Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting how this mirrors the debate in many corporations between functional organization (eng/sales/UX/marketing/accounting/HR) vs. product organization (Search/Ads/Chrome/Android/GMail/etc.) The military is organized functionally. Recently, basically every major company other than Apple has found that product organization yields better results, because each individual product can better respond to competitive th…
> Recently, basically every major company other than Apple has found that product organization yields better results, because each individual product can better respond to competitive threats in their market. Do you have a source for that? Not because I'm challenging you, but because I'd like to read more on it.
House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps
41–50 of 58 posts
Re: House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps
#42Looks like the Senate is in disagreement with the House on this:
https://www.govconwire.com/2017/06/despite-disagreement-hous...
> The Senate Armed Services Committee isn’t calling for a Space Force in its version of the NDAA; and is instead stressing the importance of cyber warfare and a more conservative approach to spending.
Re: House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps
#43This seems weird and premature. We will probably need a "Space Corps" eventually , but doing it now when the technology is still in its infancy, instead of being able to leverage the manpower of an existing service, seems unhelpful. Making the Air Force its own thing, instead of part of the Army, was a good decision in 1945 but would've been dumb in 1912 too.
I thought we had signed an international treaty against militarizing space and other celestial bodies. In fact, here is the text:
http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-princip...
Re: House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting how this mirrors the debate in many corporations between functional organization (eng/sales/UX/marketing/accounting/HR) vs. product organization (Search/Ads/Chrome/Android/GMail/etc.) The military is organized functionally. Recently, basically every major company other than Apple has found that product organization yields better results, because each individual product can better respond to competitive th…
> Recently, basically every major company other than Apple has found that product organization yields better results, because each individual product can better respond to competitive threats in their market. Do you have a source for that? Not because I'm challenging you, but because I'd like to read more on it.
Initially inspired by this Stratechery post (which also has a bunch of historical references):
https://stratechery.com/2016/apples-organizational-crossroad...
Also by personal experience at Google, which reorganized from functional lines to product lines when Larry took over as CEO in 2011.
There've also been a bunch of other articles about this. Selected reading material:
https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/functional-versus-unit...
http://thetechnalyzer.com/apples-functional-organization/
https://hbr.org/1968/11/organizational-choice-product-vs-fun...
https://a16z.com/2010/08/02/taking-the-mystery-out-of-scalin...
I'm perhaps overselling product organization as having "won" - the choice remains controversial, and the a16z article even explicitly says that it's basically a "pick your poison" situation where whichever choice you make will have drawbacks. But the general principle remains that product organization leads to more nimble products, while functional organization leads to more efficient functions. Perhaps the military's functional organization is a function (no pun intended) of it being peacetime, and the primary goal of Congress being to control costs.
Re: House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps
#45Meetings and sub-committee hearings on Space Command... but no time for the same on healthcare... Not trying to start a discussion, just noting the irony.
There’s almost always time for the military in Congress.
Re: House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stargate being a notable exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Program#Stargate_Comm... Which reflects how in real life the Air Force does have more to do with space than the Navy.
I always thought that SG being an air force show was unrealistic once the USN RN etc found out "wait there are real star ships" they would want to take over. Let alone the CIA / SAD / SIS wanting to run intelligence opps of world
USAF actually consulted a lot on the show and later in the series I believe the Stargate operation becomes a joint international civilian-military effort.
Re: House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps
#47Sounds like somebody at USAF Space Command wants a promotion. This seems decades late. The USAF has no manned space capability. The U.S. Government once owned the Space Shuttles. They had astronauts. The USAF once had a Space School. That's all gone. Now, they just buy commercial rocket launches. If anything, the reorganization the USAF needs is to lose the close air support mission, and the A-10 Warthogs, to the Arm…
I imagine that the not-too-distant future of close air support is drones with guns and rockets. These could potentially be operated by soldiers on or near the front lines. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine a soldier with a tablet tapping on things for the drone to shoot at. Not needing a pilot could make them smaller, cheaper, and able to enter (and remain in) dangerous areas in a way a helicopter or plane ne…
Given the choice between a drone+iPad and an A10 warthog, I'd pick the warthog all day every day. That said, I doubt it's an either or thing.
Re: House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps
#48This seems weird and premature. We will probably need a "Space Corps" eventually , but doing it now when the technology is still in its infancy, instead of being able to leverage the manpower of an existing service, seems unhelpful. Making the Air Force its own thing, instead of part of the Army, was a good decision in 1945 but would've been dumb in 1912 too.
I thought we had signed an international treaty against militarizing space and other celestial bodies. In fact, here is the text: http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-princip...
Yes! This is a huge step backwards. War and space do not mix.
Re: House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps
#49This seems weird and premature. We will probably need a "Space Corps" eventually , but doing it now when the technology is still in its infancy, instead of being able to leverage the manpower of an existing service, seems unhelpful. Making the Air Force its own thing, instead of part of the Army, was a good decision in 1945 but would've been dumb in 1912 too.
I thought we had signed an international treaty against militarizing space and other celestial bodies. In fact, here is the text: http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-princip...
Simple Prisoner's Dilemma - you know that the other nations have signed a treaty against militarizing space, but why would you take anyone else at their word?
The answer is, you don't - you try as hard to militarize the hell out of space before anyone else, because you assume everyone else is doing the same.
Re: House panel votes to split Air Force, create new U.S. Space Corps
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought we had signed an international treaty against militarizing space and other celestial bodies. In fact, here is the text: http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-princip...
Simple Prisoner's Dilemma - you know that the other nations have signed a treaty against militarizing space, but why would you take anyone else at their word? The answer is, you don't - you try as hard to militarize the hell out of space before anyone else, because you assume everyone else is doing the same.
The other answer is like the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and START I,II. Intrusive verification by international bodies with penalties for non-compliance. It hasn't been perfect, but so far the world hasn't ended.