credit: NSSO / caption: this concept of operations has been superceded by a new version after a Sept 2008 event
Almost a month after the 24-26 February National Space Security Office's technology forum for its Rapid delivery of military assets via space request for information details of the event at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and its contributors' proposals have begun to emerge
Hyperbola has obtained the agenda that amongst other things indicates an involvement by General Dynamics in the US military's Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion (SUSTAIN) work and shows that closed government briefing sessions took place at the forum for Alliant Techsystems, Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, Andrews Space, Rocketplane Global and Blue Origin
Brett Alexander, Personal Spaceflight Foundation president and also a consultant to Blue Origin, was at the mysterious company's presentation, given by its general counsel Robert Millman. Alexander told Hyperbola, "all the right people were there [from] the Department of Defense (Dod). [Blue Origin] was there to talk about its suborbital activities. But [the Dod] are nowhere near an acquistion."
The agenda also reveals that Xcor Aerospace's chief executive Jeff Greason spoke at the conference. His company has a horizontal take-off reusable launch vehicle related USAF contract. Hyperbola had contacted Xcor and was still waiting for a response at the time of publication of this blog post.
While the agenda does not mention Virgin Galactic that Anglo-American spaceline's president Will Whitehorn (the company is Anglo-US not Whitehorn) had previously told Hyperbola that the company would only attend as an observer
While Hyperbola has also obtained some participants' information that is designated as proprietary...
credit: US Space Plane Systems LLC (SPS) / caption: this space utility vehicle by SPS is part of a joint proposal
The above concept is the Orbital Vehicle Eagle Flyer proposed by the company US Space Plane Systems and whose other vehicle designs, along with the details of its partners E' Prime Aerospace, can be read about in this document posted on E' Prime's website
An organisation called Space Exploration Partners, which also had a closed session, does not appear to have a website but is cited in the Space Florida annual performance report for fiscal year 2008 as an organisation that has an agreeemnt to use Cape Canaveral Campus
The US military also now has a new draft concept of operations document for SUSTAIN dated Novemebr 2008 and on page four an author's note (reproduced below) reveals a two-day event held in September 2008 shaped it
Author's Note: SUSTAIN CONOPS incorporates the comments received from participants at the SUSTAIN CONOPS Conference held at the NSSO in Fairfax, VA on 18-19 Sep 2008. Version 2.0 now focuses on U.S. Special Operations Command as the principle operational user of SUSTAIN.
The NSSO's SUSTAIN webpage can be found here with all the related documents and more background documents can be viewed here
on March 19, 2009 4:00 AM | Reply
Well, the model looks just like the old M2-F2 lifting body that the U.S. tested over 40 years ago. If you recall, the vehicle was unstable; it crashed in 1967 and was rebuilt as the M2-F3 with a central rear fin. The accident was part of the opening credits for The Six Million Dollar Man.
Anyhoo, not very impressed with the website; it hasn't been updated in 2.5 years. Looks like it's a small company looking to hit pay dirt with a big military contract to reinvent something.
on March 19, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply
So what are the 'extraction options' with regards to the spacecraft itself? Would it be considered expendable? This insertion option also depends on a decent runway to land the thing, so that's going to limit your operations as well. Maybe more feasible: Build a stealth transport a/c that can fly above 50 mi over the target and spiral in low enough to airdrop spooks and their gear, then fly home. They still need to be helo-extracted, but you're not losing the spacecraft in the process.
My 2 cents.
on March 22, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply
Uh huh, I don't think so...
I briefly scanned a couple of the supporting docs. It's tough reading because of the almost parody level of milspeak and pointless acronyms, but some eyebrow raising items stood out. Though the core concept of 'space paratroops' isn't too far out, the detailed requirements the military desires to fulfill the job are outlandish and demonstrate an ignorance of spaceflight principles.
One silly requirement is for loitering in low Earth orbit. Why?
Orbital loiter provides no advantages and several huge disadvantages compared to 'ground loitering' a sub-orbital vehicle at it's launch pad. An orbital spacecraft can't 'loiter' over a target zone like a circling C-130 can (unless the target zone is on the equator and the spacecraft is at GEO!) And if suborbital pads are established at five or so locations (lets say Florida, Alaska, Guam, Diego Garcia and the U.K.) then full global coverage is possible with rather short range suborbital vehicles which are less than 30 minutes in flight time from any target. Whereas a spacecraft in LEO will only overfly the target once every 12 hours (I think).
And orbital loiter is nothing compared to other whoppers like an early hope that SSTO HTHL vehicles might even operate from aircraft carriers! If the military is serious about space-borne special operations than they should scale back requirements to what is possible, otherwise they might as well ask for Star Trek teleporters.
on March 25, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply
Looks like a mishmash of discarded programs from the old days. Today, every space/ballistic launch is still a time consuming event - very unlike the departure of an aircraft. What happens if the Space Marines are loaded up and there is a question about the bonafides of some circuit aboard? Do they risk launching and having the vehicle go in the water? And on the other end, what do they do with an expensive vehicle? Just leave it to rust on the ground? In a situation which was popularized by "Blackhawk Down", would you launch one of these and (on the best of days) leave a landing vehicle in the middle of Mogadishu?
Unfortunately, this is an attractive idea that can easily be replaced by cheaper, more reliable options.
Sigh.