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.
Quote from: Jarnis on 09/15/2023 02:22 pmArmed 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.
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.
Quote from: sferrin on 09/29/2023 04:07 pmIf 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.
Quote from: Mark K on 09/29/2023 04:15 pmQuote from: sferrin on 09/29/2023 04:07 pmIf 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.
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 solution2. A way to support the new launch industry that keeps the money away from spacex/ula. Sending it to the actual new companies instead.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 10/03/2023 02:41 pmI 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 solution2. 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.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 10/03/2023 02:41 pmI 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 solution2. 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.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 10/03/2023 04:30 pmShooting 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
Nearly two weeks after the successful launch of a payload for the U.S. Space Force’s Space System Command, leaders from the branch along with launch provider, Firefly Aerospace, and satellite manufacturer, Millennium Space Systems, touted the importance and details of the mission during a press briefing on Tuesday [Sep 26].Lt. Col. MacKenzie Birchenough, the materiel leader for the SSC’s Space Safari Program Office (an acquisition program office supporting USSPACECOM), said the Victus Nox mission was an important step forward in establishing what they term “Tactically Responsive Space” (TacRS) missions.“The overarching purpose of this mission was to demonstrate our ability to rapidly… deter and, if necessary, respond to adversary threats in the space domain,” Birchenough said.<snip>[TacRS]Beltz and his colleagues said this demonstration is an important step on being able to stand up the full ability for TacRS missions starting in 2026, a goal that SSC leaders said was achievable.<snip>[Some information that I had not read before:]Going into this mission, Beltz said there were a suite of seven possible flight profiles that Firefly was ready to perform. He said the goal is to be able to establish more nimble rapid response capability, both in location as well as orbital destination. That includes, he said, continuing to work alongside other federal agencies for operations like this, such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).“As we head towards the future, we need to kind of tease apart the tension between speed and flexibility and get to the point where we’re hitting both in full,” Beltz said.<snip>[Firefly Alpha Vandenberg SLC-2W and Canaveral SLC-20]Firefly CEO Bill Weber: “[Victus Nox] was flight three. We could probably fly up through flight eight out of Vandenberg. Somewhere in the six, seven, eight timeframe for Alpha flights, SLC-20 will come online and we’ll be able to fly East and West Coast missions,” Weber said. “We’re about a year, maybe a year-and-a-quarter calendar-wise away from that capability coming online there.”<snip>[Victus Haze]Birchenough said they are applying lessons learned from Victus Nox to Victus Haze.“I think you could walk through every single phase and every single step of this and kind of refine those processes and that’s really what this mission was all about,” she said. “We certainly intend to roll as many of those lessons learned as we can into Victus Haze and our future efforts.”Contracts for Victus Haze will be awarded in the Fall of 2023. A launch timeframe has not yet been announced.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/03/2023 04:41 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 10/03/2023 04:30 pmShooting 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 KyleWill 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.
<snip>There already exist systems (e.g. SM-3's LEAP) that can track an object in space during terminal guidance. Such last-minute dodge attempts would also require forewarning of an intercept or onboard active interception detection and interceptor tracking (non-trivial) and sufficient propulsion to beat out the manoeuvre budget of a smaller and lighter interceptor. Interception can occur in a location of an adversaries' choice (e.g. over their territory, or the middle of the ocean as with Burnt Frost) which further limits countermeasure options.
There remains the strategic issue that if the cost of your interceptor is greater than the cost of building and launching the satellite you intend to intercept than attrition is not in your favour (the main problem - among other - that killed Brilliant Pebbles), that does not mean there is no tactical utility. <snip>
Ahem, Brillant Pebbles was mostly for anti-ballistic purposes around the incoming mid-course phase with limited engagement envelope versus even LEO satellites.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 10/03/2023 04:30 pmShooting 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.
