The Space Coalition

[marcel_leonard]

How many of you feel that the Space Coalition of Boeing/Lockheed Martin are monopolizing new technologies, and slowing down affordable advances in space exploration? <br /><br />Space Coalition <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[grooble]

I am hoping that companies like SpaceX will prove good competition.

 

[CalliArcale]

I'm afraid something's wrong with your picture, marcel_leonard. The image tool choked on it. It may have become corrupted during upload. Try posting it again, or e-mail it to me at calliarcale@inorbit.com and I'll see what I can do with it. <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>

 

[space_tycoon]

This is the first I've heard of it. If these two behemoths truly are merging to do space projects, I don't see how it can be seen as anything other than a move towards greater monopolization--heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer. It will make it more difficult for the smaller companies to compete, in my view. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[termite]

Hopefully it shouldnt be a problem, the two advantages small companies have are innovation from necessity, due to lack of funds. And the fact that large organisations can be slow at adopting and implementing new technologies.They tend to stick with "tried and tested" to minimise risk and maximise profit, especially when shareholders are involved.<br />As long as the indipendants can avoid having to sell their ideas at the early stages of developement they should still be able to compete.

 

[north_star_rising]

marcel_leonard, what is the Space Coalition? Have never heard of this before?<br /><br />

 

[marcel_leonard]

The Space Coalition consists of Boeing/Lockheed Martin, and few other general defense contractors.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[north_star_rising]

marcel_leonard, do they have a web site or formal association contact info?

 

[pu_aero]

It was only recently announced that Boeing and LMCO will team up in a venture called "United Launch Alliance". Here's a link to a story about it:<br />http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=7ed22083-b0a2-498b-8cf3-024287ee3b24&<br /><br />The potential of the lack of competition to stifling progress makes me rather nervous about the whole dea, but if I were a tad more optimistic, I would say "It's not a problem. Since both companies' launch vehicles will be available choices for customers they will still have to compete technologically, even though services are consolidated."<br />But my pessimistic nature makes me worry that that situation won't last for long.<br /><br />-G

 

[R1]

I think it's called the 'United Space Alliance' (USA)<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[craigmac]

In all business from the software/ hardware, automobiles, telecommunications, and aerospace gigantic monopolies seem to be the name of the game. Whether you’re talking about Microsoft, Boeing, or AT&T the United States says is against anti-trust violations but when it comes to enforcing the laws they have on the books they are either unable or unwilling to do anything to stop it.<br /><br />Just like we hate to watch the genocide taking place in places like Rwanda, Sierra Leon, or the Middle East yet we won’t do anything about the real weapons of mass destruction the U.S. M16 and the Russian/Chinese AK47.<br />

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard:<br />How many of you feel that the Space Coalition of Boeing/Lockheed Martin are monopolizing new technologies, and slowing down affordable advances in space exploration?<br /><br />Me:<br />I'm sure they are having some effect and I'm sure they don't want competition but one person and his company did show its possible to get around the giants of aerospace. Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites. I'd be willing to bet Lockmart and Boeing would love to know more about the composites that Burt and his company have developed. To say nothing of being on the ground floor of space tourism.<br /><br />How did Burt and company get around the giants?<br /><br />They kept their yaps closed while developing spaceship 1 and probably their previous aircraft projects. I've seen people complain over the past three decades about such things as 90 mpg carburetors being suppressed by big oil or aerospace companies suppressing the small guy. Lesson learned, when developing something, tell nobody until you can demonstrate your product to the world through the media. <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>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I like the way Rutan and company pulled off winning the X-Prize. I just find it hard to believe that LockMart/Boeing and the federal government don’t already have a secret fully functional OSP flying LEO/MEO missions for the military, and they've been keeping NASA, and the general pubic at large in the dark for the past two decades by keeping the out dated shuttle program front page news. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

" I just find it hard to believe that LockMart/Boeing and the federal government don’t already have a secret fully functional OSP flying LEO/MEO missions for the military, and they've been keeping NASA, and the general pubic at large in the dark for the past two decades by keeping the out dated shuttle program front page news."<br /><br /><br /> They don’t need an OSP to spy with; unmanned satellites can & do that very well. <br /> <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>

 

[qso1]

One reason it would be hard to keep such a program secret is that there are amateur rocket and spacecraft observers worldwide. IIRC, one is known as the "Kettering group". I've posted the link below but Googling pulls up more links.<br /><br />http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm<br /><br />If you visit the link, note the Cosmos 112 portion in particular. They were able to locate the launch site. They cannot always glean details of the craft once they reach orbit as far as what the crafts purpose is, but they would notice something like an OSP which is shaped in such a way as to know undeniably that it is an aerospace plane type craft.<br /><br />The big companies would also benefit more if they had secret OSP type craft I would think, in part from being able to sell them to airliner type operators here and abroad.<br /><br />While its possible Lockmart, Boeing, and NASA are doing what your saying. I find it highly improbable that they would. Stifle competition if they can but thats not always an easy task as shown by Rutans rather unexpected emergence into the field of human spaceflight. <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>

 

[marcel_leonard]

It has been my experience to <i>"never say never"</i>. The ancient Chinese kept the knowledge of how to make paper and gunpowder secret from the general public for nearly a hundred years.<br /><br />During the Dark Ages in Europe the Rome Catholic Church read scripture in Latin; then made it a crime punishable by death to teach Latin to anyone other than priest, and nobility.<br /><br />In this day and age were the average American still doesn’t use the metric system; is more interested in what kind of crib Mariah Carey lives in, and with the exception of a few nerds like myself could careless when the next shuttle launches or not I don’t think it’s a far stretch for the military to keep an OSP secret. <br /><br />The main reason for secrecy is to prevent proliferation by other nations to adopt the same technology. You saw what happened to the nuclear warheads; they're becoming just as common place in the Third World as the AK47, and RPGs. Now imagine a country like Korea or Iran w/ a fairly easy to acquire Delta V/ Arianespace rocket, and retrofitting it with a nuclear warhead armed OSP. Not eveyone sees w/ the same wonderous eyes at the field of space exploration. There are some that see space as just another battlefield...<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard:<br />It has been my experience to "never say never". The ancient Chinese kept the knowledge of how to make paper and gunpowder secret from the general public for nearly a hundred years.<br /><br />Me<br />I would agree never to say never but two things come to mind with the ancient Chinese gunpowder analogy. There were no mass communications at that time, so that kind of secret was much easier to keep, and China was not a democracy.<br /><br />marcel_leonard:<br />During the Dark Ages in Europe the Rome Catholic Church read scripture in Latin; then made it a crime punishable by death to teach Latin to anyone other than priest, and nobility.<br /><br />Me:<br />They were a theocracy at best and this IIRC was before the printing press which again made both keeping the secret and justifying keeping it easier.<br /><br />marcel_leonard:<br />In this day and age were the average American still doesn’t use the metric system;<br /><br />Me:<br />That is the fault of the average american. Nobody is keeping the system from them nor is anyone keeping shuttle launch or other spaceflight info from them.<br /><br />I'm not the sharpest tack in the tool box but I've researched aerospace enough over the years to have seen what the average American thinks is going on and many of them assume there are a lot more secrets than there really are. I have had people in the military tell me I shouldn't reveal military secrets after I just got done telling of stuff that was open source info they were assuming was secret.<br /><br />Having said that, I'm always aware that the military/government keeps secrets. As I have no access to their secret stuff, trying to figure out what they have is speculation that can work both ways. The OSP thing could be one of those but given what I mentioned in earlier threads, its not something that could be kept secret for long. I'll add one other thing. The OSP would have to be concealed within a launch vehicle fairing that would add considerable weight to the l <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]

marcel_leonard:<br />Not eveyone sees w/ the same wonderous eyes at the field of space exploration. There are some that see space as just another battlefield...<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats true of course, and from what I've seen...its already something most people with any knowledge of it at all are aware of. The military has talked of militarizing space for decades but even they decided man in space for military functions is limited at best. In the 1960s, an OSP type vehicle called Dyna Soar was canceled for that reason. The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) was cancelled in 1969. The DOD didn't specify why at that time but by 1978, the answer emerged as the unmanned KH-11 digital recon satellite.<br /><br />The technical part of your argument is one of those assumed by the public to be going on but not necessarily useful in actual military practice which I'll break down below.<br /><br />marcel_leonard:<br />You saw what happened to the nuclear warheads; they're becoming just as common place in the Third World as the AK47, and RPGs...<br /><br />Me:<br />Nuclear technology is much harder to aquire than AK 47s. The data to back this up, there are 7 demonstrated nuclear powers (Nuclear club) in the world today.<br />USA.<br /><br />Russia<br />(Former Soviet including any splitoff countries that still have nukes such as the Ukraine which may have given their up by now per treaty with Russia).<br /><br />China.<br /><br />Britain.<br /><br />France.<br /><br />India.<br /><br />Pakistan.<br /><br />One claims to have had a nuclear weapons program.<br />S. Africa<br />They claimed responsibility for a test detected in 1979 that was thought to be Israels at the time.<br /><br />Undemonstrated but strongly suspected as having them already:<br />Israel<br />Most intel suggests Israel has them but demonstrating one IMO gets you into the nuclear club.<br /><br />Potential nuclear powers, that is, those close to who may have a few:<br />N. Korea.<br /><br />Iran.<br /><br />And a few more I cannot recall now. Nuclear <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>

 

[annodomini2]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Orginally posted by qso1[QB]marcel_leonard: <br />It has been my experience to "never say never". The ancient Chinese kept the knowledge of how to make paper and gunpowder secret from the general public for nearly a hundred years. <br /><br />Me <br />I would agree never to say never but two things come to mind with the ancient Chinese gunpowder analogy. There were no mass communications at that time, so that kind of secret was much easier to keep, and China was not a democracy. <br /><br />marcel_leonard: <br />During the Dark Ages in Europe the Rome Catholic Church read scripture in Latin; then made it a crime punishable by death to teach Latin to anyone other than priest, and nobility. <br /><br />Me: <br />They were a theocracy at best and this IIRC was before the printing press which again made both keeping the secret and justifying keeping it easier. <br /><br />marcel_leonard: <br />In this day and age were the average American still doesn’t use the metric system; <br /><br />Me: <br />That is the fault of the average american. Nobody is keeping the system from them nor is anyone keeping shuttle launch or other spaceflight info from them. <br /><br />I'm not the sharpest tack in the tool box but I've researched aerospace enough over the years to have seen what the average American thinks is going on and many of them assume there are a lot more secrets than there really are. I have had people in the military tell me I shouldn't reveal military secrets after I just got done telling of stuff that was open source info they were assuming was secret. <br /><br />Having said that, I'm always aware that the military/government keeps secrets. As I have no access to their secret stuff, trying to figure out what they have is speculation that can work both ways. The OSP thing could be one of those but given what I mentioned in earlier threads, its not something that could be kept secret for long. I'll add one other thing. The OSP wou</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I’m in total agreement w/ you that Uncle Sam is good at hiding things from the rest of his family, and sometimes for good reasons. There are some who argue that it was not necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and if the U.S. had bombed one of the surrounding unmanned islands of Japan the emperor would have got the message loud and clear. In fact it was the international press of thousands of victims who later died from the fall out, and black rain that outraged the world community; making all the major powers race back to their respective physics labs in order to build their own nuclear devices. Which brings us to present day; where we find developing countries gaining access to nuclear devices, although I would be the first one to tell you that the really weapon of mass destruction is the AK47/M16.<br /><br />My point being this is why Uncle Sam knows how to keep a secret. He has learned from his past mistakes. One year after he bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the USSR announce they to had a nuclear weapon. As for my speculations on an OSP armed w/ a warhead it has been said that there is no place to hide in orbit. I would have to disagree with that statement. With the constant advancements in stealth technology and the fact that GEO, MEO, and LEO are littered with countless satellites and space debris a nuclear platform could remain hidden for decades in orbit.<br /><br />Finally we come to the topic of the metric system: While doing a research paper for my MS in Telecommunications I came across the average cost of design/build, and launching a satellite at 150 million dollars U.S. Part of the expense is because rockets are used only once; the other part of the cost believe it or not is that a large majority of the parts come from oversea and are measured twice. The components are measured, tooled, and manufactured in factories using the metric systems and a unit cost is assigned to these parts using the same SI Unit system. Once they are shipped in cargo containe <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[annodomini2]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I’m in total agreement w/ you that Uncle Sam is good at hiding things from the rest of his family, and sometimes for good reasons. There are some who argue that it was not necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and if the U.S. had bombed one of the surrounding unmanned islands of Japan the emperor would have got the message loud and clear. In fact it was the international press of thousands of victims who later died from the fall out, and black rain that outraged the world community; making all the major powers race back to their respective physics labs in order to build their own nuclear devices. Which brings us to present day; where we find developing countries gaining access to nuclear devices, although I would be the first one to tell you that the really weapon of mass destruction is the AK47/M16.<br /><br />My point being this is why Uncle Sam knows how to keep a secret. He has learned from his past mistakes. One year after he bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the USSR announce they to had a nuclear weapon. As for my speculations on an OSP armed w/ a warhead it has been said that there is no place to hide in orbit. I would have to disagree with that statement. With the constant advancements in stealth technology and the fact that GEO, MEO, and LEO are littered with countless satellites and space debris a nuclear platform could remain hidden for decades in orbit.<br /><br />Finally we come to the topic of the metric system: While doing a research paper for my MS in Telecommunications I came across the average cost of design/build, and launching a satellite at 150 million dollars U.S. Part of the expense is because rockets are used only once; the other part of the cost believe it or not is that a large majority of the parts come from oversea and are measured twice. The components are measured, tooled, and manufactured in factories using the metric systems and a unit cost is assigned to these parts using the sa</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[torino10]

As far as the space coalition is concerned, big Aerospace is making a doomed attempt at putting the Genii back in the bottle. <br />As far as the US government trying to hide a space based weapon system, not very likely, they may have been trying it in the late 80's , early 90's but the growth of information technology has pretty much rendered any high profile black tech ops more dangerous as a political disaster than as an asset for tactical military purposes. The US intelligence establishment has been Highley dependant on technological superiority. It is not surprising that there lack of Human intelligence assets are prescisley the assets required to fight a global idealogical war.

 

[webtaz99]

Why would the military bother with a "stealth orbital space plane" for delivering nukes when they have missile subs, ICBMS and B2s?<br /><br />What they do want is a way to quickly park a small surveillance sat over a sudden hot-spot which can provide intel while they move more conventional assets to the area. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[fatjoe]

In Sun Tzu’s Art of War he speaks on deception as being one of the greatest weapons which one can possess in battle. I tend to agree my logic behind this is that for the past fifty years NASA, and the Air Forces have been testing and researching RLVs and OSPs. With all those billions of tax payer dollars being spent on avionic R/D I find it hard to believe that the same country that put Neil Armstrong’s foot prints on the Moon; would have such a difficult time developing a surface to orbit reusable spacecraft.

 

[nibb31]

You do not answer the question.<br /><br />Why would the military need an orbital space plane? It has no operation use.