Request for $8 billion over 5 years would just be to set up the Space Force

President Trump will request that Congress set aside $8 billion over the next five years to fund the creation of the Department of the Space Force, which will oversee Space Force and the commercial exploration of space by private companies.

The Space Force will be part of the Air Force the way the marines are part of the Navy.

The $8 billion would just be to organize the bureaucracy and setup some buildings and centralize the staffing.

The bigger money will be when the lobbying for space military and surveillance gets centralized. The existing US spending on space will then rise from the $70 billion per year that is spread out to grow.

The US will establish space-based interceptors and sensors, because those are the only systems that can address hypersonic weapons and ICBMs while they are on the ground or just as they launch and are more vulnerable.

90 thoughts on “Request for $8 billion over 5 years would just be to set up the Space Force”

  1. This, I think, will happen in steps. First there´s the need to protect the country that needs still protecting on the surface of the Earth from things like hypersonic weapons. This can happen with automated kinetic weapons platforms and similar in orbit. Then there will be the orbital assets of national strategic value. Like GPS and satellite Internet constellations, plus any other new ones that may arise from the new space launchers economy. Most of these facilities will be automated, and can be protected with automated means, like kinetic weapons and killer sats. The Space Force will be more akin to NASA in that sense, controlling satellites and drones from the ground, than to a movie-like space marine force, at least in the beginning. As people start going there and amassing in groups of considerable size, in orbit and in other celestial bodies, there will be a need for more in situ intelligence, control and lethal force operations than those performed only by machines allow. This will be driven by the speed of light, distance and the amount of people and assets in these father places.

    Reply
  2. This I think will happen in steps. First there´s the need to protect the country that needs still protecting on the surface of the Earth from things like hypersonic weapons. This can happen with automated kinetic weapons platforms and similar in orbit. Then there will be the orbital assets of national strategic value. Like GPS and satellite Internet constellations plus any other new ones that may arise from the new space launchers economy.Most of these facilities will be automated and can be protected with automated means like kinetic weapons and killer sats. The Space Force will be more akin to NASA in that sense controlling satellites and drones from the ground than to a movie-like space marine force at least in the beginning.As people start going there and amassing in groups of considerable size in orbit and in other celestial bodies there will be a need for more in situ intelligence control and lethal force operations than those performed only by machines allow. This will be driven by the speed of light distance and the amount of people and assets in these father places.”

    Reply
  3. Bush didn’t raise spending, the Democrat controlled Congress did. Take a refresher in Civics 101 and re-learn that is is Congress that has the power of the purse. Yes, he signed those laws. But the Dems had COMPLETE control of both the WH and Congress in the next year when that spending took effect and they didn’t cut a dime off of it. So, bringing up Bush by you is…well, BS. Second, doesn’t matter if I complained or not (which in fact, I did complain) because that doesn’t have any bearing on the hypocrisy of the Left as outlined and NOT denied by you or anyone else here. NOT DENIED, so you have to throw strawmen…while hypocritically claiming that is what I was doing when I ripped you all a new one with these things called a) EVIDENCE and b) LOGIC.

    Reply
  4. Bush didn’t raise spending the Democrat controlled Congress did. Take a refresher in Civics 101 and re-learn that is is Congress that has the power of the purse.Yes he signed those laws. But the Dems had COMPLETE control of both the WH and Congress in the next year when that spending took effect and they didn’t cut a dime off of it. So bringing up Bush by you is…well BS. Second doesn’t matter if I complained or not (which in fact I did complain) because that doesn’t have any bearing on the hypocrisy of the Left as outlined and NOT denied by you or anyone else here.NOT DENIED so you have to throw strawmen…while hypocritically claiming that is what I was doing when I ripped you all a new one with these things called a) EVIDENCE and b) LOGIC.

    Reply
  5. Try again ape. The Republican party controlled both the Congress and Senate for Bush’s 1st 6 years. Why don’t you learn a few things before putting out your BS?

    Reply
  6. Try again ape. The Republican party controlled both the Congress and Senate for Bush’s 1st 6 years.Why don’t you learn a few things before putting out your BS?

    Reply
  7. And, to be hypocrisy the left would have to endlessly complain about deficits, which it doesn’t. It’s the right that does that, but only when there’s a Democratic President. And that’s HYPOCRISY.

    Reply
  8. Uhm, Republicans controlled Congress and Senate for Bush’s first 6 years. How do you sit on here with your endless condescension and don’t even know that?

    Reply
  9. And to be hypocrisy the left would have to endlessly complain about deficits which it doesn’t.It’s the right that does that but only when there’s a Democratic President.And that’s HYPOCRISY.

    Reply
  10. Uhm Republicans controlled Congress and Senate for Bush’s first 6 years.How do you sit on here with your endless condescension and don’t even know that?

    Reply
  11. Nope, not backwards. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Republicans complain about deficits UNTIL THEY”RE IN CHARGE.

    Reply
  12. What’s it like being so stupid (rhetorical)? Do you even look for information before you show your ignorance (rhetorical again). Do you really think spending increased 88% in 1 year? Even Bush couldn’t do that. Spending increased 50% in Bush’s 1st 6 years, when Republicans completely controlled D.C. Spending increased 17% in Bush’s last year to try to stave off a depression. He got the Dems to vote with him on it. The party of Hoover wouldn’t vote for stimulus. We both know who the fool is…

    Reply
  13. Wrong. You have it all around backwards. Makes a lot of sense since you don’t even know who controlled both houses of Congress when that 88% increase in spending occurred on ‘Bush’s watch’ happened. The Democrats did.

    Reply
  14. So what? it was in his last two years — when the Dems ran the show in Congress — where that whopping 88% increase happened. Why don’t you learn…well, EVERYTHING before making a fool out of yourself?

    Reply
  15. Yeah. so? It was in in the last year of his last term where he increased spending by that whopping 88% — to bail out the banks, remember? How do you sit here and display for all to see your gross ignorance?

    Reply
  16. Nope not backwards. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another.Republicans complain about deficits UNTIL THEYRE IN CHARGE.”

    Reply
  17. What’s it like being so stupid (rhetorical)? Do you even look for information before you show your ignorance (rhetorical again).Do you really think spending increased 88{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} in 1 year? Even Bush couldn’t do that. Spending increased 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} in Bush’s 1st 6 years when Republicans completely controlled D.C. Spending increased 17{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} in Bush’s last year to try to stave off a depression. He got the Dems to vote with him on it. The party of Hoover wouldn’t vote for stimulus.We both know who the fool is…

    Reply
  18. Wrong. You have it all around backwards.Makes a lot of sense since you don’t even know who controlled both houses of Congress when that 88{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} increase in spending occurred on ‘Bush’s watch’ happened. The Democrats did.

    Reply
  19. So what? it was in his last two years — when the Dems ran the show in Congress — where that whopping 88{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} increase happened.Why don’t you learn…well EVERYTHING before making a fool out of yourself?

    Reply
  20. Yeah. so? It was in in the last year of his last term where he increased spending by that whopping 88{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} — to bail out the banks remember?How do you sit here and display for all to see your gross ignorance?

    Reply
  21. I think the Space Force could provide a huge boost to orbital infrastructure once the BFR is fully operational. Think of it as wasting money for a good cause. The US Navy has 65 active Arleigh Burke class destroyers. They cost $1.8 billion each and displace about 9000 tons. So that more than $100 billion, just for destroyers. Then there’s submarines and carriers. If a fleet of fully reusable BFRs each doing weekly supply runs to LEO can deliver modules at $25,000 per tonne, then the parts for a ship the size of a 9000 ton destroyer could be lifted to an orbital shipyard for about $230 million. You’d need 60 flights to do this (at 150 tons per flight). So 10 BFRs, doing a total of 500 flights per year, get you components for 8 destroyers sized ships per year. Of course this sounds a bit crazy at first, but if you are spending $1.8 billion on a destroyer then spending an extra $230 million to lift all the modules into space isn’t much of a barrier. If you build a shipyard first, and BFR flights ferry up scaffolding, armour plates, and tech modules to be fitted together in orbit, then $2 billion a year pays for the launch costs to get the modules in orbit for 8 destroyers per year. Plus $15 billion per year to build the modules. Given the overall military budget, a reasonable cost to have a fleet of 40 destroyer-equivalent ships after 5 years. And think of the strategic and psychological value of having actual that capability. Naturally you’d start with something smaller than a destroyer. Initially you just want search and rescue and patrol ships. There will be a huge amount to learn about how to operate in orbit. I’m thinking of ships that will spend their entire lives in orbit of one planet or another and never land. You’d use some kind of small shuttle for that. I think weaponising a BFR is a silly idea, its a cargo hauler. You’d build dedicated ships for patrol and combat in space when you eventually need them. BFR would ferry material and personnel to shipyards.

    Reply
  22. I think the Space Force could provide a huge boost to orbital infrastructure once the BFR is fully operational. Think of it as wasting money for a good cause. The US Navy has 65 active Arleigh Burke class destroyers. They cost $1.8 billion each and displace about 9000 tons. So that more than $100 billion just for destroyers. Then there’s submarines and carriers.If a fleet of fully reusable BFRs each doing weekly supply runs to LEO can deliver modules at $25000 per tonne then the parts for a ship the size of a 9000 ton destroyer could be lifted to an orbital shipyard for about $230 million. You’d need 60 flights to do this (at 150 tons per flight). So 10 BFRs doing a total of 500 flights per year get you components for 8 destroyers sized ships per year. Of course this sounds a bit crazy at first but if you are spending $1.8 billion on a destroyer then spending an extra $230 million to lift all the modules into space isn’t much of a barrier.If you build a shipyard first and BFR flights ferry up scaffolding armour plates and tech modules to be fitted together in orbit then $2 billion a year pays for the launch costs to get the modules in orbit for 8 destroyers per year. Plus $15 billion per year to build the modules. Given the overall military budget a reasonable cost to have a fleet of 40 destroyer-equivalent ships after 5 years. And think of the strategic and psychological value of having actual that capability.Naturally you’d start with something smaller than a destroyer. Initially you just want search and rescue and patrol ships. There will be a huge amount to learn about how to operate in orbit. I’m thinking of ships that will spend their entire lives in orbit of one planet or another and never land. You’d use some kind of small shuttle for that. I think weaponising a BFR is a silly idea its a cargo hauler. You’d build dedicated ships for patrol and combat in space when you eventually need them. BFR would ferry material and personnel to shipyards.

    Reply
  23. Says the ape who didn’t complain about Bush raising spending 88{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}.

    Reply
  24. Actually, if that recent 25 day flight of Zephyr S is any indication, we may shortly actually see semi-permanently flying air assets in the near future.

    Reply
  25. Actually if that recent 25 day flight of Zephyr S is any indication we may shortly actually see semi-permanently flying air assets in the near future.

    Reply
  26. Oh look! Hypocrisyism! If you can’t stand the stones you throw in at the walls of your own class house, then don’t throw them in the first place. THAT was the crux of my response and it was a 1) germane and 2) valid one. What part did you NOT read here: “Good thing the right cares about deficits…” He was doing exactly you are bItching about what you ‘claim’ I am doing. You are distracting from everything with your hypocrisy and trolling.

    Reply
  27. Oh look! Hypocrisyism!If you can’t stand the stones you throw in at the walls of your own class house then don’t throw them in the first place. THAT was the crux of my response and it was a 1) germane and 2) valid one.What part did you NOT read here: Good thing the right cares about deficits…””He was doing exactly you are bItching about what you ‘claim’ I am doing. You are distracting from everything with your hypocrisy and trolling.”””

    Reply
  28. Oh look! Whataboutism. Look, if you think what the FAR left is proposing its wrong, cool. But that doesn’t suddenly make this idea right. You are distracting from the topic by trying to put up a left wing boogeyman so people ignore this discussion.

    Reply
  29. Oh look! Whataboutism.Look if you think what the FAR left is proposing its wrong cool. But that doesn’t suddenly make this idea right. You are distracting from the topic by trying to put up a left wing boogeyman so people ignore this discussion.

    Reply
  30. …the Department of the Space Force, which will oversee Space Force and the commercial exploration of space by private companies.” Translation: The way they plan on saving ULA!

    Reply
  31. …the Department of the Space Force” which will oversee Space Force and the commercial exploration of space by private companies.””Translation: The way they plan on saving ULA!”””

    Reply
  32. …you mean like the Left did? …and still does? http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes FORTY-TWO TRILLION is the NET cost of Democratic Socialism as proposed by ‘The Future of the Democrat Party’ Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. That is ON TOP of the projected baseline deficit of $12.4 trillion. Federal spending, which typically ranges between 18 and 22 percent of GDP, would immediately soar past 40 percent of GDP on its way to nearly 50 percent within three decades. Including state and local government spending would push the total cost of government to 60 percent of GDP by that point — exceeding the current spending level of every country in Europe. Democratic socialists are disingenuously cagey about the exorbitant tax burden they require. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently offered a list of tax increases — such as a 28 percent corporate tax rate, a “Buffett tax” on millionaires, and carbon tax — that collectively add up to just $2 trillion over the decade, according to the CBO.

    Reply
  33. …you mean like the Left did?…and still does?www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxesFORTY-TWO TRILLION is the NET cost of Democratic Socialism as proposed by ‘The Future of the Democrat Party’ Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. That is ON TOP of the projected baseline deficit of $12.4 trillion.Federal spending which typically ranges between 18 and 22 percent of GDP would immediately soar past 40 percent of GDP on its way to nearly 50 percent within three decades. Including state and local government spending would push the total cost of government to 60 percent of GDP by that point — exceeding the current spending level of every country in Europe.Democratic socialists are disingenuously cagey about the exorbitant tax burden they require. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently offered a list of tax increases — such as a 28 percent corporate tax rate a “Buffett tax” on millionaires and carbon tax — that collectively add up to just $2 trillion over the decade according to the CBO.”

    Reply
  34. Needs a service anthem. Here’s my pick:www.bing.com/videos/search?q=UFO+opening+music&view=detail&mid=E63FA36A4E256ED9BECBE63FA36A4E256ED9BECB&FORM=VIRE

    Reply
  35. So far, we can’t have manned or unmanned national or private assets stationed permanently in the atmosphere. While you can have them in space. And of course, space is quite bigger and with a lot of potential development for such stationed assets.

    Reply
  36. So far we can’t have manned or unmanned national or private assets stationed permanently in the atmosphere.While you can have them in space. And of course space is quite bigger and with a lot of potential development for such stationed assets.

    Reply
  37. I’m all in favor of the silver tops, mini-skirts and purple wigs use by the female personnel of the SHADO Moon base on Gerry Anderson’s UFO series (look for it in Youtube for a trip to the trippy 70s TV). And yeah, 8 billion just for making the offices and start filling them is retarded, but so are most things government gets its hands into.

    Reply
  38. I’m all in favor of the silver tops mini-skirts and purple wigs use by the female personnel of the SHADO Moon base on Gerry Anderson’s UFO series (look for it in Youtube for a trip to the trippy 70s TV).And yeah 8 billion just for making the offices and start filling them is retarded but so are most things government gets its hands into.

    Reply
  39. The $8 billion would just be to organize the bureaucracy and setup some buildings and centralize the staffing.” Can’t they siphon off some of that for spacey skin-tight bodysuits and triangular com badges? It’s a retarded idea BTW.

    Reply
  40. The $8 billion would just be to organize the bureaucracy and setup some buildings and centralize the staffing.””Can’t they siphon off some of that for spacey skin-tight bodysuits and triangular com badges? It’s a retarded idea BTW.”””

    Reply
  41. I believe the Air Force will find their roles with the Space Force reversed within a few decades. Space will be far more important to control than the Earths atmosphere.

    Reply
  42. I believe the Air Force will find their roles with the Space Force reversed within a few decades. Space will be far more important to control than the Earths atmosphere.

    Reply
  43. What’s it like being so stupid (rhetorical)? Do you even look for information before you show your ignorance (rhetorical again).

    Do you really think spending increased 88% in 1 year? Even Bush couldn’t do that. Spending increased 50% in Bush’s 1st 6 years, when Republicans completely controlled D.C. Spending increased 17% in Bush’s last year to try to stave off a depression. He got the Dems to vote with him on it. The party of Hoover wouldn’t vote for stimulus.

    We both know who the fool is…

    Reply
  44. Wrong. You have it all around backwards.

    Makes a lot of sense since you don’t even know who controlled both houses of Congress when that 88% increase in spending occurred on ‘Bush’s watch’ happened.

    The Democrats did.

    Reply
  45. So what? it was in his last two years — when the Dems ran the show in Congress — where that whopping 88% increase happened.

    Why don’t you learn…well, EVERYTHING before making a fool out of yourself?

    Reply
  46. Yeah. so? It was in in the last year of his last term where he increased spending by that whopping 88% — to bail out the banks, remember?

    How do you sit here and display for all to see your gross ignorance?

    Reply
  47. And, to be hypocrisy the left would have to endlessly complain about deficits, which it doesn’t.
    It’s the right that does that, but only when there’s a Democratic President.
    And that’s HYPOCRISY.

    Reply
  48. This, I think, will happen in steps. First there´s the need to protect the country that needs still protecting on the surface of the Earth from things like hypersonic weapons. This can happen with automated kinetic weapons platforms and similar in orbit.

    Then there will be the orbital assets of national strategic value. Like GPS and satellite Internet constellations, plus any other new ones that may arise from the new space launchers economy.

    Most of these facilities will be automated, and can be protected with automated means, like kinetic weapons and killer sats. The Space Force will be more akin to NASA in that sense, controlling satellites and drones from the ground, than to a movie-like space marine force, at least in the beginning.

    As people start going there and amassing in groups of considerable size, in orbit and in other celestial bodies, there will be a need for more in situ intelligence, control and lethal force operations than those performed only by machines allow. This will be driven by the speed of light, distance and the amount of people and assets in these father places.

    Reply
  49. Bush didn’t raise spending, the Democrat controlled Congress did. Take a refresher in Civics 101 and re-learn that is is Congress that has the power of the purse.

    Yes, he signed those laws. But the Dems had COMPLETE control of both the WH and Congress in the next year when that spending took effect and they didn’t cut a dime off of it.

    So, bringing up Bush by you is…well, BS.

    Second, doesn’t matter if I complained or not (which in fact, I did complain) because that doesn’t have any bearing on the hypocrisy of the Left as outlined and NOT denied by you or anyone else here.

    NOT DENIED, so you have to throw strawmen…while hypocritically claiming that is what I was doing when I ripped you all a new one with these things called a) EVIDENCE and b) LOGIC.

    Reply
  50. I think the Space Force could provide a huge boost to orbital infrastructure once the BFR is fully operational. Think of it as wasting money for a good cause. The US Navy has 65 active Arleigh Burke class destroyers. They cost $1.8 billion each and displace about 9000 tons. So that more than $100 billion, just for destroyers. Then there’s submarines and carriers.
    If a fleet of fully reusable BFRs each doing weekly supply runs to LEO can deliver modules at $25,000 per tonne, then the parts for a ship the size of a 9000 ton destroyer could be lifted to an orbital shipyard for about $230 million. You’d need 60 flights to do this (at 150 tons per flight). So 10 BFRs, doing a total of 500 flights per year, get you components for 8 destroyers sized ships per year.
    Of course this sounds a bit crazy at first, but if you are spending $1.8 billion on a destroyer then spending an extra $230 million to lift all the modules into space isn’t much of a barrier.
    If you build a shipyard first, and BFR flights ferry up scaffolding, armour plates, and tech modules to be fitted together in orbit, then $2 billion a year pays for the launch costs to get the modules in orbit for 8 destroyers per year. Plus $15 billion per year to build the modules. Given the overall military budget, a reasonable cost to have a fleet of 40 destroyer-equivalent ships after 5 years. And think of the strategic and psychological value of having actual that capability.
    Naturally you’d start with something smaller than a destroyer. Initially you just want search and rescue and patrol ships. There will be a huge amount to learn about how to operate in orbit. I’m thinking of ships that will spend their entire lives in orbit of one planet or another and never land. You’d use some kind of small shuttle for that. I think weaponising a BFR is a silly idea, its a cargo hauler. You’d build dedicated ships for patrol and combat in space when you eventually need them. BFR would ferry material and personnel to shipyards.
    Submarines are probably a good starting point for designing orbital military vehicles because they operate in an airtight environment for months at a time. But your actual physical design would be a central spine, scaffolding, modules bolted in, then (eventually) armour plating and weapons on the outside.

    I’m sure people will object to the militarization of space, as if it is hasn’t already happened, but think of the boost to the development of orbital facilities if the Space Force pays for enough traffic to keep 10 BFRs busy full time, and has shipyards and stations in orbit and vessels moving between them routinely. They will work out how to do a lot of initially dangerous stuff that can be adapted to civilian use when routine.

    Of course I would like to see a lot of civilian development in parallel. I would hope that the civilian presence in LEO is much larger than the military presence. But the military has deep pockets. $15-20 billion a year to operate in orbit is doable for them

    Reply
  51. Oh look! Hypocrisyism!

    If you can’t stand the stones you throw in at the walls of your own class house, then don’t throw them in the first place. THAT was the crux of my response and it was a 1) germane and 2) valid one.

    What part did you NOT read here: “Good thing the right cares about deficits…”

    He was doing exactly you are bItching about what you ‘claim’ I am doing. You are distracting from everything with your hypocrisy and trolling.

    Reply
  52. Oh look! Whataboutism.

    Look, if you think what the FAR left is proposing its wrong, cool. But that doesn’t suddenly make this idea right. You are distracting from the topic by trying to put up a left wing boogeyman so people ignore this discussion.

    Reply
  53. “…the Department of the Space Force, which will oversee Space Force and the commercial exploration of space by private companies.”

    Translation: The way they plan on saving ULA!

    Reply
  54. …you mean like the Left did?

    …and still does?

    http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes

    FORTY-TWO TRILLION is the NET cost of Democratic Socialism as proposed by ‘The Future of the Democrat Party’ Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. That is ON TOP of the projected baseline deficit of $12.4 trillion.

    Federal spending, which typically ranges between 18 and 22 percent of GDP, would immediately soar past 40 percent of GDP on its way to nearly 50 percent within three decades. Including state and local government spending would push the total cost of government to 60 percent of GDP by that point — exceeding the current spending level of every country in Europe.

    Democratic socialists are disingenuously cagey about the exorbitant tax burden they require. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently offered a list of tax increases — such as a 28 percent corporate tax rate, a “Buffett tax” on millionaires, and carbon tax — that collectively add up to just $2 trillion over the decade, according to the CBO.

    Reply
  55. So far, we can’t have manned or unmanned national or private assets stationed permanently in the atmosphere.

    While you can have them in space. And of course, space is quite bigger and with a lot of potential development for such stationed assets.

    Reply
  56. I’m all in favor of the silver tops, mini-skirts and purple wigs use by the female personnel of the SHADO Moon base on Gerry Anderson’s UFO series (look for it in Youtube for a trip to the trippy 70s TV).

    And yeah, 8 billion just for making the offices and start filling them is retarded, but so are most things government gets its hands into.

    Reply
  57. “The $8 billion would just be to organize the bureaucracy and setup some buildings and centralize the staffing.”

    Can’t they siphon off some of that for spacey skin-tight bodysuits and triangular com badges?

    It’s a retarded idea BTW.

    Reply
  58. I believe the Air Force will find their roles with the Space Force reversed within a few decades. Space will be far more important to control than the Earths atmosphere.

    Reply

Leave a Comment