3 ms·

Here is a recent quote from by the Secretary Defense on the topic. "I believe it is premature to add additional organization and administrative tail to the dep

Here is a recent quote from by the Secretary Defense on the topic. "I believe it is premature to add additional organization and administrative tail to the department at a time I am trying to reduce overhead."

drak0n1c 8y ago
This directive moves the existing space responsibilities of the USAF (GPS, etc) into its own department so it does not obscure the department's budget and compete with other USAF priorities. You could just as easily interpret the reorg as a clarification of military budgeting and slimming down of the Air Force's appetite. When there's a nebulous and expensive operation (USAF space operations employs nearly 2x the people that NASA does) it's better for it to exist independently with its own responsibilities than to grow under the cover of an even larger traditional entity.
- learc83 8y ago
  Why not split off the Air Force Global Strike Command (long range nuclear bomber and ICBMs), or the Army Corps of Engineers, or the Navy's submarine operations? The answer is that what defines "a nebulous and expensive operation" is incredibly vague and if we start splitting all large military operations into their own branches we'd just end up with even more administrative overhead and the designation of separate services would lose distinction. The big difference here is that Space Force sounds cool.
  - lainga 8y ago
    ICBMS, the Corps of Engineers, and submarines have well-defined roles in the American military. Spacecraft, as of yet, do not. If you want surveillance, we have the NRO.
    - learc83 8y ago
      We already have the Air Force Space Command, which is the mission that The Space Force is going to take over. I'd say what they'll be doing is about a well defined as any other forces role. We don't know what a major war in orbit will look like, but we don't know what a major war against modern naval powers would look like either.
      - lainga 8y ago
        The great-grandparent was providing a justification for splitting space operations off of AFSC, as its mission is "vague and nebulous" and manages to eat up money and personnel in an opaque manner. You countered that other areas of the military could also be "vague and nebulous" and could be split off as well. I put forth that the other areas you mentioned have well-defined purposes, but spacecraft do not. First: now you have mentioned that we already have the AFSC. Doesn't this seem a bit circular to you? Second, AFSC already operates satellites, including the GPS constellation. If the Space Command inherits ownership of those satellites it will indeed be "operating spacecraft" without any real or described grandiosity.
        learc83 8y ago
        >now you have mentioned that we already have the AFSC. Doesn't this seem a bit circular to you? I said it's hard to define what nebulous and expensive means. I don't think AFSC's mission isn't anymore nebulous and expensive than a whole host of other commands. >operating spacecraft Operating spacecraft is indeed a grandiose term for maintaining satellites.
        lainga 8y ago
        Alright, how about the X-37B?
        learc83 8y ago
        So they are operating a spacecraft. We don't know what it does but the most plausible explanation I've seen is that it's just a sensor test bed.
oh_sigh 8y ago
The sentence that immediately precedes that quote is important: “I strongly urge Congress to reconsider the proposal of a separate service Space Corps,” Mattis was talking about a separate service space corps, not about a space corps that falls under a preexisting service. Source: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/341650-mattis-opposes-space-corps-plan http://thehill.com/policy/defense/341650-mattis-opposes-spac...
- learc83 8y ago
  > separate service Space Corps That is exactly what the current action does. It would operate under the Department of the Air Force (the way the Marines do with the Department of the Navy), but it would still be a separate service. The bill that Mattis was opposing during that comment would have also housed The Space Force as a separate service under the Department of the Air Force exactly the same as the current action--he was speaking out against that.

drak0n1c 8y ago

This directive moves the existing space responsibilities of the USAF (GPS, etc) into its own department so it does not obscure the department's budget and compete with other USAF priorities. You could just as easily interpret the reorg as a clarification of military budgeting and slimming down of the Air Force's appetite. When there's a nebulous and expensive operation (USAF space operations employs nearly 2x the people that NASA does) it's better for it to exist independently with its own responsibilities than to grow under the cover of an even larger traditional entity.

learc83 8y ago
Why not split off the Air Force Global Strike Command (long range nuclear bomber and ICBMs), or the Army Corps of Engineers, or the Navy's submarine operations? The answer is that what defines "a nebulous and expensive operation" is incredibly vague and if we start splitting all large military operations into their own branches we'd just end up with even more administrative overhead and the designation of separate services would lose distinction. The big difference here is that Space Force sounds cool.
- lainga 8y ago
  ICBMS, the Corps of Engineers, and submarines have well-defined roles in the American military. Spacecraft, as of yet, do not. If you want surveillance, we have the NRO.
  - learc83 8y ago
    We already have the Air Force Space Command, which is the mission that The Space Force is going to take over. I'd say what they'll be doing is about a well defined as any other forces role. We don't know what a major war in orbit will look like, but we don't know what a major war against modern naval powers would look like either.
    - lainga 8y ago
      The great-grandparent was providing a justification for splitting space operations off of AFSC, as its mission is "vague and nebulous" and manages to eat up money and personnel in an opaque manner. You countered that other areas of the military could also be "vague and nebulous" and could be split off as well. I put forth that the other areas you mentioned have well-defined purposes, but spacecraft do not. First: now you have mentioned that we already have the AFSC. Doesn't this seem a bit circular to you? Second, AFSC already operates satellites, including the GPS constellation. If the Space Command inherits ownership of those satellites it will indeed be "operating spacecraft" without any real or described grandiosity.
      - learc83 8y ago
        >now you have mentioned that we already have the AFSC. Doesn't this seem a bit circular to you? I said it's hard to define what nebulous and expensive means. I don't think AFSC's mission isn't anymore nebulous and expensive than a whole host of other commands. >operating spacecraft Operating spacecraft is indeed a grandiose term for maintaining satellites.
        lainga 8y ago
        Alright, how about the X-37B?
        learc83 8y ago
        So they are operating a spacecraft. We don't know what it does but the most plausible explanation I've seen is that it's just a sensor test bed.

oh_sigh 8y ago

The sentence that immediately precedes that quote is important: “I strongly urge Congress to reconsider the proposal of a separate service Space Corps,” Mattis was talking about a separate service space corps, not about a space corps that falls under a preexisting service. Source: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/341650-mattis-opposes-space-corps-plan http://thehill.com/policy/defense/341650-mattis-opposes-spac...

learc83 8y ago
> separate service Space Corps That is exactly what the current action does. It would operate under the Department of the Air Force (the way the Marines do with the Department of the Navy), but it would still be a separate service. The bill that Mattis was opposing during that comment would have also housed The Space Force as a separate service under the Department of the Air Force exactly the same as the current action--he was speaking out against that.