Slashdot Mirror
Air Force Space Fence Being Shut Down
New submitter meglon writes "NASA will lose access to important real-time information on tracking orbital debris if the order of Gen. William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, is carried out. The Space Fence, the only monitoring system of its kind, will cease to function on October 1st. 'Deployed in the 1960s, the VHF Space Fence includes three transmitter sites and six receiving stations. It is responsible for approximately 40 percent of all observations performed by the Air Force-run Space Surveillance Network, which includes other ground-and space-based sensor assets, said Brian Weeden, technical adviser at the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to space sustainability. ... A full-scale development contract for an updated version of the Space Fence had been expected in 2012 or early 2013, but on July 16, Shelton said the multibillion-dollar project is being held up due to a wide-ranging Pentagon review that includes major acquisition programs. The review is examining scenarios under which the Pentagon’s budget is cut by $150 billion, $250 billion and $500 billion during the next decade.'"
Somebody needs to buy it and run it. How much would it cost?
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
Because countries who hate the United States would never throw things into space to try to harm Americans.
You'd think that Republicans would be big proponents of the space fence. We need something to keep illegal aliens out.
It'll be done much cheaper and with only minor gaps in service, during which the chief overseer will be outside for a smoke or a natter on the mobile when Vlad Putin goes skydiving again and takes out a jet, which takes out a train, which takes out a factory, which takes out a utility pole, which takes out a school bus, which hits a motorcycle, which veers into a parking lot and hits the chief overseer, in the great granddaddy or unforeseen tragedies, for which the Pentagon will be blamed and blow up in the face of the president who will blame it on the House for continuing to muck around with budgets and sequestration in its usual bombast these days.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
No, it isn't important because it can't be used to spy on Americans. If it could, then it's budget would be secret. Instead we have this cut by short sighted budget concerns.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It has been replaced by a newer, more secret and much more expensive system that also functions as an interstellar surveillance system.
Just transfer all the money cut from the DOD to NASA. Then they can run it themselves! Genius, yes?
No.
The space junk which has slowly been taking on sentience, not unlike Hactar, will complain mightily in internet forums, where it'll largely be ignored (see earlier link.
It'll all end up with songs which could make Paul McCartney so rich he could buy the galaxy and several short, but very violent cricket match invasions.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The esteemed Gen. Shelton is playing politics. This is a standard trick. Whenever someone threatens or enacts budget cuts, politicians (and you don't get to be a general without being a politician) start shutting down things which may cost very little, but are highly noticeable or annoying. Obviously this demonstrates how catastrophic it would be to have your budget cut.
This is exactly the sort of thing government is for. It's not like I can set up a radar transmitter in my back yard and sell the data on the open market. I'm not allowed to use that spectrum, and it's blindingly obvious that if I were, so would everybody else, and the spectrum would rapidly become useless to everybody.
What's the alternative? Sell it to SpaceX? Then make NASA buy access to the data? And Lockheed. And Boeing. And Raytheon. And Virgin Galactic. And Blue Origin.
But we all know it wouldn't go that way. Lockheed or Boeing would lobby successfully to get to buy it, then charge everybody else on the list for access to the data. And refuse to sell data to SpaceX at all.
Three transmitters and six receivers costing billions is more than a little absurd, but the job does need doing, and needs doing in a fashion that doesn't set up a wholly inappropriate profit motive and an even more inappropriate opportunity to be anti-competitive. Having said that... Who runs those stations now? Wanna bet it's already Lockheed or Boeing or Raytheon? That'd be why it costs billions instead of the tens of millions it should cost. The wholly inappropriate cost-plus contract with profit motive is already in place. Now all we need is the anti-competitiveness to go with it.
Having worked for both DOD and NASA, I can tell you with certainty that NASA is even worse of a cluster fuck moneywise than DOD.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
If the defense budget is slashed, programs like this are first. God forbid we stop building drones fa18s and other killing machines. Of course right now I am at a country (trace adkins) concert with my girl, most people here think we should kill more terrists and this country is the shiznot. The chickfila right wing gay hating food truck has the longest line. This country deserves someone like chine to come in and really 'tea bag' something.
Silence is a state of mime.
How have the capabilities of NASA ever been used to justify a war?
And to be fair, NASA is a political football. Its mission changes ever couple of years because it never has enough funding to complete what it is told. This might breed a little bit of budgetary nihilism. Fund a big rocket, but then cut funding, fund a nuclear rocket, cut it, fund a space station, cut it, etc. This rarely happens to the DOD, so they can at least plan.
Give the money to NASA. People who aren't going to become refugees will thank you. And it will actually fund science and technology instead of death. Even if NASA were only 1% efficient at using money, it would be better than a 99% efficient DOD doing the same.
If they shut it down we ham radio geeks will no longer be able to monitor the space fence signal and see the space debris and UFO orbiting over us. The ISS could also be in danger from surprise debris objects. Keep it operational, please! See my space fence object monitor captures at SATWATCH.ORG Thanks Mike
Oh, come on, this is nothing more that budget bartering via press release, to which NASA is not immune. Given the spectacular nature of some recent meteors in the mass media, the general will get his new space fence. He's just trying to panic the politicians into action by setting a hard date.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The last time an American air defense system was deliberately shut down (by the dick Cheney), the false flag 9/11 occured, now, another air defense system is being shut down. Why? What's out there coming our way that the scum power elite don't want us to know?
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Little green men took my job.
Have gnu, will travel.
I understand the sentiment, for sure.
Unfortunately, building fewer would cost more.
Building more and SELLING them saves a ton of money, and they are doing that.
Imagine if Apple spent a hundred million dollars developing the iPad and then only built 100 of them Each iPad would cost a million dollars. If they built 1,000 the development cost is $1000 each. It's the same with new fighter jets. Building 50 or 100 of them is DUMB with nine zeroes because you've already paid most of the cost, the development cost. The smart thing is what we've done with some other planes - build enough to last 50 years so you don't have to spend another few hundred billion developing another fighter ten years from now.
As an example for you, in the 1930s and 1940s, they built over 10,000 C-47s. Production stopped in 1946 and they are still being used today. Spread over 10,000 units, development cost is thousands per plane. If you build 100 planes, per-plane development cost is billions.
Another example is the B-52, a 1950s plane. They built enough that the US Air Force still uses them 60 years later.
For fighters, the F-100 was produced in enough quantity that it lasted around 30-40 years. That's a shit ton cheaper than spending billions every few years to build 50 of a particular design.
Remember what happened to it: instead of upgrading it to provide near-GNSS accuracy, they killed it, eliminating the only terrestrial nav/pos system outside of major airports and air traffic lanes. If we have another Carrington-size solar event or someone decides to deploy their satellite-killer missles/satellites/sharks-with-lasers/whatever, WE HAVE NO SAFETY NET for nav/pos as well as network synchronization!
They've already proven once they're willing to sacrifice the country's safety against outside forces (while simultaneously building up their off-, er, defensive capabilities against their own citizenry), so what makes you think they won't do it again?
Grow up. If we don't budget for inflation, things are going to suck even more when we get halfway through the fiscal year and realize we don't have the money to get make it to the end. This has nothing to with being a Republican or Democrat and everything with actually trying to plan a project and deliver something to the taxpayer. I realize most households don't have to worry about this on a yearly basis, but both government and big business must if they don't want to fail.
Now if you want to discuss whether it's in our long term national interest to print so much money that year-to-year inflationary growth is something we have to monitor in our budget process, fine. Or if you have thoughts on how to responsibly reduce government services without gutting either our social welfare or military programs (or both), please share. We need some good ideas, 'cause those idiots up on the Hill seem stumped. But just because you don't like inflation doesn't mean you can live in a fantasy land where it doesn't exist.
There a plenty of systems that are tracking satellites and debris in space.
NORAD is doing exactly that, and even more: NORAD satellites data is free to access.
http://www.celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/
Is the USA the only nation with such a project? With other countries going into space, satellites and the ISS you would expect either and international program and funding or each country having its own equivalent?
Does anyone know if the US is the only country tracking space junk?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Or if you have thoughts on how to responsibly reduce government services without gutting either our social welfare or military programs (or both), please share.
Well, I have thoughts on responsibly reducing governments services which require as a precondition some gutting of both social welfare and military programs.
we wouldn't have to "budget for inflation" if we weren't creating it in the first place....
The Fed's inflation target is 2%. Not their "upper limit" target. That's the point that they would like it to be. Ever year, someone is extracting 2% of the value of all the savings in the country, on purpose.
Also, 2% of $3 trillion is $60 billion, not $500 million..
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Are you seriously saying that the federal budget increase of 24% from 2008 to 2011 was to keep up with INFLATION, which was 4%? Government growth is out of control and inflation is not any significant factor. There are no cuts there, not
The President proposes to spend $3.8 trillion in 2014, an increase of 10% over 2012. Inflation was 4%. Explain to me again how a 6% increase after inflation is a massive cut?
we've debunked this BS from you several times already.
short version is this: you're an idiot and dont know what you're talking about
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
sane, logical, and sound policy is a far far different thing from "what you can actually get 51% of the congress to vote for". acknowledging that fact is not being unrealistic; to the contrary, it's the precise definition of being realistic.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.