3 thoughts on ““Advanced Space Technologies””

  1. Yes, Starship was my first thought. But also, do we really need to send a strike team from
    the continental US to somewhere in 60 minutes? Our strikes on Bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi took weeks of planning and surveillance and used regional bases. So, when was the last time that we actually needed a one-hour prompt strike from the homeland?

    Also, I would question the “ultimate high ground” historic analogy. Space isn’t as good a vantage point as it might seem at first glance. Terrestrial-based ballistic missiles can reach targets just as well as space based weapons. And ballistic missiles can be mobile and camouflaged. True, having networks of spy and communications satellites could be useful and robust in a war. So, reusable rockets help provide that strategic advantage.

  2. Nothing stealthy about a Starship landing to off-load troops and equipment. Not to mention it is a big fat target for missiles as it lands.

    The tin-hat crowd thinks the General lost his job talking about the TR3B and offshoots. I have no idea myself.

    1. The General did not get promoted, likely because he was a supporter of a separate Space Service during the years when the Air Staff, and their patrons in Congress, found such support annoying. Don’t get promoted 4 years in a row, and you are retired. “Up or Out” is the term. Whether the General was really in line to head up a Space Force, I couldn’t tell you. It is quite possible he had such ambitions.

      “Up or Out” has been a very effective way to shut up “space cadets” for 5 decades by now, and the appellation is as injurious to a career in the USAF as is the term “Purple Suiter”. Apparently, the General did not listen, and/or thought the 2017 attempts by Reps. Rogers and Cooper to start a “Space Corps” starting the legislation successfully in the House would be successful, and lost that bet when the Senate refused to go along.

Comments are closed.