Author Topic: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles  (Read 15777 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« on: 06/19/2010 09:35 pm »
Repeating the assertion with more clarification, myth: the DOD has active spacecraft projects that are too large for existing vehicles.  Active meaning not advance studies but a development project culminating with the construction of a spacecraft
 
It does not work that way.  Any project that has a spacecraft that has out grown existing capabilities includes the money and the development of a launch vehicle that can carry it. 

There are many people who say they have ideas for spacecraft that need an HLV.  There are none that can fund both.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2010 03:36 pm by Andy USA »

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
To the degree there are ideas for larger spacecraft, do they involve higher mass or higher volume? Is there anything on the drawing boards that even approaches the maximum volume of an EELV payload fairing? And once you include the possibility of orbital (re)fueling, is there anything on the drawing board whose dry mass even approaches the maximum payload of an EELV Medium?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline marcus79

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 8
Very few people, if any at all, believed this anyway. A bit of a mythical myth if you ask me.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
And once you include the possibility of orbital (re)fueling,

The DOD has yet to institute this approach and hence no spacecraft is being developed to use it.

Offline martin hegedus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #4 on: 06/20/2010 06:09 pm »
I gather officially there are none.  If the DoD wanted such knowledge to be public then they would have made it public through official channels and/or through various publications.  Then various rocket builders would be using this information openly to support their efforts or business plans.  We would all know about it and we would all be talking about it.

Such payloads and a related launch vehicle could be under a black program and we would not know about it.  But, I'm skeptical that such a launch vehicle would be.  And I too don't think the DoD would be developing such a payload unless they had a certainty that the required launch vehicle would exist.  Time will tell.

For me, this myth just doesn't make sense.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #5 on: 06/20/2010 06:14 pm »
I gather officially there are none.  If the DoD wanted such knowledge to be public then they would have made it public through official channels and/or through various publications.  Then various rocket builders would be using this information openly to support their efforts or business plans.  We would all know about it and we would all be talking about it.

Such payloads and a related launch vehicle could be under a black program and we would not know about it.  But, I'm skeptical that such a launch vehicle would be.  And I too don't think the DoD would be developing such a payload unless they had a certainty that the required launch vehicle would exist.  Time will tell.

For me, this myth just doesn't make sense.


I agree on the "wait and see". The little blueprint drawing that the was in the "Air Force RLV plans article" seem rather large to me...... (note: this is a refernce to a picture of a potential future air force RLV design NOT a DOD payload)
« Last Edit: 06/20/2010 06:15 pm by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #6 on: 06/20/2010 06:47 pm »

Such payloads and a related launch vehicle could be under a black program and we would not know about it.


Yes, we would know about it,  the budget would be too big to hide.

Offline martin hegedus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #7 on: 06/20/2010 07:00 pm »

Such payloads and a related launch vehicle could be under a black program and we would not know about it.


Yes, we would know about it,  the budget would be too big to hide.

I tend to agree with you.  But I would like to give credit to the DoD for their accounting methodology which can get quite complex in regards to what program pays for what.

Offline Scotty

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Merritt Island, Florida
  • Liked: 1955
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #8 on: 06/20/2010 08:23 pm »
I know of at least one "Big" government payload that they were counting on Ares V to lift (and no I can not talk about it).
Those plans are now very much in limbo.
I also know of at least one very large Commercial payoad that Ares V was being counted on lifting (can not talk about it due to an NDA).
That program is now on hold, until a suitable HLV is in sight.
There is a market for lift in the 75 to 100 ton range, but not a real big one at this time.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #9 on: 06/20/2010 09:41 pm »
The point was existing projects in construction.  SBSP and SBR are still pie in the sky.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #10 on: 06/20/2010 10:06 pm »
Number of cargoes on ships and roads follows a power law so space payloads are likely too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law

On the 80-20 rule this is the 20 side.  For very big loads the 20 side of the 20 side.

When designing a launch vehicle the rocket men need to know the approximate mass, volume and orbit of the payload.  The payload can be treated as a black box.  For estimation of market purposes orbit only means LEO, GEO, polar, sun synchronous and the one one that gives extra spying time over the USSR.

The Pentagon/Air force can act as a front man for all the defence and intelligence agencies.  Giving each payload two code names is not hard.  The classified name is attached to the mission and agency where as the unclassified name hides this.

A possible unclassified name sequence are National Security Payload (NSP) 1, NSP2, NSP3 etc.

An official quotable source is needed such as a press release, request for information or simply a paragraph in a speech by the Secretary of Defence.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #11 on: 06/21/2010 12:13 am »


1.  When designing a launch vehicle the rocket men need to know the approximate mass, volume and orbit of the payload.  The payload can be treated as a black box.  For estimation of market purposes orbit only means LEO, GEO, polar, sun synchronous and the one one that gives extra spying time over the USSR.

2.  The Pentagon/Air force can act as a front man for all the defence and intelligence agencies.  Giving each payload two code names is not hard.  The classified name is attached to the mission and agency where as the unclassified name hides this.

3.  A possible unclassified name sequence are National Security Payload (NSP) 1, NSP2, NSP3 etc.


1.  Not true.  More information on the payloads is required.

2.  It is not "can" act, it "does" act.

3.  And what the heck do you think NROL-26, 21, 49 are?

Basically, the post was a waste of forum space

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #12 on: 06/21/2010 12:18 am »
1.  Not true.  More information on the payloads is required.

To launch the payload yes more information is needed.  To design the rocket no that is sufficient.

Offline martin hegedus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #13 on: 06/21/2010 07:52 am »
I know of at least one "Big" government payload that they were counting on Ares V to lift (and no I can not talk about it).
Those plans are now very much in limbo.
So you are saying that you know of a big government payload but you can not point to a public reference to what that payload is.  Then why are you mentioning it?

Maybe I'm wrong or naive, but if the DoD really wanted an HLV they would let people know and Obama, the Commander in Chief, would not put HLV development at NASA on hold.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #14 on: 06/21/2010 11:36 am »
I know of at least one "Big" government payload that they were counting on Ares V to lift (and no I can not talk about it).
Those plans are now very much in limbo.
So you are saying that you know of a big government payload but you can not point to a public reference to what that payload is.  Then why are you mentioning it?

Maybe I'm wrong or naive, but if the DoD really wanted an HLV they would let people know and Obama, the Commander in Chief, would not put HLV development at NASA on hold.

Why can't you guys just graciously accept any inside info offered and stop berating the kind messengers who don't have to offer this information to us ?

http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/06/bolden-heavy-lift-will-be-international-effort-and-not-until-2020-2030/

"I haven't talked to anybody that doesn't agree that the nation needs heavy lift capability," said Bolden. "We need it for science, intelligence, for DOD, and NASA needs it for sending humans beyond orbit.
How do we evolve there? We take the lessons learned from Constellation. If I'm able to negotiate with Congress appropriately we may actually be carving out some subsystems that are in Constellation because they are advanced technology, and they are things that we will need to develop a heavy lift system. So while we will phase out the Constellation program per se, I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We want to try to capture technologies and capabilities that are resident in Constellation as we migrate towards a new system."

Asked specifically about a timetable for heavy lift, Bolden said he ideally would like to see a rocket ready to go in the 2020 – 2030 time-frame, but that first NASA needs to decide what the destinations are. He said he thought Mars was the ultimate destination for humans, but that we would need to spend some time on the Moon first.


There, Bolden spelt it out for you.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #15 on: 06/21/2010 12:55 pm »

Not exactly heavy lift, but they are upgrading the Delta IV engines, and notice they are doing it for the Delta IV heavy first. Reading the scorch patterns in the flame trench, something "maybe" a "bit" to big for the current Delta IV.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #16 on: 06/21/2010 12:56 pm »
Why can't you guys just graciously accept any inside info offered and stop berating the kind messengers who don't have to offer this information to us ?

Argument from authority fallacy.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #17 on: 06/21/2010 12:59 pm »
Why can't you guys just graciously accept any inside info offered and stop berating the kind messengers who don't have to offer this information to us ?

Argument from authority fallacy.

Feel free to move on if you don't like or can't accept the message. It's obvious you EELV guys can't as it upsets your delicate and carefully constructed non-HLV religion. It's not an argument anyway but an obvious statement of NDA facts. You may have no respect for the NASA engineers who post such information but the majority of us here do and welcome it and are frankly appalled at some of the responses they receive as a reward for their frankness.
« Last Edit: 06/21/2010 01:12 pm by marsavian »

Offline martin hegedus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #18 on: 06/21/2010 04:51 pm »
Why can't you guys just graciously accept any inside info offered and stop berating the kind messengers who don't have to offer this information to us ?

Argument from authority fallacy.

Feel free to move on if you don't like or can't accept the message. It's obvious you EELV guys can't as it upsets your delicate and carefully constructed non-HLV religion. It's not an argument anyway but an obvious statement of NDA facts. You may have no respect for the NASA engineers who post such information but the majority of us here do and welcome it and are frankly appalled at some of the responses they receive as a reward for their frankness.

I'm looking forward to HLVs and believe that, cost being set aside, they open up possibilities that I would enjoy seeing come to fruit.  So, if DoD has payloads which require an HLV that would be great.

However, I also don't want to be mislead by information which does not have a bases in reality.  From my personal experience, all the DoD weapon system/projects I've worked on which have made it to the end of TRL 2 have reports associated with them which have a distribution statement (public, limited, classified, etc).  A completed report will also have a reference (title, authors, etc.) which also may or may not be restricted.  If a document is unmarked, then it is best to assume it is not in the public domain.  Therefore, I have to ignore or disbelieve statements where the author is unwilling to give a public reference to their statement.  And I sure hope NASA engineers are not leaking DoD information or needs.


Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #19 on: 06/21/2010 04:53 pm »
It's obvious you EELV guys can't as it upsets your delicate and carefully constructed non-HLV religion.

I'm not an EELV guy.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0