View Full Version : US to world: stay out of our outer space


redbull
10-18-2006, 11:21 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,1925757,00.html

Bush issues doctrine for US control of space

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Thursday October 19, 2006
The Guardian

George Bush has staked out a bold claim to the final frontier, asserting vigorously America's right to deny access to space to any adversary hostile to US interests, it emerged yesterday.

In a muscular overhaul of policy, the US president outlines the importance of space to the national interest, saying its domination is as crucial to America's defences as air or sea power.

The order also opposes the establishment of arms control treaties that would restrict US access to space, or set limits on its use of space. It calls for the development of space capabilities to support US intelligence and defence initiatives.

Article continues
The document, first reported in yesterday's Washington Post, amounted to the first overhaul of US space policy in nearly a decade, but it comes two years after the publication of an air force doctrine on protecting US satellites and spacecraft. The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has also favoured the development of systems to protect satellites and space stations.

"The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests," the strategy says.

It goes on to stress that space activities have improve life in the US and around the world, enhancing security and economic growth and "revolutionising the way people view their world and the cosmos".

Mr Bush has sought to revive the national interest in space by calling for Americans to return to the moon in 15 years, and even use bases there to serve as a launch pad for Mars.

But reports of the space policy raised immediate concerns that America would be seen to be trying to develop a fresh generation of space weapons.

However, the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, insisted there was no change, and that the exploitation of space for defensive purposes did not mean that American was seeking to develop space weapons.

"Protection of space assets does not imply some sort of forceful action," Fredrick Jones, a National Security Council spokesman, told the Associated Press. He said the US faced novel threats since the revision of the last policy declaration on space, and that the document reflected the importance of space in technological advances.

"Technology advances have increased the importance of and use of space," he said. "Now, we depend on space capabilities for things like ATMs, personal navigation, package tracking, radio services, and cell phone use."

alisonmonster
10-18-2006, 11:37 PM
space terrorists?

ohnoitsbonnie
10-18-2006, 11:40 PM
Even space is getting crowded it seems

Eric Blair
10-18-2006, 11:47 PM
this kind of scares me

The Omega Concern
10-19-2006, 12:26 AM
15 years to get to the moon? ummmmm...

sholdn't take that long.

Kanan Road
10-19-2006, 01:41 AM
but remember, we never landed on the moon!

The Omega Concern
10-19-2006, 01:56 AM
http://www.president-bush.com/timemagazine.jpg

Trotskilicious
10-19-2006, 10:48 AM
15 years to get to the moon? ummmmm...

sholdn't take that long.

The past 30 years have been hell on our education system. I'm surprised NASA engineers can spell their names.

I heard we lost the Mars probe because someone programmed it in metric but the people at mission control thought it was in inches and feet. These people are the cream of the crop!

Either that or it was the Decepticons.

JokeyLoki
10-19-2006, 11:53 AM
I heard we lost the Mars probe because someone programmed it in metric but the people at mission control thought it was in inches and feet. These people are the cream of the crop!



Somewhat true. They hired Lockhead Martin to build the thing, and they were the ones who programmed it in Feet instead of Meters. But NASA does get alot of the blame considering they didn't seem to do much checking to make sure it was done right.

Debaser
10-19-2006, 11:56 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/NASA_Mars_Rover.jpg/200px-NASA_Mars_Rover.jpg

these things are still roaming around mars for the last 2 years. they were expected to only last 3 months.

Trotskilicious
10-19-2006, 12:03 PM
I think NASA's funding should be cut or the whole program shelved until we fix our education system. You know the EU is building their own Mars rovers at a quarter of the cost of ours?

Debaser
10-19-2006, 12:30 PM
I think NASA's funding should be cut or the whole program shelved until we fix our education system.

You're under the false impression that NASA gets a lot of funding. It doesn't. Their annual budget is less than $20 billion a year, less then 1% of the overall U.S. budget. Iraq alone costs $9 billion PER MONTH.

Those mars explorers were already built on the cheap, hence the low expectation of 3 month life.


You know the EU is building their own Mars rovers at a quarter of the cost of ours?

Where did you get that information? I was under the impression the Nasa's current Mars explorers cost $820 million and the EuroMars Rover will cost $720 million.

phaedrus
10-19-2006, 02:25 PM
what is NASA's mission statement? does it explicitly mention military vs. civilian goals/uses?

this doctrine is hardly suprising, but it makes me sick nonetheless.

Kahlo
10-19-2006, 02:43 PM
I think NASA's funding should be cut or the whole program shelved until we fix our education system. You know the EU is building their own Mars rovers at a quarter of the cost of ours?

WOO EUROPE WILL OWN SPACE AND AMERICA WILL BOW BEFORE US

lol not really. It's China's job.

Nimrod's Son
10-19-2006, 03:04 PM
what is NASA's mission statement?
to seek out new life and new civilizations

phaedrus
10-19-2006, 03:06 PM
to seek out new life and new civilizations
to boldly go where no man has gone before?

sppunk
10-19-2006, 03:08 PM
Or to boldly go where no man has gone before.

phaedrus
10-19-2006, 03:25 PM
Or to boldly go where no man has gone before.
2 min. too late

Nimrod's Son
10-19-2006, 03:31 PM
you're both sexist. it's where no one has gone before

Toast
10-19-2006, 03:37 PM
damn straight. god himself gave it to us. aint nobody else gonna take it from us

Travis Meeks
10-19-2006, 07:09 PM
http://bobfromaccounting.com/5_1805/bushvader_l.jpg

tear stained glass
10-20-2006, 12:43 AM
http://bobfromaccounting.com/5_1805/bushvader_l.jpgstars on the left, man. (yeah, i'm pretty sure you didn't make that, either, but isn't there a way to reverse it using html?)

Trotskilicious
10-20-2006, 07:16 AM
Where did you get that information? I was under the impression the Nasa's current Mars explorers cost $820 million and the EuroMars Rover will cost $720 million.

I read about it in the Economist. I may be able to find the issue, I'll get back to you.

boynameddarcy
10-24-2006, 09:50 AM
"There used to be water on Mars."..."There used to be vodka in my glass."
Hehe, I love that line x)

lohengrin
10-24-2006, 04:59 PM
all the money in the world wont enable you to educate a rap-listening chimpanzee. open your eyes, trotskilicious

redbull
10-24-2006, 05:08 PM
stars on the left, man. (yeah, i'm pretty sure you didn't make that, either, but isn't there a way to reverse it using html?)
wrong, turn it 90 degrees to the left.

lohengrin
10-24-2006, 05:10 PM
<img src = "http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20010914/flagdisplay.gif">

also, shouldnt stay up at night without being illuminated... there are a few others i think