Here was my reply to the official US Space Force Twitter account
Why did you alter your Twitter handle so it's not seen in the screenshot?...
...
I think it's because these type of forums have a everyone hide their identity vibe. I now posted a real link with Twitter handle in other reply.
If it was 10 bucks, I might spring or it.Lol, this is interesting, it's legal currency, but 30 dollars for one 2 dollar bill is a bit steep...
...
Support The Newest Branch Of Our Magnificent Military, The Space Force, With This Collectible 2 Dollar Bill
View attachment 10885
.
If it was 10 bucks, I might spring or it.
A good look, though.
The establishment of military bases on the moon is expressly forbidden by Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty (formally the Treaty on Principles Governing Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies), which the United States has ratified.Space Force Announces Plans For a Moon Base and Robots
“At some point, yes, we will be putting humans into space. They may be operating command centers somewhere in the lunar environment or someplace else.”
“The lunar environment” is military-speak for the Moon, which makes sense since that quote came from Maj. Gen. John E. Shaw, head of the Space Force’s Space Operations Command and part of U.S. Space Command leadership, while answering a question this week at a conference sponsored by AFWERX, the “Air Force’s team of innovators who encourage and facilitate connections across industry, academia, and the military to create transformative opportunities and foster a culture of innovation.”
Oh Man, I really hope they establish a moon base! I've been looking forward to that since I was a kid.Space Force Announces Plans For a Moon Base and Robots
“At some point, yes, we will be putting humans into space. They may be operating command centers somewhere in the lunar environment or someplace else.”
“The lunar environment” is military-speak for the Moon, which makes sense since that quote came from Maj. Gen. John E. Shaw, head of the Space Force’s Space Operations Command and part of U.S. Space Command leadership, while answering a question this week at a conference sponsored by AFWERX, the “Air Force’s team of innovators who encourage and facilitate connections across industry, academia, and the military to create transformative opportunities and foster a culture of innovation.” This seems contradictory to recent stories that Space Force troops had been deployed in Qatar, it formalized agreements with NASA, it recruited a space horse and Space Force Vice Commander Lt. Gen. David D. Thompson, who said in February: “That opportunity to be an astronaut inside the Space Force today is almost zero.”
Anticipating the same reaction you just had, Shaw clarified his position and agreement with Thompson:
“First, space isn’t really all that habitable for humans. We’ve learned that since our early space days. And the second is, we’re getting darned good at this robotics thing in space.”
Did Shaw just contradict himself … and the Space Force’s latest recruiting programs looking for people whose “purpose on this planet isn’t on this planet”? Not really. He’s just saying that putting Space Force cadets in space is a long way off, while we already have sophisticated robots doing important and complex security functions in space.
We do?
We do?
“The best robots that humans have ever created are probably satellites. … They’re incredible machines, and we’re only getting better. With machine learning and artificial intelligence, we’re going to have an awful lot of automated and autonomous systems operating [on] Earth and lunar orbit and solar orbit in the days and years to come, doing national security space activity.”
Robots – both autonomous and human-controlled – along with drones, rovers, satellites and other sophisticated AI creatures doing the security work of Space Force cadets in space. This doesn’t sound like what President Trump had in mind when he announced the Space Force. The president would probably prefer Space Force cadets in a SpaceX capsule to the ISS before the election. He won’t be happy with Maj. Gen. Shaw’s answer to when this will happen:
“(It’s) anybody’s guess.”
If your autonomous vacuum cleaner seems unusually excited these days, it may have heard the Space Force is looking for a few good robots.
.
The establishment of military bases on the moon is expressly forbidden by Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty (formally the Treaty on Principles Governing Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies), which the United States has ratified.
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_21_2222E.pdf
The establishment of military bases on the moon is expressly forbidden by Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty (formally the Treaty on Principles Governing Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies), which the United States has ratified.
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_21_2222E.pdf
Apparently a new agreement has been made in regards to the moon, 'The Artemis Accords', not without its downside, not everyone is onboard with it...
...
The Artemis Accords - A New Space Pact Seeks to Ensure Peace and Prosperity on the Moon
Laws have long been portable things. Human beings settled frontiers with tools and muscle—and too often with weapons, seizing lands that belong to others. One other thing the settlers also brought along were their legal systems, rules of the road to govern their behavior in the new communities they built. That was true when all our exploring was terrestrial, and it remained true when we ventured into space. As long ago as 1967—just six years after the first human spaceflight—the U.S. and other signatory nations established the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies—better known simply as the “Outer Space Treaty.” The pact bound partner nations to use space only for peaceful purposes, to forswear claims of sovereignty over any region beyond Earth, to lend aid to astronauts in distress, and more.
Now that old law has a new follow-up. On Oct. 13, NASA announced the completion of what it has called the Artemis Accords, an agreement among eight partner nations to cooperate and collaborate in future explorations of the moon and Mars, especially via participation in NASA’s Artemis program, which aims to land the first woman and the next man on the moon before the end of 2024. The seven other signatories to the pact include the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Japan, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates and Italy. But the accords are, in a sense, open source, with other countries invited to join if they both agree with the pact’s provisions and contribute to the joint enterprise in some way.
“Both the foreign ministries and the space agencies of the various nations were involved in developing the accords,” says Mike Gold, NASA’s acting administrator for the office of international and interagency relations. “It’s important that we take not just our astronauts to the moon, but our multilateral agreements.”
“Our interest,” adds NASA deputy administrator Jim Morhard, “is to bring everyone we can in under the tent.”
That’s a lot easier to do now than it was back in the Apollo era, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were the only powerful space players around and, as mortal enemies, were not exactly inclined to collaborate. In the years since, Russia, the U.S. and more than a dozen other partner nations have come together to build and operate the International Space Station (ISS), establishing a template for cooperation in space.
What’s more, this time around the hardware lends itself to partnerships. The key elements of the Apollo program—the Saturn V rocket, the Apollo orbiter, and the lunar module—were all one-time-use machines, good for a single mission and no more. NASA now envisions building a sort of mini space station, known as Gateway, in a permanent lunar orbit that can be used as an embarkation point for trips to and from the lunar surface. Like the Artemis Accords themselves, the Gateway would be open source, with docking ports that would allow other nations to add their own modules or bring their own crews in their own spacecraft.
“We have compared the Gateway to an iPhone, which anyone can write software for,” says Gold. “The point of Gateway is interoperability, to make it open to other nations.”
But the Accords go well beyond Gateway. The text of the 18-page agreement establishes 10 different sets of rules that partner nations agree to obey. Among them are ensuring that all lunar operations remain peaceful; that countries are transparent about the work they are doing on the moon; that they release and share scientific data; and that any resources discovered—such as water ice at the south lunar pole—can be extracted freely and sustainably, with no interference or claim-jumping by one nation over another’s digs. The partners also agree to respect lunar heritage sites, such as the locations of the six Apollo landings.
“The accords are a political commitment to live by the agreed-upon rules,” says Gold. “The goals are peace and prosperity.”
But not everyone can be part of the new enterprise. The Wolf Amendment, passed by Congress in 2011, forbids NASA from collaborating with China in any way, for fear of theft of U.S. technology. Russia, meantime, which is very much an equal partner in the ISS program, has not—so far at least—signed on to the Artemis Accords. On Oct. 12, during the first day of the annual International Astronautical Congress—being held virtually this year—Dimtry Rogozin, the head of Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, complained in a statement that the accords are “too U.S.-centric” and that only if the program were run more like the ISS—with the U.S. and Russia maintaining dual control over the station, with twin Mission Controls in Houston and Moscow—would Roscosmos “also consider its participation.”
Rogozin’s counterpart, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine pushed back—gently—telling The Washington Post that “the Gateway uses the exact same agreement…that the International Space Station uses” and that NASA has “shared with Roscosmos what we would like to do with the Gateway in terms of collaborating with them and seeing what their interest is, and we just haven’t heard back.”
It’s that kind of open-handed, soft-power negotiating that historically has made peace possible among nations on our home world. The Artemis Accords are an attempt to ensure the same on other ones.
.
I thought they did all that in the 1960s when they went to the Moon and said space belonged to everyone ?
This agreement is one between national civil space agencies. It does not abrogate the Outer Space Treaty. In fact, in the text it affirms the importance of compliance with the Outer Space Treaty, and one of its stated principles is that activities governed by the agreement are exclusively for peaceful purposes. The United States still remains party to the Outer Space Treaty.Apparently a new agreement has been made in regards to the moon, 'The Artemis Accords', not without its downside, not everyone is onboard with it...
...
The Artemis Accords - A New Space Pact Seeks to Ensure Peace and Prosperity on the Moon