Comments on: Suborbital Technology Panel

By: cthulhu

cthulhu — Sun, 31 May 2009 02:48:31 +0000

Though it’s not obvious to me that it couldn’t be done (excluding the vehicle itself).

Upon rereading the post, I did not pick up on that they weren’t necessarily talking about ferrying the vehicle itself in the C-17. But that doesn’t make much sense either – this does not really seem to be the kind of vehicle that can easily self-deploy. How would you get it from, say, Edwards, to Qatar? It doesn’t seem to have the range to self-deploy, even with multiple stops; contrast with a Global Hawk UAV, which can self-deploy in about 48 hrs from EAFB or Nellis to the Middle East with one refueling stop in Australia or Guam or Diego Garcia. You’d have no choice but to fly the suborbital vehicle to the forward deployment site in that C-17.

Also agree with Neil H. point about could be mistaken for something more lethal…

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sat, 30 May 2009 23:07:06 +0000

My understanding was that it was a single C-17, but it was somewhat ambiguous. I wondered the same thing at the time. Though it’s not obvious to me that it couldn’t be done (excluding the vehicle itself).

By: cthulhu

cthulhu — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:27:57 +0000

I confess I don’t believe the resolution claim and hence strongly suspect the telescope is too small, hence the vehicle is too small. And whatinhell do you need a crew of 7 for? Nobody’s going to be doing real-time interpretation of images since there’s no real ability to turn around and get more if something interesting is seen – you have to launch another vehicle. How does this beat a HALE UAV?

With regards to transportability, did they mean everything fits in ONE C-17, or that there is nothing that requires anything larger than a C-17 (presuming multiple C-17 loads)? Wasn’t clear from context. I would submit that, if they meant one C-17, they’ve obviously got access to some high-grade weed…

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sat, 30 May 2009 13:29:47 +0000

Signal to Noise Ratio

I wrote that originally, but it didn’t really make sense in the context of the chart.

By: Neil H.

Neil H. — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:11:28 +0000

> Uses post-911 as an example of the need, in which we had marine expeditionary units sitting on ships ready to go, but it took weeks to get into Afghanistan because we didn’t have overflight rights over Pakistan.

It’s certainly an interesting idea, but I do worry about the potential misinterpretation by hostile nations of military hardware rapidly coming in at a long-range ballistic trajectory.

By: red

red — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:52:45 +0000

Even with poor SNR (not sure what the acronym is)” – Signal to Noise Ratio

By: jack lee

jack lee — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:43:04 +0000

Yes, he knows, I told him.

By: Dennis Wingo

Dennis Wingo — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:39:29 +0000

I wonder if Col Damphouse knows that this was the idead that was the first funded proposal by ARPA (Saturn 1).

By: Jim Bennett

Jim Bennett — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:28:48 +0000

Hmm. I wonder how long it would take India to develop a suborbital recon craft using in-house technology. I coiuld see one of these puppies taking a long slantwise look across the Line of Control in Kashmir in a decade or so.