(The key reason solids are uninteresting as LV propulsion is not that they are solids but because while they are "good enough" performance wise for current weapons systems delivery, its that they are ludicrously not competitive. If we couldn't afford the weapons systems because they are not funded by government fiat, they wouldn't be made this way.)
If it can't economically justify its existence (and becomes too easy for others), it's military significance is lost.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/24/2017 06:02 pm(The key reason solids are uninteresting as LV propulsion is not that they are solids but because while they are "good enough" performance wise for current weapons systems delivery, its that they are ludicrously not competitive. If we couldn't afford the weapons systems because they are not funded by government fiat, they wouldn't be made this way.)Not true at all. Solid motors vehicles have lower O&M costs than a liquid system. They are the cheaper solution, that is why they exist in the first place.
They are more responsive and quicker reaction time.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/24/2017 06:24 pmIf it can't economically justify its existence (and becomes too easy for others), it's military significance is lost. wrong. they are no different than aircraft carrier and SLBM shipyards. They do not economically justify their existence but they are militarily necessary .
And as to strategic response, storables are adequate, and electric powered fill/drain isn't a significant impact for the limited scale weapons we're looking at.
You don't need the bulk of the existing military industrial complex we're supporting to generate comparable threat level.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/24/2017 06:47 pmAnd as to strategic response, storables are adequate, and electric powered fill/drain isn't a significant impact for the limited scale weapons we're looking at.What storables? There are still more O&M costs with liquids, even benign ones. Electric powered fill/drain has no bearing on the matter.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/24/2017 06:47 pmYou don't need the bulk of the existing military industrial complex we're supporting to generate comparable threat level.that is not true and not a subject for debate here
Maintaining LOX at a missile site for decades is going to cost. A solid has to be mixed and poured only once
Quote from: Jim on 06/24/2017 07:37 pmMaintaining LOX at a missile site for decades is going to cost. A solid has to be mixed and poured only onceWe manage various cryogen's routinely at manufacturing and medical facilities. Everyday occurrence is passing a cryogen truck on the freeway. You're mired in the past.
The Navy will never load up a submarine with cryogenic or hypergolic fuels. Never.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/24/2017 07:49 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/24/2017 07:37 pmMaintaining LOX at a missile site for decades is going to cost. A solid has to be mixed and poured only onceWe manage various cryogen's routinely at manufacturing and medical facilities. Everyday occurrence is passing a cryogen truck on the freeway. You're mired in the past. No, you are ignoring reality. I am talking about weekly/monthly trips to refill 400-500 tanks thoughout the Dakotas and Wyoming. And more often when they have a readiness test and load the missile. And there is that submarine thing.
Or is it too much to face that challenge head on?So you either advance it, or get on with something else that is advancing. Got that?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/24/2017 08:16 pmOr is it too much to face that challenge head on?So you either advance it, or get on with something else that is advancing. Got that?No, I'm afraid I don't.Why does ceasing production of ammonium perchlorate "advance" but continuing production of it "stops?" Seeing as that's the topic at hand.
Quote from: Kabloona on 06/24/2017 01:42 amQuote 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.As they did before solids were used for LV's. Suggest it was an unsuccessful diversion for a few decades, and that's drawing to a close. IMHO, it was a precarious presumption from the start, and held back LV development.Now, back to coping with Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Base", which he sternly warned about ... it's the same issue it has always been, and likely always will be. Omitting the above evasion, like any weapons system, you phase in/out .Thoughts: A) What if there never really was a means to reduce the costs, and this was just a giant "red herring" that gets to be continually resurrected? B) What if we keep instantiating the same technology instead of finding/evolving the next follow-on to current solids, suggesting that we need to budget tech research (weapons development) as the increment in funding, where that might find alternate uses to broaden the base of usage?(The key reason solids are uninteresting as LV propulsion is not that they are solids but because while they are "good enough" performance wise for current weapons systems delivery, its that they are ludicrously not competitive. If we couldn't afford the weapons systems because they are not funded by government fiat, they wouldn't be made this way.)C) Perhaps its due to the global lack of rivals for such weapons systems that there is no pressure on such propulsion systems? If so, then the lifetime of such systems must be extended, and we should "end of life" solids and drive all into exotic weapons systems research for means that don't require such propulsions? (ie. eventually solids will become too routine by all rivals that the cost of the installed base IS the barrier to use)I wonder if we are receiving the right message here, or simply trying to avoid the obvious conclusion: that we are supporting/preserving a "dead end". Time to "think different" in some manner.
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.
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.
Very interesting argument, but Once a year is just plain wrong. That doesn't happen without energy input.
Russia/others still use storables.
As for next generation launch vehicles, Ariane 6, Vulcan, GLSV-Mk 3, H-3, the advanced Vega, etc., all plan to use solid motors. China has introduced a series of new solid-motor based orbital launchers. Those that don't use them (Falcon 9, New Glenn, CZ-7, etc.) are probably in the minority.