The Space Coalition

[qso1]

annodomini2:<br />The US kept the F117 and the B2 totally classified for at least 10years...<br /><br />Me:<br />The F-117 and B-2 were among the best kept secrets but even they were not a total secret because the stealth program leaked almost 10 years before the aircraft became public knowledge. The F-117 was rumored to be the F-19 and the B-2 was conceptualized in several ways but the final version of the B-2 was pretty well kept secret.<br /><br />The problem with keeping spacecraft secret is that first off, the launch of a significant mass such as an OSP would require a fairly large LV. This LV would be observed by amateur trackers for many miles. They would have a difficult time tracking in the event of an unnanounced launch but they've been able to track launches with a high degree of accuracy in the past.<br /><br />Once on orbit, an OSP would give itself away to trackers with telescopic equipment by its shape. Despite that, I did say "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" and that means we can also be speculating on secrets that don't actually exist.<br /><br />Bottom line, I don't see a lot of need for the military to have a manned vehicle. Certainly not for doing what ICBMs already do much more efficiently. <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]

annodomini2:<br />The 2nd one though is more important, assuming the weapon is in the correct orbit, possibly... that's a big if, you could hit a target within minutes, but it could be hours depending on orbit and tragetory relative to the target, now several would cut these odds, but it also increases the risk of detection.<br /><br />Me:<br />Here you have brought up one of the biggest reasons for not using a manned craft to drop nukes as it were, from orbit. The chances that the OSP is at just the right place and time to send a nuke down in a minimum time would be very small. You would need hundreds of OSPs to have the capability to assure a wide range of targets could be hit.<br /><br />Second problem, the bomb would have to have a de-orbit engine to drop out of orbit and it will not drop straight down to the target. It would have to follow a path similar to any other satellite or shuttle re-entry. A path taking it halfway around the world to its target.<br /><br />Of course, most countries have no way to defend against this but they also have no way to defend against an ICBM launched nuke if we so chose to launch one. The ICBM option is much easier and less expensive. <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]

FatJoe:<br />In Sun Tzu’s Art of War he speaks on deception as being one of the greatest weapons which one can possess in battle.<br /><br />Me:<br />Just because one can do as the book describes does not mean one does do it for every concievable reason. NASA put man on the moon because the budget for Apollo was far greater than the budget for R&D into lifting bodies etc. In hindsight, one of the biggest mistakes made in Apollo was that drive to get to the moon by 1970. This caused America to look at the simplest way to send man to the moon. A capsule. A capsule would be easier to develop in the limited time available than any winged vehicle.<br /><br />I would agree its possible an OSP is operational, I just don't think its too likely. Going by the book you mentioned, our plain sight ICBM assets are formidible enough that no sane nation wants to even consider an attack on us. <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]

You’ve convinced me of the functionality of using ICBMs as oppose to an OSP, but let’s think about what other benefits would an OSP provide. The first one I can think of is a dramatic reduction of the cost of satellite delivery which currently carries an average design/build, and launch price tag of about 150 million dollars U.S.<br /><br />The other benefit would be a more cost effective manned space exploration. If we had developed an OSP back in the late 80s and early 90s when we still had the congressional budget to do so by now we would have replaced the aged shuttle fleet, have round the clock flights to and from orbit, and we would be a lot closer to the original deadline of completing construction on the ISS by 2010, and for the first time in decades a real return to deep space exploration of our solar system.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard:<br />but let’s think about what other benefits would an OSP...<br /><br />Me:<br />On this I wholeheartedly agree. Unless we can come up with a two stage to orbit vehicle, an OSP is the next best thing. You are right in that we could have retired the shuttle by now. Round the clock OSP flights would be beyond the reach of current launcher flight rates but one would not necessarily need round the clock flights. The OSP would be ideal for delivering small payloads while an HLLV would deliver the heavy stuff. More importantly, OSPs would deliver the personnel.<br /><br />I would like to have seen the OSP be developed as part of the current NASA lunar plans. <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]

Thanks at least one person here on the SDC board has some common sense.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[qso1]

Thanks, I appreciate that.<br /><br />One other item worth noting. The current VSE proposal has some promising capabilities not mentioned in the current plans. The CLV could launch an OSP type vehicle at some future point in time. And If you have seen the graphic of the CLV the HLLV compared with shuttle and Saturn. Look at the HLLV upper stage diameter. Don't know how much is devoted to payload but compare the stage, even half of it to the Saturn SIV-B stage. That would make a nice single shot station similar to Skylab, among other things. <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>annodomini2: <br />The 2nd one though is more important, assuming the weapon is in the correct orbit, possibly... that's a big if, you could hit a target within minutes, but it could be hours depending on orbit and tragetory relative to the target, now several would cut these odds, but it also increases the risk of detection. <br /><br />Me: <br />Here you have brought up one of the biggest reasons for not using a manned craft to drop nukes as it were, from orbit. The chances that the OSP is at just the right place and time to send a nuke down in a minimum time would be very small. You would need hundreds of OSPs to have the capability to assure a wide range of targets could be hit. <br /><br />Second problem, the bomb would have to have a de-orbit engine to drop out of orbit and it will not drop straight down to the target. It would have to follow a path similar to any other satellite or shuttle re-entry. A path taking it halfway around the world to its target. <br /><br />Of course, most countries have no way to defend against this but they also have no way to defend against an ICBM launched nuke if we so chose to launch one. The ICBM option is much easier and less expensive. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I agree that OSP would be a costly and unjustified method.<br /><br />However I'll bring a different concept to this:<br /><br />If you were to put up a spy satellite with a life expectency of say 2 years as a spy satellite, at which point it may be superceded by better technology.<br /><br />But lets say (for arguments sake) the satellite could operate for 10years.<br /><br />Now this satellite is radio isotope powered by an element that could be accelerated to a thermonuclear reaction under certain circumstances, possibly with the addition of other elements into the spacecrafts design.<br /><br />So the satellite has two purposes, spy satellite and orbital nuclear weapon launch platform.<br /><br />As a spy satellite it wil <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

I doubt there's a place on Earth worth nuking that can't be nuked at least as fast using a sub-launched missile.<br /><br />All talk about space nukes aside, conventional weapons have advanced to a point where nukes are mainly a deterent, and a waning one at that. The popularity of anti-nuke attitudes make conventional weapons much more likely to be used. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

annodomini2:<br />1. Could you turn a radio isotope generator into a bomb without significant weight and volume?<br /><br />Me:<br />If your referring to a Radio Isotopic Thermoelectric Generator (RTG), the answer is no. These generators use non weapons grade plutonium as power sources. Any nuclear weapon using present technology would have to be composed of weapons grade material in addition to a totally different design for the bomb.<br /><br />There may be some other way to accomplish this but if so, I'm not aware of it.<br /><br />2. Do you think it could be possible to add a re-entry system?<br /><br />Me:<br />Yes, if the satellite is designed at the outset for the mission you have in mind.<br /><br />As for the target problem, the main one is the fact the satellite has to be in a precise location in its orbit for a bomb release to track precisely to its ground target. To insure coverage of potential targets of which there would be many. A large number of satellites would be required.<br /><br />To illustrate the target problem a little better. Imagine the bomb bearing battelite has just passed over the target. It now has to wait till it returns to the portion of its orbit where a nominal bomb release can take place. To build a single satellite to cover multiple targets would be prohibitively expensive particularly in terms of propellants required to position itself for bomb release to the targets.<br /><br />webtaz99:<br />I doubt there's a place on Earth worth nuking that can't be nuked at least as fast using a sub-launched missile.<br /><br />Me:<br />webtaz99 summed it up nicely. From a cost and operations standpoint, current ICBM/FBM technology is tough to beat. <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]

webtaz99:<br />All talk about space nukes aside, conventional weapons have advanced to a point where nukes are mainly a deterent, and a waning one at that. The popularity of anti-nuke attitudes make conventional weapons much more likely to be used.<br /><br />Me:<br />Nuclear weapons have always been a deterrent and still are. Conventional weapons on ICBM/FBMs would have little deterrent value due to the fact that they are so much less powerful. This also makes the delivery system uneconomical. Our largest conventional weapon is MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) which IIRC is 20,000 lbs of explosive in a 30 foot bomb released from large craft such as a C-130. This weapon would have to be mounted on a really large ICBM, something on the order of an SS-18, to be workable. A 5 Mt hydrogen bomb in a warhead less than 5 feet tall is far more destructive.<br /><br />A MOAB can level a city block or so.<br /><br />A 5Mt bomb levels the city and releases radiation that can be hazardous for decades to come. Therein lies nuclear weapon deterrent power.<br /><br />Conventional weapons will always be used so long as the wars are of the Iraq, Vietnam variety. <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>

 

[webtaz99]

My point is that nukes are so politically unpopular that they only make a deterrent against global-scale war. Countries like Iran and North Korea know we will not nuke them unless they do something monumentally stupid. But they still fear what conventional weapons can do. <br /><br />And the combined capabilities of modern conventional weapons is becoming downright frightfull. Don't look at it in terms of individual weapons; it is a synergy of weapons, the people trained to use them well, and the near-instant flow of information giving us real-time command and control. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

From a business standpoint an OSP would greatly reduced the cost of SatCom deliveries, and greatly increase military contracts. The same way Howard Hughes, and Juan Trip made the passenger airline industry grow by offering cross country flights from the east to the west coast by flying the Boeing/ LockMart planes capable of flying at above 3000 ft. OSP will eventually do the same thing for the not too distant future of passenger aviation.<br /><br />Just as before Charles Lindbergh made his famous transatlantic flight from New York to Paris he made his living flying mail for the Post Master General because before people felt safe flying on airplanes; they had no problems w/ airmail. SatCom is today’s airmail and an OSP preferably w/ a combination of scramjet/ rocket propulsion which can fly from Baltimore International AP, and land thirty five minutes later at Tokyo International AP will jump start the next generation of passenger aviation. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[qso1]

Your quite right in that we will only use nukes against these smaller countries if they do something monumentally stupid. However, given some of the Bush policies, we might well do something monumentally stupid. The Bush Administration has and is considering first use of nukes in bunker buster scenarios.<br /><br />One reason I looked at it in terms of individual weapons is the MOAB is simply physically such an outsized weapon that we do not have enough on hand to sustain weeks or months of combat with them just as we have a limited number of cruise missiles. This was one reason for the "Shock and awe" campaign in the initial stages of the Iraq war. We knew we could manage such a campaign and once the enemy was subdued, rebuild our stocks.<br /><br />This would be much more difficult if we had to engage a much more well equipped army such as N. Korea, China, or Russia. <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]

Not to beat a dead horse but there are many reasons that the Military would want a reusable OSP; most of them are for the same reasns NASA, and the private sectors wants one. This not the first time the powers that be wanted to pursue an outdated technology as opposed to adopting a new one. During the turn of the century Alexander Graham Bell spent millions of dollars trying to discredit Guglielmo Marconi and his wireless telegraph.<br /><br />Juan Trip don’t won’t the competition from Howard Hughes on international routes so him created a bill through the senate that stated the Pan Am should have a natural monopoly just like AT&T as a international carrier.<br /><br />Why should today’s Aerospace industry be any different?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[craigmac]

That’s an interesting point you make about Howard Hughes, and Guglielmo Marconi. Both men threatened the status quo in both telecommunications, and aerospace. For a long time the AT&T and Pan Am enjoyed very little international competition as natural monopolies when it can to carrier service. I sometimes wonder if the same thing is taking place in our current Boeing/Lock/Mart controlled aerospace industry. Maybe Burt Rutan and others like will break the surface to orbit barrier and force some much needed competition between <i>the powers that be</i>?

 

[fatjoe]

I don’t that much about WOMD but one thing I do know is that mankind has always figured out first how to use a new technology either self preservation or self destruction. For example when man first learned to use fire he used it to stay warm and as a weapon. We are doing the same thing with nuclear technology.

 

[qso1]

Thats correct, and hopefully we will be able to keep from succumbing to a nuclear catastrophe of some kind. The first step may have been lessons learned from the cold war, especially the Cuban missile crisis. <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]

Ultimately a new system of propulsion will inevitably be found that will solve the short comings of air dependent scram jet power, and fuel dependent rocket boosters. Perhaps a combination of a scram jet/ aerospike engine would be the answer. If any has heard work being done on such an engine please post a link to this message. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[edawg]

ic the space coalition as the early aerospace monopoly that was later broken up by the govt

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard:<br />Ultimately a new system of propulsion will inevitably be found that will solve the short comings of ...<br /><br />Me:<br />I certainly hope so. I agree that we may need a fundamentally new propulsion concept for getting to LEO, especially if private industry/enterprise is unable to provide less expensive access to LEO.<br /><br />I havn't heard of any research in that area. <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]

Since every generation has a claim to scientific breakthroughs I would guess it is only a matter of time before we find another source of propulsion. If you’ve ever watched Extreme Engineering on the Discover Channel you probably saw the episode on the Transatlantic Tunnel Train. By using Magnetic Elevation or Maglev in a vacum we could reach the 17,500 mph, or 28,163.52 kph escape velocity of the earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[mdodson]

The last maglev to orbit plan I saw was for a vertical launch tube thousands of feet deep, and at much too high of an acceleration rate for humans. Don't mortgage the farm to invest in that technology.