 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / February 2004The Bush space plan and the Air Force.
The other shoe just fell regarding what the Bush space plan is really about; it seems to indeed be the militarization of space as outlined in the Cheney/Wolfowitz "Rebuilding America's Defenses"* report from 2000; and is called the Air Force Transformation Flight Plan: http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2080 http://www.af.mil/library/posture/AF_TRANS_FLIGHT_PLAN-2003.pdf (PDF file of plan) * http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ("Section V: Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" "Space and Cyberspace" subsection.) Pat > called the Air Force Transformation Flight Plan: Keep in mind this plan is likely to collect dust - not for political reasons, but for financial reasons. Far more Air Force space ideas, over the last 45 years, have been discarded for lack of funds than have been funded. (Remember, requests for space funding have to overcome three huge obstacles: overruns on existing space projects, needs arising from the current war, and competing priorities like fighter planes.) When it comes to budget wars, a four-star general's signature on a plan isn't close to being enough weight to get something done. There are two people in the world who could reorder funding priorities to get a particular space system funded - the SecDef and the President. When one of them signs a report, you can assume it MAY get translated into reality. Matt Bille (MattWriter@AOL.com) OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR >>called the Air Force Transformation Flight Plan: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >existing space projects, needs arising from the current war, and competing >priorities like fighter planes.) What I found interesting was the fact that this plan goes hand-in-glove with the ideas from the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report; and at least in my opinion indicates the W's Space Exploration Initiative is nothing but a cover for a plan to militarize space, just as I thought it was when I first heard about it. You would really think that a man who describes himself as a "reborn Christian"* wouldn't have a predilection to lie quite as often as the President apparently does, for fear that he will end up in the hot place in the afterlife....but this of course assumes that he isn't also lying about being a reborn Christian... *_Methodist_ reborn Christian....huh? Pat << and at least in my opinion indicates the W's Space Exploration Initiative is nothing but a cover for a plan to militarize space >><BR><BR> I've heard this a few times, and let my explain why it's absurd. First, a minor thing - the terminology is wrong: SEI was the Bush I plan, and Bush II is staying a light year away from that term. More important, look at the technology involved. The centerpiece is the new modular manned system. Completely useless to the Pentagon. (Look through any DoD space plans, and you'll find no consideration of any missions for astronauts.) It's likely to be an unmaneuverable capsule, which DoD will have even less interest in. Possibly there will be some shared technology in things like rendezvous and docking systems and sensors, but that's more likely to be stuff developed for DoD and adapted for NASA, not vice versa. The only thing the NASA initiative will do for DoD - maybe - is restrain some of the EELV cost overruns by creating a new customer for one of the Heavy variants. You can indict Bush on more than one major error, but he's innocent on this charge. There's no reason to think his goals for NASA are anything but what they appear to be. None of the technology NASA is looking at contributes to any Pentagon plan. P.S. The "militarization cover" charge was made logn ago for the Shuttle. What happened to "militarize space" out of that program? Nothing whatsoever. The Shuttle just launched the same kind of military satellites launched before and after by ELVs. Nor has DoD stated any requirement for the space nuclear reactor under NASA's Prometheus (looked at by DoD in the old SDI days, but long since abandoned) or for the Shuttle-derived heavy lifter NASA is considering. Case closed. Matt Bille (MattWriter@AOL.com) OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR >More important, look at the technology involved. The centerpiece is the new >modular manned system. Completely useless to the Pentagon. (Look through any >DoD space plans, and you'll find no consideration of any missions for >astronauts.) I take it you didn't read the section of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" where they talk about the need for a space tug to supply space stations...it's when I first heard about the new spacecraft that Bush proposed that the bells went off, and I realized that these were the things from the "Rebuilding" report: " To ensure America's control of space in the near term, the minimum requirements are to develop a robust capability to transport systems to space, carry on operations once there, and service and recover space systems as needed. As outlined by Space Command, carrying out this program would include a mix of reusable and expendable launch vehicles and vehicles that can operate within space, including "space tugs to deploy, reconstitute, replenish, refurbish, augment, and sustain" space systems. But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to antimissile defenses and defensive systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot be sustained in any other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or air force, or by electronic warfare. This eventuality is already recognized by official U.S. national space policy, which states that the "Department of Defense shall maintain a capability to execute the mission areas of space support, force enhancement, space control and force application." (Emphasis added.) " The "including "space tugs to deploy, reconstitute, replenish, refurbish, augment, and sustain" space systems." part sounds a bit much for an unmanned system, unless you've got some mighty impressive robotic capabilities on board that make the MERs look like wind-up toys in comparison. > It's likely to be an unmaneuverable capsule, which DoD will have >even less interest in. Possibly there will be some shared technology in things [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >charge. There's no reason to think his goals for NASA are anything but what >they appear to be. Whatever his goals are, I think they somehow get lost when Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John Bolton- all of them members of The Project For A New American Century that wrote the "Rebuilding" report. walk into the room. I have yet to see Bush talking while Cheney is drinking a glass of water. > None of the technology NASA is looking at contributes to >any Pentagon plan. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The Shuttle just launched the same kind of military satellites launched before >and after by ELVs. Ever see the plans to carry the Navy's "Space Cruiser" into orbit in a Shuttle? By saving the fuel that was used by it after it came off the second stage of the Poseidon missile and flew into orbit, the Shuttle-launched version had far greater maneuvering capabilities once it was on-orbit; according to "Advanced Technology Warfare" up to eight of the little space fighters could be carried in the Shuttle's cargo bay. Then there was the intended use of the Shuttle for the space based laser program research- what stopped more military use of the Shuttle was the failure to get the Vandenberg launch facility up to spec (possibly influenced by the Soviet's hints that they might well shoot down any Shuttle they saw coming out of there around the time it entered the area of space over their country) and the Air Force becoming so disgusted with the thing's poor reliability in regards to being able to launch on schedule that they ditched their part of the program and went right back to the Titan. >Nor has DoD stated any requirement for the space nuclear reactor under NASA's >Prometheus (looked at by DoD in the old SDI days, but long since abandoned) or >for the Shuttle-derived heavy lifter NASA is considering. > >Case closed. Oh, I suspect there there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Pat >The "including "space tugs to deploy, reconstitute, replenish, >refurbish, augment, and sustain" space systems." >part sounds a bit much for an unmanned system... Actually, there is military work already underway on unmanned systems to do that sort of thing -- the beginnings of it anyway. It's a mistake to read "manned" into such requirements.  SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net >I take it you didn't read the section of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" >where they talk about the need for a space tug to supply space >stations.. The Air Force has been working (albeit with low funding, in fits and starts) on the space tug for several years. All proposals have been robotic. Matt Bille (MattWriter@AOL.com) OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR > What I found interesting was the fact that this plan goes hand-in-glove > with the ideas from the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report; This report seems to be from a group calling itself "Project for the New American Century". This is a private group, no? Is there reason to believe they're a large influence to the Bush administration? SignatureHop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html > This report seems to be from a group calling itself "Project for the > New American Century". > > This is a private group, no? Is there reason to believe they're a > large influence to the Bush administration? Well, as I posted earlier Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John Bolton are all members of this group...and the Bush administration. When you've got the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a member of the National Security Council, Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Defense, and the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security who all are members of this group, it might be well able to influence defense related decisions. Pat >> This report seems to be from a group calling itself "Project for the >> New American Century". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John Bolton are all > members of this group...and the Bush administration. (re-reading thread) Yes, I see you posting that in your reply to MattWriter. In the list of project participants at the end of the pdf I can see Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby. But not the others. Could you give me a pointer to a URL demonstrating their participation? When you've got the > Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, > Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a member of the National Security [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pat Indeed. SignatureHop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html > (re-reading thread) Yes, I see you posting that in your reply to > MattWriter. > > In the list of project participants at the end of the pdf I can see > Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby. But not the others. Could you give me > a pointer to a URL demonstrating their participation? How about from the horse's...mouth...itself? Behold the founders of "The Project For A New American Century" which wrote and published the report; from the group's own website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm I missed Jeb Bush by the way. Dan Quayle's inclusion in the founding members may explain much in relation to the Mars flight idea by W. As we all know: "Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." So a flight to this place can't be all that difficult, although those four-armed giant green martian warriors might be a problem if we don't bring enough Radium fuel along for our blaster cannons. And its present members: http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm Ellen Bork is the daughter of Supreme Court justice nominee Robert Bork. So I guess she gets to cook any game that Cheney and Justice Scalia get on their hunting trips. William Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard, which was bankrolled by Rupert Murdoch. Rand, you got any stories about this guy? Is he liable to run off with a Martian Princess if given a chance? How about the Bush daughters? Pat >> (re-reading thread) Yes, I see you posting that in your reply to >> MattWriter. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm > I missed Jeb Bush by the way. OK, I'm convinced. Seeing these names associated with this manifesto make the other documents you posted seem more ominous. One thing that scares me is the anti-satellite weapons proposals. What are militarily important satellites? Communication satellites come to mind. GPS -- Would Europe's proposed Galileo constellation be potential targets? Making satellites less vulnerable to attack will increase their mass considerably, I'd think. Militarization has the potential to destroy possibility of CATS. > Rand, you got any stories about this guy? It seems to me Rand shows up in ssh only when threads are crossposted to ssh and sci.space.policy. So I don't think he'll see this. Anyway, he's been shrugging off jabs at Murdoch. Just because Fox gives him a venue doesn't make him a Rupert-Borg. SignatureHop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html >>> (re-reading thread) Yes, I see you posting that in your reply to >>> MattWriter. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > One thing that scares me is the anti-satellite weapons proposals. No comment on any pilotical stuff, from me, but ASATS have been a fact of life for about 40 years. (Well, possibly longer than thet if soem folks I know had finished their Private Sector Anti-Sputnik rocket) From 'bout 1964 throught the early '70s, the USAF operated Thor IRBMS with nuclear warheads from Johnston Island, (10th Aerospace Defence Squadron). The U.S> Army operated Nike-Zeus/Spartans as ASATS from Kwajelein. (For all I know, the Army may still have an ASAT role from Kwaj) The SOviets had also demonstrated a Hunter-KIller Sat several times in the '70s as well. Nothing new under the sun, there. > What are militarily important satellites? Communication satellites come > to mind. GPS -- Would Europe's proposed Galileo constellation be > potential targets? They'd have to put it up, first. But it would probably be better to use it, seduce it, or jam it. (Or, far more likely, bribe some bunch of hte multinational operators to so a selective availability thing) > Making satellites less vulnerable to attack will increase their mass > considerably, I'd think. Militarization has the potential to destroy > possibility of CATS. Again, the risks have ben there since the very beginning. ASATs aren't a new threat. Military Sats are already hardened. SignaturePete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster > Again, the risks have ben there since the very beginning. ASATs > aren't a new threat. Military Sats are already hardened. What if an ASAT arms race comes to pass? How hard would armor need to be? Would civilian communication sats also be a potential target? SignatureHop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html >> Again, the risks have ben there since the very beginning. ASATs >> aren't a new threat. Military Sats are already hardened. > > What if an ASAT arms race comes to pass? How hard would armor need to be? > > Would civilian communication sats also be a potential target? In the 1970s, we were pretty sure that an ASAT arms race _had_ come to pass. The Thors of the 10th ADMS had been retired, thankfully, (not that they wouldn't have been effective, but using a 4 MT nuke to kill a satellite is a mite, shall we say, excessive.) but the SOviets were actively demonstrating their hunter-killer sats, and shining lasers on U.S. sats to either blind them or demonstrate a potential capability. We responded with the F-15 launched ASAT, and so it went. And that was just us, and the SOviets, in the 1970s. It could just as easily be done on the simple/cheap, by any nation that can build or launch a sounding rocket, and has gravel. An ASAT, as opposed to a ABM system, doesn't have to be either expensive, sophisticated, or difficult. (Use published orbital elements, or a couple of night's direct observation using stuff you probably have lying around the house to determine the orbit of the target. Take an appropriate-sized sounding rocket, a bucket of rocks, a timer, and a stopwatch. At the appropriate time, fire the sounding rocket on the pre-calculated trajectory. The timer separates the contents of the rock bucket. (A hand grenade will work for this, but there are all sorts of ways to do it without explosives) If you calculated well, the satellite flies through the gravel cloud a t a relative speed of 17,000 or so mph. If you didn't nobody knows. In either case, if you miss, the gravel, which was basically fired straight up, comes straight down, & burns up on atmospheric entry. So, no danger to other satellites, and no evidence.) Civilian aircraft don't carry armor or self-sealing fuel tanks. Or, for that matter, Radar Warning Receivers and Jammers. Other than occasional incidents, such as flying into an active war zone or straying across the Soviet Border, they haven't needed it. Civilian ships aren't compartmented or crewed (For damage control) like warships, and submarines, anti-ship missiles, and mines have been around for more than 100 years. Think of thse things in context - firing on another nation's satellites without due cause would be like firing on another nation's airliners or container ships. Such things can, and are, considered Acts of War, and tend to cause relations to, shall we say, deteriorate. The restraints aren't technical, at all, but political. And, oddly enough, work fairly well, all things considered. SignaturePete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster > The Thors of the 10th ADMS had been retired, thankfully, > (not that they wouldn't have been effective, but using a 4 MT nuke to > kill a satellite is a mite, shall we say, excessive.) Since solar activity has quieted and it appears the atmosphere is less dense at the upper layers than normal, how effective would this be to lift the atmosphere to clean up debris? Yes, I know it would also affect existing good satellites. Not the issue for this question. >We responded with the F-15 launched ASAT, and so it went. What a shame we let that one rot away. dinehnm@yahoo.com has been flooded with viruses since I created it. I'll be retiring it shortly. Note that I don't sent messages *from* that addy, so it's impossible to get back "undeliverable messages". Also, more than 90% of all messages are 142k or 154k in size. > OK, I'm convinced. Seeing these names associated with this manifesto > make the other documents you posted seem more ominous. > > One thing that scares me is the anti-satellite weapons proposals. What scared the living piss out of me was the section in the "Rebuilding" document that says: "... and advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.".... this sounds like something out of the darkest days of the Soviet Union's germ warfare research, and one can only hope that they mean specific types of plants or animals that are useful to the enemy, and not particular genetic subgroups of humanity itself.... cut to scene as an KC-10 Extender flies over United States troops spraying something out the back of the plane, and suddenly one of the troops gets violently ill and falls to the ground vomiting....his Sergeant turns to the rest of the troops, and says: "Funny...he didn't _look_ Arabic...." > What are militarily important satellites? Communication satellites > come to mind. GPS -- Would Europe's proposed Galileo constellation be > potential targets? Yup...one gets the feeling that any satellite that doesn't have the Stars and Stripes on it is a potential target in wartime...and maybe peacetime too. > Making satellites less vulnerable to attack will increase their mass > considerably, I'd think. Militarization has the potential to destroy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > he's been shrugging off jabs at Murdoch. Just because Fox gives him a > venue doesn't make him a Rupert-Borg. No...but if you are living in a whorehouse, and your income comes from the whore's pimp... Pat > What scared the living piss out of me was the section in the > "Rebuilding" document that says: > "... and advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific > genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a > politically useful tool." That is very frightening. >> he's been shrugging off jabs at Murdoch. Just because Fox gives him a >> venue doesn't make him a Rupert-Borg. > > No...but if you are living in a whorehouse, and your income comes from > the whore's pimp... He doesn't get paid for his column. I used to believe Rand was a paid employee of Fox. But he corrected me in his gentle and considerate manner. SignatureHop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html >> No...but if you are living in a whorehouse, and your income comes >> from the whore's pimp... > > He doesn't get paid for his column. I used to believe Rand was a paid > employee of Fox. But he corrected me in his gentle and considerate manner. Now that I think about it, I should have remembered that, as he mentioned the fact before...but this of course _really_ baffles me...selling your soul is one thing; but to just hand it to the devil on a silver platter... somehow I can feel a Devil and Daniel Webster parody coming on.... Pat Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote > cut to scene as an KC-10 Extender flies over United States > troops spraying something out the back of the plane, and suddenly one of > the troops gets violently ill and falls to the ground vomiting....his > Sergeant turns to the rest of the troops, and says: "Funny...he didn't > _look_ Arabic...." Old news. Happens all the time these days. http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html > > cut to scene as an KC-10 Extender flies over United States > > troops spraying something out the back of the plane, and suddenly one of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Old news. Happens all the time these days. > http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html These guys are on to any crop duster as a government plot? MikeWalsh Michael Walsh <mp1walsh@Adelphia.net> wrote > These guys are on to any crop duster as a government plot? Tres elegant, non? > Michael Walsh <mp1walsh@Adelphia.net> wrote > > >> These guys are on to any crop duster as a government plot? > > Tres elegant, non? French! In a thread questioning the motives of the W administration! Where the h@## is Lowther? >Old news. Happens all the time these days. >http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html I knew that the old Chemtrails would arrive shortly after I posted that. :-D Pat > > called the Air Force Transformation Flight Plan: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > existing space projects, needs arising from the current war, and competing > priorities like fighter planes.) well, the Army's Comanche recce helo project is getting cancelled (21 years and 6+ billion clams later, about bloody time they figured out whether they actually need it or not), adn there's a lot of talk about cancelling the Raptor (ditto) and the Osprey (don't even get me started). So new fighter jets aren't exactly up there on the wish list either. Of course, the likely benificiary of all that spare appropriations funding isn't a militarized space program, it's just garden-variety UAVs, which are the official Hot Thing In Aviation these days. Call it "Revenge of all the Air Force Academy grads who weren't accepted into flight school" <g> SignatureTerrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net "It's one thing to burn down the sh.t house and another thing entirely to install plumbing" -PJ O'Rourke "Terrell Miller" > Call it "Revenge of all the Air Force Academy grads > who weren't accepted > into flight school" <g> Yeah I get worried when we rely on computers to defend the nation as well....but that's not important. I call it "realizing the Cold War is over." In the future the military is going to have to go up against little bastards in mud huts instead of global superpowers. The F22 and the Comanche are designed for a more substantive opponent than we can currently find. Come to think of it a video games maker is working on a contract to model the entire planet in a simulation. This is an interesting application of Poindexter's vision of total information. I see no reason why each village and house on the planet, with names, education, income, and politics, could not me modeled and stored in a computer. Mr Gerhorsam, senior VP at There Co. said "There (Co.) was working with the US Army researchers to ensure that *existing models* of the way that things such as crowds and vehicles react can be included in the simulated planet." [Emphasis added.] I admit that I am a little old fashioned and still believe that "gentlemen do not read other people's mail", and so tend to underestimate the extent of the database that the NSA maintains after 50 years of practice, notwithstanding this new app. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3507531.stm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.