Space Shuttle Jr.

After 2010, the only spaceplane in the U.S. inventory will be the Air
Force's
mysterious X-37.


See:

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...tml?c=y&page=1

Quote:

"the X-37 has taken a winding and perplexing path among NASA, DARPA,
and the Air Force.
From 2004 to 2006, DARPA oversaw it. Along the way, both the X-40A and
the X-37A have
been drop-tested (first over New Mexico in 1998 and California in
2006, respectively), which
proved their automated approach and landing abilities. Finally the
program was taken over by
the Air Force. Today, call up any of these organizations and say
"X-37" and it's like spraying
a garden hose at housecats."

wrote:
After 2010, the only spaceplane in the U.S. inventory will be the Air
Force's
mysterious X-37.


I can almost picture it actually being the "Hot Eagle" means of
delivering a squad of Marines to anywhere in the world:
http://op-for.com/2006/07/marines_wa...e_plane_1.html
That would be something so far off its rocker that it would definitely
appeal to the military.
Then there's that fascinating Boeing artwork of X-40 variant with the
RVs riding on either wing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077821/

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

Then there's that fascinating Boeing artwork of X-40 variant with the RVs
riding on either wing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077821/


From the article:

I like John Pike's take on the whole thing:

Pike says there is another tradeoff — and one that is not positive for the
United States in general.

“The persistent judgment is that we don’t need it. It’s been discussed in
viewgraph land: physically possible, but not militarily useful. Military
planning is no longer threat-driven, but technology-driven. Previously, the
question was ‘What problem will this solve?’ Now, it’s ‘Isn’t this
astonishing?’ The idea is to astonish them.

“It’s gratuitously provocative. America has more than enough hegemony as it
is. And frankly, military dominance provokes responses. The easy way is to
corrupt them with our culture. That’s the tradeoff.�

David Spain wrote:

“The persistent judgment is that we don’t need it. It’s been discussed in
viewgraph land: physically possible, but not militarily useful. Military
planning is no longer threat-driven, but technology-driven. Previously, the
question was ‘What problem will this solve?’ Now, it’s ‘Isn’t this
astonishing?’ The idea is to astonish them.

I like the SUSTAIN; we drop these thirteen Marines out of outer space
into the middle of some hellhole, let them do their stuff*, and then
extract them somehow later.
Just what we need - the space equivalent of Operation Market Garden.
And it seems the concept was still alive as of April of last year:
http://www.aiaa.org/tc/sos/ws2009/Re...enta tion.pdf

* Why do I get the feeling that that "stuff" somehow involves a backpack
nuke?

Pat

On Jan 30, 7:49*pm, David Spain quoted, in part:

“It’s gratuitously provocative. America has more than enough hegemony as it
is. And frankly, military dominance provokes responses. The easy way is to
corrupt them with our culture. That’s the tradeoff.”

That is simply untrue. The United States does not have enough military
hegemony to liberate Tibet, and it did not have enough military
hegemony to prevent the invasion of Georgia. Humans are still coming
to harm because of the unrestrained possession of military capability
on the part of non-democratic nations.

It is true that Hollywood and Coca-Cola and rock and roll have given
America a great influence on the world. However, they did not prevent
9/11. While they may be promoting unrest in Iran, I would expect their
influence to be too gradual to prevent Iran from becoming able to
launch a nuclear warhead against Israel, and some of their public
statements indicate they would be willing to do so despite the
likelihood of retaliation.

For that matter, they didn't *even* prevent the attack on the *Alfred
Murrah Federal Building*.

Getting troops anywhere quickly, however, isn't really a military cure-
all. It might even be more applicable in things like disaster relief.

John Savard

On Jan 31, 12:26*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Just what we need - the space equivalent of Operation Market Garden.

On which the movie "A Bridge Too Far" was based.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 31, 12:26 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Just what we need - the space equivalent of Operation Market Garden.

On which the movie "A Bridge Too Far" was based.

In that PDF, they show the Hot Eagle being recovered by a C-141 that
grabs onto a helium filled kite it floats above it.
This is fine, but if you can pick it up from enemy territory via a
C-141, you could also have put your thirteen Marines in via a C-141,
rather than shooting them through space.
They've run into a problem like this with operational use of the V-22
Osprey in Iraq.
It indeed can get the troops into enemy territory fast...so fast that it
can't be escorted by helicopters, as it will outrun them.
So you pre-position the helicopters, then send in the Osprey's with the
troops. Troops you could have just carried in via helicopters, rather
than using the V-22's. :-D.

I like the SUSTAIN; we drop these thirteen Marines out of outer space
into the middle of some hellhole, let them do their stuff*, and then
extract them somehow later.
* Why do I get the feeling that that "stuff" somehow involves a backpack
nuke?


Sounds a lot like Heinlein's Mobile Infantry on a bug hunt.

Val Kraut wrote:
I like the SUSTAIN; we drop these thirteen Marines out of outer space
into the middle of some hellhole, let them do their stuff*, and then
extract them somehow later.
* Why do I get the feeling that that "stuff" somehow involves a backpack
nuke?


Sounds a lot like Heinlein's Mobile Infantry on a bug hunt.

And of course, next up are the powersuits:
http://defensetech.org/2010/01/22/lo...eleton-update/

Pat

On Jan 31, 3:08*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

This is fine, but if you can pick it up from enemy territory via a
C-141, you could also have put your thirteen Marines in via a C-141,
rather than shooting them through space.

One assumes they need the troops there sooner.

They've run into a problem like this with operational use of the V-22
Osprey in Iraq.
It indeed can get the troops into enemy territory fast...so fast that it
can't be escorted by helicopters, as it will outrun them.
So you pre-position the helicopters, then send in the Osprey's with the
troops. Troops you could have just carried in via helicopters, rather
than using the V-22's.

This makes sense if the troops need to be escorted by the helicopters.
If you have an expensive fast troop delivery system, you use it in
conjunction with expensive fast escorts if you need to deal with
missiles or anti-aircraft fire or whatever.

A capability to deploy troops quickly isn't inherently useless because
one of the pieces is missing. If that piece can't be supplied, and is
always needed, then, yes, the specific capability is useless, and thus
needs to be re-thought.

John Savard