[HN Gopher] I stopped cosmonauts from carrying guns (2014)
___________________________________________________________________
I stopped cosmonauts from carrying guns (2014)
Author : Tomte
Score : 75 points
Date : 2022-07-18 07:58 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| al2o3cr wrote:
| Moon's haunted.
| maest wrote:
| Parent's referencing this meme:
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/moons-haunted
| causi wrote:
| Considering he's claiming credit for getting guns out of space,
| I'm disappointed but not surprised he failed to mention that the
| gun was required to fend off bears after the Voskhod 2 mission.
| So thus far the gun's record is +2 human lives.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Is a pistol an effective countermeasure for an attacking bear?
| mbubb wrote:
| yes - usually larger caliber and often a revolver, ie:
| https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/best-6-handguns-bear-
| countr...
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| A pistol is better than a sharp stick. There was a Grizzly
| killed in Montana a few years ago with a 9mm, the bear was
| spooked and attacked, iirc the gun was a sub-compact, so
| figure no more than 12 rounds if he shot and landed all of
| them.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| As my friend said - a single shot 22 rifle is better than a
| club; it's a club that shoots a 22 round!
|
| The point is the best gun is the one you have with you at
| the time.
| sithadmin wrote:
| The TP-82 design, while technically a pistol, has a double-
| barrel shotgun mounted on top of another barrel that fires
| 5.45x39 rounds (same as an AK-47). A lot more punch than your
| typical pistol. I wouldn't want to be a bear looking down the
| wrong end of one.
| water554 wrote:
| AK-47 is 7.62x39 AK-74 is 5.45x39
| bagacrap wrote:
| Required to fend off hypothetical bears or actual ones? I can
| find no source mentioning an actual encounter with wild
| animals. Also it seems like we should be past the days of
| leaving cosmo/astronauts in the wilderness by themselves for 3
| days before picking them up.
| bombcar wrote:
| Seems like theoretical bears according to wikipedia:
|
| > The location in which the capsule touched down was too
| dense for a helicopter to land and recover the crew. Leonov
| and Belyayev could have likely been recovered by a helicopter
| with the use of a rope and ladder or rescue basket but Soviet
| Leader Leonid Brezhnev strictly prohibited cosmonauts to be
| rescued with those methods. [why?] This resulted in Leonov
| and Belyayev spending a total of 3 days, two nights, in the
| forest before finally being recovered. The cosmonauts did
| come partially equipped for this situation taking a survival
| kit which included a knife and a pistol.
|
| (Loving the _why_ )
|
| However "we went to space but our cosmonauts got eaten by
| bears on landing" would be pretty high on the "black eye"
| scale.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Maybe they could just deliver the guns by helicopter.
| throwaway744678 wrote:
| Or shoot the bears from the helicopter, full "Apocalypse
| now" style!
| bombcar wrote:
| But there weren't any bears, they should have delivered
| some bears by helicopter _first_.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| A shame there's no mod for this design challenge in KSP
| yellowapple wrote:
| I'm sure BDArmory could get you most of the way there.
| SkittyDog wrote:
| I have some friends who've done week-long ski tours in remote
| parts of Siberia and the Russian Far East. Their guides all
| carried serious rifles or shotguns with slugs, and made sure
| everyone in the party knew how to shoot.
|
| Their closest Grizzly encounter was a bear that stumbled
| across them, and charged at their lead skier from ~200m out.
| The guide shot the bear twice, but it still managed to get
| within 20m of the group before it dropped.
|
| Here in the US, I know two hikers who've been attacked by
| Grizzlies in the Rockies, and another guy who got jumped in
| Alaska. All three survived, but required medical evacuation
| and hospitalization... The guy in Alaska nearly bled to death
| from a broken rib tearing into the blood vessels feeding his
| kidney.
|
| So I'm not sure what the likelihood of bear attacks would be
| --but it does happen, and the consequences can be quite
| severe.
| [deleted]
| dahfizz wrote:
| Did you wait until after you got covid to take the vaccine?
|
| There is a known danger of bear attacks[1] and we have a safe
| & effective countermeasure. Why not be prepared?
|
| [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-
| coupl...
| mnd999 wrote:
| If you read TFA there is a perfectly reasonable suggestion
| that the gun should be only accessible from outside the
| capsule, thus reserving it for its intended use after
| landing. That suggestion was rebuffed.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| It's perfectly reasonable from a theoretical standpoint,
| but what kind of engineering modifications would be
| involved? It's not as simple as bolting a compartment to
| the side. They'd have to engineer something recessed so
| that it doesn't interfere with the aerodynamic profile of
| the capsule. Do-able, sure, feasible, probably not. What
| would happen if the capsule landed gun compartment side
| down? If I were a Russian engineer and project manager
| I'd tell you to get out of my office with such a
| frivolous request.
|
| Edit: I also realized that an external firearm container
| would likely imply the handgun would be exposed to the
| vacuum of space and the temperature swings involved.
| Given that Soyuz capsules can be in space for months at a
| time, there would have to be considerable re-engineering
| of the firearm and the ammunition in order to accommodate
| this proposed change.
| yellowapple wrote:
| So if the bear is outside of the capsule and you're
| safely (for now) inside it, do you risk going outside to
| get the gun? Or do you wait for the bear to peel open the
| capsule like a can of sardines?
| markstos wrote:
| Because there's also a known danger of mental health
| challenges with astronauts and that risk must be weight
| against potential bear attacks.
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| This is comical. There are a 1000 of other ways to make
| things go wrong in space.
| maest wrote:
| Surely adding the 1001st way is a way of increasing the
| chance of things going wrong.
|
| I don't understand why some people refuse to accept this
| is a matter of tradeoffs and the presence of a gun isn't
| an absolutely good or bad thing.
| hourago wrote:
| Many people in the USA see guns with religious fervour.
| It's not a matter of logic or risk mitigation, it's a
| matter of faith in guns.
| [deleted]
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| "A wolf remains a wolf, even if he hasn't eaten your
| sheep."
| hristov wrote:
| Yeah. It should be noted that in places where Soyuz capsules
| have historically landed there is a real danger of man eating
| bears and/or wolves. That is what the gun is for.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| It might not be pronounced out loud, but in deep taiga you
| could meet with people that you would rather not want to meet
| with. Which could end with bad outcome. I don't think that
| chances of being eaten by bear are much higher. Bears don't
| really hunt people with very rare exceptions. And guns could
| definitely help there as well.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > but in deep taiga you could meet with people that you
| would rather not want to meet with
|
| Now you got me curious. Who are these dangerous taiga
| people?
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| who could you meet in deep taiga that might harm you?
| retrac wrote:
| In the early days, even just a humble farmer might think
| you're a space alien, or worse, an American. When Yuri
| Gagarin's flight re-entered he ejected and landed a little
| off the target zone. The first people who encountered him
| were perhaps a little apprehensive?
|
| > A farmer and her granddaughter, Rita Nurskanova, observed
| the strange scene of a figure in a bright orange suit with
| a large white helmet landing near them by parachute.
| Gagarin later recalled, "When they saw me in my space suit
| and the parachute dragging alongside as I walked, they
| started to back away in fear. I told them, don't be afraid,
| I am a Soviet citizen like you, who has descended from
| space and I must find a telephone to call Moscow!"
| SkittyDog wrote:
| > In the early days, even just a humble farmer might
| think you're a space alien, or worse, an American. When
| Yuri Gagarin's flight re-entered he ejected and landed a
| little off the target zone. The first people who
| encountered him were perhaps a little apprehensive?
|
| I think you're going way, waaaay far beyond the evidence
| to suggest that these farmers though Gagarin was a space
| alien. That's a funny little narrative, but I don't think
| it's remotely necessary.
|
| These remote Soviet people weren't likely any stupider
| than you or me... Less educated, sure--but they knew what
| human beings looked like, and were aware of the fact that
| airplanes existed. This was more than a decade after WWII
| ended, after all.
|
| I can think of a hundred perfectly terrestrial reasons
| why these isolated, remote farmers would have good reason
| to be apprehensive in this situation... I'd imagine they
| get almost zero visitors, so the sight of _any_ strangers
| would probably be the big news of the year--let alone a
| military aviator parachuting down in bright orange
| clothes.
|
| In fairness, I should confess that I'm pointing this out
| because it kinda bugs me for us to be looking down on
| these folks, as if they're children or simpletons. At the
| very least, that narrative seems to serve our own egos,
| more so than any interest in accuracy.
| [deleted]
| amelius wrote:
| From Wikipedia:
|
| > Leonov and Belyayev could have likely been recovered by a
| helicopter with the use of a rope and ladder or rescue basket
| but Soviet Leader Leonid Brezhnev strictly prohibited
| cosmonauts to be rescued with those methods.[why?] This
| resulted in Leonov and Belyayev spending a total of 3 days,
| two nights, in the forest before finally being recovered
|
| So, yeah, but this paints a different picture. Perhaps
| dropping a gun from the helicopter would have sufficed too.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Likely isn't good enough. What if the helicopter wasn't
| there fast enough? What if they weren't immediately found?
| It's a pretty big place. You want to stack your chances as
| much as possible.
| WillAdams wrote:
| Yep:
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-
| coupl...
| dsmmcken wrote:
| A bit of a spoiler -- this is also a plot point in Astronaut
| Chris Hadfield's novel "The Apollo Murders".
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| Per wikipedia: "It was intended as a survival aid to be used
| after landings and before recovery in the Siberian wilderness."
|
| Why is banning them worth celebrating?
| SLWW wrote:
| Not really.
|
| I don't think we should rejoice in limiting their ability to
| protect themselves from something that may kill them.
| dannyphantom wrote:
| > Of course, plans were to use it only in special circumstances
| *on return to Earth*. But in space, on occasion, well-laid
| plans have a way of turning out very differently. In my
| publicity campaign, I suggested the presence of the gun,
| especially in light of recent space team psychological
| problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster.
|
| There is something about it just so _frustrating_ in his
| writing, he 's so proud to have been a pest about it; the
| author is an American and NASA doesn't want images of
| cosmonauts with guns, cool. That's as far as that should have
| ever gone.
|
| But don't impose your qualms on your Russian colleagues.
| Seriously? They were reunited with the earth with the intent to
| survive in less than ideal conditions, _after_ being in SPACE
| of all places. Come on.
| pseudo0 wrote:
| What makes it even funnier is that during the period when
| this article was published, NASA didn't even have a
| functioning method of getting cosmonauts to the ISS. And
| meanwhile this guy is spending his time and energy trying to
| get Russia to remove an item from their safety kit, not
| trying to advocate for a US manned spaceflight capability.
| Kinda goes to show where bureaucrats' priorities lie.
| a4a4a4a4 wrote:
| maest wrote:
| Nobody is claiming they were banned because guns are
| absolutely, intrinsically bad. It's just that the safety
| tradeoff didn't seem good enough.
|
| From TFA:
|
| "Of course, plans were to use it only in special
| circumstances on return to Earth. But in space, on occasion,
| well-laid plans have a way of turning out very differently.
| In my publicity campaign, I suggested the presence of the
| gun, especially in light of recent space team psychological
| problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster.
|
| Fiendishly, I proposed that to guarantee the gun only be
| usable in an off-course landing (its official purpose), it be
| stashed in compartment accessible only from outside the
| Soyuz, after landing. There never was any response to my
| helpful suggestions."
| a4a4a4a4 wrote:
| > Nobody is claiming they were banned because guns are
| absolutely, intrinsically bad. It's just that the safety
| tradeoff didn't seem good enough.
|
| I was making a (what I thought was) very thinly-veiled
| commentary on the current political discourse regarding
| guns in the media.
|
| > I suggested the presence of the gun, especially in light
| of recent space team psychological problems, might be an
| invitation to a future disaster.
|
| And this is just poor reasoning and political grandstanding
| from the author. The author wants to feel like he
| accomplished something really meaningful, and is patting
| himself on the back for it. These people can be trusted to
| travel to space and depend on each other for survival out
| there, but the presence of a _very scary gun_ is the
| breaking point of where they can 't be trusted anymore? At
| some point, you either trust someone or you don't. If I
| couldn't trust a colleague with a gun, there's no way I
| would be traveling to space with them, because either way
| my life would be in their hands.
|
| Edit: from another comment, https://www.msn.com/en-
| us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-coupl...
| maest wrote:
| > I was making a (what I thought was) very thinly-veiled
| commentary on the current political discourse regarding
| guns in the media.
|
| Sure, but by doing that you were insinuating the only
| reason the author fought against guns in space (and won),
| was due to some irrational absolute fear of guns.
|
| The point I was trying to make is that the drivers for
| that decisions were more nuanced - there are tradeoffs
| when allowing astronauts to carry guns: they need to be
| trained, there _is_ an increase in accidental or
| intentional gun discharge, procedures have to be
| developed and maintained regarding gun storage and usage,
| increased storage weight etc.
|
| You can argue against each one of these cons (and you may
| well be right, although I don't think that would be
| immediately apparent), but that's beyond my point. My
| point was simply that the decision was more nuanced than
| "I'm irrationally afraid of guns".
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I guess because bear spray is a thing now.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Would the spray can be safe for 0 atmospheres (in emergencies
| in the capsule?)
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I would expect that they are puncture resistant, so able to
| survive > 1 atmosphere change, and I imagine if you're at 0
| atmospheres if you can smell the bear spray it's probably
| not actually your biggest issue.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| No good on wolves.
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| I just think it's weird. If part of my coworkers' job was
| involved landing in the Siberian wilderness and they carried
| a gun to protect themselves, I wouldn't go out of my way to
| disarm them and then congratulate myself for it. Not even if
| it was David.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| The very idea of guns make some people crazy - for or
| against, usually against.
| earthscienceman wrote:
| sawjet wrote:
| You just proved their argument
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| The GP asserted that _" The very idea of guns make some
| people crazy - for or against, usually against."_ and you
| responded with a totally hyperbolic re-frame of the
| argument, insinuating that pro-gun people come from a
| place of wanting to _" own an arsenal of any weapon of my
| choosing, the bloody bodies of children be damned"_.
|
| I'd say you've just proved their point.
| water554 wrote:
| Why don't you go live in Mexico for awhile. You can be
| under constant threat of kidnapping, crime, etc. you can
| always call the police if you have a problem. Guns are
| illegal there.
|
| Yes, the price of the second amendment is blood.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| The road to hell, or a bear free landing, is paved with good
| intentions. Sure the guns are for bears. But once guns are a
| norm in space they will eventually be used in space.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"But once guns are a norm in space they will eventually be
| used in space."
|
| For what purpose though? It would make absolutely no sense
| whatsoever to fire a gun in a spacecraft. Firing a gun on an
| EVA would run into two main issues. One, the gun is likely to
| jam or not even work - metal has a tendency to spontaneously
| weld in the heat and vacuum of space. Two, orbital mechanics
| means that hitting a target is not as easy as pointing and
| shooting. The bullet won't simply go in a straight line, and
| the person firing it is going to get knocked back and
| probably lose control.
| hourago wrote:
| Then we should celebrate that the gun has been removed. It
| was a danger for everybody.
| rozab wrote:
| Right, this is nothing like the 23mm autocannon mounted on
| Salyut 3. It's just a tool.
| midislack wrote:
| I'm pretty sure cosmonauts still carry guns.
| dionian wrote:
| There is a word for an irrational fear of this particular type of
| tool: hoplophobia
| amelius wrote:
| A gun might be useful on a space walk when you lose grip and are
| about to fly off into empty space. Just shoot in the opposite
| direction of where you want to go :) Perhaps a nice plot device
| for Gravity II ...
| Calavar wrote:
| This was a common plot device in 1940s and 1950s space SciFi.
| In the 60s, there was some preliminary work at NASA on jetpack
| propulsion with the goal of testing out the concept on Gemini
| spacewalks (didn't actually happen until much, much later), and
| jet packs replaced guns as the preferred propulsory mechanism
| in SciFi space literature.
| kryptiskt wrote:
| But the gas gun concept was actually realized and used on
| Gemini flights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-
| held_maneuvering_unit
| lumost wrote:
| Funnily enough orbital mechanics don't work that way. To
| accelerate towards an object ahead of you in your orbital plane
| you need to _lose_ velocity, drop into a slightly lower orbit,
| then gain velocity to slow down and intercept.
|
| Velocity is tightly coupled to altitude when orbiting.
| amelius wrote:
| Is that relevant at relative speeds of say 1 m/s and
| distances of a few tens of meters?
| namibj wrote:
| No, only when you get close to being on the other side of
| the planet by the time you reach the other spacecraft. Or
| take even longer, of course.
| NobodyNada wrote:
| No. Thrusting the "intuitive" way will indeed bring you
| closer to your target in the short term. Over time
| (specifically, enough time to be an appreciable fraction of
| the orbital period) the difference in speed will cause you
| to drift into a higher or lower orbit, but at low speeds
| and low distances this effect is tiny, and you can easily
| compensate for it by thrusting radially.
|
| See this Space.SE post:
| https://space.stackexchange.com/q/44622
|
| Or just play KSP :)
| lumost wrote:
| This effect is pretty pronounced in KSP at distances of a
| hundred meters or more. Trying to dock the intuitive way
| is pretty much impossible.
| NobodyNada wrote:
| It's easier if you put SAS in target-tracking mode and
| use it to keep your velocity vector pointed towards the
| target (by aligning the target and prograde crosshairs).
| But yeah, once the distance gets into the triple digits
| it's definitely time to think about giving up on the
| docking attempt and just fixing your orbit.
|
| Note also that this effect is a lot stronger in KSP than
| in real life, since Kerbin has a much smaller radius than
| Earth and therefore orbital periods are shorter (assuming
| the same altitude).
| foobarian wrote:
| That seems like an awful lot of dead weight to bring on a launch.
| bragr wrote:
| Not really. A few tens of pounds of survival gear are cheap
| insurance for a craft which might land almost anywhere on earth
| in an emergency.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| A couple pounds is a lot of dead weight?
| hourago wrote:
| > In my publicity campaign, I suggested the presence of the gun,
| especially in light of recent space team psychological problems,
| might be an invitation to a future disaster.
|
| The problem with guns is that they are designed for one clear
| purpose, someone that gets into some mental problem may see one
| and get ideas.
| efitz wrote:
| If an astronaut develops a mental health problem in space,
| what's going to stop them from opening the hatch or probably a
| thousand other things that would result in the deaths of
| everyone aboard? Guns are just a distraction in this case, or
| more precisely, removal of guns from this situation doesn't
| seem to meaningfully reduce risk.
|
| That said, I have no idea why astronauts need guns; they're
| unlikely to encounter hostile humans or animals and shooting
| isn't a practical hobby in space. Maybe in case they land in a
| bad neighborhood or wilderness? In that case, why not just
| store the guns on the outside of the landing module, making the
| guns difficult (and obvious) to access while in space.
| jaywalk wrote:
| While I'm sure there are plenty of ways a determined
| astronaut could wreak havoc on the ISS, opening the hatch
| isn't one of them. Much like on an airplane, the pressure
| differential makes it impossible to open when the inside is
| pressurized and the outside is not.
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| Do we know for sure there are no weapons on the ISS?
| grogenaut wrote:
| Have guns been tested for those temperature swings, or the
| primers and other explosive components? Do they off gas in
| zero atmosphere?
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| You could always store the ammo separately
| marssaxman wrote:
| > Maybe in case they land in a bad neighborhood or
| wilderness?
|
| Exactly this, and this is why it was a Soviet/Russian
| practice - their spacecraft make ground landings, instead of
| splashing down at sea. In fact, when the Voskhod 2 navigation
| system failed, it landed in a wilderness area so remote the
| men on board had to spend two nights in the snow before
| rescue. One of these cosmonauts was Alexei Leonov, who went
| on to a leadership position in the cosmonaut program: the
| survival gun was his initiative.
| jmillikin wrote:
| > That said, I have no idea why astronauts need guns; they're
| > unlikely to encounter hostile humans or animals
|
| The fine article, and Wikipedia's page on the same
| firearm[0], describe it as intended for wilderness survival
| in the event the crew capsule had to land in the Soviet
| tundra.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP-82_Cosmonaut_survival_pi
| sto...
| maest wrote:
| > If an astronaut develops a mental health problem in space,
| what's going to stop them from opening the hatch or probably
| a thousand other things that would result in the deaths of
| everyone aboard? Guns are just a distraction in this case, or
| more precisely, removal of guns from this situation doesn't
| seem to meaningfully reduce risk
|
| And yet, in countries with higher levels of gun ownership,
| lethal assault occurrences are higher.
| hourago wrote:
| Yes. Guns increase the amount of killings. Too have a gun
| in a controlled place like a space station was craziness
| and a catastrophe waiting to happen.
|
| I understand that some people like guns, but their lack of
| acceptance of the consequences is childish. I guess that so
| many shootings were kids die have created a cognitive
| dissonance on many gun owners. They want to see guns as
| "only for good" meanwhile kids die.
| almog wrote:
| >probably a thousand other things that would result in the
| deaths of everyone aboard? Guns are just a distraction in
| this case, or more precisely, removal of guns from this
| situation doesn't seem to meaningfully reduce risk
|
| I imagine that many of these things would involve either:
|
| 1. More steps/time to execute than pulling the trigger on a
| gun, thus leave more time for the rest of the crew to react.
|
| 2. Or require more planning than pulling the trigger on a gun
| and thus more chance to rethink one's plan + a chance to
| recover from that mental health problem as well as higher
| chance that the rest of the crew will be able to assess the
| mental health problem and treat it.
|
| At either case, I don't see how _having access_ to a device
| that can functions as a death switch would not be considered
| at least a meaningful risk to the space vessel or its crew.
| hourago wrote:
| You are trying to be reasonable and informed taking with
| the pro-gun crowd, you deserved to be upvoted.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| Actually, they're attempting to force an agenda into a
| reasonable conversation about a reasonable case of gun
| use.
|
| But at least, unlike you, they're not being a complete
| jerk and adding nothing.
| hourago wrote:
| Thinking that opening a hatch in space is easy? You
| cannot do that in a plane.
|
| What is their fair contribution? Bears? In space?
|
| If they read the article there was a suggestion to put
| the weapon in a place that was not accessible until
| landing.
|
| What I'm missing?
| LanceH wrote:
| Starting a fire would be easy, not obvious and devastating.
|
| It wouldn't be difficult to have the gun be completely
| unavailable until landing.
| almog wrote:
| > Starting a fire would be easy, not obvious and
| devastating.
|
| I'm not sure how starting a fire would be non-obvious
| but, in general, fire prevention, detection and
| suppression a risk that space crews are well trained to
| deal with, regardless of sabotage.
|
| > It wouldn't be difficult to have the gun be completely
| unavailable until landing.
|
| Agree, but:
|
| 1. That is not the case that's described here.
|
| 2. My argument was to counter the claim that having
| access to a gun onboard a spaceship does not
| significantly increase the overall risk to crew members.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I am nostalgic for days when resisting militarization of space
| seemed possible, before the "US Space Force".
| MrZongle2 wrote:
| Go read up on the Soviet Almaz station from the 1970s, and
| reconcile _that_ with the Space Force from the 2020s.
| Someone wrote:
| For the curious:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz#Defense_measures
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Space Force is just an org chart change. There is nothing new
| that wasn't already being done before.
| blamazon wrote:
| Ah, you mean those halcyon days when China blew up a satellite
| in 2007 to demonstrate its anti-satellite military capabilities
| and caused a huge debris field?
|
| https://swfound.org/media/9550/chinese_asat_fact_sheet_updat...
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| There was never a point in time where spaceflight wasn't
| militarized to some degree. Even France has a space force. The
| US Space Force isn't some lurch towards militarism, it's a
| glorified bureaucratic reshuffling of what the DoD was already
| doing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_forces,_units,_a...
| kidme5 wrote:
| Weapons in Space are inevitable with Space Force.
|
| Even Elon Musk is involved:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites
| MrZongle2 wrote:
| Go read up on the Almaz.
|
| The Soviets mounted a 23mm cannon on one of their early
| stations.
|
| _Long_ before the Space Force.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-19 23:02 UTC)