Thread

1. Almondsetat · 1790809198 · focus · HN ↗

   The incredible and futuristic technologies the US managed to deploy decades before the competition reminds me of the story of how the NRO gifted NASA a couple of their old decommissioned satellites in 2012 and they turned out to be basically upgraded Hubble telescopes pointed at earth. The US from the 90s to the 2000s had multiple Hubble-level telescopes just for spying while NASA was fighting for scraps to study the entire cosmos.

   1. corvad · 1790809683 · focus · HN ↗

      I mean NASA's budget was/is minuscule in comparison to defense spending so I am not surprised.

      1. deepsun · 1790810217 · focus · HN ↗

         How? NASA budget is around 20-30bn in recent years, same scale as US Space Force department budget (26bn in recent years, 40bn in 2026). Comparable, but not minuscule.

         1. whatever1 · 1790810535 · focus · HN ↗

            Why is the space force budget relevant? The US has had spy satellites decades before the clown made the space force for his family and friends to feast.

            1. r3trohack3r · 1790813829 · focus · HN ↗

               We have organizations chartered for land, air, and sea superiority. It seems fairly reasonable to have an organization chartered for space superiority, instead of leaving that adhoc across the other forces.

               1. Loughla · 1790814780 · focus · HN ↗

                  Air? I know it's splitting hairs, but there was already a branch with much experience of launching and flying things.

                  1. jayGlow · 1790816396 · focus · HN ↗

                     every branch has experience launching and flying things but we still have an air force.

                     1. r3trohack3r · 1790818035 · focus · HN ↗

                        This. All services have experience doing most things - they do those things to maintain superiority over their domain. And the way they do them is specialized to that domain.

                        The navy was up there to maintain superiority over water. The airforce over the air. The army likewise.

                        But nobody clearly owned maintaining superiority over the domain of space and any operation that needed to ensure uncontested operation in space was a joint agency nightmare.

                        Space force is chartered to provide superiority in space so the other services can conduct their operations up there. Space is clearly a specialization that is differentiated from the air.

                     2. KerrAvon · 1790818229 · focus · HN ↗

                        I've known Navy people to make the case that the Air Force shouldn't be separate from the Navy. I have no idea if they're right, but I'm sure there are websites arguing the pros and cons out there.

                        1. pram · 1790836768 · focus · HN ↗

                           The Air Force was part of the army, not the navy. You probably mean the marines (which also has its own fixed wing air force lol)

                           1. hydrogen7800 · 1790861781 · focus · HN ↗

                              I always liked this description of Marine aviation: The Navy's Army's Air Force.
                     3. aetch · 1790834264 · focus · HN ↗

                        The Air Force does launching and flying over land as well as land based missiles. Flying over water is the navy’s business.
                  2. ornateelephant · 1790819492 · focus · HN ↗

                     Ain't no air in space.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.