The Space Thread

@Amitakartok: Any link? Excerpt, maybe?

edited 22nd Jun '18 5:27:11 PM by ViperMagnum357

Hey, so Trump said he want's to make a Space Force. Do we not have treaties in place that prevent the militarization of space?

@Will Keaton: No. Space is already militarized, with communication and spy satellites playing a big part in war, and there are weapons which go through space (such as ICB Ms). And there is already a space branch of the air force.

The only rule is "you can't store nukes up in space or detonate them there".

The Outer Space treaty does not forbid the deployment or placement of conventional weapons in orbit or in space. It only forbids WMD's with an emphasis on nuclear weapons. So no CBRN weapons or weapons that could considered weapons or devices of mass destruction.

There will very likely be a need for a Space Force in the future, might as well get it started now and have it already established and the groundwork laid for when it's truly needed. Many jobs to be created too.

Not to mention that military R&D always produces the best toys due to better funding and some of that is bound to trickle down into the civilian sector later on.

Its competing over a limited budget that could be better spent on more imediate needs however, things like bolstered cyberwarfare capabilities.

Don't let the US military's large budget fool you, most of it goes to things they don't need, while ingnoring the things they do, and syphoning more for something they don't right now just invites a repeat of 2016

Its not like you need a specialized branch to start with any way, the air force wasn't a thing until after WWII, dispite aircraft playing a key role actively at that time.

Only if you're an American. The RAF was established in 1918, before the First World War had even finished, the RAAF in 1921, the RNZAF in 1923 and the RCAF in 1924, just to name a few. The US was very late in organising their own independent air force.

But despite Protagonist 506 's insistence, there is a very distinct line between communication and spy satellites and actual weapons platforms. Put enough of those in orbit and the need to neutralise them is just going to cause a Kessler cascade. The thing about space debris is that it doesn't go away, it hangs around and becomes a threat to all space based infrastructure, military and civilian, belligerent and neutral.

edited 23rd Jun '18 3:41:53 AM by KnightofLsama

Hah, we got RAF beat by a month. Not that we had much anything in the beginning.

I'm of the opinion that if you're going to have a space military it should be an international collaboration. A third party that isn't beholden to any authority but the UN and existing Space programs (as to avoid being a Private Military Contractor), and that it should dedicate some of its logistics to more peaceful ends like say, space exploration and maybe colonization. I say this because I don't trust certain nations (namely the one whose president wants a Space Force) to not attempt a space arms race the moment they get a chance and I certainly do not trust Trump to be the boss of such a military.

edited 23rd Jun '18 6:42:39 AM by MorningStar1337

There are already space forces, they're just organised differently. The arms race has been on for a while.

@Morning Star: If there were aliens or a rogue colony that might make sense, but currently the primary purpose of a space force would be to protect one nation from other nations.

Case in point

China-based hackers burrow inside satellite, defense, and telecoms firms

My problem isn't with the idea of a Space Force per se, it's that I'm willing to bet that Trump's concept of one resembles something out of a bad 50s or 60s movie.

edited 23rd Jun '18 2:56:26 PM by tricksterson

It is one of the many things that in theory might be a decent idea but not if Trump is the one implementing it. He is bound to screw it up. It is what he does.

If we do get a space force, we're gonna need to get cracking making more space based weapons like lasers and plasma cannons, because the lack of oxygen will make earth based traditional bombardments almost useless, especially missles and rockets that use fuel that needs to oxidize for them to be useful.

Basically, play catch up with any sort of space military aliens have in case we end up running into hostile ones.

Most guns actually can fire in space. Modern gunpowder has an oxidizing agent mixed in with it, which means that even in a vacuum it can burn. Same goes for missiles IIRC.

Bullets would tend to be pretty deadly weapons in space, particularly because there's no air friction. Also, there currently isn't any armor in space yet.

Now with an alien invasion, it'll be many centuries before humanity could realistically defend itself from one. Not specifically even because of technology, but because of the sheer scale of ancient, interstellar civilizations. To put it this way: the over-the-top scale of the various factions in 40K is actually being rather conservative.

Whether or not we could defend ourselves would largely depend upon the aliens themselves. Our best bet would be that we're not being attacked by the actual alien civilization but by some space pirates or something.

The Soviets actually sent up a space station armed with a cannon, and we were planning on doing the same. Missiles should work fine up there too.

Realistically, our main enemy in space is China. Aliens aren't even in the picture.

and space rocks

You realise that you just failed physics, engineering and chemistry all in one with that statement? As others have mentioned, most modern propellants for firearms contain an oxidiser which means they can fire in a vacuum. There are engineering challenges involving the lubricants for the moving parts but they are not insurmountable.

However the important part is that rockets by definition carry both fuel and oxidiser which they burn to create thrust. If it takes in oxygen (or theoretically some other oxidising agent) from the surrounding environment to burn with it's fuel, it's jet engine not a rocket. (By this definition nuclear "rockets" aren't technically rockets since they don't use an oxisider and are more closely related to ion drives). A missile can theoretically be made from either a rocket or an air breathing engine, (though in practice you only actually find rockets) it just refers to a self propelled projectile, usually with an explosive warhead. In theory you could simply take an existing aircraft mounted missile that uses a monopropellant (fuel and oxidiser in a single substance) and as long as it was properly sealed and insulated it would work fine in space.

You are mostly correct, though as an addendum, long range non-balistic missiles... do actualy tend to use jet engines here on earth. Mostly because you need about 3 times as much oxidizer as fuel for an efficient burn, and carrying all that with you just eats right into your range.

As such, anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles tend to have an initial rocket boost, jettison the booster, and then do the majority of there trip on a turbo-jet.

But the short range pure rocket missiles? They would work just fine as a long range missile in space due to the lack of air resistance.... and are actualy used to shoot down satellites as is.

edited 25th Jun '18 5:30:41 PM by Imca

Why Europe's astronauts are learning Chinese

@Demongod: The main threat in space right now are confrontational countries, not aliens. If there were an intelligent civilization travelling around in spaceships near us, one of our observatories would have spotted them already. Another space race is likely to happen as well.

Thanks for that. Did not know about the mid-range missiles using turbo-jet engines.

Underground lake of liquid water found on mars.

Well, holy shit.