SpaceX could offer DoD a contract to keep a few F9 + one FH with reflown boosters (plus enough brand new upper stages) in a dedicated national security setting as an assured (and quick) access to space. For instance keep a few GPS birds in storage on the same barn. Cycle those for all national security launches on that site.
Quote from: macpacheco on 05/04/2017 10:32 amSpaceX could offer DoD a contract to keep a few F9 + one FH with reflown boosters (plus enough brand new upper stages) in a dedicated national security setting as an assured (and quick) access to space. For instance keep a few GPS birds in storage on the same barn. Cycle those for all national security launches on that site.I've sometimes wondered if it would be feasible to keep a single F9 on 'standby' at all times for emergency use, in case of (for example) an incident on the ISS requiring near-immediate evacuation of the ISS (and somehow disabling all Soyuz spacecraft already docked to the ISS).This would tie up SpaceX resources of course. But with reuse, would setting aside a single flight-proven booster and an upper stage (and a Dragon 2?) be out of the question?
The end state of the ORS concept is the ability to address emerging, persistent, and/or unanticipated needs through timely augmentation, reconstitution, and exploitation of space force enhancement, space control, and space support capabilities.
I don't think this proposal has anything to do with they way they currently do things.I think it's about the Air Force wants a low earth constellation too. They don't want private industry to have all the cool toys. On the other hand they aren't going to buy weekly launches at 200 million a pop. If launch prices go to 20 million a launch on a reusable platform then an Air Force constellation becomes possible.
Boca Chica will be able to launch FH as well.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 05/05/2017 11:14 amBoca Chica will be able to launch FH as well.Yes, but all BC launches can be done at the cape unless its right at the performance limit.Obviously, I'm solely adding up a bunch of loose information.If cost is the highest priority, then none of this makes that much sense.But DoD/USAF/NRO aren't exactly known to penny pinch, do they ?
Speakers include:The Honorable Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of RepresentativesThe Honorable Bob Walker, former chairman of the House Science CommitteeLt. Gen. David Deptula (ret.)Lt. Gen. Steven Kwast, Commander, Air UniversityMaj. Gen. Roger Teague, Director, Space Programs, (SAF/AQ)Josh Hartman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space and IntelligenceCharles Miller, NexGen Space, LLCCol. Bill Bruner, USAF (Ret.)Hoyt Davidson, NearEarth LLCScott Aughenbaugh, National Defense UniversityJean Floyd, StratolaunchBrett Alexander, Blue OriginTim Hughes, SpaceXBob Martinage, Telemus GroupRick Dunn, former DARPA General CounselLes Kovachs, United Launch AllianceLaetitia Garriott de Cayeux, former CEO, Escape Dynamics
“We discovered there’s at least four credible companies that can put the skin in the game and have the technical ability, so they’ll have a competition,” Miller told SpaceNews following the panel discussion.Two companies have already publicly declared their interest in reusable spacecraft — SpaceX and Blue Origin — but Miller declined to comment on what other organizations said they’re developing reusable technology.
SpaceNews have written up another presentation on this, given by Lt. Col. Thomas Schilling, chief of the Commander’s Action Group at the Air Force’s Air University:http://spacenews.com/military-could-have-truly-low-cost-launch-market-in-five-years-if-government-puts-in-the-effort-experts-say/?sthash.AiRPOvNP.mjjoFound this snippet particularly interesting:Quote“We discovered there’s at least four credible companies that can put the skin in the game and have the technical ability, so they’ll have a competition,” Miller told SpaceNews following the panel discussion.Two companies have already publicly declared their interest in reusable spacecraft — SpaceX and Blue Origin — but Miller declined to comment on what other organizations said they’re developing reusable technology.
Low-cost launch is not a new idea, but Hoyt Davidson of Near Earth — an investment firm focused on aerospace — argued that the time is right for the industry to come into its own. He pointed to differences between the present and the 1990s when much of the commercial space sector collapsed.“What’s different this time? I get that question a lot,” he said.Technology is a primary factor, Davidson argued, saying that “we’ve had 20 years of Moore’s Law” that reshaped the way computers are used. Electronic miniaturization and modernization now allow for much more capability in a satellite. Communications get more bandwidth, and imaging gets more pixels per dollar of investment, making units far more efficient than they previously have been.Likewise, satellite production techniques have grown, adding new technology like additive manufacturing to drive down costs and speed up production time.But perhaps the biggest difference, he said, is that the demand for space services is larger than it ever has been, with sectors like broadband communications growing exponentially among consumers.“All those companies back then [in the 90s] maybe totaled 1,000 satellites. Now we’re talking about 20,000,” Davidson said. “Twenty years of technology advancement has made a difference.
Growth in the reusable launch sector could lead to first-stage boosters that could be reused 100 times, and second stages reused 25 times, Davidson said, adding that daily launches might be needed to keep up with multiple companies planning large constellations.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/11/2017 03:58 pmSpaceNews have written up another presentation on this, given by Lt. Col. Thomas Schilling, chief of the Commander’s Action Group at the Air Force’s Air University:http://spacenews.com/military-could-have-truly-low-cost-launch-market-in-five-years-if-government-puts-in-the-effort-experts-say/?sthash.AiRPOvNP.mjjoFound this snippet particularly interesting:Quote“We discovered there’s at least four credible companies that can put the skin in the game and have the technical ability, so they’ll have a competition,” Miller told SpaceNews following the panel discussion.Two companies have already publicly declared their interest in reusable spacecraft — SpaceX and Blue Origin — but Miller declined to comment on what other organizations said they’re developing reusable technology.ULA is the obvious 3rd, with ACES and SMART. The 4th may be Masten?
Kind of silly.QuoteThe end state of the ORS concept is the ability to address emerging, persistent, and/or unanticipated needs through timely augmentation, reconstitution, and exploitation of space force enhancement, space control, and space support capabilities.Attempts to do this in the past find that you're usually waiting on the payload, not the vehicle.Usually because the payload is over-complicated, to take advantage of the LV's payload capability.Which then slows down the LV because it becomes more complicated, including the time to ready the vehicle and possibly miss the window.What has been suggested is to stack a small solids vehicle, or to leave it ready. But this relies on the vehicle and its orbit/window are appropriate for the payload.Which brings you to concepts like air launch (Pegasus), because you can adapt launch to suit (fly around weather etc).In practice that isn't done, because it's still too costly and dilatory to get such a mission to the point of flying.Which explains why ORS in practice does not happen.Have been studying this issue, and more recently microlaunch concept.Perhaps a better approach is that you do agile payload development that flies soonest, off agile microlaunch LV's.So the point is that the gating factor is when the agile team sees the window approaching for a potential launch, speculatively pays for a microlaunch on standby for a window/range, integrates a payload/SC/sensor/mission all up to meet that window, and if they make it ontime to the launcher, its launched.Otherwise the "scrub", for whatever reason, returns the launcher to the provider for a service fee, it's reassigned to a different launch, and things start over again.You'd get away with this if the cost of a scrub was roughly on a par with the integration cost, such that the loss in the missed window was all up insignificant, so that even the practice as proficiency is its own reward.That might make ORS worthwhile. But not Falcon - to big/slow/costly/... You get committed too much to not launch.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/04/2017 06:32 pmKind of silly.QuoteThe end state of the ORS concept is the ability to address emerging, persistent, and/or unanticipated needs through timely augmentation, reconstitution, and exploitation of space force enhancement, space control, and space support capabilities.Attempts to do this in the past find that you're usually waiting on the payload, not the vehicle.Usually because the payload is over-complicated, to take advantage of the LV's payload capability.Which then slows down the LV because it becomes more complicated, including the time to ready the vehicle and possibly miss the window.What has been suggested is to stack a small solids vehicle, or to leave it ready. But this relies on the vehicle and its orbit/window are appropriate for the payload.Which brings you to concepts like air launch (Pegasus), because you can adapt launch to suit (fly around weather etc).In practice that isn't done, because it's still too costly and dilatory to get such a mission to the point of flying.Which explains why ORS in practice does not happen.Have been studying this issue, and more recently microlaunch concept.Perhaps a better approach is that you do agile payload development that flies soonest, off agile microlaunch LV's.So the point is that the gating factor is when the agile team sees the window approaching for a potential launch, speculatively pays for a microlaunch on standby for a window/range, integrates a payload/SC/sensor/mission all up to meet that window, and if they make it ontime to the launcher, its launched.Otherwise the "scrub", for whatever reason, returns the launcher to the provider for a service fee, it's reassigned to a different launch, and things start over again.You'd get away with this if the cost of a scrub was roughly on a par with the integration cost, such that the loss in the missed window was all up insignificant, so that even the practice as proficiency is its own reward.That might make ORS worthwhile. But not Falcon - to big/slow/costly/... You get committed too much to not launch.The whole point of the Fast Space Report was to encourage the Air Force to explore how it can leverage low cost access to space with Falcon 9 and similar EELV class vehicles, and future fully reusable launch vehicles that are coming down the line if they can find a customer, such as the Department of Defense - not how to lower the launch costs of today's satellites.
A rapidly deployable launch-on-demand system that requires little ground support equipment and allows for launch from any airfield into any inclination, complicating space situational awareness for others.
Concepts explored include, but are not limited to, building a large number of simpler and less exquisite satellites that are built well in advance and can be placed in space as needed.
I don't understand the point you're making. It's increasingly likely that any war with the US in the not too distant future is going to involve attrition and loss of space based assets. If attrition is all but certain, it's necessary that replacement equipment be available to cycle up as needed, due to the long lead times in some of the system components.
Reduced per-satellite complexity increases the effort needed by an adversary to wholly disable the battle network over a given region, and reduces the cost of replacing that component of the system from causes such as malfunction, obsolescence, or enemy action. Wherein lies the misunderstanding of how to apply the technology?