DescentBB

Now the space station we took so long to build with international 'help' may be junked in a few years.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/ ... n-in-2020/

It will be 9 years and change- and perhaps it will have outlived its usefulness (many would probably argue it wasn't of much use to begin with), but the era of the US in manned space missions does seem to have come to an end. Is there any real promise in private manned space ventures or is it all vapor in the end?

...did you even read the rest of the article? Everyone else quoted pretty much said that they have no idea why the official made that statement. The initial end date for the ISS program was set at 2020, but there isn't any technical reason why it can't continue operations beyond then, and the general expectation is that the program will be extended for several years.

And yes, there's a great deal of promise in private space enterprise. With any luck, SpaceX will have their projects to the ISS up and running within five years, and there are other companies working along similar lines.

I'm no expert but my impression from following the whole Shuttle development and reading what the 'experts' said about it during that time is that the main benefits from the Shuttle are from the development of that vehicle as much as anything it enabled us to do on actual missions. It was very expensive and had lots of problems.
A "disposable" vehicle is a better solution.

As for a space station, I think that has plenty of benefits, even more so if you are going to use small disposable rockets to move people and gear from the surface to orbit. I look forward to a time when we have the next phase of U.S. sourced and controlled systems in orbit and available for our use.
I can't imagine us not pressing forward to build our own permanent station.

I think the first country to implement a viable military technology and presence in space will hold a serious advantage if they establish the ability to take sole possession of the earths orbit. It will be a turning point that will have to be measured on a scale greater than any other. In today's terms I think it would be like putting our current navy up against everyone else using rafts and canoes. It could end up like us parking aircraft carriers of the coast and the defenders on the beaches attacking us with catapults!

Will Robinson wrote:I think the first country to implement a viable military technology and presence in space will hold a serious advantage if they establish the ability to take sole possession of the earths orbit. It will be a turning point that will have to be measured on a scale greater than any other.

I'm pretty sure there is at least one international treaty forbidding this.

I'm pretty sure there is at least one international treaty forbidding this.

Why?

[quote="Will Robinson"

I think the first country to implement a viable military technology and presence in space will hold a serious advantage if they establish the ability to take sole possession of the earths orbit. It will be a turning point that will have to be measured on a scale greater than any other. In today's terms I think it would be like putting our current navy up against everyone else using rafts and canoes. It could end up like us parking aircraft carriers of the coast and the defenders on the beaches attacking us with catapults![/quote]

I think China will be that first country:

"Chinese news outlets report that Tiangong-1 is built to serve as a rendezvous and docking platform for China's future spacecraft. Once in Earth orbit, it would be followed by blastoff of an unpiloted Shenzhou-8 spacecraft in the latter half of this year, to carry out the nation's first space docking."

http://www.space.com/12411-china-space- ... aunch.html

"China is aggressively accelerating the pace of its manned space program by developing a 17,000 lb. man-tended military space laboratory planned for launch by late 2010. The mission will coincide with a halt in U.S. manned flight with phase-out of the shuttle."

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0903/02chinastation/

Unless we have some black programs for a military presence in space, it looks like the Chinese are going all out for the militarization of space and will gain ascendancy as a global military power because of it. So much for space being the wonderful weapons free place.

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I think the first country to implement a viable military technology and presence in space will hold a serious advantage if they establish the ability to take sole possession of the earths orbit. It will be a turning point that will have to be measured on a scale greater than any other.

I'm pretty sure there is at least one international treaty forbidding this.

Treaty speak with forked tongue.

flip wrote:

I'm pretty sure there is at least one international treaty forbidding this.

Why?

Because militarizing space is a horrible idea.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0903/02chinastation/

Then this is a huge present threat then and a violation of said treaty?

Importantly, China is openly acknowledging that the new Tiangong outpost will involve military space operations and technology development.

Also the fact it has been given a No. 1 numerical designation indicates that China may build more than one such military space laboratory in the coming years.

Meet the new boss.

Also the fact it has been given a No. 1 numerical designation

Also the fact it has been given First Priority

We diminish our interests in space at the very same time China declares it first priority?

Military outposts in space. Ok I'll quit, LOL , but that ★■◆● scares the ★■◆● out of me. Is there no opposition to this?

The Chinese also pissed off much of the international community by testing a surface to space missile on one of their defunct satellites, which blew up the satellite and scattered its debris about in orbit. But that raises another point about attempting to build a military outpost in space, it is a trivial matter for a number of governments including the US to destroy any orbiting satellite or station, we have had the technology to do so for decades.

Any country attempting to take military conflict in to space has to consider that one wrong move and in a very short time all orbiting satellites could be reduced into a giant field of shrapnel hurtling around the globe at orbital velocities which would deny ANY country the use of space for upwards of a century (or possibly longer) till it all finally fell out of orbit. Any government that contemplates militarization of space would likely come to the same conclusion: its incredibly difficult to get something into orbit but relatively trivial for a number of world governments to blow it up once it is there, so it isn't worth the risk.

Interesting, I would still feel more at ease if I saw a balance of power, and if this was front page news.

Krom wrote:Any country attempting to take military conflict in to space has to consider that one wrong move and in a very short time all orbiting satellites could be reduced into a giant field of shrapnel hurtling around the globe at orbital velocities which would deny ANY country the use of space for upwards of a century (or possibly longer) till it all finally fell out of orbit. Any government that contemplates militarization of space would likely come to the same conclusion: its incredibly difficult to get something into orbit but relatively trivial for a number of world governments to blow it up once it is there, so it isn't worth the risk.

Since when would that stop someone or some government from doing something stupid to the orbital space lanes? WE didn't think of that at first when we left all our space junk floating around because it was easier to just leave it there. NOW we realize it's a big problem. And during some possible future space war, what aggressor country is going to care about space junk they leave behind as long as whatever they do denies the other nation the ability to use that space.

They'll care because it'll deny them access to space.

I think the current thinking is, to take the high ground when a war starts…instead of being there from the beginning.

null0010 wrote:

flip wrote:

I'm pretty sure there is at least one international treaty forbidding this.

Why?

Because militarizing space is a horrible idea.

Believing outer space is somehow the only place where humans won't take their military might because of a piece of paper is a much worse idea.

As to the vulnerability of targets that Krom pointed to, I guess things in orbit will always be easy to find but of the countries that have that ability to find it AND hit it there are currently few. Soon enough there will be challenges between countries like China and the U.S. demanding the inspection of space bound cargo on the suspicion that weapons are being built in space. I imagine after we hit that stage it won't be long before one or the other decides to tell the other to piss off and then the standoff begins...shoot down the U.S. Space Station that you just know has weapons on it but it also has Mrs. Jones the 8th grade Science Teacher of the Year as a guest on board? All those satellites ...how many will have a warhead on board in the near future...how many do now?

I think it is inevitable that space becomes someones territory and militarized pretty much in the same moment. Probably will start with fights over the rights to geosynchronous orbit over countries and/or continents.
Governments are just waiting/racing towards the moment when the technology becomes worth the fight to put their goods there.

If China starts to look like they are doing it the U.S. will quickly form an alliance with select allies to win that race out of survival instinct. Then Russia will join China or try on their own if they think they are close.
If we have some lame wimpy President who doesn't understand it we could lose out. I don't think even Obama is that lame though. The Shuttle wasn't our only hope for future development in space it was just one in a long line of tools we used for getting up there and back.