Incredibly important to the day to day. The disinformation would certainly have a tougher time getting around which wouldn't suck... At the cost of shear chaos.
The US Air Force was established in 1907, just 4 years after the first flight and long before it had a functional fleet (1918). On the surface, Space Force sounds ridiculous, but as we're already seeing, it's becoming a necessity.
@@Josh-ks7co and that's the same thing that happened with the air force too, but know on earth the air force is one of the tips of the spear the us can deploy and the next level would be the space and simple naming convention would be space force.
@@eaglesviper79 Ok, let me repeat the above since you didn't get it. The. Name. Is. Stupid. Just like the US Army is not called Ground Force. The. Name. Is. Stupid
@eaglesviper79 regardless if you think the name isn't funny a lot of people do and that's the joke. People reading more into it are ignorant or lying to you. If Trump didn't do it and Biden did people would be laughing just as much if not more. It's like calling the Navy "Water Force" does that not sound silly?
Current USSF Guardian and Engineer here; one of the biggest reasons the USSF was established as its own branch was to consolidate space acquisitions and have a budget of its own to develop and sustain capabilities separate from the Air Force's budget - the reason being that the Air Force's primary goal is Air Power, and that always took a precedent over Space Power e.g. the F-35 got the funding over more GPS satellites. Another example was that the Army, Navy and Air Force had different SatCom networks that accomplished the same ultimate goal of communications with forces on the greound/surface (and why I feel for the operators and engineers in Del 8 who have a cluster of different programs and systems that are all managed under one roof). Great video overall to demonstrate the critical need for space for the 21st century warfighter and to demonstrate how real of a warfighting domain space has become. _Via Vincimus and Semper Supra!_
@foxphire0093 If you are actually working in defense for the government and yet promoting it on the internet to be targeted by foreign powers and hobby hackers for the intrusion of privacy you must doing it on purpose because you can be sure Google is not in a position to protect data they got on you (phone, debit card, location, likely income & personal profile) against China nor Russia. So, you are either making bait to which US cyberspace defense personnel will be targeting intruders of your privacy or you really don't know what you are doing, then there is quite a good chance that you are lying because promoting your government job resume on the internet is something government personnel of any self-decent institution with access to classified information must be warned against unless you are already in pension. It's not like you see people bragging in the comment section that they are working on 6th-generation jet fighters or doing cyberspace counterintelligence for NSA...
@@imonbanerjee2997 Your local Air Force recruiter can help! Similar to how the Marine Corps is a subdepartment of the Navy, the Space Force falls under the Department of the Air Force.
Correction: The ASM-135 test in 1985 was NOT a co-orbital ASAT. Co-orbital means the weapon achieves orbit prior to engaging it's target. The ASM135 was a direct-ascent ASAT, meaning it struck its target without ever entering orbit. These are two radically different classes of weapons.
I transferred from the US Army into the US Space Force a few years ago. I appreciate seeing more outlets realize and communicate the importance of our mission to the United States' national defense.
Part of the reason the Outer Space Treaty is so vague on "conventional" weapons in space is because astronauts often keep knives and even loaded guns on them as part of their survival kits in the event they land back on Earth somewhere like a forest full of bears.
@ASlickNamedPimpback US astronauts are still given weapons to protect themselves in case they land off-course. SpaceX astronauts have a knife in their pants even during launch and an unloaded gun in their survival packs an arms' reach away.
Space Force/Space Corps had been proposed previously to Trump signing those papers. Like nearly 2 decades previously. It was a very real and serious answer to a military need being recognized by the pentagon. The fact that it took so long tells you all that you need to know what politicians and the public think about the importance of space.
To be fair, it was also subject to a lot of Pentagon infighting slowing the whole process down. The Air Force didn't want to give up USAF Space Command, after all, that was their budget and a lot of importance and control for the Air Force going to a new department, and you can't have that!
In addition, a dedicated "Space Force" moves another step closer to normalizing space warfare as a legitimate theater of war. As long as US military space operations was part of the Air Force the United States could portray it as "Oh, yeah, we've got a few military folks that look after a few satellites, but it isn't a big deal like NASA." This was always a pure PR piece, meant for the consumption of the "unwashed masses," but... well, lots of _politicians_ fall into that category. Perhaps the lack of an official "Space Force" resulted in a few million less being invested in Russia / China space budgets. Probably not, but it can't hurt, right?
its literally the only thing I can remember agreeing with Trump about. (ironically it was also one of the few times my republican friends actually disliked trumps decision)
@@speedy01247 Most Republicans actually like the idea too. Attend a CPAC event and ask the people there what they think and you'll probably come up with 60 - 70% support for the Space Force.
In Swakopmund, Namibia when i was a child in 1978, My father and myself witnessed two "stars" converging from opposite directions while laying in the backyard on manure bags, they hit each other and it caused a massive explosion which resembled a fireworks yet it had the colour of starlight thinning out as it expanded until it disappeared like stardust. No colour just white light and no sound just visuals. I lie not and remember it like yesterday. I say that this world has had star wars like capabilities since or even before this imprinted moment!
I do believe you. There is so much interesting leaks since the 80's and more than enough totally fishy stuff to push open minded skeptics to consider MASS DESCEPTION as a reality.
Most people think the idea of the space force is brand new, but it isn’t The first discussion of a U.S. Space Force occurred under President Dwight Eisenhower's administration in 1958 and it was nearly established in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative otherwise known as Star Wars. In essence, what’s old is New again old ideas constantly getting rehashed.
also the Star Wars program isn't dead yet, since the director of the anit-ICBM Brilliant Pebbles project moved to continue working on it along with SpaceX for semi-obvious reasons.
Only a few years after Sputnik 1 was launched the USA launched their own satellite. A newspaper carried a cartoon with one man holding a sheet of paper out to two others holding pens shaped like black painted V-2 rockets. Below were the words, "Oh goody, now we can sign too."
4:02 Physicist here. The differences in gravitational force caused by distance from the planet for objects in orbit is far weaker than implied here, and definitely not the reason for faster minimum velocities to stay in orbit. For example, at the altitude of the ISS, they still experience about 90% of surface gravity. The reason for faster minimum speeds is simple geometry. Orbiting is (put simply) moving fast enough “sideways” so that, while you fall towards the planet, you are also moving so far to the side that you miss, continuously. Different gravitational pulls will affect what those sideways speeds need to be, but for the same planet and orbiting object, the distance changes the necessary speed relatively very little compared to simply how large the orbit is. The easiest way to conceptualize it is probably this: imagine you are orbiting 1 foot off the surface. You would have to travel around a significant portion of the globe to account before falling that foot in order to remain in orbit. You would have to be traveling extremely fast for no other reason than having such little space to work with. Now imagine you’re orbiting at a thousand miles up. You now have much, much more time to “miss” the planet; instead of one foot, you have a thousand miles to use while covering that same distance to miss the planet. Edit: If you’d like to think about it geometrically, the further satellite can account for fall and “sideways” travel in a shape more closely approximating an equilateral triangle, which has a relatively small hypotenuse (which itself approximates the necessary velocity), while the near satellite has a very lopsided triangle, needing to travel far more to the side than the distance it falls, and thus making a hypotenuse far longer than the average of the other side lengths. Edit 2: This wasn’t meant to be a full, formal explanation of orbital mechanics, as some people seem to think I was trying to do. The entirety of my point is that the differences in felt gravitational pull via different orbital radii is not the primary reason for different minimum orbital speeds.
As a physicist, as you say, you should know that those are the same thing. A circular orbit always requires a given speed, whether or not there is a planet's surface beneath it. Classically, the additional speed is required for the centripetal forces to balance the gravitational, and higher gravity means you fall faster, so you must go faster to remain in a circle. However, to say that the reason is not additional gravity is to misunderstand your relativistic classes entirely. The spacetime nearer to the earth exhibits a greater curvature, and the path of the satellite follows the tighter curve. But perhaps you are a particle physicist. The ISS's orbital velocity at 230 miles altitude is 97.2% of the orbital velocity at sea level, by the way, which kind of makes your "90%" comment a red herring.
I guess we need more folks to use Kerbal Space or take Brilliant courses. The formulas for this were published by Issac Newton on July 5, 1687. They are routinely taught in high school physics classes.
Assuming constant centripetal acceleration, the required velocity should actually _increase_ per the square root of distance, as per the centripetal acceleration formula, a=v^2/R. You may verify this formula up to a constant multiplier via dimensional analysis. An object having more distance to cover to miss the planet doesn't help it. It has to go faster to cover that distance.
@@richdobbs6595 The centrifugal force due to uniform circular motion is mv²/r. The centripetal force due to gravity is GMm/r². These are equal when v² = GM/r. In other words, orbital speed is inversely proportional to the square root of the orbital radius. Think about it this way. If you double your distance from the earth, gravity drops fourfold, but speed only drops by a factor of 1.4. So Thomas sort of has it backwards. It's not that gravity only changes "slightly," it changes tremendously. The reason Thomas probably had this wrong impression is that he was comparing LEO to the surface of the earth, which is just not a very large distance, so of course the difference in gravity isn't that large. But the difference in orbital speed also isn't that large (ignoring terrain and air resistance). When we compare orbits that have significantly different radii, like LEO and geosynchronous orbits, the gravitational force changes a lot, and that's why a lower speed is required. Or think about it another way. If Thomas's claim were true, then we should expect to see higher satellites moving slower even in a uniform gravitational field. But that's backwards. Higher satellites would actually have to move _faster_ than lower satellites if gravity were uniform, in order to keep v²/r constant.
I think one thing that should have been mentioned here is Space X's reusable rocket technology. Being the only entity in the world who can successfully do this has given a MAJOR leg up for the United States in terms of the modern day "space race". This has drastically reduced the cost and increased the volume at which the United States can launch it's satellites.
On space debris, it's worth noting an attack on geosynchronous or semi-synchronous orbit would be particularly bad, because while debris in low-earth-orbit will de-orbit on it's own given decades or centuries due to atmospheric drag, geosynchronous orbit would be basically screwed permanently (or at least until we manually clean it up). Relatedly, one factor is that there is a legitimate purpose behind developing anti-satellite technology - Active Debris Removal. Most technology that could be used to remove space debris could _also_ be used to remove active satellites, so there is a bit element of hush hush around the technical specifics of the field. And also, this is a minor point, but the liability nightmare that would ensue in the event of Kessler Syndrome (the bit mentioned in the video where collisions trigger ever more collisions) would be _insane_ . There is basically no regime to determine responsibility if one satellite, or the debris from a satellite, collides with another. And they are pretty damn expensive. t wasn't addressed in the Outer Space Treaty or any of the subsequent treaties, and there are now many, many more actors in space than just the US and USSR. Arguably, all satellites are legally the responsibility of the state from where the satellite launched from (no private ownership in space! Legally, Space Communism is a thing, kinda). I think Russia has some legal provision to make it responsible for stuff launched from Baikonur, but France is on the hook for all satellites launched from French Guyana. The liability uncertainty creates a big problem for insurers, which creates a big problem for commercial users of space - as the current situation in the Red Sea demonstrates, scaring off insurers can cause immense damage even if there aren't actually that many incidents, proportionately.
There's been a lot of discussion that the current laws around space, particularly around liability and responsibility, are no longer fit for purpose. Space law is an evolving field, and some law schools are starting to research it.
@@Croz89 True, the tricky thing is though, as with all matters of international law, even if everyone can agree there is a problem, unless the geopolitics align it's very difficult to do anything about it, especially given the increased diversity of space actors. One paper I read was basically saying we need a catastrophe to get real change. Once there is a big collision that makes news headlines, costs money, kills someone and/or causes an international dispute then the treaties might be reopened. Which is a bit depressing, but checks out to me.
@@personzorz That's an interesting point, one that I've struggled to find good data on. Yes, geosynchronous orbit is much larger, given it's so much further away than LEO, but it's also relatively narrow and clustered around the equator, as opposed to LEO which is more like a fuzzy shell. By my understanding, a lot of the debris from a collision in GSO would stay within the orbital band of the satellite. GSO satellites also tend to be much larger, which I suppose both makes collisions less likely, and means any collisions that do happen will result in more debris. I'd love to see a proper simulation comparing the relative impact of debris-forming events in both orbits (particularly with sun-synchronous orbit in LEO, given I believe that's the most heavily used one) The relative speed thing is interesting. I would imagine that matters most for the very small debris, which is just as well given that stuff is all but impossible to track, especially that far out!
@@merrymachiavelli2041 I think we can look at things like the UN convention on the law of the sea for laws we could adapt to space. Such as every artificial object in space having a registered country whose laws govern its operation and who assumes responsibility in the event of an incident. Space is in a lot of ways like international waters.
To be fair to Steve Carell he initially dismissed Space Force as ridiculous but as his team did research for the movie he realized its real life importance
It's impossible for some people to admit Trump was correct about anything. 1. His speech at the UN warning Germany of the dangers of being reliant on Russian Gas. 2. His warning/threat to NATO member to start paying their agreed upon share otherwise they were inviting conflict because of their weakness. 3. Space Force 4. etc etc.
If I remember right, the concept of the show is that the general Carell plays is like "sure whatever" and then gets overburdened by the new job. People just made fun of it because Trump was president. It was already something that had been pushed by the military for about a decade.
@@andrewarnold9818it's the odd thing where it sounded funny, but the reason for doing it was to co-ordinate the previously separate airforce, navy and army space regimes. It wasn't really an interesting news item if the words 'space force' hadn't sounded silly' - it was a long overdue bureaucratic reshuffling.
I really appreciate what you did with the music in this video. It conveys a much more serious tone than most of your others, fitting, given the subject matter.
Actually US do have some "dark sat" which use materials that reflects radio wave and reflects very little visible light. They are quite literally speaking are not tractable, at least not according to known method.
Yeah, that's an argument I've seen a lot regarding things like massive arrays of internet satellites. I haven't heard a lot of talk about how military stuff will do the same thing.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721imo internet satellites provide net benefits to humans on earth, military ones don't. It's a lot easier to justify putting stuff out there that benefits us without a way to take it down then stuff that's designed to kill everyone
@@goulddddablemore aptly when you fail it... spectacularly and catastrophically 😅 Edit: to all of you replying to @goulddddable explaining Kessler Syndrome: they were making a Star Wars joke. The Millennium Falcon supposedly "made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs."
@goulddddable It's when there's so much debris that space travel becomes too risky because each piece of debris is like a bullet hurtling through space fast enough to easily poke holes in space craft.
@@NexAngelus405more specifically, the cause of such a situation. Kessler Syndrome refers to the increasing number of collisions because each collision dramatically increases the amount of fragments that could cause another collision, and then another, exponentially, like a nuclear chain reaction. at first we would only see a few collisions, than a significant amount more, then an overwhelming amount. Kessler Syndrome is happening right now, collisions are increasing, but they are doing so slowly enough it's not yet cause for panic. but it very easily could be.
Hey, just a heads up, "Block IIF" is pronounced "block 2 f" and it's the second ordinal series of GPS satellites. It was preceded by Block I and will be succeeded by Block III.
I have an irrational amount fear about Kessler Syndrome, because even though I'm probably too old to reach a time where space travel is affordable, the idea of our species imprisoning itself on this planet horrifies me at some fundamental level. And with the state of international relations in 2024, it feels like an inevitability.
Let me fix that fear for you real quick. Things in low-earth orbit (LEO) (the orbit that could "imprison" us) still has atmospheric drag which causes everything in it to naturally de-orbit. This can take a very long time but the process can be rapidly solved with one thing. A nuclear detonation in upper atmosphere/LEO can shorten the de-orbit time by a factor of ten or more. This is also one of the biggest reasons we are so afraid of nukes in space. It will wipe out almost everything we have in LEO. Even in space, nukes are still mutually assured destruction.
There are multiple ways to get off a planet affected by kessler syndrom, even if some of them are not pretty. Lasers, bombs, ablative armour, you name it. Plus, kessler syndrome would only affect one orbit, that being the one that has all the stuff in it. go higher, and you are fine. stay lower, you are fine too. Plus, you know, th Earth is a nice planet to be trapped on in any case....
@@Alexander_Kale Earth is indeed a fine planet, but I'd like to think our species can at least colonize the Milky Way. We need to just stop like...warring, and such.
@@sarysa Warring amongst ourselves has not stopped us from colonizing this planet, it will not stop us from colonizing all the others. I prefer the idea that we will build utopia despite having flaws and recognizing them, not because we will eventually get rid of said flaws.
@@JoviaI1 A fun fact I love about this that you didn't mention for anyone reading this comment thread and curious, detonating a nuclear device in LEO would obviously destroy anything within the conventional blast wave, but what is does thats way way more powerful and destructive, is release an insanely powerful EMP that can whip out anything on something like half the side of the planet in orbit (think everything the sun touches during the day but in space). It wont physically destroy them, but instead fry all the electronics. The US government tested this way back in the 50s and saw these effects, and then pushed for no more nuclear testing in space as satellites became a real possibility.
Saw the gator ball in the video. Worst piece of equipment I used. It worked but i always felt it was a pain and it was very finicky to acquire. Now the RRK was one of the slickest pieces of equipment I ever used. You put in the configs and it would lock and optimize the connection for you. All you had to do was point it in the general vicinity. Was also light and easy to transport
I want to personally thank you, I have a presentation on space warfare tomorrow and i need a video and there were no good ones until now, you are my hero.
I never understood why anybody thought "Space Force" was funny. We've had a space force for years. It was just called the Air Force. We just realized that it was important enough to create it's own branch.
Every time I hear Space Force in a Sci Fi book I think 'oh shit, that's actually a real thing'. They don't need to come up with names any more like 'UN Space Command', it's just Space Force.
I was always confused why everyone was making fun of space force. Like do they not think it's necessary? It's like laughing at the US air force being created in 1947.
People were making fun of space force as a surrogate for President Trump. They made fun of or complained about (and still do) literally everything he did or does.
Two things: dumb name, and all of these actions were already being done by different branches that interacted with each other anyway All the space force does is what the Air Force, NOAA, and DoD did anyway
How is it a dumb name when it makes sense being a child of the Air Force? Additionally, your second point is the reason it was made. To streamline aspects each did into one for military usage. Plus, the Air Force was birthed from the Navy.@@Ramonatho
Correction to the Viasat hack: This was only Ukraine's backup communications, they say their comms were not affected by the hack. You're framing it as if they were incapacitated.
@@hdjono3351please tell me how to find a direct source for this claim. I’ve been searching for a single direct source for months and the best I’ve ever found was some low level lawmaker there saying they would win eventually, but not giving any timetable at all. So if you have a link to a document or a speech that supports you I’d love to see it. Tell me how to find it thanks…
Completely forgot to mention that apart from US Russia & china, India has also done ASAT test in 2019, so there's atleast 4 ASAT programs in tge world that we know of
@@joeboydedaev6393I would argue otherwise. India is proving that a space program doesn't have to cost their country a significant portion of their budget. I don't think they're decades behind -- their rapid advancement at lower costs tells me they're gonna catch up in a matter of single digit, not double digit years.
This video is slightly misleading, geo stationary orbit is relatively open and clear of satellites and debris in comparison to LEO (Low Earth Orbit), which has 21457 trackable orbital and suborbital objects. There are more objects other than just these pieces, and there are about 167 million more of these smaller untrackable debris, and they pack a punch. (The ISS was struck by one of the untrackable debris and had a crack in Cupola Module window)
Great video, I'd also recommend looking into the bus-sized Chinese and US space planes which go into space for years and re-enter without any idea what they're doing. Crazy to think about!
Space warships will most probably look like the ones on the Expanse. I can totally see the US Space Force or China building something like the UN Truman class Dreadnought or the MCRN Donnager class Battleship.
The biggest thing you're going to expect if we every get in space warfare is that offensive craft will have very prominent radiators - every hit you take in space will generate tons of heat that you'll desperately need to get rid of. But something like a warship I don't consider likely for a long time. Better to do it with unmanned craft for now.
@@WasatchWind I doubt this. There are more effective ways of dissipating heat for one, for two any impact you do take in space from hostile weaponry is probably going to be the only hit and last hit you can take. There's no reason for weaponry to not be able to accelerate to ludicrous speeds or impact with devastating charges. Nuclear warheads are actually perfect space based weaponry due to both disruptive effects on electronics and a hit on a ship is pretty much guaranteed hull breach as it would instantly vaporize the hull upon impact. What is cool however is that we may see scaled up versions of tech that Boeing has a patent for that dissipates the energy from explosive shockwaves by super-heating the air around the defensive system, disrupting the shockwave. I'm not sure how effective this specific method would be in a vacuum, however.
Space warfare is going to be boring robotic craft resembling kitbashes of telescopes and probes launching clouds of lead at high velocity towards each other. Manned craft won’t happen until colonies become common enough for a persistent human presence in interplanetary travel. One of those satellites attack a crewed Martian lander, we will see some real Frankenstein spacecraft. Orion drive, Casaba howitzers and all.
An aside to the line "We know where all the satellites are," but we don't actually know the exact locations of satellites. We vaguely know, espescailly if the satellite has good means of locating itself, but satellite locations are more clouds of probability (even if that cloud can be small). It's part of why you don't get told your satellite is going to hit something but that it *might* hit something, although a lot of that particular problem is because of the limitations of certain satellites.
@@henryzhang3961 It looks like it purged my original comment for some reason- probably because I tried to link an article. In short, yes. The problem is that no observation is perfect. Even top tier Space Sitautional Awareness ('SSA') capabilities are only going to give you a limitedly accurate reading. Remember, this is usually a ground based radar or telescope, and often it's not a gold plated solution. Satellites are quite small by contrast, so being wrong by a meter or so already gives you a probable area potentially larger than the satellite in question. Then, the issue is that you need to check on them repeatedly. Because they follow newtonian paths, a small error begins to perpetuate, because you know you don't know exactly what angle it's going at. The longer you don't check on an object in space the larger an area it could theoretically be in. Now, live objects get checked on pretty frequently so you usually do know pretty exactly where they are. In truth this is actually at its worst for dead objects and debris (Not least because dangerous debris can be a centimeter wide or smaller! Picture designing a system that can get a return that small entirely right!). However, the basic principle stands. There's this misconception that satellites have like a video game unit icon that tells you where they are, or some kind of internal beacon, but GPS satellites as an example are actually tracked just by ground stations. This actually also has the neat feature that you can protect a satellite by checking on it. Since an orbital map is just a bunch of uncertainty clouds, a potential collision is often going to be something like 'There's a 2.1% chance of a collision with this object.' You could evade, if you're lucky enough to have propulsion, but your propellant is limited and if you intend to perform an End of Life Manoeuvre it essentially determines your 'lifetime.' So you can just check on the offending object, narrowing where it might be, and thus seeing if it really will cause a solution. I was mostly just calling out a little technical phrasing error that any normal person, would totally still use, but it's a funny little factoid that nobody truly knows where anything in space is.
Space Force as a name sounds silly (especially the way 45 says it), but just as the USAF was spun off from the US Army Air Corps so the Space Force "needed" to exist as its own service...but let's be clear: warfare in space was contemplated from the moment Sputnik was launched. I grew up in the era of secret Air Force shuttle missions, Reagan's "SDI" and F-15's launching anti-satellite missiles. Space-based warfare is simply a reality of terrestrial nations having important assets in orbit.
One correction in the list of countries with anti satellite system. India 🇮🇳 is also in this list. India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), successfully neutralised a satellite in space with its anti-satellite (ASAT) missile on 27 March 2019, in Mission Shakti.
people mocked the air force before and during its formation, just goes to show that forward thinking is mocked and then loved and the clowns forget they mocked
The Space Force *will* literally become the largest and most important branch of the military the more we develop our civilization and expand, it's just taking its first steps
@@roo72 ok try this it’s called google they still are mocked today. And also high ranking members of the armed forces didn’t see a future in flying during war time situation. But have others do the research for you since you may be to lazy to do it yourself
Aside from all the amazing information provided by this video, one thing i take even more seriously is how late night "comedians" are willling to put party allegiance before legitimate actions to boost our nation's defense
Additional note, when India conducted a similar test it did so with extreme caution. The Chinese ASAT test in 2007, which occurred at an altitude of 865 kilometers and produced a debris field of some 3,000 objects that will linger in space for decades, the Indian demonstration appears to have produced some 400 fragments (of which about 270 are being tracked) that will decay in weeks or perhaps a few months. Both US and China had some very unkind words despite conducting similar tests.
Do people really forget about the time an F-15 launched an ASAT in the cold war!?!?!?! FUCK WE SHOULD'VE LISTENED TO REGAN WE NEED THE STAR WARS PROGRAM!
A caveat for now is that the entire development seems somewhat similar to early plane development ie. first development being recon, so it's entirely possible that in the next single generation, you may witness space bomber satellites.
I was at CSUDH when they used the campus to film that stupid Netflix space force show. It was super annoying because they were always closing down parts of the campus for shooting (mostly around the library) so you’d either have to wait for them to stop or go the long way around (both of which are a pain when you only have 10 minutes to get from one side of campus to the other
I don't understand why Space Force would be a joke. I saw a really interesting talk by a high ranking general years ago talking about the need for a "Space Force" and isn't it fairly obvious thats where the next front will be. Or was it just cos it was Trump?
1. The name is just funny. We have the air force, but we don't call the navy the sea force, or the army the land force. Space force just sounds like a ridiculous name. 2. Trump was advocating for it despite whenever he talked about it giving contradictory answers. It made it sound like it was something he wanted credit for without actually knowing anything about what it'd entail. 3. There was already the Air Force Space Command which was doing what Space Force is currently doing, so really the only change was making a new agency despite all the push for it to exist.
@@scragar It's worth noting though that while Air Force Space Command was doing everything the Space Force does now, there is a point somewhere in the hypothetical future where we have space warships, and Air Force Space Command and the Navy would've argued endlessly about who should wind up in command of those, and there are good arguments on both sides frankly. The Navy has more relevant experience operating ships, and especially submarines which are similar to space ships in many ways - but AF Space Command has direct experience with space itself, and the Air Force has collaborated with NASA and it's predecessor since shortly after WW2. By introducing a Space Force, that conflict was resolved before it could happen.
18:11 i like to imagine satellites up there with just one robotic arm each furiously punching each other like plastic rock-em-sock-em robot toys from the 80s.
Not sure if this message will get to you, but I actually have a whole research report for college on the weaponization/militarization of space. I heavily base my style of writing off of the script used in this video so its such a crazy coincidence! So thank you for making this video!
I said the same, same thing people were up here defending the cornball comedians, but you know he didn’t do anything amazing but give credit where it is due.
Literally all the Space Force did was create a branch of the department of the Air Force that does the stuff that the Air Force was already in charge of.
I always found the Soviet "Istrebitel Sputnikov" (Satellite Fighter?) Coorbital ASAT fascinating, but the relative lack of English-language information makes it harder to learn about.
While the threat to low earth orbit is demonstratively high, Geo-sync is basically completely safe from Kessler syndrome (cascading satellite failures). Being so much further from earth (and everything orbiting in the same direction) it would take exponentially more attacks to pollute Geo-sync orbits with debris, as the area you need to fill with debris scales with the square of distance. For reference, Geo-sync orbit being ~18 times further than low earth orbit means at least 320 times more area to cover.
"In war, one should seek to take and hold the high ground. From there, the enemy's movements are clearly visible, and he will struggle just to reach you, let alone fight you. High orbit is the highest ground there is."
And the US Army Air Corps already had aviation handled, right? They did, I'm not trying to say that the USAF was made because the Army sucked, but as the capabilities and strategic necessity of aircraft became more prevalent, the cost, the required infrastructure, and the specific knowledge necessary made it more reasonable to create a new branch of the military dedicated to aviation. And we see the same thing here with the Space Force, the cost, strategic necessity, and the capabilities of satellites in relation to warfare were all explained in the video, so I won't harp on that here. While the Air Force almost certainly had it handled, with the rising likelihood of space warfare, it seems that it has become more reasonable to have a dedicated military branch for it than to leave it to a subset of the Air Force. Additionally, it's not like all of the systems that were previously in place will go unused, just as the Army transferred assets, personnel and locations such as Warren AFB, to the Air Force, they have likely already transferred assets, and personnel to the Space Force, so all of the experts and equipment hasn't been lost.
Very glad that this video went back to first principles to explain "why orbits". We've just started the Astronautics badge, and being able to show them the first part of this (we didn't have time for the whole thing unfortunately) made things so much easier. Also, at least one of the Scouts got excited when he realised that this was the same people as Jet Lag.
I both admire the restraint and am disappointed that you didn't take the opportunity to make a high-ground reference/joke. (know it's more HAI's place, but still, it was right there!)
the v2 vibing up there before hitting an empty field south of London "am i not physiclly part of a conflict" Edit: i didnt think i have to say this, this was a cheap joke, i dont acctually think the V2 should count but hoped someone laughted anyway
It is but its attack took place on the ground. It enters space to get to its target but its target (the field south of London) is not in space. The Israeli interception rocket's target was in space. If the British launched an anti ballistic missile and shot down the V2 in space, that would count.
In Germany the "Air force" is called Luftwaffe which translates to "airweapon". I honestly could not think of another name for it, it is an accurate description after all
Those shows stopped being funny long ago lol. They just press the laugh track buttons on the show, you will be surprised by how many people that don't find any of those shows funny at all.
Stupid people will laugh, mock and ridicule those more knowledgeable. Take notes of all those who laughed and maybe reconsider trusting them next time they laugh at someone.
Thats what i was thinking too, Trump does X, then people whos job it is to ridicule everything trump does ridicule what trump does. And where supposed to what? Be suprised? Cause im not 😂
The fact that the late night show hosts were so dismissive shows how poorly equipped they are to play the role of social commentators that they purport to be.
Pseudo intellectual babble there Bubba. They don't purport to be social commentators. They're comedians. Comedians make fun of stupid people and things. Space Force was the dumbest damn name that could have been applied. Are you sure you don't harbor ill will towards the shows? It seems like you just jumped on the opportunity to put down late night shows.
KSP really prepared me for this video. It seems like a low-earth orbit requires more energy to go thousands of miles per hour and circle the earth a couple times per hour, but in fact the stationary orbit is way harder to do. There's no good reference for speed other than the surface of earth, which is a relative difference of 0mph, but in fact, it takes waaaay more energy to get to the stationary orbit. Well sure, put a 150 million mile long stick in your hand and spin around. The far end of that stick is BOOKING IT. There's also a really neat way of setting up a network of stationary satellites, you raise your apoapsis to the stationary orbit then lower your periapsis until the Period of your orbit is 1/3 of the local day length. Now, every time you hit apoapsis, you release another satellite (and circularize orbit of course). Congratulations, you now have 3 stationary satellites that are on the same orbit and can probably see each other and, together, can probably see just about all of the planet.
The only reason everyone made fun of Space Force was because of Trump. If Obama had done it, people would call him a military genius and forward thinker.
When the US bought Alaska many people in the press lampooned the purchase. "Seward's Folly", they called it. Today we look back and recognize how short sighted those critics were. It won't take as much time as it took for the Alaska purchase critics to end up with egg on their face, for the Space Force to prove that it is no laughing matter.
Trump could have said "you need to wash your hand after using bathroom" and those so called "comedians" would have been laughing at him like it's the stupidest thing to say. Years later, and Space Force is alive and well, while most of those "comedians" are out of work - and that's comedy :)
No, they're making fun of the name. Air force doesn't sound weird, but instead of navy if you were to say "water force" you're going to get laughed at. Now it's the official title ostensibly because of Trump's renowned [lack of] command over the English language
I'm gonna be entirely honest, I think that the militarization of space is a good thing, simply due to funding issues. If nasa got a slice of the US military's budget, we would be on mars by now, so maybe sometime soon that will happen.
I am not going to lie, I almost down voted and left right at beginning because I thought it'd be a video making fun of the Space Force instead of having Trump Deranged Syndrome like the late night hosts, and news I might add. I was working at NASA when Trump got elected, and Jim Bridenstine became our Administrator. The media made fun of him, saying something like he was only involved in some aviation oversight committee or something, can't remember. (unqualified). Charlie Bowen, the prior Administrator, though a remarkable and in my opinion historical figure, decided to step down on Trump's Inauguration day. That was poor taste, imo, though. Took a while for people in NASA to warm up to Jim Bridenstine, but you can tell he loved NASA, space and its missions. Let me tell you that when that dude cried when he stepped down when Biden was elected, it was because he truly loved working with the folks at NASA and was just going to miss the appointment. But in the end, he sold us on the Space Force and warned of why it was required, etc. High % government workers are left leaning, that's a fact, and they were on board with Space Force. Just wanted to share that story of that time.
I think one future industry will be asteroid mining where chunks are sent to the moon or large unmanned satellites where robots break it down further ready to be picked up. Robots could be just remote controlled to do different tasks (can't be live due to the delays). This would require it to be a globally controlled organisation that destributes the materials amongst the globe or at least the member states, purely as a way to deter orbital piracy.
The Space Force should make a UNSC Stalwart class Frigate type battle-ready space ship. Its completely possible, and would give us a pretty good foothold in space warfare
And people were acting like we didn't have the space Corp as part of the US airforce for decades before they founded space force. That's how the airforce came out if the army air corp before them. As technology develops we must address those threats with conscious and unwavering diligent to ensure our citizens safety long term.
Space Command was originally created in September 1985 to provide joint command and control for all military forces in outer space and coordinate with the other combatant commands. SPACECOM was disestablished in 2002, and its responsibilities and forces were merged into United States Strategic Command. When the United States Space Force was established as an independent service on 20 December 2019, Air Force Space Command was redesignated as United States Space Force and served as its interim headquarters, but remained part of the U.S. Air Force.
This is such a well made video! I think they should we showing videos like this in schools to raise public awareness about such threats and possibilities. Definitely a sub from me 👍
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
Glad to see something about Space conflict. A lot of people just don't know how important space is to day to day life and how vulnerable it is.
Incredibly important to the day to day. The disinformation would certainly have a tougher time getting around which wouldn't suck... At the cost of shear chaos.
are you fir space conflict or not😂
Most people are so stupid that they don't even distantly understand what can happen with their worthless lives within 2 hours.
The US Air Force was established in 1907, just 4 years after the first flight and long before it had a functional fleet (1918). On the surface, Space Force sounds ridiculous, but as we're already seeing, it's becoming a necessity.
@@andreypetrov4868 No, they do not. There are hundreds of nukes constantly pointed all over the US.
One day the Space Force will be the most important branch of the military you'll see, that day is far but it's not science fiction
Ya, it was the same with Air Force at its start.
The joke isn't pulling airforce responsibilities into a new branch(all this did) the joke is the name is stupid.
@@Josh-ks7co and that's the same thing that happened with the air force too, but know on earth the air force is one of the tips of the spear the us can deploy and the next level would be the space and simple naming convention would be space force.
@@eaglesviper79 Ok, let me repeat the above since you didn't get it. The. Name. Is. Stupid. Just like the US Army is not called Ground Force. The. Name. Is. Stupid
@eaglesviper79 regardless if you think the name isn't funny a lot of people do and that's the joke. People reading more into it are ignorant or lying to you. If Trump didn't do it and Biden did people would be laughing just as much if not more. It's like calling the Navy "Water Force" does that not sound silly?
Current USSF Guardian and Engineer here; one of the biggest reasons the USSF was established as its own branch was to consolidate space acquisitions and have a budget of its own to develop and sustain capabilities separate from the Air Force's budget - the reason being that the Air Force's primary goal is Air Power, and that always took a precedent over Space Power e.g. the F-35 got the funding over more GPS satellites. Another example was that the Army, Navy and Air Force had different SatCom networks that accomplished the same ultimate goal of communications with forces on the greound/surface (and why I feel for the operators and engineers in Del 8 who have a cluster of different programs and systems that are all managed under one roof). Great video overall to demonstrate the critical need for space for the 21st century warfighter and to demonstrate how real of a warfighting domain space has become. _Via Vincimus and Semper Supra!_
How could one join the proverbial space nerds?
@foxphire0093 If you are actually working in defense for the government and yet promoting it on the internet to be targeted by foreign powers and hobby hackers for the intrusion of privacy you must doing it on purpose because you can be sure Google is not in a position to protect data they got on you (phone, debit card, location, likely income & personal profile) against China nor Russia. So, you are either making bait to which US cyberspace defense personnel will be targeting intruders of your privacy or you really don't know what you are doing, then there is quite a good chance that you are lying because promoting your government job resume on the internet is something government personnel of any self-decent institution with access to classified information must be warned against unless you are already in pension. It's not like you see people bragging in the comment section that they are working on 6th-generation jet fighters or doing cyberspace counterintelligence for NSA...
@@imonbanerjee2997 Your local Air Force recruiter can help! Similar to how the Marine Corps is a subdepartment of the Navy, the Space Force falls under the Department of the Air Force.
We’re the mighty watchful eye
But what we need is Desert Power. The spice must flow!
Correction: The ASM-135 test in 1985 was NOT a co-orbital ASAT. Co-orbital means the weapon achieves orbit prior to engaging it's target. The ASM135 was a direct-ascent ASAT, meaning it struck its target without ever entering orbit. These are two radically different classes of weapons.
I transferred from the US Army into the US Space Force a few years ago. I appreciate seeing more outlets realize and communicate the importance of our mission to the United States' national defense.
Broooo I need your reference
"National Defense"
I don't trust the US as far as I can throw a stone. Particularly not the US' military.
Thank you for your service
Good old US, always on the defensive. Never starting wars that gets way over a million people killed in the 21st century alone so far.
Part of the reason the Outer Space Treaty is so vague on "conventional" weapons in space is because astronauts often keep knives and even loaded guns on them as part of their survival kits in the event they land back on Earth somewhere like a forest full of bears.
I think Russia used to give them shotguns cause of the bears in Siberia. Not 100% sure
Only Cosmonauts carried weapons, and it was a hybrid shotgun/rifle. Most, if not all, Astronauts land in the Ocean.
@@ASlickNamedPimpback I can understand how hybrid shotgun/rifle would be useless against shark with laser so it's pointless to carry one
@ASlickNamedPimpback US astronauts are still given weapons to protect themselves in case they land off-course. SpaceX astronauts have a knife in their pants even during launch and an unloaded gun in their survival packs an arms' reach away.
they dont do that anymore
25:45 I really wanted the line to be "the consequences are just astronomical"
That sound more like something you would hear on HAI
Lol 😹 my comment was going to be time stamped as well. I’ll share here now, at 23:45 he proved we now live on a flat earth because of satellites 🕳
@@NGC-catseye honestly can’t tell if it’s a joke lol
They should hire you to write for Wendover.
@@NGC-catseyebro doesn't listen
Space Force/Space Corps had been proposed previously to Trump signing those papers. Like nearly 2 decades previously. It was a very real and serious answer to a military need being recognized by the pentagon. The fact that it took so long tells you all that you need to know what politicians and the public think about the importance of space.
To be fair, it was also subject to a lot of Pentagon infighting slowing the whole process down. The Air Force didn't want to give up USAF Space Command, after all, that was their budget and a lot of importance and control for the Air Force going to a new department, and you can't have that!
In addition, a dedicated "Space Force" moves another step closer to normalizing space warfare as a legitimate theater of war. As long as US military space operations was part of the Air Force the United States could portray it as "Oh, yeah, we've got a few military folks that look after a few satellites, but it isn't a big deal like NASA."
This was always a pure PR piece, meant for the consumption of the "unwashed masses," but... well, lots of _politicians_ fall into that category. Perhaps the lack of an official "Space Force" resulted in a few million less being invested in Russia / China space budgets. Probably not, but it can't hurt, right?
its literally the only thing I can remember agreeing with Trump about. (ironically it was also one of the few times my republican friends actually disliked trumps decision)
@@speedy01247 people forgot that, yes trump like to take credit but forgot that he takes it from somewhere. Probably from his.
@@speedy01247 Most Republicans actually like the idea too. Attend a CPAC event and ask the people there what they think and you'll probably come up with 60 - 70% support for the Space Force.
In Swakopmund, Namibia when i was a child in 1978, My father and myself witnessed two "stars" converging from opposite directions while laying in the backyard on manure bags, they hit each other and it caused a massive explosion which resembled a fireworks yet it had the colour of starlight thinning out as it expanded until it disappeared like stardust. No colour just white light and no sound just visuals. I lie not and remember it like yesterday. I say that this world has had star wars like capabilities since or even before this imprinted moment!
I do believe you. There is so much interesting leaks since the 80's and more than enough totally fishy stuff to push open minded skeptics to consider MASS DESCEPTION as a reality.
Most people think the idea of the space force is brand new, but it isn’t The first discussion of a U.S. Space Force occurred under President Dwight Eisenhower's administration in 1958 and it was nearly established in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative otherwise known as Star Wars. In essence, what’s old is New again old ideas constantly getting rehashed.
also the Star Wars program isn't dead yet, since the director of the anit-ICBM Brilliant Pebbles project moved to continue working on it along with SpaceX for semi-obvious reasons.
Only a few years after Sputnik 1 was launched the USA launched their own satellite.
A newspaper carried a cartoon with one man holding a sheet of paper out to two others holding pens shaped like black painted V-2 rockets.
Below were the words, "Oh goody, now we can sign too."
As a guy in the Space Force (pretty sure I was in this video too lol) thanks for taking it seriously and for making this video. Really well done.
What do you do in the space force 😮
🫡🫡
@@TheAlchemist1089 Missile warning tech ... which would have taken you like 4 seconds to work out if you knew how to Internet.
i was also in this video (it showed a picture of earth and it included the general region where i am located)
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 You have been doxxed!
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721me too! I was the Russian satellite
4:02 Physicist here. The differences in gravitational force caused by distance from the planet for objects in orbit is far weaker than implied here, and definitely not the reason for faster minimum velocities to stay in orbit. For example, at the altitude of the ISS, they still experience about 90% of surface gravity.
The reason for faster minimum speeds is simple geometry. Orbiting is (put simply) moving fast enough “sideways” so that, while you fall towards the planet, you are also moving so far to the side that you miss, continuously. Different gravitational pulls will affect what those sideways speeds need to be, but for the same planet and orbiting object, the distance changes the necessary speed relatively very little compared to simply how large the orbit is.
The easiest way to conceptualize it is probably this: imagine you are orbiting 1 foot off the surface. You would have to travel around a significant portion of the globe to account before falling that foot in order to remain in orbit. You would have to be traveling extremely fast for no other reason than having such little space to work with. Now imagine you’re orbiting at a thousand miles up. You now have much, much more time to “miss” the planet; instead of one foot, you have a thousand miles to use while covering that same distance to miss the planet.
Edit: If you’d like to think about it geometrically, the further satellite can account for fall and “sideways” travel in a shape more closely approximating an equilateral triangle, which has a relatively small hypotenuse (which itself approximates the necessary velocity), while the near satellite has a very lopsided triangle, needing to travel far more to the side than the distance it falls, and thus making a hypotenuse far longer than the average of the other side lengths.
Edit 2: This wasn’t meant to be a full, formal explanation of orbital mechanics, as some people seem to think I was trying to do. The entirety of my point is that the differences in felt gravitational pull via different orbital radii is not the primary reason for different minimum orbital speeds.
As a physicist, as you say, you should know that those are the same thing. A circular orbit always requires a given speed, whether or not there is a planet's surface beneath it. Classically, the additional speed is required for the centripetal forces to balance the gravitational, and higher gravity means you fall faster, so you must go faster to remain in a circle.
However, to say that the reason is not additional gravity is to misunderstand your relativistic classes entirely. The spacetime nearer to the earth exhibits a greater curvature, and the path of the satellite follows the tighter curve. But perhaps you are a particle physicist.
The ISS's orbital velocity at 230 miles altitude is 97.2% of the orbital velocity at sea level, by the way, which kind of makes your "90%" comment a red herring.
@@richdobbs6595As someone who is not a physicist, they both sound like they are explaining the same phenomenon using slightly different terminology.
I guess we need more folks to use Kerbal Space or take Brilliant courses. The formulas for this were published by Issac Newton on July 5, 1687. They are routinely taught in high school physics classes.
Assuming constant centripetal acceleration, the required velocity should actually _increase_ per the square root of distance, as per the centripetal acceleration formula, a=v^2/R. You may verify this formula up to a constant multiplier via dimensional analysis.
An object having more distance to cover to miss the planet doesn't help it. It has to go faster to cover that distance.
@@richdobbs6595 The centrifugal force due to uniform circular motion is mv²/r. The centripetal force due to gravity is GMm/r². These are equal when v² = GM/r. In other words, orbital speed is inversely proportional to the square root of the orbital radius.
Think about it this way. If you double your distance from the earth, gravity drops fourfold, but speed only drops by a factor of 1.4. So Thomas sort of has it backwards. It's not that gravity only changes "slightly," it changes tremendously. The reason Thomas probably had this wrong impression is that he was comparing LEO to the surface of the earth, which is just not a very large distance, so of course the difference in gravity isn't that large. But the difference in orbital speed also isn't that large (ignoring terrain and air resistance). When we compare orbits that have significantly different radii, like LEO and geosynchronous orbits, the gravitational force changes a lot, and that's why a lower speed is required.
Or think about it another way. If Thomas's claim were true, then we should expect to see higher satellites moving slower even in a uniform gravitational field. But that's backwards. Higher satellites would actually have to move _faster_ than lower satellites if gravity were uniform, in order to keep v²/r constant.
I think one thing that should have been mentioned here is Space X's reusable rocket technology. Being the only entity in the world who can successfully do this has given a MAJOR leg up for the United States in terms of the modern day "space race".
This has drastically reduced the cost and increased the volume at which the United States can launch it's satellites.
On space debris, it's worth noting an attack on geosynchronous or semi-synchronous orbit would be particularly bad, because while debris in low-earth-orbit will de-orbit on it's own given decades or centuries due to atmospheric drag, geosynchronous orbit would be basically screwed permanently (or at least until we manually clean it up).
Relatedly, one factor is that there is a legitimate purpose behind developing anti-satellite technology - Active Debris Removal. Most technology that could be used to remove space debris could _also_ be used to remove active satellites, so there is a bit element of hush hush around the technical specifics of the field.
And also, this is a minor point, but the liability nightmare that would ensue in the event of Kessler Syndrome (the bit mentioned in the video where collisions trigger ever more collisions) would be _insane_ . There is basically no regime to determine responsibility if one satellite, or the debris from a satellite, collides with another. And they are pretty damn expensive. t wasn't addressed in the Outer Space Treaty or any of the subsequent treaties, and there are now many, many more actors in space than just the US and USSR. Arguably, all satellites are legally the responsibility of the state from where the satellite launched from (no private ownership in space! Legally, Space Communism is a thing, kinda). I think Russia has some legal provision to make it responsible for stuff launched from Baikonur, but France is on the hook for all satellites launched from French Guyana. The liability uncertainty creates a big problem for insurers, which creates a big problem for commercial users of space - as the current situation in the Red Sea demonstrates, scaring off insurers can cause immense damage even if there aren't actually that many incidents, proportionately.
There's been a lot of discussion that the current laws around space, particularly around liability and responsibility, are no longer fit for purpose. Space law is an evolving field, and some law schools are starting to research it.
The relative velocities in geosynch would be much lower though, and uncontrolled debris would dissipate into a much larger volume
@@Croz89 True, the tricky thing is though, as with all matters of international law, even if everyone can agree there is a problem, unless the geopolitics align it's very difficult to do anything about it, especially given the increased diversity of space actors.
One paper I read was basically saying we need a catastrophe to get real change. Once there is a big collision that makes news headlines, costs money, kills someone and/or causes an international dispute then the treaties might be reopened. Which is a bit depressing, but checks out to me.
@@personzorz That's an interesting point, one that I've struggled to find good data on.
Yes, geosynchronous orbit is much larger, given it's so much further away than LEO, but it's also relatively narrow and clustered around the equator, as opposed to LEO which is more like a fuzzy shell. By my understanding, a lot of the debris from a collision in GSO would stay within the orbital band of the satellite. GSO satellites also tend to be much larger, which I suppose both makes collisions less likely, and means any collisions that do happen will result in more debris. I'd love to see a proper simulation comparing the relative impact of debris-forming events in both orbits (particularly with sun-synchronous orbit in LEO, given I believe that's the most heavily used one)
The relative speed thing is interesting. I would imagine that matters most for the very small debris, which is just as well given that stuff is all but impossible to track, especially that far out!
@@merrymachiavelli2041 I think we can look at things like the UN convention on the law of the sea for laws we could adapt to space. Such as every artificial object in space having a registered country whose laws govern its operation and who assumes responsibility in the event of an incident. Space is in a lot of ways like international waters.
Minor correction: GPS Block IIF reads as "Block two F"
Nobody cares. Go touch grass 😂
@@linkrock4644 I'm inside your home.
@@cooltwittertag don't threaten me with a good time 😉
I'm in the kitchen. You want anything?
@@linkrock4644you ok hun? Just a correction
To be fair to Steve Carell he initially dismissed Space Force as ridiculous but as his team did research for the movie he realized its real life importance
The show as a whole also does a lot of work defining the importance of space and realistic conflicts that could occur in the near future
It's impossible for some people to admit Trump was correct about anything.
1. His speech at the UN warning Germany of the dangers of being reliant on Russian Gas.
2. His warning/threat to NATO member to start paying their agreed upon share otherwise they were inviting conflict because of their weakness.
3. Space Force
4. etc etc.
If I remember right, the concept of the show is that the general Carell plays is like "sure whatever" and then gets overburdened by the new job.
People just made fun of it because Trump was president. It was already something that had been pushed by the military for about a decade.
Citation needed
@@andrewarnold9818it's the odd thing where it sounded funny, but the reason for doing it was to co-ordinate the previously separate airforce, navy and army space regimes. It wasn't really an interesting news item if the words 'space force' hadn't sounded silly' - it was a long overdue bureaucratic reshuffling.
I really appreciate what you did with the music in this video. It conveys a much more serious tone than most of your others, fitting, given the subject matter.
Actually US do have some "dark sat" which use materials that reflects radio wave and reflects very little visible light. They are quite literally speaking are not tractable, at least not according to known method.
You can still see when they occlude light from, e.g., stars behind them
Space warfare without space cleanup will spell doom for any future space activities
Yeah, that's an argument I've seen a lot regarding things like massive arrays of internet satellites. I haven't heard a lot of talk about how military stuff will do the same thing.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721imo internet satellites provide net benefits to humans on earth, military ones don't. It's a lot easier to justify putting stuff out there that benefits us without a way to take it down then stuff that's designed to kill everyone
well, any space activities besides janitor
So we can expect chaos when china decides to attack Taiwan and try to cripple the US's response capabilities.
I disagree most things will burn up on its way back to our atmosphere
genuinely surprised the words "Kessler syndrome" did not make it into this video
The greatest threat to space exploration.
Is that when you make the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs ??
@@goulddddablemore aptly when you fail it... spectacularly and catastrophically 😅
Edit: to all of you replying to @goulddddable explaining Kessler Syndrome: they were making a Star Wars joke. The Millennium Falcon supposedly "made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs."
@goulddddable It's when there's so much debris that space travel becomes too risky because each piece of debris is like a bullet hurtling through space fast enough to easily poke holes in space craft.
@@NexAngelus405more specifically, the cause of such a situation. Kessler Syndrome refers to the increasing number of collisions because each collision dramatically increases the amount of fragments that could cause another collision, and then another, exponentially, like a nuclear chain reaction. at first we would only see a few collisions, than a significant amount more, then an overwhelming amount. Kessler Syndrome is happening right now, collisions are increasing, but they are doing so slowly enough it's not yet cause for panic.
but it very easily could be.
Hey, just a heads up, "Block IIF" is pronounced "block 2 f" and it's the second ordinal series of GPS satellites. It was preceded by Block I and will be succeeded by Block III.
Putting space before F would solved the issue
Also, great video, as always! 😁
I have an irrational amount fear about Kessler Syndrome, because even though I'm probably too old to reach a time where space travel is affordable, the idea of our species imprisoning itself on this planet horrifies me at some fundamental level.
And with the state of international relations in 2024, it feels like an inevitability.
Let me fix that fear for you real quick. Things in low-earth orbit (LEO) (the orbit that could "imprison" us) still has atmospheric drag which causes everything in it to naturally de-orbit. This can take a very long time but the process can be rapidly solved with one thing. A nuclear detonation in upper atmosphere/LEO can shorten the de-orbit time by a factor of ten or more. This is also one of the biggest reasons we are so afraid of nukes in space. It will wipe out almost everything we have in LEO. Even in space, nukes are still mutually assured destruction.
There are multiple ways to get off a planet affected by kessler syndrom, even if some of them are not pretty. Lasers, bombs, ablative armour, you name it.
Plus, kessler syndrome would only affect one orbit, that being the one that has all the stuff in it. go higher, and you are fine. stay lower, you are fine too.
Plus, you know, th Earth is a nice planet to be trapped on in any case....
@@Alexander_Kale Earth is indeed a fine planet, but I'd like to think our species can at least colonize the Milky Way. We need to just stop like...warring, and such.
@@sarysa Warring amongst ourselves has not stopped us from colonizing this planet, it will not stop us from colonizing all the others.
I prefer the idea that we will build utopia despite having flaws and recognizing them, not because we will eventually get rid of said flaws.
@@JoviaI1 A fun fact I love about this that you didn't mention for anyone reading this comment thread and curious, detonating a nuclear device in LEO would obviously destroy anything within the conventional blast wave, but what is does thats way way more powerful and destructive, is release an insanely powerful EMP that can whip out anything on something like half the side of the planet in orbit (think everything the sun touches during the day but in space). It wont physically destroy them, but instead fry all the electronics.
The US government tested this way back in the 50s and saw these effects, and then pushed for no more nuclear testing in space as satellites became a real possibility.
Saw the gator ball in the video. Worst piece of equipment I used. It worked but i always felt it was a pain and it was very finicky to acquire. Now the RRK was one of the slickest pieces of equipment I ever used. You put in the configs and it would lock and optimize the connection for you. All you had to do was point it in the general vicinity. Was also light and easy to transport
I want to personally thank you, I have a presentation on space warfare tomorrow and i need a video and there were no good ones until now, you are my hero.
You are welcome glad I could help
@@Breezybeeffr
I never understood why anybody thought "Space Force" was funny. We've had a space force for years. It was just called the Air Force. We just realized that it was important enough to create it's own branch.
You are expecting people who pay no attention to anything except what their social betters tell them to, to understand that.
It seemed they mocked it because of Trump derangement syndrome, and the view that anything the Orange Man did must be bad and mocked.
Because Trump brought it back, so to these dumbasses it's bad just because...
donald trump said it, that means it's silly and bad.
Literally just orange man bad syndrome
Damn, it's Ace Combat 7 all over again.
Call of Duty: Ghost*
@@Jaka.Ellinsworth Nope, it's more Ace Combat and you need to do more with your life than play CoD.
Are you really freindlies? Get the general to safety!
@@Ramonathoits been 10+ years since Ghosts. ithink he’s done smth between then and now bro. AC7 isn’t much better my bro get a real flight model
where is the space elevator then
Every time I hear Space Force in a Sci Fi book I think 'oh shit, that's actually a real thing'. They don't need to come up with names any more like 'UN Space Command', it's just Space Force.
2:35
Correction: The internationally defined Kármán line is defined at 100km, not 100mi.
18:50 AK47 duct taped to Sputnik
If it looks stupid but it works, it ain't stupid!
It's the predecessor to an orbital equivalent to the A-10.
Those stupid rooskies and their functional technology working and whatnot they'll get what's coming one day I bet they smell
Ironically at those speeds even rifle bullets are slow
@@lenarianmelon4634 The bullet speed will be relative to the satellites, match orbits and you're good.
I was always confused why everyone was making fun of space force. Like do they not think it's necessary? It's like laughing at the US air force being created in 1947.
People were making fun of space force as a surrogate for President Trump. They made fun of or complained about (and still do) literally everything he did or does.
More like the USAF being created in 1930 before all the strategic bombing from WW2.
Its bc of who started it
Two things: dumb name, and all of these actions were already being done by different branches that interacted with each other anyway
All the space force does is what the Air Force, NOAA, and DoD did anyway
How is it a dumb name when it makes sense being a child of the Air Force? Additionally, your second point is the reason it was made. To streamline aspects each did into one for military usage. Plus, the Air Force was birthed from the Navy.@@Ramonatho
The result of going into a space age with the kindling of conflicts and war still within us will only be disastrous.
To reinforce the important of GPS, it is also utilized maintain the power grid as well. Finds faults and helps sync the equipment.
1:20 Clearly nobody told Sam about Starfish Prime. America literally nuked satellites for funsies, basically.
Loved seeing Thessaloniki's very own "white tower" at 3:09
Correction to the Viasat hack: This was only Ukraine's backup communications, they say their comms were not affected by the hack. You're framing it as if they were incapacitated.
Considering how effective Ukraine’s response was especially in those early days, it’s hard for me as a dumdum layman to say it had much of an impact
They also said ghost of Kiyv was real with stupid amounth of A2A takedowns, and yet it turned out to be a wet fart.
@@PicturesqueGamesRussia was suppose to take 3 days to invade, and yet here we are
@@hdjono3351please tell me how to find a direct source for this claim. I’ve been searching for a single direct source for months and the best I’ve ever found was some low level lawmaker there saying they would win eventually, but not giving any timetable at all. So if you have a link to a document or a speech that supports you I’d love to see it. Tell me how to find it thanks…
@@hdjono3351 they actually meant 3 years
Completely forgot to mention that apart from US Russia & china, India has also done ASAT test in 2019, so there's atleast 4 ASAT programs in tge world that we know of
Ugh India space agency is decades behind those 3 major countries.
@joeboydedaev6393 whatever you wish to believe.
They achieved the same in 2019 so it's definitely not 30 years behind
They can't accept that poor country India is achieving something in space tecnology. Their little ego hurts 🤕😂@@sanskarvyas9888
@@joeboydedaev6393I would argue otherwise. India is proving that a space program doesn't have to cost their country a significant portion of their budget. I don't think they're decades behind -- their rapid advancement at lower costs tells me they're gonna catch up in a matter of single digit, not double digit years.
This video is slightly misleading, geo stationary orbit is relatively open and clear of satellites and debris in comparison to LEO (Low Earth Orbit), which has 21457 trackable orbital and suborbital objects. There are more objects other than just these pieces, and there are about 167 million more of these smaller untrackable debris, and they pack a punch. (The ISS was struck by one of the untrackable debris and had a crack in Cupola Module window)
Great video, I'd also recommend looking into the bus-sized Chinese and US space planes which go into space for years and re-enter without any idea what they're doing. Crazy to think about!
X-37B
Space warships will most probably look like the ones on the Expanse.
I can totally see the US Space Force or China building something like the UN Truman class Dreadnought or the MCRN Donnager class Battleship.
The biggest thing you're going to expect if we every get in space warfare is that offensive craft will have very prominent radiators - every hit you take in space will generate tons of heat that you'll desperately need to get rid of.
But something like a warship I don't consider likely for a long time. Better to do it with unmanned craft for now.
Space warfare between earth factions is the worst timeline
i imagine mostly unmanned, very small ships/missiles designed to destroy things with pure kinetic energy or shrapnel bombs
@@WasatchWind I doubt this. There are more effective ways of dissipating heat for one, for two any impact you do take in space from hostile weaponry is probably going to be the only hit and last hit you can take. There's no reason for weaponry to not be able to accelerate to ludicrous speeds or impact with devastating charges. Nuclear warheads are actually perfect space based weaponry due to both disruptive effects on electronics and a hit on a ship is pretty much guaranteed hull breach as it would instantly vaporize the hull upon impact. What is cool however is that we may see scaled up versions of tech that Boeing has a patent for that dissipates the energy from explosive shockwaves by super-heating the air around the defensive system, disrupting the shockwave. I'm not sure how effective this specific method would be in a vacuum, however.
Space warfare is going to be boring robotic craft resembling kitbashes of telescopes and probes launching clouds of lead at high velocity towards each other. Manned craft won’t happen until colonies become common enough for a persistent human presence in interplanetary travel. One of those satellites attack a crewed Martian lander, we will see some real Frankenstein spacecraft. Orion drive, Casaba howitzers and all.
The quality of this video seemed better and high budget than usual. I liked the music better
An aside to the line "We know where all the satellites are," but we don't actually know the exact locations of satellites. We vaguely know, espescailly if the satellite has good means of locating itself, but satellite locations are more clouds of probability (even if that cloud can be small). It's part of why you don't get told your satellite is going to hit something but that it *might* hit something, although a lot of that particular problem is because of the limitations of certain satellites.
is that true? satellites just follow newtonian mechanics right? what is causing the error
@@henryzhang3961 It looks like it purged my original comment for some reason- probably because I tried to link an article.
In short, yes. The problem is that no observation is perfect. Even top tier Space Sitautional Awareness ('SSA') capabilities are only going to give you a limitedly accurate reading. Remember, this is usually a ground based radar or telescope, and often it's not a gold plated solution. Satellites are quite small by contrast, so being wrong by a meter or so already gives you a probable area potentially larger than the satellite in question.
Then, the issue is that you need to check on them repeatedly. Because they follow newtonian paths, a small error begins to perpetuate, because you know you don't know exactly what angle it's going at. The longer you don't check on an object in space the larger an area it could theoretically be in. Now, live objects get checked on pretty frequently so you usually do know pretty exactly where they are. In truth this is actually at its worst for dead objects and debris (Not least because dangerous debris can be a centimeter wide or smaller! Picture designing a system that can get a return that small entirely right!). However, the basic principle stands. There's this misconception that satellites have like a video game unit icon that tells you where they are, or some kind of internal beacon, but GPS satellites as an example are actually tracked just by ground stations.
This actually also has the neat feature that you can protect a satellite by checking on it. Since an orbital map is just a bunch of uncertainty clouds, a potential collision is often going to be something like 'There's a 2.1% chance of a collision with this object.' You could evade, if you're lucky enough to have propulsion, but your propellant is limited and if you intend to perform an End of Life Manoeuvre it essentially determines your 'lifetime.' So you can just check on the offending object, narrowing where it might be, and thus seeing if it really will cause a solution.
I was mostly just calling out a little technical phrasing error that any normal person, would totally still use, but it's a funny little factoid that nobody truly knows where anything in space is.
Space Force as a name sounds silly (especially the way 45 says it), but just as the USAF was spun off from the US Army Air Corps so the Space Force "needed" to exist as its own service...but let's be clear: warfare in space was contemplated from the moment Sputnik was launched. I grew up in the era of secret Air Force shuttle missions, Reagan's "SDI" and F-15's launching anti-satellite missiles. Space-based warfare is simply a reality of terrestrial nations having important assets in orbit.
This was pretty cool. I work for a contractor who is doing work on Tranche 1 and Tranche 2. Good job :)
Everyone makes fun of the spaceforce until they actually stop and think about it
"stop and think about it" that's asking a lot.
@@dimesonhiseyes9134 very true
Anti trump cult will hate anything he does even if it's good for them
@@dimesonhiseyes9134 You want Dems to think hahah good luck :D
It’s not a new thing. It was just a rebranding of some things the Air Force already did.
One correction in the list of countries with anti satellite system. India 🇮🇳 is also in this list. India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), successfully neutralised a satellite in space with its anti-satellite (ASAT) missile on 27 March 2019, in Mission Shakti.
people mocked the air force before and during its formation, just goes to show that forward thinking is mocked and then loved and the clowns forget they mocked
The Space Force *will* literally become the largest and most important branch of the military the more we develop our civilization and expand, it's just taking its first steps
@@squidward5110 oh thats a fact, but they all mock each other
Really? Who mocked it, can I see some citations?
@@roo72 ok try this it’s called google they still are mocked today. And also high ranking members of the armed forces didn’t see a future in flying during war time situation. But have others do the research for you since you may be to lazy to do it yourself
@@eaglesviper79 That's not how it works. You made a statement, it's up to you to prove it
Aside from all the amazing information provided by this video, one thing i take even more seriously is how late night "comedians" are willling to put party allegiance before legitimate actions to boost our nation's defense
This is a valid branch of military. They could have named it better though.
Additional note, when India conducted a similar test it did so with extreme caution. The Chinese ASAT test in 2007, which occurred at an altitude of 865 kilometers and produced a debris field of some 3,000 objects that will linger in space for decades, the Indian demonstration appears to have produced some 400 fragments (of which about 270 are being tracked) that will decay in weeks or perhaps a few months. Both US and China had some very unkind words despite conducting similar tests.
Funny how silicon valley is so heavily censoring anything negative about our Chinese friends.
Do people really forget about the time an F-15 launched an ASAT in the cold war!?!?!?! FUCK WE SHOULD'VE LISTENED TO REGAN WE NEED THE STAR WARS PROGRAM!
A caveat for now is that the entire development seems somewhat similar to early plane development ie. first development being recon, so it's entirely possible that in the next single generation, you may witness space bomber satellites.
I reccomend on the topic :
1) The next 100 years - George Fridman
2) The future of geopolitics - Tim Marshall
I was at CSUDH when they used the campus to film that stupid Netflix space force show. It was super annoying because they were always closing down parts of the campus for shooting (mostly around the library) so you’d either have to wait for them to stop or go the long way around (both of which are a pain when you only have 10 minutes to get from one side of campus to the other
Bendover productions really popping off
s
Remember when youtube was chock full of videos about the “black knight satellite”? Ah, the good ole days….
I don't understand why Space Force would be a joke. I saw a really interesting talk by a high ranking general years ago talking about the need for a "Space Force" and isn't it fairly obvious thats where the next front will be. Or was it just cos it was Trump?
Cuz trump and air force doesn't want to compete with budget.
1. The name is just funny. We have the air force, but we don't call the navy the sea force, or the army the land force. Space force just sounds like a ridiculous name.
2. Trump was advocating for it despite whenever he talked about it giving contradictory answers. It made it sound like it was something he wanted credit for without actually knowing anything about what it'd entail.
3. There was already the Air Force Space Command which was doing what Space Force is currently doing, so really the only change was making a new agency despite all the push for it to exist.
@@scragar It's worth noting though that while Air Force Space Command was doing everything the Space Force does now, there is a point somewhere in the hypothetical future where we have space warships, and Air Force Space Command and the Navy would've argued endlessly about who should wind up in command of those, and there are good arguments on both sides frankly. The Navy has more relevant experience operating ships, and especially submarines which are similar to space ships in many ways - but AF Space Command has direct experience with space itself, and the Air Force has collaborated with NASA and it's predecessor since shortly after WW2.
By introducing a Space Force, that conflict was resolved before it could happen.
This isn't hard, the name sounds funny. People that try to imply it's more than that are trying to make liberals seem incompetent.
@@Josh-ks7co does "air" force sound funny? Maybe I'm too boring to find it funny
18:11 i like to imagine satellites up there with just one robotic arm each furiously punching each other like plastic rock-em-sock-em robot toys from the 80s.
Not sure if this message will get to you, but I actually have a whole research report for college on the weaponization/militarization of space. I heavily base my style of writing off of the script used in this video so its such a crazy coincidence! So thank you for making this video!
I am far from a Donald Trump supporter, but will give credit where it's due. The space force was a good long term move.
I said the same, same thing people were up here defending the cornball comedians, but you know he didn’t do anything amazing but give credit where it is due.
I don't. All he did was rebrand the thing with a cartoonish name as it is still under the air force.
I know what you mean. Of course the name "Space Force" sounds cartoonish, but the function makes more sense every day.
Literally all the Space Force did was create a branch of the department of the Air Force that does the stuff that the Air Force was already in charge of.
@crabman8321 the same thing happened with the USAAF, you just don't like that Trump did something useful lmao and I hate the guy
So next to the red atomic button there is also a red space destruction button for each of the presidents offices
But of course
Spaaaaace!!!!!
ooh ooh space rock, play cool
Couldn't help but imagine the space core from Portal 2.
What's your favorite thing about space? Mine is space.
gotta go to space
Hey. Hey. Hey lady. Hey, hey lady.
Space?
I always found the Soviet "Istrebitel Sputnikov" (Satellite Fighter?) Coorbital ASAT fascinating, but the relative lack of English-language information makes it harder to learn about.
i imagine people were probably also laughing when countries established first independent air forces, with the UK being the first in 1918
The Space Force scene where they sent the monkey and dog to space was so f*cking funny how quickly their reactions changed
18:14 rock ‘em sock ‘em satellites goes hard af😂
Imagine humanity never unites and we just end up having celestial bodies belonging to a certain country and that’s how war evolves in space
Someone needs to start watching more hard sci fi lmao
It won’t, religion alone makes that impossible🤷🏾♂️
@@Hydrologist how
@@Hydrologistdo you mean that religion divides people too much to have entire planets be part of a single nation?
@@Hydrologist only as long as there’s more than one religion
While the threat to low earth orbit is demonstratively high, Geo-sync is basically completely safe from Kessler syndrome (cascading satellite failures).
Being so much further from earth (and everything orbiting in the same direction) it would take exponentially more attacks to pollute Geo-sync orbits with debris, as the area you need to fill with debris scales with the square of distance.
For reference, Geo-sync orbit being ~18 times further than low earth orbit means at least 320 times more area to cover.
"In war, one should seek to take and hold the high ground. From there, the enemy's movements are clearly visible, and he will struggle just to reach you, let alone fight you. High orbit is the highest ground there is."
To be fair using Colbert and Kimmel as a litmus test for intelligence is like taking financial advice from a crack addict
to be fair, most wall street finance geniuses are high on crack...
Genuinely don't understand how people watch that every day
Jim Cramer?
They're clowns. Taking something that should be a serious job like informing the public and turning it into a biased circus. Literal clowns.
The Airforce already had complete control over monirtoring space, so there is really no need for the space force...
And the US Army Air Corps already had aviation handled, right?
They did, I'm not trying to say that the USAF was made because the Army sucked, but as the capabilities and strategic necessity of aircraft became more prevalent, the cost, the required infrastructure, and the specific knowledge necessary made it more reasonable to create a new branch of the military dedicated to aviation.
And we see the same thing here with the Space Force, the cost, strategic necessity, and the capabilities of satellites in relation to warfare were all explained in the video, so I won't harp on that here.
While the Air Force almost certainly had it handled, with the rising likelihood of space warfare, it seems that it has become more reasonable to have a dedicated military branch for it than to leave it to a subset of the Air Force.
Additionally, it's not like all of the systems that were previously in place will go unused, just as the Army transferred assets, personnel and locations such as Warren AFB, to the Air Force, they have likely already transferred assets, and personnel to the Space Force, so all of the experts and equipment hasn't been lost.
Remember, the Space Shuttle was designed to capture satellites.
Very glad that this video went back to first principles to explain "why orbits". We've just started the Astronautics badge, and being able to show them the first part of this (we didn't have time for the whole thing unfortunately) made things so much easier. Also, at least one of the Scouts got excited when he realised that this was the same people as Jet Lag.
I both admire the restraint and am disappointed that you didn't take the opportunity to make a high-ground reference/joke. (know it's more HAI's place, but still, it was right there!)
the v2 vibing up there before hitting an empty field south of London "am i not physiclly part of a conflict"
Edit: i didnt think i have to say this, this was a cheap joke, i dont acctually think the V2 should count but hoped someone laughted anyway
It is but its attack took place on the ground. It enters space to get to its target but its target (the field south of London) is not in space. The Israeli interception rocket's target was in space. If the British launched an anti ballistic missile and shot down the V2 in space, that would count.
The space part was peaceful. Actually the V2 was thinking, "oh, this is lovely. I wonder what they have planned for the landing?"
i keep getting ads to join the US Space Force
I honestly will never understand why people think "Space Force" is so fucking funny when another branch is literally called "Air Force" ????
They both are funny; it would be even funnier if the Marines were called the Water Force, and the rest of the US military were called the Dirt Force.
In Germany the "Air force" is called Luftwaffe which translates to "airweapon". I honestly could not think of another name for it, it is an accurate description after all
Because Trump announced it. That's about it. Look at the media that portrayed it as silly. Just doing their job.
Those shows stopped being funny long ago lol. They just press the laugh track buttons on the show, you will be surprised by how many people that don't find any of those shows funny at all.
Seeking applause, not laughter
The public does not need to no how the government keeps them safe in space or on earth
Stupid people will laugh, mock and ridicule those more knowledgeable. Take notes of all those who laughed and maybe reconsider trusting them next time they laugh at someone.
0:18 names the most prolific propagandists
Thats what i was thinking too, Trump does X, then people whos job it is to ridicule everything trump does ridicule what trump does.
And where supposed to what? Be suprised? Cause im not 😂
I really hope humanity isn’t stuck on earth because of idiots with egos.
The fact that the late night show hosts were so dismissive shows how poorly equipped they are to play the role of social commentators that they purport to be.
So true. They're nothing more than uninformed talking heads who have never had to work in the national security arena - and it's gigantic.
They just didn't watch enough star wars
They just didn't watch enough starwars
To be fair, space force is kind of a stupid name...
Pseudo intellectual babble there Bubba. They don't purport to be social commentators. They're comedians.
Comedians make fun of stupid people and things.
Space Force was the dumbest damn name that could have been applied.
Are you sure you don't harbor ill will towards the shows?
It seems like you just jumped on the opportunity to put down late night shows.
KSP really prepared me for this video. It seems like a low-earth orbit requires more energy to go thousands of miles per hour and circle the earth a couple times per hour, but in fact the stationary orbit is way harder to do. There's no good reference for speed other than the surface of earth, which is a relative difference of 0mph, but in fact, it takes waaaay more energy to get to the stationary orbit. Well sure, put a 150 million mile long stick in your hand and spin around. The far end of that stick is BOOKING IT. There's also a really neat way of setting up a network of stationary satellites, you raise your apoapsis to the stationary orbit then lower your periapsis until the Period of your orbit is 1/3 of the local day length. Now, every time you hit apoapsis, you release another satellite (and circularize orbit of course). Congratulations, you now have 3 stationary satellites that are on the same orbit and can probably see each other and, together, can probably see just about all of the planet.
They would take it serious if Biden announced it
The only reason everyone made fun of Space Force was because of Trump. If Obama had done it, people would call him a military genius and forward thinker.
Everyone was so desperate to mock trump and rip the space force. But it still exists now
When the US bought Alaska many people in the press lampooned the purchase. "Seward's Folly", they called it. Today we look back and recognize how short sighted those critics were. It won't take as much time as it took for the Alaska purchase critics to end up with egg on their face, for the Space Force to prove that it is no laughing matter.
Trump could have said "you need to wash your hand after using bathroom" and those so called "comedians" would have been laughing at him like it's the stupidest thing to say. Years later, and Space Force is alive and well, while most of those "comedians" are out of work - and that's comedy :)
I trust a two-year-old over any of the late-night “comedians.”
They made fun of trump even when he was 100% right
No, they're making fun of the name. Air force doesn't sound weird, but instead of navy if you were to say "water force" you're going to get laughed at. Now it's the official title ostensibly because of Trump's renowned [lack of] command over the English language
Also it's stupid to attribute the Force itself to him, a tonne of countries, including the US have had space commands for decades
This is an amazing video! The graphics, the narration . . top notch!
I'm gonna be entirely honest, I think that the militarization of space is a good thing, simply due to funding issues. If nasa got a slice of the US military's budget, we would be on mars by now, so maybe sometime soon that will happen.
0:12 The horsemen of unfunny
You arent kidding man... sad woke wannabe funnymen. Theyre no norm macdonalds or david lettermans thats for sure.
So all the illuminati puppets had a dig at Trump’s Space Force. What a surprise
I am not going to lie, I almost down voted and left right at beginning because I thought it'd be a video making fun of the Space Force instead of having Trump Deranged Syndrome like the late night hosts, and news I might add.
I was working at NASA when Trump got elected, and Jim Bridenstine became our Administrator. The media made fun of him, saying something like he was only involved in some aviation oversight committee or something, can't remember. (unqualified).
Charlie Bowen, the prior Administrator, though a remarkable and in my opinion historical figure, decided to step down on Trump's Inauguration day. That was poor taste, imo, though.
Took a while for people in NASA to warm up to Jim Bridenstine, but you can tell he loved NASA, space and its missions. Let me tell you that when that dude cried when he stepped down when Biden was elected, it was because he truly loved working with the folks at NASA and was just going to miss the appointment. But in the end, he sold us on the Space Force and warned of why it was required, etc.
High % government workers are left leaning, that's a fact, and they were on board with Space Force.
Just wanted to share that story of that time.
I think one future industry will be asteroid mining where chunks are sent to the moon or large unmanned satellites where robots break it down further ready to be picked up. Robots could be just remote controlled to do different tasks (can't be live due to the delays). This would require it to be a globally controlled organisation that destributes the materials amongst the globe or at least the member states, purely as a way to deter orbital piracy.
Just make sure not to hire anyone named Inaros to run the program.
>Opening sequence has late night 'comedians'.
>Closes video
The Space Force should make a UNSC Stalwart class Frigate type battle-ready space ship. Its completely possible, and would give us a pretty good foothold in space warfare
And people were acting like we didn't have the space Corp as part of the US airforce for decades before they founded space force. That's how the airforce came out if the army air corp before them. As technology develops we must address those threats with conscious and unwavering diligent to ensure our citizens safety long term.
Space Command was originally created in September 1985 to provide joint command and control for all military forces in outer space and coordinate with the other combatant commands. SPACECOM was disestablished in 2002, and its responsibilities and forces were merged into United States Strategic Command. When the United States Space Force was established as an independent service on 20 December 2019, Air Force Space Command was redesignated as United States Space Force and served as its interim headquarters, but remained part of the U.S. Air Force.
This is such a well made video! I think they should we showing videos like this in schools to raise public awareness about such threats and possibilities. Definitely a sub from me 👍