Green Baron Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 (edited) It must be Santa's sledge ... Edit: "launch keeps on slippin' slippin', into the future ..." hummdidumm ... Edited November 19, 2017 by Green Baron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 5 hours ago, Spaceception said: Looks like SpaceX could receive funding from the Air Force for BFR development. http://spacenews.com/spacex-expects-government-support-for-development-of-bfr-launch-system/ And here we have the reason for the point-to-point transportation idea SpaceX seemingly pulled out of thin air. But it’s now Sunday with no update on Zuma. Which mean Falcon Heavy is slipping away, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Hey. If military is willing to pay a part of the price of getting to Moon and Mars, why would SpaceX refuse? "Pecunia non olet" and all that And it's better than sinking mounds of dollars in another program like "Zumwalt" or F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Point to point is not something of much utility to the military I think. The AF would love a real "spaceplane," however. It need not "fly" like skylon, it needs to be able to operate like an aircraft as much as possible in terms of sortie rate, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 29 minutes ago, tater said: Point to point is not something of much utility to the military I think. Uninterceptable instant delivery anywhere that doesn't even need a runway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, DAL59 said: Uninterceptable instant delivery anywhere that doesn't even need a runway? Given the current state of the world, I’d say this idea is even more relevant today than when they first envisioned it 50 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 1 minute ago, DAL59 said: Uninterceptable instant delivery anywhere that doesn't even need a runway? I don't think they want to drop troops into a combat zone that cannot be supported easily. Any support would have to be there ahead of time, limiting surprise, anyway. On top of that, the craft would then be stuck in a combat zone. In addition, the troops then have to repel out... seems like a poor idea in the modern age. Better to spend the dev money on robot troops, honestly. I think Space Command, OTOH, is incredibly interested in the ability to fly a spacecraft like a plane. Even just the cargo version with a HUGE telescope for earth observation would be amazing. Liftoff, and half an orbit later, it's taking pictures. Before they can figure out when the next pass is, it lands, and will launch on a different track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastleKSide Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Needs at least a landing pad though. Also an anti-balistic interceptor would probably able to take it out. But they could probably find a use for it if spacex can get it to work. Also the government has never seemed to shy away from long shot ideas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Just now, tater said: Better to spend the dev money on robot troops, honestly. True. It could also deploy a couple thousand drones... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 1 minute ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Given the current state of the world, I’d say this idea is even more relevant today than when they first envisioned it 50 years ago. I'm not so sure, honestly. We're also more risk averse, and this means dropping unsupported troops somewhere that by definition cannot easily be reached. Wonder what is up with the fairings. I can only assume it's a change related to fairing recovery. That or they just discovered with the other fairing that they got a bad batch of materials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Here's an idea: Launch several into orbit, dock together to fill the troop carrier up, then land it with fuel to spare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastleKSide Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 I was thinking more of using BFR to get tanks and troops quickly to a AF base halfway across the world, not dropping them right on the front. Would it even have the capability of landing on unprepared ground? Ie not on a foot of concrete? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 10 minutes ago, CastleKSide said: I was thinking more of using BFR to get tanks and troops quickly to a AF base halfway across the world, not dropping them right on the front. How would that be any easier than loading, flying, and unloading a couple of C-17s ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 I think what the Airforce would really like is better eyes-in-the-sky ability. A satellite at 200,000 m just does not have the resolution that something 20,000 m. The problem is that the SR-71 was retired and just traveled too fast (Mach 3). I think if they had a choice today the battle ground is in SW asia, the need for speed is 100 times less, the desire is to hoover so high that turbulance and other aerodynamic forces are minimal (except upper end of jet stream). And to be able to mount every type of ground sensing equipment, which would include the ability to laser target (heat map) targets on the ground down to about 1 cm resolution. They really need something with a low ram type intake jet, low wing loading high lift and low fuel consumption. Primarily what are the targets. . . .N. Korea, mobile launch systems and underground assembly facilities. Iran . . .same. SW asia, moving targets that are not easily distinguished from non-moving targets. Our active targets are just about all incapable of targeting the high altitude surveillance due to a lack of appropriate radar systems and surface to air missiles. The point is that we know where the Russians are just about all the time, true to form they are a bear in the forest (big and scarey), but the game of they day are martins and ferrets, we need to be able to sense the undetectable. We had an SR-71 program, we could have made it into a Mach 5, 30,000 meter spyplane. Not only did we stop building them we stopped using them altogether. If the Airforce wants to get into space it knows how to, NASA after all was split from the Air Force. I don't see the airforce screaming that they need a 1000 more surveillance satellites in orbit, its the communication companies that are spamming satellites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 1 hour ago, CastleKSide said: I was thinking more of using BFR to get tanks and troops quickly to a AF base halfway across the world, not dropping them right on the front. Would it even have the capability of landing on unprepared ground? Ie not on a foot of concrete? How would you get a TANK out of BFS, exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, tater said: How would you get a TANK out of BFS, exactly? Learn from the Soviets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Landing will be fun while dumping your (optimistically) 2 tanks out seconds before landing. At supersonic speed, possibly. US Tanks are 65t each, BTW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, tater said: Landing will be fun while dumping your (optimistically) 2 tanks out seconds before landing. At supersonic speed, possibly. US Tanks are 65t each, BTW. Hah, soviet tanks run on Vodka, they hardly notice the landing. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3552267/Not-Humvee-withstand-dropped-hundreds-feet-earth-Army-destroys-three-vehicles-parachutes-fail-training-mission.html And this is they way we do it in the US, 65t not a problem . . . . . . . Edited November 19, 2017 by PB666 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Nibb31 said: How would that be any easier than loading, flying, and unloading a couple of C-17s ? Not easier, faster. Also, there's an assumption here that the USAF would be expecting to re-use the BFS... There are times, however rare, when they might need the stuff there NOW, and cost is not an object. So think throwing a tank out the side a few thousand feet up, or hard-landing on an un/minimally prepared LZ (still much easier than prepping an airstrip) expecting the BFS, but not the cargo, to take damage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastleKSide Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Nibb31 said: How would that be any easier than loading, flying, and unloading a couple of C-17s ? Would not be easier at all, just faster. Again, if they get it working. Ninja'd. 1 hour ago, tater said: How would you get a TANK out of BFS, exactly? Big crane from inside the cargo pod after landing, same way they showed for concept on the moon. And yes, the gravity is different so you would need a bigger crane, but it would be an interesting option to the AF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Not easier, faster. Also, there's an assumption here that the USAF would be expecting to re-use the BFS... There are times, however rare, when they might need the stuff there NOW, and cost is not an object. So think throwing a tank out the side a few thousand feet up, or hard-landing on an un/minimally prepared LZ (still much easier than prepping an airstrip) expecting the BFS, but not the cargo, to take damage... One tank is going to make a difference where? 62,000,000$ launch to deliver one tank. "hey everyone a missile is coming, no wait it didn't explode" "What's in it" "An unmanned tank, looks like" [lest we forget tanks are not space proof, you will die if you are in that tank about 10,000 meters] "Tanks from [deity], [deity is great]" "Lets man it!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Not easier, faster. No. Loading and unloading would take much longer. There is no real need for sending a battalion to the other side of the globe with no notice. Military conflicts don't arise out of nowhere. They are always preceded by months or years of diplomacy and muscle flexing. Sending a carrier group or deploying forces is a strong message that has more value than a surprise preemptive strike. Quote Also, there's an assumption here that the USAF would be expecting to re-use the BFS... There are times, however rare, when they might need the stuff there NOW, and cost is not an object. So think throwing a tank out the side a few thousand feet up, or hard-landing on an un/minimally prepared LZ (still much easier than prepping an airstrip) expecting the BFS, but not the cargo, to take damage... What times ? Can you think of a single event in the last 50 years where that sort of capability would have been worth the effort ? Edited November 19, 2017 by Nibb31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 A few reality checks. 1. Sending tanks piecemeal is asking for their destruction. 2. The crane shown sends the cargo done in small subsets. A tank would be in 1 large subset that literally approximates the dry mass of the spacecraft. It would tip over. Never going to happen. 3. Sending troops without the combined arms support they need cripples them, and puts them at grave risk. Smash and grab ops can be done as they are done now. This merely strands large numbers someplace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 It runs on methane, which isn't that hard to obtain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Specifications_.28MV-22B.29 It could carry 6 of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 One osprey would not fit inside the cargo version, much less six. Look at the size of them. The military is not interested in it as a “drop ship” into hot war zones, they are interested in orbital operations for the usual types of things they do, or consider doing in space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.