Author Topic: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V  (Read 64433 times)

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #60 on: 02/04/2007 04:26 pm »
Quote
Jim - 4/2/2007  9:28 AM

Quote
wingod - 3/2/2007  11:53 PM

laf

I guess that is why Pete Worden's former deputy is the head of technology at NRO now.

I guess that is why Pete is the head of the independent review team of Orbital Express.

Funny how that works.


Not Pete but his deputy.  Pete never has a similar role

Heads of Review teams are just that figure heads not the hands on workers.  It is the same as a celebrity endorsement.  

 He is also a NASA center director, he doesn't have the time to do real work

Jim

You don't know what Pete has done for jobs.  Do you ever go back and read some of the things you post?

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #61 on: 02/07/2007 06:18 pm »
Probably not.

Pete also seems more accepting of Ares V BTW, or so we hope.

 Notice how Jim breezed right on past his claim about space based radar not being for ground targets.
For someone so familiar with NRO, how did that mistake get past him?

Look, big space-based assets (EELV launched or no, as I've stated above) are like carriers. Before Billy Mitchell, there was "no need," "no demand," "no money" for aircraft carriers. All the usual claims made by entrenched, brass-heavy dullards. It's not that the NAVY hated air power--they loved it....

....as long as it was limited to the floatplane or two parked on the back porch of their surface ships--to let the captain know how well the 16 inch guns were landing on target. One more little thing to tack on the superstructure for the model kit makers.  But a carrier--as big if not bigger than battleships? With the airplane as the only weapon?

Sheer science fiction.

 No need, no demand, no money for such outlandish concepts.

Space is thought of similarly today. Do your spy-sat photos, don't ask for anything---and go back in the closet. That's why mil-space needs its own Admiral Rickover--its own Billy Mitchell. Peter Worden was to be that man. But he has the Army, Navy, and the Air Force to fight against.

One wants billions for "Smart artillery shells" when you have missiles just as good--another branch of the surface wants a stealth surface ship (which in the era of submarines makes as much sense as a stealth covered wagon)--and the fighter jocks want a JSF program with a plane that is overkill for shooting at rogue airliners--too fast for border patrol, but and too slow for shooting down ICBMs--like a Space Based Laser launched by Ares V could do.


But the Navy still thinks it's in Midway, and the Air Force still thinks it's in MiG Alley. And that's why Pete Worden was unable to get much done--when folks his age or younger wore more stars. Them's the facts.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #62 on: 02/07/2007 06:33 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 7/2/2007  2:18 PM

Pete also seems more accepting of Ares V BTW, or so we hope.

 

Totally wrong.  Pete is Mr Smallsat.  He doesn't like the big honkin spacecraft but the small ones.

Milspace wants the small tacsats not the big birds.  


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #63 on: 02/07/2007 06:35 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 7/2/2007  2:18 PM
 That's why mil-space needs its own Admiral Rickover--its own Billy Mitchell. Peter Worden was to be that man. But he has the Army, Navy, and the Air Force to fight against.


he was never in their class

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #64 on: 02/07/2007 06:50 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 7/2/2007  2:18 PM

1.  Look, big space-based assets (EELV launched or no, as I've stated above) are like carriers. Before Billy Mitchell, there was "no need," "no demand," "no money" for aircraft carriers. All the usual claims made by entrenched, brass-heavy dullards. It's not that the NAVY hated air power--they loved it....

2.  Space is thought of similarly today. Do your spy-sat photos, don't ask for anything---and go back in the closet. That's why mil-space needs its own Admiral Rickover--its own Billy Mitchell. Peter Worden was to be that man. But he has the Army, Navy, and the Air Force to fight against.

3. -like a Space Based Laser launched by Ares V could do.

4.  And that's why Pete Worden was unable to get much done--when folks his age or younger wore more stars. Them's the facts.

1.  Wrong analogy.  big space-based assets are more like battleships.  Big sitting targets.

2.  Where do you get your ideas?  Total nonsense

3.  Don't even know if a SBL would work.  Also Ares V will not be the LV for it.  Military does not want to get into bed with NASA  The EELV will do it.

4.  He never was in a positon to do anything, nor he knew what to do.  He was not a warfighter.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #65 on: 02/07/2007 06:51 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 7/2/2007  2:18 PM
 Notice how Jim breezed right on past his claim about space based radar not being for ground targets.
For someone so familiar with NRO, how did that mistake get past him?

NRO is not interested in the SBR, it is other elements of the services

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #66 on: 02/07/2007 09:48 pm »
Big space-based assets are hardly sitting targets. Killer satellites also have to go thru boost phase same an an ICBM--presenting themselves as a target. A beam of light costs less than a missile launch. Existing sats with no weapons are sitting targets.

AN HLLV load of smaller KKVs can be deployed for defense of any future space-based asset

Remember Magnum was once called the the BMDO launcher
http://shuman.ifrance.com/launch_vehicles.htm
http://www.periscope.ucg.com/terms/t0000159.html

So not everybody believes in EELV as the only LV we will need. Just like the AF uses C-5s-- and not just Cessenas

Mike Griffin has written much on the subject of Heavy Lift, and I find him credible.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture29.pdf






Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #67 on: 02/08/2007 12:08 am »
Quote
publiusr - 7/2/2007  5:48 PM

So not everybody believes in EELV as the only LV we will need. Just like the AF uses C-5s-- and not just Cessenas

Mike Griffin has written much on the subject of Heavy Lift, and I find him credible.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture29.pdf


We don't need C-5's Launch vehicle because we don't have M-1 Abrams spacecraft.  The C-17 EELV's will do fine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #68 on: 02/08/2007 12:17 am »
Quote
publiusr - 7/2/2007  5:48 PM
Mike Griffin has written much on the subject of Heavy Lift, and I find him credible.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture29.pdf

Just as credible as Elon Musk

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #69 on: 02/10/2007 04:42 pm »
"Killersats can be be hidden."
And so can SBLs--as Polyus might have been--with Western tech.

"Sufficent numbers of laser battles stations on orbit to shoot down any LV launch.  Tens of billions of dollars."
Which is why we need to cancel DD-X,  JSF and F-22, the War in Iraq (useless at ICBM defense).
 

"This just proves your ignorance and lack of real world knowledge."
This coming from someone who didn't know what Space Based Radar was---and what it was for.

I seem to remember--unless I am mistaken (it happens to us all)-- that you once said that the VentureStar would not have external cargo. I explained that VentureStar's design had begun to change--first with a Hunchback (LOCKHEED'S SECRET PROJECTS) then going to external cargo pods. You disputed this--and as memory serves--I had to find some ancient Space.com piece. This was awhile back mind you.
   
Then you told us that SBR was for aerial targets (not a bad idea)--and you covered your tracks by saying that it was the result of those pesky other services who dare to think that maybe the blue-suits and spooks ought not to have a death grip on just what mil-space should be. These rare few have to fight dullards in their own services who are anti-space, and other folks in the space business who have had their heads in Delta II shrouds so long it has cut the oxygen off to their brain.

As for lumping Griffin with Musk--both at least are planning on building bigger LVs.

Look, we come from different cultures--from a different place. My guess is I got your dander up when I posted a poll called "Resolved: Delta II is a crutch" back in the early days when this site (which I tried to popularize) was mostly made up of aerospace professionals like yourself. When most of the poll results agreed with me--I think it irked you. That and my stance that NRO and Air Force should no longer dominate US space efforts. I once called out John Jumper, and questioned whether or not the Air Force was the enemy of space.

He responded by being a guest star on Stargate: SG-1 after leaving the service hard on the heels of the Druyen case.

You responded with some shots at MSFC. True they should only be involved in big rockets, and have stepped outside their business in other pursuits--I give you that.

My point is that I am not the only one who thinks that the proper man with the proper vision can find all sorts of payloads for HLLVs--which is what this thread is about. Airplanes get bigger. Diesel locomotives, ships. But suggest that we have something more than 20 tons to orbit--and watch the fangs come out.  
   

 


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #70 on: 02/10/2007 04:54 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 10/2/2007  12:42 PM

My point is that I am not the only one who thinks that the proper man with the proper vision can find all sorts of payloads for HLLVs--which is what this thread is about. Airplanes get bigger. Diesel locomotives, ships. But suggest that we have something more than 20 tons to orbit--and watch the fangs come out.  
   

"Airplanes get bigger. Diesel locomotives, ships"  only when there is bigger cargo.  It is not "build a bigger plane, train or ship and bigger cargo will come.  Likewise, it is not "build a bigger LV and a bigger spacecraft will come"

First things first, build a bigger spacecraft, then a bigger rocket will be built.  That how the real works.  It applies to launch vehicles, planes, train and ships, all types of transportation.


Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #71 on: 02/10/2007 05:19 pm »
The R-7 was a case of having a bigger LV and Soyuz came later. Gov't took the lead, and now Starsem and others reap the benefits. In other words--you have to work outside the market. If we left the market to its own devices, Goddards rocket would only have been a curiosity.

But we've had these discussions before.

I once asked you a question that you didn't respond to. If you were NASA Chief--for life (only with a long run of it did Korolov and Glushko make vision reality--what with our NASA Chiefs coming and going all the time) as in the case of Supreme Court Justices---what vision would you have for the future?

And please don't give me the tired line of "whatever the market wants." That is a cop out even worse than the "build it and..." whatever that may or may not be true depending on the moment and how events come together.

Spaceflight has not progressed for two reasons--one of which you and I would agree upon.

1.) Laws of Physics do not change. I understand that as much as you do. Which is why I don't have it in for capsules as Rutan and others have with their wing-worship. A billion years from now, swept wings and podded, easily accessed engines will still be the norm.

BWBs may look cool, but tried and true methods work--even if they give us uninspired looking twin-jets and quads with tri-jets, T-tails, etc. on the way out...if slowly.

2.) Culture.

NRO/Air Force men don't die, they just join the Aerospace Corp or Futron retirement homes and talk about how craft really don't need to be much bigger than Corona, and grouse. Some are proud of large LVs. I seem to remember a story about the Titan IV and big assets like Lacrosse, Milstar, and what have you.

If debris gets thick enough--we may wind up having to build rugged Com-stations like what A.C. Clarke wanted to begin with--with new components placed in it--nuclear power--the whole nine yards. The Soviet sats like Zenit (launched atop the Zenit rocket named after its payload) were just rugged Vostok hulls--still used for FOTON.

People looked at R-7 as a fantasy. But it broke no laws of physics. it just broke records, and new ground.

Some tried to say that Energiya broke their budget. But remember, the RD-170 became a good seller, and Energiyas children have brought in money. The 20 billion dollar Baikal Amur Mainline, and the work to convert the entire length of the Tran-Siberian railway to electricity (completed in 2002 after 74 years of work) was what bankrupted the Soviets.

That and a costly war--more expensive than any space-shot--that involved fighting Muslims during a stupid war of occupation.

Sound familiar?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #72 on: 02/10/2007 05:38 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 10/2/2007  1:19 PM
2.) Culture.

NRO/Air Force men don't die, they just join the Aerospace Corp or Futron retirement homes and talk about how craft really don't need to be much bigger than Corona, and grouse. Some are proud of large LVs. I seem to remember a story about the Titan IV and big assets like Lacrosse, Milstar, and what have you.

I

Again you are totally clueless.  Who flew on Titan-IIID and 34D.  15 T-IV flights account for Milstar,  DSP and Cassini, so what were on the other 24 flights.   The USAF/NRO pioneered the big spacecraft.  USAF always had the bigger rockets, excluding the manned ones.  

the USAF went from Thor Agenas, to Bigger Thor Agenas with solids, to Atlas Agenas, to Titan, to Titan with solids to bigger Titan with solids.  

See how it works, the spacecraft got bigger and therefore the booster did too.  

The USAF always have bigger spacecraft than NASA




Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #73 on: 02/10/2007 05:39 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 10/2/2007  1:19 PM

Some tried to say that Energiya broke their budget. But remember, the RD-170 became a good seller, and Energiyas children have brought in money. The 20 billion dollar Baikal Amur Mainline, and the work to convert the entire length of the Tran-Siberian railway to electricity (completed in 2002 after 74 years of work) was what bankrupted the Soviets.

That and a costly war--more expensive than any space-shot--that involved fighting Muslims during a stupid war of occupation.

Sound familiar?

Agree.  Our Baikal Amur Mainline is a called Ares I and V

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #74 on: 02/10/2007 05:54 pm »
Now comparing a railway to rockets my definition of warped thinking. BAM was made due to concerns over China, and it actually works at least. It siphoned money away from spaceflight. A better analogy would be to compare BAM with Space Elevators. But we know the former actually works.


I compare Delta IV with your idea of what a flight engineer is.

Something that sits around all year and does little or anything.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #75 on: 02/10/2007 06:10 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 10/2/2007  1:54 PM

Now comparing a railway to rockets my definition of warped thinking. BAM was made due to concerns over China, and it actually works at least. It siphoned money away from spaceflight. A better analogy would be to compare BAM with Space Elevators. But we know the former actually works.


I compare Delta IV with your idea of what a flight engineer is.

Something that sits around all year and does little or anything.

Ares V will be no different.  Shuttle has sat around for longer times

D-IV  7 missions in  last 4 years

STS   6 missions in last 4 years

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #76 on: 02/10/2007 07:06 pm »
But you are including all D-IV missions, not the D-IV 'heavy' missions in the same payload class as STS. D-IV 'heavy' should be compared with STS.
The whole D-IV family hardly compares with Atlas V in any respect.

And Ares V won't have that orbiter slowing things down.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #77 on: 02/11/2007 01:28 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 10/2/2007  3:06 PM

But you are including all D-IV missions, not the D-IV 'heavy' missions in the same payload class as STS. D-IV 'heavy' should be compared with STS.
The whole D-IV family hardly compares with Atlas V in any respect.

And Ares V won't have that orbiter slowing things down.

Ares V will have the EDS and LSAM, and the Ares I and CEV to slow it down.  Can't launch the Ares V unless the CLV/CEV is ready.

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #78 on: 02/17/2007 03:09 pm »
Is it possible to launch an Ares V with an enlarged payload fairing like the ones shown below for a large space station or payload?

Thanks :)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Non Orion LSAM uses of Ares V
« Reply #79 on: 02/17/2007 03:32 pm »
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 17/2/2007  11:09 AM

Is it possible to launch an Ares V with an enlarged payload fairing like the ones shown below for a large space station or payload?

Thanks :)

If the VAB and Pad can accomodate it

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1