Tactically responsive/rapid orbital launch updates and discussion

[chopsticks]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm struggling to see the point of this mission. I understand that the idea is to deliver a satellite within 24 hours to the required orbit for national security purposes but it all sounds pretty vague to me. Maybe I'm just dense. What would such a satellite actually do to counter a threat? Shoot it with lasers to incapacite it? ASATs can be fired from the ground in a suborbital trajectory, so this doesn't seem like a simulated ASAT test.

Furthermore, what might the "threat" look like? I'm just trying to understand here.

[Jarnis]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm struggling to see the point of this mission. I understand that the idea is to deliver a satellite within 24 hours to the required orbit for national security purposes but it all sounds pretty vague to me. Maybe I'm just dense. What would such a satellite actually do to counter a threat? Shoot it with lasers to incapacite it? ASATs can be fired from the ground in a suborbital trajectory, so this doesn't seem like a simulated ASAT test.

Furthermore, what might the "threat" look like? I'm just trying to understand here.

Armed forces like to be able to react quickly to changing situations. Need a new imaging sat, radar sat or something in a hurry because a key one failed. If you have a spare in storage and fast reaction rocket on hot standby, it could be up there in 24 hours providing data, minimizing any gap.

Yes, this is still somewhat theoretical as it requires you have a ready-to-go payload stored away, but maybe in the age of cubesats and other small sats, it might be feasible to have a bunch of stuff in storage ready to go if a need arises.

[Bananas_on_Mars]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm struggling to see the point of this mission. I understand that the idea is to deliver a satellite within 24 hours to the required orbit for national security purposes but it all sounds pretty vague to me. Maybe I'm just dense. What would such a satellite actually do to counter a threat? Shoot it with lasers to incapacite it? ASATs can be fired from the ground in a suborbital trajectory, so this doesn't seem like a simulated ASAT test.

Furthermore, what might the "threat" look like? I'm just trying to understand here.

Your adversary might have trouble to counter your satellite on its first pass… as there‘s no established trajectory yet.

[chopsticks]

Armed forces like to be able to react quickly to changing situations. Need a new imaging sat, radar sat or something in a hurry because a key one failed. If you have a spare in storage and fast reaction rocket on hot standby, it could be up there in 24 hours providing data, minimizing any gap.

Yes, this is still somewhat theoretical as it requires you have a ready-to-go payload stored away, but maybe in the age of cubesats and other small sats, it might be feasible to have a bunch of stuff in storage ready to go if a need arises.

Yep, that makes sense but that's not what I got that this mission was for from what I understand. The Lieutenant General said this: "can rapidly integrate capabilities and will respond to aggression". The aggression part is why I'm a bit stumped.

[Mark K]

Armed forces like to be able to react quickly to changing situations. Need a new imaging sat, radar sat or something in a hurry because a key one failed. If you have a spare in storage and fast reaction rocket on hot standby, it could be up there in 24 hours providing data, minimizing any gap.

Yes, this is still somewhat theoretical as it requires you have a ready-to-go payload stored away, but maybe in the age of cubesats and other small sats, it might be feasible to have a bunch of stuff in storage ready to go if a need arises.

Yep, that makes sense but that's not what I got that this mission was for from what I understand. The Lieutenant General said this: "can rapidly integrate capabilities and will respond to aggression". The aggression part is why I'm a bit stumped.

Aggression as in a war - the opponent has taken out your observation satellites via, any means, EMP, Software corruption, Kinetics. You want to get some capability back quickly. If you can't get something up quick (day or 2) it doesn't matter if you have something ready. So the next part of this would be to have some payload ready to go for foreseeable threats.

This launch is demonstrating the rapid launch capability part.

[Robotbeat]

It also deters your adversary from launching a massive anti-satellite attack if they know you’ll be able to quickly get some basic capability back online. An anti-satellite attack is a huge escalation, and this capability reduces the benefit to the adversary (and increases the consequences as the US would be better able to strike back, not being totally blinded).

This overall sort of drives home the fact that, even with tactical nuclear attack, it’s not possible to completely cripple US satellite capability and make the US totally & persistently blind.

[TrevorMonty]

Also helpful early mission to startup launch company.

[sferrin]

If it hasn't been said already, if they want rapid response they should go with a solid booster.  Back in the day there was a portion of the Minuteman fleet dedicated to the Emergency Rocket Communication System for short notice lofting of communication satellites for the fleet.  Minotaur IV/V would fit the bill perfectly. 

[Mark K]

If it hasn't been said already, if they want rapid response they should go with a solid booster.  Back in the day there was a portion of the Minuteman fleet dedicated to the Emergency Rocket Communication System for short notice lofting of communication satellites for the fleet.  Minotaur IV/V would fit the bill perfectly.

We are not talking rapid as in minutes here. We are talking hours to day(s).  The payload won't be on the rocket. The payload might not be known immediately. So the loading of fuel won't be gating the response time. This isn't like a ballistic missile.

[JEF_300]

If it hasn't been said already, if they want rapid response they should go with a solid booster.  Back in the day there was a portion of the Minuteman fleet dedicated to the Emergency Rocket Communication System for short notice lofting of communication satellites for the fleet.  Minotaur IV/V would fit the bill perfectly.

I mean, if you're developing the system from scratch, sure.

The reality is that we live in a world where it took 21 days when they tried using a traditional launch provider with a solid rocket (Pegasus), and less than 48 hours when Firefly did it with a liquid rocket.

It's not a lot of data, but it would seem to suggest that, in practice, the technology is not the limiting factor with rapid orbital launch.

[sferrin]

If it hasn't been said already, if they want rapid response they should go with a solid booster.  Back in the day there was a portion of the Minuteman fleet dedicated to the Emergency Rocket Communication System for short notice lofting of communication satellites for the fleet.  Minotaur IV/V would fit the bill perfectly.

We are not talking rapid as in minutes here. We are talking hours to day(s).  The payload won't be on the rocket. The payload might not be known immediately. So the loading of fuel won't be gating the response time. This isn't like a ballistic missile.

"There it can sit for up to a month. At some point during that time, Firefly will get a notice to launch, and they have just 24 HOURS (!!) to get VICTUS NOX into LEO.

This is a super demanding rapid response launch test for the US military. Overall a very exciting mission."

And if it goes past a month, then what?  A solid could sit there 24/7/365 and reaction time only limited by integration time.

[Zed_Noir]

If it hasn't been said already, if they want rapid response they should go with a solid booster.  Back in the day there was a portion of the Minuteman fleet dedicated to the Emergency Rocket Communication System for short notice lofting of communication satellites for the fleet.  Minotaur IV/V would fit the bill perfectly.

We are not talking rapid as in minutes here. We are talking hours to day(s).  The payload won't be on the rocket. The payload might not be known immediately. So the loading of fuel won't be gating the response time. This isn't like a ballistic missile.

"There it can sit for up to a month. At some point during that time, Firefly will get a notice to launch, and they have just 24 HOURS (!!) to get VICTUS NOX into LEO.

This is a super demanding rapid response launch test for the US military. Overall a very exciting mission."

And if it goes past a month, then what?  A solid could sit there 24/7/365 and reaction time only limited by integration time.

Ahem, doesn't a solid launcher have mass and payload fairing volume limitations if you are using something in the ICBM size range or less. Plus where are you going to stored and launch the solid launcher? Never mind assembling the launch personnel and pad crew.

If the DoD really need a rapid response launch. Just have the payloads ready for encapsulation with a Falcon payload fairing. Then switched payloads with the next Starlink launch on a Falcon 9. 

[xyv]

Rapid launch is a logistics problem, not a technology problem.  Satellite needs to be replaced; you need

  - a replacement satellite
  - an available launcher
  - a launch window
  - logistics to have on hand and integrate the above
 
Tthe hours to fuel and launch are insiginficant in the stage of the game.  Until we can muster the integrated vehicle in well under a day, the type of rocket is in the noise.

[deadman1204]

I agree that rapid launch only looks good from a very narrow view.
If you happen to have an identical thing sitting in storage and ready to launch. If so, you've only got one. The military doesn't have a stock pile of replacement satellites (ignoring the bs gps sat crap that congress pulls).

If china is shooting everything down, that new one will only last couple more days. Then what? Wait a year to build another? This feels like one of two things:
1. a problem in search of a solution
2. A way to support the new launch industry that keeps the money away from spacex/ula. Sending it to the actual new companies instead.

[edzieba]

I agree that rapid launch only looks good from a very narrow view.
If you happen to have an identical thing sitting in storage and ready to launch. If so, you've only got one. The military doesn't have a stock pile of replacement satellites (ignoring the bs gps sat crap that congress pulls).

If china is shooting everything down, that new one will only last couple more days. Then what? Wait a year to build another? This feels like one of two things:
1. a problem in search of a solution
2. A way to support the new launch industry that keeps the money away from spacex/ula. Sending it to the actual new companies instead.

"Responsive launch doesn't work because we don't have spare satellites ready to launch" is a catch-22 with "we don't keep spare satellites ready to launch because we have no mechanism to responsively launch them". It's not an absolute barrier, and even past systems have not just considered but actually operationally implemented responsive launch, e.g. Program 437 Alternative Payload.

The more pressing question is more of whether to launch a set of satellites and keep a duplicate set on the ground in case of a need to suddenly replace them, or to launch both sets and double the constellation density and make it twice as hard for an adversary to degrade the capability in the first place. For kinetic interception (high a clever rock at the shiny bird) growing the constellation is the clear better choice, as it leads to a direct doubling of the number of interceptors needed. For other ASAT methods (e.g. laser-based permanent blinding or outright thermal damaging, widespread orbit denial a'la a malicious Project West Ford) keeping the replacements on the ground allows them to have a greater operational lifetime before interception, with a minimum of of a once-around capability available. Currently, kinetic interception is the capability adversaries have demonstrated, EM disruption has not proven effective, and orbital denial would also risk adversaries' own satellites, so the balance is in favour of launching extras over reserving them. That balance may change, so having the capability before you need it is preferable to needing it before you have it.

[brussell]

I agree that rapid launch only looks good from a very narrow view.
If you happen to have an identical thing sitting in storage and ready to launch. If so, you've only got one. The military doesn't have a stock pile of replacement satellites (ignoring the bs gps sat crap that congress pulls).

If china is shooting everything down, that new one will only last couple more days. Then what? Wait a year to build another? This feels like one of two things:
1. a problem in search of a solution
2. A way to support the new launch industry that keeps the money away from spacex/ula. Sending it to the actual new companies instead.

I see some utility on at least demonstrating the capability and learning from it. Why not? I doubt this will become an industry segment.

[AmigaClone]

I agree that rapid launch only looks good from a very narrow view.
If you happen to have an identical thing sitting in storage and ready to launch. If so, you've only got one. The military doesn't have a stock pile of replacement satellites (ignoring the bs gps sat crap that congress pulls).

If china is shooting everything down, that new one will only last couple more days. Then what? Wait a year to build another? This feels like one of two things:
1. a problem in search of a solution
2. A way to support the new launch industry that keeps the money away from spacex/ula. Sending it to the actual new companies instead.

I see some utility on at least demonstrating the capability and learning from it. Why not? I doubt this will become an industry segment.

One thing I would like to see demonstrated would be a launch provider receiving two satellites to be launched into orbit, The first would need to be launched at the first or second launch window after they get the 'go' order and the second payload launched less than a week later.

[deadman1204]

I agree that rapid launch only looks good from a very narrow view.
If you happen to have an identical thing sitting in storage and ready to launch. If so, you've only got one. The military doesn't have a stock pile of replacement satellites (ignoring the bs gps sat crap that congress pulls).

If china is shooting everything down, that new one will only last couple more days. Then what? Wait a year to build another? This feels like one of two things:
1. a problem in search of a solution
2. A way to support the new launch industry that keeps the money away from spacex/ula. Sending it to the actual new companies instead.

"Responsive launch doesn't work because we don't have spare satellites ready to launch" is a catch-22 with "we don't keep spare satellites ready to launch because we have no mechanism to responsively launch them". It's not an absolute barrier, and even past systems have not just considered but actually operationally implemented responsive launch, e.g. Program 437 Alternative Payload.

The more pressing question is more of whether to launch a set of satellites and keep a duplicate set on the ground in case of a need to suddenly replace them, or to launch both sets and double the constellation density and make it twice as hard for an adversary to degrade the capability in the first place. For kinetic interception (high a clever rock at the shiny bird) growing the constellation is the clear better choice, as it leads to a direct doubling of the number of interceptors needed. For other ASAT methods (e.g. laser-based permanent blinding or outright thermal damaging, widespread orbit denial a'la a malicious Project West Ford) keeping the replacements on the ground allows them to have a greater operational lifetime before interception, with a minimum of of a once-around capability available. Currently, kinetic interception is the capability adversaries have demonstrated, EM disruption has not proven effective, and orbital denial would also risk adversaries' own satellites, so the balance is in favour of launching extras over reserving them. That balance may change, so having the capability before you need it is preferable to needing it before you have it.

Shooting down satellies is easy. Very easy. They have incredibly predictable orbits. This "responsive launch" is leo only, which makes it even easier.

Your proposing tripling the price of any program or more to make multiple spares, and pay for storage, and then probably never use any of them. Launch is the easy and cheap part. Every time.

[edkyle99]

Shooting down satellies is easy. Very easy. They have incredibly predictable orbits. This "responsive launch" is leo only, which makes it even easier.

Your proposing tripling the price of any program or more to make multiple spares, and pay for storage, and then probably never use any of them. Launch is the easy and cheap part. Every time.

First, satellites can't be "shot down".  If hit, they break into many, still orbiting pieces.  Some of those pieces may degrade from orbit faster than the original satellite, but other parts may end up in higher, longer-lived orbits.  Interception is messy and would hurt the country making the interception because orbital debris could damage that nation's own satellites.  There are other, neater ways to disable a satellite network.

Second, satellites are being mass produced today.  Starlinks by the thousands, etc.  Nearly 1,000 Starlink satellites have been launched in just the first 9 months of this year.   They have to be building them at a rate of nearly four per day at least!  There are already plans to use these constellation swarm production and launch methods for defense satellites.   They don't have to be stored on the ground...

 - Ed Kyle

[Zed_Noir]

Shooting down satellies is easy. Very easy. They have incredibly predictable orbits. This "responsive launch" is leo only, which makes it even easier.

Your proposing tripling the price of any program or more to make multiple spares, and pay for storage, and then probably never use any of them. Launch is the easy and cheap part. Every time.

First, satellites can't be "shot down".  If hit, they break into many, still orbiting pieces.  Some of those pieces may degrade from orbit faster than the original satellite, but other parts may end up in higher, longer-lived orbits.  Interception is messy and would hurt the country making the interception because orbital debris could damage that nation's own satellites.  There are other, neater ways to disable a satellite network.

Second, satellites are being mass produced today.  Starlinks by the thousands, etc.  Nearly 1,000 Starlink satellites have been launched in just the first 9 months of this year.   They have to be building them at a rate of nearly four per day at least!  There are already plans to use these constellation swarm production and launch methods for defense satellites.   They don't have to be stored on the ground...

 - Ed Kyle

Will add that LEO constellation satellites have enough onboard orbital maneuver capability to make interception by ascending kinetic impactors iffy. Tracking the interceptor isn't that hard. All the orbiting satellites have to do is changing their position by few tens of meters during the final phase of an interception attempt.

Finally there isn't enough launch capacity to knock out enough satellites to degrade a constellation numbering in the tens of thousands. Before said launch capability will be severely degraded. Since that is a de facto declaration of hostilities.