Jonfliesgoats

Absolutely. The approach to logistics needs to be multi-faceted, and that occurs only rarely. It's also worth mentioning that these effects aren't limited to news-worthy efforts. Throughout Africa there are various missionary and humanitarian organizations that have been flying light aircraft for years. The truth is that a lot of these efforts are more about keeping a particular set of four people flying and supporting the status quo rather than making significant improvements. In these cases we are talking about individuals or smallgroups of individuals making decisions.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/12/john-glenn/john-glenn.html

DDE, arsenal airplanes and drone-controlling motherships may also be an offshoot of this. Our idea of a flying aircraft carrier itself may change. Pilots flying as wing leaders with squadrons of RPV and UAV to provide network and EW capabilities are already in the works. It is entirey possible that today's fighters or bombers could be equipped with drone underwing stores to extend the reach of sensors and network weapons systems. Also, I like the Russian pilots and officers I have worked with. I sort of wonder how long periods in Siberia affect their senses of humor in comparison to long periods of American in the Middle East. Would we all laugh at the same, translated jokes in South Park?

Very good point, VaPal. From a policy perspective I don't think airlift prevents investments specifically, but it allows us to have unrealistic ideas of the costs of a specific plan. Let's look at some recent examples: Rte 1 is the big, ring road in Afghanistan. It was built (refurbished) using a King Air on contract to fly engineers to worksites. Once built, ISAF relied on airlift to FOBs and smaller airlift from FOBs to COPs to sustain its presence there. We never got to a point where we could keep all of of Rte 1 open because we never Addressed the patronage system that perpetuates crippling corruption in Afghan forces. And in the construction and maintenance of the biggest road in Afghanistan we were and remain utterly dependent on airlift capabilities at all conceivable scales. So, I agree, the airlift didn't stop us from money on the roads, but it does prevent us from facing the costly, necessary and unpleasant problems of securing and maintaining a road. Airlift allows us to avoid making necessary changes to policy and strategy.

Seriously?!? I'll go full-American-stupid for that. Next thing you know the hotels won't house Welsh.

Air launch of small stuff seems favorable. There is a company using airplanes as small as Gulfstreams to launch very small payloads. With regard to the Maya and Mercury I posted that as an example of Kerbal engineering, not to draw parallels with anything NASA was working on. Eight engines, a piggy back seaplane and in-flight separation were worked out just to get 700lbs of payload from the U.K. to Canada in 1938! Talk about some expensive air-mail! Incidentally, the first drawings for what would become the Lockheed Constellation were made in 1937.

Politics in aerospace engineering: Soviet transport planes were built with the ability to mount tail gun turrets well into the 80s due to an order by Stalin. This significantly reduced the effective rudder surface area on airplane like the AN-12. Just because something is dumb doesn't mean we won't do it.

So what guidelines should we generally apply to airlift? What successful airlifts can you think of and what airlift failures can you think of? What were the common factors among the successes and among the failures? What is the critical point at which you decide to stop airlifting and do something else?

Thanks for all of your responses! I am happy to see that people are willing to toss these considerations around in their heads. The problem with airlift, from bush flying all the way up to large scale airlift, is not with the aircraft or crew capabilities. The problem is that the capabiltites are abused at the expense of more sustainable logistics in almost every case. In small, remote operations airlif capability is reliable but expensive. the effect is not building roads and making investments in anti-corruption efforts and maintenance to keep those roads opening. One can argue airlift has been disasterous for Nigeria during and after the Biafra conflict. Since the war, local big men have built very nice airports in their local towns, complete with private instrument landing systems, say in Minna, Nigeria. The wealthy fly to these airports and, in many cases, have helicopters take them to local destinations. In the mean time roads have deteriorated and driving between cities after dark is downright dangerous. The effect is that people starve in a nation that produces more food than it consumes. Moreover, when the wealthy don't use the roads, nobody pays the local police salaries or ensures that the local officers don't pocket the salaries of their subordinates. This turns local security forces into rival criminal gangs that hinder rather than aid the movement of goods. In the case of flying doctors and engineers, small airlift allows those doctors to fly into an area and provide necessary services. In the long term, clinics aren't built and staffed to provide dedicated care to a region. To be fair it is certainly difficult to navigate local official and unofficial social and political complications to reality on the ground. Airlift offers a method to get stuff and people from a to b without having to negotiate with every local power broker. This advantage is another failure of airlift itself. We allow ourselves to get into projects and use airlift too long because we don't work out the necessary details to deploy sustainable logistics to a local humanitarian effort. On another note, guys, I am deliberately trying to argue against airlift to foster discussion. I spent a good part of my life flying small and large airplanes in various garden spots and have seen the good airlift can do. My intention is not to scream down other views. Life is strange and today's college kid or high schooler can easily find himself managing tomorrow's relief operation in CAR or elsewhwere. Getting a strategic rather than tactical discussion of airlift out to the layperson is important.

I love the orbital blob suggestion. The problem is that any ablative goo that I can think of would be heavy. It is conceivable to remotely paint something (apply goo) in space. I was thinking about the crazy DV requirements of capturing a satellite. It would certainly be difficult. Others mention the problems in getting an evasive target and anti-tamper systems. Running any interceptor out of DV would be a simple task. Also, recovering a satellite to find that all the juiciest guts of the device have been obliterated by anti-tamper or self-protect/self-destruct systems would make make this a costly goose chase. These are all solvable, but difficult problems.

I thought that launch, with the inadvrtent shutdown, occurred back in 2013. It is difficult for me to keep my facts straight between professional and recreational reading, though. Thanks for the correction! It's nice o know they are more active than I thought!

So work has me here in Cambridge: the place where Isaac Newton figured out Newtonian Physics and Calculus. I am understandably excited because, while our pathway to the stars started when the first hominids started making tools, a whole lot of it was figured out here before being put into practice elsewhere. Oh yeah, the first black-hole celebrity Simpsons guest, Stephen Hawing works here too. A lot of big ideas came it of a lot of smallish, British buildings. Anyway, since I am naturally loud and and outgoing (aka boorish and obnoxious), I had to start yapping about spacecraft and calculus to random strangers at breakfast, on the street, in the hotel etc. Most of these folks have the sort of quiet reserve you would expect from people working at a world class university. I will say that I caught myself before I started asking if all the ramps in town were built specifically for Stephen Hawking. Thanks, Squad! You have me gushing at strangers in Cambridge! Without KSP I could pretend to be an adult. Also, these people are smart! Their jokes are faster and better than mine. I just have some education and a repository of facts loaded into my noggin. These guys are fast and insightful!

Glad Andy Weir addressed this with his fans. That's pretty cool.

Would it be necessary to evacuate earth? As others pointed out, not for a human-induced ecological catastrophe. We may screw up and kill many billions of ourselves, but this planet will be able to grow some biomass. For major geological or impact events, we almost certainly need leave Earth given sufficiently long periods of time. Evacuating the solar system? It's possible. The Sun is going to die, eventually. Survival of the species depends on having a presence off Earth. Presumeably the same factors would encourage us to leave our solar system.

Also, Yakity Sax (that's from Benny Hill, right) is stuck in my head.

Copenhagen Suborbital is cool because they aren't dependent on any billionaires. Sadly, they haven't flown since 2013, but wouldn't it be cool to see the Danes in space? https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/history/rockets-2/sapphire/#

I did, in fact, read the article which I posted. Capturing something in Space poses some interesting challenges that are worth considering. Practically speaking, of course it would be easier to get information by penetrating ground facilities and personnel. Simply removing and replacing an asset is easy, but getting hardware to evaluate would be really valuable.

In the eighties there was a race to capture/resurrect Salyut 7. The advantages of snagging another nation's satellite in tact from orbit are considerable and worth significant investment. How would you go about doing this? De-orbiting another nation's satellite in tact, especially if parties are convinced that the satellites were destroyed on reentry would be immensely valuable.

A more practical question: can we secretly capture another organization's satellite?

On evasion: Anything really high can maneuver relatively easily compared to an object down low. Oberth means even a modest random maneuvering schedule would rapidly run a lower, intercepting vehicle out of delta v. I gues this means any vessel intended to intercept another, controlled vessel in orbit needs to have gobs of excess delta v in order to be successful. Then again, forcing a high object to maneuver means you knock it offline from whatever function it was performing.

I think the Westworld logo is meant to be similar to the Westworld logo from the 1970s with Yul Brinner. Since I am not Jonathan Nolan, I can't confirm my suspicions. That or they are all big fans of Whataburger's corporate logo: http://www.eater.com/2016/9/19/12974462/whataburger-wonder-woman-logo-dispute

You know, it's amazing how Kerbal real life gets. Check the Maya and the Mercury here: http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/short_mayo.php

Yup. A lot of this stuff sounds similar to experiences of merchant seamen from a couple centuries ago.

Eisenhower made a similar point. Airplanes, boats, trucks and shovels are all tools to change realities for specific people on the ground.

Disguising something is a lot easier than hiding it. Data-burst communications can transmit packets of info faster than DF equipment can find transmitters, so communications with a clandestine device would be doable. Maneuvering is another matter, but a clandestine payload masquerading as something innocent could maneuver within constraints. People are more ingenious than we think, though. We revealed our intent to capture Salyut 7 when we recruited soviet trained crew from France. Keeping secrets is very difficult, in general. Keeping secrets when you have have even a minimal number of people involved in a secret satellite program would be very difficult for more than a few years. We do it, though. Difficulty is not synonymous with impossibility. Disguising something is a lot easier than hiding it. Data-burst communications can transmit packets of info faster than DF equipment can find transmitters, so communications with a clandestine device would be doable. Maneuvering is another matter, but a clandestine payload masquerading as something innocent could maneuver within constraints. People are more ingenious than we think, though. We revealed our intent to capture Salyut 7 when we recruited soviet trained crew from France. Keeping secrets is very difficult, in general. Keeping secrets when you have have even a minimal number of people involved in a secret satellite program would be very difficult for more than a few years. We do it, though. Difficulty is not synonymous with impossibility.