assignment in space

Assignment: Outer Space (1960)

Original title: space men.

Streaming in:

We checked for updates on 251 streaming services on April 1, 2024 at 5:25:09 PM. Something wrong? Let us know!

Assignment: Outer Space streaming: where to watch online?

Currently you are able to watch "Assignment: Outer Space" streaming on Classix, Cultpix, FlixFling or for free with ads on Tubi TV, Pluto TV, Freevee. It is also possible to rent "Assignment: Outer Space" on Amazon Video, FlixFling online and to download it on FlixFling, Amazon Video.

Where does Assignment: Outer Space rank today? The JustWatch Daily Streaming Charts are calculated by user activity within the last 24 hours. This includes clicking on a streaming offer, adding a title to a watchlist, and marking a title as 'seen'. This includes data from ~1.3 million movie & TV show fans per day.

Streaming charts last updated: 1:18:35 PM, 04/01/2024

Assignment: Outer Space is 14932 on the JustWatch Daily Streaming Charts today. The movie has moved up the charts by 13430 places since yesterday. In the United States, it is currently more popular than Chef Flynn but less popular than Is That You?.

Interplanetary News reporter Ray Peterson is assigned aboard a space station in the 21st Century.

Videos: Trailers, Teasers, Featurettes

Streaming Charts The JustWatch Daily Streaming Charts are calculated by user activity within the last 24 hours. This includes clicking on a streaming offer, adding a title to a watchlist, and marking a title as 'seen'. This includes data from ~1.3 million movie & TV show fans per day.

Production country

People who liked assignment: outer space also liked.

Popular movies coming soon

Similar Movies you can watch for free

More popular Movies directed by Antonio Margheriti

Assignment In Space With Rip Foster

By blake savage.

• 0 Want to read
• 0 Currently reading
• 0 Have read

Add to List

My Reading Lists:

Use this Work

Create a new list

My book notes.

My private notes about this edition:

Buy this book

Rip Foster goes on a space mission as the leader of nine men in a battle against Consops, a ruthless enemy.

Showing 1 featured edition. View all 0 editions?

Add another edition?

Book Details

Published in.

Racine, Wisconsin

First Sentence

"Foster, R.I.P., Lieutenant."

Edition Notes

Copyright MCMLII as "Rip Foster Rides The Gray Planet," by Whitman Publishing Company

The Physical Object

• Created April 27, 2010
• 2 revisions

Wikipedia citation

Copy and paste this code into your Wikipedia page. Need help ?

Assignment Outer Space

Cast & crew.

Rik Van Nutter

Ray Peterson

Gabriella Farinon

Archie Savage

David Montresor

George the Commander

Alain Dijon

Archie (Y16)

Information

Copyright © 2024 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.

Internet Service Terms Apple TV & Privacy Cookie Policy Support

Watch Assignment: Outer Space

• 1 hr 13 min
• 3.6   (1,002)

Assignment: Outer Space is a science-fiction movie released in 1960. Directed by Antonio Margheriti, the film follows the journey of the crew of the spaceship Gamma 3, as they embark on a mission to investigate a rogue planet that is set to collide with Earth. The main protagonist is Ray Peterson, portrayed by Rik Van Nutter, a journalist who is chosen to accompany the crew on their journey as an observer. He is understandably nervous about the dangers they will face in space, but he is also eager to prove himself as a worthy member of the team.

The spaceship Gamma 3 is captained by John McLaren, played by David Montresor, who is a veteran astronaut with years of experience in space. Also on the team is McLeod, played by Alain Dijon, the ship's engineer, and Tony, played by Archie Savage, a scientist specializing in astrophysics. Rounding out the crew is Eva, portrayed by Gabriella Farinon, a beautiful reporter who is covering the mission.

Before the crew departs, they receive a strange message from General Norton, played by Franco Fantasia, who warns them of potential danger from an unknown source. Despite this warning, the crew sets off on their mission, facing a number of challenges along the way.

The spaceship's first challenge is to successfully navigate through the asteroid belt surrounding Earth. This sequence is executed with great visual effects for the time period, showcasing the Gamma 3 navigating through a literal minefield of debris. The audience is also given a glimpse of the crew's personal relationships, as they banter back and forth during this tense situation.

As the crew approaches the rogue planet, they begin to make some interesting discoveries. The planet appears to be inhabited, but not by human beings. The advanced technology of the planet fascinates the crew, but it also exposes them to great danger.

The inhabitants of the planet appear hostile, launching attack after attack against the Gamma 3. The conflict leaves the crew in a race against time to complete their mission before it's too late. They must face a variety of challenges such as treacherous terrain, weapons, and even an unexpected meteor shower. Peterson must help the crew navigate through these situations while not getting in the way of the crew's work.

The movie's climax occurs as the Gamma 3 races back to Earth, with the rogue planet close behind. The crew is determined to save the planet, but they must do so without jeopardizing their own safety. Although they face seemingly insurmountable obstacles, their camaraderie and bravery allow them to achieve their goal.

The movie's visuals are impressive, especially considering the lack of technology available at the time. The spaceship sets are well-crafted, even though they are undoubtedly dated by today's standards. The special effects are commendable, given the lack of computers available at the time, with a mix of models, miniatures, and simple camera effects achieving some awe-inspiring shots.

The acting is decent, albeit a bit wooden at times. The dialogue suffers from being heavy-handed, sacrificing character development for plot, but it's not necessarily terrible. The movie has an overall vibe of corny fun, something similar to other B-grade sci-fi movies of its era.

In conclusion, Assignment: Outer Space is an entertaining sci-fi movie that serves as a time capsule of space exploration films from the late 1950s and early 1960s. Sure, the special effects may seem quaint to modern-day audiences, but it's hard not to appreciate the charm of this classic piece of cinema. With a likable if somewhat flat casting, and an exciting action-packed plot, the movie may not be a masterpiece, but it doesn't exactly need to be. It's just a fun way to spend an evening with some friends, sitting back and enjoying a little hokey space adventure.

Assignment: Outer Space is a 1961 science fiction movie with a runtime of 1 hour and 13 minutes. It has received mostly poor reviews from critics and viewers, who have given it an IMDb score of 3.6.

• Genres Science Fiction
• Cast Rik Van Nutter Gabriella Farinon David Montresor
• Director Antonio Margheriti
• Release Date 1961
• MPAA Rating NR
• Runtime 1 hr 13 min
• Language English
• IMDB Rating 3.6   (1,002)

• Movies & TV
• Featured Categories
• Science Fiction

Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime Try Prime and start saving today with fast, free delivery

Amazon Prime includes:

Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.

• Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
• Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
• Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
• A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
• Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
• Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access

Important:  Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.

Return this item for free

Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges

• Go to your orders and start the return
• Select the return method

Image Unavailable

• Sorry, this item is not available in
• Image not available
• To view this video download Flash Player

Assignment Outer Space

• Prime Video $1.99

Purchase options and add-ons

Product description.

Astronauts on a secret mission to Mars discover that an unstoppable renegade space station is speeding toward a defenseless Earth on a deadly collision course. The scientists are faced with a horrific choice - watch helplessly as their planet is destroyed or risk their lives on a million-to-one chance to stop the impact. When every option seems exhausted, a heroic reporter makes a final attempt to save the Earth. Filmed in 1961, Assignment: Outer Space is a showcase for the groundbreaking special effects work of Caesar Peace and is one in a series of colorful space-adventure films directed by Antonio Magheriti.

Product details

• Aspect Ratio ‏ : ‎ 1.33:1
• MPAA rating ‏ : ‎ NR (Not Rated)
• Product Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 7.5 x 5.5 x 0.5 inches; 3.5 ounces
• Item model number ‏ : ‎ B004FV5604
• Director ‏ : ‎ Antonio Margheriti
• Media Format ‏ : ‎ NTSC
• Run time ‏ : ‎ 1 hour and 19 minutes
• Release date ‏ : ‎ December 11, 2010
• Actors ‏ : ‎ Rik Van Nutter, Gabriella Farinon, Dave Montresor, Aldo Pini
• Studio ‏ : ‎ Alpha Video
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B004FV5604
• Country of Origin ‏ : ‎ USA
• Number of discs ‏ : ‎ 1

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Start Selling with Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Assignment: Outer Space (1960)

In 2116, Ray Peterson (the wonderfully-named Rik Van Nutter), a reporter for the Interplanetary News , is assigned to write a story aboard a space station.

The rogue, pilotless spacecraft, Alpha Two enters the solar system with its photon generators radiating enough heat to destroy Earth as it approaches. It falls to Peterson to try to figure out a way to enter the spaceship, disarm the generators, and escape before suffocating.

It’s a poorly produced straightforward space opera – resembling a 1950s American sci-fi movie, with spacewalks, gliding spacecraft and starfields – but it’s entertaining and you can clearly detect the enthusiasm of both the director and the cast members.

Assignment: Outer Space was distributed by American International Pictures in the US in 1961, as part of a triple bill that included the East German/Polish co-production First Spaceship on Venus (1960) and the Japanese production The Mysterians (1957).

Released in some markets as Space Men .

Ray Peterson Rik Van Nutter Lucy Gabriella Farinon George (Commander) David Montresor Al – X-15 Archie Savage Archie – Y16 Alain Dijon Sullivan Franco Fantasia King – 116 Joe Pollini Davis David Maran Venus Commander José Néstor Venus Control Anita Todesco

Director Antonio Margheriti

Related Posts

Comments are closed.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• Love Lies Bleeding Link to Love Lies Bleeding
• Problemista Link to Problemista
• Late Night with the Devil Link to Late Night with the Devil

New TV Tonight

• Mary & George: Season 1
• Star Trek: Discovery: Season 5
• Sugar: Season 1
• American Horror Story: Season 12
• Parish: Season 1
• Ripley: Season 1
• Loot: Season 2
• Lopez vs Lopez: Season 2
• The Magic Prank Show With Justin Willman: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• 3 Body Problem: Season 1
• We Were the Lucky Ones: Season 1
• Shōgun: Season 1
• A Gentleman in Moscow: Season 1
• X-Men '97: Season 1
• The Gentlemen: Season 1
• Palm Royale: Season 1
• Invincible: Season 2
• Quiet on Set:The Dark Side of Kids TV: Season 1
• American Rust: Season 2
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Steve! (martin) a documentary in 2 pieces Link to Steve! (martin) a documentary in 2 pieces
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

Box Office 2024: Top 10 Movies of the Year

MonsterVerse Movies and Series Ranked: Godzilla, Kong, Monarch by Tomatometer

Women’s History

Awards Tour

The Rotten Tomatoes Channel: Watch on Samsung, Roku, And More

The Visibility Dilemma

• Trending on RT
• Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire
• 3 Body Problem
• Play Movie Trivia

Assignment: Outer Space

1960, Sci-fi, 1h 19m

Where to watch Assignment: Outer Space

Rent Assignment: Outer Space on Prime Video, or buy it on Prime Video.

Rate And Review

Super Reviewer

Rate this movie

Oof, that was Rotten.

Meh, it passed the time.

It’s good – I’d recommend it.

So Fresh: Absolute Must See!

What did you think of the movie? (optional)

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

Step 2 of 2

How did you buy your ticket?

Let's get your review verified..

AMCTheatres.com or AMC App New

Cinemark Coming Soon

We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.

Regal Coming Soon

Theater box office or somewhere else

By opting to have your ticket verified for this movie, you are allowing us to check the email address associated with your Rotten Tomatoes account against an email address associated with a Fandango ticket purchase for the same movie.

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

Assignment: outer space   photos.

International astronauts (Rik von Nutter, Gabriella Farinon, Archie Savage) try to stop satellite Alfa II, out of control and heading for Earth.

Genre: Sci-fi

Original Language: English

Director: Anthony M. Dawson

Producer: Hugo Grimaldi

Writer: Ennio De Concini

Release Date (Streaming): Jan 11, 2017

Runtime: 1h 19m

Production Co: Titanus, Ultra Film

Cast & Crew

Rik Van Nutter

Ray Peterson

Gabriella Farinon

Archie Savage

David Montresor

George the Commander

Alain Dijon

Archie (Y16)

Franco Fantasia

Sullivan (as Frank Fantasia)

Joe Pollini

David Maran

Anthony M. Dawson

Ennio De Concini

Screenwriter

Hugo Grimaldi

Samuel Z. Arkoff

Executive Producer

Marcello Masciocchi

Cinematographer

Lelio Luttazzi

Original Music

Critic Reviews for Assignment: Outer Space

Audience reviews for assignment: outer space.

There are no featured reviews for Assignment: Outer Space because the movie has not released yet ().

Movie & TV guides

Play Daily Tomato Movie Trivia

Discover What to Watch

Rotten Tomatoes Podcasts

Assignment: Outer Space (1960)

• User Reviews

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

• User Ratings
• External Reviews
• Metacritic Reviews
• Full Cast and Crew
• Release Dates
• Official Sites
• Company Credits
• Filming & Production
• Technical Specs
• Plot Summary
• Plot Keywords
• Parents Guide

Did You Know?

• Crazy Credits
• Alternate Versions
• Connections
• Soundtracks

Photo & Video

• Photo Gallery
• Trailers and Videos

Related Items

• External Sites

Related lists from IMDb users

Recently Viewed

Canada assigns astronauts to launch on Boeing's Starliner, back up Artemis 2 moon mission

"From the International Space Station to the moon, Jenni Gibbons and Joshua Kutryk are about to write an exciting new chapter of Canada's history in space."

MONTREAL, Quebec - The Canadian Space Agency announced two astronauts will fly to space in the coming years on Wednesday (Nov. 22) as the country continues a historic ramp-up of its human space program in 2023. François-Philippe Champagne, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry of Canada, announced the assignments in front of a crowd of hundreds gathered in the lobby of Canadian Space Agency headquarters in Longueuil, Quebec.

In the first assignment announcement, CSA astronaut Jenni Gibbons was selected as a backup to Jeremy Hansen , mission specialist aboard NASA's Artemis 2 moon mission. Gibbons will also serve as capsule communicator during Artemis 2, or CAPCOM, the astronaut on Earth who will communicates with the crew members during their spaceflight.

Next, Champagne announced that Joshua Kutryk, a colonel for the Royal Canadian Air Force, will fly on his first spaceflight on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft for a six-month mission to the International Space Station (ISS) in early 2025. Prior to his selection for CSA in 2017, Kutryk was a test pilot who used to lead the unit responsible for flight testing all operational fighter aircraft in Canada. Kutryk previously served as CAPCOM for Starliner's first successful uncrewed flight to the ISS in May 2022 .

Related: What 1st Canadian astronaut on moon mission is learning from his crewmates (exclusive)

"As a part of the Artemis 2 backup crew, I will work to define and develop the procedures and architecture required for humanity's return to the moon," Gibbons said in a statement. "I will train as a capsule communicator, ready to act as the link between the ground team and the Artemis missions when in Mission Control. I will train alongside the crew and will be ready to support them in whatever capacity their mission requires. Finally, I will be prepared for future missions critical to Canada's space program. I look forward to bringing Canada with me on this journey."

If Gibbons flies to space during Artemis 2 in place of Jeremy Hansen, it will be the astronaut's first spaceflight, making her the third Canadian female in space. Gibbons is a fire scientist selected by CSA in 2017. Her spaceflight follows short-term excursions by two other CSA astronauts: Neurologist Roberta Bondar ( space shuttle mission STS-42 in 1992, for 8 days) and engineer Julie Payette (STS-96 in 1999 and STS-127 in 2009, for 25 days collectively). 

CSA's assignments on Artemis 2 stem from CSA's promise of Canadarm3 , a new robotic arm that will aid in maintenance and repairs of NASA's upcoming Gateway space station. Canada is also a member of the Artemis Accords , an initiative co-led by NASA and the U.S. Department of State that lays out a framework for peaceful cooperation in space.

Get the Space.com Newsletter

Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!

Kutryk's assignment will make him the first CSA astronaut to fly on NASA's commercial crew program. Kutryk won't be the first Canadian to fly on a commercial spacecraft, however; Canadian entrepreneur Mark Pathy already used SpaceX Crew Dragon for the private Ax-1 mission from Axiom Space in April 2022.

"Space is about collaborating for a better future. It's about our future; it's about Canadian prosperity. Our country decided decades ago to invest in space because it helps us solve challenges for Canadians, and we are still driven by this purpose today," Kutryk said in a statement. "I'm committed to making the most out of this incredible opportunity for our country."

CSA gets a seat on the International Space Station every six years under its agreement to furnish robotics like the Canadarm2 robotic arm currently aboard the orbital lab. The last CSA astronaut to fly to space was medical doctor David Saint-Jacques , who spend a record 204 days on the ISS in 2018-2019, longer than any other Canadian.

Related: Artemis 2 astronaut Jeremy Hansen says a Canadian will walk on the moon one day

"These assignments are clear proof of the impressive reputation our astronaut corps has," Champagne said in a statement. "From the International Space Station to the moon, Jenni Gibbons and Joshua Kutryk are about to write an exciting new chapter of Canada's history in space. Since their recruitment, they have both distinguished themselves repeatedly through their work with NASA and the CSA.

"Canadian astronauts are modern-day explorers, making them tremendous role models for Canada's future scientists, engineers and explorers," Champagne added.

Following the assignment announcement, Artemis 2 astronaut Jeremy Hansen posted a message of congratulations for the two astronauts on X (formerly Twitter):

Congratulations @Astro_Jenni and @Astro_Kutryk on the mission assignments today! pic.twitter.com/bM1oJHUFLU November 22, 2023

Wednesday's announcement builds on a surge of space activity in Canada in recent years, most especially a big moon announcement in April: CSA astronaut Jeremy Hansen , following a near 15-year wait for a spaceflight, will fly around the moon aboard the NASA-led Artemis 2 mission with three Americans. He will also be the first non-American to leave low Earth orbit .

While Hansen's assignment shone space attention on Canada anew, the country has been active in space for decades. Following sounding rocket research to probe the upper atmosphere in the 1950s and 1960s, Canada was the third country to send a satellite to space in September 1962 with Alouette. Communications was a key priority for the government to send information to the population, leading to support of satellites and even forming a Crown corporation satellite company called Telesat (today a public company trading on the stock market).

Foundational work on Canadarm, the country's famous robotic arm, began in the same era — including related tech testing with satellite antennas along with the lunar module's landing legs for NASA Apollo moon missions between 1969 and 1972. Canadian company MDA manages the Canadarm program today, following several changes over the decades.

As NASA opened up its human space program to international participation in the late 1970s, Canada selected robotics as an area where it could contribute a lot with a relatively modest number of tax dollars, given Canada has a small population compared to other space powers.  

The first flight of Canadarm on space shuttle STS-2 in 1981 impressed NASA so much that it invited Canada to form an astronaut corps. Royal Canadian Navy commander Marc Garneau was the first to fly, with Canada's National Research Council, on STS-41G in October 1984 (as the CSA itself was not created until 1989.) Some notable early spaceflights included Bondar, the first Canadian woman in space (1992) and Chris Hadfield , the only Canadian to visit Soviet-Russian space station Mir (1995).

Related: What it's like to snag a spacecraft with the International Space Station's robotic arm

Canada has continued this "pay-to-play" arrangement — trading robotics capabilities for astronaut seats and science — for more than four decades. Canadarm2 was installed on the ISS in April 2001 on spacewalks including Hadfield, the first Canadian to do an extra-vehicular activity. A robotic helper, Dextre, followed Canadarm2 to the ISS in 2008. 

As Canadarm2/Dextre represent 2.3% of the ISS partnership, however, that only equates to a Canadian spaceflight opportunity every six years with current spacecraft capacity. Prior to today's announcement, the previous recent Canadian ISS flights were in 2018-19 with David Saint-Jacques, and 2012-13 with Hadfield, also the first Canadian to command the space station during that excursion. (Note that some NASA astronauts had joint Canadian citizenship as well, such as fellow 2018 ISS commander Drew Feustel.)

Related: Artemis 2's Canadian astronaut got their moon mission seat with 'potato salad'

Hansen's mission came through a different funding strategy. Canada was an early signatory to the Artemis Accords , a multinational coalition pledging to support NASA's goals of space exploration. That support in 2019 , along with the promise of a next-generation Canadarm3 for NASA's Gateway moon station, brought Canada the Artemis 2 opportunity along with future moon missions.

Artemis 2 has dominated Canadian space coverage in 2023, but that's not all the special space funding the CSA has received lately. The long-running Radarsat series (monitoring Earth since 1995) will get an upgrade and extension in funding announced this fall, for example.

— Maple leaf to the moon: Canadian Space Agency debuts new logo

—  Canada to launch new satellites to monitor climate change, gather military data

 —  What 1st Canadian astronaut on moon mission is learning from his crewmates (exclusive)

Also on deck, per recent CSA announcements, are a mini-lunar rover targeted for landing in 2026, a lunar utility vehicle to support Artemis astronauts, and a funded commitment to work on the ISS until 2030 alongside most other partners. CSA is also co-supporting, with the Privy Council Office's Impact Canada, competitions to develop better health technology and food for deep space missions.

Then there's all the private activity. Among many things that could be mentioned: Pathy paid for his own seat to the ISS in 2021 on the private Ax-1 mission, in large part to do Canadian health research in space. Several Canadian space companies are also targeting payloads or robotic moon missions, either through CSA funding or through other avenues. On top of that, Maritime Launch Services is developing independent launch capabilities for Canada on the country's east coast. (The Canadian government pledged in 2023 to update and streamline launching regulations to support the nascent industry.)

CSA also signed a memorandum of agreement with Axiom in 2022 , suggesting there may be pathways to bring Canadians to space more often. An example of how that may work is the European Space Agency "project astronaut" group, which are 12 individuals who passed astronaut selection but who continue work with their employer until they are asked to take a mission. Swedish project astronaut Marcus Wandt will fly aboard Ax-3 no earlier in January 2024, on a mission co-funded by several Swedish government groups and companies.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: [email protected].

Elizabeth Howell (she/her), Ph.D., is a staff writer in the spaceflight channel since 2022 covering diversity, education and gaming as well. She was contributing writer for Space.com for 10 years before joining full-time. Elizabeth's reporting includes multiple exclusives with the White House and Office of the Vice-President of the United States, an exclusive conversation with aspiring space tourist (and NSYNC bassist) Lance Bass, speaking several times with the International Space Station, witnessing five human spaceflight launches on two continents, flying parabolic, working inside a spacesuit, and participating in a simulated Mars mission. Her latest book, " Why Am I Taller ?", is co-written with astronaut Dave Williams. Elizabeth holds a Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Space Studies from the University of North Dakota, a Bachelor of Journalism from Canada's Carleton University and a Bachelor of History from Canada's Athabasca University. Elizabeth is also a post-secondary instructor in communications and science at several institutions since 2015; her experience includes developing and teaching an astronomy course at Canada's Algonquin College (with Indigenous content as well) to more than 1,000 students since 2020. Elizabeth first got interested in space after watching the movie Apollo 13 in 1996, and still wants to be an astronaut someday. Mastodon: https://qoto.org/@howellspace

Spaceflight doubleheader! SpaceX launches 2 rockets in 4-hour span (video)

SpaceX launching 22 Starlink satellites from California on March 30

The 2024 total solar eclipse is 1 week away. Here's what you need to know.

• Jesuis Laplume As one of the team of companies that designed the Canadarm1 on the US Space shuttle, I am happy to see that Canada is still actively involved in space. I was the one who wrote the equations that described the performance of the drives on Canadarm 1 when the engineering test data was not a good fit to the engineering model joint textbook equations. I only had less than two weeks to come up with original performance equations but did so a day before NASA came to see the engineering unit. Reply
• View All 1 Comment

Most Popular

By Jamie Carter March 30, 2024

By Mike Wall March 30, 2024

By Robert Lea March 30, 2024

By Elizabeth Howell March 30, 2024

By Jennifer Nalewicki March 29, 2024

By Katherine Kornei March 29, 2024

By Stefanie Waldek March 29, 2024

By Harry Baker March 29, 2024

By Sharmila Kuthunur March 29, 2024

By Samantha Mathewson March 29, 2024

By Keith Cooper March 29, 2024

• 2 Hubble Space Telescope finds bucket of cosmic Easter eggs — 500 blue and red stars
• 3 'Everything is interrelated.' For the Navajo Nation, the April 8 solar eclipse is a spiritual experience
• 4 NASA's mini moon rovers go for a test drive ahead of 2025 private lunar launch (photos)
• 5 Life on Enceladus? Europe eyes astrobiology mission to Saturn ocean moon

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

ASSIGNMENT OUTER SPACE 1960 sci-fi

Video item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

2,284 Views

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

In collections.

Uploaded by ekminer on February 3, 2020

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Letterboxd — Your life in film

Forgotten username or password ?

• Start a new list…
• Add all films to a list…
• Add all films to watchlist

Add to your films…

Press Tab to complete, Enter to create

A moderator has locked this field.

Add to lists

Where to watch

Assignment: outer space.

1960 ‘Space Men’ Directed by Antonio Margheriti

Fear awaits ...... in the murky mists of outer space!

Interplanetary News reporter Ray Peterson is assigned aboard a space station in the 21st Century.

Rik Van Nutter Gabriella Farinon David Montresor Archie Savage Alain Dijon Franco Fantasia Joe Pollini David Maran José Néstor Anita Todesco Aldo Pini

Director Director

Antonio Margheriti

Producer Producer

Hugo Grimaldi

Executive Producer Exec. Producer

Samuel Z. Arkoff

Writers Writers

Ennio De Concini Jack Wallace

Cinematography Cinematography

Marcello Masciocchi

Special Effects Special Effects

Caesar Peace

Composer Composer

Lelio Luttazzi

Titanus Ultra Film

Alternative Titles

Assignment Outer Space, Le vainqueur de l'espace

Science Fiction Adventure

Monsters, aliens, sci-fi and the apocalypse Imaginative space odysseys and alien encounters Action-packed space and alien sagas Disastrous voyages and heroic survival Thought-provoking sci-fi action and future technology Show All…

Releases by Date

25 aug 1960, 13 dec 1961, releases by country.

• Theatrical 12A Rated A - 12A is the modern equivalent

73 mins   More at IMDb TMDb Report this page

Popular reviews

Review by Ira Brooker ★ 2

A jerk-ass reporter joins the crew of a space research mission and gets into an immediate love triangle with the ship's somnolent captain and comely first officer. There's a rogue satellite and some space rescue stuff and the threat of global annihilation in the mix too, but gosh, is it hard to care.

I would have bet money that this was one of those '60s Soviet sci-fi flicks that Roger Corman bought up and dubbed over for some quick drive-in cash, but it turns out it's an original Italian production. Some of the model effects and space-age costuming are pretty cool, and it seems like everybody did what they could with a presumably teensy budget, but man, this whole thing draaaags like only boring sci-fi can. Add the fact that Rik Van Nutter's purported protagonist is an insufferable prick who's wrong about everything and you're probably fine skipping this one.

Review by LordSlaw ★★ 2

In the stodgy space-'adventure' Assignment: Outer Space , a brash reporter gets assigned to some sort of Mars mission. He's not really wanted and when he causes an accident with a giant space-hose used for refueling, he's even less welcome.

Cute cosmonaut Lucy, the only woman in the crew, immediately falls in love with the reporter, who makes up for his hose mishap by saving planet Earth from destruction.

There's not a lot to like here. The scooter-like space-taxi is kinda neat. I like the handful of attempts at scientific verisimilitude, like magnetic boots to combat weightlessness and a greenhouse full of oxygen-generating plants. And who doesn't like a massive hose?

Lucy and the reporter act and behave for the most part like actual people. For the the rest of the cast, they attempt to impart the awesome importance of the space mission by delivering grim, heavy, plodding performances.

Assignment: Outer Space . Meh.

Review by Muddguts ★ 2

I don't know how many Italian sci-fi movies have been made to date but I am positive that I just watched the worst of them all. 

The plot sees an unwanted reporter tagging along for a top secret space mission overseen by some seriously grouchy cosmonauts who proceed to call the newsman names like "leech" and "parasite". We discover that the earth's safety is threatened by a man made satellite that has stalled in space and will be colliding with the planet and somehow having enough magnitude to destroy all life. It takes a real long time for the script to tell us this part of the plot but believe me, this ridiculousness is completely overshadowed by the stilted dialog…

Review by Scumbalina ★★ 1

This was crammed on some budget disk with three similar movies. I'm sure the poor quality marred the experience but I walked away from this barely realizing I'd watched a full movie. Dull space drama with no aliens to entertain me and anything that would be aesthetically pleasing is distorted by booger green compression. Assignment Outer Space is something to fall asleep to at the ass end of a marathon. Just use Margheriti's Wild Wild Planet to fill that void.

Review by Filipe Furtado ★½

Early routine sci-fi procedural from Antonio Margheritti. It doesn’t really give him any opportunity to show his action film strengths. Very dull and low budget, although early on the minimal production design have some intrigue.

Review by Trenchy ★

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Review by Larry Yoshida ★★

Dull, forgettable Italian sci-fi film. Rik Van Nutter ( THUNDERBALL ) is a reporter on assignment to a space station. He clashes with the station commander and finds himself in a love triangle. Meanwhile, an out of control spaceship is on a collision course with Earth. Notable only as the feature directorial debut of Antonio Margheriti.

Review by C_Mill24 ★

I like how they abandoned traveling to galaxy M12 (M12 is a globular cluster by the way, not a galaxy), then leave they find a force field(?), and then apparently the news reporter and the biologist fall in love after sharing 5 lines of dialogue, and then the reporter punches the captain for no reason.

How does this movie get lost in its own plot? That's like a video game character getting stuck on itself.

Review by Matt Constantine ★★

Another poorly dubbed import Science Fiction film. There were so many. Sadly, like many others of its type, it's fairly dull.

Review by Cameron ★★★★

At one point, a character describes there being an “orgy of air” and I’m still not sure what to make of that.

It also turns out that this is a Christmas movie, so, move over Star Wars Holiday Special. You’ve got some competition.

(Star rating is based on Rifftrax version)

Review by kultgestalt ★★½

Antonio Margheritis erster Science Fiction Film und gleichzeitig seine erste eigenständige Regiearbeit ist ein eher durchwachsenes Filmerlebnis. Das Problem sind nicht mal so sehr die schlechten Effekte. Die kann man bis zu einem gewissen Punkt noch als charmant empfinden. Das Problem ist hier die unstrukturierte Erzählweise. Auf dem Bildschirm passiert eigentlich dauernd etwas, aber manchmal ist es wirklich schwer, der Handlung zu folgen. Das liegt nicht etwa daran, dass diese so komplex ist, sondern weil hier so viel geredet wird, dass das, was wirklich wichtig ist, in irgendwelchen Nebensätzen untergeht, während man versucht, die Fülle an unwichtigen Informationen zu verarbeiten. Die Bilder sprechen dabei leider auch eher selten für sich, weshalb auch hier oft der Erklärbär aus dem Off einspringen muss. Anstrengend...

Review by Flickers in Time ★

This dud doesn’t even have an alien.

flickersintime.com/1960/space-men-1960/

Similar Films

Select your preferred poster

Meet the Morgan Hill student-engineers who built satellite NASA is launching into space

NASA's "CubeSat" Launch Initiative takes student-designed satellites and sends them into space.

It features great minds from across the country. But this year, only one project was made entirely by high school students.

Most high school projects don't usually have lofty goals beyond an assignment and a grade.

But in Oakwood School's Spacecraft Systems Engineering class, students know their latest assignment has cosmic implications.

MORE: Solar eclipse 2024: Where to watch rare celestial event in Bay Area

"It gave me an opportunity to apply everything that I learned through all the different classes that this school offers and put it into a real project," Oakwood School Alum Jillian Bogosian said.

"Our work is going to be sent to space and that's exciting news for all of us," Oakwood Senior Shrihan Dash said.

NASA has launched more than 150 student-designed satellites into space.

Soon, Oakwood's "NyanSat" will be one of them heading to the international space station.

It's a work in progress that started back in 2021. Since then, students have designed a 4 x 4 x 8 cube satellite with multiple functions.

VIDEO: Bay Area teens who met over social media launch 'world's first science social network'

One uses acoustic mapping to see if an object is hollow or not with greater reliability than existing methods.

Schools across the country were selected for this CubeSat Launch Initiative, but only one featured the work of high school students.

"We're just incredibly proud of what these students have accomplished," Oakwood School Engineering Instructor Michael Lyle said. "They've done a bunch of real-world engineering work where they have laid out circuit boards and they've done structural design and they've built a satellite that I think will really advance what is possible to do in space in a number of ways."

Lyle says the goal of the class is to jump off the deep end and explore the possibilities of engineering.

Students could never even imagine that their work would end up in space.

MORE: High school student interning at NASA finds new planet that resembles Star Wars' Tatooine

They hope others can be inspired by their journey, so they can reach new heights as well.

"This is something that it's not just local to Oakwood's it's going out into the world," Bogosian said. "It's going to make a difference and it's going to show other students that if they have an idea, they can do it."

"If you're given an opportunity to take a project of any sort, or maybe even a work opportunity, take it," Dash said. "You never know where it will take you."

Maybe even into space!

Learn more about the CubeSat Initiative here.

Suggested Searches

• Climate Change
• Expedition 64
• Mars perseverance
• SpaceX Crew-2
• International Space Station
• View All Topics A-Z

Humans in Space

Earth & climate, the solar system, the universe, aeronautics, learning resources, news & events.

NASA Astronaut Loral O’Hara, Expedition 70 Science Highlights

NASA Data Shows How Drought Changes Wildfire Recovery in the West

NASA’s Europa Clipper Survives and Thrives in ‘Outer Space’ on Earth

• Search All NASA Missions
• A to Z List of Missions
• Upcoming Launches and Landings
• Spaceships and Rockets
• Communicating with Missions
• James Webb Space Telescope
• Hubble Space Telescope
• Why Go to Space
• Astronauts Home
• Commercial Space
• Destinations
• Living in Space
• Explore Earth Science
• Earth, Our Planet
• Earth Science in Action
• Earth Multimedia
• Earth Science Researchers
• Pluto & Dwarf Planets
• Asteroids, Comets & Meteors
• The Kuiper Belt
• The Oort Cloud
• Skywatching
• The Search for Life in the Universe
• Black Holes
• The Big Bang
• Dark Energy & Dark Matter
• Earth Science
• Planetary Science
• Astrophysics & Space Science
• The Sun & Heliophysics
• Biological & Physical Sciences
• Lunar Science
• Citizen Science
• Astromaterials
• Aeronautics Research
• Human Space Travel Research
• Science in the Air
• NASA Aircraft
• Flight Innovation
• Supersonic Flight
• Air Traffic Solutions
• Green Aviation Tech
• Drones & You
• Technology Transfer & Spinoffs
• Space Travel Technology
• Technology Living in Space
• Manufacturing and Materials
• Science Instruments
• For Kids and Students
• For Educators
• For Colleges and Universities
• For Professionals
• Science for Everyone
• Requests for Exhibits, Artifacts, or Speakers
• STEM Engagement at NASA
• NASA's Impacts
• Centers and Facilities
• Directorates
• Organizations
• People of NASA
• Internships
• Our History
• Doing Business with NASA
• Get Involved
• Aeronáutica
• Ciencias Terrestres
• Sistema Solar
• All NASA News
• Video Series on NASA+
• Newsletters
• Social Media
• Media Resources
• Upcoming Launches & Landings
• Virtual Events
• Sounds and Ringtones
• Interactives
• STEM Multimedia

NASA VIPER Robotic Moon Rover Team Raises Its Mighty Mast

Amendment 7: Euclid General Investigator Final Text and Due Dates

NASA Names Finalists to Help Deal with Dust in Human Lander Challenge

Diez maneras en que los estudiantes pueden prepararse para ser astronautas

Optical Fiber Production

Antarctic Sea Ice Near Historic Lows; Arctic Ice Continues Decline

Early Adopters of NASA’s PACE Data to Study Air Quality, Ocean Health

Citizen Scientists Invited to Collect Data for NASA During Eclipse

April’s Night Sky Notes: Participate in Eclipse Science

Hubble Finds a Field of Stars

Three-Year Study of Young Stars with NASA’s Hubble Enters New Chapter

Hubble Sees New Star Proclaiming Presence with Cosmic Lightshow

ARMD Solicitations

F-15D Support Aircraft

University Teams Selected as Finalists to Envision New Aviation Responses to Natural Disasters 

David Woerner

Tech Today: Cutting the Knee Surgery Cord

NASA, Industry Improve Lidars for Exploration, Science

Earth Day 2020: Posters and Wallpaper

Earth Day 2021: Posters and Virtual Backgrounds

Launch Week Event Details

Women’s History Month: Meet Kari Alvarado

Contribute to NASA Research on Eclipse Day – and Every Day

NASA’s OSIRIS-REx Mission Awarded Collier Trophy

Astronauta de la NASA Marcos Berríos

Resultados científicos revolucionarios en la estación espacial de 2023

Find your place in space week.

Jermaine Walker

The National Space Council invites you to join us for Find Your Place in Space Week.

From April 6-13, 2024 museums, science centers, companies, schools, and organizations will engage with communities across the nation to highlight all that space is, has to offer, and the benefits of space for Earth. We know that too many people are unaware of the importance of space to their everyday lives, to Earth, or know that their expertise and talents are needed in the industry.  Through this effort, we want people from all communities and backgrounds to experience space and find their place in space!

Visit the Find Your Place in Space Week website , which includes:

• A map and list of planned events.  Our goal is for there to be events in every state and Puerto Rico.
• A social media toolkit and graphics that are helpful for amplifying the importance of space online throughout the week (and beyond).
• A  page with an activity toolkit and online resources from across the federal departments and agencies.

Please consider hosting an event in your community. If you do, share the information with us to be added to the list of events. You can also use the list to join an event near you. Hope to see you there!

A Study on the Weapon–Target Assignment Problem Considering Heading Error

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 27 March 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Ji-Eun Kim 1 ,
• Chang-Hun Lee 2 &
• Mun Yong Yi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1784-8983 1  

55 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The focus of this study is to investigate the assignment of weapons to multiple targets in a scenario, specifically when an air defense system is confronted with numerous targets, such as low-altitude rockets or groups of drones. The accuracy of weapons in destroying these targets depends heavily on the correct alignment of the launchers with the targets, which can be affected by errors in launcher orientation. Therefore, in solving weapon–target assignment (WTA) problems, it is crucial to account for the heading errors caused by the launcher’s orientation angle. To address this issue, the use of a rotation strategy to align the orientation angle with the target’s approach direction can significantly improve the probability of kill (PK) against the target. However, its unitary implementation has limitations, which may result in missed engagements if there is insufficient time to rotate to the desired orientation angle. Thus, as a remedy, we propose a new WTA method that combines rotation and rotation fix strategy, improving the weakness of losing the opportunity of engagement due to rotation time and heading errors. The efficacy of this approach is evaluated through numerical simulations.

Similar content being viewed by others

Fast and Simple Method for Weapon Target Assignment in Air Defense Command and Control System

Bi-objective dynamic weapon-target assignment problem with stability measure

Ahmet Silav, Esra Karasakal & Orhan Karasakal

Weapon-Target Assignment and Firing Scheduling for Rapid Engagement with Heterogeneous Interceptors

Hyeon-Woo Park & Han-Lim Choi

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Over the past few decades, weapon–target assignment (WTA) has been considered a crucial procedure for providing autonomous decision support in air defense systems [ 1 , 2 ]. The WTA involves determining which interceptors to use and when to launch them to counter identified threats. The WTA problem has been proven to be NP-complete, according to references [ 3 , 4 ]. Consequently, many previous research efforts have focused on tackling the computational complexity of the general WTA problem. Various search methods have been developed over the last few decades, including Lagrangian relaxation [ 5 ], exact and heuristic approaches [ 6 , 7 ], and meta-heuristic algorithms like ant colony optimization [ 8 ], particle swarm optimization [ 9 ], genetic algorithm [ 10 , 11 ], permutation and tabu search [ 12 , 13 ], variable neighborhood search [ 14 ], harmony search [ 15 ], hybrid discrete gray wolf optimization [ 16 ], and greedy maximization algorithm [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].

The primary objective of WTA, as highlighted in the references [ 21 , 22 , 23 ], is to minimize the potential damage to friendly assets and increase the survivability of identified threat targets. The optimization model for the WTA problem focuses on a single goal, which is to minimize the survival probability of the targets. Moreover, there are additional objectives that can be considered, including optimizing resource usage, minimizing target flight duration, and refining the fire doctrine in defense site zones [ 24 , 25 ]. To address the multi-objective WTA problem, various methods are employed, such as rule-based heuristics, goal programming, and evolutionary algorithms [ 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 ].

There are two main categories of the WTA problem: static WTA (SWTA) and dynamic WTA (DWTA) [ 29 ]. The former, SWTA, assumes that time is not a factor, and therefore subsequent engagements are not taken into consideration. Moreover, it is typically assumed that all weapons have an equal probability of success when targeting each type of enemy. The latter, DWTA, on the other hand, takes into account the available time windows during which targets can be engaged. This approach, proposed by Leboucher et al. [ 30 ], involves calculating the time to impact for each target and identifying the earliest moment at which each weapon can intercept the target. Xin et al. [ 31 ] have proposed a model that allows for variable probabilities of success for each weapon against each target and across different time periods. Khosla [ 32 ] has formulated a mixed integer program to address some of the key considerations in the WTA problem, including the inclusion of additional time constraints such as reload time.

Recent research has highlighted the need for more realistic WTA engagement scenarios [ 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 ], leading to the development of new models that reflect the characteristics of both the interceptors and targets in specific scenarios [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Cho and Choi [ 18 ] have proposed a time-based WTA problem that considers the interceptor’s firing time in relation to the target’s incoming direction and provides a time-dependent reward for determining the interceptor and its firing time. Leboucher and colleagues [ 30 ] have proposed a two-step approach for solving dynamic WTA problems, where the selection of weapon types and specific weapons occurs in the first step, followed by the determination of a sequence of firing times in the second step. Uhm and Lee [ 41 ] have also proposed a two-step algorithm that uses a time-based probability of success, which is a convex function of the firing time. Bogdanowicz and colleagues [ 37 , 38 ] have developed a novel method for the WTA problem based on the assumption of a fixed probability of success for a given time of engagement. Guo and colleagues [ 39 ] and Na and Lee [ 40 ] have considered factors that can affect the probability of success in a realistic engagement scenario, such as the time-to-go, line-of-sight, and miss distance between the target and interceptor. By incorporating these factors into the problem formulation, the engagement performance of the WTA problem can be improved in a real environment.

In recent years, area targets, such as drone swarms and low-altitude rockets, have emerged as significant threats, leading to an increased demand for air defense systems to counter them [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. Such air defense systems require a large number of interceptors during the engagement, each of which is typically developed using low-cost and small-sized components. Thus, these interceptors have lower maneuverability than other types of interceptors, which can lead to the varying probability of kill (PK) depending on the relative engagement geometry between the target and launcher (i.e., the heading errors between the launcher’s orientation angle and the interceptor’s flight direction). Additionally, Guo et al. [ 39 ] have pointed out that initial heading errors can negatively affect the entire course of action. To overcome this limitation of interceptor countering area targets, WTA methods should consider the degradation of PK due to heading errors. Kim and colleagues [ 46 ] have addressed the aforementioned concerns by developing a model that considers the variation in PK as a function of changes in heading errors. They compared the performance of two strategies: the rotation-fixed (RF) strategy and the rotation (R) strategy, which differ in how they manage the launcher’s orientation angle relative to the target’s approach angle. The RF strategy fixes the orientation angle at a specific value for all engagements, while the R strategy rotates the launcher’s orientation angle to align with the target’s approach angle. The authors analyzed the trade-off between reaction time and PK degradation for each strategy. To achieve a more effective balance between PK degradation and reaction time, they extended the strategies to the clustering-based WTA (CWTA) method, where targets are clustered using a representative point that can potentially be intercepted for each target. The initial orientation angle of each launcher is then determined based on the centroid of each cluster relative to each launcher.

However, the previous study was limited because it used a single strategy, either R or RF, for all engagements without the flexibility to adjust to different engagement situations. More specifically, when the two strategies are properly mixed and used, more optimal results can be obtained by the trade-off between reaction time and PK degradation, depending on engagement situations. Based on this rationale, this study aims to propose a mixed version of R and RF strategies that allows for the selection of either R or RF strategies for each engagement based on the launcher’s orientation angle. This mixed strategy approach provides greater flexibility, allowing for the decision to maintain the current orientation angle or rotate it to some extent when using the R strategy for a particular engagement. Unlike the previous study, where the optimal orientation angle for each engagement was predetermined under the R strategy, the proposed method permits variations in the orientation angle for each engagement. Additionally, the clustering approach from the previous study can still be applied in the mixed version to further reduce the rotation angle. In this study, numerical simulations are performed to investigate the performance of the proposed method. The results will show that the proposed method (i.e., the mixed version of R and RF) is superior to using only R or RF strategies. The main contribution of this study is to establish a new WTA method for the rotation-mixed (M) strategy, which considers the launcher’s orientation angle as a decision variable for each engagement, unlike the prior R and RF strategies. The key feature of the proposed method lies in its simplicity and superiority, suitable for the interception of area targets.

The structure of the paper is as follows: In Sect.  2 , the formulation of the WTA problems is presented, taking into account the mixed version of R and RF strategies. Section  3 describes the proposed WTA algorithm. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated through numerical simulations in Sect.  4 . Finally, Sect.  6 summarizes the findings and draws conclusions.

2 PK Modeling

The main goal of WTA problems is to achieve the highest possible expected PK for all targets that have been identified. Therefore, when defining the objective function for WTA problems, the focus should be on maximizing the overall PK against targets that pose a threat and are being countered by interceptors. In this study, a three-dimensional (3D) engagement scenario is considered. However, the PK value is determined based on the \(X_I-Y_I\) planar engagement geometry between the launcher and the target, as illustrated in Fig.  1 . This rationale stems from the similarity in the impact of PK value fluctuations resulting from vertical engagement geometry on both R strategy and RF strategy. In contrast, the variations in PK attributed to horizontal engagement geometry significantly influence both R strategy and RF strategy.

Planar engagement geometry

The PK value is calculated using the three geometric parameters. The first parameter, denoted as \(a^{\textrm{HE}}_{t,w,s}\) , refers to the heading errors between the predicted intercept point (PIP) \(X^{\textrm{pip}}_{t,w,s}\) of the target t at a specific time slot s and the launcher w located at \(X_{w}\) . The second parameter, denoted as \(a^{M}_{t,w,s}\) , represents the predicted intercept angle between the moving direction \(M_{t,w,s}\) of the target at the time of interception and the approaching direction \(H_{t,w,s}\) of the interceptor. Finally, the third parameter is the relative distance \(r_{t,w,s}\) calculated based on the positions of the target and launcher.

More specifically, the heading error is defined as the angle between \(O_{w}\) , which denotes the orientation angle of the launcher w , and \(H_{t,w,s}\) , which indicates the heading angle toward the PIP of the target t , given by:

The PK variation according to a relative distance and heading error, b expected target’s leading angle and heading error

In this context, the PIP refers to the expected location of the interception between the target t and the interceptor launched from the launcher w at a specific time s . In order to compute the PIP, it is essential to ensure that the flight time for the target to reach the PIP is equal to the flight time of the assigned interceptor to reach the PIP, starting from the moment of firing. The predicted intercept angle \(a^{M}_{t,w,s}\) can be determined by calculating the angle between the approaching angle of the target \(M_{t,w,s}\) and the opposite angle of the interceptor’s flight direction \(-H_{t,w,s}\) as follows:

The Euclidean distance between a launcher position \(X_{w}\) and a particular PIP \(X^{\textrm{pip}}_{t,w,s}\) is established as the relative distance between the two points. This relative distance is calculated as follows:

The computation of the expected PK \(P_{t,w,s}\) involves the multiplication of three separate Gaussian functions, denoted as G , which depend on the geometric parameters \(a^{\textrm{HE}}_{t,w,s}\) , \(a^{M}_{t,w,s}\) , and \(r_{t,w,s}\) as follows:

The Gaussian function used in this study is given by

The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. ( 4 ) describes how the PK varies as a result of changes in heading errors. This variation is modeled using a Gaussian function, where \(\mu ^{a_{\textrm{HE}}}\) represents the mean and \(\sigma ^{a_{\textrm{HE}}}\) represents the standard deviation. An increase in heading errors can cause a degradation in the PK, as it requires more maneuverability to intercept the target. The second term in Eq. ( 4 ) represents the PK variation as a function of the expected angle difference between the approach direction of the interceptor and the velocity direction of the target. The mean is represented by \(\mu ^{a_{M}}\) , while the standard deviation is denoted by \(\sigma ^{a_{M}}\) . In Eq. ( 4 ), the third term expresses the PK variation due to changes in relative distance, where \(\mu ^{r}\) represents the mean and \(\sigma ^{r}\) represents the standard deviation. The Gaussian functions for each term have a value ranging from 0 to 1. Accordingly, the overall PK \(P_{t,w,s}\) also has a value ranging from 0 to 1.

Figure  2 illustrates the PK model used in the study, where the design parameters for heading errors, relative distance, and the expected target’s leading angle are specified. The values chosen for the parameters are \(\mu ^{a^{\textrm{HE}}}=0\;\deg \) , \(\sigma ^{a^{\textrm{HE}}}=20\;\deg \) , \(\mu ^{r}=20\;\textrm{km}\) , \(\sigma ^{r}=10\;\textrm{km}\) , \(r^{\max }=35\;\textrm{km}\) , \(r^{\min }=5\;\textrm{km}\) , \(\mu ^{a^{M}}=0\;\deg \) , and \(\sigma ^{a^{M}}=20\;\deg \) , respectively. The PK variation patterns shown in Fig.  2 are adjusted by manipulating a two-factor pair: the expected target’s leading angle versus heading error and relative distance versus heading error. This study presents two figures to illustrate this manipulation. In Fig.  2 a, the PK variation is based on changes in relative distance and heading error, while the PK induced by only an expected target’s leading angle is kept constant at 1. The engagement region is limited to \(r_{t,w,s} > r^{\min }\) and \(r_{t,w,s} < r^{\max }\) in Fig.  2 (a). The PK reaches its maximum at \(r_{t,w,s}=\mu ^{r}\) and \(a^{\textrm{HE}}_{t,w,s}=\mu ^{a^{\textrm{HE}}}\) , and decreases as the relative distance deviates from \(\mu ^{r}\) and heading error deviates from \(\mu ^{a^{\textrm{HE}}}\) . In Fig.  2 b, the PK induced by only a relative distance is fixed at 1, while the PK variation based on changes in the expected target’s leading angle and heading error is shown. The parameter \(\sigma \) (i.e., \(\sigma ^{r}\) , \(\sigma ^{a^{\textrm{HE}}}\) , and \(\sigma ^{a^{M}}\) ) governs the rate at which the PK decreases. As the value of \(\sigma ^{a^{\textrm{HE}}}\) increases, the decreasing rate of the PK due to heading error decreases. When \(\sigma ^{a^{\textrm{HE}}}\rightarrow \infty \) , the effect of PK variation due to heading errors is diminished in the model. The parameter \(\sigma \) is highly related to the interceptor’s maneuverability, and it is meaningful to examine how the PK variation changes with alterations to \(\sigma ^{a^{\textrm{HE}}}\) .

In the comprehensive design of a fire control system, the development of a weapon–target assignment algorithm operates under the premise that a PK model is available. This PK model can either stem from a distinct computation process or be a streamlined version that captures the core attributes of the complete PK model [ 18 , 47 ]. Subsequently, the accurate PK model is determined and integrated with the weapon–target assignment algorithm. In general, the discrepancy in the PK modeling would lead to a decline in the performance of the weapon–target assignment algorithm. Therefore, an exhaustive and quantitative analysis, including sensitivity assessments, becomes imperative. However, this study focuses on the development of the weapon–target assignment algorithm itself. Thus, it is assumed that the consideration of a streamlined PK model that encapsulates the fundamental features of the accurate PK model is sufficient for achieving this purpose in practice, as in the previous studies [ 18 , 47 ].

As shown in Eqs. ( 4 ) and ( 5 ), we employ scaled Gaussian functions with uniform weighting factors to establish the PK model. This choice stems from the fact that constant scale factors within the PK model have no impact on the optimization outcomes when the objective function aims to maximize the aggregate PK value.

3 Problem Formulation

This section describes the formulations of the WTA problem for three strategies: RF, R, and M strategies, using the mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) framework. The formulation proposed by Kim and colleagues focuses on RF strategy and R strategy separately (i.e., unitary strategy), and it cannot be applied by combining RF and R [ 46 ]. A new formulation for the mixed version of the R and RF strategy is proposed in this chapter. It is worth noting that the main difference between the M strategy and the unitary strategies (R and RF) is whether the decision of a launcher’s orientation angle for each engagement is considered as a decision variable.

3.1 Formulation of Unitary Strategy

The WTA problems can be expressed by defining decision variables and constraints, as well as an objective function that takes into account the degradation of PK resulting from changes in heading errors. The constraints in this problem involve the rotation of the orientation angle of a launcher, and the choice between using the R strategy or the RF strategy depends on whether these constraints are taken into account. Under the RF strategy, the orientation angle of each launcher is fixed during engagement to reduce the delay in firing an interceptor against a target. On the other hand, the R strategy involves aligning the orientation angle of each launcher with the heading angle towards the PIP of a target in order to eliminate the heading errors. Thus, the RF strategy has a short reaction time, so it can engage a large number of targets in a given time, but the PK for each engagement is reduced. The R strategy has a relatively large reaction time, so the number of targets that can be engaged in a given time is reduced, but the PK for each engagement is high.

3.1.1 Decision Variable

The primary determinant in the WTA problem is whether a particular launcher w ’s firing time slot s is designated for a specific target t , which serves as the key variable to be decided. This research defines a decision variable, denoted as \(\ominus _{t,w,s}\) , for unitary strategies. The variable \(\ominus _{t,w,s}\) represents the assignment of a launcher w against a target t at firing time slot s . The variable \(\ominus _{t,w,s}\) is 1 if the launcher w is assigned to the target t at time slot s , otherwise 0.

3.1.2 Objective Function

In this context, the objective function is chosen to reflect the PK function that takes into account the factors of heading errors, relative distance, and the expected target’s leading angle, as previously mentioned. The ultimate goal of the WTA problem considered in this study is to maximize the total PK value of all identified targets as follows:

where the function \(p\left( r_{t,w,s}, a^{\textrm{HE}}_{t,w,s}, a^{M}_{t,w,s}\right) \) indicates the probability of successful destruction of target t by the interceptor launched from launcher w .

3.1.3 Practical Constraints for General WTA Problems

Due to the limited availability of interceptors and a limited time window of opportunity to use them against targets, there are restrictions on assigning launchers to targets. In addition, the system has inherent limitations, including the time required for the launcher to prepare for firing an interceptor and the need to stabilize vibrations resulting from the launch. These conditions and limitations are considered as constraints. One of the primary constraints is that each launcher can only fire one interceptor at a time, which means that each designated time slot for a launcher should be assigned to a specific target. This limitation can be expressed as follows:

In this study, it is assumed that the number of interceptors assigned to each launcher is predetermined without considering the reloading process. Furthermore, as the firing process continues, the number of interceptors available for each launcher decreases, which means that the constraint related to the number of available interceptors should be considered in the WTA problem formulation. Accordingly, the limitation pertaining to the overall number of interceptors available for each launcher can be expressed as follows:

where the variable \(n^{st}_{w}\) represents the highest possible quantity of usable interceptors for a launcher denoted by w . “st” of \(n^{st}_{w}\) is an abbreviation for “stock”. Additionally, it is necessary to set a limit on the number of interceptors that can be assigned to a single target. This restriction is in place to avoid wastage of interceptors due to redundant allocations to a single target. This limitation on the total number of interceptors that can be assigned to a target is expressed as follows:

where the variable \(n^{\textrm{as}}_{t}\) represents the upper limit on the number of interceptors assigned to the target t . “as” of \(n^{\textrm{as}}_{t}\) is an abbreviation for “assign”.

In addition to these constraints, real-world engagement systems have additional practical constraints that should be considered. For example, there is a delay between receiving a firing command and the actual firing of the interceptor. A certain amount of time is also required for the launcher to stabilize after each firing. As a result, the constraints related to the time required for the firing process and the delay between subsequent firings can be formulated as follows:

where the parameter \(\tau ^{d}\) stands for the time required between successive firing processes of a launcher. If a weapon w is assigned to target \(t_{1}\) at time slot \(s_{1}\) , then the value of \(\ominus _{t_{1},w,s_{1}}\) is set to 1; otherwise, it is set to 0. Similarly, if a weapon w is assigned to target \(t_{2}\) at time slot \(s_{2}\) , then the value of \(\ominus _{t_{2},w,s_{2}}\) is set to 1; otherwise, it is set to 0. This constraint ensures that \(\ominus _{t_{1},w,s_{1}}\) and \(\ominus _{t_{2},w,s_{2}}\) cannot both be 1 at the same time, preventing any additional assignment from being made within the time required for the launch procedure.

Moreover, the available firing time slot for a launcher-target pair is determined by the flight time required to reach the PIP, which should be within the interceptor’s maneuverability range. Thus, the feasible firing time slot is defined as the time slot corresponding to the PIP within the engagement region, as given by the following constraint.

where the parameter \(L_{t,w}\) represents the collection of launch time slots associated with the region within which an interceptor fired from the launcher w can reach and intercept the target t . Therefore, any time slots of the launcher w , not included in \(L_{t,w}\) , are unavailable for deployment against the target t .

3.1.4 Additional Constraints for Rotation Strategy

If a WTA problem for the R strategy is considered, it is essential to also take into account time limitations. These include the time needed to rotate an orientation angle of a launcher and the time required to align the launcher and interceptors after the rotation. To calculate the time needed to rotate the launcher’s orientation angle, the required rotation angle and the launcher’s rotational velocity should be considered. The necessary rotation angle for the launcher between two consecutive engagements can be determined using the following equation:

where the variable \(H_{t_{1},w,s_{1}}\) refers to the orientation angle that the launcher w needs to be directed towards the PIP of a specific target \(t_{1}\) at a particular time slot \(s_{1}\) . Similarly, the variable \(H_{t_{2},w,s_{2}}\) represents the orientation angle required for the same launcher w to point towards the PIP of another target \(t_{2}\) at a different time slot \(s_{2}\) . By assuming that the launcher’s rotation speed is constant, we can determine the time required to adjust the orientation angle of the launcher as follows:

where the parameter \(v^{\textrm{rot}}\) represents the angular velocity required to rotate the orientation angle of a launcher, and the variable \(a^{\textrm{rot}}_{w,t{1},s_{1},t_{2},s_{2}}\) represents the extent of the angle that needs to be rotated by the launcher. Additionally, after rotating the orientation angle of a launcher, time to realign internal devices of a launcher is required for the stable fire of the next interceptor. Based on this parameter, the constraint for the required time to rotate the launcher’s orientation angle and stabilize the launcher after rotating can be written as:

where the variable \(\tau ^{\textrm{rot}}_{w,t_{1},s_{1},t_{2},s_{2}}\) denotes the time that the launcher takes to rotate its orientation from the angle \(s_1\) at time \(t_1\) to the angle \(s_2\) at time \(t_2\) . The parameter \(\tau ^{\textrm{align}}\) is a fixed time period required for the launcher to stabilize its orientation following a rotation. In addition, there is a requirement to restrict the range of rotation. To enforce this limitation, the condition that the launcher’s rotation should not exceed the designated angle of rotation can be expressed as follows:

where the variable \(a^{\textrm{ini}}_{w}\) represents the initial orientation angle of launcher w , and the parameter \(a^{\max }\) denotes the maximum allowable range of rotation for the launcher relative to its initial orientation angle.

3.2 Formulation of Mixed Strategy

If a single strategy of either R strategy or RF strategy is applied consistently throughout all engagements, it can impose limitations on its effectiveness. The R strategy aims to eliminate heading errors but incurs a time penalty due to rotation. This approach can yield the maximum predicted PK for each engagement, but it also poses a risk of missing engagement opportunities due to the time lost during rotation. On the other hand, the RF strategy eliminates time loss caused by rotation, but it may result in lower PK due to heading errors. Although this approach may not achieve the maximum predicted PK for all engagements, it eliminates the risk of missed opportunities due to time loss. Moreover, using a single strategy does not resolve the two essential limitations present in both R and RF strategies: the inability to identify the appropriate strategy and select the orientation angle against a target for each engagement.

Consequently, this research paper investigates a new WTA strategy by combining R and RF strategies with orientation angle determination for each engagement. The R strategy determines a rotation angle that aligns with the PIP and only attempts engagement if there is enough time to rotate to the objective angle. However, if there is not enough time, the system may not attempt engagement. To address missed opportunities, incorporating flexibility into the system to engage while maintaining the current angle or rotating within a limited angle range, given the time constraints, could be beneficial. Conversely, the RF strategy maintains a constant orientation angle for all engagements. This implies that even if there is enough time to rotate, the system is unable to choose an alternative to rotate the angle to reduce potential PK loss. In such situations, having flexibility in the system to decide on rotating the angle within specified time constraints could potentially prevent PK loss in some engagements.

To decide whether and how much to rotate the launcher’s orientation angle for each engagement, the decision variable should be changed from \(\ominus _{t,w,s}\) to \(\ominus _{t,w,s,o}\) . However, this modification increases the search space from three to four dimensions, adding the orientation angle as a new variable alongside target, weapon, and time slots. This expansion in search space may result in longer search times and larger input data sizes, making it impractical for real-world air defense systems. To address this issue, we propose a two-level hierarchical formulation of the WTA problem that restricts the increase in search space for a decision variable. Previous studies, including those by Leboucher and colleagues [ 30 ] and Uhm and Lee [ 41 ], have also used a two-level hierarchical structure to solve the WTA problem, particularly when considering PKs that change over time. During the first level of the WTA model, pairs of targets and launchers are chosen while considering time constraints such as firing time windows. The reason why time constraints should be considered in the first level is to prevent the possibility of not being able to engage at the second level due to time constraints such as firing time window and successive launching delay. To account for these constraints, the decision variable \(\ominus _{t,w,s}\) is used. During the second level process, the firing time slot and orientation angle are established for the targets assigned to each launcher. A new decision variable, \(\zeta _{t,s,o}\) , is introduced in the second level to facilitate this process. The decision variable \(\zeta _{t,s,o}\) represents the assignment of time slot s of a certain launcher against a target t at an orientation angle o , and \(\zeta _{t,s,o}\) is 1 if time slot s of a certain launcher against a target t at an orientation angle o ; otherwise 0. The determination of firing time and orientation angle for targets is carried out on a per-launcher basis, meaning that it is performed independently for each launcher. The following formulation is established to address the problem of determining the appropriate firing time and orientation angle for targets assigned to a specific launcher.

The objective function in this context is to obtain the maximum overall PK against assigned targets, similar to that of the first level.

where the variable \(a^{\textrm{HE}}_{t,s,o}\) represents the difference between the orientation angle o of a launcher during the firing time slot s and the approach angle of target t . The variable \(a^{M}_{t,s,o}\) denotes the leading angle of the target. The function \(p\left( r_{t,s,o}, a^{\textrm{HE}}_{t,s,o}, a^{M}_{t,s,o}\right) \) denotes the expected probability of effectively destroying the target t by the interceptor launched during the time slot s with the orientation angle o . It is important to define and take into account limitations related to time, such as the time period for firing and the need to adjust the orientation angle of a launcher. These restrictions should be incorporated into the decision variable \(\zeta _{t,s,o}\) . The constraint specifying that each designated time slot of a launcher can only be assigned to a single target is written as:

where the notation \(\ominus _{t,s,o}\) indicates whether a particular time slot s and orientation angle o have been assigned to a target t . The feasible firing time window for each target is determined as the time slot that corresponds to the PIP within the engagement region, as specified by:

where the parameter \(L_{t}\) represents the set of firing time slots associated with the region in which an interceptor can reach and intercept target t . Thus, any time slots that are not included in \(L_{t}\) are not applicable for deploying against target t . The constraint for successive launches should consider the time required for firing, the time needed to rotate the orientation angle of a launcher, and the assignment of the launcher and interceptors. It can be expressed as:

where the set T represents the assigned targets for a launcher. If the orientation angles \(o_{1}\) and \(o_{2}\) are identical, the RF strategy is chosen. Conversely, if the orientation angles \(o_{1}\) and \(o_{2}\) are different, the R strategy is chosen. The limitation of the range of rotation can be expressed as follows:

Here, the variable \(a^{\textrm{ini}}\) represents the initial orientation angle of a launcher, and the parameter \(a^{\max }\) represents the maximum allowable range of rotation for the launcher relative to its initial orientation angle as described before.

The flow of WTA under unitary strategies

This section delves into two WTA methods: the first one is the unitary strategies developed by Kim et al. (referred to as [ 46 ]), while the second one is a WTA method that combines the R and RF strategies proposed in this study.

The WTA under RF strategy a first engagement, b second engagement, c third engagement

The WTA under R strategy a first engagement, b second engagement, c third engagement

4.1 WTA Under Unitary Strategy

Kim et al. (referenced as [ 46 ]) introduced the RF strategy and R strategy for WTA methods, which utilize the Greedy Maximization (GM) algorithm for efficiency in terms of computation time and performance [ 48 , 49 ]. In the case of WTAs utilizing unitary strategies, a selection and exclusion loop framework is employed, as illustrated in Fig.  3 . The set of candidates ( V ) comprises all possible combinations of targets, weapons, and time slots. During the selection process, a candidate ( \(\ominus ^{*}\) ) is chosen from the candidate set, which maximizes the gain in the candidate set excluding the selection set ( P ) and the exclusion set ( Q ). Once selected, this candidate is added to the selection set. Any candidate that violates constraints due to the inclusion of the new candidate is placed into the exclusion set. This process of selecting and excluding candidates continues until the candidate set (excluding the selection set and the exclusion set) is empty or no further gain can be achieved. In the exclusion phase, the constraints for the stock of selected launchers and the maximum number of interceptors ( \(n_{t}^{\textrm{as}}\) ) for a target within a specific time interval for successive launches are taken into account. Additionally, for the R strategy, the time interval between successive launches includes the time ( \(\tau ^{\textrm{rot}} + \tau ^{\textrm{align}}\) ) required for rotating the orientation angle of a launcher along with the time interval ( \(\tau ^{d}\) ).

Figures  4 and  5 depict sequential engagement strategies used by WTA. Figure  4 employs the RF strategy, which maintains the launcher’s orientation angle at an initial angle of \(a_{\textrm{ini}}\) . To achieve the desired probability of interception and avoid degradation of the PK caused by heading errors, the guided interceptor should have sufficient maneuverability to approach the PIP. The engagement region depicted in Fig.  4 represents the area where the probability of interception satisfies or exceeds a reference value, and the firing window is a constraint that ensures interception occurs within this region. In the case of the RF strategy, where the initial orientation angle is maintained, a significant loss of PK can occur when targets approach from a completely different orientation compared to the initial angle. To mitigate this PK loss, Kim et al. [ 46 ] adjust the initial orientation angle to align with the direction of the target. This adjustment aims to reduce the PK loss, but not necessarily eliminate it entirely.

4.2 WTA Under Mixed Strategy

The flow of CWTA under M strategy

The WTA under the combination of R and RF strategy a first engagement, b second engagement, and c third engagement

The proposed WTA method has been extended to a mixed strategy of RF and R in order to improve upon the unitary strategies of the previous WTA methods. Figure  6 provides an illustration of the process flow for the WTA method under the mixed strategy. This method utilizes the target–launcher assignment results obtained from the WTA method under RF strategy while also implementing an additional procedure in step 1 to determine the initial orientation angle of the launcher based on the target distribution. This step helps to reduce the difference between the launcher’s orientation angle and the target’s approaching angle. In step 2, targets are assigned to each launcher, taking into account time constraints such as the restricted firing time window and delay for successive launches. In step 3, the time slot and orientation angle are determined for each assigned target on an individual launcher basis using the newly proposed Algorithm 1, which builds on the problem formulation presented in Sect.  3 . The constraints relating to the firing window and the time required to rotate the launcher’s orientation angle are inspected to select a feasible solution that satisfies the time limitation. The process of examining these constraints is described in Algorithm 2 in detail.

Sequential engagements from the WTA method under the mixed strategy are illustrated in Fig.  7 . The first engagement is carried out using the RF strategy, which maintains the launcher’s initial orientation angle (i.e., \(a^{\textrm{ini}}\) ). The second engagement is also accomplished using the RF strategy, but a slight loss in PK occurs due to heading errors. The proposed WTA method is capable of selecting R and RF strategies for each engagement. If the R strategy is selected, the extent of rotation is determined to align completely with the PIP or a certain proper angle. The third engagement is computed using the R strategy, but the orientation angle of the launcher rotates close to the completely aligned angle with the PIP. As a result, there is also a slight loss in PK, but the amount of PK loss is less than that of maintaining the initial orientation angle.

The trajectory demonstration of a scenario 1, b scenario 2

Algorithm 1 outlines the process of determining the appropriate pairs of target, orientation angle, and firing time slot using the greedy maximization assignment algorithm. The algorithm follows a selection and exclusion framework and selects a new solution candidate that achieves the maximum marginal gain \(\bigtriangleup f\left( \ominus | P_{w} \right) \) as shown in (lines 14–18). Feasible pairs within the time slot and target set are considered as long as they are not apart from the limit angle of \(a^{\max }\) (lines 2–13). The algorithm also takes into account constraints for the firing time window and rotation angle limit. The exclusion process described in Algorithm 2 ensures that there is no duplicated assignment of each time slot (lines 20–26) and considers the time delay \(\tau ^{d}\) of successive launch, based on the determined strategy of R and RF (lines 2–19). In the RF strategy, only the delay time for the firing process and stabilization of vibration after launch are considered (lines 7–9), while in the R strategy, the time delay for rotating the orientation angle \(\tau ^{\textrm{rot}}_{o,o^{*}}\) and time for alignment \(\tau ^{\textrm{align}}\) after rotation are also considered along with the delay time for firing (lines 11–13).

5 Simulations

This section examines the simulation results of some scenarios using four different methods, and their performance is evaluated based on the indicators recommended by Kim et al. [ 46 ]. These indicators include overall PK ( \(PK^{overall}\) ), PK loss ( \(PK^{loss}\) ), time loss due to rotation, and missed opportunities for engagement ( \(E^{loss}\) ). Table  1 presents a summary of the four distinct methods: WTA-RF, WTA-R, CWTA-RF, and the proposed CWTA-M. The WTA-RF is a conventional method that does not take heading error into account. The WTA-R method applies the R strategy to nullify heading error. The CWTA-RF method follows the RF strategy but initializes the orientation angle based on the target population. Lastly, the CWTA-M proposed in this paper applies both R and RF strategies depending on the situation.

During the simulation, we investigated defense scenarios against a considerable number of targets concentrated in a confined area, specifically low-altitude rocket threats in 3D space. These multiple targets, representing low-altitude rocket threats, were assumed to follow a ballistic trajectory with speeds ranging from 400 to 500 m/s during their descent phase. Additionally, we considered a situation where there are six enemy launchers, and each launcher sequentially fired 18–45 rocket threats. The minimum firing interval in this simulation was set to 0.5 s. To determine the ground target points for the low-altitude rocket threats, we employed Monte Carlo simulations to randomly select locations within a small region of approximately 9 to 12 km \(^2\) . The trajectories of the enemies are illustrated in Fig.  8 a, b. In Fig.  8 a, the enemy launchers are evenly distributed at regular intervals. In contrast, the scenario depicted in Fig.  8 b involves enemy launchers divided into two groups, attacking a specific region within the defense area. The experiment used parameters that reflect realistic weapon systems, with a defense system’s engagement region limited between \(4\;\textrm{km}\) and \(12\;\textrm{km}\) . The experiment assumed two scenarios, each with 6 launchers and up to 270 targets. The time delay between the launching of each interceptor was set to 0.5 seconds, with an average speed of \(400\;\mathrm{m/s}\) assumed for the interceptor. The launcher’s alignment time after launch, rotational speed, and maximum rotation limit were set to \(\tau ^{\textrm{align}} = 1.5\) seconds, \(v^{\textrm{rot}} = 15\) degrees per second, and \(a^{\max } = 60\) degree, respectively. The experiment evaluated the effectiveness of the engagement using a randomly selected chance factor from the PK model. It is presumed that the defensive system’s area of operation for which an interceptor can intercept a target is limited by a maximum radius of \(12\;\textrm{km}\) and a minimum radius of \(4\;\textrm{km}\) . The mean and standard deviation of the engagement range were set to \(\mu ^{r}=\left( r^{\max }+r^{\min }\right) /2\) and \(\sigma ^{r} = 4\;\textrm{km}\) , respectively.

The result of simulation for scenario 1 according to the number of target increase a the overall PK, b the loss of PK, c the loss of time for rotation, and d the loss of engagement opportunity

The result of simulation for scenario 1 according to the standard deviation \(\sigma ^{a_{\textrm{HE}}}\) of heading error increase a the overall PK, b the loss of PK, c the loss of time for rotation, and d the loss of engagement opportunity

The result of simulation for scenario 2 according to the number of target increase, a the overall PK, b the loss of PK, c the loss of time for rotation, and d the loss of engagement opportunity

The result of simulation for scenario 2 according to the standard deviation \(\sigma ^{a_{\textrm{HE}}}\) of heading error increase a the overall PK, b the loss of PK, c the loss of time for rotation, and d the loss of engagement opportunity

The results of the simulation in Fig.  9 exhibit an increase in the number of targets in scenario 1. It is evident that WTA-R is inferior to WTA-RF since the latter nullifies the heading error by rotating the orientation angle of a launcher to the PIP direction. Additionally, CWTA-RF surpasses WTA-RF by reducing the heading error by adjusting the initial orientation angle to the region where PIP is formed. However, there are limitations to both WTA-R and CWTA-RF. While WTA-R improves the vulnerability of WTA-RF, it cannot engage certain targets due to the time required for rotating the orientation angles of launchers. Similarly, CWTA-RF cannot use the rotation strategy, even if there is time to apply it for some targets. To address these limitations, CWTA-M combines both R and RF strategies, resulting in the reduction of missed targets compared to WTA-R, as shown in Fig.  9 d. Additionally, CWTA-M further alleviates PK gradation by heading errors compared to CWTA-RF by applying the R strategy for some engagements, as shown in Fig.  9 b. Figure  9 c demonstrates that CWTA-M reduces the rotation time of launchers compared to WTA-R by applying the RF strategy together with the R strategy. Overall, the simulation results reveal that CWTA-M shows the most dominant performance by overcoming the limitations of both WTA-R and CWTA-RF. In Fig.  10 , the simulation results for scenario 1 display a comparison of the performance of the four methods according to the variable \(\sigma ^{{a_{\textrm{HE}}}}\) , which determines the ratio of PK degradation by heading errors in relation to the interceptor’s characteristics.

As shown in Fig.  11 a, CWTA-M outperforms WTA-R and CWTA-RF in scenario 2 simulations. Figure  11 b indicates that CWTA-M mitigates PK degradation due to heading errors compared to CWTA-RF. Additionally, Fig.  11 d shows that CWTA-M has fewer missed targets than CWTA-R. In Fig.  11 c, there is no significant difference in the time required for rotation. However, the results presented in Fig.  11 b, d suggest that the total amount of rotation is not a crucial factor. Instead, the reduction of missed targets and PK degradation due to heading errors can be achieved by selecting an appropriate rotation strategy for each target, determining when and at what angle to rotate. Figure  12 depicts the simulation results for the increasing values of \(\sigma ^{{a_{\textrm{HE}}}}\) in scenario 2. The trend of the results is similar to that observed in scenario 1. With an increase in \(\sigma ^{{a_{\textrm{HE}}}}\) , the PK degradation ratio decreases due to heading errors. Therefore, if \(\sigma ^{{a_{\textrm{HE}}}}\) increases, the results of the four methods become similar. In this study, our focus is on cases where the impact of heading error on PK degradation is significant. Accordingly, the performance of CWTA-M dominates in situations where \(\sigma ^{{a_{\textrm{HE}}}}\) is less than 10. Similarly, as illustrated in Fig.  12 b, d, it is evident that CWTA-M is superior in terms of the number of targets engaged in PK loss caused by heading errors.

To summarize, the R strategy is effective in mitigating PK loss caused by heading errors and improving engagement success rates. However, its unitary implementation has limitations, as it only determines the rotation angle towards the PIP direction, which may result in missed engagements if there is insufficient time to rotate to the objective orientation angle. In such cases, alternative strategies like the RF strategy or determining a rotation angle within the available time constraints could increase engagement success rates. By allowing for the selection of R and RF strategies and determining the rotation angle for each engagement, the limitation of the unitary R strategy was overcome, and the CWTA-M outperformed WTA under the unitary strategy, as demonstrated in the simulation results.

6 Conclusions

The proposed WTA algorithms aim to improve the defense against multiple targets in narrow areas, which is a challenging task due to the limited maneuverability of interceptors. The use of a rotation strategy to align the orientation angle with the target’s approach direction can significantly improve the PK against the target. However, the unitary implementation of the WTA algorithm with a rotation strategy only aligns the orientation angle toward the PIP direction, which may result in missed engagements if there is insufficient time to rotate to the objective orientation angle. To overcome this limitation, the study proposes a mixed version of the strategy that allows for the selection of R and RF strategies and the determination of the rotation angle for each engagement. This approach can reduce PK degradation and reaction time, leading to better performance against multiple targets. The proposed approach involves the inclusion of a step to determine the rotation angle to determine the R and RF strategy, alongside making modifications to the WTA formulation. Numerical simulations were then conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of these methods. Results from the simulations indicate that the proposed methods outperformed the unitary strategy when faced with multiple targets. One of the main advantages of the proposed algorithms is their ability to overcome PK degradation caused by heading errors while also achieving high performance and efficient use of resources through the flexible application of the R and RF strategy to manage the trade-off between PK degradation and reaction time.

In future research, it would be beneficial to identify additional factors and challenges that could be taken into account during a WTA process to aid decision-making for defending against area targets. Such considerations may include avoiding interference between interceptors, accounting for misidentification between debris and actual targets due to collisions, and expanding sensor–weapon–target assignment problems for cooperative engagements. Additionally, WTA simulations should be conducted using various types of area targets and interceptors, along with more realistic and diverse scenarios that incorporate target attack patterns.

Manne AS (1958) A target-assignment problem. Oper Res 6(3):346–351

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Roux JN, Van Vuuren JH (2007) Threat evaluation and weapon assignment decision support: a review of the state of the art. ORiON 23(2):151–187

Article   Google Scholar  

Day RH (1966) Allocating weapons to target complexes by means of nonlinear programming. Oper Res 14(6):992–1013

Lloyd SP, Witsenhausen HS (1986) Weapon allocation is NP complete. In: Proc. IEEE Summer Comput. Simul. Conf., Reno, pp 1054–1058

Ni M, Yu Z, Ma F, Wu X (2011) A lagrange relaxation method for solving weapon-target assignment problem. Math Probl Eng 2011:873292. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/873292

Denbroeder G, Ellison R, Emerling L (1959) On optimum target assignments. Oper Res 7(3):322–326

Ahuja RK, Kumar A, Jha KC, Orlin JB (2007) Exact and heuristic algorithms for the weapon-target assignment problem. Oper Res 55(6):1136–1146

Lee ZJ, Lee CY, Su SF (2002) An immunity-based ant colony optimization algorithm for solving weapon-target assignment problem. Appl Soft Comput 2(1):39–47

Zhou Y, Li X, Wang W (2016) A discrete particle swarm optimization algorithm applied in constrained static weapon-target assignment problem. In: Proc. IEEE 12th World Congr. Intell. Control Automat. (WCICA), pp 3118–3123

Li P, Wu L, Lu F (2009) A mutation-based GA for weapon-target allocation problem subject to spatial constraints. In: International workshop on intelligent systems and applications. IEEE, pp 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWISA.2009.5072642

Bisht S (2004) Hybrid genetic-simulated annealing algorithm for optimal weapon allocation in multilayer defence scenario. Defence Sci J 54(3):395–405

Blodgett DE, Gendreau M, Guertin F, Potvin J-Y, Seguin R (2003) A tabu search heuristic for resource management in naval warfare. J Heurist 9(2):145–169

Xin B, Chen J, Zhang J, Dou LH, Peng ZH (2010) Efficient decision makings for dynamic weapon-target assignment by virtual permutation and tabu search heuristics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C 40(6):649–662

Lee MZ (2010) Constrained weapon-target assignment: enhanced very large scale neighborhood search algorithm. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 40(1):198–204

Chang Y-Z, Li Z-W, Kou Y-X, Sun Q-P, Yang H-Y, Zhao Z-Y et al (2017) A new approach to weapon-target assignment in cooperative air combat. Math Probl Eng 2017

Wang J, Luo P, Hu X, Zhang X (2018) A hybrid discrete grey wolf optimizer to solve weapon target assignment problems. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc 2018:1–17

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Wang Z, Wang X, Liang Y, Pan Q (2013) Weapon target assignment leveraging strong submodularity. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Inf. Autom., Yinchuan, pp 74–79

Cho DH, Choi HL (2017) Greedy maximization for asset-based weapon-target assignment with time-dependent rewards. In: Wang Y (ed) Cooperative control of multi-agent systems: theory and applications. Wiley, New York, pp 115–139

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Jeong H (2020) Hierarchical lazy greedy algorithm for weapon target assignment. J KIMS Technol 23(4):381–388

Xin B, Wang Y, Chen J (2019) An efficient marginal-return-based constructive heuristic to solve the sensor-weapon-target assignment problem. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 49(2):2536–2547

Karasakal O (2008) Air defense missile-target allocation models for a naval task group. Comput Oper Res 35(2):1759–1770

Bogdanowicz ZR (2009) A new efficient algorithm for optimal assignment of smart weapons to targets. Comput Math Appl 58(4):1759–1770

Google Scholar  

Huaiping C, Jingxu L, Yingwu C, Hao W (2006) Survey of the research on dynamic weapon-target assignment problem. J Syst Eng Electron 17(3):559–565

Hocaoglu MF (2019) Weapon target assignment optimization for land based multi-air defense systems: a goal programming approach. Comput Ind Eng 128:681–689

Mekawey HI, El-Wahab MSA, Hashem M (2009) Novel goal-based weapon target assignment doctrine. J Aerosp Comput Inf Comput 6:2–29

Xin B, Chen J, Peng Z, Dou L, Zhang J (2011) An efficient rule-based constructive heuristic to solve dynamic weapon-target assignment problem. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 41:598–606

Zhang K, Zhou D, Yang Z, Pan Q, Kong W (2019) Constrained multi-objective weapon target assignment for area targets by efficient evolutionary algorithm. IEEE Access 7:176339–176360

Gao C, Kou Y, Li Y, Li Z, Xu A (2011) Multi-objective weapon target assignment based on D-NSGA-III-A. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 7:50240–50254

Kline A, Ahner D, Hill R (2019) The weapon-target assignment problem. Comput Oper Res 105:226–236

Leboucher C, Shin H-S, Siarry P, Chelouah R, Le Ménec S, Tsourdos A (2013) A two-step optimisation method for dynamic weapon target assignment problem. In: Recent advances on meta-heuristics and their application to real scenarios, pp 109–129

Xin B, Chen J, Peng ZH, Dou LH, Zhang J (2011) An efficient rule-based constructive heuristic to solve dynamic weapon-target assignment problem. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 41:598–606

Khosla D (2001) Hybrid genetic approach for the dynamic weapon-target allocation problem. In: Battlespace digitization and network-centric warfare, vol 4396. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 244–260 . https://doi.org/10.1117/12.438322

Xin B, Chen J (2012) An estimation of distribution algorithm with efficient constructive repair/improvement operator for the dynamic weapon-target assignment. In: Proc. 31st Chin. Control Conf., Hefei

Park HW, Choi HL (2011) Weapon-target assignment and firing scheduling for rapid engagement with heterogeneous interceptors. ScienceDirect

Bogdanowicz ZR (2012) Advanced input generating algorithm for effect-based weapon-target pairing optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 42:276–280

Ash M (1959) Letter to the editor-flood’s assignment model for small kill levels. Oper Res 7:258–260

Bogdanowicz ZR, Patel K (2015) Quick collateral damage estimation based on weapons assigned to targets. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 45:762–769

Bogdanowicz ZR, Tolano A, Patel K, Coleman NP (2013) Optimization of weapon-target pairings based on kill probabilities. IEEE Trans Cybern 43:1835–1844

Guo D, Liang Z, Jiang P, Dong X, Li Q, Ren Z (2019) Weapon-target assignment for multi-to-multi interception with grouping constraint. IEEE Access 7:34838–34849

Na H, Lee J (2020) Optimal arrangement of missile defense systems considering kill probability. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 56:972–983

Uhm HS, Lee YH (2019) A heuristic algorithm for weapon target assignment and scheduling. Mil Oper Res 24:53–62

Evans RC (2011) National air defense: Challenges, solution profiles, and technology needs. The MITRE Corporation [Online]. http://ww.mitre.org/work/tech-papers/tech-papers-04/04-1108/04-1108.pdf

Missile defense review (2019). Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2019. [Online]. https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Interactive/2018/11-2019-Missile-Defense-Review/The

Andrew MAJ, Sanders W, US Army: Drone Swarms (2017) School of Advanced Military Studies. United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth

Zhang K, Zhou D, Yang Z, Pan Q, Kong W (2017) Constrained multi-objective weapon target assignment for area targets by efficient evolutionary algorithm. IEEE Access 7:173669–176360

Kim JE, Lee CH, Yi MY (2022) New weapon target assignment algorithms for multiple targets using a rotational strategy and clustering approach. IEEE Access 10:43738–43750

Jang J, Yoon HG, Kim JC, Kim CO (2019) Adaptive weapon-to-target assignment model based on the real-time prediction of hit probability. IEEE Access 7:72210–72220

Krause A, Golovin D (2014) Submodular function maximization. In: Bordeaux L (ed) Tractability practical approaches to hard problems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 71–104

Feldman M, Harshaw C, Karbasi A (2017) Greed is good: near-optimal submodular maximization via greedy optimization . arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.01652

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by KAIST.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Industrial and Systems Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, 34141, Republic of Korea

Ji-Eun Kim & Mun Yong Yi

Aerospace Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, 34141, Republic of Korea

Chang-Hun Lee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mun Yong Yi .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors clarify that there is no competing financial or non-financial interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kim, JE., Lee, CH. & Yi, M.Y. A Study on the Weapon–Target Assignment Problem Considering Heading Error. Int. J. Aeronaut. Space Sci. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42405-024-00717-5

Download citation

Received : 29 March 2023

Revised : 22 August 2023

Accepted : 05 February 2024

Published : 27 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42405-024-00717-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Weapon–target assignment
• Heading error
• Air defense system
• Probability of kill
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Giants Designate Joey Bart For Assignment

• Giants To Select Daulton Jefferies
• DJ LeMahieu Diagnosed With Fracture In Foot
• Anthony DeSclafani Undergoes Season-Ending Flexor Tendon Surgery
• Twins Place Royce Lewis On 10-Day IL, Promote Austin Martin
• Yankees Acquire JT Brubaker From Pirates
• Hoops Rumors
• Pro Football Rumors
• Pro Hockey Rumors

MLB Trade Rumors

By Mark Polishuk | March 31, 2024 at 12:24pm CDT

The Giants have designated catcher Joey Bart for assignment, thus creating 26-man and 40-man roster space for Daulton Jefferies , whose contract selection was reported yesterday.

The move likely marks the end of Bart’s time in San Francisco, which began with great fanfare when the Giants selected the backstop with the second overall pick of the 2018 draft.  Widely considered a top-tier prospect coming out of Georgia Tech, getting drafted by the Giants added another layer of expectation onto Bart since he was now viewed as the heir apparent to franchise legend Buster Posey .

Bart continued to place in top-100 prospect rankings as recently as 2022, yet after posting solid numbers in his first two pro seasons, the catcher was promoted to the majors in 2020 without any Triple-A time.  The lack of a minor league season in 2020 obviously kept Bart from any more minor league seasoning, but even though the Giants clearly liked what they saw of Bart at their alternate training site, he didn’t look ready for the Show while hitting .233/.288/.320 over his first 111 MLB plate appearances.

Posey’s decision to opt out of the 2020 season left a hole for the Giants at the catching position, but he returned with spectacular numbers in 2021 in what ended up being the twelfth and final season of his Cooperstown-worthy career.  Bart played in only two games in the majors in 2021 but still couldn’t seize the job with Posey retired, as Bart hit .215/.296/.364 in 291 PA in 2022.  Injuries further hampered Bart in 2023 as he struggled to a .528 OPS over 95 PA in the majors, and Patrick Bailey ’s ascension to the starting catcher role essentially served as the writing on the wall for Bart’s chances of sticking in San Francisco.

Trade speculation has followed Bart for well over a year, though since Bart is now out of minor league options, teams might have been waiting to force the Giants’ hand with a DFA rather than work out a trade.  It doesn’t seem likely that Bart will pass through waivers without a claim, and it’s possible he might not even end up far outside San Francisco — NBC Sports Bay Area’s Taylor Wirth reports that the Athletics are among the many teams who have scouted Bart.

Now 27 years old, Bart has a career .219/.288/.335 slash line over 503 PA in the Show, and a .274/.357/.434 slash over 554 Triple-A plate appearances.  Those minor league numbers are actually a little underwhelming, considering how Bart played in the hitter-friendly Pacific Coast League.  Bart has also struck out 28.34% of the time in Triple-A, as he has yet to figure out how to make either consistent contact or quality contact against even minor league pitching, let alone MLB hurlers.

With this in mind, it is far from certain that Bart might enjoy a post-hype breakout with a change of scenery.  Simply sticking as a big league regular would be a good outcome given how inconsistent Bart’s pro career has been, but given his prospect pedigree, he’ll certainly get some kind of opportunity from one of the many teams in need of catching depth.

173 Comments

24 hours ago

End of an era

23 hours ago

End of an error?

22 hours ago

To A’s or Rays

A’s, because the[r pick will have priority over the Rays.

A’s have two really talented young catchers already

21 hours ago

Poolhalljunkies, So why are the A’s scouting him?

Yeah but they have Soderstrom in AAA

20 hours ago

Jean Martrac, i have no idea..thier interest makes no sense to.me..perhaps you have some thoughts?..they have langoliers former braves top catching prospect starting who they aquired in the murphy deal..and they also have sodorstrom…do you think they would use bart as a backup since they cant option him?

19 hours ago

Due diligence. Probably most teams have scouted him. Doesn’t mean they liked what they saw.

18 hours ago

Poolhalljunkies, Every team has their own assessment of every ballplayer out there. Maybe the A’s like Bart, and think there’s still some upside. I like Langeliers, but he hasn’t really hit much.

And they can’t count on Soderstrom. He could fail at the ML level just like Bart has. In fact, Bart’s and Soderstrom’s MiL stats are very similar, only a difference of 19 points of OPS. Soderstrom’s had more HRs, but Bart got on base more.

15 hours ago

I’m sure that SF let everyone know that he was available and attempted to find a trade before finally deciding to DFA him. I’m sure lots of teams sent a scout to see what the deal was.

13 hours ago

technically 3

3 hours ago

I dont think you can really compare them currently as there is 5 year age differnce , sodorstrom is 22 this year with alot of potential upside in front of him…bart is 27 and should be in his prime as a player..unless you think hes a late bloomer

18 mins ago

Statistically catchers have the latest development age of any position. So Bart is not too old to be productive, but that’s irrelevant in regard to Soderstrom.

Their current ages are misleading. Bart played 264 games in the MiLs, Soderstrom 270. Most of Bart’s MiL career, almost 200 games, came between the ages of 21 to 24. Soderstrom’s came between the ages of 19 to 22.

Compare their age 21 seasons. Bart played 51 games and had an OPS of .952. Soderstrom played 77 games with an OPS of .834.

The point was both Bart and Soderstrom had/have good MiL numbers. Whether you think they’re comparable or not, the universal truth is no prospect, even with good MiL stats, is a sure thing once they get to the MLs. Soderstrom is not a sure thing.

Well he is going to the BRAVES

Pinto and Rortvedt have been pretty good for the Rays so far.

True.. but catching is almost like pitching…seems like you can never have enough.

8 hours ago

I would not put any stock in Rortvedt’s 7 ABs lol. He was a below average hitter even in the minors.

You wouldn’t want him on the Braves. He has dreads. Oh wait. Sorry, wrong guy. Carry on. =D

And he’ll probably do good like Duvall did lol

About time, just never worked out. He’s still young enough for a second chance

Fish will be looking to trade for cash consideration. We’ve wanted this guy for awhile now.

16 hours ago

Second chance at the bus station. Exact change only please! Ahahaha!

Rays should pick him up

The A’s have first crack and he’s a better C than McCann.

17 hours ago

Cleveland stole six bases off of McCann on Saturday. Bart would be an upgrade. I would not be surprised if Soderstrom is not called up in 2024; the guy can’t hit.

How about the Mariners?

He had a good spring but too little to late. Will be interesting to see if he gets claimed and if someone is willing to roster him all year

he has a good spring every year.

He’d look great in teal!

No doubt he gets claimed.

Doubt Bart makes it to a waiver claim. Some team will jump in with an offer, at least cash or a lottery ticket.

31 mins ago

I’d guess the only way he gets claimed is by a team that immediately DFA’s him themselves, trying to be the one that gets him through waivers so he can be sent down. I can’t imagine there’s a team that wants him on their MLB roster. He just has no value beyond what’s left of his prospect cred.

If I had to guess, I think the Rockies pick him up. Their team is horrendous. They need anyone they can get

I was hoping the Rox would pick him up this past offseason, but since they got Stallings I don’t really think they need help at catcher until Drew Romo or another prospect is ready to take over.

That makes no sense unless Bart has some pitching talents I’m not aware of.

30 mins ago

Rockies hitting is way worse than their pitching. Not that Bart solves that (there’s zero chance they’ll claim him).

This would have been perfect for the Rays before the Ben Rordverdt trade. They probably still could pick him up

Bart might pass through waivers because he’s out of options.

29 mins ago

This. Almost certainly, unless someone throws in a claim with the intention of immediately DFA’ing him and re-starting the cycle.

Wish they had DFAd Wisely and sent Teng back down instead

I agree, Wisely has not done jacksht compafed to Bart

Bart has a .7 WAR over four seasons. That’s also not jacksht.

That’s not a good compafison.

They needed room on 26 man roster. Wisely on 40 but in minors

Why I also said to send Teng back to Sacramento

D’oh!

Fall from Grace

Someone will take a chance on him.

Rockies White Sox

Hey Dinger- White Sox? You don’t know anything about the White Sox do you? They have 5 C’s with more upside than Bart. They need Bart like they need Hemorrhoids. It’s probably the only position they DON’T need.

You mean Quero in AA Hackenberg in AAA Flores in rookie Hernanez in rookie Harris in A Turner in A?

Yeah white Sox should totally not take a flier on Bart in a down year when they’re rebuilding and see if they can fix him.

Taking a chance on Bart doesn’t interfere with anyone in their farm system long term. Quero and Hackenberg could use 1 more minor league season and Hackenberg could be a near end of season call up to give him a look. Taking a chance on Bart giving him a long term look means Hackenberg and Quero can develop more without feeling the need to rush them up in event of an injury.

If he sucks they got him for free. Lost nothing and didn’t affect any long term plans.

You kind of left out Maldonado, Stassi and Korey Lee but by all means talk about nothing. The one thing Getz did was set up the young C’s with Maldonado to get to the young guys. By all means try to sell Bart. You must be related or his agent. They’ve been trying to dump him for years since they found out he’s not going to be Buster Posey. Or Posey’s jockstrap for that matter.

Martin Maldonado who’s 37? Stassi who is 33? Lee who batted. .077 last year?

Yeah they’re definitely in the long term plans. Totally should pass up on a young catcher and give him a shot cause of….. Maldonado, Stassi, and Lee.

Lmao I’m related or his agent cause I’m saying white Sox who currently have bad old options at c should take a free chance on a significantly younger player in a rebuilding year and if it works out great if it doesn’t he was free and they can let him go? Yeah that’s it. Nailed it.

Bart sucks and nobody wants him. Just deal with facts. There’s always Asia and Mexico. Does he speak Japanese or Korean?

So do the white Sox. Match made in heaven. AAAA player meets AAAA team.

They have a cheap owner. They’re not without talent. Unlike your hero.

If they only thing positive you can say about Bart, over those 3, is that he is younger, you don’t have an argument. He’s not a better hitter. He’s not a better defensive player. If the White Sox were looking for younger, they could get someone younger than Bart, and they would probably have a better chance at being successful.

He just doesn’t want to admit the Giants made a horrible pick with the 2nd pick in the draft. It was a waste of the pick. The sooner he goes to a shrink and makes peace with it the sooner he can get on with his life. Trying to peddle his misery on somebody else is sad. The Sox have enough problems, They sure don’t need somebody else’s.

K. Name 1 catcher his age or younger they can get for free.

You’re making a lot of weird random baseless accusations which really tells us your reading skills are subpar.

Me: a rebuilding team should take a chance on Bart. See if he can live up to his draft status. He’s free. White Sox blow this year might as well take a free chance.

Mike: OmG sOx HaVe CatChErS!

Me: a lot of old ones, ones many years away, few who are close and could be promoted for September in 6 months.

Mike: OmG hE sUcKs!

Me: yeah that’s why he’s free. And a change of scenery could help. Not like playing Bart is gonna make the white Sox season any worse. They’ll finish top 5 worse record with or without him.

Mike: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE unintelligible off topic remarks due to poor reading ability.

Mike seems really angry, like his marriage is going the way the Sox season is going.

You really are a blind idiot aren’t you. LMAO.

You’re an angry miserable white Sox fan with reading comprehension issues and clearly lots of personal issues you need to sort through.

Yes your team sucks. They’ll suck are year.

Yes sucky teams take fliers on players other teams get rid of.

Your marriage is probably doomed if this is how you treat your significant other when they say thing you don’t like. You should work on that.

Yeah cheap owner, sure. Pathetic farm system. Pathetic team. White Sox blow and have for a long time.

Just tell me when nobody wants him you’re not going to end it all? I mean the shrink thing is still on the table. Get help before you take the pills. I’d like to say it’s been fun, But it hasn’t. Laughing all the way home.

Tell me. Why are you so upset over mentioning the white Sox suck so they should take a chance on Bart? Why did that trigger you? It obviously affected you significantly.

Is your self worth tied to how Sox do? Thats sad.is the Sox all you have after your family abandoned you? Are you enjoying your Easter alone sad and starring down empty bottles?

Nobody will miss you when you’re gone. I’m sure the kids can’t wait to go live with mom when she leaves you, if she hasn’t already. She made the right decision for what it’s worth.

Remember, yes it was you that ruined your marriage. Enjoy living with that forever.

The wife is dead and the kids are all 40 and have lives of their own and I’m 67 and way smarter than you’ll ever be. Thanks for bringing back memories. Just curious why you didn’t mention the A’s whose owner never found something for free he wouldn’t take? Or the Guardians and Royals whose owners are just as cheap as Reinsdorf. Or why the Giants were trying to peddle him all spring and couldn’t even get an A ball prospect. And now you think everyone thinks he’s going to be valuable. The best he’s ever going to see in MLB is a minor league deal from now on. But thanks again for showing you know absolutely nothing about me and even less about baseball. The Giants are lucky to have you for a fan because you’re dumb.

I guess the censor got rid of him. It’s not a bad thing because he was a moron. Yeah but it’s a good 0-3! Solid! LOL Oh they got rid of your other account. That’s it just move on to the next one. Maybe I’ll report this one and see how many you have.

Make fun of Korey Lee all you want but in 4 at bats this season he has already tied his career high in homers.

I’d be so embarrassed to reach the age of 67 and behave the way you do. You act like an angsty teenager. So many years to grow up and yet you just didn’t bother it seems. How pathetic.

Even the A’s won on opening weekend. How do you do worse than the A’s especially against the Tigers?

lol awe did Mike get upset and flag comments. Cute.

Nope. Changed name so you see a constant reminder of how bad the Sox are this year. But that’s nothing compared to your marriage going down the drain. You should focus on that.

14 hours ago

@uncle Mike, that draft pick was pretty bad. While I don’t totally dosageee I’ve looked at this and even in hindsight it’s hard to say who would have been a better pick. Curious who out of the top 20 picks would you have taken instead of Bart with the information available at the time?

10 hours ago

Bart’s a good player. Better than Bailey. Farhan just wanted his own 1st round pick to be the guy. They sabotaged Bart consistently, batting him 9th with no protection behind him. For a guy with power, that kills a career

Bart has much more power than Bailey, the stamina to play a whole season and no MLB catcher commits more errors than Bailey

4 hours ago

Snellzilla #75 hours ago They sabotaged Bart consistently, batting him 9th with no protection behind him. ======================= Having the #1, 2, and 3 batting behind you is pretty good protection.

28 mins ago

Catcher is VERY far from the Rockies main problem, and their roster is completely full, mostly with young guys. Zero chance.

Flop. Should have traded him.

For what? I’m sure they tried, especially after a good Spring

You really don’t think they tried? If nothing else him being on the roster the first three games proves they were trying. Teams are clearly ready to wait until he hits waivers. I think with a change of scenery he still might be able to find a path to the majors but Bailey is younger and has shown a lot more promise. Good luck Bart

Bart is the better player overall, time will reveal that

For some other team maybe but not the Giants he’s had plenty of chances to show it

Well that’s a fine howdy do…

Roughly 500 plate appearances in the majors, I’m not convinced he is done. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if he still eventually develops into an above average starting catcher.

I’d bet money on it. More than I would on Bailey having the stamina to play the whole season or not leading the league in errors again.

9 hours ago

Are you serious? Bailey had the highest defensive WAR of any player- not catcher, player in the majors last year and didn’t play a full season. If course he didn’t have stamina, he caught a full major league seasons worth of games on the fly after never doing that in the minors- there is a reason that normally that doesn’t happen with rookies, it takes a year or two to adjust to the workload

27 mins ago

Why on earth would you think that? At this point the ONLY thing in his favor is how good he was in college. That was seven years ago. He’s toast and the most likely thing is he’ll be out of baseball in a couple years.

Wasn’t he once considered to be one of the Giants top prospects?

Not since new FO joined the club.

Farhan and Kapler intentionally sabotaged him, because they wanted their own 1st round pick to be the guy.

God you are dumb. Do you really think Farhan had a secret plan to make a player that they needed to step up strike out 60% of the time

Yup, that’s what GMs do. They sabotage as many players as possible in order to get fired.

The scouting report on him was his floor was a backup catcher based on glove and power. He was power over hit and could he hit enough to get to the power and approach his ceiling. He never got off his floor in SF, he was rushed due to injury at MLB level and then had injuries of his own in the minors.

ATL would be a homecoming however it’s tough for catcher’s to be traded intra-season due to their unfamiliarity with staffs. Ex Giant Chadwick Tromp is now the back up in ATL after Murphy’s injury and has been with the organization for some time.

I suspect he wasn’t moved earlier because other teams saw the SFG roster crunch and preferred to wait until he was DFA’s for leverage in trade talks. If you look around MLB you’d be hard pressed to find 29 backups C’s who have Bart’s possible ceiling.

If he doesn’t get traded it’s because SFG deem the offer to “nominal” and instead allow the player to be become a free agent.. That said I see a lottery ticket type of return, Low A pitcher who projects as a RP with 95+ FB who can’t spin anything with 45 control.

6 hours ago

@sfjackcoke And he’s pretty much a backup catcher already, on an ordinary club, about 1 WAR over a full season, probably still with some upside.

A little bit of a platoon edge from the better side, still pre-arb, and should be cheap at arb 1 even after a pretty good 2024.

I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t net a minor leaguer in the range you imply.

25 mins ago

Why would anyone trade something for him when they can get him as a waiver claim? Dude’s been very publicly available since 18 months ago.

Bart, Wiseman, and Lance.

Bay Area busts for the ages

For those of us old enough to remember, Chris Washburn.

If we are talking Warriors busts, we could be here all day. Before Curry and Klay, the Warriors were one of the worst drafting teams in NBA history. Patrick O’Bryant. Ike Diogu. Taking Vince Carter and immediately trading him and picks for Antawn Jamison. Joe Smith at #1 overall ahead of several All Stars including Kevin Garnett. And the classic taking of Todd Fuller two picks before Kobe Bryant.and four picks before local standout Steve Nash.

When you talk about bad draft picks for the bay area teams, nobody comes close to being as bad as JaMarcus Russell. The Raiders screwed the pooch on that one. Coming in second was warrior draft pick Joe Barry Carrol.

2 hours ago

Don’t forget picking Penny Hardaway and then trading him for Chris Webber and 3 – 1st rounders. Then when Webber cried about being with the Warriors (yes I typed the word cried), he gets traded to Gugliata (sp?).

Take that all those bandwagon Warrior fans.

In fairness, they did get 3 first rounders back, including two of the exact same picks they traded to Orlando. Of course those two picks ended up being Todd Fuller (picked over Kobe) and Vince Carter (immediately traded away), so maybe they shouldn’t get credit. Ah the circle of life.

The B in Joey’s name , just like his report card , quickly became an F

I’ll have to try to remember that one, Ed Poo!

2nd Overall….You can’t miss that high up in the draft. Unacceptable. The Giants really were Bochy and Posey for a 5 year period.

briar-patch thatcher, Normally, that’s true, except that 2018 draft class was about the worst one in decades. And every draft has some high picks not develop. It happens to every team. it will be hard to do worse than the Astros did missing on two #1 overall picks over a 3 year span.

Yeah, the entirety of the 2018 MLB draft was a real shat sindwich.

12 hours ago

Although you’re kinda right about Houston, not signing the one guy netted them Bregman the following draft with the comp pick. So it kinda worked out

What about drafting Kyler Murray with the 9th overall pick? I’d say that’s more embarrassing.

Bart was drafted by Bobby Evans, this along with other bad decisions is why he was fired and Zaidi was hired.

Bart wasn’t a mistake, the dude’s good. Farhan just wanted his own 1st round pick to be the guy. We saw how ‘compassionate and kind’ Farhan really is, with JD Davis, Crawford, Madbum, Panda, Renel, ect.

Damn your takes her worse and worse, Farhan had nothing to do with renel- her bosses are ballpark ops that Farhan has nothing to do with and this spring Pablo struck out in 80% of his plate appearances. Would you really DFA Chapman in order to have that on the team?

Snellzilla #75 hours ago We saw how ‘compassionate and kind’ Farhan really is, with JD Davis, Crawford, Madbum ======================= Wait, did you just say that SF should’ve topped AZ’s offer?

5 picks in the first 43 of that draft have been worth more than 5 war. Only one so far worth 10. The only other person that was in discussion worth number 2 was bohm, and he’s barely been better than Bart

I feel like the longer you scroll the better it gets. Drew Rasmussen and Shane McLanahan were good pickup for the Rays. Palacios might also have some upside if he continues the way he played in Spring.

Best of luck to Joey Bart! He hasn’t had an easy time of it. Trying to follow Posey’s footsteps and get through the pandemic without his minor league Triple A time, good grief. He will improve with a solid position on another team, hopefully.

Holy cow ! Didn’t realize he was #2 pick overall. Just rmbr hearing bout em bein nxt big thing in San Fran. The proverbial change of scenery could benefit em or does he just suk ?

He seems like he has gotten somewhat better but he needs a team that can let him fail for a while because he needs to prove that as a bat first catcher he can actually hit. He has a ton of power but also struck out so bad in 2022 that they couldn’t keep him up- over 60% of the time

38% K-rate in 2022! That’s wild. Still, his oWAR projected to be about 2.0 over a full season. And for a catcher. That’s wilder!

What a waste of a roster spot if they designated him after 3 days.

okinnitram, Not really. What were they going to do with that spot anyway? They didn’t need it until today. I think they were playing a bluff, showing other teams they’d roster him, and not let him go cheap. It didn’t work, but it didn’t hurt to try.

Part of it too is that they wanted to see if teams could fill their spots to try to sneak him through waivers. One thing about position players is that they are harder to claim than pitchers because you can usually stash a pitcher in the pen more easily than you can open up a position once the rosters are set

20 mins ago

This. Some people here seem to think a team can pick him up (either trade or waiver claim) and stash him in AAA. They cannot. He’s out of options. A team would have to replace one of their major league catchers with Joey Bart, which is just not gonna happen. Some team (could be the Giants, could be someone else) is gonna outright him eventually, and he will play in the minors this year, but he’s not gonna get traded for or claimed at this point.

Where’s that poor deluded soul who predicted that Bailey would be benched, and Bart made the starter?

Sitting in a corner hiding with the poor deluded soul who said Bart was Rutschman’s equal two years ago.

I said to trade Bart TWO YEARS AGO when he still had a potential upside. Now the Giants get what the little bird left on the rock. Baseball version of Trey Lance.

What a total Jack hoff man

Not allowed to trade guys?

Knowing that Bart knows, I’ve been looking for him in the dugout shots these last 3 games. Saw smiling, laughing and cheering hard. Respect.

Move across the bay to OAK

Nobody wants to live in the Bay Area or play for those teams.

What are you saying, JackHoff? I love living in the Bay Area!

Sad day …too much pressure and hype after Posey. Dude has power I could see him DH for some team and be Rob Deer type force.

Stonecoldaustin, For him to be a DH he needs to make better contact, which he hasn’t been able to do. His best chance is to be a catcher.

Jean Matric Bart was hitting over .300 consistently last year, before he got injured and it affected his performance. Farhan and the front office just want their own 1st round pick to be the guy. The history shows that your point is mute.

Snellzilla #75 hours ago Jean Matric Bart was hitting over .300 consistently last year, ========================= He had a .302 on 5/3, with -0- HRs and a 13/2 K/W. That’s awful.

More likely he just can’t really hit MLB pitching.

These guys have been playing in front of screaming fans (and parents) in packed stadiums since they were eight. The idea that they’d choke and keep choking because they followed a HOFer doesn’t ring true.

Watch the Tampa Bay Rays claim him and turn him into an All-Star LOL

DFAd Bart for a dude that has given up 9 runs today before completing 2 innings smh

Unless Bart can pitch, that’s apples and oranges.

How is Bart behind the plate? I imagine he wouldn’t have been DFA’d if he was above average behind the plate…

ilikesports, According to Statcast he’s not terrible. They have him slightly above average framing, about average throwing, slightly below average blocking, with a poor pop time. He might be able to improve on some of those things If he started to hit he would be serviceable. But that’s a big if.

He’s A’s starting C as soon as they claim em. Best AAAA team very lil money could buy.

17 mins ago

Catcher is the one (and only) position at which the A’s are pretty set for the future.

It’s about time.

They should have just had Bart take the mound today instead — couldn’t have possibly done worse than the guy that replaced him.

Yep! he’s the new Blake Swihart

I have to admit, you guys really care about your team! BTW, can he play defense? If he can, he should go to Atlanta. They do not need his offense! Thank You!

So now Bart can take BART to Oakland.

Sick public transportation burn, TIG!

Bart to the cubs. Finally complete the Bryant trade.

Player to be named way way later.

Giants fans will still clamor not to trade Bart after a good spring training

Trading Bart would be a big mistake

16 mins ago

For the team acquiring him, yeah, although they won’t be giving up anything so no harm no foul.

KBO. Hebwoukd mash there

Good luck Joey, sorry it didn’t work out.

Just another example of how dumb it is to take prospect rankings seriously. It’s just as dumb as high football recruiting stars.

Watched the Bart saga from the start. He did have a good spring this year, but no roster spot and out of options. I think once he is picked up by another team he just might pan out some. He has handled everything surrounding him very professionaly. I think his biggest problem was him getting into his own head at times. The amount of pressure on him has been overwhelming at times. Also don’t think Kapler believed in him at all and that’s a confidence crusher. Joey’s a hard worker and I hope he lands with a team that is able to give him playing time. Tough to be the heir to what Posey did in a Giants uniform. Less pressure now and he just might pan out for another team. I hope it happens for him. He is a standup guy. Good luck Joey.

Biggest problem Bart had was a front office that wanted their own 1st round pick to be the guy, so they batted him 9th with no protection behind him, so he wouldn’t get any good pitches to hit, sabotaged

so they batted him 9th with no protection ==================== The #1 hitter is good protection. You never want to walk a guy in front of the top of the lineup.

All singles this spring pretty much. Bunch of weak base hits. Swing is too long for MLB talent. Might be a solid independent league catcher

Double digit HR power, unlike Bailey. Bart’s double nearly cleared the wall. We just gave up light tower power, for… Jeffries

15 mins ago

I admire your devotion, but Georgia Tech was a long long time ago.

Right, Bailey had all singles pretty much this spring, good point

11 hours ago

He got a 7 million dollar signing bonus He never needs to work another day in his life

I still can not understand why teams need to give squat to draft picks He could go dig ditches if he didn’t want to play baseball, he really did nothing to deserve that bonus as his play has proven

I think this once again proves the insanity of this planet

Uhh. Go team!

By that logic, my cardiologist should also dig ditches.

This is a HUGE mistake! Bailey’s passed ball in the first inning is an omen. Just wait till July, when Bailey’s leading all MLB catchers in errors, batting .220, is too fatigued to play, while Bart has 15-20 HR for another team and is still going strong. Jeffries sucked!

5 hours ago

By golly gosh darn it! I was so looking forward to the Marlins finally accepting that Jesus Luzardo, Edward Cabrera or Braxton Garrett for Joey Bart were fair trades. Now we have no choice but to see if we can convince him to join us for nothing.

Wonder if he’ll come home to the Braves and take a minor league deal. Assuming he clears waivers, etc. Braves need a little depth and clearly can let him work on things if needed. He’s still young enough and catching around the league is so poor that he can turn himself into a fine backup if not starter

I can see the Braves or the Marlins and probably Rays in on him. If I were a betting man, I think there’s a very good chance he ends up with one of our teams to try to start over with a team that’s closer to his home surroundings.

Pirates should have made a move for him over Grandal. Obviously couldn’t have cost much to make a move.

14 mins ago

Bart isn’t in Grandal’s universe as a player. Where are you all getting this idea that the guy can play? Like, at all?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Please login to leave a reply.

Log in Register

• Feeds by Team
• Commenting Policy
• Privacy Policy

MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com

Username or Email Address

Remember Me