The Forum > Article Comments > Why Australia should have a military space policy > Comments
Why Australia should have a military space policy : Comments
By Marko Beljac, published 2/12/2008Opposition to the militarisation of space in the context of opposing the alliance with the US is not a pragmatic policy option.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Posted by Spikey, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 9:48:39 AM
| |
Hi Marko
"..one may well argue that Australia should have a space policy that looks favourably upon the militarisation of space." So, just in case the sharing of US space assets has remote downsides Australia will go to the trouble of duplicating those assets? The cost of developing and fielding what you are advocating would cost tens to hundreds of Billions over many years. Meanwhile we pay for our existing space alliance setup while building a whole new setup. State of the art spy satellites don't come cheap as DIGO http://www.defence.gov.au/digo/About_Us/about.html, DSD and Defence generally realise. They are largely the custodians of Australia military space policy/implimentation. The CSIRO used to be a centre of space policy thought. Even the US Defence Department with the National Reconnaisance Office http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office#Spacecraft are increasing having to rely on corporatee multinationals to share the extreme cost of spy satellite development. We could do the same - but it would cost the same as our defence budget (an extra $24 Billion each year) and take 20 years to get up to speed with the US, Russian and Chinese pace-setters. Then there are the necessary independent satellite rocket launch services. We are taliking heavy satellite payloads - big rockets - not cheap - cost $Billions to develop - and most of the money (again) goes into the hands of defence corporations - who are necessarily multinationals. Extra launches, especially of LEOs can be needed in international crises. Australia relies not only on spy satellites but international communications satellite constellations for defence communications purposes. Should we, to be independent, build our own LEO, fixed communication and and positioning satellites as well? I'm talking about replacements for Defence's use of Optus satellites, Intelsat, Inmarsat, Iridium, and GPS satellites. BTW Australia's essential worlwide defence communications also uses international, undersea cable networks - interlinked with satellite networks. Not only for communication but Defence heavily uses the internet for reception of open source intelligence. Should Australia duplicate all those international cables as well? Congratulations on your PhD. I need to do that as well one day. Regards Peter Coates for interest http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/10/nsa-benefits-from-world.html Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 12:27:28 PM
| |
PEAKOIL is the problem we face. SPACE IS only PART of the broader THERMODYNAMICS&ENERGY solution. MrBeljac's nationalist fervour & miltarist conceptions are non-sequitur to the central problem & are too 'quirky' to be psycho-rational.
If we can get the THERMODYNAMICS of our future RIGHT, then we have a chance to survive the next 20 PEAKOIL onset-years in tact. KAEP…Kyoto(Kanberra for nationalistas) Alternative Energy protocol … will solve the THERMODYNAMIC challenges we are facing over the next 20 years. KAEP has 4 parts: 1. A massive change of our energy source from OIL and Coal to 5Km deep Hot Rock Geothermal power. Also intense R&D of laser drilling technologies to facilitate this. Within 20 years we must be able to build 600MW Geothermal plants in 1 year and for 1/10th the cost of nuclear plants. 2. Construct 10’s of thousands of 1-2 acre ENGINEERED WETLANDS and restrict our populations to 21 million. This is necessary to protect ocean currents from heat capacity altering wastewater pollution. This will stop dangerous climate perturbations. The climate change bogey must be put to rest to free scientists & budgets to work on THERMODYNAMIC related objectives. 3. GPAL (Gun lift, 1-ton Packet switched, scramjet ASSIST, INCREMENTAL launch) space NETWORK program that seeks to sem-robotically create stable storage-platforms between Earth and the Mercury-Solar Lagrange point and transfer data, personnel and materiel between them much the same way as data packets are transferred around terrestrial data networks. Relying on foreign space-elevator concepts is premature. GPAL is right under our Aussie scramjet & PNG MtWilhelm launch pad noses. 4. NANOTECHNOLOGY. It is essential that nano-materials be MASS PRODUCED for a wide range of uses related to GPAL, and for some serious R&D of Rydberg states of matter vis-a-vis COLD FUSION. FUNDING? By a .5%GDP permanent hi-tech job-creational budget. It must have OPEN NET ACCESS for all Australians to participate. Even if that means exposing some GPAL secrets. Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 4:39:38 PM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Excuse me, a self-styled peacenik advocating militarisation?
The author's distinction between militarisation and weaponisation of space is cute but disingenuous. "The militarisation of space refers to the use of space capabilities for military related purposes, which could include space weapons but by no means is synonymous with space weapons."
'Military related purposes' without the use of weapons? Pull the other one.