Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

cheap_as_chips t1_jbqiazv wrote

I still can't take the name "Space Force" seriously. Sounds like something from a bad comedy

107

Sassy-irish-lassy t1_jbqqt5e wrote

Yeah, could you imagine if they renamed the United States Army Air Corps something stupid like the "air force" lol

151

RedArmyBushMan t1_jbs1vzj wrote

United States Army Corp of Astronauts was my vote.

17

bigbaltic t1_jbsidc8 wrote

It's not just astronauts though, just like the navy isn't carriers.

The space force also manages space technologies for intelligence, communication, etc

10

RedArmyBushMan t1_jbtnss8 wrote

Marines aren't just aquatic fighters. Sometimes you have to sacrifice functionality in the name of style.

2

TheLoomingMoon t1_jbqj6db wrote

Like a bad comedy named "Space Force?"

57

MooseBurgers511 t1_jbrkcg4 wrote

John Malkovich was trying so hard to make that show work

24

CrispyRussians t1_jbrxapf wrote

Didn't try hard enough. Practically falling asleep when Steve carrel wasn't carrying it and even then it sucked. I also would've watched a second season.

5

_Odaeus_ t1_jbsbj2h wrote

There is a second season of Space Force.

10

Imeanttodothat10 t1_jbrsru9 wrote

I found space force really enjoyable. I wish it hadn't been cancelled.

17

smallbiceps90 t1_jbswzf4 wrote

Glad I’m not the only one. It was as good a comedy as you’re gonna get these days, especially on Netflix

3

baronvonpoopy t1_jbr4mjc wrote

Hey, it wasn’t great but it wasn’t BAD. The episode with Congress was spot on!

14

12edDawn t1_jbqoa0x wrote

neither could the general populace in 1947.

15

_zerokarma_ t1_jbqqb5i wrote

Was there alternative names being considered at the time?

4

CurtisLeow t1_jbqzsr7 wrote

Space Guard. It’s less silly sounding, and more consistent with the actual mission. They’re the space equivalent of the Coast Guard.

9

TheKingPotat t1_jbr6jme wrote

Satellite corps or orbital corps sounds much better

3

murder-farts t1_jbrn0pm wrote

I looked that woman right in her orbital corps and I said… ^biiiiiiiiiiich

6

New_Poet_338 t1_jbv2980 wrote

No it is way sillier. It sounds like the space version of the National Guard. Also the Coast Guard is more of a law enforcement agency.

2

rosen380 t1_jbt3mbr wrote

The Mongooses. That's a cool team name, The Fighting Mongooses.

4

ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_jbr5v6u wrote

It is. It's on Netflix. It's called "Space Force"

Actually kinda funny, but it's still bad. It's background noise.

4

cybercuzco t1_jbswyhf wrote

Yeah, should have been starfleet.

1

CarbonIceDragon t1_jbvcf4y wrote

If I had named it, I'd have gone with "spacy", just because watching macross as a kid has that feeling at some level like the right name for a space military branch to me.

0

[deleted] t1_jbr0yff wrote

[removed]

−3

CrimsonEnigma t1_jbrt9gk wrote

The PNAC first advocated for the Space Force in "Rebuilding America’s Defenses", a September 2000 document. But talk of spinning off the Air Force Space Command into its own branch, including the name "Space Force", dates back to the 1990s.

Also, although this is kind of beside the point, PNAC didn't become the Tea Party. PNAC went defunct in 2006. Its remnants would go on to form the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) in 2009. The Tea Party rose to prominence in 2009, but not out of PNAC or FPI; if anything, it came out of Ron Paul's ill-fated 2008 Presidential Run. The Tea Party movement and FPI were at odds with each other early-on, with Tea Party leaders accusing FPI of trying to "co-opt their movement" (the dispute largely arose over whether or not military spending should be lowered or raised).

18

Uhgfda t1_jbr3rxw wrote

So the pads used for space x landings have been allocated to another company? Interesting.

78

danielravennest t1_jbtisbu wrote

No, they will be shared use. A "Launch complex" is pretty large because of the safety buffer zone needed around it. These were originally set up for larger rockets. A near empty Falcon 9 and these smaller rockets going up are smaller hazards, so they can be spaced enough to not damage each other, but still share one launch complex.

Also, SpaceX doesn't use the landing pads very often any more, and when they do the rocket is gone in a few hours. As long as the new rockets aren't trying to launch at the same time (i.e. loaded with fuel), they don't really conflict.

18

reddit455 t1_jbr5r1y wrote

SX can land on a barge.. they test engines on those pads.

1

Uhgfda t1_jbr5w1v wrote

No, those are their terrestrial landing pads.

36

danteheehaw t1_jbrw3tl wrote

But some ancient astronaut theorist believe that they are in fact, extraterrestrial landing pads. How could a primitive civilization, such as Florida, have access to this kind of technology?

52

descendingangel87 t1_jbsx4o6 wrote

Just look at the landscape of Merritt Island. You can see how someone shaped the land to make runways for space craft!

1

TheEarthquakeGuy t1_jbr8oz8 wrote

Not only do they land on the pads, the launch companies in question currently are developing rockets that launch from mobile launchers - Daytona for Phantom and Dauntless for Vaya Space.

So in theory, these launchers should be able to use the concrete pads without interruption and SpaceX move any impending RTLS flights to ships.

14

mfb- t1_jbru7pl wrote

SpaceX lands on the ground once every 1-2 months and there are two landing zones (only some FH flights need both) so sharing the pads might work. If not, building another concrete pad isn't a big deal.

12

NerfSchlerfen t1_jbs1nto wrote

SpaceX is planning to retire the Falcon rockets once Starship is operational (and the F9/H backlog is exhausted, I guess)

4

mfb- t1_jbs50o1 wrote

The Falcon family won't retire before 2030 the earliest because it's flying Dragon missions to the ISS, but Falcon boosters returning to Florida might become rare once Starship can fly routinely.

11

Xeglor-The-Destroyer t1_jbschh0 wrote

> The Falcon family won't retire before 2030 the earliest because it's flying Dragon missions to the ISS

Probably, yeah, although Dragon missions don't RTLS so SpaceX can give up the landing pads while still fulfilling their ISS contracts.

5

NerfSchlerfen t1_jbs5omx wrote

If all they're being used for in 8 years time is crewed missions they might just fly the last 10 missions expendable. IIRC though there are also some Artemis missions booked for Falcon Heavy?

My personal guess is those contracts won't live more than a few years once it becomes clear what a gamechanger Starship is but that's just speculation :P

0

danielravennest t1_jbtjdwx wrote

Falcon Heavy is planned to be the launcher for parts of the Lunar Gateway station in lunar orbit. Starship, which has its own launch pads, is going to be the excessively oversized lunar lander, plus tanker flights to refill it in low Earth orbit.

0

cjameshuff t1_jbtuy8w wrote

> and SpaceX move any impending RTLS flights to ships.

RTLS missions only exist in the first place because it's cheaper and faster, and avoids contention for the ASDS ships, which are unavailable for significant periods of time as they transport cores back and move out to support the next landing. Moving an RTLS landing to an ASDS has a substantial cost and schedule impact, and isn't something SpaceX is going to want to do regularly.

2

TheEarthquakeGuy t1_jbug6z9 wrote

Absolutely, but the cadence of these launchers is going to be limited and should be around the time that SpaceX is switching to Starship so it should be ok

1

rider1deep t1_jbrjdup wrote

Should’ve been called the United States Space Command and be a department of the Air Force. USSC would’ve been an awesome acronym.

17

TheMonkDan t1_jbrmoh9 wrote

Tell me you dont understand the DoD structure without telling me you don't know.

26

Dragonshaggy t1_jbstnu0 wrote

There already is a U.S. Space Command - USSPACECOM. It’s the combatant command responsible applying war fighting assets from all service components (army, navy, marines, Air Force, and space force) in defense of the space domain. Similar to the combatant command USEUCOM is responsible for European defense by applying war fighting assets from all of the services. Space Command is the combatant arm, space force is the component responsible for organizing, training, and equipping space forces.

10

Fairway5 t1_jbstek2 wrote

There is a United States Space Command and the Space Force is a department of the Air Force….

5

ThePrinceOfCheese t1_jc62hhz wrote

Commands can not be branches because multiple branches can be a part of a singular command.

Such as Central Command, which has the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, which are all under one command.

1

Fizzy_Astronaut t1_jbsqgxk wrote

Enjoyable isn’t the word I would have chosen either. I had high hopes cause Steve Carell, but Jesus was that bad. I’m amazed they got a second season.

1

Decronym t1_jbtkzxi wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ASDS|Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform)| |DoD|US Department of Defense| |RTLS|Return to Launch Site| |USAF|United States Air Force|

^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 18 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8677 for this sub, first seen 11th Mar 2023, 16:41]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

1

mrmow49120 t1_jbqw28r wrote

Space force is just such a cartoon character name

−12

BillHicksScream t1_jbse0q4 wrote

Yep. "Hey, lets add another branch to the military, no way our rivals wont freak out and increase their spending".

But its "cool" to the immature, so here we are.

−6