忘掉国际空间站吧:美国刚斥资 6000 万美元为太空军打造轨道战机,专为作战不为外交
Forget the ISS The U.S. Just Funded a $60M Space Force Orbital Aircraft for Combat, Not Diplomacy
译文简介
锐评:6000 万美元大概够做一份半 PPT 幻灯片
正文翻译

The U.S. Space Force is quietly funding a powerful new weapon in orbit—one that could launch satellites in seconds, dodge enemy attacks, and rewrite the rules of space warfare.
美国太空部队正在悄悄地资助一种强大的轨道新武器,这种武器可以在几秒钟内发射卫星,躲避敌人的攻击,并改写太空战的规则。
The U.S. Space Force has approved up to $60 million in funding to develop an orbital carrier — a spacecraft designed to act as a mobile launchpad in space, capable of deploying satellites or defensive assets without relying on Earth-based infrastructure. The project is led by Gravitics, a Seattle-based aerospace firm, and represents a significant leap toward permanent, tactically responsive platforms in orbit.
美国太空军已批准高达 6000 万美元的资金,用于开发轨道运载器——这种航天器旨在充当太空中的移动发射平台,无需依赖地球基础设施即可部署卫星或防御资产。该项目由西雅图航空航天企业 Gravitics 牵头,标志着朝向打造具有战术响应能力的永久性轨道平台迈出了重大一步。
The orbital carrier concept is being developed under the Space Force’s SpaceWERX division through a Strategic Funding Increase (STRATFI) program. Gravitics, in its public statement, called the platform “a pre-positioned launch pad in space” and said it would give U.S. space operators the ability to “rapidly sext a deployment orbit on demand.”
这一轨道运载概念正在太空军 SpaceWERX 部门的战略资金增量计划(STRATFI)下推进研制。格雷维蒂克斯公司在公开声明中将该平台称为"太空中的前置发射台",表示它将赋予美国太空操作人员"按需快速选择部署轨道"的能力。
Designed for high-agility deployment, the carrier would enable the rapid launch of payloads in orbit in response to real-time threats — bypassing the weeks or months typically required for ground-based launch systems. The capability comes amid a growing focus on anti-satellite weapons, as both China and Russia accelerate the testing of orbital disruption technologies.
该运载平台专为高度机动部署设计,可绕开地面发射系统通常需要的数周乃至数月准备周期,实时响应威胁快速实施轨道载荷投送。此项能力问世之际,中俄两国正加速测试轨道干扰技术,反卫星武器日益成为关注焦点。
Orbital Launch Without Rockets
无火箭轨道发射

According to Gravitics’ official press release, the company will demonstrate the system through a combination of government funding, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants, and private capital. The orbital carrier would carry multiple maneuverable spacecraft capable of performing tasks such as replacing damaged satellites, conducting surveillance, or blocking hostile lines-of-sight.
根据格雷维蒂克斯公司官方新闻稿,该公司将通过政府拨款、小企业创新研究(SBIR)补助金和私人资本相结合的方式验证该系统。该轨道运载平台将搭载多艘可机动航天器,能执行替换受损卫星、开展监视活动或阻断敌对视线等任务。
Gravitics CEO Colin Doughan described the carrier as a “critical initiative” for Space Force operations, noting that it “bypasses traditional launch constraints” and adds “unprecedented flexibility” to U.S. space missions.
Gravitics 公司首席执行官 Colin Doughan 将这一轨道载具称为美国太空军行动的"关键项目",指出其"绕过了传统发射限制",为美国太空任务增添了"前所未有的灵活性"。
The U.S. has already seen success with rapid-response launch operations. In late 2023, the Space Force’s Victox Nox mission used Firefly Aerospace to launch a payload within 27 hours of receiving the order — a record-setting feat for responsive launch. With the orbital carrier, that speed could be eclipsed by removing the launchpad from Earth altogether.
美国在快速响应发射任务方面已取得突破。2023 年末,太空军"维克托克斯·诺克斯"任务借助萤火虫航天公司,在接到指令 27 小时内完成有效载荷发射,创下快速发射新纪录。而轨道载机通过彻底摆脱地面发射台限制,或将实现更快的响应速度。
defending satellites in real time
实时卫星防御
Space Force officials have repeatedly warned that adversaries are developing non-kinetic space warfare tools like laser dazzling, cyberattacks, and radiofrequency jamming. According to a 2022 report from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), China’s and Russia’s space programs are investing in “space-based weapons and jamming technologies” that could neutralize U.S. satellites during conflict.
美国太空军官员多次警告称,对手正在研发激光致眩、网络攻击和无线电频率干扰等非动能太空战手段。根据美国国家空中与太空情报中心(NASIC)2022 年的报告,中国和俄罗斯的太空项目正积极研发"天基武器和干扰技术",这些技术可在冲突期间使美国卫星失效。
The orbital carrier, according to Space.com’s coverage, is intended to counter such tactics. If a reconnaissance satellite is disabled or targeted by hostile action, a backup payload stored on the carrier could be launched within minutes, restoring mission functionality. The system could also deploy shielding assets to block line-of-sight interference or reconstitute capabilities damaged in orbit.
据太空网报道,该轨道运载器旨在应对此类战术。若侦察卫星遭致破坏或成为敌对行动目标,存储在运载器上的备用载荷可在数分钟内发射,迅速恢复任务功能。该系统还能部署防护装置来阻挡视线干扰,或重组在轨受损的功能单元。
This aligns with Space Force doctrine on space resilience, a strategic shift toward redundancy, repositioning, and in-theater capability — without the delays of planetary logistics.
这与太空军关于太空韧性的原则相一致,体现了向冗余能力、轨道机动及战区即时部署能力的战略转型——摆脱了地球后勤运输的延迟束缚。

Big Capabilities, Bigger Risks
性能强大,风险更大
While the concept promises flexibility, it carries significant risk. As USAMM’s deep-dive analysis points out, the platform itself would be a singular, high-value target. Its destruction or disablement could represent a catastrophic loss in both technological and symbolic terms.
这一概念虽有望提供灵活部署能力,却也蕴含着巨大风险。正如美国军事分析中心(USAMM)的深度报告所指,该平台本身将成为独特的高价值目标——其损毁无论在技术层面还是象征意义上都将造成灾难性损失。
Moreover, construction in orbit presents daunting challenges. The orbital carrier would need to be assembled in space, as current rockets are incapable of lifting a structure of this mass in a single launch. That means modular assembly via autonomous robotics, a field still in early development. According to USAMM, the number of launches required could rival those of the International Space Station, which took over 30 missions and cost approximately $150 billion to build and operate.
此外,轨道建造工程面临着严峻挑战。由于现有火箭无法单次发射运送如此质量的整体结构,轨道载体必须通过太空组装完成。这意味着需依赖仍处于早期发展阶段的自主机器人模块化组装技术。据 USAMM 评估,所需发射次数或可比肩国际空间站建设规模——后者累计执行 30 余次发射任务,建造及运营总成本高达约 1500 亿美元。
Propulsion adds another layer of complexity. Conventional chemical thrusters are inefficient for a structure of this size. Gravitics and other aerospace planners have floated options like nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) and ion engines, which could allow sustained orbital maneuvering, but neither system is currently spaceflight-ready on the required scale.
推进系统带来了另一重复杂性。对于这种规模的飞行器,传统化学推进器效率低下。Gravitics 等航天规划机构提出了核热推进(NTP)与离子发动机等方案,可以实现持续性轨道机动,但目前这两种系统都达不到该项目所需的规模要求。
And there’s the broader strategic concern: centralization. Military doctrine has increasingly moved toward distributed architectures — small, modular systems that offer redundancy and are harder to disable. As noted in USAMM’s report, the orbital carrier risks becoming the equivalent of a floating Battlestar Galactica — powerful, but vulnerable.
此外还有一个更广泛的战略担忧:集中化。现代军事理论日益倾向于分布式架构——即小型模块化系统,因其具备冗余性且更难以被瘫痪。正如美国军事分析报告所指出的,该轨道载机平台可能沦为太空版移动堡垒,虽威力强大却易受攻击。
A Fork in the Future of Space Warfare
太空战未来发展的分水岭
The orbital carrier marks a turning point in how the U.S. envisions defending its interests beyond Earth. If proven viable, it could accelerate a new doctrine of space permanence: forward-positioned platforms that project power, reinforce resilience, and operate independent of Earth’s launch windows.
轨道运载器的问世标志着美国在太空利益防御构想上的重大转折。若被证实可行,这一载体或将催生"太空常驻"新战略——通过前置部署的太空平台实现力量投射、增强防御韧性,并摆脱地球发射窗口期的束缚。
But the project also raises urgent questions. Will a pre-positioned launchpad in space lead to greater stability — or provoke faster escalation? Can such a system be adequately protected against cyber, kinetic, and electronic threats? And is the investment in a centralized mega-platform strategically sound, given the rise of low-cost satellite swarms?
但该项目也引发了紧迫问题。一个预先部署的太空发射平台会带来更大稳定性,还是会导致冲突更快升级?面对网络、动能和电子威胁,这类系统能否得到充分保护?鉴于低成本卫星群的崛起,投资集中式大型平台的战略合理性究竟如何?
With adversaries advancing their own orbital technologies and debris already threatening the viability of near-Earth space, the future of such mega-platforms may hinge less on engineering than on timing, diplomacy, and geopolitical risk.
随着对手的轨道技术不断进步,太空碎片已威胁近地空间的可用性,这类巨型平台的未来或许更取决于时机把握、外交博弈与地缘政治风险,而非工程技术本身。
Who is the author, Arezki Amiri?
作者阿雷兹基·阿米里是谁?
Arezki is an Editor-in-Chief and Project Manager based in Japan, specializing in science and technological innovation. Originally from Algeria, he holds a Foreign Languages Diploma from Lycée Zamoum Mohamed, a BA in English from Université Mouloud Mammeri de Tizi Ouzou, and a Nursing Diploma from the Bel Air Institute in Boghni. Bridging science, communication, and humanity, he explores how space research and emerging technologies shape the future of health and society, leading global editorial projects at The Daily Galaxy that translate complex ideas into engaging, cross-cultural stories.
阿雷兹基是常驻日本的主编兼项目经理,专注于科学与技术创新领域。他原籍阿尔及利亚,拥有穆罕默德·扎穆姆高中的外语文凭、提济乌祖姆鲁德·马默里大学的英语学士学位,以及博格尼贝尔航空空研究所的护理文凭。横跨科学、传播与人文学科的他,致力于探索太空研究与新兴技术如何塑造健康与社会的未来,目前主持《每日银河》全球编辑项目,将复杂概念转化为引人入胜的跨文化叙事。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 7 )
收藏
“Orbital”…”aircraft”
“轨道”…”飞行器”
WillitsThrockmorton
Orbital...squints
轨道...眯眼细看
Vacuum craft
真空飞行器
yeeeter1
space... craft?
太空...船?
Balian-the-elf
cuumcraft
真空船
Uranophane
Are we serious right now? 60 million for a space carrier? A sea destroyer already costs 1 billion, and you're telling me they will send it to space for 60 million?
认真的吗?六千万就想造太空航母?一艘海上驱逐舰都要十亿美金,现在用六千万就要送上天?
The ISS cost 160 billion, and that thing has no extra room for docking or maintaining other spacecraft. I'd be surprised if this doesn't end up costing 1 trillion.
国际空间站耗资 1600 亿美元,连给其他飞行器停泊维修的多余空间都没有。这项目最后不超支到一万亿我反而会惊讶。
Edit: 60 million for a STUDY is even crazier. We're nowhere close to achieving that level of spacefaring.
编辑:六千万仅作研究费用就更离谱了,我们离实现这种级别的太空航行还差得远呢。
Tailhook91
R&D money. These typically come in small chunks of money initially just for concepts and research. This isn’t the full amount.
这是研发资金。通常初始阶段只批小额经费用于概念研究和初步调研,远非项目总预算。
toocoolforgg
60M for a fancy pitch deck to use to ask for 10B in a few years
六千万美元就搞了份花里胡哨的 PPT 方案,过几年好伸手要 100 亿
icecream_specialist
10B is just next installment to generate the slide deck that asks for 100B
这 100 亿也就够做份新 PPT,为后续索要 1000 亿打基础
edgygothteen69
What does the 100B get you
那 1000 亿能折腾出啥?
icecream_specialist
Single working prototype maybe
兴许能攒出个勉强能用的原型机
sphinx_two
Just about covers your aws fees
刚够你的 AWS 云服务费用
TikiTDO
Whoa, how did you get such a huge discount?
哇,你怎么拿到这么大折扣的?
widdowbanes
Its called who ever agreed $60 million for a PowerPoint slide gets to work in a high paid position once they leave the spaceforce.
这叫"谁批准了 6000 万美元做个 PPT,谁就能在离开太空军后获得高薪职位"的交易。
Sometimes I wish we were more corrupt because then it'll be cheaper. Spending $60 million of tax payers money in return for a few years of $200k.
有时候真希望我们再腐败点,那样成本反而更低。花纳税人 6000 万美元就换来几年 20 万年薪的回报。
The sad part is the consultant who makes those decks are a fresh graduates making $65k a year.
可悲的是制作这些演示文稿的顾问只是年薪 6.5 万美元的应届毕业生。
ExpensiveBookkeeper3
Calm down, this is just a development contract. Does sound dumb though.
冷静点,这只是个开发合同。但确实听起来很蠢。
beachedwhale1945
It depends on what they actually want.
这取决于他们的实际需求。
A satellite bus that can deploy satellites or space weapons, change orbit, and then release more? We already use those for certain rocket launches with a large number of satellites.
能部署卫星或太空武器、变轨后继续投放更多载荷的卫星平台?我们早就在某些搭载大量卫星的火箭发射中应用这类技术了。
An actual carrier, a Donnager or Galactica? Not happening in the next two centuries.
一艘真正的母舰,比如唐纳格尔号或银河号?接下来两百年内都不可能实现。
WillitsThrockmorton
Space force paid someone for an engineering study, that's all .
太空军只是花钱请人做了个工程研究而已。
SussyCloud
Well, those trips to JPL in Cali (with the stay in a private suite at the Hilton + some "rest & recreation") aren't going to pay for themselves bruv!!!
哥们儿,那些去加州喷气推进实验室的差旅费(住希尔顿私人套房外加一些"休整娱乐")总得有人买单啊!!!
69toothbrushpp
60 million for a blender model
六千万美元就买了个搅拌机模型
edgygothteen69
This reminds me of my favorite aerospace manufacturer: Stavatti. The only company better than Northrop Grumman. Stavatti Aerospace. Building the now, tomorrow.
这让我想起了我最爱的航空制造商:Stavatti。唯一比诺斯洛普·格鲁门更牛的公司。Stavatti 航空——筑梦今朝,领航未来。
AOC_Gynecologist
Edit: 60 million for a STUDY is even crazier. We're nowhere close to achieving that level of spacefaring.
编辑:仅一个研究项目就拨款 6000 万美元更疯狂。我们离实现那种级别的太空航行能力还差得远呢。
and how are we going to get to that level of spacefaring without research? magic ?
没有研究的话,我们怎么达到那种太空探索水平?靠魔法吗?
Uranophane
We'll get there someday, but I have a feeling that designing a space carrier isn't the right way to proceed.
我们总有一天会实现的,但我总觉得设计太空航母并不是正确的推进方式。
evnaczar
Funding happens in multiple stages. Putting more money upfront is bad practice.
资金投入是分阶段进行的。前期投入过多资金并非明智之举。
Valar_Kinetics
It's just a DoD space station and it's going to happen eventually no matter what. I don't think it's necessarily the worst idea in the world to at least be upfront about it.
这不过是国防部的空间站罢了,迟早都会建成,无论怎样。我觉得至少开诚布公地承认这点,未必是世上最糟糕的主意。
That said, parking it in LEO would, I think, be a mistake. Too much shit everywhere, would make a lot more sense to park it at a LaGrange point like the Webb Telescope.
话说回来,我认为把它停泊在近地轨道是个错误选择。那儿太空垃圾太多了,像韦伯望远镜那样停在拉格朗日点会更合理些
ADreamOfRain
Rods From God or bust.
要么上"上帝之杖"要么拉吉霸倒
Vishnej
Complete, foaming-at-the-mouth gibberish. "Somebody call an ambulance" kinda shit.
纯属胡言乱语,简直让人气得口吐白沫。简直就是"快叫救护车"级别的荒谬。
"Capable of deploying satellites"... to what? Orbit? From... Orbit? This most direct comparison I can make is "We're going to spend $6000 building a skyscraper in Nebraska in order for it to deploy apartment buildings or tactical warehouses without relying on Chicago-based assets".
"具备部署卫星能力"...部署到哪?从轨道...部署到轨道?最贴切的类比就是"我们要花 6000 万美元在内布拉斯加州造摩天大楼,就为了部署公寓楼或战术仓库,还不依赖芝加哥的现有设施"。
Somebody needs to sit these people in front of Kerbal Space Program and lock the door for a week. Building a skyscraper in Nebraska does not help you with some kind of need that develops to have tactical warehouses in Taiwan; Moving warehouses from inside of one larger building to another building on the other side of the planet is much more difficult than not using the larger building as a staging area at all. Getting from one orbital plane to another significantly different orbital plane ranges from "Prohibitively difficult" to... well... You need a rocket three times as large to get from an equatorial LEO to a polar LEO, as the rocket you would need to get from Florida to an equatorial LEO or from Florida to a polar LEO on tactically relevant timespans.
真该把这些人关在坎巴拉太空计划游戏前锁一礼拜。在内布拉斯加建摩天楼根本无助于应对台湾(地区)突发需要的战术仓库需求;把仓库从一栋大楼搬到地球另一端,可比直接不用这栋楼当中转站麻烦多了。从一条轨道面变轨到另一条差异巨大的轨道面,难度从"高得离谱"到...这么说吧...若要在战术时间窗口内从赤道近地轨道变轨到极地近地轨道,所需火箭体积是直接从佛罗里达发射到这两个轨道的三倍大。
Pornfest
I love my metaphors and this was great.
我超爱打比喻,这个比喻简直绝了。
IndigoSeirra
I imagine the use case for an orbital "aircraft carrier" would be basically as a satellite bus to deploy large numbers of space based anti satellite or interceptor craft in a certain orbit. So less of what we imagine as an aircraft carrier and instead more of a small arsenal ship in space. Obviously due to the incredibly fuel intensive maneuvers required to change inclinations, you'd optimally want many smaller buses full of interceptors rather than one large bus as we typically imagine aircraft carriers. I don't think having perhaps a falcon launch with one large satellite bus with many small interceptors attached would be that difficult to pull off. The main issue would be keeping the cost of the hardware down, and if you're manufacturing them at the scale required to cover a reasonable amount of orbits then you'll likely benefit from economies of scale.
我想象中的轨道"航空母舰"用途,本质上是作为卫星母舱在特定轨道部署大量天基反卫星或拦截飞行器。所以与其说是我们印象中的航母,倒不如说是太空版的小型武库舰。显然由于改变轨道倾角所需的燃料消耗极其巨大,最优方案是部署多艘满载拦截器的小型母舱,而非传统概念中的单一大型母舱。像猎鹰火箭发射携带多枚拦截器的大型卫星母舱这种构型,技术上应该不难实现。真正的挑战在于如何降低硬件成本——如果生产规模足以覆盖相当数量的轨道,规模化效应自然会显现优势。
Current commercial satellite bus designs already are fairly similar to what I described, they enter space and deploy all of the different satellites into their own orbits. I imagine an orbital aircraft carrier would be somewhat similar to that, but with the satellite bus carrying fuel for potential refueling operations and also having small maneuvering capabilities. What we think of when someone says "aircraft carrier" is of a huge super carrier that projects power over vast areas, but due to the unavoidable nature of orbital mechanics any "carrier" like craft would have to be of a smaller scale, distributed across different orbital inclinations.
当前商用卫星平台的设计已与我描述的设计相当接近,它们进入太空后将各颗卫星部署到各自轨道。我想象中的轨道航空母舰与之类似,但卫星平台会携带燃料用于可能的补给任务,并具备小幅机动能力。当人们提到"航空母舰"时,想到的是能在广阔区域投射力量的巨型超级航母,但由于轨道力学不可违背的特性,任何类似"母舰"的航天器都必须缩小规模,分散部署在不同轨道倾角上。
Vishnej
Orbital inclination is a single dimension of variance. The longitude of the ascending node is a second dimension that also has to match with the desired trajectory to be useful for any kind of tactical usage (and I'm simplifying here, assuming all orbits are circular). You would need a fleet of hundreds, even thousands of these things spread around LEO.
轨道倾角只是其中一个可变维度。升交点黄经是第二个必须与预期轨迹匹配的维度,才能实现任何战术用途(此处我做了简化,假设所有轨道均为圆形)。要形成有效战力,恐怕需要在近地轨道部署数百甚至上千艘这样的航天器。
Having a "carrier" bus doesn't actually benefit you even if you build thousands of carriers to house a constellation of a hundred thousand strike missiles. The mass is the mass; It doesn't benefit from being stored in a box. May as well just keep them loose.
拥有"母舰式"运载器实际上并无优势——即使你建造数千艘母舰来容纳十万枚攻击导弹组成的星座。质量守恒始终存在,并不会因为存放在箱子里就产生额外效益。倒不如直接散装部署。
The only plausible benefit I can conjure would be something in very low orbit, where the aerodynamics of cross section & ballistic coefficient start to play a role. I have advocated for doing our constellation work in very low orbit before for debris reasons. I'm still missing how a carrier on a 250km circular orbit that drops things through the upper atmosphere is especially worthwhile, though. Any military capacity you put into space is such an extreme paper tiger that Kessler Syndrome is likely in any large-scale exchange, destroying not just the target but literally everything in orbits anywhere adjacent for a long period of time. VLEO is an exception, but it's an exception you can still shoot down with a relatively inexpensive missile.
我唯一能想到的合理优势可能存在于极低轨道,那里横截面空气动力学与弹道系数开始发挥作用。出于太空垃圾考虑,我曾主张在极低轨道部署星座系统。不过我仍不明白:为什么要让一艘在 250 公里圆轨运行的母舰向高层大气投放物资?任何部署到太空的军事力量都像纸老虎般脆弱——大规模交火很可能引发凯斯勒综合征,不仅会摧毁目标,还会长期破坏邻近轨道的一切存在。极低轨道确实例外,但这种例外情况依然能用相对廉价的导弹击落。
Garbage_plastic
It sounds far fetched and somewhat controversial in many aspects, as you pointed out few, I am not sure I would agree to dismiss even early feasibility study.
这个设想听起来牵强且在多方面存在争议,正如你指出的几个问题那样。我不确定是否应该连早期可行性研究都予以否决。
First of all, in my opinion, repositioning smaller payloads to different trajectory/orbit with limited fuel is not impossible. It eliminates rather restrictive window of launch and may guarantee more rapid responses to much needed reconnaissance enhancement/communication/anti-satellite warfare etc.
首先,在我看来,使用有限燃料调整小型有效载荷的飞行轨迹或轨道并非不可能。这种做法消除了极其严格的发射窗口限制,或许能更快响应急需的侦察增强/通信/反卫星作战等需求。
I agree with you on housing missiles. It would be more challenging and less viable to me as well. But again, given current stress on pre-emptive strikes on incline trajectories, this may have some benefits or at least something worth to study about In my opinion.
关于搭载导弹的观点我赞同。对我来说这也更具挑战性且可行性较低。但考虑到当前对倾斜弹道先发制人打击的重视程度,这种做法可能具有一定优势,或者至少值得进行相关研究。
I guess your focus is as assault focused arsenal ship equivalent, and understand your many excellent counter points, but if we expand its potential mission profile little more broadly, I do feel this is at least worth a study.
我猜您关注的是作为进攻型武器库舰的定位,也理解您提出的诸多有力反驳观点,但如果我们稍微拓宽其潜在任务范围,确实觉得这至少值得研究。
SlavaCocaini
Everybody laughed when I said they should build a Klingon bird of prey
当初我说他们该造艘克林贡猛禽舰时人人都笑话我
Limekill
please stop giving them ideas..... [pray hands emoji]
求求别再给他们提供灵感了.....
drunkmuffalo
Lemme guess, fan of "Space, Above and beyond"?
让我猜猜,是《太空:和平之上》的粉丝?
khan9813
60 mil will probably get you one and a half PowerPoints
6000 万美元大概够做一份半 PPT 幻灯片