Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


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

US Space Force Members Are Now Called 'Guardians' (space.com) 132

Posted by EditorDavid from the Star-Lords dept.
Slashdot reader destinyland writes: The U.S. Space Force celebrated its one-year anniversary Friday with a new announcement: that members of this branch of the military will be referred to as "guardians." They're describing it as "A name chosen by space professionals, for space professionals." The site Space.com notes that the phrase is a nod to the original long-standing "Space Command" branch of the Air Force (founded in 1982), whose motto had been "Guardians of the High Frontier."

In other news, the Space Force now has one member who is actually in outer space — astronaut Michael Hopkins. Launched by SpaceX to the International Space Station in the Crew-1 capsule, Hopkins agreed to join the Space Force in a ceremony in space which a Space Force official said would "spotlight the decades-long partnership" between NASA and America's Defense Department (which oversees its armed forces).

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine pointed out that 60% of the astronaut corps comes from the military, according to Space.com, which adds that "At least one other member of NASA's active astronaut corps, Air Force Col. Nick Hague, has also requested to transfer to the Space Force."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Space Force Members Are Now Called 'Guardians' More

US Space Force Members Are Now Called 'Guardians'

Comments Filter:
  • If a bomb explodes in space and there's no one there to hear it ... Did I get 1st post?

    • LIGO will hear it, if it's big enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • You can't have an explosion without a rapid release of gas.

      Which will expand in a shell.

      And so any spacewalking idiot will hear it when the gas shell hits their visor. Indeed, even most manned craft will hear it, as it bounces off their hull and windows. And if the explosion pops somebody's artificial atmosphere, the expanding shell of gas will potentially contain their screams.

      So enjoy your first post while space is empty, because when you're drafted to fight in the Space War you'll be hearing lots of expl

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Yeah, it is this amazing mathematical chain reaction. As more debris are released at high and impact other space craft, more debris are created also travelling at high speed and the reaction goes on, until everything 'WE' put up there has been destroyed. Things do not tend to bounce off up, more punch straight through a tens of thousands of kilometres per hour (yes I am forcing metric on you Americans on purpose) and punch on out, creating more fragments as they go.

        Up there every war is the shortest war, it

      • >You can't have an explosion without a rapid release of gas.
        Very true. Well, a release of something anyway - most involve gasses, but in principle it could be it could be purely liquids or solids.
        >And so any spacewalking idiot will hear it when the gas shell hits their visor.
        False
        In theory, if your ears were infinitely sensitive you could hear the gas hitting your visor. In practice the energy contained in the tiny portion of gas would rapidly fall far below the threshold needed to move the hairs in

  • What a joke (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This sounds like something L Ron Hubbard would have thought up.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      It is just a matter of time until they become Peacekeepers.
    • They would be Loyal Officers of the Galactic Patrol.

  • What's in a name? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Saturday December 19, 2020 @02:41PM (#60848976)

    Space Force? Guardians? Who's naming these, a 10 year old? *Looks in the White House* Oh, nvm, carry on.

    • The problem with these idiotic games of musical chairs is that they are almost impossible to undo.

      Nineteen years after 9/11 and DHS is stronger than ever despite adding no value. "Space Force" will be the same. It adds a layer of bureaucracy and nothing else.

      • It adds a layer of bureaucracy and nothing else.

        Quite the opposite. The reality is that consolidating various space based activities into one organization makes sense and saves money.

        Although the Air Force is often used as a comparable many professionals argue that the Coast Guard is more appropriate since like the Coast Guard it will have Law Enforcement and Military Roles and possibly Rescue roles as well:
        https://spacenews.com/space-fo... [spacenews.com]

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          The reality is that consolidating various space based activities into one organization makes sense and saves money.

          I'll believe that when I see it.

          They said something similar about the F35; one common platform for three services would make the program cheaper than if each service pursued its own needs separately.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ghoul ( 157158 )
            The F35 would be cheap enough if we abolish the Navy and Marine variants. WW2 is long over. With hypersonic anti ship missiles carriers have no job being on a modern battlefield. Leave the flying to the Air Force.

        • Quite the opposite. The reality is that consolidating various space based activities into one organization makes sense and saves money.

          We will know for sure when it is saving money when the DoD announces the need for a larger headquarters called the "Hexagon" to include the Space Force. The Republicans will promptly bump it to an "Octagon". Not to be outdone, Congress will promptly decides to build the "Nonogon" in every Congressional district to save even more money.

          Including the Space Force, Army, Navy

          • Including the Space Force, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Air National Guard, and Army National Guard, there are only 8 branches in the military. Nevertheless, the nonogon will still be built at 10 times the budgeted cost, and the effort will involve every state and congressional district.

            You left out the Naval Militia. ;-)

          • All the reserve forces are considered a single branch, and under that falls the Air National Guard, Army National Guard, the reserve forces for each branch, and the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). The IRR consists of people that were recently separated for other than dishonorable reasons, are still young enough to serve, and are not connected to any specific unit or even a specific military branch. In times of need these reservists can be called up, including those in the IRR, and put through a week or t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tragedy ( 27079 )

          Quite the opposite. The reality is that consolidating various space based activities into one organization makes sense and saves money.

          Sure, and the Army, Marine Corps, Air force and Coast Guard don't have their own Navies. Also the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard don't have their own Air Forces.

          • Quite the opposite. The reality is that consolidating various space based activities into one organization makes sense and saves money.

            Sure, and the Army, Marine Corps, Air force and Coast Guard don't have their own Navies. Also the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard don't have their own Air Forces.

            The US Marine Corps has the US Navy and at times the US Coast Guard to provide naval needs. The former two, and sometimes the latter, are know collectively as the Naval Services under the command of the Department of the Navy. USCG is usually under DHS (historically Treasury) so that it can act in a law enforcement role, which the military cannot. The US Army has some supply ships and landing craft, more of a commercial fleet than anything resembling a navy..

            Similarly the US Air Force and US Space Force

      • Cupcake, if you think it adds bureaucracy that didn't exist before, but diffused and spread across the Air Force, the Navy and the Army, I've got a bridge to sell you. At worst, creating a separate branch for satellite operations and space surveillance is a lateral move. At best, some things that should be consolidated will be.

      • I agree that the creation of the Department of Homeland security was a mistake. It took roles that already had a "home" under the Departments of State, Commerce, and other departments and put them under a new roof where most of what it did was now duplicated since the original agencies never gave up these authorities completely.

        The difference is with the Space Force is that each military branch has space assets, as well as some civilian agencies that served the military, and so created confusion on where t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ghoul ( 157158 )
        DHS employs a lot of people who otherwise would be on welfare rolls. It is a good jobs program. Better than the Military. At least we dont have to destroy other countries to run this Jobs program.
      • If they want to be called Guardians the it should be a multi-national force like NATO unless they are only dealing with the space directly above the USA

      • Space Force is a way to transfer funds from the military to NASA. Since you can't just reduce the military spending, the respective units being too firmly glued to the budget to be ever dislodged, the only way to get the money to NASA is to transplant it with the piece of the army still attached to it.

    • National Guardsmen is not that different than Guardians. Just a tad more childish.

      Maybe if we call them Planet Guardians? I think that graduates them from 5 year old to 14 years old.

      • Re: What's in a name? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Saturday December 19, 2020 @04:13PM (#60849232)

        Logically, if the Space Force is analogous to the Air Force, the base rank should be Spaceman.

      • Re:What's in a name? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Saturday December 19, 2020 @04:18PM (#60849246)

        National Guardsmen is not that different than Guardians. Just a tad more childish.

        Maybe if we call them Planet Guardians? I think that graduates them from 5 year old to 14 years old.

        "National Guardsmen" is a job description, they're a member of the National Guard, a military force focused on guarding the nation.

        Similarly "airmen", "sailor", "soldier", etc, are all popularly understood as job descriptions.

        So if you asked me to refer to a member of the military as an "airman/airwoman", "sailor", "soldier", etc, I'd be perfectly happy to.

        But "guardian" isn't a job description, it's a title, and typically an earned title. And there's no way in hell I'm going to get me to call someone who signed up for the "Space Force" a guardian.

        The "Guardians of the Galaxy" were a special group awarded a special title. A "Legal Guardian" is a individual entrusted to protect a child's (usually) welfare and make decisions for them. A Guardian Angel again is a more powerful individual acting as your protector. Religions often have senior people who are "guardians of the faith".

        If Space Force didn't want to be called "spacemen" then they should have made up a word. Astronaut was a made up word and Astronauts turned it into a prestigious title.

        But guardian it a prestigious term granted to people who, once again, have earned it. And frankly speaking Space Force hasn't.

        I don't think the rest of the US Military will be open to this title either. I'm sure there's a lot of people who have done a few nasty tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, got shot at a few times and seen a few friends killed, I don't imagine they'll be open to some twerp who will never see combat is walking around calling himself "guardian".

        The "Space Force" is already the butt of jokes. For a branch of the military already struggling with credibility to try appropriating the title "guardian" is beyond bizarre.

        • But "guardian" isn't a job description, it's a title, and typically an earned title. And there's no way in hell I'm going to get me to call someone who signed up for the "Space Force" a guardian.

          So how do you feel about calling them "Overlords"? ;-)

        • "Airman" *is* a rank, not just a job description, the same goes for "Seaman" in the Navy and Coast Guard. The ranks with those names are equivalent to "Private" in the Army and Marines.

          Airman is unique in that it is also the generic name for a member of the Air Force. Seaman can be used in the same way in many navies but they often just use "sailor". (In the Army they're "soldiers" and in the Marines they're.... "marines")

      • I think they should go with Star Blazers. It seems fitting.

        • I think they should go with Star Blazers. It seems fitting.

          So they should have called it the Cosmo Force instead of Space Force?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Barny ( 103770 )

      Here in 'stralya we call this wankery.

      Wankery
      noun
      Something that is so self-serving that it is functionally no different from masturbation.

    • I'm looking forward to a return to normalcy, the sparkle in Biden's eye every time he learns that we landed on the moon, it's going to be a magical 2 years.
    • You guys just elected a 78 yr old. You want even older Presidents?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawk ( 1151 )

      hey, be nice. This was a decision with galactic implications . . .

  • Guardians of the Galaxy (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's so stupid that it's actually funny.

  • So what's next? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Saturday December 19, 2020 @02:43PM (#60848988)

    Are we gonna have a raccoon on the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

  • It's a new service, but I doubt they'll get even close to a joke about "seamen on the poop deck."

  • The guardians march around obliviously in their fancy uniforms while their adversaries sneak in the back door and take over all of their computers.

  • Guardians is probably one of the least bad options.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Except does it actually describe what they are going to do? I looked up what their mandate was, and it's a solid wall of management speak.

      The blibber-blabber suggests that the Space Force will perform functions similar to the Navy's freedom of navigation role, where the Navy maintains the international community's right to use international waters by sending ships to transit disputed areas. The Space Force even released PR film of its boot camp, where (I guess I should call them) "guardians" train in a ma

      • It's going to be (already is) the parts of the Air Force that do space surveillance (JSpOC) and satellite ops (SMC). And as per usual, the majority of the officers will be going through 3 year management assignments and the civilian side of the military industrial complex will be supplying the more-or-less permanent staff to do the math. But guess what: that's how it works now, except it's spread over at least three service branches each of which like doing things their way. Like I said: a lateral move at w

      • Except does it actually describe what they are going to do? I looked up what their mandate was, and it's a solid wall of management speak.

        I had always wondered as well. Investigation shows that the Space Force was broken off of the Air Force Space Command in 1982. 1. Provide freedom of operation for the United States in, from, and to space

        2. Provide prompt and sustained space operations

        3. Protect the interests of the United States in space

        4. Deter aggression in, from, and to space

        5. Conduct space operations

        Items 3 and 4 are the concerns. Depending on a understanding of physics - which is no sure thing these days, we could turn near space

        • The old paradox: si vis pacem, para bellum.

          • The old paradox: si vis pacem, para bellum.

            Certainly. I just hope everyone realizes what a place is they are dealing with, and the low tech that can convert it into a minefield. Place a few bags of playground sand into retrograde orbits around desirable orbital shells and there ya go.

            The likelihood of US, EU, Russian Federation or China doing this isn't likely, unless one of them falls to the sort of governance that advocates scorched earth when losing a war. But then there's North Korea.

  • Next thing you know, they'll each be assigned a musician attendant whose sole job is to play a little fanfare whenever the "Guardian" walks into a room.

    I propose that tune be the appropriately mis-named "Entry of the Gladiators" [youtu.be].

  • Leaked prototype (Score:3)

    by hirschma ( 187820 ) on Saturday December 19, 2020 @04:20PM (#60849254)

    Why not just call the organization "SHADO"?

    https://ufoseries.com/models/s... [ufoseries.com]

    Skydiver was way cooler, tho.

  • they'll call themselves "guardians of the galaxy"

  • The whole here thing is such a joke,
    the name indeed fits well.
    And next the ground dig force emerge,
    called "mole men". You can tell.

  • Sooner or later it will occur to someone in the Space Force that they need and elite force. Someone will cast about for a name for that elite force. Someone else will mention: "You know the Army has this elite force known as Rangers..." And so the "Space Rangers" will be born.
  • If so, will the students be referred to as "Space Cadets"?

  • There's time for changes, I vote for "Space Corps" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Saturday December 19, 2020 @05:44PM (#60849452)

    In reading the history of the early days of armed aircraft in war there was some dispute on nomenclature. The divisions of the military that flew fighter planes were called the "Army Air Corps" or "Army Air Forces", and when under the command of the Navy it might be the "Navy Air Corps". Which would be consistent with the names of other divisions, like the "Army Medical Corps", or "Army Artillery Corps". After World War 2 it was thought to be beneficial to have the Navy and Army air corps consolidated into a single Air Force, which is what they were called collectively anyway when referring to both the Army and Navy air corps. The Navy fought hard against this, and won, seeing it as a potential chain of command problem if aircraft carriers had Air Force planes being launched from them.

    The same law that created the Air Force as separate from the Army created the Marine Corps as separate from (but still subordinate to) the US Navy. If the US Space Force is subordinate to the US Air Force then should it not be called the US Space Corps instead? I think so, and I believe it is possible for such a name change to happen yet.

    I recall reading about a debate over what to call members of this then new "Air Force" shortly after it was established. At first they were called "soldiers" just like they were when they were part of the Army Air Corps. The same for the newly created "Marine Corps", at first members were called "sailors" like when they were no more a distinct part of the Navy than than a member of the Navy Air Corps.

    There were a lot of lateral moves among the different military forces after World War 2. People in the Navy Air Corp moved to the new Air Force, which would have been not all that different than a move to a different air wing within the Navy. People in the Army and Navy moved to the new Marine Corp, and again without much fanfare. Whole Army bases, and everyone stationed to them, became Air Force assets overnight.

    I'm not old enough to remember any of this happening in real time but I'm seeing history not exactly repeat but it rhymes. There's going to be a lot of confusion about what things and people will be called, and how the roles of each military branch will shift to make room for this new military branch. The name "Space Force" might still change. The term "guardian" might not either. What's certain is that they will not use "airman", "soldier", "astronaut", or "spaceman". I have my doubts "guardian" will stay for long, it's too close to "guardsman" which is used for the Cost Guard and state reserve forces we know as the National Guard. I've seen the word "warrior" used to refer to all members of the military, regardless of the branch. This sounds like a good term to use if it wasn't already semantically overloaded as it is. We're running out of English words for this, maybe we need to borrow from another language and use something like "gendarme"? Is there perhaps some old English word that means something close to "spearman" or "archer" that might be appropriate? This would be a homage to early astronauts being referred to "steely eyed missile men".

    The point is that it took something like a decade before the Air Force and Marine Corps developed their own identity. I expect it to take at least that long for the US Space Force to do the same.

    • The same law that created the Air Force as separate from the Army created the Marine Corps as separate from (but still subordinate to) the US Navy. ...
      The same for the newly created "Marine Corps", at first members were called "sailors" like when they were no more a distinct part of the Navy than than a member of the Navy Air Corps.

      The National Security Act you're thinking of was responsible for the DoD, the Air Force, and reorganized the Department of War and Navy Department. The Marine Corps was already there for ~170 years, or ~150 years depending how you count. There have been Marines attached to the Navy for as long as there has been a Navy.

      Continental Marine Act of 1775 ... the same year the Continental Army and Continental Navy were created.
      "That two battalions of Marines be raised consisting of one Colonel, two lieutenant-co

      • I worded that poorly. Of course the Marines existed long before the National Security Act. This act assured the continued existence of the Marine Corps, and elevated them to a branch that the Navy could not dissolve in it's own. It wasn't until decades later that the Marine commandant was considered an equal member of the Joint Chiefs. I don't know why the Navy wanted to get rid of the Marine Corp. Perhaps this was offered as a trade to the Army to keep their Navy Aviation Corps.

        Whatever was going on a

    • Thanks for such an intelligent and informative overview of the history of such questions in the US. I think you've hit upon the most important element, which is too easily overlooked by those who make too big a deal over how "Space Force" and "guardian" sound. Words are hardly fixed in meaning, and when a new term or meaning is coined, it is produced solely by difference. (This is a key point of structuralism.) All that "guardians" has to accomplish is to be different enough from "soldier", "sailor," "airma

  • are they talking about some cartoon on the cartoon channel or the real thing. Next space force will be renamed Guardian Force.

  • Yankee Doodle went to town
    A-riding on a pony,
    Stuck a feather in his cap
    And called it macaroni'.

    Yankee Doodle keep it up,
    Yankee Doodle dandy,
    Mind the music and the step,
    And with the girls be handy.

    See how silly that sounds?

  • All questions will be answered as follows.... (Score:3)

    by speedlaw ( 878924 ) on Saturday December 19, 2020 @07:37PM (#60849764) Homepage
    'I AM GROOT'

  • 'Cause you know what that makes them...

  • Y'all are looking up when you should be looking down. Pence is the driver behind the Space Force and he's aspirational towards the world of Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale...hence "Guardians."

  • Oh for the love of Pete. "Space Force" is no dumber than "Air Force".

    But I guess I shouldn't be shocked that the, er, guardians of "science" want the "Air Force" to continue to be responsible for, um, space ...

    What exactly would you prefer? "Spaceman" (tee hee)? "SpacePronoun"?

  • Someone has been reading The Smoke Ring.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close