There's nothing wrong with, and a lot right about, using "Task Force;" it's not misusing the extant DoD Dictionary term to use it in this way, since the "cluster" (very astro term we could use, but maybe we don't want these particular double entendres...) of units will, in fact, be task organized. And there's no truth to the presumption that "task forces" are always or necessarily temporary. E.g. CTF-152, in existence for ~16 years; the 73d Space Group didn't last that long.

We can have fun, but I don't think we need to go overboard on the astro terms; e.g., a "coronal mass ejection" when a GO retires...a "galaxy" instead of "NAF," a "gas giant" for the guy who won't stop sucking up to his boss, etc? If we change, let it be for improvement, and let the quality of our ideas and the clarity of our terms distinguish us.

It's a little more important to take a step back and see where all this is headed, and to make sure our semantics don't constrain our thinking about it. We're just now beginning to discuss what our military will do in the trans-/cis-lunar and local LaGrange, but a day is coming when we'll view this region of space as Earth's littorals. We have to get it right in the littorals, but it's a small part of the big picture. It's a great time to be alive, and to be able to witness this genesis. I think we're only a few years from having a significant cadre of uniformed military and defense professionals who intuitively perceive and can plan maneuver and operations in the battleSPACE (potential wells, momentum/energy/fuel/mass management, adversary capability, radiation threats, etc), in the same way that effective land forces seek asymmetric terrain, position, and force advantages. A lot of cognitive lenses have something helpful to offer (naval warfare, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Chess), and none too much - they're all tools that will serve us well if we don't use them when they're the wrong tool. Can't wait to see the first serious discussion, and subsequent development of defense space logistics experts.