Author Topic: 2013 Space Legislation  (Read 18142 times)

Offline rocketacademy

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #20 on: 09/26/2012 06:48 pm »
I think the Tea Party should look at national defense and military space, also.

Things like Military Space Plane, Prompt Global Strike, and SUSTAIN (small unit insertion from space).

SFF has supported Military Space Plane in the past, but only only as an unarmed transport. That's not the military's job. The Air Force relies on commercial air transport for over 80% of its logistical needs. Military transports are only used for missions with special requirements that cannot be met commercially. Commercial space transportation should be procured the same way, while Military Space Plane is developed for military missions -- killing people and breaking things.

There is more commonality between military missions and commercial missions than between NASA missions and commercial missions. Military and commercial applications call for high launch rates, high reliability, prompt reaction times, etc. which are mostly irrelevant to NASA missions.

A Military Space Plane development program, if well-funded and well-run) could be more valuable to the commercial space industry than COTS, CCDEV, or COTS Mars.

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #21 on: 09/26/2012 08:38 pm »
A Military Space Plane development program, if well-funded and well-run) could be more valuable to the commercial space industry than COTS, CCDEV, or COTS Mars.


How does a military space plane achieve that?  Because as of this moment a company cannot buy say an F-15, F-16, F-22 or F-35 for commercial use. 


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #22 on: 09/26/2012 08:56 pm »
SUSTAIN (small unit insertion from space).

A totally nonviable concept and has no basis in reality.  A scheme that doesn't pass the sniff test and was developed by space cadets and not real soldiers.   It no longer is being pursued.   

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #23 on: 09/26/2012 08:57 pm »

A Military Space Plane development program, if well-funded and well-run) could be more valuable to the commercial space industry than COTS, CCDEV, or COTS Mars.


Because the military doesn't need one.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #24 on: 09/26/2012 08:58 pm »
Since COTS is rapidly evolving toward a traditional FAR-based procurement,

Wrong, it is not evolving to FAR.  SAA's are still being used.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #25 on: 09/26/2012 09:17 pm »

1.  You know not what you speak of. The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation has a dual mission, to regulate and to encourage, facilitate, and promote. It's been that way since the office was created. I know because I led one of the teams on the Hill that helped pass the enabling legislation.

2.  Funding experimenters is what the CRUSR program does. It does not operate vehicles. It purchases launch services.

3.  There are more things in heaven and earth, Jim, than are dreamt of in your FARs.

3.  Really??? You've never heard of Space Command? 

4.  You must be smoking those FARs, Jim. When I purchase a service -- renting a pickup, say -- I don't accept an econobox or a dogcart instead.

5.  Substituting balloons or sounding rockets for suborbital RLVs is an example of what's called "bait and switch." It's generally illegal in commercial transactions. Even under the FARs, it's frowned upon.

Again, you just don't get it.

You have a habit of spreading disinformation everywhere

1.  So what if you did.  It looks like you didn't know what you were doing. "encourage, facilitate, and promote" is not the same as operations.  And my points stands, the FAA does not have the expertise.

2.  Purchasing launch services still requires expertise that the NSF or experiments do not have.

3.  Again, you have shown that you know nothing about FAR.  You have yet to point out what is bad about every part of it.

4.  I was in Space Command.  It is military not civilian.   Where as NASA serves the civilian gov't and sometimes the DOD.

5. As for smoking?   Look in a mirror.  Again, you use a wrong analogy.  Renting a truck?  That is not even close, the service is to deliver a package and not choosing the conveyance. 

As for not getting it,  I would just have to point to your posts.  They are void of reality

Offline rocketacademy

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #26 on: 09/26/2012 09:29 pm »

Because the military doesn't need one.

Says the guy who thought NASA was in charge of DoD space programs. :-)

The Old Guard said the same thing about airplanes, in the 1960's.

I know a couple of colonels who would strongly disagree with you. But what do War College graduates know, anyway? :-) 

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #27 on: 09/26/2012 09:33 pm »

Because the military doesn't need one.

Says the guy who thought NASA was in charge of DoD space programs. :-)

The Old Guard said the same thing about airplanes, in the 1960's.

I know a couple of colonels who would strongly disagree with you. But what do War College graduates know, anyway? :-) 


Would you then answer my question and a how a military space plane, with requirements derived from the military, owned and operated by the military benefit non-existent commercial space transport more than CCDev/CCiCap has the chance of doing?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #28 on: 09/26/2012 09:43 pm »

Because the military doesn't need one.

Says the guy who thought NASA was in charge of DoD space programs. :-)

The Old Guard said the same thing about airplanes, in the 1960's.

I know a couple of colonels who would strongly disagree with you. But what do War College graduates know, anyway? :-) 


Spreading more disinformation

I never said NASA was in charge of DOD space programs

Your analogy fails you.  The Old Guard are the ones who think wings are needed in space. That is the stick jockeys of the air force speaking and not the ones who really know space ops.  Just like 50 years ago, Dynasoars are still extinct. 

I know more Colonels who would agree with me.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2012 09:45 pm by Jim »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #29 on: 09/26/2012 10:05 pm »

Because the military doesn't need one.

Says the guy who thought NASA was in charge of DoD space programs. :-)

The Old Guard said the same thing about airplanes, in the 1960's.

I know a couple of colonels who would strongly disagree with you. But what do War College graduates know, anyway? :-) 


Would you then answer my question and a how a military space plane, with requirements derived from the military, owned and operated by the military benefit non-existent commercial space transport more than CCDev/CCiCap has the chance of doing?

This is kind of a stupid question, but isn't X-37 The Military SpacePlane? Would there be commercial applications for such a vehicle?

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #30 on: 09/26/2012 10:12 pm »

Because the military doesn't need one.

Says the guy who thought NASA was in charge of DoD space programs. :-)

The Old Guard said the same thing about airplanes, in the 1960's.

I know a couple of colonels who would strongly disagree with you. But what do War College graduates know, anyway? :-) 


Would you then answer my question and a how a military space plane, with requirements derived from the military, owned and operated by the military benefit non-existent commercial space transport more than CCDev/CCiCap has the chance of doing?

This is kind of a stupid question, but isn't X-37 The Military SpacePlane? Would there be commercial applications for such a vehicle?


The capabilities of the X-37 are really unknown, at least in details.  So I'm not sure how one can say there are commercial apps for anything that went into creating it.  Those that are known are more or less technologies and capabilities used in other programs over the past (propulsion - assuming it does not go to warp once in orbit, TPS, etc)

Plus, it can't carry a crew and the talk about an up-sized X-37 for crew was just internal discussions.  Either way, regardless if it is CST-100 or an X-37 variant the same problem with the business case applies. 

So my question to rocketacademy is what does a crewed military space plane (which is implied based on the other programs he references that all have crewed capability tied to them in some degree) do for supposed commercial space?

Offline rocketacademy

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #31 on: 09/27/2012 01:26 am »

This is kind of a stupid question, but isn't X-37 The Military SpacePlane?


Only in the minds of the news media.

X-37 is an experimental testbed for AF technologies.

MSP would be an operational vehicle, capable of delivering a militarily significant payload anyway in the world in 90 minutes, high-tempo operations, and high sortie rates.

The sorties rate for X-37, by contrast, is almost nonexistent.

It's a bit like the Airborne Laster Laboratory vs. an F-22.





Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #32 on: 09/27/2012 01:29 am »
Still waiting on the explanation as to why such a plane would benefit supposed commercial space over the CCDev/CCiCap programs as you claimed rocketacedemy. 

Offline rocketacademy

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #33 on: 09/27/2012 01:43 am »
Still waiting on the explanation as to why such a plane would benefit supposed commercial space over the CCDev/CCiCap programs as you claimed rocketacedemy. 

Durable, maintainable, rapidly reusable technologies developed for military spaceplane would also be useful for commercial RLVs (and vice versa).

Look at the improvement in jet engines since World War II, driven by both military and commercial aircraft. We need similar improvements for space technology.

CCDEV/CCiCap cannot drive such technologies because the systems are expendable, or minimally reusable, and the flight rate is trivial. 

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #34 on: 09/27/2012 01:48 am »
Rocketacademy. Read your PMs (it's the bar with "My Messages" in red at the top of the page).
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #35 on: 09/27/2012 01:50 am »
Still waiting on the explanation as to why such a plane would benefit supposed commercial space over the CCDev/CCiCap programs as you claimed rocketacedemy. 

Durable, maintainable, rapidly reusable technologies developed for military spaceplane would also be useful for commercial RLVs (and vice versa).

Look at the improvement in jet engines since World War II, driven by both military and commercial aircraft. We need similar improvements for space technology.

CCDEV/CCiCap cannot drive such technologies because the systems are expendable, or minimally reusable, and the flight rate is trivial. 


Ok.  So is there a projected need for this rapidly reusable military spaceplane?  I'm sure you will say yes, so is the need sufficient that it would require its use several times a month?  I'd like for you to paint me that scenario. 

Outside of that, it sounds like you've described STS.  I'm sure that will disturbe you.

Offline rocketacademy

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #36 on: 09/27/2012 02:12 am »

Ok.  So is there a projected need for this rapidly reusable military spaceplane?  I'm sure you will say yes, so is the need sufficient that it would require its use several times a month?  I'd like for you to paint me that scenario. 
[/quote]

Several times a month? No. You don't understand what rapid means. The projected requirement is up to 3-4 times per day, in emergency situations.

See:

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/AIAA-2006-8018.pdf

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #37 on: 09/27/2012 02:21 am »

Several times a month? No. You don't understand what rapid means. The projected requirement is up to 3-4 times per day, in emergency situations.

See:

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/AIAA-2006-8018.pdf


Oh, I was trying to help you out by giving you the benefit of the doubt by measuring times per month....but yes the world right now is in the crapper but justify me the need to launch a military space plan 3-4 times a day for "emergency situations". 

And AIAA papers don't cut it.  Give me real DoD analysis that says such a capability is required. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #38 on: 09/27/2012 02:49 am »

MSP would be an operational vehicle, capable of delivering a militarily significant payload anyway in the world in 90 minutes, high-tempo operations, and high sortie rates.

A. it doesn't need to be a plane to be anywhere in 90 minutes.  Also, there are other than imagery there is little use for that response time and there are other ways

b.  The high tempo and sortie rates are bogus since the rest of the infrastructure can't support it nor is there that much of a need for the flight rate.  GPS and GEO comsats don't need to be replenished at that high of rate, even during war.  And if GPS and comsats were taken out in war, so the capability to take out them out would be use on the space plane.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 2013 Space Legislation
« Reply #39 on: 09/27/2012 02:50 am »
Durable, maintainable, rapidly reusable technologies developed for military spaceplane would also be useful for commercial RLVs (and vice versa).


An RLV does not equate to a winged vehicle.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0