Bush Reveals New Space Policy 510
Josh Fink writes "Space.com is reporting that President Bush has unveiled his new space policy. From the article: 'U.S. assets must be unhindered in carrying out their space duties,' the Bush space policy says, stressing that 'freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.'... As a civil space guideline, the policy calls upon NASA to 'execute a sustained and affordable human and robotic program of space exploration and develop, acquire, and use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe.' While this policy does seem to push for more civil involvement in space for exploration and research, the article does go on to say, 'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."' So it will push into the intelligence community, and will supercede a similar policy from 1996. You can read the entire policy."
Nuclear Propulsion (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you say, "Nuclear Space Drive"?
Bush's policy effectively states that the usage of nuclear power as engines of exploration is considered to take priority over any over-reaching treaties that ban nuclear power for the purposes of weaponry. Which means that the United States would consider a treaty like the 1963 Test Ban Treaty [wikipedia.org] (the one that effectively killed the Orion [wikipedia.org]) to not apply to space propulsion. Which, IMHO, can only be a good thing in the modern day world.
Any concerns over the environmental effects of launch are much more effectively handled by environmental groups rather than treaties designed with weapons in mind rather than actual fall-out issues. If they have a realistic concern, then the public will have an opportunity to evaluate that concern, and either take action or reject it. (The latter happening with the Cassini-Huygens [wikipedia.org] environmental protest.)
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:5, Insightful)
On a day when everyone's freaking out because Bush let the N Koreans go nuclear, you think more nukes, in space, "can only be a good thing"?
Run by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon? The Rumsfeld who's lobbying to throw away the "antiquated" US government structure [washingtonpost.com] that makes the president less than an emperor.
Can you say "Global Thermonuclear War"? Can you say anything other than "oooh, nuclear space drive", or look away from your monitor at the real world?
Take me to your Litre (Score:3)
It's like Missle Command. With a self-denying alcoholic on the rampage.
Trying 2 prevent Space Research unifying the Earth (Score:2, Insightful)
Narcissistic Personality Disorder Is... (Score:2, Insightful)
See Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
How to Recognize a Narcissist
at this URL
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html [halcyon.com]
We all have to deal with difficult people. Some days we can be pretty difficult ourselves. Recognizing the difference between normal difficulties and personality disorders can be crucial to decisions about entering new relationships and continuing existing relationships.
The material on Narcissistic Personality Disorder that is published for lay readers is not very info
Neocons rejection of 'no first use' doctrine.. (Score:4, Insightful)
(It was actually nine months)
The most distressing aspect of the current administration is their jettisoning of the "no first use' doctrine that had served us and the rest of the world well for so very long. Even Saint Ronald Reagan felt strongly about no first use. (he supported it, at least in theory)
We also are strongly fighting universal standards of law and human rights - a prime example is our opposition to the International Criminal Court - a court that could be used to try the leaders of nations that commit genocide. (and first use of nuclear weapons is inevitably genocide because civilians are always the bulk of the casualties of nuclear war.)
Perhaps we oppose the ICC so strongly because members of our own government and/or their advisors fear prosecution under it. (A prime example is Henry Kissinger, who ordered such obscenities as the secret bombing of Cambodia against US law, initiating a chain of events that led to the breakdown of civil law in that country. And many other US-sponsored, still largely unknown CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY)
Look at it this way. If the US did not reject no-first-use and fight organizations like the ICC we would have a FAR STRONGER PLATFORM from which to argue against countries like North Korea gaining nuclear weapons.
Why? Because of North Korea's terrible, terrible record on human rights.. their huge gulag of prison camps with the worst conditions one could ever imagine. Because they are guilty of a level of amoral and Machiavellian manipulation of world events that makes this imperative (that a nation like that should NOT have nuclear weapons) obvious.
The only problem? We have now lied so much and postured so much and yes, even killed so much, that many people who *should* know better now naiively equate us with North Korea in terms of evil.
Without a moral United States, human rights in the rest of the world suffer greatly.
That is why I do NOT trust this regime to make peaceful use of space. They politicize everything they touch. They do not understand science except as another tool of warfare. They suffer from a scarcity-driven mentality that pushes us back into the Dark Ages in our interpersonal relations with the rest of the world.
The United States needs to 'stop terrorism' not by fighting so many mindless wars that we create a whole new world of new terrorists.. (even the CIA admits this) but by ENDING THE KINDS OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITIES THAT CREATE TERRORISTS.
Until we realize that we will be our own worst enemy... Until we realize that we should not go into space, because we can't even handle or our own planet..or our own future..
In 50 years technology will do almost everything workers do now.. That means most of the kinds of people who would be people working today won't have jobs.. You will work not because you need to.. (obviously, that argument doesnt hold water) but because you love to..
If we keep the current mentality going into that future (which is inherently apolitical and non-denominational) our leaders will soon be panicking about the huge numbers of 'useless' people and another world war.. a genocide... will be the only possible result..
Thats why it is imperative that people realize that we can change our future.. War is not inevitable.. It is not the natural fate of man..
If there is one message the Jesuses, the Buddhas, the other enlightened people who could see ahead were telling us it is that..
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..
It is within our power now to eliminate poverty and make terrorism irrelevant.. We are not doing that because we are ADDICTED TO WAR..
the stakes are huge.. all of our survival..
There will not be a World War IV...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:5, Funny)
"No one could have anticipated that the nuclear spaceship would kill hundreds of thousands of people" - Bush's 2009 "Emergency Reinauguration Speech"
Re: (Score:2)
what? bush let that happen? what about the international community? the u.n.? last time bush did anything without their explicit permission he got ragged on for that. what should he have done? i would like to know since you appear to be so much smarter than the rest of the world. then i can vote for you as president and you can do your magic.
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:4, Insightful)
With NK, Bush did everything that his opponents claim he should have done in Iraq. He didn't invade, he tried to let sanctions work, he worked with other countries. In particular the US has no direct influence over NK, they're a client of China. Bush tried to get China to deal with it.
What would you guys have had him do? Invade?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell even in his own country 2/3 of the people think
Re: (Score:3)
So tell me what problems have we fixed???
1)Iraq now a stable democratic country - Mission Accomplished!
2)Iraq's utilities all restored- power, water, etc. for all - Mission Accomplished!
3)Stable Iraq leads to entire stable middle east - Mission Accomplished!
4)Not causing more fundamentalist Muslims to hate the US - Mission Accomplished!
5)Being greeted with open arms as "liberat
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
1)Iraq now a stable democratic country - Mission Accomplished!
For the Kurdish part of Iraq, yes - a huge leap in progress considering they were being snuffed out like candles before.
For the rest of Iraq. progress is slower but yes, they do have a democracy and in ten years or so might be as stable as what the kurdish part has today.
2)Iraq's utilities all restored- power, water, etc. for all - Mission Accomplished!
Above pre-war levels now.
3)Stable Iraq leads to entire
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually it did work really well when the Clinton administration did it. North Korea didn't resume their nuclear program until 2002 - when GWB was well in the white housse. Read more here [talkingpointsmemo.com].
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:4, Insightful)
The Bush administration's big idea on NK was to cut off any sort of aid and diplomacy, and try and get everyone else to do the same. The misguided hope is that that would cause the government to collapse. The problem is that during the Clinton administration, the US as well as China and especially South Korea had been involved in detailed, complex, and relatively cordial negotiations.
The way diplomacy generally works is that the leaders make big proclamations and empty threats and whatnot, and then other people work hard behind the scenes to establish a compromise where things get settled peacefully, and neither side ends up looking like they lost. After Clinton left office, North Korea kept playing that game, because that's how politics work. Bush, however, was disinterested in playing that game (for a number of reasons). And so while the rhetoric was increasing as it always was, there was no effort put forth by the US to actually solve any of the issues. Both sides painted themselves into a corner, and this time no escape plan was hammered out.
The only difference is that NK's corner had a little ledge they could climb out on, it just involved actually testing a nuke. The US is still stuck in its corner, and even if there was a way out, it's doubtful that Bush would take it, it's just not the way his mind works. His administration views any sort of compromise as defeat, no matter who the opponent, or how high the stakes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, there are a couple of hundred countries in the world...what have they contributed to a peaceful solution?
Where is the massive influx of European or Canadian aid? Did they even try?
Why is it the role of the US to clean this up (or prevent it) in the first place? As we are continually told, the world doesn't want us to be some self-appointed policeman..but now they want us to confront the bad guy with a big gun.
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:5, Insightful)
In space no one can hear... (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:4, Insightful)
I won't argue your other points (many of which are good, solid reasoning), but this is untrue. Putting nukes in space does server a strategic purpose.
A nuke launched from the ground takes a while to reach its target, giving a country like China, which has its own nuclear missiles, time to retaliate. We have submarines in place to launch missiles, but they have to get into position first, which can often take several days; and their payload is limited, though quite imposing.
An orbiting launch platform could target any spot on earth very rapidly. Most of the early thrust would occur in near-vacuum, making for great early acceleration. A submarine would be able to strike quickly once it is in position; orbiting nukes could strike even faster, without the need to get in position.
Further, a sub could be taken out by conventional warfare. Taking out a space-based nuke would be very difficult without exposing yourself to nuclear strike.
Basically, it all comes down to the magic three words: First Strike Initiative.
More than just a launch platform (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree with this point.
You can put far more ordnance on a ballistic missile submarine than you can practically put on a satellite, and they are more survivable. Each Ohio-class submarine, if loaded completely (and currently they are not; treaties require that each missile carry a reduced number of warheads than they are designed for), can carry enough megatonnage to pretty much wipe out the continent of your choice, or at least glass its major cities o
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I could say all of those things, but the fact remains that we have dropped 120,000+ soliders and $300+ billion into a foreign country to interdict nuclear weapons that did not and do no exist, and stop an alliance with Al-Qaeda that also did not exist. Also, this is the same administration that advocates for the creation and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. So at this point, there is very little room left for 'overreaction'. Things really are that insane in the White House, and will probably only get worse once the Republicans lose control of Congress in November.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the meantime, we had the President accusing Iraq of smuggling yellowcake out of Niger (an accusation he knew to be false when he
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't doubt your ability to cherry-pick details that (when presented out of context) make Iraq look sinister. However, I have to base my conclusions on the survey's main results, which you are welcome to read for youself [globalsecurity.org]. In short, while the Iraqi government were no angels, they weren't a significant threat to the US either.
It's better to go in and mitigate a possibly overstated risk than to hand some reactors and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds like precisely the Bush Doctrine. Especially the "stupid" part.
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:5, Insightful)
No not really.
The environmental groups protest everything with involving the "n word".
It is almost to the point that they are the boy that cried wolf.
I fear that if a project has any real danger involved that they will be ignored as they have been for all the launches where they where just being silly.
I would rather have the treaties. I actually do trust the experts more than people the environmental groups.
Re: (Score:2)
he's ignoring them (Score:3, Insightful)
We have treaties. They say that Bush shouldn't do what he is doing. They have one problem: they are international, and, of course, Bush feels under no obligation to observe international treaties since, after all, those people didn't elect him and he can drum up enough xenophobia to support breaking the treaties. So, treaties don't control Bush or what the US is doing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
then there would be no air emissions."
As far as I know there isn't a single zero emmissions coal fired plant on the face of the Earth.
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:4, Insightful)
But, uh, they don't. So there are. So your comment is pure bullshit. Did you know that cancer rates doubled during the industrial revolution? Literally doubled. There's no other major influences on cancer rates at that time, but today we know that soot is carcinogenic.
Still the power companies. The ability to do a thing is not sufficient justification to do a thing. The ability to fuck over the world in pursuit of profit doesn't make it okay, it doesn't make it someone else's fault, and the fact that you would suggest that it does makes you an extremely mmature person in the area of social responsibility. I suppose you think that if someone drops their wallet, and you see them do it, it's okay to take all their money because they dropped it instead of letting them know they dropped their wallet?
Re:Nuclear Propulsion (Score:5, Funny)
Sure I can, but I'm not sure the President can manage it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-Eric
Brush up those reading comprehension skills (Score:3, Insightful)
Further proof... (Score:5, Funny)
(Oh come on you knew it was coming)
I do find it quite amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that like one tenth of what we blow on a war
Mod this to oblivion, regardless of what positive action he takes, I still don't like him.
Re:I do find it quite amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
You might be surprised, but a lot of space advocates would agree with this. The ISS, for all it's design and hardware, is a useless space station that can only be serviced properly by the Space Shuttle. Had compromises not been made earlier, the station would be worth holding on to. But as it is right now, the station sits in an orbit that's incredibly hard to reach, cannot be used as a lunar launching point, and isn't even all that spectacular for scientific endeavours.
A much more useful future would be to take that $200M per mission, and spend it on lots and lots of inexpensive, inflatible space stations [bigelowaerospace.com]. These stations could provide all the facilities of the ISS, but at a lower cost of launch and operation. If a particular station outlives its usefulness, a new one could be launched rather than trying to maintain aging hardware.
The ability to spread our resources across multiple stations would also mean that we could put Space Stations where-ever they're useful. Need one to support moon missions? Done. Need a different orbit to support Mars missions? Done. Need a temporary construction yard for a spaceship? Done.
Those options simply don't exist with the current station. So believe it or not, there may be some method to Bush's seeming madness about space.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Come on, try to be be realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
So in conclusion, in
Re: (Score:2)
You have exactly 22 days to pay for your stuff to fly before the "real thing" goes up. Get moving! ;)
One of the great things about the private sector is that it tends to move a lot faster than the government. Which means that a space station gets completed in-line with the actual development time rather than in government politicking time. So NASA should be able to purc
Re: orbital plane shifting (Score:3, Informative)
If I have a vector velocity in one direction, and I add another force vector perpendicular to the original, I've done two things: the resultant vector has a new direction; the resultant vector has a larger velocity than the original. So I managed to change both my
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone truely interested in the exploration of space should be desperate to see NASA shut down. I don't like him either but it's hardly a useful dig to complain about closing down the orbiting money toilet known as ISS. The fact is every penny Nasa gets should be spent on research and engineering to replace the shuttle with something far cheaper to launch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to keep in mind that a president is not just a civilian leader; he's a military one too. It is a military commander-in-chief's duty to do certain things, and funding ISS is not one of them. Securing the ability to do other things and deny them to adversaries, is. A military commander-in-chief should try to make sure he'll have satellite surveillance, GPS guidance, and other applications when he needs it.
Does ISS have military applications? Maybe so, but the letter "I" in the acronym makes me d
Space Race 2.0 (Score:4, Informative)
So it seems the Space Arms Race is begining afresh. We just have to hope that the technology it produces outweighs the destruction.
Re: (Score:2)
A lack of open hostilities is not peace. And anyway, what will we get? A few damaged satellites? Oh, the humanity, the destruction...
Government needs a Logic Advisor (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pretty much what we'd expect from that source, but it doesn't make it any better.
Surely there should be some sort of Logic Advisor sitting next to the President's speech writers. I don't imagine that he wants to look evil and dishonest in front of a world audience well versed in elementary logic.
Re:Government needs a Logic Advisor (Score:5, Insightful)
"develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries"
This is what the government SHOULD be doing. Defense agencies should always be "developing capabilities, plans, and options" for every single possible threat. That doesn't mean we need to build a space cruiser, but that does mean that having a plan to build one is not a bad idea. Hell, having a plan to invade Canada on hand is a good idea. Expecting and being prepared for the unexpected is what intelligence and defense agencies are there for.
I very much want my government to have a plan to deny space to whomever might need space denied to them. Sure, there are no enemies right now that demand such a wasteful and expensive capability, but it does not take a lot of imagination to envision a future where it might be prudent. Russia is one government change away from getting a hardline nationalist who feels nostalgic about the Cold War. China is one tiny democratic island (Taiwan) away from all out war with the US. North Korea... well fuck... who knows what they are thinking, but having something that can knock down their ICBMs on the drawing board is not a bad idea.
Look, I would agree that this is an overreaction if it said, "Make me some god damn space battle cruisers! Muhahahahaha!" But it doesn't. It directs that the government should plan to conduct military operations in space because it isn't an insane fear that some day in an unforeseen future those plans might be needed.
Re:Government needs a Logic Advisor (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the military has a plan for invading Canada. You are right -- they have a plan for everything, just like every other military in the world. But Bush isn't giving instructions to the military via public speeches. He isn't reassuring the people of the US.
Bush' speech is addressed to the world. When he gets up and gives a speech to the press, his audience is the world's governments. When he explicitly says that the US is going to develop military capability to deny other countries' freedom in space, that is a defacto threat. "Don't get any ideas, or will blow your shit out of the sky".
The world governments are all well aware that the US has a military plan for every eventuality. They don't need to be reminded of it. When Bush comes out and explicitly says it in a speech about what the US is going to do in space, he is making a threat.
Don't be naive. Bush is declaring that the US controls space.
Someone needs a Logic Advisor (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems you could use the Advisor. Jet fighters and anti-aircraft missiles, guns and artillery are all means to deny an adversary freedom of movement in the air. Yet would you claim you do not have freedom of movement in the Terrestrial Atmosphere because of them and their potential use against you?
You have conflated the ability to take out enemy targets with the complete elimination of the ability for the targets to peacefully exist otherwise. You have conflated a temporary action with a full-time one. You have thus committed a logical fallacy - in the process of trying to impugne another's ability in logic. You have further assumed that the President wrote that document. A fallacious assumption I am certain.
Logic is not a form of universal truth, it is a means of confirming that a given conclusion is an accurate conclusion based on the premises presented, and nothing more. The premises can be false, but the conclusion could still be logical.
In the argument you failed to logically analyzed we have the following:
Argument 1:
Premise 1: Freedom of action in space is important
Premise 2: Freedom of action in space is important to the US and it's interests
Conclusion 1: The US should have freedom of action in space
Argument 2:
Premise 1: The US (and US interests') should have freedom of action in space
Premise 2: Other entities may strive to prevent or hinder US (and US interests') action in space
Premise 3: Threats to US freedom action in space will involve non-US utilization of action in space
Conclusion: The US needs to be able to deny such action in space in order to protect it's freedom of action in space
The above arugments, premises, and conclusions do not logically lead to the "There will be no freedom of action in space". Your argument that they do is unsupported and erroneous, not to mention fallacious. To demonstrate further, change the word space to the word sea, or to air, or to land.
Furthermore, you assertion that the speech writers need a logic advisor is also erroneous. This wasn't a speech, it was/is a document not designed to be read aloud by the President. Surely you should have a reality advisor as well as a logic advisor sitting next to you. I don't imagine you want to look dumb in front of the world of well-versed, informed, and logical slashdot readers.
Competition Breeds Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Superior might through superior technology has always been the mantra of developed nations. Consequently, the U.S. experienced huge gains over the last few decades due to (perceived) competition with the Russians. Like it or not, most of the best technologies we have were originally purposed for military applications, financed through the Pentagon system, and then gradually re-purposed for civilian use (the Internet being a great example of this). This has always been the silver lining.
It would be melodramatic to claim that the U.S. is on the brink of another Cold War, this time with the Chinese. However, "friendly" competition with China will help the space program, it will help Silicon Valley--it will help the United States in any area in which there is a perceived technological deficiency.
We stand to gain so much if we're not all blown to bits first.
talk is cheap ... (Score:2)
Is this possible? (Score:2, Interesting)
For example can the US claim the Moon or Mars (in future) just because they landed their countrymen on the body, and planted some flags?
Are there any legal guidelines for this?
Re:Is this possible? (Score:4, Insightful)
I expect that this treaty would be modified once space colonies become common (a country, corporation, or individual would obviously "own" the property on which its Space Habitats reside, as it "owns" those habitats), but that's a matter that will be worked out when that bridge is crossed.
FWIW, historical property laws do offer some guidance. The original property laws provided complete ownership for everything below a property, and all the sky above a property. These laws have been modified as new technologies like airplanes and spacecraft made the skies above open space, and subways, power, and gas made the areas below into necessary points of infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Such a treaty will be a dead letter the moment there is something worth owning in space that someone also has the ability to "own" in the meaningful sense of being able to physically possess, exploit to their advantage and, possibly, defend against anyone else's interference. We'll work out some tre
Re:Is this possible? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only real question is whether or not they can actually back up such a claim in a way that will make other countries go along with it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you decided on your own to ignore the speed limits for a time, and by any luck if you escape the ticket, does it make speeding laws unlawful ?
This is a non sequitur. The correct analogy would be that there were no speeding laws and that you or a predecessor had agreed to limit your vehicle's speed or perhaps to create internal laws in order to comply with the terms of the speed limit treaty. Later you decide not to comply with the speed limit treaty. What laws are broken? Perhaps your internal law,
Re: (Score:2)
This is kind of a silly question, but a revealing one. Citizens of a nation are subject to the laws of that nation pretty unambiguously. No matter what you want to do, your actions can be held against a codified standard of conduct and found to be legal or illegal. But this is precisely because an individual citizen is without question subject to the rules
Re: (Score:2)
Nations, however, are not analogous to citizens. There is no international gov't that all nations are subject to. There's no universal, international authority. The U.N. lacks both the philosophical, legal, and military credibility to serve that role and there are no other close competitors. So, without a meta-national institution to make laws to govern nations, there's really no such thing as international law that all nations are subject to.
This is completely wrong. There are international treaties, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SHOULD any country be allowed to claim things in space as part of their country??
Plenty of people have said the treaty will be scrapped when we start to see more colonies and space statations.
Should these by aligned with a country at all? What if a private company developed the entire colony/space station - do they claim it and get to enforce their own laws on it?
My opin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that planting a flag is probably the way it's going to work. I mean, how did the explorers from Europe claim land? There is no land to "buy" because there is nobody there.
A quick search on google shows that there are apprently many companies "selling" property on the moon. Good grief!
OT: IBM AD BREAKING PAGE LAYOUT! (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
(proud user of a squid proxy at home)
Re: (Score:2)
jesus. (Score:3, Interesting)
We would get rid of all these useless interesting topics about technology and we could all just bitch with reckless abandon about our favorite politician.
I mean FUCKING HELL. If any other president had said this most of you asshats would be having fucking orgasam on the spot.
Re:jesus. (Score:5, Interesting)
FTFS: develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries.
He was doing pretty well up to that point, assuming that you ignore the fact that he's spent all of our money performing escalatio on the Iraqi insurgency.
What I read was "I want to jumpstart the manned space program, even though we don't have any money to do so, because it's such a feelgood topic to bring up right before the election. Also, I'd like to make sure we spend a good bit of money on space weaponry, because we just might have to saddle up to dispense some justice should someone we don't like start muscling in on this whole 'outer space' thing we've got going."
Its disingenuous to propose a large increase in manned space (high $$$, high popularity, low science) when the budget deficit is so large. It also runs counter to most of the non-military goals of space exploration to talk about engaging in warfare in orbit. Those of us who have memories longer than a year or two remember his goal to get to Mars, but have yet to see the $2T line item in the budget for such an undertaking. Hey George, Show Me The Money.
Re: (Score:2)
A: Take things out of context so as to change the meaning.
If you read the complete document, you will fins that the section you quoted reads:
Re: (Score:2)
You're right (Score:3)
Our bitching about Bush is, in fact, based on the dislike of him doing a better job than Clinton or Nixon. As President, Bush has shown exceptional judgment and
Re: (Score:2)
Impossible. That would be pure flamebait.
Space, the final battlefield (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "redefined?" It always has been. Did you think that Kennedy's boosting of the program was all about the pure science for the sake of science? That was politics and defense first, scientific frosting on the cake second.
"Exploration" of space may not be a security thing, but use of space sure as hell will continue to be, just as it has been for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably always been a "security" issue in the eyes of many govt offices. We went to the moon in 1969 and yet here we are in 2006 and we're using ancient technology like the space shuttle.
I wouldn't be suprised if the military hasn't been pulling the wool (wool b
Trust Bush (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, by all means trust this sober, reasonable man of science with an expensive program to put nukes in space. After he rebuilt New Orleans around the Space Shuttle fueltank factory, everyone there will gladly tell us that he can do anything he sets his mind to.
Congratulate Bush for finally killing the Shuttle. (Score:2)
It finally means we are not bound to a billion dollar baby, something that has been sucking the life out of NASA since the 80s. Maybe if launches didn't cost so much we might actually put more up there???
I know you were being sarcastic but the point remains, no one would kill it before and there were just as many reasons to do so before. Now at le
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because killing the shuttle is real, whereas the rest is just talk. Talk is cheap.
Yep, the survival of the species is now at stake.. (Score:2)
I have a plan (Score:3, Funny)
And by the way, I've got this great idea for a cybernetic AI construct to make our lives in the Colonies easier.....
SecDef -- great (Score:5, Funny)
Great. I think I can imagine Rummy's plans to improve space exploration. He'll take NASA's crew recommendations and cut them in half, send only enough fuel to get there, but not back, and ditch all the unnecessaries like food and water. It will be a leaner, more mobile space force.
Translation (Score:2)
"and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries" means attack capability.
I personally don't like the "attack" part as it leads to a space arms race and the militarisation of space.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"The PNAC also proposes to control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service -- U.S. Space Forces -- with the mission of space control."
Oh brother (Score:2, Interesting)
Chinese Laser US Satellites - now this (Score:4, Interesting)
naw, it's just PNAC (Score:5, Insightful)
He's just following the script that Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and others wrote up for him.
Ulterior Motive . . . (Score:2)
This is a war on Terra.
In part a reaction to last month's laser incident. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe reaction to last month's laser incident with China?
Access to space is like access to international waters -- if anything there is greater need to secure space from territorial claims than international waters. By claiming sovereigny over space above the 100km mark, a nation in effect denies access to space to every other country, since every satellite not in geosynchronous orbit above yourland mass would violate your "territorial space".
What China did was in one sense just an aggressive extension of the usual spy/counter spy stuff; you fly close to my territorial waters with listening equipment, I try to jam the equipment. However it was extremely risky in my opinion. First, if the satellite had been damaged it would be tantamount to an act of war, like sinking a ship in international waters. Secondly, it invites US interference with Chinese space vehicles. If China wants to become a world superpower, it will need spy satellites. If you're playing standoff with another country, with both coutries with their fingers on the nuclear trigger, misunderstandings can get costly. You want to see what the other guy is doing and you want the other guy to see what you are doing.
Reading carefully, this parapgraph suggests that the US is planning to engage in a kind of "tit for tat" crippling of Chinese satellites. This is a bad thing for strategic stability.
Rumsfeld? (Score:2)
"As you know, you go to space with the ship you have. Its not the ship you might want or wish to have at a later time."
son of starwars (Score:2)
"Approval by the President or his designee shall be required to launch and use United States Government and non-government spacecraft utilizing nuclear power sources with a potential for criticality or above a minimum threshold of radioactivity"
was freedom of action in space
Coming Soon: Department of Homeworld Security (Score:2, Funny)
Arms race in space (Score:3, Interesting)
Previously there have been some trial balloons by the Airforce (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,13 45460,00.html [guardian.co.uk] and http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /higher_ground_040222.html [space.com]) who really wanted to add "space warfare" to their portfolio, and now it's been enshrined in national policy.
Ensuring US superiority in space ... that's what the new policy boils down to.
I just wonder what the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians the Brazilians, the Japanese, and the Europeans are going to think of it. Will they agree to US space superiority or might they perhaps start space weaponisation programs of their own?
And what about the cost? Could it be that in the long run it will cost the US less to secure its national interests by aiming for parity and a reasonable deterrent instead of starting yet another arms race in search of superiority? I wonder.
I'll say one thing for the current administration ... if there is even a remote chance of turning a conflict on interest into a real conflict they can be relied on to identify it and steer that way.
Sorry, but there's no oil there... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also think that if we hadn't been spending so much time defending GHWB's honor, we would have had more presidential time devoted to finding a solution to this. As it is, Bush appears to have mostly blown off N. Korea with his "I won't negotiate" stance. As President there are a lot of things which will demand your time - you don't need to go lo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No argument that we'd be on our way within a year. Three will get you five that we'd end up someplace else, insist it was Mars, and end up neck deep in some sort of major difficulties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A fundamental rule of warfare..... (Score:4, Informative)