4 ms·
>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
by 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 agoAlright, how about the X-37B?
- learc83 8y agoSo 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.
- lainga 8y agoYou've gone from claiming that operating spacecraft doesn't fit what the Space Force would do (in your grandparent comment, before you edited it) to claiming that it's not relevant because they're only operating one spacecraft. I'm fairly certain you're not arguing in good faith, especially given the heavy editing of the grandparent comment after I replied to you.
- learc83 8y agoI edited that before I saw that you responded. I said that operating military spacecraft is a grandiose description of what their mission is. It makes it sound like they have a fleet of spaceships fighting other enemy spaceships. I never said it doesn't fit what they would do. I said it's not what they would do. I also never said operating one spacecraft wasn't relevant. I said that operating spacecraft is a grandiose and downright pretentious way to describe the mission of an agency with one remote controlled, scaled down space shuttle, testbed laboratory and some GPS satellites. And it is.