Death Sentence for the Hubble?

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:50:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:48:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: The whole point is that the huge DOD budget suffers little when it, the
: DOD, can rely on NASA to make spacecraft for it.

: It doesn't.

Check out the shuttle, TDRSS and NPOESS projects and tell me who has the
risks in development.

Those are all civlian projects.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:50:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:48:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: : The whole point is that the huge DOD budget suffers little when it, the
: : DOD, can rely on NASA to make spacecraft for it.
:
: : It doesn't.
:
: Check out the shuttle, TDRSS and NPOESS projects and tell me who has the
: risks in development.

: Those are all civlian projects.

Civilian projects used by the military without any risk or great cost to
them.

Also, whay you mean to say is "unclassified".

Eric

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:23:34 +0000 (UTC), (Eric
Chomko) wrote:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:50:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:48:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: : The whole point is that the huge DOD budget suffers little when it, the
: : DOD, can rely on NASA to make spacecraft for it.
:
: : It doesn't.
:
: Check out the shuttle, TDRSS and NPOESS projects and tell me who has the
: risks in development.

: Those are all civlian projects.

Civilian projects used by the military without any risk or great cost to
them.

Also, whay you mean to say is "unclassified".

Eric


NASA doesn't build spacecraft, and neither does the military, they
contract spacecraft manufacturers to build them (Lockheed, Boeing, TRW,
Ball, etc)

Yes the military uses civil resources, but the opposite is also true....GPS
is a perfect example of a classified military spacecraft being used for
civil and commercial reasons. There are many cases were specialized
military resources have been leveraged for use by a civil or commercial
program.

The boundaries between some military and civil programs are not as clear
cut as you would think. While a spacecraft's primary mission may be well
known or seem obvious, it may also have a secondary mission. Those
secondary missions or payloads may be of a higher classified nature. In
some cases they may even be piggy-backed on civil or even commercial birds.

While the military's budget may be greater than NASA's, their spacecraft
tend to cost a lot more, and the military does do a lot of development in
both the spacecraft and launch vehicle arena. In some cases that
development may be in co-operation with, or leveraged by NASA. Don't think
for moment that NASA is being taken advantage of by the military. NASA does
development and freely shares it's info with the military and private
industry, that is what they are supposed to do. NASA needs the military
more than the military needs NASA. After all the military does have their
own Space Wing and their own research and development centers

Also the terms classified and unclassified apply to military programs, not
civil and commercial. If it were classified it would by default be a
military program.

my 2 cents

-JATO
http://jatobservatory.org

JATO @jatobservatory.org (jatoNo-Canned-Ham) wrote:
: On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:23:34 +0000 (UTC), (Eric
: Chomko) wrote:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:50:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: : Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : : On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:48:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: : : The whole point is that the huge DOD budget suffers little when it, the
: : : DOD, can rely on NASA to make spacecraft for it.
: :
: : : It doesn't.
: :
: : Check out the shuttle, TDRSS and NPOESS projects and tell me who has the
: : risks in development.
:
: : Those are all civlian projects.
:
: Civilian projects used by the military without any risk or great cost to
: them.
:
: Also, whay you mean to say is "unclassified".
:


: NASA doesn't build spacecraft, and neither does the military, they
: contract spacecraft manufacturers to build them (Lockheed, Boeing, TRW,
: Ball, etc)

Right, but they are the customer.

: Yes the military uses civil resources, but the opposite is also true....GPS
: is a perfect example of a classified military spacecraft being used for
: civil and commercial reasons. There are many cases were specialized
: military resources have been leveraged for use by a civil or commercial
: program.

Yes, I know, but commercial spaceflight needs a larger infratructure that
to date can only come from customers like NASA or the DOD.

: The boundaries between some military and civil programs are not as clear
: cut as you would think. While a spacecraft's primary mission may be well
: known or seem obvious, it may also have a secondary mission. Those
: secondary missions or payloads may be of a higher classified nature. In
: some cases they may even be piggy-backed on civil or even commercial birds.

Example?

: While the military's budget may be greater than NASA's, their spacecraft
: tend to cost a lot more, and the military does do a lot of development in
: both the spacecraft and launch vehicle arena. In some cases that
: development may be in co-operation with, or leveraged by NASA. Don't think
: for moment that NASA is being taken advantage of by the military. NASA does
: development and freely shares it's info with the military and private
: industry, that is what they are supposed to do. NASA needs the military
: more than the military needs NASA. After all the military does have their
: own Space Wing and their own research and development centers

: Also the terms classified and unclassified apply to military programs, not
: civil and commercial. If it were classified it would by default be a
: military program.

Or intel, which is seperate from DOD as well.

: my 2 cents

Thanks for the well thought out post.

I don't hate the DOD but I do think that NASA's function tends to be
diminished to some degree for the larger role of national defense. The
latter is justifed to some degree but NASA shouldn't play second fiddle.
That is my $0.02.

Eric

: -JATO
: http://jatobservatory.org

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:50:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: Check out the shuttle, TDRSS and NPOESS projects and tell me who has
the
: risks in development.

: Those are all civlian projects.

Civilian projects used by the military without any risk or great cost to
them.

Without any risk? You are dead wrong here. When it became clear that the
space shuttle wouldn't live up to its expectations, the military started
looking for "a way out". They ended up using the Challenger disaster and
the problems at the shuttle pad at Vandenberg as an excuse to pull out of
the program.

The cost to them? All the money they put into the shuttle pad at
Vandenburg, likely missed launch opportunities due to the low shuttle flight
rate, and the cost to them to startup the Titan IV program and run it.

You make it sound like DOD got lots of benefits out of the shuttle program.
However, it could be that a careful accounting (unlikely since the military
payload manifest is secret) would show that the shuttle boondoggle cost the
military far more than what it was worth.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:50:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: : Check out the shuttle, TDRSS and NPOESS projects and tell me who has
: the
: : risks in development.
:
: : Those are all civlian projects.
:
: Civilian projects used by the military without any risk or great cost to
: them.

: Without any risk? You are dead wrong here. When it became clear that the
: space shuttle wouldn't live up to its expectations, the military started
: looking for "a way out". They ended up using the Challenger disaster and
: the problems at the shuttle pad at Vandenberg as an excuse to pull out of
: the program.

A way out is EXACTLY what I mean by not having to deal with risk. The
military should have been a team player rather than running as soon as a
problem came up.

Also, this why we don't have a "second generation" space shuttle because
neither NASA or the DOD is willing to go out on a limb. Both are looking
for a way out. Guess what? No new vechicle.

: The cost to them? All the money they put into the shuttle pad at
: Vandenburg, likely missed launch opportunities due to the low shuttle flight
: rate, and the cost to them to startup the Titan IV program and run it.

Right, so why don't they make their own space plane?

: You make it sound like DOD got lots of benefits out of the shuttle program.
: However, it could be that a careful accounting (unlikely since the military
: payload manifest is secret) would show that the shuttle boondoggle cost the
: military far more than what it was worth.

I guess NASA should wait for the DOD to make a space plane and then use
it, rather than the other way around.

Eric

: Jeff
: --
: Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
I guess NASA should wait for the DOD to make a space plane and then use
it, rather than the other way around.

Actually, it would be better for NASA and DOD to allow private industry to
develop the next generation launch vehicle (without government funding or
oversight of development, but perhaps a guarantee of a certain level of
launch purchases if the vehicle proves successful).

I'm convinced the current government sponsored launch vehicle development
paradigm will never lead to significantly lower launch costs. I'm looking
for two or more orders of magnitude in launch cost reduction.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: I guess NASA should wait for the DOD to make a space plane and then use
: it, rather than the other way around.

: Actually, it would be better for NASA and DOD to allow private industry to
: develop the next generation launch vehicle (without government funding or
: oversight of development, but perhaps a guarantee of a certain level of
: launch purchases if the vehicle proves successful).

What incentive does private industry have to build a next generation
launch vehicle?

: I'm convinced the current government sponsored launch vehicle development
: paradigm will never lead to significantly lower launch costs. I'm looking
: for two or more orders of magnitude in launch cost reduction.

I agree, but with no customer you'll get no launches.

Eric

: Jeff
: --
: Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:31:50 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Jeff Findley ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: I guess NASA should wait for the DOD to make a space plane and then use
: it, rather than the other way around.

: Actually, it would be better for NASA and DOD to allow private industry to
: develop the next generation launch vehicle (without government funding or
: oversight of development, but perhaps a guarantee of a certain level of
: launch purchases if the vehicle proves successful).

What incentive does private industry have to build a next generation
launch vehicle?

For profit.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:31:50 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Jeff Findley ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: I guess NASA should wait for the DOD to make a space plane and then
use
: it, rather than the other way around.

: Actually, it would be better for NASA and DOD to allow private industry
to
: develop the next generation launch vehicle (without government funding
or
: oversight of development, but perhaps a guarantee of a certain level of
: launch purchases if the vehicle proves successful).

What incentive does private industry have to build a next generation
launch vehicle?

For profit.

Eric seems to have missed this. It is my hope that a properly designed
(reusable) commercial launch vehicle could reduce launch costs by at least
two orders of magnitude. If this is indeed the case, any company with such
a vehicle could gobble up much of the existing launch market in short order.
Furthermore, such a reduction in costs would certainly open up new markets
as well (including orbital tourism).

The only losers in such a scenario are the existing launch providers who
will loose billions of dollars in revenues due to the lost business. With
Eric's proposal, the DOD program to build a new "space plane" would go to
those very companies who stand to loose the most from cheaper access to
space. No doubt they would run such a program much like Delta IV and Atlas
V, with similar "reductions" in launch costs.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.