babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » The Moon Belongs to US

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Moon Belongs to US
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 04 December 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What do these two stories have in common?

Bush to Announce Orbiting Battle Platform?

(this was linked to Drudge)

quote:
Pajamas Media has learned that the Bush administration is going to ask Congress for funding to begin development of an “orbital battle station” that will be able to attack enemy missiles in their vulnerable boost phase.

Each Battle Station would be a fairly large satellite that carried a number, perhaps 40 to 50 infrared guided “kill vehicles.” On orders from the ground, the battle station would launch these kill vehicles, roughly about the size of a loaf of bread, at incoming missiles. Professor Everett Dolman of the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama and the author of %%Amazon= 0714681970 Astropolitik - Classical Geopolitics in The Space Age%%, says that space based systems are “the only viable option for global defense against the most likely threats, such as an attack by Iran against Israel or by Pakistan against India.”

“The technology,” Dolman said, “for a basic orbital interceptor that could hit an ICBM in mid flight has been available to the U.S. for at least two decades. Indeed should the U.S. dedicate itself to a fast track development and deployment of several dozen networked anti-missile satellites, it could have a baseline capability in place within two years.”

The Bush administration pending request for an orbital battle station will surely touch off a brawl over “space weaponization”. Loren Dealy a spokeswoman for the Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee told Pajamas Media: “Our members have serious concerns with the concept of space-based interceptors.”


and this:

BBC: US Plans Permanent Base on the Moon

quote:
US space agency Nasa has said it plans to start work on a permanently-occupied base on the Moon after astronauts begin flying back there in 2020.

The base is likely to be built on one of the Moon's poles and will serve as a science centre and possible stepping stone for manned missions to Mars.

The US has already said it plans to build a new lunar spacecraft to succeed the last Apollo mission in 1972.

Funds will be moved from space shuttle flights, due to be scrapped in 2010.


If they can find the money for all of this by 2020 with the state of oil depletion and global climate change by then, I'll be shocked. But they, the masters of the universe always seem to have the money to do what they want to.

So its on to militarizing space then for the glory of the Homeland. We'll land up bombing Mars by 2025 (paraphrasing an old Mad Magazine sticker from the early 70s that read "BOMB MARS NOW." Irony).


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 04 December 2006 07:49 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah they're wasting so much money on this stuff. Like totally, you know, NASA's budget is a gargantuan 17 billion a year or just about a mammoth 0.05-0.1% of total federal spending by Washington.

Leave aside the fact that no successful civilization in the history of mankind has not had excellent astronomy. Your linking of article number 1 to article number is frivolous. It's like linking better commercial airliners with better fighter jets, or better sail boats with better submarines.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 04 December 2006 07:57 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apples, seriously, the whole raison d'etre for the US in space is defence whether it be orbiting battle platforms or moon bases. They are linked. You just have to think not like NASA, but like the Pentagon. If they really are serious about this, NASA's budget will swell but most of this will undoubtedly be in the Pentagon black budget.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 04 December 2006 08:08 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes and No. I don't see many military applications for the Hubble Space Telescope, or the James Webb Space Telescope, or the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. The International Space Station has to the best of my knowledge devolved into a 100 billion dollar physiology project. These are scientific aims, not military aims. Of course though, you can argue that the military is wise to let some of the smartest people on Earth work on what they're good at as over time there will be spinoff technologies. I've worked two jobs in Astronomy. I don't think I've met one individual yet whose goal it is to build neater weapons.

It's more of a national prestige and national pride thing as I see it. We're seeing this boom into manned exploration these days because China and India are heavily investing into manned exploration. They're doing this as an issue of pride. Just because there are spinoffs for national defense doesn't mean it's purely a national defense project.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 04 December 2006 08:15 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We'll agree to disagree and time will tell. Its not the astronomers I'm worried about, of course. How many space shuttle payloads were classified Pentagon projects? Several as I recall. I know the US wants to militarize space. Whether you agree with me on the dots I connect, again, time will tell. I do not trust this bunch, however, and no one should.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 04 December 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
God, how badly would a U.S. soldier have to screw up to get posted to Moon duty?
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 04 December 2006 08:30 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know 18 months on the moon doesn't sound so bad, sounds like an adventure. Probably safer than 18 months in Baghdad.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 04 December 2006 08:31 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
It's like linking better commercial airliners with better fighter jets, or better sail boats with better submarines.

Ummm, there is a link. But the link works in the opposite direction. Cutting edge developments are often made in military research, and only afterward applied in civilian settings. Kind of like the internet, eh?


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 05 December 2006 07:48 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed, but in general it works the other way around. The greatest intellectual advances of the twentieth century, relativistic quantum mechanics and general relativity, were not designed as military initiatives. 100 years later we may have rockets and the internet, but we also have telecommunications by sattelite, lasers, semiconductors, GPS, computers, et cetera.

quote:
Kind of like the internet, eh?

You can't have the internet without first having computers, and an advanced telecommunication systems.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 05 December 2006 10:24 AM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Japan, India, and China have all announced lunar missions, as well. Is it just about prestige?

France is betting $10Billion on fusion research. Perhaps they want to be positioned to use what is lying about the lunar surface, heliium-3. The last I heard, a shuttle loaded to the gunwales with the stuff would be worth $300Billion.


From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 07 December 2006 10:15 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Russia may very well become a uniting player within the space race. Instead of announcing their own moon mission... They announce:

quote:
Russia hopes to join the U.S. moon exploration program by adding its technology and know-how, a Russian space agency spokesman said Thursday.

Russia was conducting talks with NASA and voiced hope that a deal could be reached within months, said the spokesman, Igor Panarin.


Whats interesting... Is this has echoes to canadian involvement within Nasa. Technology and manpower (knowledge base) is being offered, but not financial backing.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca