Anybody want to help me invent a new branch of the military?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you have a to be a fish to write about marine biology?

Doesn't leave much room for authors interested in writing about aliens, does it? Unless there's a few Eddorian meat puppets running around.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But the truth is not that, it's "write what you are interested in learning about"

Just make it Believable (and interesting)

[Penforhire]

I like some authors' assertions that jurisdictions have to be clear-cut because otherwise the 'space force' just takes over everything. They have the high ground, so to speak, especially in SF where there is any value in off-planet activities (colonization or alien trade).

On air force versus navy, in some SF we see an awful lot of air-bouyant craft (e.g. dirigibles), which stay in the air as easily as a ship stays afloat in water.

[susan_cassidy]

Originally Posted by LuceBianchi

A ship in space would need fuel to start moving, to stop moving, and to change course, (as well as support life) but not to *continue* moving, or stay in space (except for unstable orbits, as mentioned above). (Except for FTL travel. *Something* has to bend physics to your will, dammit.)

A ship in space needs power to keep the air blowers working, otherwise people would smother in their own carbon dioxide, or they'd have to keep moving around and waving their arms to keep the gases mixed. Also, for air recycling, water recycling, etc.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by DustyDisks

When I was in, the predominant aircraft that the USAF was flying was the F-4 phantom and it did have a tail hook because I think that aircraft was the same flown by all branches of the US military services, at the time, So in theory the USAF could fly on and off carriers, tho probably only once.

WARNING .. TOPIC DRIFT ..

The Army/Air Force did fly B-25's off of the USS Hornet in 1942 (Google doolittle raid), though there was no intention of them landing again.

And landing on an aircraft carrier is quite an experience. In the early 70's I was assigned to Admiral's Staff on the USS Enterprise, then at sea. I was flown out on a two engine prop job. The landing was nowhere as hard as jet pilots experience, but .. Damn that deck looks small from the air.

[jersysman]

It's refreshing to see that the Air Force/Navy debate is still going strong (24 years in AF). As far as who will control this space force, it always comes down to politics (in other words, who has the bigger stick). For a long time, the Air Force has always been the second banana since it is the newer of the services. But it is possible for aircraft to stay airborne for quite a long time and they have. Most of the air force planes are refuelable and that is used to keep them airborne for quite a long time. I would definitely suggest a combined force instead of a single entity. That way both sides would be appeased and make it easier for the OP to just concentrate on writing a great story.

[fjtorres]

In real world terms, the US Space Force will without question be an evolution of the Air Force: it is already happening. Space Command is one of the USAF top-level commands and already has a substantial mission and budget. As time goes on they should have no problem in maintaining control as technology and the mission changes.

On the other hand, if we ever run into an alien FTL drive that we can adapt to build starships, the Navy will jump to the front of the line. In that case, the first Starship Captain would likely be an ex-pilot Carrier Captain. Probably one with an odd fondness for 80's rock like FINAL COUNTDOWN.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by susan_cassidy

I do think it gives you an advantage. It's a whole different mind-set, not just the terminology.

ETA: They always say "write what you know".

This is why I'm absolutely sure that HG Wells is from the future!

I don't think it's just a Navy/Air Force issue. I can imagine the Navy developing the technology needed for troop carriers, etc, and the Air Force developing smaller, faster, fighter ships, and the Marines & Army gearing up for lunar conflicts, but I can't envision any one of these overseeing all space-based conflict. Perhaps there would be an entirely new branch--a USOF (orbital force) drawn from useful members of the other branches.

[LuceBianchi]

Originally Posted by susan_cassidy

A ship in space needs power to keep the air blowers working, otherwise people would smother in their own carbon dioxide, or they'd have to keep moving around and waving their arms to keep the gases mixed. Also, for air recycling, water recycling, etc.

The very section you quoted mentioned life support. Which is what you just said. Congrats on not reading before hitting the reply button. :P

[Illinifan]

During my 21 years of AF active duty, I had once had the opportunity to be stationed at an installation that belonged to AF Space Command. During our Friday afternoon "Safety Briefings" which were only attended by the field grade officers in the squadron, I used to listen to the "space guys" wax philosophic about the creation of a separate Space Force. They were all convinced it could and would happen and that all it would take would be for the "Space Billy Mitchell" to show up and put his career on the line.

None of them wanted to volunteer. That was 12 years ago and we still don't have a separate Space Force.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by DustyDisks

The highlighted is the only thing I disagree with. The navy has its own air wings on each carrier. The USAF does not fly off of navy carriers. Navy aircraft carriers are in general manned by all navy personnel, air crews and support personal.

Now other navies in the world may do things a bit differently.

That's why I wrote "in some countries, the Navy operates the aircraft carriers, but the airforce flies the planes on it"

[anjirlly]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In real world terms, the US Space Force will without question be an evolution of the Air Force.

Given that the U.S. has scrapped the space shuttle, and that tons of formerly military missions have been transferred to private contractors in recent decades (former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan), I'm surprised that no one is envisioning private businesses having the resources and agility to dominate this domain.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by anjirlly

Given that the U.S. has scrapped the space shuttle, and that tons of formerly military missions have been transferred to private contractors in recent decades (former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan), I'm surprised that no one is envisioning private businesses having the resources and agility to dominate this domain.

Because private industry doesn't actually have the resources to do what they're doing. What "private industry" is doing is being financed almost exclusively by NASA contracts and enabled by technology transfers from NASA and russia.
It is all a political shell game.

Note that Space X got hundreds of millions from NASA to develop their rocket and hundreds more to develop the capsule and are now getting $1.6 billion to launch 12 capsules with 1000 lbs of cargo. That is $133 million per launch. Not that much different from other existing launch systems.
And the "new" tech in use is still 60's vintage O2-kerosene combustion.
You're not going to builld any kind of advanced space combat infrastructure with that.
The *real* advanced tech space developments are being done by the AF and DARPA with the x37b program and x51a and other seriously "black" projects. Not NASA (under the current Administration NASA has been redirected into paper studies and money funnels, much like DOE) and certainly not the private space launchers. The most advanced "private" launcher vehicle in develoment is Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser which is a retread of an 80's-vintage NASA design, the HL-20:
http://www.space.com/12131-private-s...am-chaser.html

[QofResh]

Originally Posted by susan_cassidy

If you have no military experience, I doubt you will be successful in writing military SF.

Though I think I understand what you are saying which is simply "write what you know", I believe that your conclusion is necessarily a non sequitor. Nobody has experience in orbital ops, not even the top military brass (at least so far as we've been told) so in that sense the OP is on level footing with other sci-fi writers. As for the "feel" of military service - that can be overcome with research and asking questions. So far, so good.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by susan_cassidy

If you have no military experience, I doubt you will be successful in writing military SF.

The most successful military novel in the US, by far, is "The Red Badge of Courage," which was written by someone with no military experience. Which didn't stop Hemingway, who did have military experience, from calling it one of the finest pieces of American lit.

But no pressure, Nancy!