Quote from: Kabloona on 06/24/2017 12:58 amQuote from: russianhalo117 on 06/24/2017 12:44 amQuote from: gongora on 06/24/2017 12:38 amIsn't there a law against using most of the surplus solids for orbital launch, so they won't compete with our thriving small launcher industry?No the law (rules) predates thriving small launcher industry and prevents their use for all commercial flights which is why Castor-120 based Taurus and Pegasus came about.I think you mean Minotaur. Pegasus doesn't use Gov't surplus motors, though it did benefit from Hercules' Small ICBM program technology that Hercules put into developing the Pegasus motors.read the bold properly
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 06/24/2017 12:44 amQuote from: gongora on 06/24/2017 12:38 amIsn't there a law against using most of the surplus solids for orbital launch, so they won't compete with our thriving small launcher industry?No the law (rules) predates thriving small launcher industry and prevents their use for all commercial flights which is why Castor-120 based Taurus and Pegasus came about.I think you mean Minotaur. Pegasus doesn't use Gov't surplus motors, though it did benefit from Hercules' Small ICBM program technology that Hercules put into developing the Pegasus motors.
Quote from: gongora on 06/24/2017 12:38 amIsn't there a law against using most of the surplus solids for orbital launch, so they won't compete with our thriving small launcher industry?No the law (rules) predates thriving small launcher industry and prevents their use for all commercial flights which is why Castor-120 based Taurus and Pegasus came about.
Isn't there a law against using most of the surplus solids for orbital launch, so they won't compete with our thriving small launcher industry?
None of these scale well with solid motors, and actually raise more safety issues. Outside of air launch systems, where the risks as a munition can be managed by existing protocols and flight from managed bases, there's not a lot of opportunities for a manifest.So with the top of the launch services pyramid eroding for solids, and the bottom under attack shortly, there's a circumscribed future back to munitions delivery systems.Past NGL, don't see much on the horizon.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/24/2017 01:18 amNone of these scale well with solid motors, and actually raise more safety issues. Outside of air launch systems, where the risks as a munition can be managed by existing protocols and flight from managed bases, there's not a lot of opportunities for a manifest.So with the top of the launch services pyramid eroding for solids, and the bottom under attack shortly, there's a circumscribed future back to munitions delivery systems.Past NGL, don't see much on the horizon.Which is another reason for the Pentagon to be concerned about the solids industrial base, and all the more reason to force OA et alia to buy local.
If Pentagon is really concerned about the solids industrial base, the obvious answer is staring them in the face. Spread out procurement to smaller contracts awarded more often. Downsizing for contractors is OK...
Quote from: Lars-J on 06/24/2017 02:32 amIf Pentagon is really concerned about the solids industrial base, the obvious answer is staring them in the face. Spread out procurement to smaller contracts awarded more often. Downsizing for contractors is OK...Well, then it costs them (and us taxpayers) more, and it's difficult to spread out the really big procurements like ICBMS across decades instead of years.
I'm surprised to hear that ICBMs are such a huge fraction of all solid production. I thought the smaller stuff, from hand-held AT4s to AMRAAMs to SM3 to MLRS to ATACMS is continually in production and collectively their numbers are substantial?
Quote from: gospacex on 06/24/2017 09:19 amI'm surprised to hear that ICBMs are such a huge fraction of all solid production. I thought the smaller stuff, from hand-held AT4s to AMRAAMs to SM3 to MLRS to ATACMS is continually in production and collectively their numbers are substantial?I think the real problem is the elimination of RSRMs. The Space shuttle launch roughly 3x annually. Each launch required 2x 4-segment RSRMs that contain 1.1mln lb. So 6x 1.1mln lb = 6.6mln lb of production was droped with the termination of the Space shuttle program. The Atlas and Delta rockets use considerable numbers of solids that are roughly the same size as SLBM/ICBM first stages. Delta 4 roughly 4x and Atlas V roughly 12x solids of ~65k lb of solid fuel ~1mln lb.The active fleet of SLBMs ICBMs and GBI are in the range of 600-750 missiles. Each missile contains between 50k and 130k lb of solid fuel. Lets assume an average of 85k lb and a stowage live of 25years. Annual production would be 24-30 missiles or 2 - 2.5mln lb of solid propallent.
1. But do solids always require AP?! 2. Missile most of the time use more exotic oxidizers.
Quote from: Kabloona on 06/24/2017 03:04 amQuote from: Lars-J on 06/24/2017 02:32 amIf Pentagon is really concerned about the solids industrial base, the obvious answer is staring them in the face. Spread out procurement to smaller contracts awarded more often. Downsizing for contractors is OK...Well, then it costs them (and us taxpayers) more, and it's difficult to spread out the really big procurements like ICBMS across decades instead of years.No. Only in politics does that make sense. Why should it cost more to buy less?
And as I've said above, it's not just the need for facilities, it's the need for chemists, ChemE's, etc, with experience in solid propellant chemistry, which is notoriously tricky. You can't just get those people out of grad school. A lot of the old gray-hairs from Shuttle SRB, Peacekeeper, etc, are disappearing, and some of their knowledge is being lost. Some things can't be learned from books. So it's a concern that the industry is losing this expertise.
Quote from: Kabloona on 06/24/2017 01:08 pmAnd as I've said above, it's not just the need for facilities, it's the need for chemists, ChemE's, etc, with experience in solid propellant chemistry, which is notoriously tricky. You can't just get those people out of grad school. A lot of the old gray-hairs from Shuttle SRB, Peacekeeper, etc, are disappearing, and some of their knowledge is being lost. Some things can't be learned from books. So it's a concern that the industry is losing this expertise.I would think the number of chemists required is not scaling linearly with the mass of SRMs built? If you are building, say, relatively "small" motors of SM3 missiles (compared to Shuttle SRBs), you still need about the same number of chemists controlling fuel parameters, no?
Quote from: Lars-J on 06/24/2017 02:32 amIf Pentagon is really concerned about the solids industrial base, the obvious answer is staring them in the face. Spread out procurement to smaller contracts awarded more often. Downsizing for contractors is OK...That doesn't work. There is no way to spread out a new ICBM development into smaller more often contracts.
Because there is a decent chance that in the near-ish future (10-20yrs) there will *No* solids used in any domestic launch vehicle. Vulcan may be the last of its breed.
Quote from: Lars-J on 06/24/2017 04:33 pmBecause there is a decent chance that in the near-ish future (10-20yrs) there will *No* solids used in any domestic launch vehicle. Vulcan may be the last of its breed.No, there will still be quick reaction vehicles.
You can make them w/o solids. Perhaps you are being too narrow minded as to solutions?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/24/2017 06:04 pmYou can make them w/o solids. Perhaps you are being too narrow minded as to solutions?No, the point that was too narrow minded is thinking that there would be no solid launch vehicles at all.