A US military exercise to launch a satellite on short notice
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Soon I'll be seeing a sign for a "Joe's Satellite Repair Service" shop right next to the local autobody shop.
https://www.mos.org/article/space-news-deep-dive-saving-swif...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB-ZCmvFIXo "accents"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keKDA7523_c "Nerdneck"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up0LNTMPnjI Pegasus to the Rescue: 'The Edge of Feasibility' (Alexander the ok)
I'm amazed it's still operational.
Just one year
It would be AMAZING
Or even what we fund Israel's 2/3 of all their weapons are bought by US
We'd have 10% speed of light probes going outside of solar system already
Well at least Nancy Grace Roman L2 Telescope is launching, hope it goes perfectly
Related, but not exactly what I was thinking of: https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2025/08/05/a-rotating-probe-... The original source I'm thinking of may be lost to time :( I'll keep hunting.
edit:found!
Using the theorized maximum of 31km/s exhaust velocity of project orion (much higher than any current high impulse propulsion technologies) you'd need to have thrown out something similar to 10^42 times the probe's mass out the back at that 31km/s velocity.
That means to accelerate a 1kg probe to 1%c you'd need to start with a spacecraft holding a reaction mass equivalent to a few trillion suns worth of mass.
Hardly seems worth it.
It's all about exhaust velocity - increase that and it scales down quickly. Using the theoretical max of 500km/s of VASIMIR for example means it's only 400x the mass of the probe of reaction mass - but that's still theory and max thrust limits means it'll take the order of millions of years to reach that sort of speed.
10% of C is theoretically possible with a space sail, and lasers.
Will it work? Well we don't know cause we haven't tried.
So by the time they're theoretically close to the desired speed they'll be on the other side of the galaxy at least, even if it took millions of years to get there at the much slower average speed.
Plus even the best laser dispersion quickly gets significant at the distances required to give the sail the time to accelerate at such a low thrust.
https://ia800108.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/24...
But then you're at a velocity so far beyond the escape velocity of most bodies you'd need to be skirting stars, then black holes to get anything more, and that's where it dives straight into "sci-fi" rather than anything even close to theoretically possible. How far away even if a body like that? Will this "probe" even survive such an encounter?
So even with that sort of slingshot it's well within the "Estimate Rough Error" of my intial numbers. They're "order of magnitude back-of-the-envelope calculations" of spherical spaceships in an already unrealistically biased to make the numbers smaller vacuum (just reaction mass, no thought of any mass of the engine or spacecraft body itself, or containing the reaction mass itself, or anything like that).
I probably should have stated my assumptions - in that "Can we accelerate a probe" I assumed that:
- The "probe" is a significant size - if we define a "probe" as a "Single Ion" then we already do that at CERN and similar pretty regularly - 1kg was my assumption of "Useful Probe Mass"
- "We" - in that "humans" as we know them today, preferably in the realisic age of civilizations as we know them, or even better within the lifetime of a currently living human.
Also there's different levels of "theoretical". VASIMIR has only ever been shown in lab settings, so still "theoretical" as a propulsion technology. something like Project Orion is "theoretical" in that it's never been built, but likely just an engineering effort. IKAROS showed solar sails are "possible", but so many orders of magnitude away from what would be required it'll still be a significant engineering and development effort to even show the same idea at the required scale is possible. Things like lasers as remote energy sources haven't really got off the drawing board. And then at the extreme we have "theoretical" ideas like fusion rockets, which are more "Not show to be /impossible/" rather than anything we could even start at really building today.
And each step along that "further out into theory" path means more risks, and more changes that method is shown to be less useful than really desired.
The end result is the probe isn't moving any "faster" leaving the slingshot object than it arrived from that object's point of view, but it may well be faster from the origin reference frame.
The thing is to remember that the bodies you're launching from, and then slingshotting against, are moving very fast relative to each other already. It's like throwing a bouncy-ball against a moving car - when it bounces off it may be moving faster relative to you than when you threw it, but it's actually a lower velocity relative to the moving car's reference frame.
accelerated by lasers so they don't have to carry the power source
Obviously stopping is the problem, they can never stop but at some point no need
I think it’s fun to think about it in this way. I personally spend hundreds of dollars a month on war.
There are all kinds of dark budgets and stuff spun off into "civilian" programs that actually aren't
The published cost of Iran War is like $30 Billion when it is obviously over $100 Billion by experts and that doesn't including replacing all the missiles
TWENTY-ONE TRILLION DOLLARS since 9/11 spent on defense 2001-2021
* https://ips-dc.org/report-state-of-insecurity-cost-militariz...
imagine how much food clothing shelter for the US and WORLD that would buy
we'd have humans on Mars already with that budget not even knowing now how to stop space-blindness and bone-loss
President LBJ proposed his Great Society agenda, which he defined as “a society where no child will go unfed, and no youngster will go unschooled.” It was a war on poverty, touching food, shelter, and education. At that same time, the country also increased its defense spending due to the heightened tension in the Cold War and escalation in the Vietnam War. The country could really do both.
No, the US absolutely can afford to have a gigantic military and massive welfare. That's what being the richest country on earth means
But for some reason we spent the past 50 years insisting that we are better off just letting a few individuals direct that wealth instead of making some choices collectively and democratically.
People might come to their senses when the second gilded age once again leaves a third of us unemployed and parents dying in ditches.
Show your work.
>There are all kinds of dark budgets and stuff spun off into "civilian" programs that actually aren't
How much, though, as a percentage of the federal budget? Also, DoD does a lot of stuff that doesn't involved national defense, like breast cancer research or canal and levee maintenance.
>The published cost of Iran War is like $30 Billion when it is obviously over $100 Billion by experts and that doesn't including replacing all the missiles
Those missiles will be replaced in future defense budgets.
Modern Monetary Theory on line 2 for you!
There is no possible sense in which "economics is just as fundamental as physics": the latter concerns the behavior of the physical world with or without humans in it; the former describes the dynamics of a human created system featuring humans interacting with each other and the physical world.
1 - They are also useless by themselves, any rule that actually tells you something will have exceptions.
It’s worth also looking at what other countries spend on defense. Now that the U.S. is cutting off NATO, France plans to raise military spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. Applying that same figure to the U.S. would bring us down to $700 billion in 2024. So you’d pay $1,250 if the U.S. military budget was similar to what France thinks is a good number.
Germany is currently at 2.3% and plans to hit 3.5% by 2029. That’s the same percent as the U.S.
Or, put another way, you spend hundreds of dollars a month on not having to learn russian and live as putin's peasant.
Seems like a good deal to me.
Its why no politician left or right is really interested in cutting it. If you browse open contracts, you'll see they that they overwhelmingly buy rather banal things and spend comparatively little on the "killing people" parts.
Which is a direct function of its budget not a function of what it does.
> (almost certainly at a lower per capita cost).
DoD is extremely expensive per job due to the longe term benefits, layers of bureaucracy, and sub contractors.
This is not necessarily true for large segments of the DOD.
NASA buys mostly highly specialized parts that can be pretty narrow in scope and utility.
OTOH the DoD will buy 150,000 aluminum water canteens, which is probably the only thing keeping the one decent job in Wagatah, Maine from closing. Which happens to be of only a handful of shops in the country with the tooling for this. Wagatah, of course, is not known for it's aerospace engineering. But thankfully water is pretty important for soldiers, and the new design is x% more efficient, so Wagatah gets another 5 years of work, the DoD gets to keep a domestic source of water canteens, and if NASA needs 5 space grade aluminum storage boxes, a company in Wagatah can make them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tran...
[0] https://www.npr.org/2026/06/26/nx-s1-5871963/un-agency-pause...
Going all out on Iran would free up the straight, but also be political suicide for the right.
It showed limits for sure. But the limits were bluster without the will to follow through (and accept the consequences).
It’s a political and diplomatic catastrophe for an empire in decline. But if control of the strait had been an actual priority, it would have been very achievable. That was never the goal though. The goal was to look stupid on TV, for some reason.
Pretty much. I think US military was given the order to make Trump look good, and they couldn’t (Trump looks weak now, which he completely hates)
I agree they can’t make him look good. And I guess we’re agreeing the mission was not actually to control the strait in as a critical military objective .
> In the early 1980s, when the GLC (Greater London Council) was trying to save and create jobs to mitigate the impact of Thatcher's recession, we discovered that the most labour-intensive form of public spending was the arts, and so during the five years from 1981 to 1986 we increased spending on arts and recreation from £l6 million to £160 million. Virtually every actor, painter, poet, sculptor and, in particular, community artist was in work, and it made London a much more exciting city to live in. As well as taking orchestras from the Royal Festival Hall to play in the canteen at Ford's Assembly Plant in Dagenham, we particularly tried to reach disaffected youth. It's against that background that I was able to understand Chris Johnston's book. (Oh, and by the way, if you want to know which is the least labour-intensive form of public spending, it is the military.)
Maybe if we stopped pushing insane amounts of money into fossil fuels and the military industrial complex, and instead redirected it into the arts and sciences then, just maybe, we might actually end up with a happier, more employed, more fulfilled, and more equal planet.
Why not just do it all? Fund the military and the arts and the sciences.
And all of the money the US gives to Israel is earmarked for American products.
But by antisemite math and logic says we’ll get 10% light speed.
US has given Israel over $20 Billion directly since 2023 alone
Since 2023 NINETY THOUSAND TONS OF WEAPONS
Enough already
Israel has universal health care, let them buy build their own weaspons
US must only sell Iron-Dome ONLY, defense only, they are warmongers
It would be nice.
There is a pretty well known interview of Admiral Grace Hopper by David Letterman, where she talks about her famous "nanosecond" and explaining (to Generals) why it takes so long to get a message to a satellite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE2uls6iIEU (As an aside, Grace was a name she lived up to in a way few others could, if you have never seen that interview it is well worth a watch!)
The valuable and well understood lesson is that latency is tyrannical, and unavoidable. The only real customer for "data centers in space" is spacex for war fighting. You don't want that data, and it's analysis going back around the world. You don't want to put compute close to the front lines, and you certainly cant deploy it for the kinds of "special operations" that the US has been doing for the last two decades.
Is there a civilian use? Maybe. Ships, oil platforms, and remote locations could all see a use for this, but it isnt going to be that impactful.
Realistically, getting military spend back to more "dual use" applications would be great. We have a LONG history of this in the USA. Tons of Army core of engineers projects. The interstate highway system was born out of a need for better logistics. NASA was about missiles, space was incidental. The US computing industry's foundations fell out of the navy code breaking efforts of WWII. The internet (ARPANET) was a DARPA project to start with. Spread Spectrum and its roots in Torpedos (navy again). GPS, the auto injector (epi pens).
Most of these are far in the past, recently the biggest thing we have gotten out military investments is TOR (and one could argue its in decline).
I think we don't see as much coming out of the modern military because it is grossly mismanaged. It's become reliant on private industry to "innovate" and that has a relentless focus on the bottom line.
Yes it would be nice if we did that spending swap, but it will never happen realistically. I think a change of leadership, of intent could result in far less waste and much more benefit for the American public. We have proof we can, we just need to figure out how and make it happen.
LEO orbit latency is nothing compared to what you lose to stuffing your link with useless web crap.
Just one year
It would be AMAZING