• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

The US Space Force

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
496
Reaction score
158
If the risk of using one of these defensive system carries with it a non-zero probability of losing the defended asset along with everything else in the same and neighboring orbital bands anyway, it becomes a bit of a stretch to think of a situation where you'd be brave enough to use it.
To stop your country being nuked perhaps.

There have been anti-satellite weapons used just for the purposes of testing, so pretty much any live scenario out-ranks that in terms of importance.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,681
Reaction score
768
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Such a 'cascade' would have major, if not devastating, impacts on a large number of civilian and military systems in LEO, even to the point of making LEO unusable.
Nope. It might make LEO *irritating,* but not unusuable. For starters, clearing out LEO of small bits would be *relatively* easy: launch thousands of rockets straight up to LEO *altitude*, but well short of LEO *velocity.* Fill each rocket with fifty tons of water (or some other liquid) and release. The water forms a large cloud of vapor that rises to apogee and then falls back down. Depending on the mission/velocity profile, the water would stay in space for anywhere from a few minutes to maybe half an hour. Since it is moving at multiple KM/sec differential to the rubble in orbit, the rubble will be aerodynamically braked by impact with the cloud. It might be only a few m/sec, but it'll be enough to accelerate the process of de orbiting the bits.

Something like Falcon 9 first stage, modified specifically for this purpose, would seem to do nicely. A hundred such rockets at, say, $10 million each would be by government standards absolutely trifling in cost.

As an alternative or adjunct, under the USSF the US space industry could *finally* get off the pot and start manufacturing properly armored satellites, launched and serviced by 4,000+ ton Orions launched out of Guantanamo. In that case... little bits of rubble? Pff. Who cares?

Note that both options are not just sunk money, but the development and operation of each would be a *vast* new opportunity for growth, technologically and economically. The first option would make reusable rocket launch an absolutely mundane occurrence, providing notonly true prodution line manufacturing but also training. It would not only provide highly trained and well paid staff for a massive space launch industry, it would also teach how to be truly efficient. Can the launch and recovery of a Falcon 9-like booster be carried out by a crew of five? Let's find out.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
932
Reaction score
198
Someone should send up the X-37B with a bucket and a robot arm and collect space junk. Should take about a year. Unless they already did it. What happened to the regularly published list of objects/junk in orbit published by NASA?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,351
Reaction score
99
Not like a neutral particle beam or space based laser wouldn't be a dual use "space debris" cleaner.
Their approach to discriminating decoys is destructive.
 

jeffb

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
142
Reaction score
44
Such a 'cascade' would have major, if not devastating, impacts on a large number of civilian and military systems in LEO, even to the point of making LEO unusable.
Nope. It might make LEO *irritating,* but not unusuable. For starters, clearing out LEO of small bits would be *relatively* easy: launch thousands of rockets straight up to LEO *altitude*, but well short of LEO *velocity.* Fill each rocket with fifty tons of water (or some other liquid) and release. The water forms a large cloud of vapor that rises to apogee and then falls back down. Depending on the mission/velocity profile, the water would stay in space for anywhere from a few minutes to maybe half an hour. Since it is moving at multiple KM/sec differential to the rubble in orbit, the rubble will be aerodynamically braked by impact with the cloud. It might be only a few m/sec, but it'll be enough to accelerate the process of de orbiting the bits.

Something like Falcon 9 first stage, modified specifically for this purpose, would seem to do nicely. A hundred such rockets at, say, $10 million each would be by government standards absolutely trifling in cost.

As an alternative or adjunct, under the USSF the US space industry could *finally* get off the pot and start manufacturing properly armored satellites, launched and serviced by 4,000+ ton Orions launched out of Guantanamo. In that case... little bits of rubble? Pff. Who cares?

Note that both options are not just sunk money, but the development and operation of each would be a *vast* new opportunity for growth, technologically and economically. The first option would make reusable rocket launch an absolutely mundane occurrence, providing notonly true prodution line manufacturing but also training. It would not only provide highly trained and well paid staff for a massive space launch industry, it would also teach how to be truly efficient. Can the launch and recovery of a Falcon 9-like booster be carried out by a crew of five? Let's find out.
Really don't think it's that simple Orion, doubtless launching hundreds of tonnes of water to LEO altitudes it's an option that's been considered by NASA but has been dismissed for one reason or another given that it's a serious issue that they're actively trying to find a solution to.

Armoured satellites? I guess some of the newer ones may have been fitted with whipple-shields but it wouldn't be many because of the weight penalty and because they'd be difficult to justify from a risk management point of view as they're not 100% effective anyway. It may be an option for future sats but doesn't help with the hundreds of un-armoured civilian and military sats already in orbit, civilian and military sats that represent billions in investment and the backbone of current US military capability.

Long story short, I'm pretty sure satellite operators of all stripes would take a pretty dim view on the addition of systems that would make the situation worse not better.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,681
Reaction score
768
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
It may be an option for future sats but doesn't help with the hundreds of un-armoured civilian and military sats already in orbit, civilian and military sats that represent billions in investment and the backbone of current US military capability.
Satellites in low orbit have limited lifespans. they'll need replacing through the usual attrition and technical improvements. Make them structurally sturier as you do so. Right now satellites are only as rugged as they absolutely need to be because it costs buckets to launch mass. But if you fundamentally reform the launch industry by having multiple daily launches of Super Heavies, sending tanks of water suborbitally and clouds of reflectors to L1, then it gets a *lot* cheaper to orbit new, heavier, well-protected satellites.
 

jeffb

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
142
Reaction score
44
It may be an option for future sats but doesn't help with the hundreds of un-armoured civilian and military sats already in orbit, civilian and military sats that represent billions in investment and the backbone of current US military capability.
Satellites in low orbit have limited lifespans. they'll need replacing through the usual attrition and technical improvements. Make them structurally sturdier as you do so. Right now satellites are only as rugged as they absolutely need to be because it costs buckets to launch mass. But if you fundamentally reform the launch industry by having multiple daily launches of Super Heavies, sending tanks of water suborbitally and clouds of reflectors to L1, then it gets a *lot* cheaper to orbit new, heavier, well-protected satellites.
Those would be fundamental reforms indeed.

LEO extends out to 2000km above sea level. The ISS orbiting at ~400km needs regular boosts to counteract drag but Earth observation/military sats which typically orbit in the 700 to 1000km band are barely affected by atmospheric drag at all. This is why debris at this height is such a problem because it doesn't come down. Sats at these heights still need regular station keeping maneuvers of course but this is more to counteract the precession of their orbits and the gravitational effects of the Sun and Moon (IIRC). It's the amount of on-board station keeping propellant that determines their useful lives in orbit and their replacement by newer (potentially armoured) craft. Unfortunately, in order to get maximum bang for buck, many of them aren't forced to reenter at the end of their lives but are forced to stay in service until they run out of propellant at which point they are left to essentially drift. This is one of the reasons this particular part of LEO is so crowded with 'junk'.

The 700-1000km band already has what is thought to be a critical level of debris with some analyses suggesting that a cascade may already be underway (but just hasn't hit anything important yet).

I think the big effort at the moment is to a) track the sub-centimeter sized junk at these altitudes which they can't really do yet (iirc) and to b) develop laser technologies to essentially 'tractor beam' them down into the atmosphere once they do. That said, they'd still have to transition them through the lower altitudes so a great deal of care required. Obviously, shooting at and potentially blowing up things at these altitudes would be considered *very, very bad*.
 

jeffb

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
142
Reaction score
44
LOL, if you say so Orion. Still think it'd be a baaad idea.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,681
Reaction score
768
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
LOL, if you say so Orion. Still think it'd be a baaad idea.
It would be bad for bad actors to have that capability and for civilized nations not to. It would be fantastic for the USSF to have not just that capability, but the surrounding infrastructure
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,451
Reaction score
411
(via The Unwanted Blog)

According this info the USSF will be part USAF, similar how US Marines are under US Navy
mean this USAF got still right to launch Rockets that USSF use and what role play NRO and NSA to that ???

and will this like US Marines are under US Navy dispute ?
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
846
Reaction score
304
(via The Unwanted Blog)
Well the USAF finally won that battle and gets control of military space operations. It sounds like they will likely cut the Navy and Army out as soon as they can which is going to be a bade thing.

According this info the USSF will be part USAF, similar how US Marines are under US Navy
Worse actually a they will most assuredly NOT be treated as a 'branch of the military' but as a sub-division of the Air Force.

mean this USAF got still right to launch Rockets that USSF use and what role play NRO and NSA to that ???
Unchanged from current; NRO/NSA will design and operate the spy-and-intel satellites and the Space Command/Space Force segment of the USAF will launch them.

The down-side is now the Army and Navy will have to pass through two layers of approval, (Space Command where they had up to this point a pretty equal voice) and then Space Force where they will have little support or input. What SC/SF pass or for budget approval will be colored by those agencies support or lack there-of.

and will this like US Marines are under US Navy dispute ?
What dispute the Navy only exists to move Marine buts and keep them safe till they can deploy. "My A** Rides In Navy Equipment" after all :)

Doubtful there will be even an apperance of conflict as this is something the Air Force has been aiming for since the begining. I give it about a decade before SC/SF gets folded right back into the United States Aerospace Force once they have used the SF to garner as much of the space related 'pie' they can.

Once the "Space Force" becomes official and is assigned a budget, (which BTW as an adjunct of the USAF means the USAF actually gets that money to distribute to them, the Marines don't have this same structure but they are also a special case organization... Can't be disbanded without Congressional approval and though the Navy get their budget they can't actually touch it by law... Betting that 'provision' isn't going to be in this arrangment) it will likely be moved into as many areas as possible beyond JUST launch services and support and you can look to them trying to justify and purchase training and equipment for "Space Force" use to get people and hardware into orbit.

I don't want to get into TOO long a post, (too late for some I know :) ) but let me sum up that part of this is getting legeslative control or at least over-sight over the regulation of private launch services and orbital traffic. This is of large near-term concern and great long-term concern. LEO is going to become a very 'hot' operational area over the next couple of decades and a fun little fact is that number of proposed LEO constellation systems is actually a big danger to future manned and unmanned use of that orbit system.

This especially comes true if the USAF, ""cough" er that is USSF pushes for a manned presence on-orbit which the USAF has wanted for years but has a better chance to push through with the USSF doing the heavy lifting in Congress.

Randy
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
372
Had just posted a question which comic, then engaged brain and followed the link. Nice.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
419
P.S. The original Starfleet logo was based of the early NASA logo. Just turn it 90 degrees. So each side is inspiring themselves again.
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
612
Reaction score
210
P.S. The original Starfleet logo was based of the early NASA logo. Just turn it 90 degrees. So each side is inspiring themselves again.
That is 'in universe' history. The Starfleet Delta was originally just the insignia on the shirts worn by the crew of the Enterprise and crews on other ships and starbase had different insignia. I believe it was the cos-play and fan art from the fans that set the stage for the Delta becoming the Starfleet symbol in Next Generation. The graphic showing the 'Evolution of the Starfleet Logo' dates from the time of the Enterprise series (or sometime after).

Still. I've got to say that my first thought was 'Starfleet' when I saw the new Space Force emblem.

. 23bb2b1a57d2ad6233c7973283d0ce49.jpg 98428e9b15e1a66d4178231a6b95f389.jpg

Edit: The article here https://www.startrek.com/article/starfleet-insignia-explained states that the effort to make the delta the Starfleet emblem started during the original series, However, that memo was written during the third season and everything else was built upon that. From my experience seeing the original series first run (Yes, I'm that old) the original intent was for different insignia - for clarity in the low resolution video of that time - but they made changes as the original series progressed. Walt Jefferies did say that many design decisions (ship registry numbers, emblems, etc.) were made for clarity in the image on the screen.
 
Last edited:

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,681
Reaction score
768
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Stargate Command put the US first and only reluctantly let anyone else in on its secret.
And well done, too. Look at the US's bestie, the Brits: when they had portals popping up all over the place spilling dinosaurs and monsters from the future out into the public, how did the British government respond? By sending manic pixie dream girls with dart guns to deal with the situation rather than Special Forces armed with machine guns and tactical nukes. This is not an adequate response to the threat of Goa'uld and Ori.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425
And well done, too. Look at the US's bestie, the Brits: when they had portals popping up all over the place spilling dinosaurs and monsters from the future out into the public, how did the British government respond? By sending manic pixie dream girls with dart guns to deal with the situation rather than Special Forces armed with machine guns and tactical nukes. This is not an adequate response to the threat of Goa'uld and Ori.
Well, it was the Blair era....
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
612
Reaction score
210
But then...



This dates back *years.* I've seen a lot of people the last day or so saying that CBS should sue Trump for copyright theft; these people are, indeed, idiots.
You are correct that the arrowhead delta shape is not unique to Star Trek and it has been used in other emblems. However. There is more to design elements in the new Space Force emblem that strikes a note with Star Trek fans and I understand why they are making such noise. That being said, I do not agree with them as I see enough differences between that emblem and the various Star Trek graphics to conclude that there might be inspiration, but not infringement. Another way I look at it is that - let's face it. Star Trek, and Star Wars, have had such strong impacts on popular culture that it shouldn't be unexpected for units to find inspiration in those franchises.
 

In_A_Dream

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
135
Reaction score
36
You are correct that the arrowhead delta shape is not unique to Star Trek and it has been used in other emblems. However. There is more to design elements in the new Space Force emblem that strikes a note with Star Trek fans and I understand why they are making such noise. That being said, I do not agree with them as I see enough differences between that emblem and the various Star Trek graphics to conclude that there might be inspiration, but not infringement. Another way I look at it is that - let's face it. Star Trek, and Star Wars, have had such strong impacts on popular culture that it shouldn't be unexpected for units to find inspiration in those franchises.
If it was anyone but Trump, I'm sure this would receive more of a standing ovation. It's a great logo though :) whether they chose to take elements of any sci-fi franchises or not.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425


 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,141
Reaction score
1,425
 
Top