English:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../20/2003332585
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10..._space_policy/
http://www.space.com/news/061007_bush_spacepolicy.html
Russian:
http://www.point.ru/story/forecasts/1383/
Printable View
I took this as great news when I read it this morning.
I actually remember when President Ronald Reagan brought this up in the 80s. It was a bit of a far fetched idea, ok it was really far fetched, but we really wanted to see this happen.
I am glad that Bush has decided to get this going again.
Some of these US hating countries have been testing longer and longer type missles, Iran and North Korea included. I believe China tested some several years ago but I dont remember correctly. I know recently North Korea has been testing them.
Sometimes the best offense is a good defense.
And Bush asked a few more billions for that. Don't you think it's just another way to make expenses on space exploration secret and have more fun wasting taxpayers' money? The same way it was with Bush's Anti-Ballistic Missile system which simply doesn't work. Well, it's your money, after all, so I'm glad you approve :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Тоби
Ok Rommell, I'll remember that when we reach for our Cyanide gum.Quote:
Sometimes the best offense is a good defense.
I for one have always been a big fan of the NASA space program, and I do understand that it costs us billions of dollars, but it has brought us so many new things into our everyday life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Yet this is going to be somewhat different then the NASA program, I have to wait and see if they will be utilizing NASA for this type of program.
As for the Anti-Ballistic Missile System, the US did a test within the last month and it was very successfull. Its like any new system that comes up, you have to test it before actually putting it into use.
If there is anything I feel cheated on it is with the Cheney organization and what he has done with the business contracts(Halliburton) in Iraq and most likely other places. That is just wrong and I do hope everything finally comes out and folks go to jail.
OOps sorry jumped the gun on the Anti-Ballistic Missile System, I was still thinking Star Wars program.
We tested a system to take down long range missiles that may reach the US. These do not carry any Nukes.
Here is a link...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military ... 08-15.html
The whole point of a new Bush's space doctrine is the fact that new expenses on military utilization of space will be classified and thus you'll never know just how much was spent on one satellite or another.
And this gives a perfect opportunity to have toilet bowls at military bases cost several thousand dollars each according to expense forecast. You won't be able to check whether they were made out of gold because that information would be classified. :)
In reality, some high-ranking officials will just add some 7-8 digit amounts to their offshore bank accounts and then report that US security heightened because of that program.
As for successful tests of ABM system - it might help against a single missile attack but will never help against the swarm of MIRVs heading towards hundred different targets.
This has not really been a big secret the last 20 years or so. Its definitely unfortunate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Quote:
And this gives a perfect opportunity to have toilet bowls at military bases cost several thousand dollars each according to expense forecast. You won't be able to check whether they were made out of gold because that information would be classified.
i have yet to find thee exravagant tiolets at any of the bases ive been to.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Dogboy182
Uh, no the US was not first in space. The Soviets were. Sputnik...Yuri Gagarin...geez people outta know history before writing articles.Quote:
"Everyone has to use space peacefully, except us. We can do what we like, cos we were here first
No gold? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogboy182
Take it for someone in the space industry: NASA will have nothing to do with this. Any military space application is under the firm control of either the Air Force or the NRO. NASA deals with only civilian and scientific space applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Тоби
Wait. Surely someone is smoking the reefer here, since there was nothing "quiet" about this -- not to mention the fact that they decided to bring back Star Wars WAYYYYYYY back when -- when Bush came into office and abrogated the ABM treaty. Surely you remember how pissed the Russians were then...!?!
Чертовские американцы. Почему они думают, что только им принадлежит космос?
Это <офф-топик>, но здесь он правильно изпользовал глагол <принадлежить>?Quote:
Originally Posted by basurero
Да, только лучше: ..., что космос принадлежит только им?Quote:
Originally Posted by Бармалей
I have not read anywhere where the US has stated that Space only belongs to them.
In fact they realize that China is doing some of this space exploration as well.
But Bush talked about this program he was relating to the outer space over the US, not over all the world.
So question:
Why is it that ALL NON AMERICANS think Negative about every news that comes out of the US? Such as the statement made that we think the space is all ours?
Вот что меня раздражает. Как они могут отказать Северной Корее в ядерных бомбах, когда они сами воздерживаются от обсуждения того, что они располагают делать в космосе? Это просто двойной стандарт. Они говорят, что хотят развивать оборону страны... но Северная Корея тоже говорит, что только пытается защищаться.Quote:
Significantly, however, it does not commit to restrict, or even to join talks about restricting the development of space-based weapons. This is despite a UN vote last year in which 160 nations voted in favour of such talks.
Невозможно поместить спутник только над Америку. Это только возможно над экватором и к тому же, это лишает объекта и цели программы. Для того, чтобы улучшить оборону Америки, надо шпионить за другими странами. Невозможно шпионить за другими странами если спутники только находятся над Америкой.Quote:
But Bush talked about this program he was relating to the outer space over the US, not over all the world.
I had to translate as I dont know enough about Russian to read.
I cant answer that fully, other then my own opinion. Please dont bash me because of it. We as a country do not make threats to other countries that they should not exist. Nor do we make threats about testing products specifically for that country. As North Korea was doing with there long range missile program. As well as of course there daily threats with Japan and South Korea. Agian just my opinion.Code:It this is what me irritates. How they can refuse to North Korea in the nuclear bombs, when they themselves do abstain from the consideration of the fact that they do locate to make in space? This is simply dual standard. They indicate that they want to develop the defense of the country… but North Korea he also indicates that only it attempts to protect.
I dont have issues with folks like Russia/US having Nukes because I believe that they believe it is a last protection resort. These other countries such as North Korea/Iran would use it as a first resort. Or better yet, would sell it to some terrorist and watch the outcome on TV.
I dont know why you would think that placing satellites above the US is not possible? We have satellites right now that are above the US and they stay pointing at us, and rotate with our orbit as well. Called geostationary. Now of course we have GPS satellites as well which are all over the world. But I understood that the satellite system Bush is talking about would orbit around us. I dont think many other countries would like us to put a satellite over them. Believe it or not, if we want "spy" information, we still have to get it via high altitude flying.Code:It is not possible to place satellite only above America. This is only possible above the equator and moreover this deprives of object and of purpose of program. In order to improve the defense of America, it is necessary to spy after other countries. Cannot be spied after other countries if satellites only are located above America.
You can read about satellites here :)
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite.htm
I am sure there are more affective satellites that do spy but we US citizens dont know about them. So I cant elaborate.....
Tobi, coming from someone in the telecommunication business this dissapoints me. You arguments are unfortunately flawed. Geostationary satellites are place above the equator (as Basurero said) because their rotational axis (called the orbit normal) has to be parallell to the Earth's rotational axis as well as the speed of this roation be equal for both the Earth and the Satellite; only then will we have a geostationary satellite - a satellite that stays above our heads. You can not put a satellite that will be "over us" (and only us) unless it is on the equatorial plane. In fact, most spy-satellites are not geostationary (35,786 km out in space) but so-called LEOs (Low Earth Orbit - 800 km)... Secondly, how can you claim space above US as U.S. "air-space" (can't call it space-space, can we? :) )? How far out do you consider it US "property", is it a straight angle out of the contour of the US or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Тоби
[quote=kalinka_vinnie]Tobi, coming from someone in the telecommunication business this dissapoints me. You arguments are unfortunately flawed. Geostationary satellites are place above the equator (as Basurero said) because their rotational axis (called the orbit normal) has to be parallell to the Earth's rotational axis as well as the speed of this roation be equal for both the Earth and the Satellite; only then will we have a geostationary satellite - a satellite that stays above our heads. You can not put a satellite that will be "over us" (and only us) unless it is on the equatorial plane. In fact, most spy-satellites are not geostationary (35,786 km out in space) but so-called LEOs (Low Earth Orbit - 800 km)... Secondly, how can you claim space above US as U.S. "air-space" (can't call it space-space, can we? :) )? How far out do you consider it US "property", is it a straight angle out of the contour of the US or what?[/quote:wjoyk88f]Quote:
Originally Posted by Тоби":wjoyk88f]I dont know why you would think that placing satellites above the US is not possible? We have satellites right now that are above the US and they stay pointing at us, and rotate with our orbit as well. Called geostationary. Now of course we have GPS satellites as well which are all over the world. But I understood that the satellite system Bush is talking about would orbit around us. I dont think many other countries would like us to put a satellite over them. Believe it or not, if we want "spy" information, we still have to get it via high altitude flying.
You can read about satellites here :)
[url="http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite.htm
Yes but we are not talking about Spy satellites are we. Bush did not say that we would be occuping satellites in space that would not rotate with us. So I am assuming that you are assuming that this is the case. I was going with the fact that he wants to protect US soil and will place these satellites that rotate with us. And I never mentioned about US space, what is ours our what is not ours. Just because I am in the Telecommunications business does not mean I know about space satellites, there is more to know about telecommunications then any one individual can know. Our company does not have satellites as well, nor do they supply equipement for satellites. Although we do use the Governments GPS Satellites for timing, however they dont give us anymore information then that. Therefore no reason for me to know about satellites. My expertise is 8 years of telecommunications with the land line side of the house and another 9 years of expertise on the wireless side, specifically for CDMA technology.
Sorry to disappoint you.
:D Don't worry, I didn't mean to come so hard down on you, but you seemed to be patronizing basurero, when he was right as a do-do!
I have actually no idea what Bush said, but if we are thinking star wars, you'd want satellites a *little* closer to the action than geostationary ones, I'd think. Satellites can't rotate "with us" unless with "us" you mean the Earth... You can choose orbits that will maximize satellite coverage over a specific area of the Earth, but you can't have any stationary above a given country. The satellite will always be able to cover other countries... it's orbital kinematics.
Sorry, I will give a huge apology to Basurero, I dont mean to patronize anyone. If you think I have just let me know and I will try to explain better.
Sometimes my assumptions may get the better of me. As I get to be on these forums longer and longer I will understand more and more of you and it will be easier for me to make better comments.
I like these forums and dont mean to patronize anyone!
I dont know what the real plans are that Bush as, it was left kind of open.
Yes your right, it would be to our benefit to have whatever he is is looking to have ie.. satellite or weapon system, right above where you think you would need it.
But I am sure it would be questioned just like it is questioned today with the US having missile systems all over the world. Ok not all over but definetly in other countries.
Similiar to the issues that US had with Russia having many Nukes capable missiles in Cuba in the early 60s.
So its tough to say until we see what he is really looking at.
Thats why I mentioned NASA earlier, because I would hope that the government would use NASA to transport a satellite for the government versus spending money on building another rocket or space ship etc...
That went towards the other point of the US spending lots of taxpayers money that was unnessary.
Они могут думать что угодно. Если России или Китаю или Индии, или ещё кому-либо подадобится космос - спрашивать Америку никто не станет, как бы они не хотели обратного.Quote:
Originally Posted by basurero
I happen to work with satellites, so don't be angry for correcting your misnotions... :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Тоби
With NASA, do you mean the Space Shuttle? Again, NASA really only does civilian stuff and its employees don't have the necessary security clearances to do anything like "star wars" and the shuttle can only reach an altitude of 300-400 km. Furthermore, a rocket has to be built to launch the shuttle, so in any case you'll have to build a rocket. And no, NASA doesn't build rockets, you have companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing who does that. I don't know of a single (modern day) NRO or Air Force satellite that has been launched by the shuttle (and trust me, if it is "star wars" it is a military satellite, and they are very capable of launching their own satellites).
Yes I was on the understanding that NASA did launch satellites but was unaware that the did not do military. So thanks for correcting me.
Почему ты думаешь, что такие страны как Иран бы использовали свои ядерные бомбы так беспечно? По-моему, страна, которая скорее использовала бы такое оружие - это Америка. Америка единственная страна, которой удалось бы так делать без того, чтобы не быть уничтожена.Quote:
I cant answer that fully, other then my own opinion. Please dont bash me because of it. We as a country do not make threats to other countries that they should not exist. Nor do we make threats about testing products specifically for that country. As North Korea was doing with there long range missile program. As well as of course there daily threats with Japan and South Korea. Agian just my opinion.
I dont have issues with folks like Russia/US having Nukes because I believe that they believe it is a last protection resort. These other countries such as North Korea/Iran would use it as a first resort. Or better yet, would sell it to some terrorist and watch the outcome on TV.
Каждый раз когда я включаю телевизор, Америка угрожает Ирану или Северной Корее экономическими санкциями или даже военными действиями.Quote:
We as a country do not make threats to other countries that they should not exist. Nor do we make threats about testing products specifically for that country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Да, я знаю, что в действительности Америка - единственная мировая держава и поэтому они могут делать все, что хочется. Однако, лицемерие этой страны просто удивительно. Они говорят, что хотят сохранить мир... ну почему же вторгаются в другие страны без основания?
Oh man that's so cool. That's what I've always wanted to do when I grow up. NORAD here I come! (Hopefully...)Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
That's easy, you just need to go to college and get an engineering education and there are a flush of jobs available for you! Go, go gadget!Quote:
Originally Posted by RusskiSlav
LOL I will! :D
I looked at the text, and it did not sound like Bush was referring to the space exactly over the US proper, what he was talking about was that the US should have capacity to deny enemies use of space against the US (basically an ability to shoot satellites and the like if need be). Not as in "we'll shoot down anything NK launches", but as in "if NK launches a satellite with nukes, we'd like to be able to shoot it down".
Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to have, and I don't see anything wrong with US (or Russia, etc) working on it.
I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by laxxy
This way any other country won't have any restrictions on shooting down American satellites passing over their territory. The Cinese have already experimented with that. They pointed laser at one American satellite. No harm has been done but that's just the matter of beam power. They do have that technology. America has much more satellites in space than China does, besides, USA relies heavily on these satellites so destroying them could be painful for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by laxxy
Does it have any now? no, the only one is the fear of the American response. I hope it stays effective :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
As they well should have. As I said, it's quite a reasonable thing to do.Quote:
The Cinese have already experimented with that.
which only proves the point. What would you like, another "non-laser proliferation treaty" with UN inspections? :)Quote:
They pointed laser at one American satellite. No harm has been done but that's just the matter of beam power. They do have that technology.
All I want is to point out the fact that US strive to monopoly in the space will remain on paper only. US simply doesn't have any means of enforcing that desire. Should they interfere in any nation's space policy they too would suffer from retaliation.
Well, they aren't suffering much retaliation from messing with North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs, at least not from any nations that matter. They are just brainwashing the western world to believe their propaganda about the "axis of evil" and "people who hate freedom" and all the rest of that nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
surely, just as with military dominance, one can strive to achieve anything but the actual results will also depend on the actions of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I'd be only happy if other nations have a more active space policy, as it would spur the American effort too, and more so with these policies in place.
there's a difference, nuclear devices (even fake ones, like with NK) have too much of a propaganda value (pretty much all of their value is propaganda) to just let them be. Plus, there is the NNPT and probably some other treaties that restrict their production.Quote:
Originally Posted by basurero