Bush Reveals New Space Policy 510
Josh Fink writes "Space.com is reporting that President Bush has unveiled his new space policy. From the article: 'U.S. assets must be unhindered in carrying out their space duties,' the Bush space policy says, stressing that 'freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.'... As a civil space guideline, the policy calls upon NASA to 'execute a sustained and affordable human and robotic program of space exploration and develop, acquire, and use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe.' While this policy does seem to push for more civil involvement in space for exploration and research, the article does go on to say, 'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."' So it will push into the intelligence community, and will supercede a similar policy from 1996. You can read the entire policy."
Space Race 2.0 (Score:4, Informative)
So it seems the Space Arms Race is begining afresh. We just have to hope that the technology it produces outweighs the destruction.
OT: IBM AD BREAKING PAGE LAYOUT! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Translation (Score:2, Informative)
"The PNAC also proposes to control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service -- U.S. Space Forces -- with the mission of space control."
Re:Is this possible? (Score:2, Informative)
in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including
the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal Subcommittee in 1966 and agreement was reached in the General Assembly in the same year (resolution 2222 (XXI). The Treaty was largely based on the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, which had been adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 1962 (XVIII) in 1963, but added a few new provisions. The Treaty was opened for signature by the three depository Governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America) in January 1967, and it entered into force in October 1967. The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles:
* the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
* outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
* outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
* States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
* the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
* astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
* States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities;
* States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
* States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.
98 States have ratified, and an additional 27 have signed the Outer Space Treaty (as of 1 January 2006).For further information, see the Treaty Status Index.
The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies is available in the following languages and formats.
Oops.. I meant 'uninhabitable' (Score:2, Informative)
But hopefully, you get the point.
The nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s caused thousands of cases of cancer in the US, they now realize.
Thousands of 9-11 survivors are also now battling for medical care for the COPD=like symptoms that they have. Nobody wants to pay. These people were called heroes. Now their health is gone. The EPA claimed everything was safe. They lied.
See the New York Times website for an excellent series of stories on this medical nightmare that they are dealing with and the serious denial they are facing from society on their sicknesses.
Re:A fundamental rule of warfare..... (Score:4, Informative)
More than just a launch platform (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree with this point.
You can put far more ordnance on a ballistic missile submarine than you can practically put on a satellite, and they are more survivable. Each Ohio-class submarine, if loaded completely (and currently they are not; treaties require that each missile carry a reduced number of warheads than they are designed for), can carry enough megatonnage to pretty much wipe out the continent of your choice, or at least glass its major cities over. Each submarine has 24 missile tubes, each missile capable of 8 independently-targetable 475-kt warheads, so that's 192 warheads per submarine (totaling about 91.2 MT gross yield). It would take either a large constellation of armed satellites (difficult to hide) or a smaller number of very large ones, to give you the capability of each submarine. By virtue of being underwater they are both difficult to detect and track, and almost impossible to wipe out in a first strike -- the ocean is a pretty good absorber of radiation and energy. Satellites in space, even "stealth" ones, would be easier to track and destroy.
As a nuclear launch platform submarines are as close to a perfect first-strike or retaliatory weapon as you could want; and as they're crewed by human beings they have a level of intelligence that would be difficult to replicate using remotely-controlled satellites.
While I think there might be a few advantages to a satellite launch platform, as simply another way of dropping weapons onto a target, there's not enough to justify the expense.
If you want to see why the U.S. is interested in putting nukes in space for military reasons, you have to look elsewhere than just at launch capabilities. The real reasons for wanting weapons up there is as an ICBM defense; if you want National Missile Defense, you need satellites as another layer in addition to ground and air-based interceptors. The U.S. doesn't need nukes in space simply to be able to wipe out a theoretical enemy's cities, but it does need it in order to build up "defense in depth" against missiles, and to engage in anti-satellite and EMP warfare. There's no real point in spending billions on yet another method of ground-attack, a capability that we already have in spades.
Re: orbital plane shifting (Score:3, Informative)
If I have a vector velocity in one direction, and I add another force vector perpendicular to the original, I've done two things: the resultant vector has a new direction; the resultant vector has a larger velocity than the original. So I managed to change both my orbital plane (a little) and my altitude (more than a little.) So now I need to slow down to put myself in the same altitude as I origially was. Basically, I need [2 * (launch energy) * sin(angle change)] Joules of energy to make an orbital plane change. If you try to change your plane by 90 degrees, it costs you 2x the launch-energy to do so. (Please pardon the simplifications
That's just the on-orbit energy requirement. Don't forget you've got to ferry the necessary fuel to orbit so you can use it for plane changes. Also realize that I'm talking about delta-vector-velocity here. I don't care how you implement it - a big chemical rocket takes less time than an ion engine, but the energy required for a given delta-V is the same in both cases (measured at thrust output so we can ignore the efficiencies of either technique.) A large orbital plane change is probably the most expensive maneuver you can perform. Launching a new space station into a useful orbit is probably a more cost-effective solution. Really. And yes, IAARS.