United States Space Corps

In reality the navy is probably a better fit.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

dscott8 wrote:

Annachie wrote:The airforce are against it as they view space as theirs already.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Under the proposed measures, the Space Force would be part of, and report to, the Air Force in the same way the Marines come under the Navy (see note below). So it's not a turf issue for them. I think they see it as detracting from their primary mission in favor of a literal pie-in-the-sky program.

(NOTE: I know that Marines claim the Navy is just their taxi service, but the org chart says different.)

The Marines tend to get just a little cranky when you remind them that The Corps is a Corps of the Navy like the SeaBees are Battalions, part of a whole that's been kicking ass around the world for well over 225 years.

Henry Brown wrote:Does the United States even have a means of putting people into space after the retirement of the shuttle fleet? I know there are still rockets that can put satellites into orbit. But as far as I know, none of them have a personnel capability. Isn't it kind of silly to be talking about a Space Corps when we currently have no means of actually putting people into space?

The Manned Space Flight Mission hasn't been a major Air Force role since the demise of the Dynasoar and Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) programs. Yes, there are Air Force personnel among the Astronauts, and providing support to NASA at JSC, and the Air Force owns both the Eastern and Western Test Ranges. There are many other space related missions carried out by the Air Force. Missile warning, space situational awareness, weather, navigation and timing, communications are all operated and managed by the Air Force.

Annachie wrote:In reality the navy is probably a better fit.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The Air Force has had primary responsibility for military space for 40 or 50 years.

Fox2! wrote:

Annachie wrote:In reality the navy is probably a better fit.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The Air Force has had primary responsibility for military space for 40 or 50 years.

You know it could simply be a scheme for congress to control where the money goes. If the Space Corp has it's own budget, like the Marine Corp, if will be more difficult for the Air Force to obscure line items and hide costs of space items in flight costs, and vice versa.

Fox2! wrote:

Annachie wrote:In reality the navy is probably a better fit.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The Air Force has had primary responsibility for military space for 40 or 50 years.

Granted. But when you start talking manned ships, especially large ones, you are starting to get into what is essentially the Navy's wheel house.
Especially the submarines.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Granted. But when you start talking manned ships, especially large ones, you are starting to get into what is essentially the Navy's wheel house.
Especially the submarines.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

But it's USAFS George Hammond in Star Gate universe. It must be true.

Fox2! wrote:

Granted. But when you start talking manned ships, especially large ones, you are starting to get into what is essentially the Navy's wheel house.
Especially the submarines.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

But it's USAFS George Hammond in Star Gate universe. It must be true.

Turf wars. More budget & funding.
Of course IF the Air Force already has the equivelint of a warship (not a fighter/fighter bomber analog) in space and the same for a variation on the Rangers, Seals or Marines, it would be interesting.

There is a new TV series, Salvation, that just started. And who, if anybody, would have a chance of dealing with the 5,376 meter in diameter rock that is -this time- going to take a pass at 18.5 Lunar Diameters distance on Sep 1st with a claculated 13.5km/sec velocity? Not a small rock.

Brigade XO wrote:

Fox2! wrote:
But it's USAFS George Hammond in Star Gate universe. It must be true.

Turf wars. More budget & funding.
Of course IF the Air Force already has the equivelint of a warship (not a fighter/fighter bomber analog) in space and the same for a variation on the Rangers, Seals or Marines, it would be interesting.

There is a new TV series, Salvation, that just started. And who, if anybody, would have a chance of dealing with the 5,376 meter in diameter rock that is -this time- going to take a pass at 18.5 Lunar Diameters distance on Sep 1st with a claculated 13.5km/sec velocity? Not a small rock.

IIRC, Hammond is the second generation battlecruiser, with Asgard technology built in, not just added on.

Fox2! wrote:

Granted. But when you start talking manned ships, especially large ones, you are starting to get into what is essentially the Navy's wheel house.
Especially the submarines.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

But it's USAFS George Hammond in Star Gate universe. It must be true.

And how many works of Stargate SG1 fan fiction have you read where it is proposed to hand over manning the USAFs starships to the US Navy.

Seriously, it makes more sense for long endurance ships to be manned by naval crews. Aside from the various skillsets in manning various systems; (does the USAF have any technicians qualified on running nuclear reactors?) Air Forces typically only think in endurance of missions in hours, 12 hours being about the max. Navies, however, are accustomed to thinking in terms of months. To my way of thinking that makes them a much better fit.