“We’ve got to … stop debating if it’s a warfighting domain, stop debating whether there are weapons, and get to the point of how do we responsibly, as part of the joint and combined force, deter conflict that nobody wants to see, but if we do see it, demonstrate our ability to win?” he said. “We have to get about the process and the prospects of — from multiple domains, not just the space domain — providing capability to find, fix and deny any adversary capability to find and target US forces or allied forces.”

 
Innovative Rocket Technologies, known as iRocket, won a U.S. Space Force contract to demonstrate a reusable rocket engine for small launch vehicles.

The $1.8 million agreement with the U.S. Space Systems Command is a Tactical Funding Increase, or TACFI, where the government and private investors split the cost 50/50.

The New York-based startup, founded in 2018, develops rocket engines and plans to build a small launch vehicle.

The 18-month TACFI contract, announced June 28, was awarded by AFWERX, a U.S. Air Force technology accelerator.

“Under the contract, iRocket will further develop our highly reusable rocket engine,” said Asad Malik, founder and CEO.
 
This was what the ABMA was gunning for right before the end.

Look for pushback...
 
For any United States "force" in physical space, it's ultimately about kinetic assets...
 
For any United States "force" in physical space, it's ultimately about kinetic assets...

Not necessarily. There are a number of non kinetic options. In fact I consider it unlikely that USSF will develop kinetic weapons (outside a couple existing dual use systems) given the high risk to own infrastructure using them.
 
For any United States "force" in physical space, it's ultimately about kinetic assets...

Not necessarily. There are a number of non kinetic options. In fact I consider it unlikely that USSF will develop kinetic weapons (outside a couple existing dual use systems) given the high risk to own infrastructure using them.
If that were the case, it would certainly break the mold of USA, USN, USAF, and USMC all having physical assets capable of kinetic options.
 
Delta 9 handles orbital warfare. Space warfare is extremely boring though and mostly consists of jamming at the moment. It should be somewhat obvious that smashing enemy satellites is often counter-productive. Most USSF's conceptual space warfare systems consist of orbital tugs and parasite craft that dislodge high altitude birds from expected orbits. That's most of the killing of them with none of the risks of fratricide.

Space warfare is just going to be high tempo dances of dumb looking satellites with Canadarms trying to wiggle each other's solar panels and communication dishes out of alignment, attach goofy thruster packs to send one of them careening into a wild orbit that eats delta-v to recover, or use HPMs to fry onboard computer systems.

That said the USSF is pretty active in the Ukraine War.
 
Last edited:
For any United States "force" in physical space, it's ultimately about kinetic assets...

Not necessarily. There are a number of non kinetic options. In fact I consider it unlikely that USSF will develop kinetic weapons (outside a couple existing dual use systems) given the high risk to own infrastructure using them.
If that were the case, it would certainly break the mold of USA, USN, USAF, and USMC all having physical assets capable of kinetic options.

Non kinetic doesn’t mean nondestructive. I just think their operating environment doesn’t cater to thing’s running into each other.
 
I'm hoping orbital rail gun. Use for cubesat-probe-launch in peacetime ;)
 
I like that part that is absolutely true:

He was also clear about some of the key areas “ripe for collaboration” between Space Force and European partners, mainly covering “equipment, training and policy” — areas in line with the service’s “partner to win” ambition.

Joint requirements with European allies are, he said, much “less complicated” to plan and discuss compared to joint procurements.
 
The US Space Force is set to launch a constellation of satellites this summer to track Chinese or Russian space vehicles that can potentially disable or damage orbiting objects, the latest step in the burgeoning extra-terrestrial contest between superpowers.
 

 
Currently ULA and SpaceX are the only NSSL launch providers. Due to concerns about growing commercial demand, the Space Force in a revised solicitation July 14 said it planned to select a third provider in NSSL Phase 3, creating an opportunity for a new entrant like Blue Origin which is developing a heavy rocket.
 


 
 


 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom