new space policy: militarizing space?

[green_meklar]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am amused by all the naive optimists that think the militarization of space is a choice. “Militarization” is no more avoidable in space than oxygen.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />All too true. Space is way too big to stay peaceful forever. Someone, eventually, will build a combat spaceship, and then other people will start doing it too, and pretty soon every sufficiently powerful country will have their own military space fleet. I can't really say what sort of timeframe we can expect, but my guess is the first weapons satellite will probably be up there within the next few decades.<br /><br />One thing I'm wondering is, just what effect would a space battle have on space travel in general? Once enough laser satellites and missiles and so on have blown each other up, there's going to be millions of small debris particles floating around up in orbit. Sure, some of them will fall back down to Earth and a few might get ejected from orbit, but I'm sure there'll be plenty left. Once that happens, how are you supposed to fly up there safely? It's pretty much like walking out into a hailstorm- only the hail is coming at several kilometers per second. It's possible that the first major space battle will mark the start of several decades of minimal space flight, until someone comes up with a way of defending against floating debris. Hmm... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[docm]

"Someone, eventually, will build a combat spaceship,"<br /><br />About 5 minutes after a 50KW fiber or free electron laser (prob. based on laser wakefield acceleration) is compact enough to fit in one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[green_meklar]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>About 5 minutes after a 50KW fiber or free electron laser (prob. based on laser wakefield acceleration) is compact enough to fit in one.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That's about it. -_- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

If you want to build a Battle cruiser Nuclear makes sense, if you want to explore the Solar system out to the Asteroid Belt it's a waste of time, money and payload capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I can't wait for the first pilot radio call: "Nuclear warheads, 6 o'clock high!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

While nuclear reactors would open up many new possibilities for space systems, I have a hard time believing that Congress will give any nuke program sufficient support. Programs to design and build space based nuclear reactors pop up every decade, and then Congress slowly whittles away the funding until it dies. Look at the Jupiter icy moons mission that died in the 2005 or was it 2006 budget. It was scheduled to use our first true nuclear reactor in space.<br /><br />As for the Russians…Don’t for get that they accidentally dropped a nuclear satellite in Canada. Be thankful it landed on the empty tundra and not a population center. One potentially catastrophic failure out of 30 plus is not a comforting success rate.<br /><br />Don’t get me wrong. I’m in favor of nuclear reactors, but we must spend as much or more resources improving shielding systems, and disposal methods, as we do on reactor design. Once you put a reactor into orbit, you must have a plan for returning it as well. You must also assure that when things go horribly wrong, that you will not spread radioactive material throughout the atmosphere. I have no doubt that we can build operational space reactors. I just want to make sure we do it responsibly.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[green_meklar]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If you want to build a Battle cruiser Nuclear makes sense, if you want to explore the Solar system out to the Asteroid Belt it's a waste of time, money and payload capability.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, hey, even the combat ships might carry solar sails for moving around when they aren't fighting. Although they'd have to be pretty big sails if you're also going to haul around a nuclear reactor and some laser cannons.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>While nuclear reactors would open up many new possibilities for space systems, I have a hard time believing that Congress will give any nuke program sufficient support. Programs to design and build space based nuclear reactors pop up every decade, and then Congress slowly whittles away the funding until it dies.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, it's really not surprising. These aren't the people who want to put anything actually efficient up there. What interest do a bunch of politicians have in efficient space travel? Much better to keep it good and expensive so that only a few countries can do it and you're one of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

"Someone, eventually, will build a combat spaceship"<br /><br />May be slightly off topic, but once we are building spaceships, at what point is it prudent to arm them for self defence? Do we do so quickly, to be prepared, just in case they are needed? Or do we wait, until one of our ships gets blown up to decide to arm them? (Whether that be to protect from other human ships, or the remote possibility that we find other life that is hostile?)<br /><br />If we get to where we are able to build and use a crewed, long range exploration ship, should that be armed? In doing so is it more likely to prevoke any other explorers we might encounter, or is it being prepared to defend ourselves? Just curious as to your answers.<br /><br />Rae

 

[scottb50]

I wonder where this threat is even coming from. If China, Russia or Europe start arming then it would be prudent to follow suit. If the U.S. starts arming it would also be prudent for them to do the same thing. Sounds real familiar, if there isn't a threat manufacture one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[oscar1]

The threat is coming from Ian Flemming, who wrote 'Moonraker' in 1955.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> If you want to build a Battle cruiser Nuclear makes sense, if you want to explore the Solar system out to the Asteroid Belt it's a waste of time, money and payload capability. </font><br /><br /> It took Apollo 3 days to get to the Moon, with a NERVA type engine you could make a round trip in 24 hours from Earth orbit, with a brief stop on the surface of the Moon, & be able to make the same trip 15 more times before you have to replace the engine. Also, you have the reusability factor, you don’t have to ditch your LH2 tanks, you just refill them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I'm sure you are right about Congress they can't get anything done. I am placing my hope that NASA will do the designs, & PE will pick up the ball & run with it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[scottb50]

with a NERVA type engine you could make a round trip in 24 hours from Earth orbit...<br /><br />At least you wouldn't have to worry about zero gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Oscar1:<br />The threat is coming from Ian Flemming, who wrote 'Moonraker' in 1955.<br /><br />Me:<br />I'd like to see what they used to get into space in that story. Recalling the 1979 movie and the moonrakers were the current shuttle vehicles which didn't exist in 1955. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

NERVA wasn't that good....It had an ISP of less than 1000 if I recall. And the reactor itself weighs a lot.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> NERVA wasn't that good.... </font><br /><br />Does the car you drive use technology from 1972? A “NERVA type” built with modern materials & methods will be much lighter & every kilo you save from the engine can go into the gas tank<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> It had an ISP of less than 1000 if I recall. </font><br /><br />You are absolutely right<img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /><br /><br /> What was the ISP on Apollo? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> And the reactor itself weighs a lot. </font><br /><br />Nuc’s are the only way to go if you don’t want to leave fuel tanks floating all over the Solar System<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow">with a NERVA type engine you could make a round trip in 24 hours from Earth orbit... </font><br /><br /> I figured it all out with rough calculations once, using a NERVA engine with 900 ISP, as a base. The ship went from Earth orbit to lunar orbit & dropped off a module, then returned. The burns ranged from 45 seconds to 7 minutes & the fuel used was around 1.2 million pounds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[green_meklar]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>May be slightly off topic, but once we are building spaceships, at what point is it prudent to arm them for self defence? Do we do so quickly, to be prepared, just in case they are needed? Or do we wait, until one of our ships gets blown up to decide to arm them?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, at the very least we'd wait until there was someone up there to defend the ships against. I think it will probably involve a sort of arms race: One spacefaring country builds a military ship, all the others immediately follow.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If we get to where we are able to build and use a crewed, long range exploration ship, should that be armed?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Probably not the first ones. Because of the cost of building spaceships, weapons will probably be kept on the military ships only until the cost can be brought down. Long-range exploration ships are also ome of the most expensive ships to build for their mass, because they have to be carrying a good drive and lots of fancy equipment. However, once we're going to be sending out manned missions to other stars, those ships may carry some defensive weapons.<br /><br />Of course, at this point we're sort of getting into science fiction here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

green_meklar:<br />Well, at the very least we'd wait until there was someone up there to defend the ships against. I think it will probably involve a sort of arms race: One spacefaring country builds a military ship, all the others immediately follow.<br /><br />Me:<br />Makes perfect sense and another thing, we'd also have to know what the other guys capabilities are to know what level to arm to and what type of armaments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Boris1961:<br />What was the ISP on Apollo?<br /><br />Me:<br />NERVA ISP was thought to be in the 800-900 range IIRC. Apollo would be around 450 for the Saturn cryo upper stages including the critical third stage which kicked the craft to the moon. Apollo CSM and LM would have been around 250-300 range as they utilized hypergols.<br /><br />Boris:<br />Nuc’s are the only way to go if you don’t want to leave fuel tanks floating all over the Solar System.<br /><br />Me:<br />Nuclear thermal systems will still require disposing tanks but this really won't be problem in the same way that earthly pollution or even low orbit debris is because of the sheer vastness of space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

but this really won't be problem in the same way that earthly pollution or even low orbit debris is because of the sheer vastness of space...<br /><br />Somehow that reminds me of the rationalizations made about a lot of things that are bad for you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>"Somehow that reminds me of the rationalizations made about a lot of things that are bad for you."<br /><br />Like DDT? Ignoring the 50,000,000+ unnecessary and totally avoidable malaria deaths, how many lives did eliminating that save?

 

[lorneipsum]

Gang,<br /><br />Since there isn't much in the way of analysis of this document online (but plenty of speculation, as always), I decided to do a point-by-point comparison of the 2006 and 1996 documents. It's online in handy podcast form here.<br /><br />My take: not much new here, it seems to primarily be a formalization of previously announced stuff. Some of the items folks are getting the most spun up about were in the previous version as well.<br /><br />Lorne