What do you want from DoD space projects? This includes USAF, AFRL, NORAD. Also, international mil.space cooperation and international issues.<br /><br />Further enhancement of GPS is obvious, plus other military communication and intel satellites. My one 21st Century critique is services interoperability, which is inherently space-based (comm, etc). AFRL has done some research on advanced launch and propulsion - quite innovative. What about suborbital "dropships" for the Marines? Or Rods from God? What level of weapons do you consider allowable in space? Air Force space fighters? Should they assume space security duties in the deeper future, or will or Corporate Overlords handle that internally? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Personally I think post-boost phase (esp. kinetic kill) missile defense is a fool's errand, while theater missile defense is where all our effort should be. If we're scared about North Korea, put theater-level defenses around the peninsula. That allows for surgical denial of NK launch and IRBM assets. Political effort has kept the US and Russia/CCCP at nuclear stand-off for generations, it works well and should be extended to other nuclear nations. <br /><br />Another point on global BMD is that it can be used to suppress peaceful space launch, whether by accident or policy. Is this a capability We, the People, want any government to possess? <br /><br />What new avenues would you like to see pursued in military space? What would you like to see done away with? What projects would you like to see expanded?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
- Status
1. Earth penetrating "rods from God"<br /><br />2. hypersonic cruise missiles<br /><br />3. more ABM advances & enhancements<br /><br />and about 20 other things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
strong pull for operationally responsive ( implies reusable ) orbital launchers ( they are doing it, slowly )<br />suborbital intercontinental troop deployment<br /><br />EDIT: oh space-based nuclear reactors as well. they are best positioned to develop it. dunno what it should be used for though .. maybe beamed weapon power sources or something.
I am not familiar with this "rod from God" concept. Can anyone elaborate/ provide links? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<i>> oh space-based nuclear reactors as well.</i><br /><br />Yeah, I forgot reactors, too. Naval experience (submarine) and the General Electric SP 100 are examples of military reactor experience. The Polywell fusion reactor and any kind of atomic/nuclear drives should also be in mil.space interest. Reactors can power electric engines, directly heat propellant, they can power beamed weapons and beam power, provide heat to melt Mars ice, etc. <br /><br />http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&hs=WAo&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=sp+100+reactor&spell=1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
fficial&hs=WAo&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=sp+100+reactor&spell=1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Reactors can power electric engines, directly heat propellant, they can power beamed weapons and beam power, provide heat to melt Mars ice, etc.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yeah, i know, thats in space nuts interests, but only beamed weapons would be of interest to military potentially <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />Or, possibly as a power source for "stealth" orbiting stuff. Solar panels make it too easy to spot stuff..
<font color="yellow">I am not familiar with this "rod from God" concept.</font><br /><br />"Rod from God" is a space based kinetic energy weapon consisting of large GPS guided Tungsten rods dropped from a high orbit or trajectory which would impact underground & fortified installations at 9 km/sec or better. No explosives involved.<br /><br />Basically like getting hit by a small asteroid or penetrating tactical nuke.<br /><br />Below is one concept that would permit one satellite to reload the other. Another more practical concept would put 1-3 atop a single booster. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
On orbit storage of cruise missles. They would have the ability to re-enter, and then fly to a target over the horizon from any direction and zorch it.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
In everybodys garage? Do you work for Boeing or something?<br /><br />If you have it then the neighbor wants it. Works great for the Military Industrial Complex.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Air launched suborbital troop transport would be nice.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>ground launched would be better<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I disagree because of the rapid deployment need of the military. Air launched provides use of several pre-existing facilities around the world, mainly air bases. While ground launch would require the use of the current or new launch facilities which already have a heavy schedule. That, in my opinion, would undermined the needs of the military in deploying ground troops. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
Troop transport<br /><br />An air launched troop transport especially one capable of orbital speeds would only carry a tiny amount of troops - a squad at best. Much better is some kind of big reusable ground launched suborbital vehicle like the '60s era Ithacus concept.
I was infering a horizontal takeoff suborbital craft. It would be a step in the direction of the holy grail of horizontal takeoff SSTO.<br /><br />At least it couldn't hurt to have a little of the technology developed.
<i>> Complete superiority at any cost. </i><br /><br />I like the way you think.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
<font color="yellow">Space battle station with Orion drive propulsion!</font><br /><br />It's unclear why you would need nuclear pulse propulsion on a battlestation. I understand the dual use thing gets around the space weaponisation treaties (but not the atmospheric test ban), but why exactly are we moving it?
<b>Air launched suborbital troop transport would be nice. </b><br /><br />What for? If there are no friendly bases near the target, the troops will find themselves with no support and no extraction. Oh, and their arrival will be announced by the sonic boom and re-entry fireball. Not exactly a covert mission. More like suicidal one.<br /><br />And if nearby friendly bases exist, then you don’t <i>need</i> a suborbital transport. If you can fly in an extraction helicopter, you can fly in a C-130.
The point is speed of deployment. I don't want to sound cliched, but imagine knowing that a specific person (say bin laden)was possibly in an area but you don't have the intel to launch cruise missle strike. You could deploy your troops to the area and get first had verification if the target was there. <br /><br />today we have small teams that go into hot zones where they are "surrounded". It works...
<...why you would need nuclear pulse propulsion on a battlestation...><br /><br />It's a joke son. Didn't you note my wink?
I want military space to wither away and the money diverted to more constructive missions.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What for? If there are no friendly bases near the target, the troops will find themselves with no support and no extraction. Oh, and their arrival will be announced by the sonic boom and re-entry fireball. Not exactly a covert mission. More like suicidal one. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There was no fireball for SS1, so it may not be a problem for suborbital. As for a sonic boom, it will be high up in the atmosphere and if no one will be looking for it, like at night it should be pretty covert. As for suicidal, well, every mish behind the lines is suicidal to a certain extent. But extraction is a real concern for an inland country, unless there are forces coming later. <br /><br />Actually an ideal system would be one that launches two vehicles, one for the troops and gear and another a vehicle to launch them out of the area. But that is more fiction than anything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 129
-
-
-
-
The great silence: Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 98
-
SpaceX makes Starlink Roam available throughout the US
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram