New SLV, ICBM commonality

An interesting item found at
http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2003nn/03...1007nn.htm#100



USAF Eyes Nuclear, Sat Program Link
By JEREMY SINGER
07 October, 2003
Defense News
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2255892&C=ushd
[EXCERPTS]

The U.S. Air Force's effort to replace its ground-based nuclear
missile arsenal by 2020 likely will be closely linked with a push
to develop low-cost rockets that put satellites into orbit quickly.

Close coordination between the programs is necessary to keep costs
down, said Col. Rick Patenaude, chief of the deterrence and strike
division at Air Force Space Command. It is possible due to the fact
that intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and so-called
quick-reaction satellite launchers employ similar technology.

"We can't afford to build new platforms with blinders on,"
Patenaude said in a telephone interview. "We have to think of
multiple uses for new platforms."

The money that can be saved by coordinating the ICBM and launcher
efforts will be determined in studies that will take place over
the next few years, said Brig. Gen. Simon "Pete" Worden, who is
shepherding the satellite launcher work as the service's director
of transformation.

"Clearly, if you do your technology and basic development to
meet two different goals, it saves a lot of money," Worden said
in a brief interview Sept. 23 at the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Space 2003 conference in Long Beach,
Calif.

The new ICBM likely will build on technology developed under
the launch vehicle effort, which has more of a near-term focus
with demonstrations planned for later this decade, Patenaude
said.

Just as the early space launch vehicles evolved from ICBM
technology, the next ICBM may evolve from a new satellite launcher,
he said.

RFPs Go Out

Air Force Space Command on Sept. 8 issued requests for information
from industry on concepts for the new Land Based Strategic
Deterrent. The solicitations broke the project into three areas:
the delivery vehicle; security systems; and command, control,
communications and computers.

The Air Force will begin evaluating industry concepts in late
November, and has budgeted about $5 million in both 2004 and 2005
for early development work, Patenaude said. The service anticipates
starting a competition to build the new system around 2006, with
deployment targeted for 2018, he said.

....

While Patenaude declined to speculate on possible concepts, he
said the Air Force is not wedded to a new system based in silos,
as is the case with today's ICBM fleet. Alternatives could
include mobile bases, according to the Air Force solicitation
notices.

The Air Force could choose to field a family of systems with
different ranges, accuracies and other capabilities, Patenaude said.

....


Worden said he sees little problem with using a common rocket for
satellites and nuclear warheads.

"We've done that for 40 years," Worden said. "Essentially, every
U.S. launch vehicle other than the shuttle is a direct derivative
of the ICBM."

Patenaude said the Air Force could help distinguish small
launchers from ICBMs by giving each a unique signature that
can be tracked by other nations.

(Allen Thomson) wrote in message . com...
An interesting item found at
http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2003nn/03...1007nn.htm#100

USAF Eyes Nuclear, Sat Program Link
By JEREMY SINGER
07 October, 2003
Defense News
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2255892&C=ushd
[EXCERPTS]

The U.S. Air Force's effort to replace its ground-based nuclear
missile arsenal by 2020 likely will be closely linked with a push
to develop low-cost rockets that put satellites into orbit quickly.
....

Now I understand why Orbital Sciences has become so involved
in the DoD suborbital business.

- Ed Kyle

On 31 Jan 2004 20:10:20 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:

Now I understand why Orbital Sciences has become so involved
in the DoD suborbital business.


Aside from the fact OSC has been involved in that for a few years now,
it's worth remembering that the Space Shuttle and the Saturn series
are the only US oribital boosters (does Scout count?) not derived from
ICBMs. The Atlast V is a descendant of the Altas ICBM; Delta came
from the Thor IRBM. And the Titan 3 is obviously a titan ICBM with
strap-on solids. For a few years, the USAF used leftover Atlas and
Titan ICBMs to lauch small satellites; Clemintine was launched on a
Titan 2 out of Vandenberg AFB IIRC. OSC's plan for the OSP
Peacekeeper booster (
http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/OSP2/index.html ) continues the
trend, which this SLV/ICBM idea follows.

So what else is new?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 31 Jan 2004 20:10:20 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:

Now I understand why Orbital Sciences has become so involved
in the DoD suborbital business.


Aside from the fact OSC has been involved in that for a few years now,
it's worth remembering that the Space Shuttle and the Saturn series
are the only US oribital boosters (does Scout count?) not derived from
ICBMs. The Atlast V is a descendant of the Altas ICBM; Delta came
from the Thor IRBM. And the Titan 3 is obviously a titan ICBM with
strap-on solids. For a few years, the USAF used leftover Atlas and
Titan ICBMs to lauch small satellites; Clemintine was launched on a
Titan 2 out of Vandenberg AFB IIRC. OSC's plan for the OSP
Peacekeeper booster (
http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/OSP2/index.html ) continues the
trend, which this SLV/ICBM idea follows.

So what else is new?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article ,
Michael Gallagher wrote:
it's worth remembering that the Space Shuttle and the Saturn series
are the only US oribital boosters (does Scout count?) not derived from
ICBMs...

Scout is rather borderline, since its first stage is roughly a Polaris
first stage, and its second stage is a Sergeant derivative. The launcher
as a whole is not an ex-missile but major parts are.

However, you forgot Pegasus, which has no particular missile heritage.
Even its solid motors are custom-made for it, although the motor
production facilities and technology come from military programs.

The Atlast V is a descendant of the Altas ICBM; Delta came
from the Thor IRBM.

In fairness, there is really nothing left of Thor in Delta IV, and very
little of the Atlas ICBM in Atlas V. Their immediate predecessors,
Delta III and Atlas III, had clear ICBM heritage, so there's definitely
an evolutionary path there, but it's so long that there's nothing much
remaining from the originals.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

In article ,
Michael Gallagher wrote:
it's worth remembering that the Space Shuttle and the Saturn series
are the only US oribital boosters (does Scout count?) not derived from
ICBMs...

Scout is rather borderline, since its first stage is roughly a Polaris
first stage, and its second stage is a Sergeant derivative. The launcher
as a whole is not an ex-missile but major parts are.

However, you forgot Pegasus, which has no particular missile heritage.
Even its solid motors are custom-made for it, although the motor
production facilities and technology come from military programs.

The Atlast V is a descendant of the Altas ICBM; Delta came
from the Thor IRBM.

In fairness, there is really nothing left of Thor in Delta IV, and very
little of the Atlas ICBM in Atlas V. Their immediate predecessors,
Delta III and Atlas III, had clear ICBM heritage, so there's definitely
an evolutionary path there, but it's so long that there's nothing much
remaining from the originals.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..
On 31 Jan 2004 20:10:20 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:

Now I understand why Orbital Sciences has become so involved
in the DoD suborbital business.


Aside from the fact OSC has been involved in that for a few years now,
it's worth remembering that the Space Shuttle and the Saturn series
are the only US oribital boosters (does Scout count?) not derived from
ICBMs. The Atlast V is a descendant of the Altas ICBM; Delta came
from the Thor IRBM. And the Titan 3 is obviously a titan ICBM with
strap-on solids. For a few years, the USAF used leftover Atlas and
Titan ICBMs to lauch small satellites; Clemintine was launched on a
Titan 2 out of Vandenberg AFB IIRC. OSC's plan for the OSP
Peacekeeper booster (
http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/OSP2/index.html ) continues the
trend, which this SLV/ICBM idea follows.

So what else is new?


What could be new here is an ICBM replacement for Minuteman
that might incorporate Pegasus-derived motors. In other
words, an ICBM derived from a nonmilitary rocket.

- Ed Kyle

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..
On 31 Jan 2004 20:10:20 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:

Now I understand why Orbital Sciences has become so involved
in the DoD suborbital business.


Aside from the fact OSC has been involved in that for a few years now,
it's worth remembering that the Space Shuttle and the Saturn series
are the only US oribital boosters (does Scout count?) not derived from
ICBMs. The Atlast V is a descendant of the Altas ICBM; Delta came
from the Thor IRBM. And the Titan 3 is obviously a titan ICBM with
strap-on solids. For a few years, the USAF used leftover Atlas and
Titan ICBMs to lauch small satellites; Clemintine was launched on a
Titan 2 out of Vandenberg AFB IIRC. OSC's plan for the OSP
Peacekeeper booster (
http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/OSP2/index.html ) continues the
trend, which this SLV/ICBM idea follows.

So what else is new?


What could be new here is an ICBM replacement for Minuteman
that might incorporate Pegasus-derived motors. In other
words, an ICBM derived from a nonmilitary rocket.

- Ed Kyle

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:38:12 -0500, Michael Gallagher
wrote:

On 31 Jan 2004 20:10:20 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:

Now I understand why Orbital Sciences has become so involved
in the DoD suborbital business.


Aside from the fact OSC has been involved in that for a few years now,
it's worth remembering that the Space Shuttle and the Saturn series

Saturn I and IB's first stages are loosely derived from Jupiter/Thor.

are the only US oribital boosters (does Scout count?)

Yes, Scout made orbit from time to time.

Brian

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:38:12 -0500, Michael Gallagher
wrote:

On 31 Jan 2004 20:10:20 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:

Now I understand why Orbital Sciences has become so involved
in the DoD suborbital business.


Aside from the fact OSC has been involved in that for a few years now,
it's worth remembering that the Space Shuttle and the Saturn series

Saturn I and IB's first stages are loosely derived from Jupiter/Thor.

are the only US oribital boosters (does Scout count?)

Yes, Scout made orbit from time to time.

Brian