Air Force Wing Prepares For First Satellite Launch as Part of the 'U.S. Space Force' (spacenews.com) 93
An anonymous reader quotes Space News:
The SpaceX launch of Starlink satellites scheduled for January 6 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on the Florida Space Coast will be first launch of 2020 and also the 45th Space Wing's inaugural launch as part of the U.S. Space Force.
The 45th Space Wing, headquartered at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, oversees the preparation and launching of U.S. government and commercial satellites from Cape Canaveral and operates the Eastern Range. It is one of five Air Force space wings that have been assigned to the U.S. Space Force effective December 20, when President Trump signed the National Defense Authorization Act that created the U.S. Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. "I'm excited for the 45th Space Wing to be a part of the U.S. Space Force," wing commander Brig. Gen. Doug Schiess said in a statement Jan. 3.
The 45th Space Wing will continue to do what it has been doing and the transition to the Space Force will not change that, Schiess said. The details of how the U.S. Space Force will be structured and staffed will take at least 18 months to sort out... Air Force Space Command personnel have been assigned to the Space Force but still remain airmen within the U.S. Air Force...
"The effects the new Space Force will have on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Patrick Air Force Base has not been announced yet, but continuing to successfully accomplish the mission without interruption is our top priority," Schiess said.
The 45th Space Wing, headquartered at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, oversees the preparation and launching of U.S. government and commercial satellites from Cape Canaveral and operates the Eastern Range. It is one of five Air Force space wings that have been assigned to the U.S. Space Force effective December 20, when President Trump signed the National Defense Authorization Act that created the U.S. Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. "I'm excited for the 45th Space Wing to be a part of the U.S. Space Force," wing commander Brig. Gen. Doug Schiess said in a statement Jan. 3.
The 45th Space Wing will continue to do what it has been doing and the transition to the Space Force will not change that, Schiess said. The details of how the U.S. Space Force will be structured and staffed will take at least 18 months to sort out... Air Force Space Command personnel have been assigned to the Space Force but still remain airmen within the U.S. Air Force...
"The effects the new Space Force will have on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Patrick Air Force Base has not been announced yet, but continuing to successfully accomplish the mission without interruption is our top priority," Schiess said.
Oy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... it's so weird to have autonomous command structures based on area of operations. What next, are they gonna segregate the water forces from the land forces, and even the amphibious expeditionary forces just because they operate in different terrain? Ridiculous.
Re:Oy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about making bureaucratic sense. The Marines do a different sort of mission from the Army, though there is some overlap. Makes sense that they have their own command structure. Meanwhile, combining naval air operations with ship operations under the US Navy has resulted in the naval air forces basically in charge of everything, so we get most of the budget spent on insanely expensive aircraft carriers, and a bunch of failed and abandoned attempts to modernize anything else.
However, I do wonder wheth
Re: (Score:1)
The budget spent on carrier operations is entirely due to the reality that modern warfare positions the carrier as the preeminent method of force projection. There is no more effective way to project force across the globe in today's military than to put a carrier group into the region. It's not a matter of bureaucracy, it's a matter of strategy and tactics.
Space Force falls under the C3 of the Department of the Air Force and will likely use Air Force rank structure.
Re: (Score:2)
The budget spent on carrier operations is entirely due to the reality that modern warfare positions the carrier as the preeminent method of force projection.
Until a Swedish sub comes along and sinks your force projection. Monoculture is bad. Carriers are vulnerable. They're good for gunboat diplomacy, which is a real need, but not the only need. And fewer, bigger carriers is lose-lose.
Re: (Score:1)
Right... Cause carriers operate solo, right? Honestly, that was really just a lot of ignorance packed into one short comment.
Carriers never operate alone and are deployed in Carrier Battle Groups... which typically consist of a carrier, a guided missile cruiser, two guided missile destroyers, and one or two attack submarines. Those guided missile destroyers are LAMPS enabled launch pads for MH-60R's conducting anti-sub operations... There is no "monoculture" and carriers, certainly US carriers, are far less
Re: (Score:2)
Way to miss the entire point. Carriers are vulnerable. Even in a battle group. You do know a Swedish sub "sank" one in an exercise not so many years ago, and it really threw the USN for a loop, right? Your battle group is optimized to protect against the expected threats, but no matter what you do, you're vulnerable to the unexpected threats.
And, yes, fewer, bigger carriers. For whatever budget you may have available, you're getting 2/3s as many Fords as Nimitzs. Pointing out how much more we have tha
Re: (Score:1)
Literally everything you just said is bullshit...
First off, the Swedish sub was almost 15 years ago in 2005... largely because the Gotland class subs are outdated enough they simply weren't being tracked effectively by sensor nets, there were also no LAMP ops in that exercise.
The "sinking" you're likely referring to was the 2015 exercises with the French which were similar circumstances but you also don't seem to have any clue how wargaming actually works...
Neither of these instances would've amounted to an
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, sure, redefine success so the carrier wasn't sunk. That will work perfectly when it's a real enemy. I can see no flaw with that plan. Your argument that "it doesn't count that the Swedish sub wasn't detected because .... it was old!" is, well, really? You're going with that?
And, yes, one good modern torpedo hit can break any large ship with a solid hit below the center. Maybe countermeasures would work. Maybe. If the sub was far enough away to give some warning. And the fleet was looking for u
Re: (Score:3)
Space Force falls under the C3 of the Department of the Air Force and will likely use Air Force rank structure.
Until we get Space Marines in which case they will definitely fall under the Marines. Can we please have Space Marines? Seriously I have no horse in this race but I really REALLY want Space Marines.
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt we'll be conducting boarding operations in space any time soon... more likely to develop a combat controller type doctrine for ground assets calling in orbital support in near to mid term future and then the space force playing taxi driver for next gen Marine Corps much like the Navy does now long term when we start making the grass grow on other worlds.
Re: (Score:2)
the NOAA (the uniformed service everyone forgets about.
I thought for a minute you were going to mention the Coast Guard...
Re: (Score:1)
Everybody forgets the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just looking for an excuse for Space Force to have Navy-style ranks
I would say about half the SF that include a "Space Force" use Air Force like terminology, the other one navy. Strange however is that the ships are always in navy terms, aka frigs and cruisers, carriers etc, but then again they have fighters. A bit difficult to find a round system, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I do wonder whether we should unify the NRO with Space Force, since they're pretty much all space operations these days, and for that matter the NOAA (the uniformed service everyone forgets about).
No. The NRO isn't a military unit, and doesn't think like a military unit. You cannot mix military command structure with the political BS that goes on in a government origination and expect to have a cohesively working unit, and NOAA is no more military than the USPO is. Just because they're government and wear a uniform, doesn't make them military. They may function more in a military manner than the NRO does, but they're scientists doing environmental research, not scientists doing military space sci
Re: (Score:1)
But semi-seriously, my dad was in the Army Air Corps. As I understand it, the creation of the Air Force from the AAC was similar to this. I have no problem. The worst that happens is the new badges and sigils and patches will be less cool than they might be. Oh, yeah -- and we get vastly overcharged for duplicative op
Re: (Score:2)
The Marines are, as the name suggests, an amphibious expeditionary force and do not engage in air to air combat as a matter of doctrine. They have logistical air forces, and ground support air forces.
The SEALS are an elite multi-role force that is assigned to the Navy as a matter of historical origins and, more importantly, budget; the vaunted SEAL team six has a small arms budget on par with the entire Marine Corps... they also make up less than 1% of the Navy. In terms of their modern role, they'd fit bet
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah... it's so weird to have autonomous command structures based on area of operations.
It's more that this crosses a huge line from the days in which space was to be off-limits for military applications. We have agreed with other nations, most notably the former Soviet Union, that the exploration of peace would be peaceful.
And before someone chimes in that ICBMs and spy places violate that principle, no they do not. Those are focused on surface and aerial theaters of operation, not space.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's idiotic... Space is and always has been militarized with everything from spy satellites to ICBMS's (which DO operate in space regardless of your attempts at justification) to the ubiquitous GPS that virtually everyone utilizes today (GPS comes from the DARPA Navstar project and was initially a purely military initiative). The distinction is that space has not been overtly weaponized as yet.
And the treaty you're referencing really does very little to govern the weaponization of space and has very few
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah... it's so weird to have autonomous command structures based on area of operations.
It's more that this crosses a huge line from the days in which space was to be off-limits for military applications. We have agreed with other nations, most notably the former Soviet Union, that the exploration of peace would be peaceful.
And before someone chimes in that ICBMs and spy places violate that principle, no they do not. Those are focused on surface and aerial theaters of operation, not space.
You do realize that this is just consolidation of current military space operations under a branch, right? Right now the Air Force, Army, and Navy all have space assets, but none of those branch's primary focus is space operations. We currently have critical military infrastructure up there (GPS, communications satellites, intelligence satellites). This change just takes those operations and places them under a new command structure whose primary mission is to operate and protect them. We aren't building de
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the heck not? Space assets have been critical to US Defense for 40+ years, and doing space is a fundamentally different thing from flying airplanes.
Military space is a *huge* effort, far bigger than NASA and may be bigger than what is left of the Air Force. This has been coming for 15+ years, it's not a new idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit what the fuck are you talking about? Military use of space is far bigger than NASA and the Air Force? Who the fuck do you think have been doing this shit for the past 60 years?
The military stopped using NASA to launch stuff many years ago. Military space efforts are better funded than NASA, and they've done more launches this century (by a lot, I think, though it's all secret and I can't find an official tally). Spy satellites in particular have a short life, so they have to keep launching new ones.
Yes, it is the Air Force doing these launches and all the related ground operations. Those are the specific squadrons and wings being moved to the Space Force. Is any of that news
Re: Oy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You know absolutely nothing about this, so you are just a random troll.
However, what I said was that it's possible that the Space Force, when fully constituted, will be a bigger force than what is left of the Air Force, once it is realigned. Depends on which "government" space assets are included. Presumably the Navy and (current) Air Force, who knows about the others.
But, you just keep talking, it probably makes you seem really important.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant to reply to Patent Lover? And yes, with a name like "Patent Lover" it's very likely a dedicated troll account.
Re: (Score:2)
Military space efforts are better funded than NASA, ...
Everything is better funded than NASA.
(not denying there's still a bunch bureaucratic waste and CYA attitude there, though)
Re: (Score:3)
why are we taking Space Force seriously if we've had no problem using space for critical defense assets for the past 40 years?
Because as the story says:
"I'm excited for the 45th Space Wing to be a part of the U.S. Space Force," wing commander Brig. Gen. Doug Schiess said in a statement Jan. 3.
The 45th Space Wing will continue to do what it has been doing and the transition to the Space Force will not change that, Schiess said.
"...continuing to successfully accomplish the mission without interruption is our top priority."
Re: (Score:2)
Warren, Trump, and Sanders are all just spokesbots, they say what they think their prospective voters want to hear. None of them have any idea of actual program to get from A to B. Warren is too airheaded, Trump has the attention span of gnat, and Sanders still thinks the Soviet Union was a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got some derp on your chin.
When you think maybe a US Senator who was recently also an economics professor might be "airheaded," lets just say, if you had some air in there it might be an improvement.
Is it even possible for you to be more stupidly misogynistic? You haven't even made it up to the "cooties" level of sophistication.
Re: (Score:1)
doing space
Let me guess, you're Buck Rogers grandpa?
Re: (Score:2)
Space assets have been critical to US Defense for 40+ years
Nope. They've been critical to US intelligence, perhaps. And very useful for US "Defense" when it is actually offense and picks on smaller countries with no space capacity apart from maybe hitching rides on someone else's launcher to put the odd comm sat in orbit. But NONE of the space concepts have been battle tested against an enemy strong enough to punch back, and punch back in space. I really don't want to find out if all these concepts would actually work as advertised because that would mean WW3, but
Re: (Score:2)
most of it will become space junk and ruin near Earth space for decades.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I still can't believe we're taking this Space Force shit seriously.
"I can't believe we're taking this Air Force shit seriously. The Army Air Corps is tiny, why does it need to be it's own branch? Does the president think air marines are going to be boarding zeppelins?"
Welcome to the future, where generals see the space domain on par with air, land, sea, and cyber domains when planning combat. If you want to complain about terminology, complain about "cyber" FFS.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Err, thanks? Are you seriously unable to understand that space is already an essential part of modern warfare? Everything these days relies on GPS and satellite imagery, and satellite-based comms are pretty important as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. Live long and prosper!
That would be LoP or not?
Re: (Score:2)
I still can't believe we're taking this Space Force shit seriously.
"I can't believe we're taking this Air Force shit seriously. The Army Air Corps is tiny, why does it need to be it's own branch? Does the president think air marines are going to be boarding zeppelins?"
Welcome to the future, where generals see the space domain on par with air, land, sea, and cyber domains when planning combat. If you want to complain about terminology, complain about "cyber" FFS.
You joke like the Army wouldn't kill for the Air Force's budget and allowance to buy anything that flies with it. It's not that they don't take the Air Force seriously, it's that layers of bureaucracy slow everything down. The Army doesn't want to wait on the Air Force, and vice versa. The Army has its own air assets, and the Air Force has its own special operations for rescuing downed pilots.
This is the entire reason we have a Marine Corps, it's small, self reliant, and rapidly deployable. One side of
Re: (Score:3)
This certainly has room to change; but currently appears to be a minimum-effort approach to flattering the boss' questionable flight of fancy.
Re:Oy (Score:5, Interesting)
If you read the description or the article, you'd see that one of things they're working on right now is the structures and policies to operate as an independent branch and how they will transition the existing AF staff to be Space Force.
Just like DHS (excluding the airport security agents) was largely made up of existing departments and agencies being reassigned to a new org structure, these things take time to work out.
Congress gets to decide what branches of the military exist; it's not purely presidential whims. They went along with and enabled this.
Re: (Score:2)
they will transition the existing AF staff to be Space Force.
And Army and Navy staff as well. Like you said, this is consolidation of existing operations currently being done by three branches, none of which have space as their primary focus.
Re: (Score:2)
but currently appears to be a minimum-effort approach to flattering the boss' questionable flight of fancy.
This has actually been in the works since 2000. Also, congress, including the democrat controlled house, are the ones that actually did this. While Trump pushed for it to be passed, the president does not have the power to unilaterally create a new branch of the military.
Re: (Score:2)
I still can't believe we're taking this Space Force shit seriously.
It doesn't get any more serious than this.
When this new battlestation is complete we're going to be able to track Rocket Boy by just his methane signature.
Do not misunderestimate the power of the Space Force.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The NSA collects, the US mil acts... bad people discover the mil prowess of the USA.
Now that NSA role and US mil role will get given to Space Force.
The role of the NSA is reduced. The US mil acts on what Space Force feels like sharing.
Another new layer of mil bureaucracy and NSA blocking.
Will Space Force support the collection role of the CIA over the NSA? More power given to the CIA and much more NSA blocking.
Can Space Force take control of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oy (Score:4, Insightful)
I still can't believe we're taking this Space Force shit seriously.
I still can't believe people are taking the guy who wanted it seriously -- seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Mike Rogers (R)? Jim Cooper (D)? In 2017?
Or were you thinking of the guys who wanted it back in 2001?
Or the ones who wanted it back in 1982?
This is just another move like the creation of the Air Force (1947). What, you didn't know that the Air Force used to be part of the US Army?
Re: (Score:2)
What, you didn't know that the Air Force used to be part of the US Army?
Actually, I did/do know that. Specialization or compartmentalizing isn't necessarily bad, there's always a limit on the positive returns. We basically have Sea, Land and Air forces (with some cross-over), not really sure breaking "Air" into Air and Space helps us much. Good for the President's ego though... Admittedly, it *is* fun to say -- Space Force! -- though in a 80's low-budget TV series kinda way.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really funny is how ignorant that viewpoint actually is.
Key point #1 -> China and Russia already had space force programs... for years.
Not making one does not magically make the US good or smart people. Neil Degrasse Tyson himself said "It's not a bad idea just because it came out of Trump's mouth."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the first item launched into space is ... (Score:1, Flamebait)
an oversized sex toy to represent the entire reason Trump created Space Force in the first place. Gotta be remembered for something other than excessive incompetence and impeachment I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta be remembered for something
Dainty hands.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of separating space assets from the other military services is about 25 years old, and the groundwork arguably started in 2001. Trump didn't think of it, it has been a consideration since the Space Commission days.
Since so many people are apparently dumbfounded by the US Space Force, it presumably takes the space-related sections of the Air Force, Navy, Army, and perhaps other government-related agencies and consolidates them. They aren't going out and starting from scratch, t
Re: (Score:1)
apparently dumbfounded by the US Space Force
Only because Trump said it. This is all part of this orangemanbad program that's infected all the npcs. If anyone else had said it everyone would be cheering and feeling all patriotic and shit.
Re: (Score:3)
If anyone else had said it everyone would be cheering and feeling all patriotic and shit.
Somehow I don't think you grasp how absolutely stupid it is to create a department of the USA military dedicated to Space in the name of segregation when they've not even bothered segregating the duties of the Army or the Marine Corps, or the Army and the Navy, and yet somehow seem to think that space needs a special department for which they have provided $40million in funding, just enough for a couple of signs, a lobby crest, a few uniforms, and a legacy for an idiot.
Orangeman doesn't need a program to ap
Re:And the first item launched into space is ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Only because Trump said it. This is all part of this orangemanbad program that's infected all the npcs.
It's amazing to me that we've got an aggressive stage IV cancer here, and a third of the population is going, "Why do you always criticize the cancer? You're so irrational. You've got Cancer Derangement Syndrome".
I've not liked a lot of what a lot of presidents have done, but this is the first time in the 6 presidents I can remember where we have one that's objectively unqualified for the job, and very much destroying the government and the US stature in the world like an aggressive cancer. The waste, fraud, and incompetence is going to, in sum total, likely exceed that of the last several administrations combined, and that's simply astounding.
When former allies stand around and laugh at the US and its leader, does that not tell you something? These are people who have a vested interest in maintaining a good relationship with the US, both politically, militarily, and financially. These aren't political rivals from the other party, these are peers with a vested interest in working with Trump for the good of their country and their political careers. When even they are throwing up their hands and saying, "WTF are we supposed to do with this shit?", doesn't that give you a little bit of a pause? If not, it should.
If all of your friends who benefit from having you around are telling you to fuck off, there's probably not a major problem with them. That would be time to look in the mirror.
Re: (Score:1)
All politicians are cancer. I'd rather have an incompetent cancer than a competent one. Competent cancers tend to metastasize quickly and be very resistant to therapy. Incompetent cancers can usually be cured just by excising them, or sensitive to chemotherapy... Government is a parasite by its very function. It lives off the people. It fools the people into believing it provides benefits when actually it's being self serving. And its only goal is to keep feeding off the people. Eventually it eats so much t
Re: (Score:2)
Since so many people are apparently dumbfounded by the US Space Force, it presumably takes the space-related sections of the Air Force, Navy, Army, and perhaps other government-related agencies and consolidates them.
Because that's the thing that makes most sense to consolidate right?
Not the air support of the Navy and arm, or the Navy Seals or USA Marines deployed in a landlocked desert? I mean I guess they did get rid of the US Army Air Corps as a first step, but gotta get a few satellite assets it's own government department 70 years later.
You hit the nail on the head. It generates absolutely nothing new. It's just something Trump needs as a legacy, because fuck knows the rest of his legacy sucks.
Also your idea sound
Re: (Score:2)
And environmental degradation. Americans apparently do not require clean water and air as long as the opposite can be claimed to goose the economy. It is the triumph of the Koch brothers over sanity.
Re:Spend Spend Spend (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see: [spacelaunchschedule.com]
* China had 34 launches in 2019
* Russia had 18 launches (8 by the Space Forces)
* SpaceX had 13 launches
* India had 6 launches
* New Zealand had 6 Launches
* United Launch Alliance had 5 launches (4 military, one for Boeing)
* NASA had 0 launches.They currently have 1 launch planned for 2020.
So, yeah, other than SpaceX we had fewer launches than New Zealand (not counting the secret Air Force launches, which may be more impressive). Maybe a renewed focus by our government on our space program is OK?
Re: (Score:2)
So you hate rockets and space launches? Sort of an odd thing for Slashdot. Or do you imagine NASA as something other than a money fire that forgot how to build rockets decades ago?
Re: (Score:2)
(not counting the secret Air Force launches, which may be more impressive). Maybe a renewed focus by our government on our space program is OK?
The Air Force was already focused on space. There is no case to be made that the Air Force was focusing on space any less than they were being asked to. You should have actually listened to the Secretary of the Air Force and other DoD leaders talk about it. We aren't solving a problem with our focus or abilities in space, we are just creating a Space Force for the sake of creating a Space Force. Nobody should be under any illusion this is anything other than that.
Why does anyone think creating a branch
Re: (Score:3)
The Air Force was already focused on space. There is no case to be made that the Air Force was focusing on space any less than they were being asked to.
Several congressional findings disagree with this. They looked at it in 2001 and 2017 and both times came to the conclusion that space operations were taking a back seat at the Air Force to air operations. And no, not just Republicans. There was bipartisan support for this move.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So, you do realize that spending taxpayer money for a "renewed focus on our space program" is socialism, right? It's about as socialism as you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh-uh, where do you think those Aliens are coming from, Antarctica? I find it refreshing the Administration is finally focusing on the real Alien invasion, and the Chinese are aiding and abetting them.
Re: (Score:1)
Russia had a Space Force since 2015 (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. About time we got serious about it, too.
I'm kinda glad it's called space force. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This will be over really fast (Score:2)
Space Force's most likely outcome will be to cancel its own viability.
This will be over really fast if executed with the level of intelligence we're seeing. We're not many uncontrolled explosions or detonations away from a chain reaction which would turn Low Earth Orbit into a shooting gallery of debris flying faster than any bullet, impossible to keep useful satellites in.
If we prove stupid enough to cause that to happen, we'll be proven too stupid to deserve to be there at all.
SpaceForce!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)