the most dangerous since the 1980's.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to say, "What about Tasha Yar," but then I remembered she wore ochre. But she was Chief Security Officer. Why wasn't she wearing red???? SOMEONE HELP ME.
Five becoming Six (Score:3)
Does that mean that they are going to have to rebuild The Pentagon as a six sided building of six nested hexagons each of which is six floors high ?
Could anyone suggest a nickname for this new building ?
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean that they are going to have to rebuild The Pentagon as a six sided building of six nested hexagons each of which is six floors high ?
Could anyone suggest a nickname for this new building ?
Based on the proclivities of several Presidents throughout history I would suggest the Sechs-agon?
Re: (Score:2)
The Sextagon!
Re: (Score:3)
The Navy isn't allowed to enforce US laws. The Coast Guard is. That's why the Coast Guard is under the DHS (and was affected by the shutdown) and the Navy is under the DoD (and wasn't).
Now, in time of war, the Coast Guard becomes a military operation. But until then, they are arresting drug dealers and saving lives on the high seas.
Playing the long game... (Score:3, Funny)
This is clearly the next step in the complicated multi-year plot to send Trump's hair back home.
Call it SG1 to get more vote! (Score:2)
Call it SG1 to get more vote!
We don't need a special branch of the military (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that's the problem this 'Space Force' is actually meant to deal with. Almost every branch of the military has some form of space operations (GPS/COMM satellites, long range detection, etc..) but with the same or similar systems being spread across 2 or 3 branches you get a lot of unnecessary duplication and incompatibility. You're also stuck within the hierarchy of branches who may not prioritize space based operations.
The main purpose of this is to create a specialized force to handle current a
Re: (Score:2)
I stand by my original statement. The Air Force could handle the vast majority of space-related operations. If it comes down to actual hand-to-hand combat in space then send in the Marines. We don't need another branch of the military just for
Re: (Score:2)
The Air Force could handle the vast majority of space-related operations.
They currently do. It's called the Air Force Space Command :
https://www.afspc.af.mil/ [af.mil]
This is what Trump is trying to seperate into its own branch, based on advice from DoD officials. This is not "Trump creating the Space Force", this is EXPERTS asking him to do so based on logistics issues created by having the Air Force trying to manage Space Command.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you have is Stage 1 TDS. Seriously. The idea of a Space force existed before Trump. This is not something he pushed. Same as the Border wall which also existed prior to him which DHS are the ones pushing for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yer phased plasma rifle coming right up (Score:2)
First order of business for the new Space Force... (Score:2)
... would be to develop X-Wing fighters, right?
DUSEPA (Score:2)
(pronounced "doo-see'-pa")
Department of United States Extra-Planetary Affairs
Sounds a hell of a lot less juvenile than "Space Force".
My 2c.
Re: DUSEPA (Score:2)
Department of United States Extra-Planetary Affairs
Sounds a hell of a lot less juvenile than "Space Force".
I guess the air force should have been called the Department of United States Above-Land Affairs?
Although if you're really going to propose something that silly for the space force, I would much rather go with Department of United States Extra-Terrestrial Affairs. Give all the UFO nuts something to go ape over.
Re: (Score:2)
I had thought of using the term "Extra-Terrestrial", but the problem with it is that the term "Extra-Terrestrial" is often taken as a noun, instead of an adjective, and could imply that the department's concern is actually about aliens, and not about what happens off of the planet.
I was making a serious suggestion, Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with the idea of creating a new branch for the military whose domain of interest is off-planet, even if we aren't yet technologically at a point where som
Explore space, serve your country! (Score:2)
Would you like to know more?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the Space Force is.
And you seem very overly pessimistic about the New Space Race. Bezos and Musk seem quite determined to reduce launch costs, especially for manned missions, so much that it's a change in kind. They have a good track record so far. IIRC, SpaceX had more successful launches last year (21) than all the other US launchers and Russia combined. And Bezos has personal wealth that exceed the budget of the Apollo program, if he really wants to make this happen.
We saw almost no p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason we haven't colonized the galaxy yet is because of launch costs.
Do you see anyone else around here spouting this hyperbole? You're the person you're complaining about!
And, yes, China is kicking ass. Their moon landing was awesome. And an Israeli moon lander will launch on a Falcon 9 in a few days, and ideally be the first to do a "hop" from one landing site to another. Exciting times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
/
Well now that we have 20% reduction in launch costs
The cost to launch stuff on the space shuttle was around $16,000/kg to LEO IIRC (actual program cost was around 3x that). Launching on the Delta IV costs around $12,000/kg - that's progress, for a government contractor.
Falcon 9 has launch costs around $3000/kg to LEO. That's a bit better than 20%. Blue Origin is trying for commercial sub-orbital tourism this year with New Shepard (and their product demo launch makes that seem credible). The next gener
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Space Nutters keep talking about mining asteroids, even though it makes zero sense. We have more than enough here on Earth.
Heavy industry isn't exactly environmentally friendly on Earth. It would be nice to do it elsewhere, if we could afford to. At the right price, the kind of people who own their own islands would no doubt love to own their own island-sized space stations, and it just makes more sense to build most of that in space (at least the heavy structure and water and such) rather than lifting it.
Shorter term, the ability to make fuel in space would be a godsend to science missions. There are hundreds more probes we
Re: (Score:2)
what is it that got you your precious Moon landing in 1969?
Mostly technology built by corporations. Just like interstate highways.
There was a time when going to space was so expensive, and the payback so distant, that it only made sense or the government to do it. It's a new century, and "space" is a competitive business now.
Even if rockets are free, what kind of things make sense to do in space?
Anything that's unpleasant to do on Earth. I expect the first major industry to move to space will be power generation. When a several trillion dollar industry gets cheaper to do in space, it will move, and that will be the end of our whini
Re: (Score:2)
Even if rockets are free, what kind of things make sense to do in space?
1: Locate incoming big rocks
2: Determine where they will hit
3: If (our nation) then divert
else notify nation and ask how much money it's worth to divert that incoming rock.
It's not extortion. It's protection, and it's expensive. So, pay up, or BOOM.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Bless his heart"
I've been to the American South.
That's how they say "Fuck Him". :)
Re: (Score:2)
"Bless his heart" :)
I've been to the American South.
That's how they say "Fuck Him".
Almost. "Bless his heart" means "he's dumb as shit". "Bless him" is how they say "fuck him".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure the Pentagon can find an underused broom closet to hang the Space Force sign on.
You do understand the the Air Force has a large group of people who launch and use spy satellites, right? (And other secret payloads we could speculate about). This isn't some futuristic Space Marines thing - this is an existing set of specialties with the Air Force, that has little in common with the other stuff the Air Force does.
The Russian Space Force also operates their early warning radar stations and some similar Cold War stuff. That overlaps enough with core Air Force specialties that I'm not sur
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that is a reference to the "Stargate Command" sign that has been placed on a broom closet in the real-life Cheyenne Mountain complex, right?
Re: (Score:2)
..you do realise that the Army, Navy and Civilian Federal agencies also have Spy Satellites ... in fact more than the Air Force because they have the least use for them ...
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you on about? I can't even follow what you're trying to say. "Socialism == Military"? Wut?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The military is a socialist outfit. Do you not see this?
Tell me, where does the military get its money from? Who competes with the military? Where is the market pressure?
So why do you disparage socialism? You love your military and its silly toys? But you have a problem with roads and water?
"I can't even follow what you're trying to say. "
Your sig is barely better.
"Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians"
What lie? Which totalitarians? My Canadian health care is socialized, it's a lie? I'm a fool for hav
Re: (Score:2)
"Socialism" is not the only alternative to anarchy, as you seem to suggest. Socialism is the extreme. A government building roads has nothing to do with socialism - it's just a government program. When everyone shoveling asphalt works for the government, and private roads are forbidden, that's a socialist program.
Did someone actually teach you that "socialism" is just another word for government? The mind boggles.
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect the Marines would be quite upset at the suggestion that the Navy is responsible for any sort of Marines. But I doubt it will come up this century.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Marines have a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But perhaps you're splitting hairs finer than I care to.
Re: kathy kennedy says (Score:2)