View Full Version : Drop Pods, anyone?
Dezzick
02-06-2007, 12:38 PM
After looking through wikipedia for hl1 stuff, I stumbled across this. somehow.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001815.html
If anyone's seen this, good for them. I just like posting random links.
>.>
B.A.Baracus
02-06-2007, 1:14 PM
Fuck. That.
Ill jump from a chopper, and I could even work up the balls to jump from a plain, but thats not even conceivable.
Although it seems cool I'm just trying to imagine the 'cheap' total cost to deploy such said Marines per operation, considering that it would involve the launch as well... oh wait, nevermind. We're talking about this with Bush still being Pres'. :rolleyes:
B.A.Baracus
02-06-2007, 2:20 PM
We're talking about this with Bush still being Pres'. :rolleyes:
Individuality and bush hating make a winning combination;)
Individuality and bush hating make a winning combination;)
I was aiming more for the fact that he's trying to justify through all means possible the extra expenditures (that came up recently) to keep soldiers in Iraq and that solution sounded just like one, but whatever...
Giggilyomeromicon
02-06-2007, 10:17 PM
For the Imperium of Man!
100thlurker
02-07-2007, 9:09 AM
Giggily, thats not a real drop pod. Tis a small shuttle.
Dezzick
02-07-2007, 11:27 AM
In case anyone isn't clear what this is about, either
a) Read the news link
b) Read the rest of this post. and the news link.
This is a shuttle launched from the ground, into orbit, and it can land anywhere in the world. in theory. Not a drop-pod launched from orbit from some sort of spaceship.
100thlurker
02-07-2007, 11:55 AM
So I am correct...
SHISHKABOB
02-07-2007, 3:31 PM
Regardless, the last comment on that page is epic.
I saw this in pop Sci one day. its cool but really come on? Are the marines going to space anytime soon? I think not.
Protosschick99
02-07-2007, 6:50 PM
I think it'd be pretty cool. But would it really be a quicker way of deploying ppl? I can understand going to other planets--But there is no life on other planets unless you count those organisms that they found in ice or whatever :P
Ubergopher
02-07-2007, 6:54 PM
It depends PC, its about an 18 hour flight to Korea from San Fransisco. Now I'm no scientist or what not but I think it'd take a much shorter time to launch a shuttle and then once it reaches orbit fly in the opposite direction of the orbit then reenter. Like I said, I'm not sure but it makes sense to me.
Protosschick99
02-07-2007, 6:58 PM
Yeah but aren't there procedures to follow and whatnot when you are going to land/take off? Won't those procedures prolong that time?
And it won't exactly be the easiest thing to land anymore like a plane or helicopter. But hey I could be wrong :P
It depends PC, its about an 18 hour flight to Korea from San Fransisco. Now I'm no scientist or what not but I think it'd take a much shorter time to launch a shuttle and then once it reaches orbit fly in the opposite direction of the orbit then reenter. Like I said, I'm not sure but it makes sense to me.
Faster, yes. Much more expensive (than 'regular' deployment), HELL yes.
And just not to mention that (to me) it is seeming more like a fancy show off stunt than anything else. *Pointing to current reduced number of capable platforms to perform such launches*
kongurous
02-07-2007, 11:28 PM
Yeah but aren't there procedures to follow and whatnot when you are going to land/take off? Won't those procedures prolong that time?
And it won't exactly be the easiest thing to land anymore like a plane or helicopter. But hey I could be wrong :P
Those are for conventional aircraft. A shuttle capable of leaving the atmosphere is by no means conventional. Besides, landing isn't an issue because you're dropping into a combat zone. Prolonged time on the ground is nothing compared to flying 18 hours. Big whoop, it takes 30 minutes for a pre-flight check off. I'm going across the Pacific in 4 hours? YAY!
IrishDutchman
02-08-2007, 2:22 PM
To be honest, I don't really see the point.
Imagine the USA had space travelling shuttles to ferry soldiers to a country they wanted to invade. It would take them 1 hour in stead of 5 hours to arrive.
So? IMO that isn't really worth a couple million, maybe even billion dollars spent on research and resources.
I'm no strategic expert, so can someone tell me the use of transport via space?
Dezzick
02-08-2007, 4:01 PM
If, the enemy are well dug-in, or can notice arrival by conventional methods quickly, so they can set up an ambush for the marines who just got driven/flown in. If you just land right on top of them, with almost no warning, the psychological impact on the enemy would be greater as well, but it might only be a one-off.
Most likely this wouldn't be used for deploying marines into actual combat until the cost could be greatly reduced. It would start out being used to deploy special forces to all parts of the globe. For those of you who are saying that it's not that much faster and it wouldn't make a difference, just imagine this.
Osama Bin Laden has been sighted in Kazakhstan, the nearest US forces in Afghanistan would take at least 5 hours to prep, take-off, and travel to the location, all the while crossing hostile territory (at the very least territory loyal to Osama). Informants outside the airbase in Afghanistan are taking notes of all flights arriving and leaving, so by the time they get there he's known they were on the way practically since they took off and is now long gone. Now if we launch from say Florida or Texas, the flight is just a little over 2 hours long, and the soldiers aren't even noticed until re-entry, giving the enemy maybe 10 minutes warning before they are on the ground and moving.
Pisces
02-09-2007, 2:56 AM
"The concept is to deliver strategic equipment or a small squad of soldiers to any point on the globe -- even the most hard-to-reach location"
*cough*Assuming that hard to reach location has an unused international airport*cough*Just like the one in my backyard.
Dezzick
02-09-2007, 12:09 PM
Mountains in Afghan/Khazakstan. International airports in that location would only be near the major cities, and if you were a terrorist, would you hide right next to those?
SuiCidAl-KiSmEt
02-09-2007, 12:19 PM
This might be in the long run or something, but it'll be neat if terrorist would get on the moon. Then we'll have to deploy Marines there. I really like to see how a fight in the moon looks like. I REALLY do. That'll be so cool. >.>
It'd be a bit of a pointless resource sink for Terrorists to go to the moon unless they had some actual purpose there.
Plus, then just Mass James Bond = Instant Win.
Dezzick
02-09-2007, 3:31 PM
They could be planning to somehow launch the moon at the USA. even though that would destroy the planet.
Damn those terrorists. >.>
This might be in the long run or something, but it'll be neat if terrorist would get on the moon. Then we'll have to deploy Marines there. I really like to see how a fight in the moon looks like. I REALLY do. That'll be so cool. >.>
Ok, it pretty much entered the Twillight Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_Zone) after this post joined this 'gig'. :P
Mountains in Afghan/Khazakstan. International airports in that location would only be near the major cities, and if you were a terrorist, would you hide right next to those?
I think you're assuming that terrorists wear some specific terrorist uniform. Most "terrorists" are just everyday people going about their lives. So yes, if I was a terrorist I would hide there, more people means it's easier to blend in with the crowd and there's a lot more targets for me to hit.
Dezzick
02-12-2007, 2:37 PM
I was meaning important people like Bin Laden, I think that wasn't too clear in that post.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.