US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

clark · 2005-07-12 16:55:49

Let me offer this nice little article to get things going,

http://www.peterson.af.mil/hqafspc/news … b.pdf]High Fronteir Winter 2005

The linked to pdf file is a series of articles written for the military space community and provide a perspective on how US military space command is looking to develop future capabilities and the possible barriers to achieving dominance of space.

I believe in one article it calls for control of the L1 one points.

Sometimes I even scare myself.

BWhite · 2005-07-12 17:01:38

Unless a rogue billionaire gets there first and builds an EML-1 to Luna space elevator.

For the "benefit of all humanity" of course.

Yankee Trader or Yankee Traitor?

BWhite · 2005-07-12 17:05:46

Some cold water from http://www.thespacereview.com/article/379/1]Dwayne Day:

The rhetorical military space program:
This has consisted of speeches and papers by a few Air Force generals advocating the development of various pie-in-the-sky plans, often involving space weaponry. The problem is that most of the programs in rhetorical military space do not abide by the laws of physics, few of them abide by the laws of bureaucratic and international affairs, and none of them abide by the laws of fiscal reality.
Generals have been advocating these kinds of projects since the beginning of the space age, usually from Air Force space outposts in places like Omaha or Cheyenne Mountain or Colorado Springs. But the proposals never survive very long when they reach Washington, DC. A former civilian Air Force Chief Scientist—whose job placed him on the senior uniformed Air Staff at the Pentagon—once remarked that one of his jobs consisted of serving as a reality check for goofy proposals from Air Force Space Command, like using lasers to blow up tanks.

Edited By BWhite on 1121209596

clark · 2005-07-12 17:26:43

Bill, I'm inclined to believe, however...

I've had some time to think this over, and it didn't happen all of a sudden. Maybe others have already glimpsed it, they're probably smarter than I. No great accomplishment there.

But the thing that most people discount is you. And Cobra, and Josh, and Sean, and Rxke, and GCN, and countless others who all have this life long yearn to put people into space.

The barrier to that goal? Complexity and price. And so the gauntlet is thrown, and the desire induced obsession forces all these hearts and minds to innovate and imagine, dream and compute, plan, and finally build. I've watched it grow, and now we all see the fruits of disparate lives touching one another in this common thread of humans to space. Sorry to wax poetic, but this is the seed for what the military truly wants.

A reduction in the complexity and cost of getting into space. Once that is achieved, those pie-in-the-sky ideas become a lot less foolish, and a lot more tempting.

Musk, who wants so badly to go to Mars, is building a rocket to enable that dream. Rutan who wants to go to the Moon in his lifetime, is working towards that goal. Bigelow, a madman who made a bet with himself, is rushing to realize all that once was nothing more than science fiction.

Not nations or people, but individuals. And if individuals can do this, can attempt to reach this now low lying fruit, it means that nations and their militaries can reach the higher hanging fruit that once was unattainable.

Flying once was thought to be a pie-in-the-sky idea. Going faster than 60 miles was impossible.

Almost five years ago I told you that there would be an American moon base in 2015-2020, and many laughed.

The US will attempt to control space, and we will enable them. It's the price we pay for this dream. [shrug]

DonPanic · 2005-07-18 17:01:29

LO

A reduction in the complexity and cost of getting into space.

How do you get the production scale to make things cheap ?
Ordering 20000 spacecrafts at the same time ?

Once that is achieved, those pie-in-the-sky ideas become a lot less foolish, and a lot more tempting.

Like what, a home made superMarsCruiser ?

The US will attempt to control space, and we will enable them.

Don't forget, to sing, crescendo, the national anthem :band:

Vive l'Amérique !

Clark for president !

clark · 2005-07-18 17:07:27

How do you get the production scale to make things cheap ?
Ordering 20000 spacecrafts at the same time ?

You don't need production scale, you just need a reduction in the per pound to orbit and launch on demand. Most of the cost of space activities is tied up in the launch costs. The Space advocacy community is entirely focused on solving this problem, because the cost per pound to orbit is what stands in our way too.

Like what, a home made superMarsCruiser ?

Or like nuclear power and propulsion, the very same things we need to go to Mars or the Moon.

Don't forget, to sing, crescendo, the national anthem

Only in the shower.

But let the French live longer!

DonPanic · 2005-07-18 17:48:09

You don't need production scale, you just need a reduction in the per pound to orbit and launch on demand. Most of the cost of space activities is tied up in the launch costs. The Space advocacy community is entirely focused on solving this problem, because the cost per pound to orbit is what stands in our way too.

the more you whish to improve its thrust, the more the launcher will need complex studies, that's to be paid back.

Like what, a home made superMarsCruiser ?
Or like nuclear power and propulsion, the very same things we need to go to Mars or the Moon.

A nuke powered spaceship, that's not complex at all...? ???
Should be over 100 times the price of the Nimitz, no ?

clark · 2005-07-18 18:02:27

Hmmm, one French voter for President Clark? Not sure how far that will get me, but it is a start!

the more you whish to improve its thrust, the more the launcher will need complex studies, that's to be paid back.

Not neccessarily, there are areas still available for innovation. Falcon I and V are examples.

A nuke powered spaceship, that's not complex at all...?
Should be over 100 times the price of the Nimitz, no ?

But the cost can be subsidized through research and development on the civilian side of space development. By focusing on practical applications (like VSE calls for) there will be a direct benefit to military space.

Instead of esoteric scientific research, NASA will not focus on practical applications that will have far more relevance to what the military planners want and need.

DonPanic · 2005-07-19 02:27:57

Instead of esoteric scientific research, NASA will not focus on practical applications

LO
Like the "space ascensor" ?
Some physicists demonstrated mathematically and physically in a forum here that a mass tight to Earth by carbon ribons or cables as described in a Nasa news release was by all means unstable in the Earth-Moon dynamic system.
Any object orbiting around Earth tends to join the orbit fitted to its orbiting speed.
If inertially tighted, the "space ascensor" should oscillate more and more due to tidal forces up to a point where the cable should wirl around the earth with some slightly boring consequences or the "space ascensor" should be permanently energy supplied and be driven by a stabilizing system in order to maintain its geosynchronicity, energy is money ???

And why should a lift be energy supplied by a laser beam, knowing its poor energy conversion rate, about 30% maximum, if you can have a direct electricity supply throught the cables or ribons ?
To make the project more technologically sexy ?

srmeaney · 2005-07-21 08:04:24

Space Command aint gonna like it when the Space Commonwealth happens. No place for Earth Millitary in Commonwealth Territory.

DonPanic · 2005-07-24 11:18:07

LO

Hmmm, one French voter for President Clark? Not sure how far that will get me, but it is a start!

Not far at all, french voter sees too much of an Alpha dominant male chimpanzee behaviour :shock: masked behind a varnish of civilization and of technologies...

clark · 2005-07-24 12:07:00

Mmmm...

Where I am coming from is that if those who want to go and colonize space are to achieve their goal, they will have to make it easier to get into space, and operate in space.

But doing so will make it easeir for other people to do what they want in space- like the military.

If people say we can go to Mars in ten years, then I think people with plans for closer to Earth can do it in a lot less time and with a lost less money.

Grypd · 2005-07-24 15:03:12

I agree with Clark.

It is natural for a military that is dominant on Earth to want to take the high ground too. The only thing stopping them is cost but as we reduce the cost to orbit to get our dreams moving we also allow there plans to become more than just visions. It is also natural that a country which is not as dominant on Earth to push into a newly opened area that it can compete in as a means to increase its power on Earth

Sorry to say this is not just a pipe dream but as we expand a countries interests the military will also follow to protect those interests.

Stormrage · 2005-07-24 17:49:35

What will get us to space is Human greed and dreams.

There will be those who are willing to cut their arm (metaphorically or you want be able to pilot the craft ) just to realie their dreams of going to space (like me). Then there are many others who look at space has a huge money cash. Astriods are huge mineral source just waiting to be drilled for the trillions of minerals worth inside then. Thats more then enough to wet the apetite of most people.

If just one person/company found a way to go to mars and futher in a mode of transport that is relativley cheap (from the high thousands of dollars not billions), practical and fast. Alot of companies would want to get their hands on that techonolgy. If they do they will look for ways to improve it and manufacutre them in mass. This will open a new door for us humans has a whole race providing the governments don't hinder us.

At the end of the day Science is going to getting to space but it will not be the reason for getting us there. NASA has only managed to build shuttles (not ships) that are a mini nuke waiting to explode and they can only manage Low Earth Oribt. So much for Star Trek.

srmeaney · 2005-07-25 06:40:48

What will get us to space is Human greed and dreams.

Thats what got us where we are...What kills it is laws and disillusionment. What gets us there forever is a single minded comitment to what must be done to achieve it.

Sorta like the old director guy from Arthur C Clarke's Nemesis. He wanted Hyper space travel. No one ever said no, because they were scared of him and the Power he had.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-11-02 14:44:04

Space Force orders 21 new National Security Space Launches: 11 to ULA, 10 to SpaceX

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/spa … to-spacex/

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-07-12 16:55:49

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#2 2005-07-12 17:01:38

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#3 2005-07-12 17:05:46

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#4 2005-07-12 17:26:43

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#5 2005-07-18 17:01:29

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#6 2005-07-18 17:07:27

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#7 2005-07-18 17:48:09

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#8 2005-07-18 18:02:27

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#9 2005-07-19 02:27:57

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#10 2005-07-21 08:04:24

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#11 2005-07-24 11:18:07

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#12 2005-07-24 12:07:00

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#13 2005-07-24 15:03:12

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#14 2005-07-24 17:49:35

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#15 2005-07-25 06:40:48

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

#16 2023-11-02 14:44:04

Re: US Dominance of Space - the when, where, how and why

Board footer