Yeah, after Jim's thread we probably don't need to rehash it.
DoD does have a requirement for a Large Hydrocarbon Engine.
Jim had a (since renamed) thread on this
The only possibility i can think of wouldn't be DOD per se, but larger NRO telescopes taking advantage of the larger payload fairings.
Until there is a spacecraft production facility next to a waterway, they are limited to aircraft dimensions, can't truck the big items.A whole new infrastructure will need to be created to get the payloads to the launch site or manufacturing has to be done at the launch site
Max diameter for aircraft delivered payload is 5 meters, which is a standard EELV fairing.
Quote from: Jim on 07/15/2010 09:19 pmMax diameter for aircraft delivered payload is 5 meters, which is a standard EELV fairing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_GuppyMax inside diameter is 7.6 m.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 09:21 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/15/2010 09:19 pmMax diameter for aircraft delivered payload is 5 meters, which is a standard EELV fairing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_GuppyMax inside diameter is 7.6 m.Guppy is not being used anymore
Quote from: Jim on 07/15/2010 09:38 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 09:21 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/15/2010 09:19 pmMax diameter for aircraft delivered payload is 5 meters, which is a standard EELV fairing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_GuppyMax inside diameter is 7.6 m.Guppy is not being used anymoreDidn't know that. That strengthens the notion I've had that Earth-side logistical difficulties make HLV-sized payloads... well... difficult.
DoD has five payloads in various stages of development, all of which will require serious Heavy Lift capabilities.The first of those will actually be completed and awaiting a vehicle to fly it, around 2014. They were planning on flying it on Ares-V, but that ain't happening any more, so they're wondering what to use instead now.Three of them require a 12m diameter payload fairing too. Anyone with half a brain cell can guess what those are going to be.Ross.
Quote from: kraisee on 07/16/2010 03:25 amDoD has five payloads in various stages of development, all of which will require serious Heavy Lift capabilities.The first of those will actually be completed and awaiting a vehicle to fly it, around 2014. They were planning on flying it on Ares-V, but that ain't happening any more, so they're wondering what to use instead now.Three of them require a 12m diameter payload fairing too. Anyone with half a brain cell can guess what those are going to be.Ross.How isn't this classified?Very interesting information, for sure.EDIT: DoD really ought to put some money down for this project, then, if they're going to use it.
Three of them require a 12m diameter payload fairing too. Anyone with half a brain cell can guess what those are going to be.
QuoteThree of them require a 12m diameter payload fairing too. Anyone with half a brain cell can guess what those are going to be. Spy satellites?
You've heard of Black Projects? That's what's called a Blue Project Ross.
DoD has five payloads in various stages of development, all of which will require serious Heavy Lift capabilities.The first of those will actually be completed and awaiting a vehicle to fly it, around 2014.
Three of them require a 12m diameter payload fairing too.
Quote from: kraisee on 07/16/2010 03:25 amDoD has five payloads in various stages of development, all of which will require serious Heavy Lift capabilities.The first of those will actually be completed and awaiting a vehicle to fly it, around 2014.QuoteThree of them require a 12m diameter payload fairing too.Can you provide any evidence in support of these statements?
Quote from: kraisee on 07/16/2010 03:25 amThree of them require a 12m diameter payload fairing too. Anyone with half a brain cell can guess what those are going to be.Giant soccer balls, to prove to the Old World we are serious about soccer?
Sure...lets all get Ross to ask his DoD contracts for documentation about a classified national security program so he can post that documentation here for all to see. Great idea. Did we just want him deported to the UK, or are we trying for rendition to somewhere a little more exotic?The man has a pretty solid track record that should count for something.Interesting article here on cancellation of both FIA and its replacement program:http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/fia.htmAnother interesting article here:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1400/1Note what it has to say about the "tiers" of the planned FIA follow-on, the need for JWST-style folding mirrors to meet requirements, and the Obama administration intention to have LM build modernized Block 5 KH-11s.While there's nothing in these articles to suggest any payload too large for EELVs has been contracted for, you can certainly see how a larger LV could really help avoid JWST-style complexity and cost.
Ross may be talking to "pie in the sky" blue suiters who have big dreams, but not the real movers and shakers in the "real" national security space program.
Sure...lets all get Ross to ask his DoD contracts for documentation about a classified national security program so he can post that documentation here for all to see. Great idea. Did we just want him deported to the UK, or are we trying for rendition to somewhere a little more exotic?
Quote from: jml on 07/16/2010 05:13 pmSure...lets all get Ross to ask his DoD contracts for documentation about a classified national security program so he can post that documentation here for all to see. Great idea. Did we just want him deported to the UK, or are we trying for rendition to somewhere a little more exotic?I'm sorry JML. You may buy this stuff, but Occam's razor makes me doubt the claim barring some proof. With how expensive EELV-sized payloads are, do you really think that the DoD would somehow be able to hide the massive costs of developing 5(!) payloads so big they require HLVs to lift them? And that they would do so even when the potential existance of said HLVs was highly in doubt? While I could see some people screwing around with *concepts* for missions, doing "what-if" studies and things like that, I just don't buy for a second that the military actually has missions that couldn't be flown on existing or planned LVs. I like Ross, but stuff like this makes me take him less seriously.~Jon
Finding: The scientific missions reviewed by the committee as appropriate for launch on an Ares V vehicle fall, with few exceptions, into the “flagship” class of missions. The preliminary cost estimates, based on mis-sion concepts that at this time are not very detailed, indicate that the costs of many of the missions analyzed will be above $5 billion (in current dollars). The Ares V costs are not included in these estimates.The committee notes that expensive space science programs will place a great strain on the space science budget, which has been essentially flat for several years and is already under strain from an ambitious slate of 85 flight missions.
NASA having an HLV capability at LC-39 does nothing for the missions like FIA and its follow on. Those are west coast missions. No SDLV capability at VAFB anymore.
Quote from: Jim on 07/16/2010 05:39 pmNASA having an HLV capability at LC-39 does nothing for the missions like FIA and its follow on. Those are west coast missions. No SDLV capability at VAFB anymore.Couldn't it be that a large DoD payload might be volume-limited rather than mass-limited, and that an East Coast-launched HLV could fly a dog-leg trajectory to place the payload into polar orbit?
No, dog-leg trajectories can only increase inclination by a few degrees, and in any event, would violate range safety limits.
Quote from: Jorge on 08/16/2010 03:03 amNo, dog-leg trajectories can only increase inclination by a few degrees, and in any event, would violate range safety limits.What about the launch from Cape Canaveral of ESSA 2 on 28 February 1966? Encyclopedia Astronautica indicates an inclination of 101.3 degrees?
DoD has five payloads in various stages of development, all of which will require serious Heavy Lift capabilities.The first of those will actually be completed and awaiting a vehicle to fly it, around 2014. They were planning on flying it on Ares-V, but that ain't happening any more, so they're wondering what to use instead now.
The not inexpensive RS-68A development was undertaken because the original Delta IV Heavy was not powerful enough and will be superseded within a few launches. The difference in capability between Delta IV Heavy and Ares V is also so wide that you can't really make any serious assumptions based on Delta IV flight rate.
Yeah crazy that, like the difference between launching humans to the ISS and back instead of to the Moon and back, who would need such a step-up improvement like that ?
Some observations/questions:- Haven't DoD space assets been statistically more likely to change orbits than commercial space assets?- Don't orbit changes require considerable propellant mass?- Doesn't US military doctrine require the capability to conduct simultaneous operations in at least two geographically disjoint theaters?If yes: might the DoD, when launching an asset into a theater-specific orbit, prefer the option of launching it with sufficient propellant such that it could later be moved into an orbit specific to a different theater of operations?But if the lift capability for that weren't available, they might find another way, i.e. launch a duplicate asset into the newly desired orbit?
Quote from: sdsds on 10/11/2010 07:46 pmSome observations/questions:- Haven't DoD space assets been statistically more likely to change orbits than commercial space assets?- Don't orbit changes require considerable propellant mass?- Doesn't US military doctrine require the capability to conduct simultaneous operations in at least two geographically disjoint theaters?If yes: might the DoD, when launching an asset into a theater-specific orbit, prefer the option of launching it with sufficient propellant such that it could later be moved into an orbit specific to a different theater of operations?But if the lift capability for that weren't available, they might find another way, i.e. launch a duplicate asset into the newly desired orbit?Given the limits on chemical propulsion, I think the last option( launch duplicate into newly desired orbit) is more likely. I think the DOD would be a customer of a prop depot or of some sort of serving craft. The DOD has enough budget and clout that if it wanted heavy lift, it could have it.
First the DoD discusses it's needs only internally and even these are on a need to know basis.Second nobody inside the DoD is going to tell you what their needs are unless they want to go to jail.Third unless you are inside the DoD or are part of DoD discussions you have zero knowledge of DoD needsFourth if you are inside the DoD then you're not going to tell anyone what their needs are unless you want to go to jail.
Quote from: clongton on 10/11/2010 12:20 pmFirst the DoD discusses it's needs only internally and even these are on a need to know basis.Second nobody inside the DoD is going to tell you what their needs are unless they want to go to jail.Third unless you are inside the DoD or are part of DoD discussions you have zero knowledge of DoD needsFourth if you are inside the DoD then you're not going to tell anyone what their needs are unless you want to go to jail.That all makes sense to me. In light of the above, how is it that you and kraisee claim to know that DoD has a need for heavy lift?
Anyone with half a brain cell can guess what those are going to be.
Quote from: kraisee on 07/16/2010 03:25 amDoD has five payloads in various stages of development, all of which will require serious Heavy Lift capabilities. ...Three of them require a 12m diameter payload fairing too. Anyone with half a brain cell can guess what those are going to be.Uhhhh... big?
DoD has five payloads in various stages of development, all of which will require serious Heavy Lift capabilities. ...Three of them require a 12m diameter payload fairing too. Anyone with half a brain cell can guess what those are going to be.
Quote from: Proponent on 10/12/2010 06:43 amQuote from: clongton on 10/11/2010 12:20 pmFirst the DoD discusses it's needs only internally and even these are on a need to know basis.Second nobody inside the DoD is going to tell you what their needs are unless they want to go to jail.Third unless you are inside the DoD or are part of DoD discussions you have zero knowledge of DoD needsFourth if you are inside the DoD then you're not going to tell anyone what their needs are unless you want to go to jail.That all makes sense to me. In light of the above, how is it that you and kraisee claim to know that DoD has a need for heavy lift?See "Third" above.
Quote from: clongton on 10/12/2010 11:28 amQuote from: Proponent on 10/12/2010 06:43 amQuote from: clongton on 10/11/2010 12:20 pmFirst the DoD discusses it's needs only internally and even these are on a need to know basis.Second nobody inside the DoD is going to tell you what their needs are unless they want to go to jail.Third unless you are inside the DoD or are part of DoD discussions you have zero knowledge of DoD needsFourth if you are inside the DoD then you're not going to tell anyone what their needs are unless you want to go to jail.That all makes sense to me. In light of the above, how is it that you and kraisee claim to know that DoD has a need for heavy lift?See "Third" above.And why, exactly, would DoD have been willing to discuss this with you and allow you to make it public?
Chuck - Why do you guys keep digging your hole deeper with this absurd claim?
Chuck - Why do you guys keep digging your hole deeper with this absurd claim?A DoD "hey, wouldn't it be nice if..." list is NOT a DoD requirement. Appreciate the difference.
Would an 8 or 9m monolithic mirror in GEO give sufficient resolution for Surveillance work? Or perhaps an even larger segmented mirror? Park that over the Middle East.. and it would eliminate your surveillance "gaps".. you could change targets over a range of thousands of miles in seconds.
Here's a thought. It isn't technically a DoD mission (except by a really broad definition of 'defence') but I could see it ending up on their desk. It might also require a very large lift vehicle.An all-sky observation platform capable of resolving any object that could be potentially hazardous, either by ground-strike or air-burst (Earth-distance orbit near the ecliptic and at least one axis >100m). the vehicle I'm thinking of would have dozens of high-resolution cameras pointing in all directions, continually imaging, comparing with the previous image for moving objects and notifying Space Command automatically of any targets.I presume three vehicles, one at SEL-1 and the other two at SEL-4 and -5.The size would not be as much an issue as, likely, volume and, more importantly, the need to push it through TOI. It would probably, including the fuel on the EDS, be a ~40t IMELO launch at the very minimum.
Quote from: TrueBlueWitt on 10/25/2010 04:47 amWould an 8 or 9m monolithic mirror in GEO give sufficient resolution for Surveillance work? Or perhaps an even larger segmented mirror? Park that over the Middle East.. and it would eliminate your surveillance "gaps".. you could change targets over a range of thousands of miles in seconds.Insufficient resolution by itself. What would be needed would be 5 of them, separated by a distance of (classified), all electronically ganged together to act in unison. That way you'ld get the resolution down to something like 10cm, or less.