US Army MNMS Nanomissle Launch System

[Jim]

If a foe sets off an EMP, or otherwise removes the majority of US satellites from usefulness, you can bet that the army would rather have a bunch little crappy cameras with them in the field,

And those in the field would not be able to find the targets because
a.  GPS would be knocked ou
b. Comsats would be too

[Robotbeat]

If a foe sets off an EMP, or otherwise removes the majority of US satellites from usefulness, you can bet that the army would rather have a bunch little crappy cameras with them in the field,

And those in the field would not be able to find the targets because
a.  GPS would be knocked ou
b. Comsats would be too

I imagine that the army would be interested in having a few backup batches of GPS (even if relatively crude) and comm sats available for those reasons. If most of your bombs and UAVs suddenly become useless, you're kind of screwed, aren't you?

I don't know if MNMS would be able to provide anything like that (and, as Blackstar points out, there's a lot of details to work out for launching a satellite constellation on short notice), but I suspect that's a large part of the motivation for this project.

[Jim]

I imagine that the army would be interested in having a few backup batches of GPS (even if relatively crude) and comm sats available for those reasons. If most of your bombs and UAVs suddenly become useless, you're kind of screwed, aren't you?
t.

This can't replace comsats and GPS spacecraft

[Robotbeat]

I imagine that the army would be interested in having a few backup batches of GPS (even if relatively crude) and comm sats available for those reasons. If most of your bombs and UAVs suddenly become useless, you're kind of screwed, aren't you?
t.

This can't replace comsats and GPS spacecraft

I realize that, but they could replace something like the ORBCOMM network (~40kg microsats), and the satellite phone LEO constellations are able to do crude positioning within a few kilometers, though obviously that precision leaves much to be desired.

[Blackstar]

I realize that, but they could replace something like the ORBCOMM network (~40kg microsats), and the satellite phone LEO constellations are able to do crude positioning within a few kilometers, though obviously that precision leaves much to be desired.

Wow, kilometer accuracy.

Look, this is not a replacement for GPS.  And it's not a replacement for traditional comm.  The key question is what is it good for?

[Blackstar]

This can't replace comsats and GPS spacecraft

It's worth repeating (I'm sure Jim knows this, so I'm repeating this for everybody else): GPS is the size it is because they couldn't make it any smaller.  They've tried.  The equipment, the altitude and power requirements, all drive it to the size that it's at.

GPS has been around for several decades now (the first test launches were in the 1970s) and the fact that it's a constellation of identical satellites has made it attractive for innovative thinkers in the Pentagon, and over the years various people have come up with clever ideas for GPS--the same ideas again and again.  The most common idea is to host other payloads on them, like a comm package.  It always gets shot down, because doing that would require both a bigger satellite and is ultimately not attractive in that orbit.  But the reverse is also true--people have tried to come up with ways of making GPS smaller and cheaper and that hasn't worked either.

GPS is a highly mature system now.  It can be improved, but it is not going to be changed substantially.

[A_M_Swallow]

Wow, kilometer accuracy.

Look, this is not a replacement for GPS.  And it's not a replacement for traditional comm.  The key question is what is it good for?

Over the horizon communication between missiles and the operator aiming them?

[Blackstar]

1-If a foe sets off an EMP, or otherwise removes the majority of US satellites from usefulness, you can bet that the army would rather have a bunch little crappy cameras with them in the field, ready for quick-launch than nothing at all.  Plus at 10 kg, they would be smaller targets if it was ground based ASAT.  If the satellites are taken out/blinded by other little enemy satellites (rumoured to exist), then you might be able to have more cameras to launch than they have of little predator satellites.   

2-It also could be used to test technologies for small hypersonic ground-ground or ground-air missiles (scram/ram).

1-If a foe "removes the majority of US satellites from usefulness," then we won't need an army.  Any foe capable of doing this would have to be pretty damned capable.  After all, the US military currently has over 100 operational satellites in orbit.  That's a lot of stuff to take out.

As for EMP?  An EMP is a nuke.  If a foe uses a nuke, do you think we are going to need that army?  Do you think that a foe would use the nuke for an EMP and then not nuke the army?  (Do you think a foe would waste a nuke on an EMP unless they had a lot of them?)

And note that although the individual satellites might be simpler, if you put a whole bunch of them into space, you've created a complex constellation that has to be controlled and used effectively.  How do you do that against a foe that has an EMP?

2-I assume you are referring to the rocket here?  There are other ways to test such missiles.

[Blackstar]

  I believe that this is where the Falcon 1 entered the picture, with an original launch cost of around $5 million apiece.  (Anybody know what the list price is for a Falcon 1 now?)

Falcon 1 is a lot bigger/less transportable.  It costs $10.9 million for 1010 kg.  This other system is talking about ~10 kg.  One needs liquid oxygen, the other just needs ethane and nitrous oxide.  Far different uses/mobility levels.

You've missed my point here.  I was not trying to compare Falcon 1 to this other system.  I was pointing out that ORS, and Falcon 1, were touted as wonder systems that would do many of the same things that people here are saying that this new technology will do.  And they did not do that.  Falcon 1 did not achieve its cost goals. 

My point is that if you're going to try and predict what will happen here, then the ORS experience is a good guide--it promised a lot, did not deliver, and now is either in a state of limbo, or even decline (when measured against the original promise).

I'm not opposed to small satellites.  But small inevitably means less capable.  You have to ask if those lower capabilities are still worth the cost.  ORS has been going for almost a decade now and still has not demonstrated that to such an extent that they've convinced a lot of people.  You can manufacture a better dog food, but the proof is if the dogs come running to eat it.

[go2mars]

If the satellites are taken out/blinded by other little enemy satellites (rumoured to exist), then you might be able to have more cameras to launch than they have of little predator satellites.   

1-If a foe "removes the majority of US satellites from usefulness," then we won't need an army.  Any foe capable of doing this would have to be pretty damned capable.  After all, the US military currently has over 100 operational satellites in orbit.  That's a lot of stuff to take out.

As for EMP?  An EMP is a nuke.  If a foe uses a nuke, do you think we are going to need that army?  Do you think that a foe would use the nuke for an EMP and then not nuke the army?  (Do you think a foe would waste a nuke on an EMP unless they had a lot of them?)

And note that although the individual satellites might be simpler, if you put a whole bunch of them into space, you've created a complex constellation that has to be controlled and used effectively.  How do you do that against a foe that has an EMP?

I think an EMP (nuke) is less likely than predatory satellites or ground-based ASAT for 2 reasons: 
1 The aggressor's satellites would also be taken out if EMP were used.
2 Really bad PR.  Suddenly they have zero allies.

But even if someone did a space EMP, that certainly doesn't mean that they would necessarily use one on the earth's surface.   The threat of retaliation in kind goes way up with action that direct.

[Robotbeat]

This can't replace comsats and GPS spacecraft

It's worth repeating (I'm sure Jim knows this, so I'm repeating this for everybody else): GPS is the size it is because they couldn't make it any smaller.  They've tried.  The equipment, the altitude and power requirements, all drive it to the size that it's at.
...

I totally accept that, BTW. There may be other ways you could design a GNSS that would allow you to build it differently, but it would mean (if in LEO instead of MEO) many more satellites (over a couple hundred?) needed for continuous coverage (but would allow lower power... perhaps one hundredth or even less... and thus be smaller per satellite), or perhaps a larger receiver (receivers nowadays are built into just about any new cellphone you can buy, it seems). EDIT: Also, the constellation wouldn't need a very long lifetime. A year would be plenty of time, as opposed to the dozen years for current GNSS satellites.

GPS can be used for incredibly precise measurements right now... down to centimeters or even millimeters for surveying. This is done by having a stable frequency source (atomic clock) and careful elimination of the various different kinds of errors. All of this is not simple. EDIT:However, decently accurate atomic clocks have (in the last less than ten years) become incredibly small (<10 mm^3) and low-power (75mW) : http://tf.nist.gov/ofm/smallclock/Welcome.html
EDIT: And I should mention, GPS satellites tend to have multiple atomic clocks in each satellite, so the mass of the clocks is significant.

However, one wonders whether a simpler system might feasibly give a usable lock in location to within a distance of a few hundred meters (or less) to allow vehicles to still be able to navigate in case of problems with the GPS constellation. Same with very-low data-rate communications. The idea wouldn't be to replace GPS or military comm-sats, but to allow units in the field to still be functional in case the GPS system is taken down, even at a reduced capacity. If the enemy knows he can't take down the ability to navigate or communicate globally with a surprise ASAT attack, the enemy will be less likely to develop such a capability. Otherwise, the space assets are a ripe target in any large conflict between two space-capable powers, especially if one side is far more dependent on space assets than the other.

That said, I have no idea if they are planning to use the MNMS for something like that or not.

[mlorrey]

  I believe that this is where the Falcon 1 entered the picture, with an original launch cost of around $5 million apiece.  (Anybody know what the list price is for a Falcon 1 now?)

Falcon 1 is a lot bigger/less transportable.  It costs $10.9 million for 1010 kg.  This other system is talking about ~10 kg.  One needs liquid oxygen, the other just needs ethane and nitrous oxide.  Far different uses/mobility levels.

You've missed my point here.  I was not trying to compare Falcon 1 to this other system.  I was pointing out that ORS, and Falcon 1, were touted as wonder systems that would do many of the same things that people here are saying that this new technology will do.  And they did not do that.  Falcon 1 did not achieve its cost goals. 

My point is that if you're going to try and predict what will happen here, then the ORS experience is a good guide--it promised a lot, did not deliver, and now is either in a state of limbo, or even decline (when measured against the original promise).

I'm not opposed to small satellites.  But small inevitably means less capable.  You have to ask if those lower capabilities are still worth the cost.  ORS has been going for almost a decade now and still has not demonstrated that to such an extent that they've convinced a lot of people.  You can manufacture a better dog food, but the proof is if the dogs come running to eat it.

Well, with constantly shrinking technology, really the primary limitations on satellite capability is power, since you need x square meters of solar cells to generate power for y watts of radio transmissions, or x square meters of optical collection for y meters of ground resolution (or the equivalent for radar), or both. Both of these have rather strict diminishing returns curves on technological advances.

Ultimately, you are going to hit a limit with your 10kg package where the entire satellite is a big fold-out sheet with a phased array radar on one side, multiband photovoltaic cells on the other, and all your processing circuitry sandwiched in between. Even with this completely optimised design, you are going to be limited to 1-3 kw of power per sat. You would need a flock of 10-20 of these operating as a radar interferometer to be at all useful, and their low mass to cross sectional area means they will have serious stationkeeping issues in any orbit below ~600 miles.

[Blackstar]

http://blog.al.com/huntsville-times-business/2010/09/huntsville_company_working_to.html

Huntsville company working to get Army satellites into orbit 'on the cheap'
Published: Sunday, September 12, 2010, 6:00 AM
Kenneth Kesner, The Huntsville Times

Their goal was to put a small satellite into orbit, take the ultimate high ground and forever change the ways we think about Earth and space.

It's happening again.

Engineers at Dynetics are working with the Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, leading a team to create a rocket system that can very quickly and very cheaply place "nanosatellites" into orbit.

Tim Pickens, chief propulsion engineer at Dynetics, said a relatively low launch cost - about $1 million - is the revolutionary idea driving the project, "not technology, not high performance. Could it be done on the cheap? Those were the considerations."

[Ronsmytheiii]

Why would the Army be in charge of this system?  I thought the USAF was in charge of SLV's and ballistic missiles.  The army currently is only tasked with air defense (ie Patriots) and attack munitions (MLRS)

[simonbp]

Why would the Army be in charge of this system?  I thought the USAF was in charge of SLV's and ballistic missiles.  The army currently is only tasked with air defense (ie Patriots) and attack munitions (MLRS)

I think it's the same loophole that lets them run recon UAVs...

[bad_astra]

I didn't know Tim Pickens was involved. Excellent.

[kevin-rf]

Apparently he bought the remains of the DC-X ... http://realrocketman.tripod.com/uncletim.htm