Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military Government Space United States

Despite Funny Name Ideas, US Space Force Has a Serious Mission (upi.com) 76

Posted by EditorDavid from the final-frontiers dept.
Friday the U.S. military released 400 other names it considered for Space Force's soliders (before settling on the word "guardians.")

Politico writes that the names were "crowdsourced" from the U.S. military's space workforce, and "Troops clearly had fun with their submissions, which included Space Cadet, Spacies, Anti-Gravity Gang, Homo Spaciens and Spacefolk." But the Space Force had more science fiction-inspired names it could have picked. Fleet Officer, Stormtrooper and Trekkies were both among the suggested names...

Many in the public still confuse NASA's civil space mission with the Space Force's national security focus, and a name like Ground-Based Astronauts or Apollonauts, harkening back to the space agency's moon landing program, would not help... One suggestion was Skywalker, though members of the Space Force at least in the short-term will be Earth-bound to operate the nation's GPS constellation and provide early missile warning.

Though the Space Force's workforce is expected to be highly-skilled in technical fields, its members may not have taken kindly to one suggestion: Geek...

Others perhaps took the suggestion process too literally, with one suggestion just saying "nothing because you wouldn't hear it in space anyway."
The UPI reminds readers that the U.S. Space Force "is now a full military branch that was allocated $15.4 billion in the 2021 budget and enlisted 16,000 active duty and civilian personnel who were all reassigned from the defunct Air Force Space Command."

White House press secretary Jen Psaki confirmed Wednesday that the Biden administration will keep Space Force... "They absolutely have the full support of the Biden administration. And we are not revisiting the decision to establish the Space Force," Psaki said Wednesday at a White House news briefing...

Many experts were not surprised that President Joe Biden will keep Space Force as its own branch of the military because it would take an act of Congress to abolish it when it now has bipartisan support as a valuable tool in future military efforts....
The UPI also got this comment from a research associate with the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The name is funny; it sounds like something that Trump just dreamed up," said Young. "But it's been talked about in national security circles for over a decade now. It's something that's just going to be important to have going forward."

And a co-director of the Center for Security, Strategy and Technology at the Brookings Institution tells them bluntly that "The Space Force is a serious attempt to deal with a serious problem, and that problem is the deployment of anti-satellite weapons by countries like Russia and China."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Despite Funny Name Ideas, US Space Force Has a Serious Mission More

Despite Funny Name Ideas, US Space Force Has a Serious Mission

Comments Filter:

  • Of course (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday February 06, 2021 @04:44PM (#61035164)

    But all of that was being done before without the pointless overhead of having an entire arm of the military dedicated to it all in the hopes that Trump gets remembered for something other than the being the worst president ever.

    • And the Army Air Coprs won WW2, yet we have the Air Force.

      • The Army Air corps became a large part of the Army, it made sense to create the Air Force.

        The space command in the Air Force is a tiny subset of the Air Force's overall mission and there was no need to create another branch.

        It is a pointless, massive expense to have another full branch of the military. Five are more than enough, there is zero reason for six.

        The only reason that there are five is because of international treaties, the Navy can not board foreign flag ships, so the Coast Guard is branch number

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by haus ( 129916 )

      I thought that the Air Force simply needed some other organization to take the brunt of the harassment they receive from the Marines.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Entrope ( 68843 )

        Once upon a time, a battalion of Marines were camped next to a mountain during a training exercise. A US Army Ranger walks around the mountain and challenges them: "Send your strongest fighter! I am over here by myself, and I will beat him!" So the Marines send their strongest fighter over.

        After an hour, that guy's lieutenant wonders where his fighter went, and tells a squad to go find their Marine and teach that Ranger a lesson. They move out and head around the mountain. After about 15 minutes, the R

        • I believe the original version of that story originated just after the Six Day War [wikipedia.org], and involved an Israeli soldier standing on top of a hill and an Egyptian (or Syrian, or Jordanian) military division sending increasingly large numbers of soldiers after him.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Motard ( 1553251 )

        I thought the Marines hated the Navy.

      • marine.
        do not worry about how you will get there.
        the air force will fly you there.
        lol lol lol

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by haus ( 129916 )

        I assume that the person who voted this down is a member of the Air Force. I had originally thought that it was voted down by someone in the Space Force, then I realized that the young folks who joined the Space Force directly are too young to know this site exist, and those who are old enough and were transfers from the Air Force were likely sent over because they did not know how to use a computer.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )

      But all of that was being done before without the pointless overhead of having an entire arm of the military dedicated to it all in the hopes that Trump gets remembered for something other than the being the worst president ever.

      And it was being done on the cheap since the ex-pilot Air Force leadership preferred spending budget on new planes and not all that space junk. Who cares about satellites and whatnot when you can get a shinny new fighter program!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        "And it was being done on the cheap since the ex-pilot Air Force leadership preferred spending budget on new planes and not all that space junk."

        Evidence? Asking as an ex-Airman who worked on all kinds of non-plane stuff. Ever wonder how that same leadership spent billions on ICBMs, Cheyenne Mountain, Pave Paws, or who put up GPS?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by EvilSS ( 557649 )
          Both congressional reports on it and personally talking about it with people currently involved in space operations. Guessing you have been out for quite a while now.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dcw3 ( 649211 )

            42 years in the business. Guess I didn't get the memo before retiring two years ago.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by EvilSS ( 557649 )
              Guess you should have spoke more with your colleagues. It's been a problem for ages now, and the reason splitting the service has been looked at for over 20 years by both political parties. USAF has shown priority for weapons systems over space operations for decades when it comes to budget allocation. Then there is the leadership problem with space rarely getting representation in the upper ranks. Seriously, I find it hard to believe you spent 42 years in the Airforce working on space systems and never,
    • People like you can't stand the fact that Trump might have done something right so you have to find a reason to hate it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hAckz0r ( 989977 )

      Trump will be remembered as the "Space Cadet" that created it, for sure. In fact, if you ask him, he knows more about space than anyone working for NASA!

      In fact, he has more of that stuff between the ears than anybody working at the Air Force Space Command. The grey matter between *their* ears is a LOT more dense (and useful) than empty space. I used to work with some of them, so I'm certain of this.

    • If this was Obama's idea, it would have been lauded as a "long overdue centralization and streamlining of the US's space operations". It would have been the greatest idea ever!

  • ... names were "crowdsourced" from the U.S. military's space workforce ...

    Crowd-sourcing names for things can easily go wrong [wikipedia.org] -- especially if you commit to the chosen name(s) -- but it looks like Space Force dodged a bullet -- I mean laser. I looked through the list and didn't see "Spacey-McSpacefaces".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Crowd-sourcing names...and didn't see "Spacey-McSpacefaces".

      I submitted "Moony-McMooner". I won't even go into* my Uranus submissions.

      * No pun intended

      • It is funny how they dodged some of the obvious and cool sounding names like "Space Marine" presumably because of the connection to existing fiction. But, then they chose the Star Trek logo for their sign and called their employees "Guardians". I guess "...of the Galaxy" is silent, just like in French.

        It's as if they knew it was a joke and expected the next administration to reverse it anyway so why waste a good logo and good titles on it.

    • ... names were "crowdsourced" from the U.S. military's space workforce ...

      Crowd-sourcing names for things can easily go wrong [wikipedia.org] -- especially if you commit to the chosen name(s) -- but it looks like Space Force dodged a bullet -- I mean laser. I looked through the list and didn't see "Spacey-McSpacefaces".

      The Military, has a slightly more serious mission, than Boaty McBoatface.

      They also have mil-spec limits on humor. Obviously.

  • Merge them all. bloat... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Saturday February 06, 2021 @04:58PM (#61035194)

    Massive ridiculous waste of resources; the whole bloated pile!

    Canada merged their divisions and saved on overhead bloat while unifying the whole place. This competing team BS and duplicate management is idiotic; even more so as robotics takes over. Will we end up with robot force next? Do we need all that bloat as we replace people and create even more support and complex supply chain... The biggest part; the most people are working in the support system already.

    Seems to me you need a front line branch with some humans; then everything else becomes support services for all the rest of it; naturally those are highly specialized and would likely do well separated into groups... not this earth, wind, water, space thing. Hmm... How about calling the brass truth benders?

    • You don't even need to merge. The US Navy is already capable of performing every mission performed by the other uniformed services, though it may be diplomatically useful to keep the non-armed services separate.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ghoul ( 157158 )
        You need the Army to put down the Navy when it tries to seize power

        • But...but...the Coast Guard is infiltrating. What now?

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            The coastguard is what the space guard should have been modeled on and where initial training should occur.

            The greater the access to space the more a space rescue force is required and the more that must be done to enforce quarantine, the earth to the rest of the galaxy.

            Fighting in orbit is just a stupid as can be, you will fill all possible orbits with fragments and deny access to them for decades even centuries. The most effective weapon, a two part liquid fueled rocket, controlled by remote. The fuel ta

        • Sadly true.

          Let us not forget that the Navy led the US Space Program, and lobbied to push the Army out of the way.

          Then failed to launch a missile that didn't blow up, until AFTER the Soviets beat us into space with Sputnik 1.

          Then the job was given to the Army, which dusted off a Redstone missile, and nailed it first time.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          The Navy leadership has done well since, but suffers to this day from a degree of arrogance and Not Invented Here thinking.
          But that's just my opinion. Take i

    • This has long been contemplated in Washington, but nobody has been willing to DO IT.

      Every branch of the military, plus the various law enforcement and spying outfits had their fingers in the space biz. They were duplicative and the made and operated incompatible stuff while fighting each other for resources that were ultimately used less efficiently because there was no coordination. Space Force [by whatever name] is intended to move all that stuff into one branch and get it under the control of a bunch of

    • >> Massive ridiculous waste of resources
      Massive ridiculous waste of resources is the only reason to have a military force in 2021.
      Disband them all...

  • It should be the U.S. Space Command and it should be filled with "technicians" or maybe "operators" like it already is. The US Army Air Force became the US Air Force, so the US Air Force Space Command can become the US Space Command. Nobody decided what sailors or soldiers are called, they already had names, just like technicians and operators. It's not like there is a universal name for everyone in the air force anyway so even the task of coming up with a name for people in space force is stupid. The o

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      The US military uses "soldier" specifically for uniformed members of the Army, which is consistent with the dictionary definition of the word. Similarly, to the US military, "warfighters" includes all combat troops: sailors, Marines, pilots, and so forth.

      When I was at a cafeteria in the middle of the Colorado Rockies, and a company of uniformed military getting food there, my father-in-law made a point of correcting me when I called them soldiers -- they were Seabees, not Soldiers. (Silly me, thinking tha

    • It should be the U.S. Space Command and it should be filled with "technicians" or maybe "operators" like it already is. The US Army Air Force became the US Air Force, so the US Air Force Space Command can become the US Space Command.

      It WAS called US Space Command.

      Before NORAD was decommissioned, it was known as NORAD/USSPACECOM, a joint mission that included both US and Canadian armed forces.

      Nobody decided what sailors or soldiers are called, they already had names, just like technicians and operators.

      A sailor or soldier, specifically describes the Military branch each serve in. It's a distinct and generic title given to each branch so that Military personnel on joint missions can be roughly grouped and identified.

      It's not like there is a universal name for everyone in the air force anyway.

      Uh, yes there is. They're called airman, and I've already explained why.

      so even the task of coming up with a name for people in space force is stupid.

      We need to worry more about the "justifications" government

  • Rename it back to "Space Command" just to send an F U to T.

  • Imagine if that budget were applied to cyber warfare/espionage, you know, like everyone else is doing... or hell, or even health care.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      I could be call CyberForce (camel caps mandatory)! But what would you call its members? Netrunners? Avatars? Agents?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      Imagine if we didn't have the best military on the planet. You can just start learning Russian now.

  • Getting a fucking rocket?

  • "Guardians" sounds like something out of Marvel or a bad EA game. If they had to take something out of sci-fi to use, "Cadets" sounds slightly less lame and cape-y.

    I guess it could be worse. They could have made a Cyber Squad, and staffed with Power Rangers and Digidestined.

  • I took a quick look at that list and I did NOT see the appellation "Redshirt".

  • If it's the Space Force, will it have the Star Force to help defend us?

  • Given that all they do is babysit satellites they are more Coast Guard than Navy. Space Guard would have been a better name. Anyway Guardians doesnt sound weird if the force is called Space Guard

  • When your for-profit military spans the globe, there is nowhere to go but up when looking for new profit streams. Next - Guardians of the Galaxy, brought to you by the TeslaAmazon SpaceForce Alliance!

  • The Space Force TV show got it right, and here is their probable reasoning:

    1) In the Navy, they're called Seamen (I don't think anyone thought this through).
    2) In the Air Force, they're called Airmen.
    3) In the Space Force, the obvious name is Spacemen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Interestingly, neither seamen (nor sailor) nor airmen are specific to the military. Anyone who works on a ship or in aviation is a seaman or airman, respectively.

      • The Navy has seamen, airmen, and firemen (the latter are snipes, or engineers to you land lubbers). Also hospitalmen and constructionmen.

  • The country is in decline.
    The budget is a joke.
    The currency is a joke.
    How can this seriously 'fly'?
  • I think "soliders" takes the cake! Manly, unwavering, stand your ground, it's all there in that word! Best name ever, and remember, you read it first here on Slashdot!
  • In 1914 as the Great War started, who would have thought that those silly machines that were invented a few years before would become important. What would be the point of having an air force?
  • Spacey McSpace Farce
  • Since other countries are gearing up to dominate outer space, ignoring this issue will be at our peril. The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close