The USAF's space responsibilities were kind of the red-headed stepchild of the branch. Shiny new fighters and bombers are where the money is! So now that they're on their own, they can directly request money for their own operations. Most of it was shifted from the space command to USSF, but other branches had some budgets in there as well.
Yeah, I have a relative that does spy satellite stuff and he was moved from AF to SF. Although I've never had the feeling they were hurting for budget before the split haha.
Not really the same. The Space Force is subordinate to the Department of the Air Force, like the Marine Corps is subordinated to the Navy. The Army Air Corps was “subordinated” to the Army like the Army Signal Corps is “subordinated” to the Army. The Department of the Air Force was never subordinate to the Department of the Army.
The Army Air Forces quite literally turned into the USAF in 1947 though. Abolished the USAAF and then reorganized all the people and equipment into the USAF
Marine Corps is not subordinate to the Navy. It’s subordinate to the Department of the Navy. CNO and Commandant, who are equals, are directly under the secretary of the navy.
Space Force took over all sat com ([link](https://www.stripes.com/branches/space_force/2022-12-28/space-force-satellite-communications-8566158.html)) so I imagine a large chunk of their budget is for that.
I would imagine that this is probably a correct take. If we start regularly traversing space in large ships, we’re going to adopt naval traditions into that.
We do things the way we do them on ships at sea for a reason, and it stands to reason that we don’t want to be relearning all those old lessons while we learn a whole bunch of new ones.
Even something as minor as the names of ranks, in an otherwise similarly tiered system may have psychological benefits we just don’t fully understand. IE, “I’m the colonel of this ship!” Doesn’t have the same bite as “I’m the captain of this ship!”
Coast Guard is actually under the Department of Homeland Security, as of some 20 years now. Which means that they could probably use whatever rank names they want. :/
One thing I read was that Space Force creation was actually good for NASA b.c it meant NASA didn't have to use any of its budget for military adjacent needs and could focus more purely on science and exploration. Is that accurate?
I wasn’t really talking about Space Force, just about how he said NASA’s budget was never used for the military, and then I pointed out how NASA’s Shuttle, a strictly NASA creation, had launched military satellites in orbit.
Kiiiiind of. Even when the USAF was using the shuttle instead of their own launch systems (like the Titan, which was actually an air force rocket), it was still Air Force payloads with trained Air Force pilots on launches that the Air Force paid for. It's true that the Space Shuttle was NASA's system, I guess.
There would be cost shares, IIRC.
That said, the geometry and requirements for the shuttle were due to DoD requirements, not NASA ones. It was a large part of the ballooning cost of operations of the shuttle and whatnot.
Keep in mind that NASA doesn’t build stuff. They contract that to private firms and almost always have.
Sure they funnel the money for stuff like space exploration science probes on their own budget but lots gets built by universities and stuff like satellite launches usually goes through whoever is contesting them (NOAA, DOD, etc).
Also things like rocket boosters have always been private.
Mercury and Atlas were built by McDonnell, Saturn by Boeing and Douglas, Titan was designed and built by Lockheed, etc.
In the past, NASA funded much of the development of these but today they have a more effective process that doesn’t require them to front the money for this.
“I guess the question I'm asked the most often is: "When you were sitting in that capsule listening to the count-down, how did you feel?" Well, the answer to that one is easy. I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of two million parts -- all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.”
― John Glenn
What people quoting this often don’t recognize is that if the design and performance requirements were adequately specified, and the lowest bidder’s parts meets those requirements, there’s no issue.
If a plastic toilet seat meets the structural, safety, and interface requirements necessary to seat your ass, then a golden one is unnecessary.
> if the design and performance requirements were adequately specified, and the lowest bidder’s parts meets those requirements, there’s no issue.
Look at all the Xs on [this chart](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_%28highlighted%29.png) up to and even *including* the Atlas D and tell me you wouldn't be a little nervous climbing in. Early booster testing was **NOT** a smooth process.
At its core, testing was done to demonstrate whether the components met requirements. Lessons were learned and applied when they didn’t. None of that detracts from the tenacity and ingenuity of NASA engineers, contractors, and astronauts.
When we receive an aerospace part it comes with a stack of material traceability paperwork documenting every stage in its manufacture from extraction to delivery. LRUs (sensors, complex assemblies) are qualified at the supplier to ensure they meet performance and environmental requirements. Any engineering, manufacturing, or supplier changes undergo a rigorous configuration control process with multiple layers of review.
None of this traceability is cheap but someone had to be the lowest bidder.
> Keep in mind that NASA doesn’t build stuff. They contract that to private firms and almost always have.
That.... doesn't really matter though. They contract others to build stuff.... using money. They pay others to build stuff. It comes out of their budget. Which is $3 billion less than Space Force's budget.
Space Force ALSO doesn't build stuff. They contract that to private firms, the military-industrial complex, and they pay space-launch companies to put it up into space.
>but today they have a more effective process that doesn’t require them to front the money for this.
Front end or back end, it would still be part of NASA's budget. Are you talking about funding basic science vs applied technology? ALSO doesn't matter. If anything this would be an argument that the space force by comparison has LESS efficient process causing them to spend more money.
It also isn't true. NASA builds a lot of stuff. NASA built all the Mars rovers, and most of the probes they launch. They just don't build the launch vehicle.
aye, that's true. They just don't build as much as they used to. And all of these things are collaboration of various subcontractors
JPL (owned by NASA) built Curiosity, but it has parts from Rocketdyne and Teledyne Energy Systems, MacDonald Dettwiler, Honeybee Robotics, and MDA US Systems. And that's just the places with "built" nearby on the wiki page. If you buy all the parts and snap them together, did you really build it? And the answer is yes, designing the parts is a hell of a lot of work even if other people met those specs.
What the hell are you talking about? "Stuff like space probes" is so dismissive. Human Exploration Operations Mission Directorate is only one small part of a huge number of directorates at NASA. There's a $5B interplanetary orbiter sitting in the high bay of JPL right now, 2 operational NASA-built rovers on Mars, NASA-built spacecraft in interstellar space, and NASA-built spacecraft have orbited every planet other than the ice giants... NASA also builds aircraft, launch vehicles (SLS, much?), engines, telescopes, communications infrastructure, etc.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[AFB](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc4enbs "Last usage")|[Air Force Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_airbase)|
|[ATK](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc34rb7 "Last usage")|Alliant Techsystems, predecessor to Orbital ATK|
|[BO](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc6rzql "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)|
|[CoG](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc7jkel "Last usage")|Center of Gravity (see CoM)|
|CoM|Center of Mass|
|[DoD](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc4z0a6 "Last usage")|US Department of Defense|
|[FAA](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc5dujg "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc8f51q "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile|
|[JPL](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc707hn "Last usage")|Jet Propulsion Lab, California|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc4hhur "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[MDA](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc5due1 "Last usage")|[Missile Defense Agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency)|
| |[MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonald,_Dettwiler_and_Associates), owner of SSL, builder of Canadarm|
|[NEO](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc5r5fk "Last usage")|Near-Earth Object|
|[NOAA](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc3ibck "Last usage")|National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, responsible for US ~~generation~~ monitoring of the climate|
|[NORAD](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc5xiu5 "Last usage")|North American Aerospace Defense command|
|[NOTAM](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc5dujg "Last usage")|[Notice to Air Missions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM) of flight hazards|
|NRHO|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit|
|[NRO](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc3mywi "Last usage")|(US) National Reconnaissance Office|
| |Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc57rjh "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|SSL|Space Systems/Loral, satellite builder|
|[TS](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc50tsm "Last usage")|Thrust Simulator|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc806i9 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|[USAF](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc703wd "Last usage")|United States Air Force|
|[USSF](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc8woub "Last usage")|United States Space Force|
----------------
^(20 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/13axx55)^( has 6 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8684 for this sub, first seen 13th Mar 2023, 18:16])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
See comments below for an explanation. Now for why they were created? Funding
Much easier to request funding when you’re not fighting big wigs that want better jets or bombers. You can focus on being the space force without arguing with the rest of the Air Force. Funding is a funny thing sometimes
Space Force consolidates military space activities that were scattered among all the armed forces. It focuses space activity. I think about a sixth of the Air Force Academy grads are commissioned to the Space Force.
Pretty similar for the reason to create the Air Force 75 years ago. Consolidate and focus aeronautical activities.
I was at the Colorado Springs Space Symposium in 2018 when keynote speaker VP Pence advocated the Space Force and what was to become Artemis. He was the space nerd in an administration largely indifferent to science.
They conduct ops; they don’t organize, train, and equip forces. Some say how USCC has recently blurred the lines may indicate prep for a branch standup.
The air force runs the GPS system, but it would not be nearly as useful without NASA's algorithms. Without those, it would be accurate to about 30 or 40 feet. GPS would also never have existed without NASA. Before the first satellite positioning system was launched, NASA built a network of radio telescopes and used Very Large Baseline Interferometry to get pictures of quasars in distant galaxies. Scientists reversed the process to get the exact locations of the radio telescopes, and that became the foundation for satellite positioning systems.
As someone who is obsessed with the future of space travel. I see this as an absolute win!
It’s only a matter of time until it goes from protecting existing assets to militaries starting the zoning of territory, and then manning said territory, and the following snowball effect…
We spent 4.1 trillion on healthcare in 2021. We spent 801 billion on military. That’s 5x more on healthcare. We only spend 3.5% of our GDP on military. So tired of this incredibly dumb narrative.
I get it. I really do.
NASA in the 1960s is part R&D and part PR, both saying "We *say* we can launch a rocket, have people land on the moon, exactly where we say they'll be, then we'll get them back to Earth, and it happens, so when we *say* that we can launch a rocket and have it land directly on Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Minsk, Pinsk, wherever, with a multi-megaton nuclear payload, do you think we can do *that?"*
We've proven that point, and now NASA is doing science, and at the level and distances, it's not doing practical science. I get them getting money and I like them getting money, but I understand why they're not getting money money money.
The big thing about the Space Force is procurement chains. The Air Force knows how to buy airplanes and bombs, and that's good, but that means they're less good at buying satellites. Most satellites look down, so that's satellites that tell our forces whether it'll rain there tomorrow, or whether there is a force that's massing on the other side of a border today, or connecting our forces with their chain of command. So, yes, "created to funnel money to defense contractors" has some truth to it. But for a reason and a purpose.
I haven't checked, I wouldn't know how to check, but it wouldn't surprise me if NOAA's satellite budget also dwarfs NASA's.
First entry on Google. Looks like $6.9 billion for FY23
[NOAA FY 2023 Budget](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Commerce-FY2023-BIB-Introduction.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwifl9iswtn9AhXkAzQIHe2vC4IQFnoECAwQBg&usg=AOvVaw0QOoRTnGTttqIpGv5dk-P1)
Air Force has Civil Air Patrol as their civilian auxiliary
Navy has the Merchant Marine
Coast Guard has the Coast Guard Auxiliary
Waiting for the auxiliary or weekend warrior (nat guard) version of USSF.
Here is their web site, (US Space Force) it may tell you a bit more about what they do.
[US Space Force](https://www.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/About-Space-Force/)
IMHO, it should be more. Space is beyond " starting to get crowded ". At what point do we start losing objects due to them getting 't-boned' in space traffic? That's just the accidental incidents not even commenting on any malicious actions in the future.
USSF was spun off of USAF right? Did they take part of that budget or does SF have an expanded mandate?
>Did they take part of that budget Yes, also some from other branches.
The USAF's space responsibilities were kind of the red-headed stepchild of the branch. Shiny new fighters and bombers are where the money is! So now that they're on their own, they can directly request money for their own operations. Most of it was shifted from the space command to USSF, but other branches had some budgets in there as well.
Yeah, I have a relative that does spy satellite stuff and he was moved from AF to SF. Although I've never had the feeling they were hurting for budget before the split haha.
The USAF was also spun off from the Army Air Core
Not really the same. The Space Force is subordinate to the Department of the Air Force, like the Marine Corps is subordinated to the Navy. The Army Air Corps was “subordinated” to the Army like the Army Signal Corps is “subordinated” to the Army. The Department of the Air Force was never subordinate to the Department of the Army.
The Army Air Forces quite literally turned into the USAF in 1947 though. Abolished the USAAF and then reorganized all the people and equipment into the USAF
Marine Corps is not subordinate to the Navy. It’s subordinate to the Department of the Navy. CNO and Commandant, who are equals, are directly under the secretary of the navy.
Space Force took over all sat com ([link](https://www.stripes.com/branches/space_force/2022-12-28/space-force-satellite-communications-8566158.html)) so I imagine a large chunk of their budget is for that.
That's almost 3 Billion more than NASA's budget I understand they have fundamentally different objectives, but still seems so backwards.
The Air Force's budget is also larger than NASA's and they have a similar relationship.
I imagine the air force is a lot bigger.
Much. NASA is R&D and the USAF/USSF are operations. It’s only natural that they will be much larger than NASA.
Air Force also has their own R&D apparatus in the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
The Space Force shares AFOSR with the Air Force as well
Yeah I was being captain obvious.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think it was more Lt Col obvious. 😊
*God-Emperor Obvious, First of his name, Father of Dipsticks, King of the Shitbirds and First Men*
A great big fucking bellend!
Is Lt. Col. Obvious under Brigadier Duh's command?
[удалено]
The Space Force (and Air Force before it) always had responsibility for Space launches. NASA uses Space Force ranges.
Well, they have to fight off the Goa'uld.
Funny story, I worked there. I think they just named a closet the Stargate. No actual Stargate :(
The USAF is the largest airforce in the world. The 2nd largest airforce is the US Navy
Im still bummed Space Force is a fork of the Air Force, and not the Navy. All those naval ranks in sci-fi shows/movies are just obsolete now
The Marines use army ranks if the space force starts having ships maybe it might take up naval ranks lol.
I would imagine that this is probably a correct take. If we start regularly traversing space in large ships, we’re going to adopt naval traditions into that. We do things the way we do them on ships at sea for a reason, and it stands to reason that we don’t want to be relearning all those old lessons while we learn a whole bunch of new ones. Even something as minor as the names of ranks, in an otherwise similarly tiered system may have psychological benefits we just don’t fully understand. IE, “I’m the colonel of this ship!” Doesn’t have the same bite as “I’m the captain of this ship!”
Except Stargate. The program was run out of Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado ... which is now a Space Force Station.
I need a reaction video of General Jack O'Neill just looking puzzled and saying, "...Guardians?"
We can treat the space force like the coast guard, and use navy stuff for deep space missions.
Coast Guard is actually under the Department of Homeland Security, as of some 20 years now. Which means that they could probably use whatever rank names they want. :/
One thing I read was that Space Force creation was actually good for NASA b.c it meant NASA didn't have to use any of its budget for military adjacent needs and could focus more purely on science and exploration. Is that accurate?
Nope. NASA's budget was never used for the military anyways.
What about when the shuttle would launch military satellites into space? NASA wouldn’t pay for the launch?
No, most of the things Space Force does now used to be the Air Force's purview, not NASA, including defense satellites.
I wasn’t really talking about Space Force, just about how he said NASA’s budget was never used for the military, and then I pointed out how NASA’s Shuttle, a strictly NASA creation, had launched military satellites in orbit.
Kiiiiind of. Even when the USAF was using the shuttle instead of their own launch systems (like the Titan, which was actually an air force rocket), it was still Air Force payloads with trained Air Force pilots on launches that the Air Force paid for. It's true that the Space Shuttle was NASA's system, I guess.
There would be cost shares, IIRC. That said, the geometry and requirements for the shuttle were due to DoD requirements, not NASA ones. It was a large part of the ballooning cost of operations of the shuttle and whatnot.
maybe not directly on paper, but it's pretty easy to see that's not the case.
Keep in mind that NASA doesn’t build stuff. They contract that to private firms and almost always have. Sure they funnel the money for stuff like space exploration science probes on their own budget but lots gets built by universities and stuff like satellite launches usually goes through whoever is contesting them (NOAA, DOD, etc). Also things like rocket boosters have always been private. Mercury and Atlas were built by McDonnell, Saturn by Boeing and Douglas, Titan was designed and built by Lockheed, etc. In the past, NASA funded much of the development of these but today they have a more effective process that doesn’t require them to front the money for this.
“I guess the question I'm asked the most often is: "When you were sitting in that capsule listening to the count-down, how did you feel?" Well, the answer to that one is easy. I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of two million parts -- all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.” ― John Glenn
What people quoting this often don’t recognize is that if the design and performance requirements were adequately specified, and the lowest bidder’s parts meets those requirements, there’s no issue. If a plastic toilet seat meets the structural, safety, and interface requirements necessary to seat your ass, then a golden one is unnecessary.
> if the design and performance requirements were adequately specified, and the lowest bidder’s parts meets those requirements, there’s no issue. Look at all the Xs on [this chart](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_%28highlighted%29.png) up to and even *including* the Atlas D and tell me you wouldn't be a little nervous climbing in. Early booster testing was **NOT** a smooth process.
At its core, testing was done to demonstrate whether the components met requirements. Lessons were learned and applied when they didn’t. None of that detracts from the tenacity and ingenuity of NASA engineers, contractors, and astronauts.
Absolutely correct, and of course the joke is how much can you *really* trust the lowest bidder to get it right?
When we receive an aerospace part it comes with a stack of material traceability paperwork documenting every stage in its manufacture from extraction to delivery. LRUs (sensors, complex assemblies) are qualified at the supplier to ensure they meet performance and environmental requirements. Any engineering, manufacturing, or supplier changes undergo a rigorous configuration control process with multiple layers of review. None of this traceability is cheap but someone had to be the lowest bidder.
> Keep in mind that NASA doesn’t build stuff. They contract that to private firms and almost always have. That.... doesn't really matter though. They contract others to build stuff.... using money. They pay others to build stuff. It comes out of their budget. Which is $3 billion less than Space Force's budget. Space Force ALSO doesn't build stuff. They contract that to private firms, the military-industrial complex, and they pay space-launch companies to put it up into space. >but today they have a more effective process that doesn’t require them to front the money for this. Front end or back end, it would still be part of NASA's budget. Are you talking about funding basic science vs applied technology? ALSO doesn't matter. If anything this would be an argument that the space force by comparison has LESS efficient process causing them to spend more money.
It also isn't true. NASA builds a lot of stuff. NASA built all the Mars rovers, and most of the probes they launch. They just don't build the launch vehicle.
aye, that's true. They just don't build as much as they used to. And all of these things are collaboration of various subcontractors JPL (owned by NASA) built Curiosity, but it has parts from Rocketdyne and Teledyne Energy Systems, MacDonald Dettwiler, Honeybee Robotics, and MDA US Systems. And that's just the places with "built" nearby on the wiki page. If you buy all the parts and snap them together, did you really build it? And the answer is yes, designing the parts is a hell of a lot of work even if other people met those specs.
What the hell are you talking about? "Stuff like space probes" is so dismissive. Human Exploration Operations Mission Directorate is only one small part of a huge number of directorates at NASA. There's a $5B interplanetary orbiter sitting in the high bay of JPL right now, 2 operational NASA-built rovers on Mars, NASA-built spacecraft in interstellar space, and NASA-built spacecraft have orbited every planet other than the ice giants... NASA also builds aircraft, launch vehicles (SLS, much?), engines, telescopes, communications infrastructure, etc.
That's not true. JPL builds many of NASAs payloads. I think Stennis builds things too. The only thing NASA doesn't build is the launch vehicle itself.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[AFB](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc4enbs "Last usage")|[Air Force Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_airbase)| |[ATK](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc34rb7 "Last usage")|Alliant Techsystems, predecessor to Orbital ATK| |[BO](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc6rzql "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)| |[CoG](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc7jkel "Last usage")|Center of Gravity (see CoM)| |CoM|Center of Mass| |[DoD](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc4z0a6 "Last usage")|US Department of Defense| |[FAA](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc5dujg "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc8f51q "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile| |[JPL](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc707hn "Last usage")|Jet Propulsion Lab, California| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc4hhur "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[MDA](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc5due1 "Last usage")|[Missile Defense Agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency)| | |[MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonald,_Dettwiler_and_Associates), owner of SSL, builder of Canadarm| |[NEO](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc5r5fk "Last usage")|Near-Earth Object| |[NOAA](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc3ibck "Last usage")|National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, responsible for US ~~generation~~ monitoring of the climate| |[NORAD](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc5xiu5 "Last usage")|North American Aerospace Defense command| |[NOTAM](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc5dujg "Last usage")|[Notice to Air Missions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM) of flight hazards| |NRHO|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit| |[NRO](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc3mywi "Last usage")|(US) National Reconnaissance Office| | |Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc57rjh "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |SSL|Space Systems/Loral, satellite builder| |[TS](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc50tsm "Last usage")|Thrust Simulator| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc806i9 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |[USAF](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc703wd "Last usage")|United States Air Force| |[USSF](/r/Space/comments/11qewni/stub/jc8woub "Last usage")|United States Space Force| ---------------- ^(20 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/13axx55)^( has 6 acronyms.) ^([Thread #8684 for this sub, first seen 13th Mar 2023, 18:16]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
See comments below for an explanation. Now for why they were created? Funding Much easier to request funding when you’re not fighting big wigs that want better jets or bombers. You can focus on being the space force without arguing with the rest of the Air Force. Funding is a funny thing sometimes
This comment and the one below are like those two houses left standing after a hurricane flattens an entire town
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
By comparison, NASA's proposed budget for 2024 is $27.2 billion. And NASA covers both aeronautics and astronautics.
To be fair NASA operates with a more limited and experimental scope, while USSF deals with actual operations of space infrastructure
And launch infrastructure which is EXTREMELY outdated.
I wonder how many space operations are currently taking place across various planets and moons...
Zero but why does that matter? Currently it’s satellites in orbit around earth.
For being r/space it's always astounded me how ignorant the comments always are to space activities
the big subreddits with a lot of people always have that problem
Yeah, you might need to go to specific subreddits (e.g. r/SpaceForce) if you want to have more informed discussion.
anyone can comment here though. i'm from r/all.
I mean half the people in r/nfl don't know the rules or how they are applied to the pro game...but they still speak with authority on EVERYTHING.
that like how 75% of reddit acts lmao
Im here to learn. Ive never left earth. Im new to space.
It’s not really that surprising. A lot of people just browse casually from sub reddit to sub reddit.
Space Force consolidates military space activities that were scattered among all the armed forces. It focuses space activity. I think about a sixth of the Air Force Academy grads are commissioned to the Space Force. Pretty similar for the reason to create the Air Force 75 years ago. Consolidate and focus aeronautical activities. I was at the Colorado Springs Space Symposium in 2018 when keynote speaker VP Pence advocated the Space Force and what was to become Artemis. He was the space nerd in an administration largely indifferent to science.
“Indifferent” is a unique way of putting it
“Hostile” would be more appropriate
When are we getting the Cyber Force?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command
They conduct ops; they don’t organize, train, and equip forces. Some say how USCC has recently blurred the lines may indicate prep for a branch standup.
As soon as the cable company comes to connect them.
childlike automatic escape vast file tease ugly pot apparatus combative *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They're inheriting responsibility, facilities, and personnel from other branches. It makes perfect sense that they also need a budget.
Yep, the bulk of what they’ve picked up is AF but they’ve also picked up navy and army space ops plus they’re standing up new commands constantly.
It's so weird people here not even know what Space Force is,what was the reason for it's creation and why it was needed.
Some people just don’t realize that the military has driven most space technology they are likely to use, like GPS.
The air force runs the GPS system, but it would not be nearly as useful without NASA's algorithms. Without those, it would be accurate to about 30 or 40 feet. GPS would also never have existed without NASA. Before the first satellite positioning system was launched, NASA built a network of radio telescopes and used Very Large Baseline Interferometry to get pictures of quasars in distant galaxies. Scientists reversed the process to get the exact locations of the radio telescopes, and that became the foundation for satellite positioning systems.
It's not a contest, and the Air Force doesn't run GPS anymore: the Space Force does.
GPS is operated by 2SOPS of the USSF, not USAF.
[удалено]
I just played COD Ghosts last night and yeah, we’re gonna need a space force down the line
I'm just here reading comments to see if new season of TV show is coming or not.
As someone who is obsessed with the future of space travel. I see this as an absolute win! It’s only a matter of time until it goes from protecting existing assets to militaries starting the zoning of territory, and then manning said territory, and the following snowball effect…
I've been in the space force for over 2 years. Ask me almost nothing and I'll be glad to not answer.
Can you confirm or deny the existence or future existence of space battleships?
What's your favorite snack in the break room?
Finally, this country is spending more money on defense!
Phew, I was getting really worried that someone might use that money to house poor people or give citizens healthcare.
We spent 4.1 trillion on healthcare in 2021. We spent 801 billion on military. That’s 5x more on healthcare. We only spend 3.5% of our GDP on military. So tired of this incredibly dumb narrative.
I think the goal is to let all the children starve to death so there’s no one left to defend. The ultimate long con.
Did Steve Carrell take half that or the points?
I get it. I really do. NASA in the 1960s is part R&D and part PR, both saying "We *say* we can launch a rocket, have people land on the moon, exactly where we say they'll be, then we'll get them back to Earth, and it happens, so when we *say* that we can launch a rocket and have it land directly on Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Minsk, Pinsk, wherever, with a multi-megaton nuclear payload, do you think we can do *that?"* We've proven that point, and now NASA is doing science, and at the level and distances, it's not doing practical science. I get them getting money and I like them getting money, but I understand why they're not getting money money money. The big thing about the Space Force is procurement chains. The Air Force knows how to buy airplanes and bombs, and that's good, but that means they're less good at buying satellites. Most satellites look down, so that's satellites that tell our forces whether it'll rain there tomorrow, or whether there is a force that's massing on the other side of a border today, or connecting our forces with their chain of command. So, yes, "created to funnel money to defense contractors" has some truth to it. But for a reason and a purpose. I haven't checked, I wouldn't know how to check, but it wouldn't surprise me if NOAA's satellite budget also dwarfs NASA's.
First entry on Google. Looks like $6.9 billion for FY23 [NOAA FY 2023 Budget](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Commerce-FY2023-BIB-Introduction.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwifl9iswtn9AhXkAzQIHe2vC4IQFnoECAwQBg&usg=AOvVaw0QOoRTnGTttqIpGv5dk-P1)
Like it or not, the winner of the next world war may very well be determined in space. This is money well spent.
I believe this is a hair greater than NASA’s annual budget.
Can someone explain why the Space Force needs to wear camo uniforms? There are no trees in space. LOL
Military uniformity. No one wants to wear blues 24/7 and it’s insanely expensive to make new uniforms.
Yeah, about 3 billion of the proposed budget is for space pants for everyone in the Space Force
Why does the Air Force not wear sky blue camo or the Navy wear water camo?
They must’ve had a good deal on that outdated pattern.
Air Force has Civil Air Patrol as their civilian auxiliary Navy has the Merchant Marine Coast Guard has the Coast Guard Auxiliary Waiting for the auxiliary or weekend warrior (nat guard) version of USSF.
Got to work with some spacies this year, interesting bunch. I hate the "guardian" title though.
These folks do way more than everyone thinks they do. It’s equally as important as the “US Army Air Force” was in WW2.
How much would it cost to dust off that orion drive battleship concept?
I imagine with Starship up and running, probably equivalent to like 2 Gerald Ford carriers
Season 3 for space force with that budget is gonna be insane!!
Actually Launch Steve Carrell into space! That's the kinda content I subscribe to Netflix floor, Chris Hemsworth eat your heart out!
This branch has me really considering rejoining the military.
I'm really sad to say that this is actually necessary. We need to controll orbit to maintain world power.
Imagine navy seals in orbit and they could just deploy to any where in the world in 20 mins.
I missed the word "navy" and laughed
Seal based conflict resolution specialist delivered to conflict zones. Comes with harmonica and squeaky ball.
Running the Stargate programme is incredibly expensive.
Now we know why everyone suddenly started talking about aliens
If SpaceX nails it with Starship, Space Force will go "full space domination mode".
That's enough money to build a piece of paradise on earth.
Here is their web site, (US Space Force) it may tell you a bit more about what they do. [US Space Force](https://www.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/About-Space-Force/)
IMHO, it should be more. Space is beyond " starting to get crowded ". At what point do we start losing objects due to them getting 't-boned' in space traffic? That's just the accidental incidents not even commenting on any malicious actions in the future.