US Air Force holds hypersonic resupply site review amid seabird concerns The US Air Force is putting plans to use rocket landings for resupply missions on hold over environmental concerns about the effect they would have on local seabirds. First announced in the Federal Register in March, the plan called for using hypersonic rockets to bring in up to 100 tons of vital supplies like food, ammunition …
Is it just me or can anyone else see an issue with this?
Now I’ve never been the military, so maybe I’m not qualified to comment, but it does strike me that if you want to deliver ‘supplies’ to your people on the front line then then you would want to deliver them close to where the front line? So you can get them to the people who need them ASAP. Not with a pre-prepared landing pad; which presumably will be ‘prime target; for your adversary.
Like I said, I’ve never been in the military so, maybe, shouldn’t really comment, but?
The presumably-greatest advantage would be gained by siting the landing pad as close to the front as possible. The presumably-greatest vulnerability would occur with the landing pad sited as close to the front front as possible. The pads would be vulnerable, and the fragile, expensive spaceships even more so.
So, the pads are built well-within "safe" territory, and the goods shipped the last n miles by multiple ships and/or aircraft.
It would be quite a coup for an enemy force to steal a landed supply shipment of 100 tons. Or to hijack such a shipment by spoofing GPS signals. And one can imagine the hilarious, sad results of attempting a hypersonic air-drop.
In WW2, the second Burma expedition (beyond the Chindwin) used pre-prepared landing sites to remove wounded soldiers, and bring in supplies with (rugged) aircraft.
And that was behind (the then) enemy lines. I had the privilege of meeting someone who had been there.
Granted, drones and satellites have moved the challenge to a higher level.
Planes need prepared airstrip to fly in the logistics. Ships will generally need prepared ports (there are exceptions I know. You could take your own port with you - thinking of you, Mulberry). I don't suppose they're thinking of this as the "last mile" to the front, but to replace the long trans Pacific flights from the US, then hand over the the standard logistics processes
It is not about the birds, it is about the rockets and planes. Every bird strike costs money, and happens a lot more often than we know (you can get a glimpse of "how often" on VASAviation). Now quite some military planes are less sturdy than their civilian counterparts, whereas others are more sturdy but fly at much higher speeds. Get a bird strike when flying a really expensive supersonic whatever, even if it is not supersonic yet. The damage done is much higher. Add military pilots on top, which are very expensive too.
Knowing that means: "We care about the birds" is the front, the actual reason is the cost of damage by birds. And don't forget the bird "guano", which is quite aggressive stuff. You don't want that on your expensive planes and rockets.
If you get the bird into the right place, or a flock of birds, you 100+ ton rocket will "change direction", at best case. At worst the rocket will do an unscheduled dismantling, which usually includes and unordered sudden increase in temperature due to uncontrolled chemical reactions.
Lets take a Boeing 747, with takeoff weight of over 300 tons. A bird strike into the engine can disable that engine.
Lets take an Airbus A380, with takeoff weight of over 500 tons. Same problem.
There are things you DON'T want to fuck up your mission.
I wrote "right place" not "intake". Take any Mythbusters or Adam Savage Tested on youtube, and see how much of an effect a floppy rubber bird has as those "low" speeds. A nice dent at the top of a supersonic rocket, which MUST be as light as possible, and you can forget controlled flight. Ballistic calculations are useless too, unless you take out "hit target with precision" requirement.
They are considering SpaceX Starship coming in for a landing. So it has rockets that will have to fire to make a precision landing on the "chopsticks" catch tower.
Maybe a bird into the engine area might manage to take out an engine, so that final landing burn fails?
(I mean, the whole thing is impractical and not very useful anyway, birds are not the biggest problem. But birds could be a problem).
You missed the part about this being the USA.
Once the environmentalists finally found out about the project they did what they are paid to do: Identify a species to use to stop a military project.
It didn't have to be a bird like an African or European Swallow, it could have been a newt.
The issue is that Elon has fallen out of favor with our President, and most of his contracts will be cancelled. High Fives in China -- "Whew -- if the US had continued to listen to the guy who gave the world advanced Space Launch, Space Internet, and EV technology, they would have been able to challenge our drive to expand our empire!"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
