Small Unit Space Transport and INsertion (SUSTAIN) and HOT EAGLE

Apparently they did jumps from both the F3D Skynight and the A3D Skywarrior.

https://books.google.com/books?id=hzGE2X2kEIMC&pg=PA130-IA5&lpg=PA130-IA5&dq=f3d+skyknight+parachute&source=bl&ots=hvD6BYvgKe&sig=2G8xK-_21mnGvBJQYh8G819zfb0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjSjarJ8eXbAhXH54MKHcKaAyoQ6AEwFnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=f3d%20skyknight%20parachute&f=false
 
Dynoman said:
transport them around the world to any location in a few hours
Click to expand...

Sometimes you don't have that long.

than a rocket that would alert anyone who watches the news!
Click to expand...

Handwave: the launcher is carried by a carrier aircraft. The aircraft fly training sorties all the time. So one such plane launches from the USSF base at Crater Del Havana, flies off into the Gulf of Mexico, and launches the booster well away from prying civilian eyes.
 
Orionblamblam said:
kcran567 said:
Even one passenger in an x-37b would be a harrowing experience.
Click to expand...

The reality:

General Badass announces to a room full of special forces operators:
"We will stuff you in a spaceplane and shoot you across the sky at Mach 18. You will experience 6 g's at takeoff, and variable between 0 g's and 5 g's as you skip across the upper atmosphere. You will abandon the vehicle at 120,000 feet for a HALO jump into enemy territory while wearing an ill-fitting spacesuit made by the lowest bidder, breaking the speed of sound as you fall. You will land in a small compound with four of your fellows where you will rescue American captives from the stupid unteachable monsters who are currently holding them. You will then hold the compound from the onslaught of an expected 3,000 assailants for a minimum of five hours until conventional forces can be flown to support you. We can only send five of you at this time on this harrowing experience which chances are you will not survive. Who wants in?"

The news the following day says that the military had to deploy a combination of sleep gas and ED-209 droids to quell the riot as the operators started beating the hell out of each other for the chance to be first in line.

"This will harrow, yes, your very soul" is an *enticement* to exactly the sort of people we want to rocket across the planet to apply boot to ass for Uncle Sam.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a realistic description of the future dystopia that we might be heading to. Might also help the trip when loaded with performance enhancers, stimulants, opioids, DNA enhancers, nutrients and supplements, space vaccines, they might be giving to soldiers in the near future. As long as we can get 'em there fast in the rage rocket.
 
kcran567 said:
Sounds like a realistic description of the future dystopia that we might be heading to.
Click to expand...

Not really sure how that sounds like a "future dystopia." It's more like "the present but with rocketships." Think of the "cultural enrichment" that came to the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. Had the US military been able to drop teams of Space Marines into the compound literally within minutes, the story could potentially have been very different. Preferably the consulate with a surviving ambassador and a whole lot of dead invaders.

... loaded with performance enhancers, stimulants, opioids, DNA enhancers, nutrients and supplements, space vaccines, they might be giving to soldiers in the near future. As long as we can get 'em there fast in the rage rocket.
Click to expand...

It's not uncommon *now* for combat troops to be chemically enhanced. Hell, it's been that way ever since warriors discovered booze. A development that I understand may have even predated the Viet Nam War.

And "rage rocket" is good. Bring on the rage rockets. The "Warm Fluffy-Bunny Hugs Rockets" just don't work worth a damn in combat.
 
I believe to people in the rest of the world, the idea of gangs of armed American soldiers dropping in from space to fulfil the latest temper-tantrum from The Big Cheese Himself is not a comforting one. But I fear I'm breaking my own forum rules here.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
I believe to people in the rest of the world, the idea of gangs of armed American soldiers dropping in from space to fulfil the latest temper-tantrum from The Big Cheese Himself is not a comforting one. But I fear I'm breaking my own forum rules here.
Click to expand...

Using drones from afar as hit men or rockets. . . doesn't seem much different.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
I believe to people in the rest of the world, the idea of gangs of armed American soldiers dropping in from space to fulfil the latest temper-tantrum from The Big Cheese Himself is not a comforting one.
Click to expand...

Nation of origin aside, politics aside, what is the *fundamental* difference between rocketing special forces across the world and using a C-17... other than the time it takes to do it? "Hot Eagle" based troops are unlikely to be any more lethal than those who jumped from a cargo jet.

And would you rather that these "gangs"of American soldiers be sent *unarmed?* Seems unlikely to improve the situation much.

And risking politics: have the Trump years seen an increase in active, armed American involvement (i.e. "temper tantrums")? Most of what I'm seeing is whining from Americas allies that the US isn't doing *enough,* or is pulling back from commitments to provide goodies, cash and bodies to defend them.

Until rocketry gets a *lot* cheaper than even SpaceX is promising, rocket-based troop transport will remain firmly in the realm of extremely specialized missions only, missions that it makes sense to drop tens of million just on transport.
 
Gettin 'em there fast is one thing that might make bad guys to think twice before they
Take an embassy or bomb an ambassador. Knowing Marines will fall from the sky on top you're head
(Any second now) like a hard rain would be a good deterrent.
But also depends who is in office or power. Would Trump handle Benghazi differently
Then Obama did? Probably yes. Who is more willing to drop in Space Marines...?

And having then loitering in space ships for a period of time like a space garrison
Only to be dropped out like Hornets on the enemy (space force) is probably the future of combat
For the leading countries like USA, China, Russia. Once the approval goes thru this is the next
Battlezone. But their use would probably depend on which group is in power at the time. And at some point will it become a global military/police force to keep the pee-ons in line.
 
They're in the mix there somewhere...along with the T-800s and T-1000s...and battle droids
 
(in the voice of Sizzler from Invader Zim) Marines from outtteeerrrr spaaaaacccceeee...

… or, if you will, they won't be humans, they'll be robots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9phuyRknPw

David
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.thedrive.com

Recently Retired USAF General Makes Eyebrow Raising Claims About Advanced Space Technology

Retired Lt. Gen. Steven L. Kwast says fantastic technology exists that could transport a human anywhere on earth within an hour.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...

Not really saying much but seems to be reading a lot into it. Interestingly I was not aware of the 'gag-order' from the DoD which if find ironic since the LAST time they did that was quite historic. (Cease-and-desist under penalty of punishment action issued on October 3rd 1957... Then a funny thing happened :) )

Randy
 
SUSTAIN was the other name for the proposal? I think Super Heavy might be what saves concepts like this.
 
Byeman said:
publiusr said:
SUSTAIN was the other name for the proposal? I think Super Heavy might be what saves concepts like this.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what the launch vehicle is, flying a spacecraft into a war zone is not workable.
Click to expand...

What if it's not a war zone until after the spacecraft arrives? ;)
 
TomS said:
Byeman said:
publiusr said:
SUSTAIN was the other name for the proposal? I think Super Heavy might be what saves concepts like this.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what the launch vehicle is, flying a spacecraft into a war zone is not workable.
Click to expand...

What if it's not a war zone until after the spacecraft arrives? ;)
Click to expand...

"Some things in here" (rockets :) ) "do not react well to bullets"

Landing a aircraft (which are arguably more robust than a rocket) in a combat zone is dicey. Make the "landing boat" heavy enough you can get close to an aircraft in toughness but there's a huge cost to doing so and little actual benefit which is what the SUSTAIN and other studies ended up concluding.

Nothing in the equation has fundamentally changed at this point and it could be argued that the world situation has circled around to where trying such a stunt could actually ignite a war.

Randy
 
Now SuperHeavy could change things. I would want something very close to a non-payload Buran. No big resonating tank like Starship. Something that would be a full airplane upon de-orbit. Could land and take back off again…not to space (no booster) but not a one way deal like Hot Eagle.
 
publiusr said:
Now SuperHeavy could change things. I would want something very close to a non-payload Buran. No big resonating tank like Starship. Something that would be a full airplane upon de-orbit. Could land and take back off again…not to space (no booster) but not a one way deal like Hot Eagle.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. And that is just unworkable. A. A winged vehicle isn't going to work on the super heavy. b. It would need a runway and defeats the purpose.
 
Super Heavy doesn't need a runway. Who says the payload can't do like a Harrier? Heat shield panels can drop off-just like Dyna-Soars windscreen cover. It was to ride on Titan-puny compared to SH.
 
publiusr said:
Super Heavy doesn't need a runway. Who says the payload can't do like a Harrier? Heat shield panels can drop off-just like Dyna-Soars windscreen cover. It was to ride on Titan-puny compared to SH.
Click to expand...
Your words "Something that would be a full airplane upon de-orbit. Could land and take back off again" and would how would that not need a runaway.

Like a Harrier? Now it is even more vulnerable.

And making comments like "Titan-puny" just shows immaturity and lack of common sense and self awareness. The Titan launch vehicle family did more for your security than anything that came out of Huntsville.
 
publiusr said:
I must have hit a nerve. Jupiter at least served overseas.
Click to expand...
Which means it was a lesser vehicle. And other than the suboptimal Juno II, it served no other purpose, unlike the versatile Thor.
 
Byeman said:
publiusr said:
I must have hit a nerve. Jupiter at least served overseas.
Click to expand...
Which means it was a lesser vehicle. And other than the suboptimal Juno II, it served no other purpose, unlike the versatile Thor.
Click to expand...

Well other than the fact that the Thor was based on the Jupiter design and was built using Jupiter developed parts :)

Huntsville offered to build the Jupiter for the Air Force which refused and instead used Jupiter parts to design and build the Thor. The Air Force was then forced to use the Jupiter as well as the Thor. The Thor was actually the better IRBM being more accurate and operationally simpler to operate but the Air Force was only interested in Thor. Thor got used more simply because that's what the Air Force wanted.

Randy
 
Thank you-ABMA was done dirty. Jupiter and its rip-off were IRBMs btw.
 
RanulfC said:
Byeman said:
publiusr said:
I must have hit a nerve. Jupiter at least served overseas.
Click to expand...
Which means it was a lesser vehicle. And other than the suboptimal Juno II, it served no other purpose, unlike the versatile Thor.
Click to expand...

Well other than the fact that the Thor was based on the Jupiter design and was built using Jupiter developed parts :)
Click to expand...
Wrong. Thor used Atlas "parts": Atlas guidance, warhead and booster engine. And even though they were part of the Atlas, they were from associate contractors and not Convair. The rest of the Thor, the airframe, was all Douglas.
 
publiusr said:
Thank you-ABMA was done dirty. Jupiter and its rip-off were IRBMs btw.
Click to expand...
He was wrong and you are even more wrong.

The fact is that Thor has a greater legacy and was a more useful vehicle. Jupiter is just an after thought much like ABMA. Even JPL and NASA looked else where for better vehicles.
 
Last edited:
RanulfC said:
Byeman said:
publiusr said:
I must have hit a nerve. Jupiter at least served overseas.
Click to expand...
Which means it was a lesser vehicle. And other than the suboptimal Juno II, it served no other purpose, unlike the versatile Thor.
Click to expand...

Well other than the fact that the Thor was based on the Jupiter design and was built using Jupiter developed parts :)
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get that from. Jupiter was Army. Thor was Air Force. They didn't cooperate on this stuff, they competed.
 
Can a moderator cleanup that mess ? what does NASA 1958 prehistory has in common with SUSTAIN / HOT EAGLE ?
 
Folks, I suggest some of you go re-read the Rules, particularly those related to General Conduct!
 
DarkLord said:
Soem time ago I corresponded with the late Phil Bono of Douglas. He had proposed using his Rombus concept as a sub-orbital troop transport for marines/special forces. The main drawbacks were the landings, the final descent was a powered braking landing. The craft, which was huge, would be vunerable to ground fire. The Rombus would have had to land some distance from the "hotspot" to ensure safety. Phil said that it would be more use as a rapid response troop transport. It could have reached anywhere on the globe in a matter of hours from loading and fuelling to deployment. not the days or even weeks of conventional troop movement.

I will have to check in my archives to see if I still have the letters and information that he sent me. But I have lost a lot of the years through moving.
Click to expand...
Hi there! If you have managed to find those letter exchanges with Phil Bono, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing them. I'm a student writing my thesis on the military's use of suborbital and orbital transportation of troops and cargo and am familiar with Bono's work as part of my research. If you wouldn't mind sharing your correspondence with me, I'd really appreciate it: emailannabp@gmail.com
 
Air and Space student said:
DarkLord said:
Soem time ago I corresponded with the late Phil Bono of Douglas. He had proposed using his Rombus concept as a sub-orbital troop transport for marines/special forces. The main drawbacks were the landings, the final descent was a powered braking landing. The craft, which was huge, would be vunerable to ground fire. The Rombus would have had to land some distance from the "hotspot" to ensure safety. Phil said that it would be more use as a rapid response troop transport. It could have reached anywhere on the globe in a matter of hours from loading and fuelling to deployment. not the days or even weeks of conventional troop movement.

I will have to check in my archives to see if I still have the letters and information that he sent me. But I have lost a lot of the years through moving.
Click to expand...
Hi there! If you have managed to find those letter exchanges with Phil Bono, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing them. I'm a student writing my thesis on the military's use of suborbital and orbital transportation of troops and cargo and am familiar with Bono's work as part of my research. If you wouldn't mind sharing your correspondence with me, I'd really appreciate it: emailannabp@gmail.com
Click to expand...

Hi, now that's an interesting work you are doing ! I'd suggest you to register at NASAspaceflight.com forums and make contact with forum member HMXHMX.

He is no one else than RLV pioneer Gary C. Hudson (remember Roton 1999 space helicopter ? that was him). Hudson for 45 years has carried Bono legacy with SSTOs. And he was in touch with Bono, too before Bono death in 1993.
Through my own account at NASAspaceflight I've exchanged some messages with Hudson along the years, and he is a nice fellow. If you agree I can post the link to your above post to him via NASAspaceflight.
Cheers !
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom