The US Defense Department leaders will initiate the changes that they can perform without congressional approval for the New US Space Force. President Trump has ordered the creation of a new branch of the military. The US Marines were half-way between the army and the Navy. The Marines were carved out of the army. The Space Force will mostly be taken from the Air Force but will include other existing space satellites and other space-related assets from other military branches.
The Pentagon will take three of the four components of the new Space Force:
* a new combatant command for space,
* a new joint agency to buy satellites for the military
* a new warfighting community that draws space operators from all service branches.
These changes are what can be done before congressional approval.
Creating services and support functions (financial management and facilities construction) will require congressional funding and authorization.
More than 38,000 people perform AFSPC missions at 88 locations worldwide.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Militarization of space is useful because the military always has money, the same reason the military has been useful in pioneering a number of technological fields. You don’t have to prove there will be a return on investment to someone. In point of fact, leftists and progressives should be aligned with military spending in space, because it’s ideologically consistent with social welfare. The notion that not all pursuits can be boiled down to a capitalistic drive with a return on investment is precisely the foundational argument for why we must keep funneling money into government programs and government civic projects – this idea that not everything can be monetized, some things must be done for the greater good. Military spending in space R&D is being done for the greater good, the private sector WILL absorb those technologies and benefit from those technologies in a way that is not possible when you need to prove something monetizable before you ever see a dime of an investor’s money.
Not to make this political, but we’re not really bankrupting ourselves with terrestrial military spending. A lot of holes in the bucket are allowing water to drain out. Yes the military budget is large, it’s something like $825b after you account for all the unseen costs, I saw that in some congressional analysis. But that’s out of a $4.5T budget. There are at least 2, maybe 3, line items that are larger than that but a wide margin: healthcare and social security. So this notion that under no circumstances can we afford what we’re doing with the military, is a… it’s an ideological reading of priorities. You’re deciding up front that it’s not that important, then concluding that it’s the one thing we should cut to get back into the black. The reality is that there are 3-4 things we could either cut entirely or substantially reduce to get back into the black. I just suspect you’ll have ideological arguments for why those line items shouldn’t be the things that we cut.
1) There are plenty of things to do in space that don’t involve military action. So, I didn’t say: don’t go to space. If space is the ocean, we barely have a working boat but we’re about to create a naval force. Perhaps this is premature and will just “require” that every other nation develops space military first, which drains funding for science and human services. 2) I don’t even know how to approach this. Can you be more specific? I mean, really, what’s the benefit here? We’re bankrupting ourselves with our terrestrial military spending. Now we need to spend more on military where there are currently no conflicts? But, it’ll accelerate any future conflicts. Like there’s not enough space to go around? Instead of focusing on activities that benefit the entire human race, we’re going to continue to just come out swinging?
OK, please mention options that aren’t 1) not going to space to avoid conflict and b) pacifist wishful thinking.
Actions like this are *exactly* why it won’t change. We are not the victims of this behavior, we are the perpetrators. No change, or improvement, or advancement has ever come from the attitude of: “It is unfortunate, but it’s what it is.
While a lot of space exploration fans are anti-war and anti-militarization of space, given the strong association with space exploration and peaceful uses and cooperation, I think such a thing (militarization) is unavoidable, if we are to go to space to work and live there for real this time. The reason is obvious: in theory we could fix all of our differences and misunderstandings with dialog and diplomacy, in practice we can’t, having the eventual need to get into other kinds of negotiation. It is unfortunate, but it’s what it is.
Not to make this political but we’re not really bankrupting ourselves with terrestrial military spending. A lot of holes in the bucket are allowing water to drain out. Yes the military budget is large it’s something like $825b after you account for all the unseen costs I saw that in some congressional analysis. But that’s out of a $4.5T budget. There are at least 2 maybe 3 line items that are larger than that but a wide margin: healthcare and social security. So this notion that under no circumstances can we afford what we’re doing with the military is a… it’s an ideological reading of priorities. You’re deciding up front that it’s not that important then concluding that it’s the one thing we should cut to get back into the black. The reality is that there are 3-4 things we could either cut entirely or substantially reduce to get back into the black. I just suspect you’ll have ideological arguments for why those line items shouldn’t be the things that we cut.
While a lot of space exploration fans are anti-war and anti-militarization of space given the strong association with space exploration and peaceful uses and cooperation I think such a thing (militarization) is unavoidable if we are to go to space to work and live there for real this time.The reason is obvious: in theory we could fix all of our differences and misunderstandings with dialog and diplomacy in practice we can’t having the eventual need to get into other kinds of negotiation.It is unfortunate but it’s what it is.
Militarization of space is useful because the military always has money the same reason the military has been useful in pioneering a number of technological fields. You don’t have to prove there will be a return on investment to someone. In point of fact leftists and progressives should be aligned with military spending in space because it’s ideologically consistent with social welfare. The notion that not all pursuits can be boiled down to a capitalistic drive with a return on investment is precisely the foundational argument for why we must keep funneling money into government programs and government civic projects – this idea that not everything can be monetized some things must be done for the greater good. Military spending in space R&D is being done for the greater good the private sector WILL absorb those technologies and benefit from those technologies in a way that is not possible when you need to prove something monetizable before you ever see a dime of an investor’s money.
“In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion” This is not bankrupting your country?
No idea what your last statement even refers to. 50% of what vote?
Hubble is just a KH-11 turned outward. The ICBM gave us weathersats. large space-based radar dishes can be orbital radio telescopes
Tanks, carriers and fighter planes–no peaceful uses. That’s where the cuts need to be made. Besides, if I can target any area on Earth’s surface with rods-from-god….why do I need carrier groups or an air force any more? The huge logistical WWII/Cold War infrastructure is breaking us. That is why Nikita spent so much on rockets like R-7, because its reach meant he didn’t have to match the US blue-water Navy for Blue water Navy. When he tried to go cheap–and build smaller missiles based closer to the USA–in Cuba–that’s when he got in trouble.
Mil space can free up resources for exploration the way F-35 cannot
I think everyone here would agree that anything to do with space, especially combat, is a specialized field. We need experts in space warfare just like we need experts in ground combat or air combat, the two really don’t have much overlap. The military high ground especially matters in space, and will be used against us in the future if we don’t get there first. I would not put it past the Chinese to do a S. China Sea militarization of space, locking all other countries out if they can. Use it or lose it.
You wanna live for ever, apes?
Dude its not military spending that is breaking us.
That’s like eating pizza and drinking beer all day and claiming the strawberry you have each evening is the reason your fat.
It doesn’t matter if you are opposed to killing and raping if the person who breaks into your house isn’t opposed. YOU are at most 50% of the vote.
Yay! Space Marines.
Militarization of space is useful because the military always has money, the same reason the military has been useful in pioneering a number of technological fields. You don’t have to prove there will be a return on investment to someone. In point of fact, leftists and progressives should be aligned with military spending in space, because it’s ideologically consistent with social welfare. The notion that not all pursuits can be boiled down to a capitalistic drive with a return on investment is precisely the foundational argument for why we must keep funneling money into government programs and government civic projects – this idea that not everything can be monetized, some things must be done for the greater good. Military spending in space R&D is being done for the greater good, the private sector WILL absorb those technologies and benefit from those technologies in a way that is not possible when you need to prove something monetizable before you ever see a dime of an investor’s money.
Not to make this political, but we’re not really bankrupting ourselves with terrestrial military spending. A lot of holes in the bucket are allowing water to drain out. Yes the military budget is large, it’s something like $825b after you account for all the unseen costs, I saw that in some congressional analysis. But that’s out of a $4.5T budget. There are at least 2, maybe 3, line items that are larger than that but a wide margin: healthcare and social security. So this notion that under no circumstances can we afford what we’re doing with the military, is a… it’s an ideological reading of priorities. You’re deciding up front that it’s not that important, then concluding that it’s the one thing we should cut to get back into the black. The reality is that there are 3-4 things we could either cut entirely or substantially reduce to get back into the black. I just suspect you’ll have ideological arguments for why those line items shouldn’t be the things that we cut.
1) There are plenty of things to do in space that don’t involve military action. So, I didn’t say: don’t go to space. If space is the ocean, we barely have a working boat but we’re about to create a naval force. Perhaps this is premature and will just “require” that every other nation develops space military first, which drains funding for science and human services.
2) I don’t even know how to approach this. Can you be more specific?
I mean, really, what’s the benefit here? We’re bankrupting ourselves with our terrestrial military spending. Now we need to spend more on military where there are currently no conflicts? But, it’ll accelerate any future conflicts.
Like there’s not enough space to go around? Instead of focusing on activities that benefit the entire human race, we’re going to continue to just come out swinging?
OK, please mention options that aren’t 1) not going to space to avoid conflict and b) pacifist wishful thinking.
Actions like this are *exactly* why it won’t change. We are not the victims of this behavior, we are the perpetrators.
No change, or improvement, or advancement has ever come from the attitude of: “It is unfortunate, but it’s what it is.”
While a lot of space exploration fans are anti-war and anti-militarization of space, given the strong association with space exploration and peaceful uses and cooperation, I think such a thing (militarization) is unavoidable, if we are to go to space to work and live there for real this time.
The reason is obvious: in theory we could fix all of our differences and misunderstandings with dialog and diplomacy, in practice we can’t, having the eventual need to get into other kinds of negotiation.
It is unfortunate, but it’s what it is.