Northrup hybrid launch vehicle

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The EELV projects would be far closer to this concept than anything manned. So the military, which would make use of such a system to rapidly launch its communications, spy, and GPS satellites would indeed have the funding for this!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />True. I just picked Dynasoar because a lot of folks here know about it.<br /><br />But this isn't just a 60s problem, or a manned spaceflight problem. I saw a military satellite program get cancelled out of the blue when it was nearly completed. (Way past the paper stage. Way past where Dynasoar was. It should've launched in 2007.) Another was delayed severely. Other non-space military programs have been delayed or cancelled. (JUCAS is history, for instance.) I'm not saying the military has no money, it's just that you should not expect it to have bottomless pockets. Especially with large fighting forces actively working in two countries right now, the DoD is not a money tree. Competition for contracts is fierce right now as a consequence. They're not awarding as many contracts, they're scaling existing contracts back, and they're even cancelling programs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

One could put a MOAB or CAV on it's back and be able to lob it on a ballistic path deep into enemy territory safely - then re-use the booster.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">One could put a MOAB or CAV on it's back and be able to lob it on a ballistic path deep into enemy territory safely - then re-use the booster. </font><br /><br />The current CAV is too big for the subscale version, maybe the full blown version. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Do you have access to the JWS ORS ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">..... I'm not saying the military has no money, it's just that you should not expect it to have bottomless pockets. Especially with large fighting forces actively working in two countries right now, the DoD is not a money tree. Competition for contracts is fierce right now as a consequence. </font><br /><br /><br />That's true. Here's an excerpt from the beginning of this government fiscal year...<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>House, Senate Appropriators Likely to Cut Space Programs in Fiscal 2006 <br />Aviation Week & Space Technology <br />10/31/2005, page 24 <br />Amy Butler <br />Washington <br /><br />.................. and Defense Dept. officials are bracing for major cuts--possibly as much as $13 billion in Fiscal 2007 alone--as they prepare their next budget, which is due to Congress in February. The outcome of the upcoming conference between members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees will the set the stage for this year's budget work. A date has not yet been set for the conference, although staffers expect it will take place in the next few weeks. Since Fiscal 2006 began this month, the government has been operating under a continuing resolution, which restricts accounts to funding levels approved in Fiscal 2005. <br /><br />The Air Force's space programs are among the ripest for cuts, both because they occupy a massive amount of the research-and-development budget and because they have underperformed in recent years because of faulty cost estimating and anemic systems-engineering oversight. As Congress zeroes in on those space programs, USAF officials are also looking ahead to cut $5 billion for Fiscal 2007.....................<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The Air Force's space programs are among the ripest for cuts, both because they occupy a massive amount of the research-and-development budget and because they have underperformed in recent years because of faulty cost estimating and anemic systems-engineering oversight. "<br /><br />www.thespacereview.com has carried stories about USAF mismanagement of space programs. The position has been put forth that USAF chronic mismanagement is a good reason to split Space Command off of the USAF and make it a separate military service, just as the Army Air Force was split off of the U.S Army to form the USAF. Supposedly the mismanagement problem is due to a lack of professionalism, as fighter-jocks are in command and don't have the proper experience base for managing space vehicle programs.<br /><br />I could see the logic of placing such disparate organizations as NRO (National Reconnaissance Office), USAF Space Command, and the BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Organization) under the roof of a new military service. The same kind of rationalization occured when various special operation groups such as the Green Berets and the SEALS were placed under the control of the U.S. Special Operations Command with great success.<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

That seems very sensible to me. Space is (or should be) managed differently from military aviation, as it requires a different set of skills. And I can concur that there has been mismanagement at a system level of these programs in the USAF. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

My original statement was in reply to:<br /><br />"Yet another proposal that will run up against the cost barrier eventually...if it even gets that far."<br /><br />I think it was qso1. I really hate it when people make depressing and automatic statements like this! Thr statement may even end up being correct, but I just don't like it when we curse something that actually sounds pretty good, just because there are bean counter in the government!<br /><br />I fully realize that any project can be subject to cancellation at any time, but still being an idealist I prefer a more positive outlook!

 

[CalliArcale]

Fair enough.<br /><br />I have high hopes for this concept too. It's not the first time a winged reusable first stage has been proposed, so hopefully this time it'll get a bit farther. It's not as overambitious as Venturestar. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

I agree with GNR. A separate Space Force with Space Command, NRO, BMDO, and maybe even the ICBM forces.<br /><br />There have been bright lights with the USAF space programs, particularly the TacSat program, which has had considerable success producing minsats and microsats with small budgets in a single budget cycle. If a similar philosophy can be brought to their other programs, focused in a dedicated service, then there is significant potential for improvement.<br /><br />I would also suggest that Space Force take over NASA's manned space program and whittle it down to a lean organization.

 

[qso1]

frodo1008:<br />Not if it is the military that is going to do it! Compared to NASA their funding is unlimited!<br /><br />Me:<br />Its true the military space budget is significantly higher than NASAs. Last published estimate I recall was $20B dollars in the late 1990s. The military however, does not see a need to put humans into space. The MOL project was cancelled probably because the military was already developing the KH-9 spysat and the KH-11 was not far behind. Since one of the major tasks of MOL would have been recon, there seemed to be no need for humans to do that. Not with KH-11s and follow ons doing most of the recon tasks. As CalliArcale pointed out, its too bad the military abandoned manned space flight as demonstrated by Dyna Soars canx. If the mil could see a need...or perhaps has in recent times. The cost barrier would be less likely to be a problem.<br /><br />If some reports of secret aircraft are true, especially a secret TSTO. The military may have then had a change of mind about man in space. This has yet to be proven.<br /><br />Overall however, I think my reason for cynicism in regards to this announcement is its all been seen before. Just cut and paste low cost access, robust, early availability...especially since the late 1980s with NASP, Orient Express, Delta Clipper, X-33, Waveriders, Kistlers first proposal on the cover of a 1992 Ad Astra magazine, Hypersoar, Roton and the list goes on.<br /><br />They all meet the cost barrier eventually. <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>

 

[frodo1008]

OK, that doesn't sound so harshly negative, and that was my only real complaint! When people get even somewhat sarcastic on this forum they can expect me to get disturbed at them. I have seen far too much of this type of behavior over on free space (where it can be expected to some extent) to see it get a foot hold over here!<br /><br />To be honest with you, I too have doubts about the continued funding of many programs!<br /><br />One thing that I did notice in your list is that most of those programs were either NASA programs (NASP, X33), and we do know about NASA's limited funding levels. Many of the others were pure private start up efforts, and their funding is even worse than that of NASA! Many of these types of projects never even get beyond the paper and Powerpoint presentation stages!<br /><br />There is however some degree of hope for this one. It is being proposed by a company that has a good track record of achievement. And is being proposed to a military that has for some time now expressed a great desire for just such a rapid responce system. The military is capable of moving mountains when it wishes, just witness the EELV programs!<br /><br />So, there is at least more of a degree of hope than usually!

 

[frodo1008]

By the way don't feel as if I was singling you out, I have also reacted to others as well. Primarily spacefire, but he has indeed improved a great deal.<br /><br />There was only one hopeless case, and that was the Italian fellow (can't remember his entire moniker but it started with "gaet"). Even he was not always wrong, but his attitude was even worse than some over on free space! I think the MODS themselves finally had to get involved!<br /><br />I have no argument with people beeing realistically negative, it is the degree of negativity that can be annoying to me!<br /><br />As I stated though your last post was a great improvement, keep up the good work!