The United States Space Force

They are really promoting a bit of space around Earth as ‘the final frontier’?

I’m not sure whom they are going to be forceful against, but I guess it allows Trump to claim to be the best leader ever of the inner Solar System, if not the Universe.

As powerful as Trump and the US want to be, they are currently struggling to fight off with the tiniest of threats (particles ranging from 0.06 to 0.14 microns), a virus from Earth.

Leave a comment

48 Comments

  1. duperez

     /  16th May 2020

    The comparisons are going to come…
    Can’t handle a question on the White House lawn from a woman journalist but can get everyone into Marvel comics territory.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th May 2020

      His answer made perfect sense.

      Reply
      • duperez

         /  16th May 2020

        To him and those whom wanted to see some sort of scene. The answer exposed his abilities and spoke to his motivation. Clearly it didn’t address the actual question.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  16th May 2020

          Of course it did. A) China was responsible, and B) China doesn’t front to any media interrogation.

          Reply
          • duperez

             /  16th May 2020

            He gave an answer, he didn’t answer the question(s):

            Questions: “You’ve said many times said that the US is doing far better than any other country when it comes to testing. Why does that matter? Why is this a global competition to you if every day more Americans are losing their lives and we’re seeing more cases every day?”
            Answer: “Well they’re losing their lives everywhere in the world and maybe that’s a question you should ask China. Don’t ask me, ask me ask China that question, okay?”

            It was about him seeing testing as a global competition, him saying the US is doing far better than anyone else. That has nothing to do with China. The question wasn’t about where the virus came from or China not talking, it was about his perspective and attitude.

            Was he adroit enough to say, “I always want the US to be best at everything, I want us to be the best in the world, that is always my aim. I don’t apologise for that. That’s why we’re doing testing, doing what we can to save American lives. Next please … over there …”?

            I’m not sure he’s adept enough to have deliberately said out to cause controversy with choosing the specific words he used. I think he just went into his defensive paranoia mode, grabbed the closest dominating thing from his default position.

            There used to be a thing called ‘creative listening.’ Before you can have that there has to be listening.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th May 2020

              It was five questions and a speech which could only be answered by a speech which would inevitably be cherry picked to pull out something that could be cast negatively.

              If he’d given your answer it would have been run with an example of testing failure or some invidious comparison with a more successful regime. He knows how the media game is played so he gave a counter attack answer which played to his constituency not theirs.

    • Pink David

       /  16th May 2020

      You mean like this woman?

      Reply
      • duperez

         /  16th May 2020

        That’s the woman brought in no doubt as a expert at playing the game they need to play. The first time I saw her she gave information which was wrong, patently wrong, blatant lies.

        Reply
    • Gezza

       /  16th May 2020

      It appears the Space Force Commander-in-Chief is qualified:

      Reply
      • Zedd

         /  16th May 2020

        ‘I am your father…’ sez Darth Vader 😀

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  16th May 2020

          Unfortunately he’s not in action here. He’s just told everyone that he doesn’t need to see the manual; nobody knows more about flying space fighters than him, & thought he’d hit the engine start button. 😐

          Reply
  2. Corky

     /  16th May 2020

    According to conspiracy theorists, the space force already exists. The problem for the president and the public is no one knows who or what controls the black budget and projects.

    Maybe Trumpy does?

    Both Kennedy and Reagan had used the analogy of an alien threat to mankind in their speeches.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  16th May 2020

      I don’t think either of them would have evisaged the alien threat to the US & mankind coming in the form of an orange-hued (instead of a green-hued one) narcissistic con artist taking over the White House & causing havoc.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  16th May 2020

        Latest Gallup poll has Trumpy at 49% approval. The aliens are winning.

        Reply
      • couldn’t have put it better Gezza 😀

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  16th May 2020

          To be fair, Zedd, you see aliens dancing around the bong every night.😂

          Reply
          • really corky.. so; what do you see ?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  16th May 2020

              He might be busy getting set up with a wrap around screen to watch Dirty Harry on Prime @ 9.30?

            • Corky

               /  17th May 2020

              My drug is exercise. After doing 200 Kettlebell Swings with a 40kg bell, the only thing I see is stars and haze..purple haze, man!

    • NOEL

       /  16th May 2020

      Rebranding for votes.
      Wonder if the Chinese will continue with a belt and space road to bring internet to the masses?
      https://www.businessinsider.com.au/us-establishes-space-force-to-support-space-command-operations-2019-12r=usir=t

      Reply
    • Corky

       /  16th May 2020

      Google:

      The ‘black budget’ allows intelligence activities, covert operations and classified weapons
      research to be conducted without Congressional oversight on the grounds that oversight would compromise the secrecy essential for the success of such ‘black programs’.

      ”The black budget can be complicated to calculate, but in the United States it has been estimated to be over US$50 billion a year.”

      Roswell, Project Stargate, Operation Paperclip…the list is endless.

      Reply
  3. Duker

     /  16th May 2020

    Its something I have followed , and the money comparison is absurd.
    The USAF had a Space Command with 1000s or service personnel and $billions in its budget.
    AS the various parts of the AF are moved over in the next year, the numbers and $ ( all existing) will increase
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command

    What Trump has achieved is renaming of the USAF Space Command into the US Space Force ( with a few minor space bits from the other military services) with the same spending and the same personnel.

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  16th May 2020

      The most significant difference is it becomes a distinct service out from under the AF. That means it has a greater voice when it comes to the overall military command.

      That is the actual change.

      Reply
  4. NOEL

     /  16th May 2020

    Agree Duker. Rebranding like any large chain. Buildings given a new colour paint and changed letterhead.
    PG this aircraft probably.
    https://newatlas.com/x37b-manned-spaceplane/20175/

    Reply
    • NOEL

       /  16th May 2020

      Should have added I witnessed rebranding when the company I employed by was taken over by Australians. All employees were given a NZ native tree to take home . Noticed a few workmates planting them around the worksite in places where they would be a problem in the future. Asked why? “They are protected species I’m sure you can work out the rest.”

      Reply
  5. David

     /  16th May 2020

    I am excited about this, I hope they have cool uniforms and awesome laser weapons and warp speed enabled spaceships.
    Better spending money there than pissing it away funding the arts and all that nonsense.

    Reply
  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  16th May 2020

    Satellites are used for communications, propaganda and surveillance so are potential targets in any major hostilities. Whoever “owns” space militarily will have a significant advantage in a high tech conflict and a big intelligence advantage against a lesser opponent. Inevitably that will be weaponised as well.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  16th May 2020

      Or like WW1 when those big fleets of battleships mostly stayed in port.
      The original idea was they would sail past at a few miles and shoot the bejesus out of each other. When the time came the shooting was very long range mostly at smudges of smoke on the horizon and the armour plate along the sides was useless. Occasional shells that crashed through the decks would cause the damage.
      War is like advertising, 50% is useless but they dont know which half beforehand.

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  16th May 2020

        The battleships in WW1 had one purpose, to control the sea. It does not matter if they are in port or not. If you have sea dominance, you can use it for your own purposes. If you do not, you starve. The RN achieve it’s exact role in WW1. The single major battle was a total strategic victory, even though it was a tactical loss.

        “the armour plate along the sides was useless. Occasional shells that crashed through the decks would cause the damage.”

        It’s not useless. Belt armor is there for torpedo’s, which are the primary killers of ships. Fun fact, the General Belgrano was sunk with pre-WW1 torpedo’s (1912 model).

        Shells from other battleships are always plunging shots. An engineer should understand this.

        I’ve led design teams for a couple of warships, the fight between armor protection and weight is far from resolved.

        “War is like advertising, 50% is useless but they dont know which half beforehand.”

        Reality is the place things get tested. Theories are just that. That is true of everything.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  16th May 2020

          “Belt armor is there for torpedo’s”
          No its not. A Torpedo would easily have 500lbs or more of explosive, with the energy increased by water being in- compressible compared to hull side. Far too much for any armour plate.
          In fact Battleships used a system of multiple linear bulkheads alternating air and water/oil to ‘absorb the impact of a torpedo explosion. The outer hull was completely wrecked but the inside of the ship was protected. Indeed the armour plate rapidly thinned below the water line as the knew it was no use against torpedoes.
          Aircraft carriers followed with the side bulkheads which they still use to this day, the get around that torpedoes explode under hull rather than sides, but bottom of hull can be strengthened as well.
          Vanguard cross section, last british battleship, see how qickly the side armour thins and then stops

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  16th May 2020

            ROFL! Here is your claim….

            “the armour plate along the sides was useless.”

            Yet you manage to do enough googling to see there is a huge amount of effort put into that belt armor, yet completely miss how it works. Belt armor is a massive cost, removing it would me a much faster ship, yet there it is! Did it occur to you it has a real purpose?

            How do you achieve this exactly? Yes, armor is not the only part of the system. Bullheads have always been part of it, but again I have to point out your claim that I was responding too.

            I wrote a paper based on my research on how every Aircraft Carrier in history was sunk while I was working on HMS QE2. It was a very interesting topic.

            “No its not. A Torpedo would easily have 500lbs or more of explosive, with the energy increased by water being in- compressible compared to hull side. Far too much for any armour plate.”

            This is a joke right? HSM Vanguard;
            ” the armour of the secondary armament was increased to resist 500lbs semi-armour-piercing bombs” And that’s just the 5.25″ turrets!
            Belt on Vanguard was 356mm of armor plate. 500lbs of explosive against that is just laughable. Yes water changes things, but still lol.

            You also manage to read all that, and miss this;

            “Intended to resist the impact of a 1,000-pound (450 kg) armour-piercing bomb dropped from a height of 14,000 feet (4,300 m), Vanguard’s deck protection “

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  16th May 2020

              I didnt google ..I knew all that years ago, forgotten most now, the image was easy to find but refuted all your points.
              More interested last week on ice protection and hull design for commercial type ships . very interesting.
              You will quibble by making new points that likely are just as foolish, but the topic attracts many people with poor understanding like you so not interested

            • Pink David

               /  16th May 2020

              Duker, you really are the Eric Cartman of engineering.

            • Duker

               /  16th May 2020

              Interesting that you mention HMS QE2. There is no such ship. They were all were named HMS Queen Elizabeth. You are thinking of the cruise ships.
              Didnt seem right , so yes I googled it- to check.
              https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-press-team-confirm-monarch-hms-queen-elizabeth-named/
              Regarding bombs and shells , they have a very small amount of explosive for their nominal weight and 1930s type explosive at that. Torpedoes not so.

              My books dont confirm your claims about the 5.25in turrets at all. The official construction history gives 1 in thickness practically a minimum shrapnel protection
              WW2 torpedoes especially german ones didnt run on the surface to explode against the full thickness of armour plate , but below where the thickness diminished to zero. The side armour plate was designed for
              very heavy shells to hit at an angle , which they hardly ever did. The
              near vertically falling shells from long range had a greater area of deck and found more sucess doing do.
              Trying to bring down bombers by firing shells from the ground was also largely futile, on average taking 1000s of shells fired to bring down a single plane. Lots of minor damage but aircraft were made of sterner stuff than might be thought

            • Pink David

               /  17th May 2020

              “You are thinking of the cruise ships.”

              No I’m not. Yes the name is HMS Queen Elizabeth, I was being lazy typing. I should have realised this would trigger your pendant nature.

              “Regarding bombs and shells , they have a very small amount of explosive for their nominal weight and 1930s type explosive at that. Torpedoes not so.”

              A 16″ HE shell contains a lot more HE than a torpedo (around 1,200lbs). They do not because they are attacking an armored target, they use AP.

              “WW2 torpedoes especially german ones didnt run on the surface to explode against the full thickness of armour plate , but below where the thickness diminished to zero ”

              A miracle! Duker suddenly discovers what the belt armor is for! Can I point out where you started;

              ““the armour plate along the sides was useless.””

              It’s a system, no part of it was useless. Different running depths for torpedos are a response to the armor existing, not proof the armor is useless.

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

              The armor is not ‘zero’ below the main belt, the main bulkhead is going to be at least 40-50mm.

              “The side armour plate was designed for
              very heavy shells to hit at an angle , which they hardly ever did”

              Yes, that is a major part of it’s role. You have to protect against it even though it’s a very rare shot that achieves it. The primary attack, as I have said above, is plunging shots through the deck.

              “Trying to bring down bombers by firing shells from the ground was also largely futile, on average taking 1000s of shells fired to bring down a single plane. Lots of minor damage but aircraft were made of sterner stuff than might be thought”

              Indeed. Airpower was horribly under estimated. Billy Mitchell got court martialed for trying to get people to believe this. Yamato started the war with about a 12 AA guns, she ended it with 200 and it still did not save her.

              I do wonder what book you getting this gem from though;

              “The original idea was they would sail past at a few miles and shoot the bejesus out of each other. ”

              Does you book confuse battleships with a ship of the line? All battleships were designed for, and intended to, fight at range. The fire control systems were the heart of battleships, and they were hugely complicated. HMS Belfast is well worth a look, the admiralty fire control table is a marvel.

              Balancing range, speed and protection was the fundamental design question for battleships.

            • Duker

               /  17th May 2020

              I cant believe you are so stupid, in 10 sec I found this ( but knew the principle anyway) in 10 sec. You are Truly a beginner who hasnt absorbed the basic principles and bluffed his way through… unfortunately too common
              You truly are clueless ,
              US 16 inch Shell bursting ( explosive) charge
              AP Mark 8 – 40.9 lbs. (18.55 kg)
              HC Mark 13 – 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg)
              HC Mark 14 – 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg)

              40lbs of high explosive isnt much , the propellant in gun that fired it is much greater but thats used to create velocity
              http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th May 2020

      Russia and China will not be bound by US self-imposed limits as they are already showing in weapons development. There will surely be alternatives to simply blowing up enemy space hardware.

      Reply
  7. Zedd

     /  16th May 2020

    Space the final frontier.. these are the fantasies of MrT
    >enuf sed

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th May 2020

      You won’t laugh when Trump bowls an asteroid at you,, Z.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  16th May 2020

        Someone else, possibly a Russian, might stop him…

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  16th May 2020

          A nasty looking black hole that.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  16th May 2020

            I’ll grant you the one at the centre of the Milky Way is better looking….

            Reply
        • cool clip gezza.. wasn’t there a ‘Greek myth’ about the Gods playing dice with ‘the affairs of men’ .. perhaps a more modern version.. 😀

          Reply
      • Zedd

         /  16th May 2020

        meaning what AW ???
        >MrT is very far from being Yahweh or Allah ! :/

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  17th May 2020

          Just pointing out the possibilities of weaponising space, Z. You won’t need to be a god to divert an asteroid’s path for example. Probably can’t aim it accurately enough yet but that will come.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s