Slashdot Mirror
Bush Reveals New Space Policy
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."
Can you say, "Nuclear Space Drive"?
Bush's policy effectively states that the usage of nuclear power as engines of exploration is considered to take priority over any over-reaching treaties that ban nuclear power for the purposes of weaponry. Which means that the United States would consider a treaty like the 1963 Test Ban Treaty (the one that effectively killed the Orion) to not apply to space propulsion. Which, IMHO, can only be a good thing in the modern day world.
Any concerns over the environmental effects of launch are much more effectively handled by environmental groups rather than treaties designed with weapons in mind rather than actual fall-out issues. If they have a realistic concern, then the public will have an opportunity to evaluate that concern, and either take action or reject it. (The latter happening with the Cassini-Huygens environmental protest.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...that Bush is, in fact, a space cadet.
(Oh come on you knew it was coming)
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
Because not two months ago, he wanted to shut down the ISS missions because they were estimated to cost $200M.
... weekly?
Isn't that like one tenth of what we blow on a war
Mod this to oblivion, regardless of what positive action he takes, I still don't like him.
So it seems the Space Arms Race is begining afresh. We just have to hope that the technology it produces outweighs the destruction.
http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
Ive had this question in my mind since a loong time, but is it possible legally for any one country to claim things in space as part of their country?
For example can the US claim the Moon or Mars (in future) just because they landed their countrymen on the body, and planted some flags?
Are there any legal guidelines for this?
Totally off topic, but is that STUPID IBM AD breaking slashdot for anyone else? It's taking me to a new window where only the ad exists.
Wow, we can't discuss the article and what good could come of it, we ahve to immediatly start politician bashing. Hey lets just stop submiting articles to /. instead why don't we just put a article on the front page that says "George W. Bush. DISCUSS!"
We would get rid of all these useless interesting topics about technology and we could all just bitch with reckless abandon about our favorite politician.
I mean FUCKING HELL. If any other president had said this most of you asshats would be having fucking orgasam on the spot.
You mad
I'm glad Bush proved he can be trusted with our space program. He perfected the Space Shuttle (by grounding it for years, now headed for termination). He put an American on Mars, just like his father promised when in political trouble a decade and a half ago. He's making sure other countries don't take American nuclear expansion as a signal to proliferate their own nukes, like in N Korea, Iran, India.
Yes, by all means trust this sober, reasonable man of science with an expensive program to put nukes in space. After he rebuilt New Orleans around the Space Shuttle fueltank factory, everyone there will gladly tell us that he can do anything he sets his mind to.
--
make install -not war
Res publica non dominetur
Space-based MIRVs.
It's like Missle Command. With a self-denying alcoholic on the rampage.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Here's my plan. Let's leave the planet in two groups, split by who can get along with each other. One of us will go and form the 12 Colonies and be prosperous. The other will disappear into legend and create the 13th Colony. Sound good to everyone? I think I'll go with the 12 Colonies group.
And by the way, I've got this great idea for a cybernetic AI construct to make our lives in the Colonies easier.....
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Great. I think I can imagine Rummy's plans to improve space exploration. He'll take NASA's crew recommendations and cut them in half, send only enough fuel to get there, but not back, and ditch all the unnecessaries like food and water. It will be a leaner, more mobile space force.
Thank you. Drive through.
Bush could advocate an end to the DMCA, banning DRM, and making OSS manditory in all government entities and people on slashdot would STILL bitch. The only debate this article should be sparking on slashdot is between the "let's do all we can to explore space" crowd and the "we should be spending this money on my favorite agenda" crowd. Shit, people, get a hobby.
What a surprise. A recent leak about US satellites being blinded by Chinese lasers and now a more military flavor to the US space program.
First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
Maybe reaction to last month's laser incident with China?
Access to space is like access to international waters -- if anything there is greater need to secure space from territorial claims than international waters. By claiming sovereigny over space above the 100km mark, a nation in effect denies access to space to every other country, since every satellite not in geosynchronous orbit above yourland mass would violate your "territorial space".
What China did was in one sense just an aggressive extension of the usual spy/counter spy stuff; you fly close to my territorial waters with listening equipment, I try to jam the equipment. However it was extremely risky in my opinion. First, if the satellite had been damaged it would be tantamount to an act of war, like sinking a ship in international waters. Secondly, it invites US interference with Chinese space vehicles. If China wants to become a world superpower, it will need spy satellites. If you're playing standoff with another country, with both coutries with their fingers on the nuclear trigger, misunderstandings can get costly. You want to see what the other guy is doing and you want the other guy to see what you are doing.
Reading carefully, this parapgraph suggests that the US is planning to engage in a kind of "tit for tat" crippling of Chinese satellites. This is a bad thing for strategic stability.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The uber-narcissistic Bush administration is terrified of one of the most exciting potential benefits of space research, its potential of making human beings realize just how alike we are and how precious the Earth is for our species survival, and so they hope to militarize space research and exploration to prevent its powerful, unifying effect on humanity. This kind of thinking has the potential to hurt the US tremendously because the rest of the world will cooperate on space research despite us, setting us back still further both scientifically and economically. The US is coasting on past achievements now. It won't last.
That's pretty much what we'd expect from that source, but it doesn't make it any better.
Surely there should be some sort of Logic Advisor sitting next to the President's speech writers. I don't imagine that he wants to look evil and dishonest in front of a world audience well versed in elementary logic.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
You are so right. The reason we pick on Bush is because we don't like the way he talks. Some of us don't even like the way he looks. It's not his policies at all, which have been perfect, and reasonable, and have provided for the safety, prosperity, and continued freedom of the citizens of the United States, and the stability of the world in general.
Our bitching about Bush is, in fact, based on the dislike of him doing a better job than Clinton or Nixon. As President, Bush has shown exceptional judgment and wisdom. His policies have done more for peace through strength, stability through war, safety through fear, prosperity through enrichment of the rich, and truth through lies than any other President before.
You are *so* absolutely correct. Thanks for opening my eyes. I've been blinded by facts, logic, and reason for so long, I forgot how to truly *see*.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"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."
Since WW II, the U.S. has loomed as the most militarily and economically powerful nation in the world. Now China is making a bid to become a hegemony of its own. This is a Good Thing [tm].
Superior might through superior technology has always been the mantra of developed nations. Consequently, the U.S. experienced huge gains over the last few decades due to (perceived) competition with the Russians. Like it or not, most of the best technologies we have were originally purposed for military applications, financed through the Pentagon system, and then gradually re-purposed for civilian use (the Internet being a great example of this). This has always been the silver lining.
It would be melodramatic to claim that the U.S. is on the brink of another Cold War, this time with the Chinese. However, "friendly" competition with China will help the space program, it will help Silicon Valley--it will help the United States in any area in which there is a perceived technological deficiency.
We stand to gain so much if we're not all blown to bits first.
What part of "new legal regimes" and "proposed arms control agreements" don't you understand?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Naturally you won't be able to bring lip gloss, toothpaste, or any other gel or liquid into outer space. Or shoes.
a disease:
See Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) :
How to Recognize a Narcissist
at this URL
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html
We all have to deal with difficult people. Some days we can be pretty difficult ourselves. Recognizing the difference between normal difficulties and personality disorders can be crucial to decisions about entering new relationships and continuing existing relationships.
The material on Narcissistic Personality Disorder that is published for lay readers is not very informative, even though most people have had to cope with a narcissist at one time or another. If you were raised by a narcissistic parent, then you've been taught that the narcissist is always right and you're the one who's wrong. A lifetime of such mistreatment typically instills lack of confidence in your own judgment, along with habitual shame at never getting it right or being good enough to deserve the air that you breathe. The children of narcissists may not have realized that the quirks and oddities of their impossible-to-please parents are not in any way unique or special but are in fact the symptoms of a personality disorder.
The information on the Web is very repetitive and amounts to little more than the diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV. Clinical descriptions of Narcissistic Personality Disorder don't describe the things that are most shocking and puzzling in everyday interaction with narcissists.
This material is offered for comfort and solace to people who've had bad (or merely weird) experiences with narcissists. If you're looking for ammunition to attack someone, please look elsewhere. If you're looking for a diagnosis, you'll need to consult a psychiatrist. If you're looking for help with your term paper, go here.I've written entirely from my own experience and personal interest; I'm not a therapist or counselor, have no relevant credentials, and can't refer you to lawyers.
-- Joanna Ashmun
"The study of human nature may be thought of as an art with many tools at its disposal, an art closely related to all the other arts, and relevant to them all. In literature and poetry, particularly, this is especially significant. Its primary aim must be to broaden our knowledge of human beings, that is to say, it must enable us all to become better, fuller, and finer people." -- Alfred Adler
The PNAC statement drawn up before Bush even took office says the US must dominate not only the surface of the Earth, but space and cyberspace too.
He's just following the script that Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and others wrote up for him.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Your second amendment rights :P
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Wow, it must be election year again.
Previously there have been some trial balloons by the Airforce (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,13 45460,00.html and http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /higher_ground_040222.html) who really wanted to add "space warfare" to their portfolio, and now it's been enshrined in national policy.
Ensuring US superiority in space ... that's what the new policy boils down to.
I just wonder what the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians the Brazilians, the Japanese, and the Europeans are going to think of it. Will they agree to US space superiority or might they perhaps start space weaponisation programs of their own?
And what about the cost? Could it be that in the long run it will cost the US less to secure its national interests by aiming for parity and a reasonable deterrent instead of starting yet another arms race in search of superiority? I wonder.
I'll say one thing for the current administration ... if there is even a remote chance of turning a conflict on interest into a real conflict they can be relied on to identify it and steer that way.
Sorry..
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.
Seems you could use the Advisor. Jet fighters and anti-aircraft missiles, guns and artillery are all means to deny an adversary freedom of movement in the air. Yet would you claim you do not have freedom of movement in the Terrestrial Atmosphere because of them and their potential use against you?
You have conflated the ability to take out enemy targets with the complete elimination of the ability for the targets to peacefully exist otherwise. You have conflated a temporary action with a full-time one. You have thus committed a logical fallacy - in the process of trying to impugne another's ability in logic. You have further assumed that the President wrote that document. A fallacious assumption I am certain.
Logic is not a form of universal truth, it is a means of confirming that a given conclusion is an accurate conclusion based on the premises presented, and nothing more. The premises can be false, but the conclusion could still be logical.
In the argument you failed to logically analyzed we have the following:
Argument 1:
Premise 1: Freedom of action in space is important
Premise 2: Freedom of action in space is important to the US and it's interests
Conclusion 1: The US should have freedom of action in space
Argument 2:
Premise 1: The US (and US interests') should have freedom of action in space
Premise 2: Other entities may strive to prevent or hinder US (and US interests') action in space
Premise 3: Threats to US freedom action in space will involve non-US utilization of action in space
Conclusion: The US needs to be able to deny such action in space in order to protect it's freedom of action in space
The above arugments, premises, and conclusions do not logically lead to the "There will be no freedom of action in space". Your argument that they do is unsupported and erroneous, not to mention fallacious. To demonstrate further, change the word space to the word sea, or to air, or to land.
Furthermore, you assertion that the speech writers need a logic advisor is also erroneous. This wasn't a speech, it was/is a document not designed to be read aloud by the President. Surely you should have a reality advisor as well as a logic advisor sitting next to you. I don't imagine you want to look dumb in front of the world of well-versed, informed, and logical slashdot readers.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Interesting..you seem to have read the President's Vision for Space Exploration but somehow only grabbed onto the "kill shuttle" part and missed the whole "build vehicles to explore the solar system part"... or was that inconvenient to your anti-Bush rant?
That's because killing the shuttle is real, whereas the rest is just talk. Talk is cheap.
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
I would rather have the treaties. I actually do trust the experts more than people the environmental groups.
We have treaties. They say that Bush shouldn't do what he is doing. They have one problem: they are international, and, of course, Bush feels under no obligation to observe international treaties since, after all, those people didn't elect him and he can drum up enough xenophobia to support breaking the treaties. So, treaties don't control Bush or what the US is doing.
If you decided on your own to ignore the speed limits for a time, and by any luck if you escape the ticket, does it make speeding laws unlawful ?
This is a non sequitur. The correct analogy would be that there were no speeding laws and that you or a predecessor had agreed to limit your vehicle's speed or perhaps to create internal laws in order to comply with the terms of the speed limit treaty. Later you decide not to comply with the speed limit treaty. What laws are broken? Perhaps your internal law, it might be illegal in your country to break a treaty once made. But there's no external law to break.
On the other hands, nations can (and did) ally at UN level to enforce a rule against a non-UN member nation ; that's pretty much as making laws as can be.
It was a one time rule. Using your analogy, it's like there's no constraint on speeding, but I did something so wild and dangerous (say, drunk driving a rocket powered car into the side of a house) that a bunch of my fellow drivers got together and made me pay for the damage. But there's no formal restriction on anyone else doing the same thing. They might get away with it or not depending on who's willing to deal with them. Further, no one's really keen on making such rules because after all, they might have a good reason for drunk driving a rocket car.We have a law to state he is not a WAR CRIMINAL.
Does any (other) sane person wonder why we need a law that specifies Bush is not a war criminal?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Honestly, most of what you said went above my head. I was speaking from my gut and my gut tells me uneqivocably that we are far less secure under a neocon government than a non-neocon one. This has been my feeling since the day I heard that George II was running. My first thought then was 'oh no, in six months we will be in a war'. I guess I was wrong..
(It was actually nine months)
The most distressing aspect of the current administration is their jettisoning of the "no first use' doctrine that had served us and the rest of the world well for so very long. Even Saint Ronald Reagan felt strongly about no first use. (he supported it, at least in theory)
We also are strongly fighting universal standards of law and human rights - a prime example is our opposition to the International Criminal Court - a court that could be used to try the leaders of nations that commit genocide. (and first use of nuclear weapons is inevitably genocide because civilians are always the bulk of the casualties of nuclear war.)
Perhaps we oppose the ICC so strongly because members of our own government and/or their advisors fear prosecution under it. (A prime example is Henry Kissinger, who ordered such obscenities as the secret bombing of Cambodia against US law, initiating a chain of events that led to the breakdown of civil law in that country. And many other US-sponsored, still largely unknown CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY)
Look at it this way. If the US did not reject no-first-use and fight organizations like the ICC we would have a FAR STRONGER PLATFORM from which to argue against countries like North Korea gaining nuclear weapons.
Why? Because of North Korea's terrible, terrible record on human rights.. their huge gulag of prison camps with the worst conditions one could ever imagine. Because they are guilty of a level of amoral and Machiavellian manipulation of world events that makes this imperative (that a nation like that should NOT have nuclear weapons) obvious.
The only problem? We have now lied so much and postured so much and yes, even killed so much, that many people who *should* know better now naiively equate us with North Korea in terms of evil.
Without a moral United States, human rights in the rest of the world suffer greatly.
That is why I do NOT trust this regime to make peaceful use of space. They politicize everything they touch. They do not understand science except as another tool of warfare. They suffer from a scarcity-driven mentality that pushes us back into the Dark Ages in our interpersonal relations with the rest of the world.
The United States needs to 'stop terrorism' not by fighting so many mindless wars that we create a whole new world of new terrorists.. (even the CIA admits this) but by ENDING THE KINDS OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITIES THAT CREATE TERRORISTS.
Until we realize that we will be our own worst enemy... Until we realize that we should not go into space, because we can't even handle or our own planet..or our own future..
In 50 years technology will do almost everything workers do now.. That means most of the kinds of people who would be people working today won't have jobs.. You will work not because you need to.. (obviously, that argument doesnt hold water) but because you love to..
If we keep the current mentality going into that future (which is inherently apolitical and non-denominational) our leaders will soon be panicking about the huge numbers of 'useless' people and another world war.. a genocide... will be the only possible result..
Thats why it is imperative that people realize that we can change our future.. War is not inevitable.. It is not the natural fate of man..
If there is one message the Jesuses, the Buddhas, the other enlightened people who could see ahead were telling us it is that..
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..
It is within our power now to eliminate poverty and make terrorism irrelevant.. We are not doing that because we are ADDICTED TO WAR..
the stakes are huge.. all of our survival..
There will not be a World War IV...
Actually, the "high ground" in space isn't defined by distance from Earth. Moon is a better base than Mars (simply because Mars is too far away from the action, plus it has higher gravity), but if you really want to control the solar system, you aim for the Lagrange Points.
and their payload is limited, though quite imposing.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Orbital plane shifts are not simple. Your velocity is a vector value, not a scalar one. Your orbital altitude is a function of your vector speed. Think back to whenever you studied vector-math ... {cue dream-sequence ripple-distortion effect}
... I'm not up to typing long equations here in ascii.)
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.