Commercial Ares I?!

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

By the time they came up with the Ares name, the Mars mission had been
pretty much dropped, so it didn't really make much sense to name it
after the war god's planet.
I checked out my original posting on this from Oct.19, 2006:
http://tinyurl.com/5yffgc

Now we find out that Ares I has a rapid launch capability that the
military wants.

Given your habit of tying virtually everything into a deep and dark
(and hysterical) conspiracy theories revolving around Cheney and the
Bush Administration, like Copy Boy and a stopped clock... you were
bound to be quasi correct eventually.

I suppose it never occurred to him that Mars was the Roman counterpart
of the Greek god Ares, and therefore Horowitz and Griffin thought Ares
would be an appropriate name for a rocket that would eventually be used
to send people to Mars.

But no, you're right, he's sliding into bBo hallreB territory. Can
GuthBall territory be far behind?

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I suppose it never occurred to him that Mars was the Roman counterpart
of the Greek god Ares, and therefore Horowitz and Griffin thought Ares
would be an appropriate name for a rocket that would eventually be used
to send people to Mars.

Besides, Zubrin and co. had already pointed NASA in the right direction
with their own shuttle-derived Mars booster called 'Ares' in the early
90's. (I can't imagine that the thought never crossed Griffin and co.'s
mind.)

--
Dave Michelson

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Given your habit of tying virtually everything into a deep and dark
(and hysterical) conspiracy theories revolving around Cheney and the
Bush Administration, like Copy Boy and a stopped clock... you were
bound to be quasi correct eventually.

I suppose it never occurred to him that Mars was the Roman counterpart
of the Greek god Ares, and therefore Horowitz and Griffin thought Ares
would be an appropriate name for a rocket that would eventually be
used to send people to Mars.

But no, you're right, he's sliding into bBo hallreB territory. Can
GuthBall territory be far behind?

As I pointed out, by the time the Ares names had been assigned to the
rockets, the Mars mission was a dead duck (that had occurred within a
month of the program's inception), and attention had shifted to a Moon
mission and possible permanent lunar base.
So I thought the name was odd, and suggested it might be related to some
military mission, given the intention to dominate the new "international
commons" of space shown in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by The
Project for the New American Century:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....asDefenses.pdf
(which reads very much like the blueprint of everything the Bush/Cheney
White House did in the last eight years:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3249.htm The PNAC is now
kaput after the triumph of Iraq*)
And when I posted the theory that Ares might be military related, I was
jumped on as a paranoid.
So now Ares I is shown to be military related, so now this shows the
depth of my paranoia.
I find it very amusing to see the Bush/Cheney peanut gallery still
cheering him on - it's reminiscent of the old "Krazy Kat" cartoons. They
do so want to believe that Bush loves them like they love him, and is
telling them the honest truth... at least this time...but every time
they cuddle up to Bush, they get another brick in the head, and wander
off muttering "lil darlin, always fetful".
What I'd worry about (other than NASA funds being used to build a
military-related space booster) is what exactly the Pentagon needs a
rapid launch orbital capability with a large payload for?
Atlas V and Delta IV are going to be taking care of the missions Titan
IV flew, so this must be some new mission.
So back to the PNAC report:

2. Control of Space — "RAD" advises instituting a new "Space Service"
thereby escalating U.S. military preparedness "from the theatre level to
the global level" in order to achieve worldwide dominance, both
militarily and commercially.
"Yet to truly transform itself for the coming century, the Air Force
must accelerate its efforts to create the new systems – and, to repeat,
the space-based systems – that are necessary to shift the scope of air
operations from the theater level to the global level" (p. 64).
"…control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure
access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an
ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element
of our military strategy" (p. 55).
"Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international
commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new
'international commons' be a key to world power in the future. An
America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in
space or the 'infosphere' will find it difficult to exert global
political leadership" (p. 51).
"The proliferation of technologies for delivering highly accurate fires
over increasingly great distances poses a great challenge for both the
Army and the Marine Corps, but rather than attempting to compete in the
game of applying long-range fires, both services would be better off
attempting to complement the vastly improved strike capabilities of the
Navy and Air Force, and indeed in linking decisive maneuvers to future
space capabilities as well" (p. 68).
"Target significant new investments toward creating capabilities for
operating in space, including inexpensive launch vehicles, new
satellites and transatmospheric vehicles, in preparation for a decision
as to whether space warfare is sufficiently different from combat within
earth’s atmosphere so as to require a separate 'space service'. Such a
transformation would in fact better realize the Air Force’s stated goal
of becoming a service with true global reach and global strike
capabilities" (p. 64).
"Given the advantages U.S. armed forces enjoy as a result of this
unrestricted use of space, it is shortsighted to expect potential
adversaries to refrain from attempting to disable or offset U.S. space
capabilities. And with the proliferation of space know-how and related
technology around the world, our adversaries will inevitably seek to
enjoy many of the same space advantages in the future. Moreover, 'space
commerce' is a growing part of the global economy. In 1996, commercial
United States, and commercial revenues exceeded government expenditures
on space. Today, more than 1,100 commercial companies across more than
50 countries are developing, building, and operating space systems.
"The complexity of space control will only grow as commercial activity
increases. American and other allied investments in space systems will
create a requirement to secure and protect these space assets; they are
already an important measure of American power. Yet it will not merely
be enough to protect friendly commercial uses of space.
"As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the
capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space
platforms for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts.
Indeed, space is likely to become the new 'international commons', where
commercial and security interests are intertwined and related. Just as
Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote about 'sea-power' at the beginning of the 20th
century in this sense, American strategists will be forced to regard
'space-power' in the 21st" (pp. 54-55).
"In short, the unequivocal supremacy in space enjoyed by the United
States today will be increasingly at risk" (p. 55).
"As Colin Gray and John Sheldon have written, 'Space control is not an
avoidable issue. It is not an optional extra.' For U.S. armed forces to
continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by
Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of
operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the
use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy.
If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global
military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and
potentially fatally compromised" (p. 55).
"But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably
require the application of force both in space and from space, including
but not limited to anti-missile defenses and defensive systems capable
of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot be
sustained in any other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or
airforce, or by electronic warfare. This eventuality is already
recognized by official U.S. national space policy, which states that the
'Department of Defense shall maintain a capability to execute the
mission areas of space support, force enhancement, space control and
force application.' (Emphasis added.)" (p. 56).

This sounds like some sort of concept to destroy "enemy" satellites (say
a commercially owned satellite that's broadcasting Al Jazeera) via
launching armed robotic "Space Tugs" that would maneuver around up in
GEO, launch some sort of trans-atmospheric bomber vehicle, or insert a
squad of troops anywhere in the world via the loopy "Hot Eagle"
approach: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001815.html
At least the launch facilities needed for the Ares I are fairly
substantial, so it should be fairly easy to keep track of what's going
on with it in a military sense.
But if anyone starts noticing really big holes being dug down at
Vandenberg AFB, something odd might be going on. :-)

* BTW, a list of the big wheels that were in the PNAC isn't exactly a
cavalcade of future triumphs either:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3249.htm

"PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President Dick Cheney and
his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby; Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz;
National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms
Control and International Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of
the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members exerting
influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the
Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce
Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer
for the /Weekly Standard/. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and
governor of Florida, is also a member."

Most now having either "resigned" or "indicted" appended to their names.

Pat

Dave Michelson wrote:

Besides, Zubrin and co. had already pointed NASA in the right direction
with their own shuttle-derived Mars booster called 'Ares' in the early
90's. (I can't imagine that the thought never crossed Griffin and co.'s
mind.)

I've seen designs for SRB related boosters going way back into the very
early 1980's.
NASA probably remembered Zubrin's little slip on figuring out the mass
of his Mars ships when he neglected to put food aboard for the crew. :-)
In the Science Channel's show about where the Ares/Orion came from
("Starship Orion"), Zubrin's input was noted, as was that slip.
So what's he up to these days?:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/6/12235/79208

Pat

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:23:51 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

And when I posted the theory that Ares might be military related, I was
jumped on as a paranoid.
So now Ares I is shown to be military related, so now this shows the
depth of my paranoia.

ATK trying to sell Ares I to the military is not "Military Related".
The Airbus A330 is not "Military Related" except that Airbus is now
selling some to various world military arms, including ours. That
doesn't mean A330 was some secret European plan to dominate the world
with Military Airbusses all along.

This sounds like some sort of concept to destroy "enemy" satellites (say
a commercially owned satellite that's broadcasting Al Jazeera)

"We all see what we want to see. Coffey looks and he sees Russians. He
sees hate and fear. We have to look with better eyes than that."

- Lindsey Brigman,
"The Abyss"

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:23:51 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Given your habit of tying virtually everything into a deep and dark
(and hysterical) conspiracy theories revolving around Cheney and the
Bush Administration, like Copy Boy and a stopped clock... you were
bound to be quasi correct eventually.

I suppose it never occurred to him that Mars was the Roman counterpart
of the Greek god Ares, and therefore Horowitz and Griffin thought Ares
would be an appropriate name for a rocket that would eventually be
used to send people to Mars.

But no, you're right, he's sliding into bBo hallreB territory. Can
GuthBall territory be far behind?

As I pointed out, by the time the Ares names had been assigned to the
rockets, the Mars mission was a dead duck (that had occurred within a
month of the program's inception), and attention had shifted to a Moon
mission and possible permanent lunar base.

Just because you point things out doesn't somehow render them true.
In fact, your pointing things out generally decreases their likelihood
of being correct.

rest of nutty anti-military paranoia snipped

Pat Flannery wrote:

NASA probably remembered Zubrin's little slip on figuring out the mass
of his Mars ships when he neglected to put food aboard for the crew. :-)

Zubrin was very specific that he would save mass by having the crew live
off the land. So there.

--
Dave Michelson

Brian Thorn wrote:

ATK trying to sell Ares I to the military is not "Military Related".

I'd forgotten something; back when Ares 1 was being referred to as "The
Stick", everyone on the space newsgroups was complaining about NASA
developing a new launch vehicle when Orion could be launched on a Delta
IV Heavy, or a Atlas V with strap-on SRBs, and developing a whole new
launch vehicle for it seemed both expensive and wasteful of NASA resources.
We can now make a guess as to why the decision to develop a new booster
was made: neither Delta IV or Atlas V has a rapid launch capability,
which is looked on as a asset of Ares I, making it suitable for DOD needs.
I suspect that the military has had its fingers in this program from the
word go, and as the design progresses it's going to get some features
the military wants added to it. Nothing major, mind you. Say a alternate
storable hypergolic or solid upper stage... so it can get airborne
really fast if the need arises.

The Airbus A330 is not "Military Related" except that Airbus is now
selling some to various world military arms, including ours. That
doesn't mean A330 was some secret European plan to dominate the world
with Military Airbusses all along.


This sounds like some sort of concept to destroy "enemy" satellites (say
a commercially owned satellite that's broadcasting Al Jazeera)


"We all see what we want to see. Coffey looks and he sees Russians. He
sees hate and fear. We have to look with better eyes than that."

- Lindsey Brigman,
"The Abyss"


"Keep your pantyhose on!"
- Virgil "Bud" Brigman
"The Abyss"

Oh, that movie...it starts out with such promise, then falls apart right
before your eyes.
That dialog...Y-e-e-s-h! That was getting into Lucas/Bruckheimer territory.
I'm surprised that some Navy SEALs didn't beat the living crap out of
James Cameron for the way they were portrayed in the film.

Pat

Dave Michelson wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

NASA probably remembered Zubrin's little slip on figuring out the
mass of his Mars ships when he neglected to put food aboard for the
crew. :-)

Zubrin was very specific that he would save mass by having the crew live
off the land. So there.
Well, they probably wouldn't lack iron in their diet, looking at the
color of the soil.
But man does not live by rust alone.
The food in question was for the outbound trip to Mars, according to the
show.
I still like my concept...the crew engages in cannibalism on the way back.
Every time I hear Zubrin speak, his voice reminds me of Bruce Dern out
of "Silent Running".
You just watch out if he tries to bring nuclear detonators on the Mars
ship. :-)

Pat

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:01:36 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:


We can now make a guess as to why the decision to develop a new booster
was made: neither Delta IV or Atlas V has a rapid launch capability,

But can be made rapid at a fraction of the cost, and none of the
joint-effort hassle, of Air Force participation in Ares.

which is looked on as a asset of Ares I, making it suitable for DOD needs.

Ares I has nothing but paper numbers, and doesn't appear to be even
remotely capable of "rapid launch", given its large heritage in the
Shuttle program (which looks rapid only when compared to nightmares
like Titan IV.) Atlas and Delta are exactly what the military wants,
and ought to be, since they drove the specs. Worse, Ares is almost
certainly going to be a launcher very hostile to sensitive military
payloads.

I suspect that the military has had its fingers in this program from the
word go,

I don't. Not for a minute. The military won't go near this thing,
having already learned their lesson from the Shuttle. And they're no
longer fans of big solids after the Titan 34D, IV and IV-B debacles.

and as the design progresses it's going to get some features
the military wants added to it. Nothing major, mind you. Say a alternate
storable hypergolic or solid upper stage... so it can get airborne
really fast if the need arises.

Neither option would give the Ares I the performance it needs for a
serious payload. Ares I needs a long-burning, high iSp stage to have
even close to reasonable payload. The LH2 stage is huge for an upper
stage and would be extremely difficult to replace with "Super Agena"
or "Super IUS", what-have-you.

The "Military Ares" is a figment of your imagination, pure and simple.

"The Abyss"

Oh, that movie...it starts out with such promise, then falls apart right
before your eyes.

Ever see the Director's Edition, the version Cameron wanted before Fox
chopped it up for theaters? Much, much better.

That dialog...Y-e-e-s-h! That was getting into Lucas/Bruckheimer territory.
I'm surprised that some Navy SEALs didn't beat the living crap out of
James Cameron for the way they were portrayed in the film.

Not really, it was that high pressure nervous syndrome thing that got
to Coffey, and the others were following his orders, under extremely
adverse conditions. There was a nuke onboard, afterall. Ensign Monk
turned out to be a good guy.

Brian