The US Space Force

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2018/06/18/34434

The White House’s proposed military Space Force would likely rely heavily on existing personnel from inside the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army, plus a host of other intelligence agencies, experts told USNI News on Monday.

The Space Force was announced by President Trump on Monday. Trump’s directive doesn’t provide mission specifics, but the language suggests the Space Force would be charged with protecting both commercial and government assets in space.

“As space becomes increasingly contested, the demand for the Department of Defense to focus on protecting U.S. space assets and interests also increases. At the same time, the rapid commercialization of space requires a traffic management framework that protects U.S. interests and considers the private sector’s needs,” the directive reads.

But before the proposed sixth branch of the military is formed, Congress needs to approve legislation and the Department of Defense would have to iron out the fine details, according to a Monday afternoon statement from Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White.

 

[sferrin]

Some interesting points raised here.

Trump: ‘We are going to have the Space Force’

Trump can order the Pentagon to create a Space Force but only Congress can make it happen.

President Trump on Monday threw a wrench into the Pentagon’s carefully laid out plans to analyze how best to reorganize the military’s space forces. In remarks kicking off a meeting of the National Space Council, Trump pointedly directed the Pentagon to create a Space Force as a “separate but equal” branch of the U.S. military.

According to sources, Trump’s remarks were not off-the-cuff. He had planned to make this announcement weeks ago, and Pentagon officials had been advised the president would be directing the creation of a Space Force at the June 18 National Space Council meeting. Trump mentioned his desire to have a Space Force at four different events in recent months, and the feedback he received was mostly positive, which motivated him to get the process started sooner rather than later.

http://spacenews.com/trump-we-are-going-to-have-the-space-force/

Wait, you're saying Trump didn't just make it up on the spot? Some people are going to be so disappointed.

 

[Moose]

Who was claiming he made it up yesterday? He's brought it up frequently in the past, it's been covered decently every time. The sudden thing yesterday was that, after over a year of the existing DoD leadership all saying "don't do this, it's wasteful and without a comprehensive plan coordinated with Congress will produce a half-assed result" he did it anyway.

 

[sferrin]

Who was claiming he made it up yesterday? He's brought it up frequently in the past, it's been covered decently every time. The sudden thing yesterday was that, after over a year of the existing DoD leadership all saying "don't do this, it's wasteful and without a comprehensive plan coordinated with Congress will produce a half-assed result" he did it anyway.

"Trump mentioned his desire to have a Space Force at four different events in recent months, and the feedback he received was mostly positive, which motivated him to get the process started sooner rather than later."

Also most outlets are treating this as if he just thought of it yesterday.

 

[Arjen]

Also most outlets are treating this as if he just thought of it yesterday.

A revision of your choice in news sources might be appropriate.

 

[sferrin]

Also most outlets are treating this as if he just thought of it yesterday.

A revision of your choice in news sources might be appropriate.

To be frank I tend to avoid the, "Oh MA GERD Drumph wants a DEATH STAR!" lunatics. YMMV.

 

[antigravite]

Being known for his dictatorship penchant (no names given, ok?) and admiration for Russia, maybe Trump'smove was inspired by his becoming more familiar with the so-called Russian Space Forces, whatever it means, on whichever intel he receives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Space_Forces

A.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Obviously, Trump hasn't heard of Projects HOT EAGLE and SUSTAIN.

 

[Moose]

Who was claiming he made it up yesterday? He's brought it up frequently in the past, it's been covered decently every time. The sudden thing yesterday was that, after over a year of the existing DoD leadership all saying "don't do this, it's wasteful and without a comprehensive plan coordinated with Congress will produce a half-assed result" he did it anyway.

"Trump mentioned his desire to have a Space Force at four different events in recent months, and the feedback he received was mostly positive, which motivated him to get the process started sooner rather than later."

Also most outlets are treating this as if he just thought of it yesterday.

Maybe check different outlets. Most reporting I've sen has been pointing out how long he's beating the drum, and how opposed the DoD has been. Well, that and trying to process how in god's name a sitting President could try to use the phrase "separate but equal" in a positive way.

As for "at four different events in recent months, and the feedback he received was mostly positive" yeah, he's talking about the people cheering when he's mentioned it in speeches. Which has totally happened, but it still doesn't reflect how Defense feels about it. The fact that there were no ready briefing points or official statements forthcoming from anyone immediately after the speech puts lie to the idea that this was a planned rollout. The only release I've seen came hours later, and said

"Our Policy Board will begin working on this issue, which has implications for intelligence operations for the Air Force, Army, Marines and Navy. Working with Congress, this will be a deliberate process with a great deal of input from multiple stakeholders."

Which, again, does not indicate this was a pre-planned rollout working hand-in-hand with the Pentagon, but rather he pulled the trigger suddenly and now they're doing as they're told.

 

[fredymac]

Where is the requirement for a "pre-planned rollout coordinated with DOD approval". Especially if the DOD track record on this issue is best defined as stonewalling.

Institutionally, the Air Force will never agree to separating space activities to an independent service. The Army and Navy will not appreciate having a new competitor for defense dollars.

Civilian control over the military manifests itself in large measure with decisions opposed by the individual services. Formation of a unified Department Of Defense did not come about because the Navy and Army liked the idea of surrendering their individual department level status.

The question is whether space has become so important that it can substantially determine the security of the country. The fact that DARPA and not the Air Force is actively trying to develop means to safeguard and replenish space assets highlights the priority conflict that is forcing this issue.

 

[Moose]

Where is the requirement for a "pre-planned rollout coordinated with DOD approval". Especially if the DOD track record on this issue is best defined as stonewalling.

Institutionally, the Air Force will never agree to separating space activities to an independent service. The Army and Navy will not appreciate having a new competitor for defense dollars.

Civilian control over the military manifests itself in large measure with decisions opposed by the individual services. Formation of a unified Department Of Defense did not come about because the Navy and Army liked the idea of surrendering their individual department level status.

The question is whether space has become so important that it can substantially determine the security of the country. The fact that DARPA and not the Air Force is actively trying to develop means to safeguard and replenish space assets highlights the priority conflict that is forcing this issue.

Nowhere I my post did I claim there was a requirement for anything he had ordered. Everything he's done so far is within his powers to do, no doubt about it, and short of the powers reserved to Congress that would actually make a new service branch happen, he can order all the study and planning he likes. I was pushing back on the notion that posters here or "the media" are overreacting to the suddenness of this announcement, and the suggestion that it was a long-planned rollout with a well-planned push behind it. It's noteworthy, and the lack of greater preparation or consensus-building ahead of time may have long-lasting effects on how, when, or if a "Space Force" happens during his term in office. And even if he had gone about it completely differently, like perhaps a Truman-like Recommendation directly to Congress, that would be worthing noting and discussing as well.

 

[Sherman Tank]

This is so not going to happen.

 

[NeilChapman]

Where is the requirement for a "pre-planned rollout coordinated with DOD approval". Especially if the DOD track record on this issue is best defined as stonewalling.

Institutionally, the Air Force will never agree to separating space activities to an independent service. The Army and Navy will not appreciate having a new competitor for defense dollars.

Civilian control over the military manifests itself in large measure with decisions opposed by the individual services. Formation of a unified Department Of Defense did not come about because the Navy and Army liked the idea of surrendering their individual department level status.

The question is whether space has become so important that it can substantially determine the security of the country. The fact that DARPA and not the Air Force is actively trying to develop means to safeguard and replenish space assets highlights the priority conflict that is forcing this issue.

Nowhere I my post did I claim there was a requirement for anything he had ordered. Everything he's done so far is within his powers to do, no doubt about it, and short of the powers reserved to Congress that would actually make a new service branch happen, he can order all the study and planning he likes. I was pushing back on the notion that posters here or "the media" are overreacting to the suddenness of this announcement, and the suggestion that it was a long-planned rollout with a well-planned push behind it. It's noteworthy, and the lack of greater preparation or consensus-building ahead of time may have long-lasting effects on how, when, or if a "Space Force" happens during his term in office. And even if he had gone about it completely differently, like perhaps a Truman-like Recommendation directly to Congress, that would be worthing noting and discussing as well.

The speech is President Trump's version of Truman's letter. Additionally, I don't believe the Army and Navy were too keen to be subordinate to the Secretary of Defense back in '47 and '49 either.

The concern (by Mattis) to a US Space Force seemed to be related more to additional overhead and the integration of "space support services" between the existing branches. Basically dollars and bureaucracy, not enough of one and too much of the other.

But this is an interesting moment. A Department that can be created from scratch in 2018/19, in the era of the defense department audit and Rapid Capabilities Office under the direction of Mattis is a unique opportunity. There can be efficiencies, controls and management processes defined that are radically different than those used in the Army and Navy - very old bureaucracies.

And there are good reasons to make this decision now.

From ius gentium through canon law by way of de Vitoria (a Dominican by the way) to Grotius' Mare Liberum, the concept of the 'Freedom of the Seas' is a principle most recently defined by the UNCLOS. This 20th century agreement took 2000 years to promulgate. The US has signed but not ratified the agreement but she does recognize this as customary international law. This agreement is an important factor in the movement of ~$20 trillion in world trade. Even though the principle has coalesced over many centuries and is almost universally accepted we still have countries that are arbitrarily claiming 'historic rights' to waters for which they have no historic rights. So we know that nations must be vigilant in defending basic principles. These same principles will be contemplated when deciding how to manage space.

Today, the space economy accounts for ~$350 billion in goods and services of which only ~$5.5 billion is for launch services (transport services). This is a fraction of the ~$20 trillion (~$850B in transport services) in world trade and only accounts for 'basic infrastructure.' But recall that at the turn of the 19th century exports and imports across nations was below 10% of global production. Today that figure is higher than 50%. What changed? Inter-european integration in the 19th century and technological advances such as commercial aviation, productivity improvements and communications in the 20th.

How is that similar to where we are today?

Through quality control, supply chain management and, ultimately, additional cost advantages through reusability, SpaceX has completely disrupted the space launch business. The result being overwhelming US commercial space lift market share, increasing from 0 in 2011 to ~55% last year. SpaceX launch cadence will increase in 2018, Rocket Lab will being commercial launches in 2018 and Virgin Orbit will attempt their first launch this year. Space transport services over the next five years will be completely transformed with multiple new systems in place for human transport, heavy, medium and light cargo lift.

Plummeting costs create opportunities that weren't considered viable just 5 years ago. This is analogous to the technology advancements that reduced transaction costs for trade after World War II. There is every reason to believe that integration and technological advances will result in exponential growth in world trade based in space over the next 50 years.

It is imperative for the United States to look ahead to the security requirements of commerce in space. It need look no further than 1945 and the fundamental changes that took place at the end of World War II. For over 70 years the United States has defended the freedom of the sea - the transport of world trade. There are myriad examples of the benefits provided by US leadership and security. I'll provide one. While world population has increased from less than 2.5 billion in 1945 to over 7 billion today, US security, food production and increased world trade has reduced the number of people living in extreme poverty from ~1.8 billion in 1945 to less than 700 million today.

There are two large economies today. One, while not perfect, is based on democracy, justice, and equity, whose declaration to the world at its inception included an understanding of the intrinsic dignity of the human being stating all "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." The other is based on Marxism and Leninism, with socialism as the foundation of the law with the ultimate goal of social order and control. An ideology responsible for ~100 million deaths over the last 100 years.

As we move forward into a new world trade dynamic that includes space we recognize this opportunity was created by the last 70 years of 'rules based order.' But the status quo norms are being tested. There is a question whether the rules are changing; if we are returning to a previous age of great power politics. If that is the case, then the result, as we know from previous centuries, is 'the rules are set by he who rules.'

If you want to influence the rules in space, then one must be prepared to provide security in space. The only question is who do you want to influence the rules?

 

[fredymac]

It's noteworthy, and the lack of greater preparation or consensus-building ahead of time may have long-lasting effects on how, when, or if a "Space Force" happens during his term in office.

As I noted, there is no consensus when a bureaucracy is protecting its institutional interests. A political consensus in the current political era is foredoomed. Or rather, consensus is when individual politicians know the voters are watching and force them to vote against their party. As usual, this will hinge on the RINO vote and how far they are willing to drop any remaining pretense on who they are.

This is so not going to happen.

Clearly your logic and reasoning leave little room to argue against.

 

[_Del_]

Where is the requirement for a "pre-planned rollout coordinated with DOD approval". Especially if the DOD track record on this issue is best defined as stonewalling.

This. There's a bipartisan push out of the Armed Forces Committee and several GAO reports detailing the current inefficiencies. It's been a 30 year discussion with little headway toward resolution.

However, it's currently being spun as Trump's off the cuff idea for astronauts in space battleships, sooo...

 

[Flyaway]

New SN article on this proposal.

Trump’s Space Force announcement could propel us to deal with space ‘Pearl Harbor’

To know whether we need a Space Force, we must start with current and future threats and how we plan to counter them. By the early 2020s, China will deploy specialized worker-bee spacecraftto clean up space debris and service existing satellites. The United States, Russia, and the European Union will do the same in a similar timeframe. My two papers in 2017and 2018explain how these spacecraft can readily be re-tasked to stalk and, at a moment’s notice, attack U.S. satellites from such close proximity that we will have no time to mount a defense, a situation that can facilitate a space Pearl Harbor.

http://spacenews.com/trumps-space-force-announcement-could-propel-us-to-deal-with-space-pearl-harbor/

 

[Moose]

The President's sudden announcement does not even align with Rep. Mike Rogers' most recent bill which aimed for a "Space Corps" created rapidly within the Department of the Air Force, and neither Rogers nor any other sponsors of his legislation were part of said announcement. In fact I've yet to see Rogers, who's been the banner-bearer of this topic for some time now, endorse the President's speech or rally behind it.

I get that some people accept President Trump's methods as "just the way he does things" and so brush off things that don't align with conventional wisdom as just being a difference style. But I'm not talking about following some Marquess of Queensbury rulebook, I'm not just criticizing him for having a different style. Getting legislation passed, particularly legislation which will include the cost and complexities of a new service branch, requires more than simply stating "we're doing this and if you're true Republicans you will vote for it otherwise you're a Rino." Returning to the Truman example, despite a well-constructed position and broad support for reform from the jump, it took two years of negotiations to produce the new, and in many ways broader than originally envisioned, Act. And the final bill was actually introduced by a member of the opposition party.

Sure, there are uninformed press members, who usually refer to every Navy ship as a "battleship," that are covering this poorly, and a lot of people are making Space Marine jokes on Twitter. But neither of those invalidates that fact that this sudden announcement was made seemingly in a vacuum, appears to have caught supporters and subordinates as well as everyone else off guard, and as of today has been accompanied with no actual push to move the process along. Those aren't great signs for a push to actually accomplish anything, they instead look like the actions of someone who wanted to put in the least amount of effort and get credit for it but hasn't actually laid the groundwork for a positive outcome.

 

[marauder2048]

Where is the requirement for a "pre-planned rollout coordinated with DOD approval". Especially if the DOD track record on this issue is best defined as stonewalling.

This. There's a bipartisan push out of the Armed Forces Committee and several GAO reports detailing the current inefficiencies. It's been a 30 year discussion with little headway toward resolution.

However, it's currently being spun as Trump's off the cuff idea for astronauts in space battleships, sooo...

And a separate space force was OMB's recent (Dec 2017) formal recommendation to Congress.

And according to DoD's interim report, there was supposed to have been a final report on mission
and function scope delivered last Friday as part of the independent study to
support a separate military department for space.

DepSecDef (which commissioned the independent study) has had working sessions (every 2-3 weeks) on space with
"consistent participants" consisting of:

Secretary of the Air Force,
Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
Commander of Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), and
Commander of Air Force Space and Missile Center (SMC).

Media coverage of this issue has been poor; only one source reported on the OMB study.

 

[marauder2048]

The President's sudden announcement does not even align with Rep. Mike Rogers' most recent bill which aimed for a "Space Corps"
created rapidly within the Department of the Air Force, and neither Rogers nor any other sponsors of his legislation were part of said announcement.
In fact I've yet to see Rogers, who's been the banner-bearer of this topic for some time now, endorse the President's speech or rally behind it.

Unsurprising as the OMB study explicitly argues against the form of "Space Corps' Rogers et al. are promoting.

 

[_Del_]

I think the latest push from Rogers and Cooper as part of the NDAA 2018 is to gut several orgs, realigning orgs under Stratcomm and Space Command, and is looking at a quick and dirty USAF-subordinate "Space Corps" near-term as an interim step towards an independent arm.

I can try to dig up links if interested.

 

[fredymac]

I get that some people accept President Trump's methods as "just the way he does things" and so brush off things that don't align with conventional wisdom as just being a difference style. But I'm not talking about following some Marquess of Queensbury rulebook, I'm not just criticizing him for having a different style. Getting legislation passed, particularly legislation which will include the cost and complexities of a new service branch, requires more than simply stating "we're doing this and if you're true Republicans you will vote for it otherwise you're a Rino." Returning to the Truman example, despite a well-constructed position and broad support for reform from the jump, it took two years of negotiations to produce the new, and in many ways broader than originally envisioned, Act. And the final bill was actually introduced by a member of the opposition party.

I am reminded of the recent transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Decades of intent and announcement substituted for action while ever expanding concerns and complications were piled on with credentialed assurances that any unilateral action would provoke catastrophe.

Letting your eyes do the talking helps clear the mind. The Kabuki dance of process and coordination signals something is about to be postponed and buried under layers of obfuscation. How might Shakespeare put it? "It is a narrative proclaimed from on high, full of decorum and nuance, signifying nothing." Of course its usually accompanied by disconsonant howls of invectives which can spoil the effect.

It has taken awhile, but slowly people start to notice. Today, invoking the 50's is usually done in order to condemn them. Useful though when inviting someone to play by rules that no longer apply.

 

[Moose]

I don't recall 1947 being in the 50s, but then math was never my strength. If "the rule" that no longer applies is that one has to build consensus and produce legislation that is well-debated and thoughtfully constructed in order to produce a new Law, well then that's a shame.

 

[kaiserd]

I don't recall 1947 being in the 50s, but then math was never my strength. If "the rule" that no longer applies is that one has to build consensus and produce legislation that is well-debated and thoughtfully constructed in order to produce a new Law, well then that's a shame.

A much more polite response than I could have managed to the risible comments above.
You are a better man than I.

 

[marauder2048]

I don't recall 1947 being in the 50s, but then math was never my strength. If "the rule" that no longer applies is that one has to build consensus and produce legislation that is well-debated and thoughtfully constructed in order to produce a new Law, well then that's a shame.

The '47 act is hardly a great model for thoughtfulness given that you ended up with four military air forces rather than one.

 

[fredymac]

Eventually, Charlie Brown had to turn down Lucy's offer to hold the football. All these calls for bipartisanship mysteriously vanish when politically convenient. There are still rules but now everyone will be playing by them rather than just one side. I might even take up astral projection to divine the motives of those who argue against me.

 

[fightingirish]

Aviation Week & Space Technology podcast: Rep. Rogers on Why the U.S. Needs a Space Corps

When President Donald Trump announced at the National Space Corps that the U.S. would pursue a Space Force, it appeared to come out of the blue.
In fact, Congress has been working its way toward that very goal, and its chief supporter in the House, Rep. Michael Rogers (R-Ala.) joins Aviation Week to explain how that might unfold.

IMHO the United States Special Operations Forces as sixth service branch would be more suitable. Just like in other countries, as for example Poland.
I prefer the U.S. Space Corps as a component of the Department of the Air Force.

 

[bobbymike]

http://spacenews.com/army-troops-could-be-headed-to-the-space-force/

Army Space and Missile Defense Command's Brig. Gen. Tim Lawson: “Do we want to be part of the Space Force? That is yet to be determined"

WASHINGTON — If and when a new military branch for space gets off the ground, its ranks would be dominated by airmen. But Army soldiers also would have a role by virtue of much they rely on military satellites in peacetime or in war.

More than 70 percent of the Army’s major weapons and equipment need satellites to function. About 2,220 active-duty soldiers, reservists and civilians make up the “space forces” under the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command headquartered at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

“We are the biggest users of space,” said Brig. Gen. Tim Lawson, deputy commanding general for operations at the Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

 

[Archibald]

With that authoritarian president, all those exoplanets, and the birth of a "space force" it's official: we have entered the "Starship troopers" timeline (the movie, not the book. and yes, I enjoyed that movie and still enjoy it)

We should beef up those ABM defense around Buenos Aires...

Best line and scene from that movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPTPe33PQY

"Mobile infantry made me the man I am today" ROTFLMAO every time

 

[NeilChapman]

Aviation Week & Space Technology podcast: Rep. Rogers on Why the U.S. Needs a Space Corps

When President Donald Trump announced at the National Space Corps that the U.S. would pursue a Space Force, it appeared to come out of the blue.
In fact, Congress has been working its way toward that very goal, and its chief supporter in the House, Rep. Michael Rogers (R-Ala.) joins Aviation Week to explain how that might unfold.

IMHO the United States Special Operations Forces as sixth service branch would be more suitable. Just like in other countries, as for example Poland.
I prefer the U.S. Space Corps as a component of the Department of the Air Force.

If we think about 'space' as we think about 'oceans' today then in future there will ultimately be several US military services represented.

The Marine Corps is mandated in US law as the 'tip of the spear'. The Navy transports them on sea. Perhaps the 'Space Corps' will transport them in space?

But the first group openly providing 'security patrols' in space should be a redefined Coast Guard. This will create the image the US wants to project that she is not 'weaponizing' space but protecting trade. But what to call them? Perhaps revert to Revenue Cutter Service rather than Coast Guard? I like the idea of naming their space ships after the original cutters.

USRC Vigilant
USRC Active
USRC General Greene
USRC Scammell
USRC Argus
USRC Diligence
USRC Eagle

Great names!

I wonder what kind of deal the 'USRCS' could get on 20 BFR's and a few dozen Bigelow B330 space modules? I'm guessing much less than one would think.

How cool would it be to have outposts in space manned by a 'USRCS'? We couldn't call them 'Coasties' anymore.

 

[sferrin]

With that authoritarian president, all those exoplanets, and the birth of a "space force" it's official: we have entered the "Starship troopers" timeline (the movie, not the book. and yes, I enjoyed that movie and still enjoy it)

We should beef up those ABM defense around Buenos Aires...

Best line and scene from that movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPTPe33PQY

"Mobile infantry made me the man I am today" ROTFLMAO every time

"MEDIC!!!"

 

[Grey Havoc]

Death by committee for the USSF?: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2018/07/25/ndaa-story/

 

[NeilChapman]

Death by committee for the USSF?: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2018/07/25/ndaa-story/

Perhaps it's smart. Report isn't due until 8/1. Bureaucracies need time to get their head around changing direction. Don't need a new fight sucking up oxygen when there are so many other things to make happen before the mid-terms.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2018/07/pentagon-create-space-force/150157/

n coming months, Defense Department leaders plan to stand up 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, and a new warfighting community that draws space operators from all service branches. These sweeping changes — on par with the past decade’s establishment of cyber forces — are the part the Pentagon can do without lawmakers’ approval.

 

[NeilChapman]

Posted in SpaceX thread...

Frankly I anticipated this news would have come eight months ago. But here it is...

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/08/02/one-possible-job-for-spacexs-bfr-taking-the-air-forces-cargo-in-and-out-of-space/

AMC, air transport for all services, including Space Force?

 

[Flyaway]

And the deal is done the US will have a space force.

The debate is over. The United States will have a Space Force as a separate branch of the military.

In a joint appearance at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary James Mattis on Thursday, Vice President Mike Pence laid out the Trump administration’s plan to create a U.S. Space Force. It was only seven weeks ago that President Trump directed DoD to begin the process.

The president has made it a priority to “restore America’s proud history of leadership in space,” Pence said. “Space is essential to the nation’s security and prosperity.”

https://spacenews.com/vice-president-pence-announces-first-steps-towards-creating-a-new-military-branch-for-space/

 

[TomS]

No it isn't done. Still no congressional action to create the new service.

 

[fightingirish]

The Trump campaign is already fundraising off of Space Force

:
Twitter: https://t.co/WJjrHawxgP

 

[Moose]

Why would the Space Force have Mars in it's logo, or use the Swoosh? Are they planning to put NASA under this service?

 

[TomS]

Because whoever slapped that trash together has no idea what the Space Force would do, assuming it ever gets created. None of those logos stand any chance of becoming a real military service ensignia.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/united-states-to-spend-8-billion-over-next-5-years-on-space-force-14679222

One of the lasting legacies of the Trump administration could be the creation of Space Force, the sixth branch of the military to defend the United States' interests in space.

Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday, Aug. 9, speaking at the Pentagon, laid out the administration's plan to combat what it says has been aggressive moves by rivals toward militarizing space.

"For many years, nations from Russia to China to North Korea and Iran have pursued weapons to jam, blind and disable our navigation and communication satellites via electronic attacks from the ground," Pence said. "But recently, our adversaries have been working to bring new weapons of war into space itself."