That won't last forever. Technology will continue to improve, and as it does existing technology will become cheaper. Eventually even poor rogue regimes will have the capability to launch weapons into space. Once that happens, the justification for armed satellites will be there. To destroy other armed hostile targets. It won't do anyone any good if the only armed forces in space are hostile rogue regimes who dont follow rules in the first place
We should have an international agreement signed by EVERY country in the world, that space is off limits to weaponry of any kind. Let's use space for exploration & scientific study only.
The two things that affect time are gravity and velocity. Not distance. And that has been proven many many times over the decades, at least the velocity part of it has been. Nobody questions the part that velocity plays on time anymore, unless they are the ones that simply have to doubt everything.
They pretty much are. All "weapons of mass destruction" have been banned since 1967. And while technically you can place a more conventional weapon into space without violating the Outer Space Treaty, that would be a stupid idea.
Makes me wonder if you're sat in space with "out of this world" weapons, who's going to come up and tell you off!! Maybe first there dictates the rules!!
I saw a former contractor who actually did work at area 51 to develop the SR71. According to him they do exist and he was involved in the work. He can talk about it now because it has been long enough. We've had it since something like the early 90s.
The world actually did that during the late 1950s, when Antarctica was being opened up for scientific studies by different nations. As far as I know, all signers have kept their word there.
Every satellite could be used as a "hit to kill" weapon in taking out other satellites, potentially damaging communications, GPS, etc. And large ones could be used in assaults on ground targets perhaps with the need for better targeting capability. Musk wants to launch 12,000 communications satellites. How much damage could he do with such a fleet? How does one identify a "weapon"?
A related question. . .How do you keep sending people up thru close Earth orbit space that is always increasing in satellite population. We have over 10,000 satellites orbiting Earth now. Musk wants to add another 12,000? How many can we add before they endanger our astronauts flying thru them?
Yes, there are regions that are getting dangerous. NASA tracks 20,000 pieces of space debris the size of a baseball or larger, going at speeds up to 17,000 mph. They have to move the space station around to not get it hit. And, they track 500,000 pieces from the size of a marble and going just as fast. And average bullet travels at about 1,700 mph - one tenth the speed. So, think of a baseball sized bullet going ten times faster than that. When India used a weapon to blast one of its own satellites it turned one object into a hurtling debris field. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html
If you want to name countries who don't keep their word, how about taking a long, hard look at Trump's America. I'm sure other countries are.
Your TDS suffers are insufferable. Trump has nothing to do with this thread, but you can't not think about Trump, every second of the day. No wonder you guys fall for ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Actually, Trump is highly relevant. What NASA does comes from the laws congress and this administration create. For instance, NASA's major lifter, the SLS, is not something NASA has any choice about creating - regardless of whether it is needed in this new Also, when Trump changes the date for a manned mission to the moon, it sucks the life out of major portions of NASA. In fact, the work to figure out a 2024 launch (instead of the planned 2028 launch) is quite likely to actually delay launch to beyond 2028. These are not the sole examples. NASA has a good number of requirements put on it. Beyond that, Trump gets to choose who heads NASA - and his choice is an obvious major influence on what NASA does. Another political angle is that the US lost a senator who was one of the largest advocates for space exploration. Let's be careful when we point to NASA for what they do.
And who's gonna make them sign? What happens when countries like Iran refuse to sign, and 20 years later when they have caught up with our level of technology today, they launch armored satellites?
We are always better off when there is broad agreement among nations. We see that today with nuclear arms - though the US seems to be the one set on destroying those agreements.
Didn't Obama cancel our space program? Lol How Barack Obama ruined NASA space exploration https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...ow-barack-obama-ruined-nasa-space-exploration
Is Iran or North Korea part of the nuclear treaty? You're right. We see it today. And we'll see it in the future. Countries like Iran and North Korea will have no qualms about arming space.
Wow - that is WAY WAY off the mark! Men in space doesn't accomplish much of anything AT ALL, and it costs 100s or sometimes even 1,000s of times more to accomplish. During the last years we've explored Pluto, Saturn and it's rings and moons, asteroids, THE MOON, Jupiter, etc. Men in space would accomplish ZERO of that and it would wipe out the budget for doing it. Even today, the focus on moonmen is set to suck up an ungodly amount of our SCIENCE effort. So, sure. Obama focused on SCIENCE not on MOONMEN. And, that is EXACTLY what we should continue to do.
There was an 8 nation treaty with Iran that was KNOWN to be effective and Trump worked hard to destroy it. He's working to destroy other of our military and weapons agreements as well He's supporting some of the worst governments in the entire world (like Saudi Arabia) with military assistance. His direction has absolutely nothing to do with using a consensus of nations to put pressure on those who don't join.
A.] Says who? Where is the proof? B.] You are conflating space exploration with non space exploration Furthermore, you seem to think that we'll have something akin to starship troopers or something. All it is right now is centralizing all of our space assets under a singular command. This will make things more efficient. So instead of having SMDC for the Army, NORAD for the Air Force, and NSC for the Navy and the Marines, there will be a singular command under the Space Force.
There is no evidence for that statement. That deal would have been void after 10 years, after which Iran would have integrated itself into the global economy, and would be free to start refinement again. By then, they would be well under way into developing their nukes. The research is still being done. They just aren't refining. Once that deal is up, they are free to start under Obama's disaster of a deal.
