"I personally do not have an opinion on this. I haven't done nearly enough research...." The sign that someone actually does legit research on other topics.
I was in the Air Force during the 90s. And it already was called the air and space force. And they were already space command. This shift should be looked at in the same way when the Air Force left the army.
@mxt mxt Why 100 years? Looking at the X-37B, reusable boosters of the like SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing, and larger versions of space planes/lift bodies proposed/being developed (like an uprated X-37C, Dream Chaser), advances may unfolded sooner than later ...
@mxt mxt That remains to be seen. If reusable boosters get further commercialized then the economics will look different. Otherwise, with the unmanned X-37B, details are few, but they are sending this craft up for pretty long periods of time. Meanwhile, there is a foundation of experience/work to see how operations could be improved with reusable space planes/space gliders/lift bodies.
@mxt mxt Wouldn't consider the technologies stretch technologies requiring an "over 100 years" time frame. Last year Space X reused a booster twice - so 3 launches in 2018, with one in May, August and December. So about every 3-4 months. Probably much room for improvement.
Thirty-two years ago this week, on Sept. 13, 1985, an accomplished F-15 test pilot named Maj. Wilbert D. “Doug” Pearson (now a retired Maj. Gen.) took off from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on a mission which would see him do something no astronaut or fighter pilot had done before, and it would make him history’s first space ace. The mission, called “Celestial Eagle”, was the culmination of a six year anti-satellite (or ASAT) missile development and test program, and Maj. Pearson commanded the USAF F-15 Anti-Satellite Combined Test Force. Pearson was tasked with flying a near supersonic vertical ascent in a specially-configured F-15A fighter jet to an altitude of over 35,000 feet, to fire a 2,700 pound, 18-foot long anti-satellite missile (known as an ASAT) into space to kill an obsolete science satellite over 2000 miles away, at an altitude of 340 miles (about as high as the space shuttle could fly).
Amy, I like your speaking style. It is so relaxed and informative. I worked for the Air Force Space Command which launched satellites with Titan IV Centaurs, from Space Launch Complex (SLC) 40 & 41 including the Deltas off 36. So you are right the concept already exists in part. Now it would seem logical to breakaway as the Air Force did in 47. Keep up the good work I always enjoy your presentations.
Military application that we use everyday is GPS, which was restricted in use until a Korean passenger plane was shot down when it flew into USSR and Reagan started the push for it to be used by everyone, for free, to prevent the same thing happening again.
Wanuby : I can't speak for the United States Air Force or Navy but the Army doesn't rely on GPS. It's used to back up our navigation skills but is not their primary navigation aid. Also it's not accurate enough to lead a squad through a mine field or for artillery/mortar fire.
We most certainly do rely on GPS in the Army. We used it a lot in Iraq, it can be very difficult in terrain with few features to get an exact location and to fiddle with a map. We used a PLGR (back in 2005 it stood for Light Weight Global Positional Receiver, some switched the letters around for a word to say but now there is a new longer name for it) in Korea and especially in Iraq. There weren't roads like we have roads with street signs and mile markers way up NW near the Syrian Border around Sinjar and Tallafar. I used that piece of crap archaic GPS receiver a lot.
My first job in the Army was 14R M6 Bradley Linebacker Crewmember. As you can imagine, a Bradley that had the TOW replaced with stingers was useful in S Korea but not that useful in Iraq, so we were performing the same job as a 19D or 11B, during my time in Iraq in 2005 they killed that job off and that is when I did my only mistake in the Army, joined signal corp and became a 25S and did good enough in school to get picked up for 1C school, see my following post about that. I wasn't good at it, and I hated it. I was not meant to be support. My brain understands gears and mechanical devices, not software, energy waves, and circuitry.
They handed me a civilian GPS in the Saudi Arabia desert and it was worthless during the Gulf War. One civilian GPS for my whole Infantry Company was a waist of time. At that time, the constellation weren't developed. After Desert Storm, I was assigned to my Division's G3 Force Modernization Office where I attended the first GPS Conference. There we were told that the Army wouldn't be getting precision GPS because we didn't need it. When you are more accurate with dead reckoning and terrain Association than those little boxes, what good are they then? I have two sons, one served two tours in Afghanistan and the other served one tour in Afghanistan and one tour in Irag as 11Bs. Both told thanked me for teaching them Map Reading skills because they said you couldn't rely on GPS.
We found it extremely helpful for when we were driving through the dessert, didn't need to stop or figure our location. Map flopping around the top of a Brad makes reading a map hard, and we had a huge area of responsibility near Syria and not many landmarks to help. Helpful for calling in arty quick, and certainly helped with medivac. We certainly used it, and with tech now, especially with blue force trackers, GPS is just an important part. Man, all this Army talk, I miss being in the Army now. Wish my body didn't crap out and they med boarded me.
Great video, good basic explanation. Realize that there are many agencies who have their hooks in the US space program. Besides the services and NASA, there is also the National Reconnaissance Office, the Missile Defense Agency, and several other agencies that hold equities in space. In fact, you mentioned the SDI, which was created as part of the existing Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, which would become MDA. SDI was not only focused on laser-base anti-missile capability, but a wide variety of methods to counter the ballistic missile threat. Note that the specifics of the Outer Space Treaty were to prevent basing nuclear weapons in space, which both the US and USSR recognized as a dangerous place to literally store nukes for a prolonged period. Again, great video, keep them coming.
And let's not forget that NASA was using (and still uses) USAF facilities at Patrick AFB (Cape Canaveral) and Vandenberg AFB for launches, and Edwards AFB for space plane testing.
Some of the military's work is non-classified, open stuff. For example, for years, until the late 1960s, most oceanographic research in the US was funded and controlled by the Navy. It was mostly open, although it had some secret submarine-related aspects. The X-15 program was a joint NACA/NASA-USAF-US Navy program that was largely open in its planning, design, and results.
Loving the new hair girl. Great video. Nice little history of US military space programs. I think you could do a lot more videos on 60's military space projects that would be quite popular.
No Way! The so-called "Space Force" is just Trump's way of getting the "Trekkie" vote! It goes AGAINST EVERYTHING Star Trek is and what Gene Roddenberry had in mind when he created it! He envisioned a UNIFIED Earth where we had all learned to live together on this planet despite our differences! Trump's just the OPPOSITE!
I appreciate your review and commentary on the history of the Cold War and its impact on space research and weapon development. I think your idea of Space Force expanding to handle rescue operations in space seems somewhat plausible, but I agree with you that we should "put the human race's best foot forward" and focus on peaceful cooperative uses of space.
some technical corrections 1. SDI was not just, or even primarily, lasers to push missiles around, it was a broad mix of (xray) lasers, particle beams, and interceptors (including 'smart rocks') to destroy missiles. one of the many means of acting on the targets was 'momentum change' through ablation. excalibur was just one part of it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative 2. the first anti-satellite missile test was not the chinese test in 2007, but a US air-force test in 1985 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT 3. a couple of times you mention that nothing was physically done with 'star wars' but billions was spent and lots of hardware was built, some of it evolved into the current ballistic missile defense system.
There's been anti-missile defense since the 1960s, but it was ground-based. Since then, we've added sea-based. Star Wars was about a *space*-based anti-missile defense. The concept was unworkable in its full form. But it did generate a lot of technology and ideas that are currently realized. One offshoot is the Motorola Irridium satellite phone system, which incorporated the innovation of satellite-to-satellite communication (with no need to go through ground stations). Reagan's basic reaction at NORAD was an objection to MAD (mutual assured destruction). It struck him as immoral, arguably true. So he started a search for a defensive system that could be shared with the Soviets that would protect potential targets. The problem is that this would undo MAD and the whole deterrence concept.
Very good point! I think it can also be argued, though I have no credible evidence, that as the Soviets tried to match the US development of SDI related systems, their economy was not robust enough to absorb the huge expenditure. By 1989 the Soviet Union was falling apart and officially disbanded at the end of 1991, so cancelling the SDI, or at least the high cost high risk portions only made sense well before 1993. There were some parts of SDI that continued development, possibly under different names and with different end goals.
Sure. There are ground- and sea-based technologies that grew out of SDI that are still with us. It stimulated major advances in space navigation and communication related to GPS. In 1986, I was at a student dinner with Edward Teller, who explained the X-ray laser concept. I couldn't buy into it -- the computing power had advanced enormously, but the rocket technology was advancing much more slowly. It just didn't seem feasible. The Soviets were, nonetheless, terrified of it, and it did have an effect on the final stages of the Cold War.
Excellent description, particularly the history of the space program such as first rockets to put people into space were military missiles. Also good mention of 1967 Outer Space Treaty that prohibits (discourage) weaponizing space. You could have mention the USAF Space Command that has its own officers, logo, and a budget twice of NASA. Sure like to see you get in on those closed door meetings and then explain it to the rest of us, well probably have to redact a lot of info but it would be quite educational.
To clarify, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 bans WMDs and permanent military bases in space but explicitly does NOT restrict conventional weapons in space and both the US and the USSR have tested conventional weapons in space, as allowed under the OST. So, sorry, Amy, Space Force as currently envisioned would be perfectly legal under the OST. Love the channel.
well to be fair, every star fleet ship is very much not a warship. having the CNC right on the top of the hull with zero armor is just idiotic for a warship. not to mention running full atmo in battle.
Movies have had a long history of space based weapons and even Roger Moore's James Bond went into orbit after them in Moonraker 40yrs ago. But it's child's play in comparison for an air to air missile to hit a target or even ground launch interception into orbit was part of manned missions like Skylab. Those who back a Space Force mourned SDI's cancellation but forgot the physics that turns near earth debris into an orbiting mine field with each launch and that's not exploding what's already up there. Fortunately the Cold War ended in the era of the pay phone but restarting an arms race today is like putting a digital finger on the trigger in a nuclear silo and hoping a hacker won't find it.,
Amy FYI the US Air Force already has Space Command. Air Force Space Command, sometimes referred to informally as U.S. Space Command, is a major command of the United States Air Force, with its headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado.
Neil deGrasse Tyson actually proposed a space force in 2001. The Airforce is currently overseeing the protection of US assets in space. ie: The US space command. The value of satellites continues to grow. they are very important to the economy and for homeland security. so having a special military branch to protect them doesn't seem like a to bad idea to me. Space force wil also be overseeing asteroid threats. and treaty's for the exploration of space.
The idea is not to shoot down satellites in space.... but to keep tabs on whats happening up there and who is launching and is going to launch what. and does or is that going to pose a threat to our satellites and other (manned) vehicles. up there.
If Space Force is structured as part of the USAF the way the USMC is part of the Navy, it could work well. There is a significant overlap of specialties between the USAF and the proposed SF that would make a totally separate service problematic.
Yeah but what can they do that we can't already with high-altitude intercept missiles? Source: am scientist who worked on similar systems. We've got it covered on the ground, already
China's destruction of its old satellite proved the fact that we need a Space Force. Destroying a satellite also proves that THAT is a bad idea. A Space Force could be used to target enemy military satellites and, instead of destroying them with a laser, neutralize them by frying their electronic brains with something like a megawatt microwave beam emitter, or some other type of high-energy, high-frequency weapon. Such a weapon could render a satellite useless without physically destroying it. After that is accomplished, THEN with a (relatively) low-power laser, the Space Force could deorbit that satellite, making for one less dead satellite in near space, thus cleaning up the Clarke Belt. And who would be in charge of cleaning up space junk? Why the Space Force Reserve, of course!! (Space National Guard, anyone?) 😄
I put those static-cling stickers on my Apple. They come off without leaving glue, and the ..I'll call it a 'dust ring' ...that forms around the sticker comes off with rubbing alcohol. Pay for one of your channel logo. It'll be much slicker than a star
Soviets had 23 mm cannons on space stations in the late 60's - 70's, issued anti sat weapons to be used in EVA, tested the Mig 105 space fighter concept, launched Polyus in 1987 an orbital anti missile laser sat in 1987, so yeah. And are working on the Mig 41. Always take the high ground - space is the highest ground...
The MiG-105 wasn't a fighter. It was a test vehicle. In any case, the Americans had developed the Dynasoar BEFORE the MiG-105. As for the MiG-41, it hasn't progressed beyond the sketch-on-the-back-of-a-bar-napkin phase. It's as much of a threat as the Enterprise, or the Millennium Falcon. The 23mm R-23M Kartech was a bust, too. While the cosmonauts could fire it, in order to aim it, they had to rotate the entire 20 ton space station. It could probably be used against a non-maneuvering target, but against anything that doesn't want to be hit, guided missiles would be a better bet.
Hello! Maybe I've not paid attention, but this is the first video with the new set/sitting area. A few comments if you don't mind please. 1. I like it, but I think a single wall hanging behind you might be nice. 2. I'll miss Pete sightings. 3. I love your hair, I don't remember it being that red before. 4. Hmm. instead of star object, why not find a fun sticker for the laptop?! (And good heavens, we have to explain to the kids about the cold war now? Ow my back.)
The Air Force was a part of the army for sometime. Orbital weapons are a real possibility, spacecraft are registered through the Air Force. It’s the next logical step and it could streamline space regulations and law
Sorry also there was blue-Gemini and the x15B might have squeaked out 1 orbit, as well as the nuclear battleship version of project Orion nixed by Kennedy.
I surprised you didn't mention the ""LA ZER"" defense program named after the guy who designed it named Alan Parsons.... It was called the ""Alan Parsons Project""
Very elequently put, as someone with somewhat different views, i have to applaud you for expert delivery, point presentation and closing thoughts. Thanks as always Shira!
The United States Space Force, a sixth Branch of Service in The Department of Defense, will be tasked with Military space and cyberspace operations, satellite protection, interstellar transportation of Military Personnel from the Other Services, missile defense, and, protection of US Space assets that will be combined into one Armed Service instead of spread out amongst The Army, Navy, Air Force and Federal Agencies, such as the National Reconnaissance Office.🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🗽⚔️
No need for military in space, but they're called spaceships for a reason, and have more in common with submarines than aircraft... Just sayin' I also agree with your Venusian aspirations! Bring on HAVOC, and let lie the dogs of war.
Amy is so attractive I think she might be from Venus. If all of my teachers had been as attractive as Amy, I would have gotten straight As. and your intelligence is equally as attractive.
I haven't been able to figure out a rational argument for a sixth Military Service as opposed to doing it within the USAF and maybe turning Northern Command into a Space Command combatant Command.
I'm a proponent of space missions remaining peaceful but we have to admit that the greatest accomplishments we have done in space have been by competing militarily with our adversaries. A Space Force will certainly initiate another race to space. Whether the U.S, China or Russia start it, it's going to cause any of those countries to follow. For the sake of scientific research and space related milestones, I am in favor of a Space Force. BTW, awesome job in keeping the discussion non-political. Your professionalism and maturity are in clear display. Love your content!
28goldenboy you’ve made a faults assumption that our mission into space has been peaceful. The Saturn five rocket was to develop the potential for ICBM’s. The space shuttle had a requirement that it was large enough to capture Russian satellite.
The biggest contribution to "Space Force" is to have a dedicated entity manage space missions, and promote a culture around training and procurement in this domain. The US Air Force has numerous priorities - nuclear weapons, tactical and strategic airpower. The culture of the US Air Force promotes behaviors that are focused on these missions. Procurement dollars, and program scrutinies are focused toward F-35s and B-21 programs, while new launch vehicles or tracking equipment have less focus and passionate support. Imagine a future Space Force basic training program which focuses on space-specific skills... instead of doing 10 mile runs, training on marksmanship with rifles, or being punished with push-ups, these new Space Force trainees would be drilled in performing mental calculations related to orbital mechanics, learn to write Python code, or be punished by with wedgies (j/k). And imagine if a general officer in Space Force was promoted not by the number of hours in a fighter jet, number combat missions flown, or being an instructor in their past; but how many projects they managed and delivered on-time, on-performance, and under-budget; or how many optimized C++ class libraries they created that were delivered with good documentation, small numbers of defects, and widely adopted? This is the ultimate goal of Space Force and why it makes sense being it's own branch.
Several years ago, the DOD actually gave NASA a couple spare Hubble-style satellites it had sitting in its secret stash and says it doesn't need anymore; these would be more powerful than the Hubble itself. The catch is that NASA has to cough up its own money to pay for retro-fitting the military telescopes for use in looking at space rather than the Earth, and also has to cough up its own money to pay for the staff to operate the telescopes, something that NASA probably won't be able to do for a few more years yet. It's kind of like NASA's begging for money and trying to figure out how to keep itself in the business of space exploration, and suddenly the Spooks step out of the shadows, and say "You can have a couple of our spare Hubbles, if you like - we... er... outgrew them.... You've got to do the babysitting and lawn-mowing and newspaper routes yourself to earn enough pocket change to fix 'em up, though.... Oh, wait, we never told you we had spare Hubbles? Well, you didn't hear that from us, because if we told you how many Hubbles we have hanging around, we'd have to kill you...."
You touched on the army/Air Force analogy, but didn’t get to the point. Going into WW 2, the Army air corps was our “Air Force” and both it and the Navy were behind both Germany and Japan initially and we paid a price for that, although we caught up and eventually surpassed both. After the war, the army air corp was made into the new service the Air Force to ensure that arguably the most important aspect of our defense got the proper focus it deserved. (An example, an Air Force tends to focus on Strategic operations (attacking command, infrastructure, manufacturing, etc.), whereas an Army left to its own devices tends to focus more on the tactical, the battlefield. You need both, and that is a major reason why the Air Force was created. The same concept applies to a Space Force, and the idea was kicked around long before Trump, so Trump haters shouldn’t trash the idea just because it was finally enacted by Trump. As far as not “militarizing space”, that will happen or not happen regardless of the organizational structure of the U.S. military. As far as it NEVER happening, ever heard of fighting from the “high ground” as the ultimate advantage ? Space is the ultimate “high ground”, and to pretend otherwise is unrealistic. “International cooperation” is unfortunately a pipe dream as far as making progress. Look at advancement in aircraft - WW 2 and then the Cold War moved technology ahead faster than anything else would have. Hate to say this, but “cooperation” rarely produces rapid advancement. Competition produces rapid advancement, and the most intense competition comes in the form of war and business (I.e. profit) competition. For those cynical about “profit”, I would point out that for nearly half a century, space flight was nearly stagnant, then along came Elon Musk and SpaceX, and he has become one of the richest men on Earth, and I, for one, think he deserves every penny of those Billions of dollars. Profit more often than not, goes to those who advance the world.
Total force = Active Duty (the five branches Amy mentioned), plus the five Reserve forces of those branches, plus the Army and Air National Guard (which are the militias run by each State).
"For all of you kids out there who don't study the cold war in school" - Wtf? Are there places where the cold war on a basic level isn't a mandatory part of the curriculum in like late high school?
It took me until I was 15 to realize that the USSR stopped existing when I was one year old, it is very common to skip the cold war in modern curriculum.
The Coast Guard is ran by the Department of Homeland Security and is technically not a branch of the military, but is a part of the Uniformed Services. During times of declared war. the CG falls under the Dept of The Navy
I think the biggest problem is that Trump is the one introducing it, and he’s a very polarizing figure. No matter what the idea, if he said it a certain large contingent of the population will oppose it. If we wait to need the space force it will be too late. I hope they get it going
That's a very valid point. Love him or hate him, if he says he's against cancer, about a third the people will accuse him of secretly loving cancer while another will act like he was the first person to ever address the issue, and the remaining third will close their eyes and rub their temples.
I would love to live in a world that had no need for any military organizations. Unfortunately we're stuck with this one. Protection of US orbital assets is becoming a high priority as China has recently demonstrated it's ability to intercept and destroy a satellite. I believe, but could be wrong, that the treaty baring the militarization of space specifically addresses permenant military assets in space, such as FOB systems. I see no reason why this couldn't still be honored and still develop a way to enforce that provision as well as protect our orbital assets, and provide emergency assistance to manned civilian spacecraft. Consolidation of all efforts into a single service should also reduce costs by eliminating duplication of effort among the other services. While "Space Force" sounds goofy (I prefere "Aerospace Defence Force") the ideas behind it are sound.
As for the name, in the 1940s there was an apparatus developed for coordinating the branches of the military. It was called the "National Military Establishment." Then one day, someone noticed the acronym--"NME." Say it: "Enemy." Soon thereafter, the "Department of Defense" was formed.
Consider that the height of human physical achievement has been brought about by sports teams competing against each other. Cooperation is good and all, but without competition, you stagnate. We wont live and work in space through cooperation alone. We need competition.
The US Military is organized under 4 federal departments, currently, each with a secretary: Army, Navy, Air Force, Homeland Security. The Coast Guard are part of the Department of Homeland Security (Used to be Department of Transportation), and the USMC are part of the Department of the Navy; both have undersecretaries.
If you want to have fun with a Marine, remind them that the Corps is a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Navy and that they should rightfully be referred to as "land squids". But I recommend you do so from inside your car, with the motor running and in gear -- and make sure said Marine isn't armed when you say this . . .
Space Force has existed since the 1960s in the form of the Air Force Space Command. To split it off to create a new branch does make a lot of logistical sense, just as splitting the Army Air Corps off to create a new branch in September of 1947.
Lars Rye Jeppesen militarization does not mean weapons, The militarization of space began back in the 60s during the corona program, today there 120 US military satellites. Space is considered the fourth domain of warfare by the US military. These satellites fall into a couple different categories, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, early warning systems, and stuff like the X-37 that is to classified to truly understand. Not everything the military does is based around weapons deployment. A good example is USAF Space Command, they currently are made up of over 19,000 airman.
@@graydonsharp5165 That's not what understand my "militarization". It's not illegal to observe each other, in fact it's desirable. There are treaties preventing weaponization of space afaik. I could be wrong on that
The vision of a Space Force goes back quite a way. As an Air Force Lt Col assigned to the plans division of Space Command, I was part of a team that put together a plan for consolidating all of the services space elements into a new Space Force in 1987. The idea was for the Space Force to first be a subsidiary of the Air Force, like the Marines are a subsidiary of the Navy.
I love this video. I liked your idea of space remaining peaceful, and I would expect that from a sweetheart like you. You’re a good, smart kid! Keep em coming, Amy!
The Coast Guard is only part of the Military during time of war, when it is placed under Department of Defense. During peace time the Coast Guild was under under a different department before 9/11 ICE and now under the Department of Homeland Security. China only did that because the U.S. had done it earlier. Also the U.S. did such because of a large satellite that could survive reentry and cause damage. It was destroyed in such a way that its smaller pieces burned up over the next few month. What China did created large field of space junk that create a dead zone in orbit.
why don't you put a star sticker over your laptop? I also would want to cover up the overpriced fruit company, but a stationary star in the video is a little distracting... OCD and trying to help, hope you understand.
Paul theAwesome Sorry, they’re not overpriced. The extra value is in their product. Value is determined by the purchaser. Basic economics. The sales of this fruity company has proven their value.
@@nathanroberson let me explain that point, I don't value devices that cost 4X the amount of materials used, and I'm sorry you're willing to pay that much for a device when there are fair prices on the market that get the same and even a better job done, and usually with better customer service. And yes Apple is good with economics... Steve jobs was an amazing marketer but I think the point that that they reached $1T recantly just proves the point of over pricing, being back into a corner and have to pay for another device or sacrifice preformance isn't a business model I will subscribe to.
Paul theAwesome Spot on, Paul. Apple's most impressive achievement is creating a fanatic customer base that will line up for hours to buy their overpriced product. It's really kind of spooky.
I seem to remember when Reagan announced Star Wars, he neglected to tell any of his advisers before the broadcast. Also SDI did not consist just of Excalibur, it relied on Brilliant Eyes and Brilliant Pebbles. SDI was well over budget and well behind schedule when Clinton cancelled it.
Amy , as a retired Military officer I feel the need to correct you. Army and Air Force separated in 1947 The Navy and Marine Corps are both Department of the Navy and are really branch’s of the same service. The Coast Guard are under the department of Homeland Security and Only can be absorbed into the Navy during time of total war. So if you want to be correct there are “4 “ branches of the department of defense
The Kzinti Lesson kinda shows that it's actually impossible to go to space _without_ weapons. An engine's effectiveness as a weapon is directly proportional to its effectiveness as an engine. So peaceful exploration, sure; as it should be; but it'll necessarily be done by putting probes on top of what are essentially bombs with giant face-melting torches at the bottom. All possible spacecrafts are weapons if used as such.
SDI was meant to use lasers to move objects? I guess I'm accustomed to the idea of lasers heating objects even to destruction, but not moving them. Either way, I wonder whether it would be possible to use lasers, either fired from earth or from space, to knock space junk out of orbit?
traeng it doesnt have to be as simple as throwing a bomb at it. it could be a controlled explosion that throws debris in a single direction, slowing its speed so it crashes back down. they could also possibly be demolished too, like cutting off an antenna or something.
Or you destroy it indirectly by using the shockwave to change its direction / speed so it will fly back to the earth and destroy in the process of re-entry
The Army : has troops, and planes, and boats The Navy : has troops, and planes, and boats The Airforce : has troops, and planes, and boats The Marines : has troops, and planes, and boats The Coast Guard : has troops, and planes, and boats .... Why have 5 when you have 6 ... to all do the same job ...
The Patriot Missile is an off shoot of SDI. The Israeli Iron Dome and David's Sling both co developed by Israel and the United States can find their roots to SDI. At least in concept using a bullet to stop a bullet.
frzstat It would become Space Guard most likely. It really should be done by the UN rather than the US, but the UN seems to have fizzled. It’s real purpose was to keep the Cold War cold. Without the Cold War it’s fading - which is bad if you like the idea of a global federal government. A lot of people don’t.
Space Guard is a good name. I know this sounds far fetched in 2018, but soon the multi-nationals and billionaires with their own space vehicles and stations will need to be policed/regulated.
But literally and legally the Coast Guard is a Military Service of the United States. For additional fun trivia, we also have some Uniformed Services that are not Military Services.
Well the concept of consolidating duplicate efforts by the various branches of the military into a neutral branch might save money much as a consolidated IT service within s company can sometimes be practical but you just know that Trump is thinking of it as space cadets and troopers in space.
It’s good to be idealistic, but it’s not good to be naive. China and Russia have probably been militarizing space for years. I’m sure the DoD has the evidence and just like the role of the US Navy is to keep the sea lanes free for trade. A Space Force could be there like you mentioned a Coast Guard to ensure all participants “play fair”. Being an American I tend to trust American intentions over those of either Russia or China who have proven to be dishonest brokers in the past. I didn’t like the idea at first (not a big Trump fan) but in this day and age it makes not just strategic and tactical sense but economic sense as well. Especially if we plan on going back to the moon or even Venus. Interested in your feedback.
I would have thought that you would be well aware of the fact that the Soviets had armed almost every one of their space labs with 23mm canons. There are 2 ways you can live in peace, one by being capable of defending yourself and the other is in servitude to people that are ready to not only defend themselves but to take what they want. We live on a planet surrounded by those that will take everything from people that are unprepared to keep what they have. Space is the high ground, if we don't have the capability to protect ourselves against a space based attack, then we doom not only ourselves but every person that desires to live free.
That was an AMAZING non-political breakdown of what the Space Force could be! I also loved that you showed the militaries history in space without leaning if it was god or bad! Thank you Amy so much for making this video!!!
To make space a peaceful place, we only need to not to send war things there. This is very easy to control. We just need to control launches, that's it. Anything going up there can only be lauched from here (And at a really high cost). More treaties, and forbid any non disclosed launch and acting upon the organization doing it, is a lot easier to control from ground. The problem is, the EEUU will never agree to disclose any launch, so it will not try to stop anyone trying to do it for fear to backfire. So, we are back to the active control of space, where if we all agreed to be open, should be really cheap and easy to do it from ground.
Everywhere in the world people speak English they are laughing. Space Force may or may not be a good idea but it sounds like something a 12 year old would come up with. Think ‘super tough army guys in boats’ for the marines. This is important, if it wasn’t the billions of dollars corporations spend on marketing and branding would be money down the drain.
I think as you're aware, the current person occupying the white house doesn't really seem to care much for treaties. We as a nation have been pulled out of so many treaties and agreements that it's disgusting to try and call ourselves a global player. We're moving more towards isolationism, and I fear how much worse it could get the longer it goes on.
Nothing wrong with getting out of treaties that don't work. The Paris accord for exemple was pointless, the US left and yet is the only country that actually managed to accomplish what they were required to. Most of the other signataries either barely reduced their emissions or produced more, with Canada doubling theirs... what's the point of keeping agreements nobody else is taking seriously or enforcing?
The person in the whitehouse made a treaty with my homeland (Israel) and has done my country more good than America has in the past 100 years, and been as anti isolationist in Israeli affairs. From a foreign perspective, Trump is a godsend to the human race. To the everyday american, maybe not, but to us, he is a great leader who doesnt take shit from anyone and tells people where to shove it.
I completely disagree. I'm not a "Trump guy." I didn't vote for him, but I would not say he is isolationist. I have strong opinions on that, and it's one of the major reasons I refused to support Ron Paul, who I believe really is isolationist. Paul wanted the US out of all global affairs, he is embarrassed by our international presence and his fiscal beliefs only allow for domestic spending. He doesn't want us involved in any foreign action that "is none of our business." That's dangerous. Trump's administration has not held those beliefs, but they absolutely are pulling out of what they deem to be "bad deals." That's politics. You may or may not agree with that, and of course everyone has their own opinion on whether those actions are right or wrong, but his policies can't be viewed as isolating ourselves and ignoring the challenges in the world. This administration has overtly supported Israel as mentioned above, to the point of moving our embassy. They have focused hard on changing North Korea's relationship with the rest of the world. They have challenged China, as well as a host of supposed allies who take American aid for granted and stab us in the back in return. I'm still not sure about his presidency overall, and I know I hate every time he opens his mouth or his Twitter account, but it can't be denied that this has been a term of "I don't care how it has always been, this is how it is now." We needed that. In 2000 I thought it was going to be grumpy McCain who would be that hard ass for us, but he lost and then his handlers convinced him that the country wanted a kindly grandpa who is "friendsh" with everyone the next time he ran. We need someone who reminds the world that we don't mess around. That's happening now.
In order for it to be a binding "treaty" it has to be ratified by the Senate. Just because a president signs something ie Obama and the Paris Accord; doesn't make it a treaty.
I don't know enough to decide whether a Space Force is a good idea, but I can tell you that we need a much more comprehensive electronic and computer warfare force *right now.*
Lets not forget that Mercury Astronauts were all military personnel as were the next few groups with a few exceptions. Great Vid as always, you are a treasure.
love the content of this episode, the way explored history for context. but the star is very distracting, I suggest you get rid off it or put the computer on a table so that it can be stable. Or put the computer completely out of the frame.
