Paying for military space applications

Interesting. Comments?


http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2003/0803milspace.html
Air Force Magazine
August 2003 Vol. 86, No. 8
How can the Air Force keep funding two major mission areas—air
and space?
Footing the Bill for Military Space
By Benjamin S. Lambeth
[EXCERPTS]

Of all the uncertainties that currently affect the Air Force's
prospects for realizing the near-term promise of military space,
none is more crucial than the basic question of how—and at what
opportunity cost—those prospects will be financed.

Under current arrangements, USAF has increasingly come to shoulder
the burden of funding what are, in effect, two major military
mission areas — air and space — with an annual budget share
intended for only one. Although all of the services benefit from
the space product ultimately provided, military space funding
comes almost entirely out of the Air Force's budget...

Recognizing this growing Air Force predicament, the Congressionally
mandated Space Commission concluded in January 2001 that America's
military space capabilities are "not funded at a level commensurate
with their relative importance." The commissioners voiced special
concern that the Army and the Navy are the defense community's
largest users of space products and capabilities, but the budget
activities of those two services "consistently fail to reflect
the importance of space." This pointed up a "dichotomy between
the importance of space to the Army and the Navy [and] the
funding commitment these services make" which "needs to be
addressed..."

An aggravating factor is that space applications have become
increasingly expensive as the US defense establishment has become
increasingly dependent on them. One seemingly intractable cause
has been the high cost of space launch, which has imposed a limit
on the rate at which the US can expand its military assets on
orbit. The constant-dollar price of getting a satellite to low
Earth orbit has not changed much over the past two decades. The
cost per pound to LEO for most commercial satellites now on orbit
ranges between $3,600 and $4,900, depending on the altitude and
character of the orbit. The cost per pound for getting a payload
all the way out to geostationary Earth orbit is considerably
higher—$9,200 to $11,200.

Furthermore, the prospect for any substantial diminution in
launch costs over the next 10 to 15 years remains dim because
of the unalterable physics of chemically fueled, rocket-based
launch. There is little near-term technology offering any
promise of circumventing this problem.

One mitigating factor is miniaturization. It has slowly but
inexorably increased the functionality of each payload pound on
orbit, making possible the development and launching of smaller
satellites. A decade ago, military satellites typically weighed
between 5,000 and 20,000 pounds. Now those going to LEO usually
weigh between 500 and 2,000 pounds. This means that the cost-per-
pound issue may turn out to be less pressing in the future.

Further compounding the continued high cost of space launch is
another factor. The Air Force is facing an acquisition challenge
of the first order due to the block obsolescence of many on-orbit
systems now in service and the emergence of a new generation of
replacements. Virtually every major US military space system is
due for an upgrade or replacement over the coming decade, at an
estimated cost of some $60 billion. These include the Global
Positioning System satellites, all military communications
satellites, and the Defense Support Program constellation of
missile-launch sensors.

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:44:11 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Allen Thomson wrote:
Furthermore, the prospect for any substantial diminution in launch costs
over the next 10 to 15 years remains dim because of the unalterable
physics of chemically fueled, rocket-based launch. There is little
near-term technology offering any promise of circumventing this problem.

What heresy from that liberal rag, "Air Force Magazine". Can we be sure
that Benjamin Lambeth is not a pseudonym for John Pike? :-)

Many Air Force types are as ignorant of the source of high launch
costs as people at NASA. It has nothing to do with liberal or
conservative--it has to do with not understanding the issues.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote

Many Air Force types are as ignorant of the source of high launch
costs as people at NASA. It has nothing to do with liberal or
conservative--it has to do with not understanding the issues.

Might there not be an opportunity here for you, perhaps with some
other CATS-knowledgeable people, to write a letter to AFM pointing
out that there is no 11th Commandment that says "LEO launch shall
not cost less than $3000/lb."?

If the USAF is actually starting to think it faces a serious cost-of-
launch problem, maybe someone would take notice. If you were really,
really, really lucky, perhaps something like SDI's support of DC-X
might result. (Wild fantasy, of course, but perhaps worth the cost
of sending a letter.)

On 5 Aug 2003 08:52:20 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Allen Thomson) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote

Many Air Force types are as ignorant of the source of high launch
costs as people at NASA. It has nothing to do with liberal or
conservative--it has to do with not understanding the issues.

Might there not be an opportunity here for you, perhaps with some
other CATS-knowledgeable people, to write a letter to AFM pointing
out that there is no 11th Commandment that says "LEO launch shall
not cost less than $3000/lb."?

Do you think that AFM has any influence over policy? It's a serious
question--I really don't know.

If the USAF is actually starting to think it faces a serious cost-of-
launch problem, maybe someone would take notice. If you were really,
really, really lucky, perhaps something like SDI's support of DC-X
might result. (Wild fantasy, of course, but perhaps worth the cost
of sending a letter.)

Perhaps, but I think that interesting things are happening
regardless...

I suspect that AFM is probably behind the curve.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:28:02 -0500, in a place far, far away, Mike
Sabo made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Do you think that AFM has any influence over policy? It's a serious
question--I really don't know.

I'm not worried about AFM's influence over DOD policy. The greater
concern is the nature of the article itself. The article is basically a
synopsis of a RAND report to the Air Force by the same author.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1649/MR1649.pdf
This is likely to have a more substantive impact than the magazine
article and the author's same ignorance is expressed here too. (p. 158)

Hmmm...I hadn't realized that the article was based on the PAF report.
I figured it was just a AFM piece based on casual interviews.

I guess I need to sit down and read the whole thing to see what else I
disagree with, and then go down the street to Aerospace and argue with
them about it. If I read the whole thing, I may write a review on my
blog, which might be one way to get a discussion started.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:28:02 -0500, in a place far, far away, Mike
Sabo made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Do you think that AFM has any influence over policy? It's a serious
question--I really don't know.

I'm not worried about AFM's influence over DOD policy. The greater
concern is the nature of the article itself. The article is basically a
synopsis of a RAND report to the Air Force by the same author.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1649/MR1649.pdf
This is likely to have a more substantive impact than the magazine
article and the author's same ignorance is expressed here too. (p. 158)

Hmmm...I hadn't realized that the article was based on the PAF report.
I figured it was just a AFM piece based on casual interviews.

I guess I need to sit down and read the whole thing to see what else I
disagree with, and then go down the street to Aerospace and argue with
them about it. If I read the whole thing, I may write a review on my
blog, which might be one way to get a discussion started.

Well, it is a 207 page report that I just skim read. Much of it is
related to a discussion of "Is it aerospace or is it air and space" with
the writer taking the position that they are separate entities and that
the Air Force should consider them that way.

I would assume that the fundamental place of disagreement after
the stating of current costs of $3600-4900 per lb. to LEO and
$9, 200 to $11,200 is the sentence:

Furthermore, the prospect for any substantial diminuition in launch
costs over the next 10 to 15 years remains dim because of the
unalterable physics of chemically fueled, rocket based launch.

Followed by:

There is little technology now on the near-term horizon that
offers any promise of circumventing this constraint.

I think that was on pages 159 and 160 of the on-line report but
the page notation at the top said 144 and 145.

This was a very minor part of the report and the author really
doesn't seem to be claiming expertise on that particular subject.

Mike Walsh

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:25:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


I would assume that the fundamental place of disagreement after
the stating of current costs of $3600-4900 per lb. to LEO and
$9, 200 to $11,200 is the sentence:

Furthermore, the prospect for any substantial diminuition in launch
costs over the next 10 to 15 years remains dim because of the
unalterable physics of chemically fueled, rocket based launch.

Followed by:

There is little technology now on the near-term horizon that
offers any promise of circumventing this constraint.

I think that was on pages 159 and 160 of the on-line report but
the page notation at the top said 144 and 145.

This was a very minor part of the report and the author really
doesn't seem to be claiming expertise on that particular subject.

I suppose one could say that it was a "minor part of the report" in
the sense that it encompassed a very small part of it (less than a
hundred words out of tens of pages), but I wouldn't be surprised if it
had a major impact on Air Force planning...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

(Karl Gallagher) wrote


Rand Simberg wrote:
Do you think that AFM has any influence over policy? It's a serious
question--I really don't know.

Directly, no. But it gets read by many serving officers
and it's probably lying around in Pentagon waiting rooms
so it's a good forum. Go for it.

Indeed, in my days of Pentagon-crawling, many copies were in evidence.
It's the house organ of the Air Force Association, http://www.afa.org/ ,
to which many current and former USAFians belong. It also runs yearly
state-of-the Air Force issues with much useful information and stats,
plus a "space almanac" http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2003/...acealmanac.pdf

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:25:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I would assume that the fundamental place of disagreement after
the stating of current costs of $3600-4900 per lb. to LEO and
$9, 200 to $11,200 is the sentence:

Furthermore, the prospect for any substantial diminuition in launch
costs over the next 10 to 15 years remains dim because of the
unalterable physics of chemically fueled, rocket based launch.

Followed by:

There is little technology now on the near-term horizon that
offers any promise of circumventing this constraint.

I think that was on pages 159 and 160 of the on-line report but
the page notation at the top said 144 and 145.

This was a very minor part of the report and the author really
doesn't seem to be claiming expertise on that particular subject.

I suppose one could say that it was a "minor part of the report" in
the sense that it encompassed a very small part of it (less than a
hundred words out of tens of pages), but I wouldn't be surprised if it
had a major impact on Air Force planning...

There seems to be a belief in this particular newsgroup that any
reference to the laws of physics indicates that the person making
the remark is both completely clueless and will somehow cause
great damage to the cause of low cost launch vehicles.

In this particular case it seemed to me that the author was repeating
information given to him by other sources and that any major impact
on Air Force planning by this belief probably exists elsewhere.

Does the author have any real impact on Air Force policy?

Or is this just another long winded RAND study. RAND puts out
some good studies frequently, but I have seen enough of them to
not be particularly impressed just because something originates
there.

Mike Walsh

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:37:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

This was a very minor part of the report and the author really
doesn't seem to be claiming expertise on that particular subject.

I suppose one could say that it was a "minor part of the report" in
the sense that it encompassed a very small part of it (less than a
hundred words out of tens of pages), but I wouldn't be surprised if it
had a major impact on Air Force planning...

There seems to be a belief in this particular newsgroup that any
reference to the laws of physics indicates that the person making
the remark is both completely clueless and will somehow cause
great damage to the cause of low cost launch vehicles.

Stating authoritatively that we can't do better than the existing
systems with rockets technology certainly makes it more difficult to
get appropriations for attempts to do exactly that. Do you not
consider that damaging?

In this particular case it seemed to me that the author was repeating
information given to him by other sources and that any major impact
on Air Force planning by this belief probably exists elsewhere.

No doubt it does, and of course, this report now buttresses it.

And if someone in the Air Force has a different opinion, some ignorant
Congressman can point to it now...

Does the author have any real impact on Air Force policy?

Or is this just another long winded RAND study. RAND puts out
some good studies frequently, but I have seen enough of them to
not be particularly impressed just because something originates
there.

The Air Force paid them to produce this report, presumably for the
purpose of guiding policy...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: