USMC SUSTAIN concept getting serious attention

[Greymatters]

Ah, I see its been combined now...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

cool idea... dont know how many marines would volunteer for space flight... I know I would!

good find!

Are you a Marine?

 

[Old Sweat]

If I recall correctly, a similar concept was being bandied about by The Corps in the sixties.

 

[Greymatters]

If I recall correctly, a similar concept was being bandied about by The Corps in the sixties.

Referred to in post number 1...

 

[a_majoor]

Virgin Galactic expands on the concept. I particularly like long haul suborbital flights (halfway around the world in 21/2 hours....)

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE54639Q20090507?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

Virgin sees space tourism as just the beginning
Thu May 7, 2009 11:26am EDT

By Georgina Prodhan

LONDON (Reuters) - Long-haul trips could be made in spaceships instead of planes in 20 years' time if Virgin's efforts to commercialize space travel succeed, the president of Virgin Galactic told Reuters in an interview.

Will Whitehorn said Virgin's plans to take tourists into space were just a first stage that could open up a range of possibilities for the company including space science, computer server farms in space and replacing long-haul flights.

Virgin Galactic, part of Richard Branson's Virgin Group, has collected $40 million in deposits from would-be space tourists including physicist Stephen Hawking and ex-racing driver Niki Lauda, and hopes to start commercial trips within two years.

Whitehorn said the bookings from 300 people willing to pay $200,000 each for a space flight had convinced Virgin the venture was viable. It is currently running test flights and hopes soon to win a license from the Federal Aviation Authority.

"We needed to know we had a sound business plan," he said on the fringes of the FIPP World Magazine Congress, where he had been invited to speak on innovation.

Virgin claims that its technology, which releases a spaceship into sub-orbit in the air using a jet carrier aircraft, is more environmentally friendly than traditional ground-launched rocket technology.

The non-metallic materials from which the spaceship is built are also lighter and require less power than, for example, NASA's space shuttles, Whitehorn argues.

He foresees uses of the spaceship for science experiments, for example as an alternative to visiting the International Space Station or using unmanned flights for pharmaceuticals companies seeking to use microgravity to change particles.

Later, the aircraft could be used to launch small satellites or take other payloads into space, Whitehorn says. "We could put all of our server farms in space quite easily."

Asked about the environmental impact, he points out that they could be completely solar-powered, and says that in any case the hostile vacuum in space makes it hard to do damage beyond leaving debris behind.

"Polluting space is extremely difficult," he said.

Eventually, he sees the possibility of transporting passengers to terrestrial destinations in spacecraft outside the atmosphere instead of by plane. He says a journey from Britain to Australia could be done in about 2-1/2 hours.

"That's a 20-year horizon," he said.

Virgin is not the only non-governmental party trying to develop space travel in the private sphere, but Whitehorn is confident it will be the first to take passengers into space.

SpaceX, led by veteran Silicon Valley entrepreneur Elon Musk, is developing space-launch vehicles but they are not designed to carry passengers.

Whitehorn said he had received many expressions of interest from financial and other institutions and corporations interested in taking a stake in the business, which it would consider.

"We perceive the possibility we will be able to bring an investor in," he said. "I think there will be a wall of money that goes into private space."

Asked about how environmentally friendly it was to develop space tourism, which arguably nobody needs in the first place, Whitehorn said none of the future projects he envisaged would be possible without first proving a business model.

"You could not develop the system at this stage without developing the markets," he said.

He also argued that the experience of viewing Earth from space would transform people's attitudes.

"There's only been 500 people in space so far, and each has cost $50 to $100 million on average," he said. "Every astronaut is an environmentalist."

 

[ExSarge]

Okay, First I have to say that some of you guys gotta move out of your parent’s basements!
Now with that said, what really would be the point of sending a “squad/section size unit to a hot spot? More importantly why spend billions on development, cost over runs, pork barrelling, training etc when for half the cost, existing resources could be adapted to serve the same purpose?
First, regardless of what the media tells us these “hot spots” do not spring up fully formed or develop overnight. Expanding the present intelligence gathering capability, or more properly the intelligence analyzing abilities of the existing agencies would allow for earlier detection and monitoring of these hot spots.
Secondly making better use of forward deployment bases, either ashore or afloat would give the Marines more flexibility in their response. I doubt they will develop (in the short term) a space delivery system that will accommodate field pieces, aviation or armour). Presently they already have a number of LSD’s, LPH and LPA’s ready to transport troops as well as access to Naval and Air Force transport aircraft.
Making better use of existing resources to provide a faster, better balanced more flexible response would seem to me to make more sense. That’s not to say that a space delivery system does not have a place. Delivery of urgently needed spares, medical equipment or even fresh donuts from Krispy Kream, but cramming it full of Marines, Spam in a Can, No!