$110 Million to Retire?

On 2005-04-17, Ed Kyle wrote:

with it. Several other DoD science programs have
been used as cover for classified satellite efforts,
but I'm not aware of a NASA program ever having been
used that way. There is probably a law or code that

Not quite the same thing, but NASA was briefly used as a cover for the
U2 program - after that chap whose name I forget was shot down over the
USSR, a couple of hastily repainted U2s were shown to the press as a
NASA program of high-altitude research flights That Got Unlucky. (I
think this was dropped pretty quickly, though)

--
-Andrew Gray

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:23:58 -0500, Andrew Gray wrote
(in article ):

Not quite the same thing, but NASA was briefly used as a cover for the
U2 program - after that chap whose name I forget was shot down over the
USSR, ...

Francis Gary Powers.

--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.angryherb.net

On 2005-04-18, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

Not quite the same thing, but NASA was briefly used as a cover for the
U2 program - after that chap whose name I forget was shot down over the
USSR, ...

Francis Gary Powers.

See, I remembered "Gary Powers". And then I thought to myself "no, that
sounds like a name from a bad juvenile sf novel" and decided I couldn't
actually remember it...

--
-Andrew Gray

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Is it possibly a "Sheep Dip" program, to establish a civilian
precedent for rendezvousing with spacecraft in orbit, so that everyone
doesn't raise a ruckus when the DOD starts sending theirs up? It's got
the same feel to it that the Soviet's Polyot 1 and 2 had.

I think you're just looking for a conspiracy where none exists.

Thats one of Pat's favorite hobbies.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:50:48 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:23:58 -0500, Andrew Gray wrote
(in article ):

Not quite the same thing, but NASA was briefly used as a cover for the
U2 program - after that chap whose name I forget was shot down over the
USSR, ...

Francis Gary Powers.

....Actually, it was Snoopy. Shot down by the Red Commissar.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Henry Spencer wrote:


Yes, but they knew it was a military satellite whose exact purposes
weren't discussed too much... and to judge by the pace it proceeded at
despite a steady string of failures, it was clearly something important.
This is very different from trying to hide a military program under a
civilian guise, especially across agency boundaries.


I just don't understand why DART needs the odd ability to operate
entirely autonomously and rendezvous with spacecraft that don't give it
any guidance feedback...in the case of MUBLCOM it had the laser
retroreflectors to use, but that was to calibrate its sensors, which are
normally designed to be used without any input from the target.
It's no secret that the Bush administration wants to militarize space,
they been saying that for years- clean back to the "Rebuilding America's
Defenses" report by The Project For A New American Century*. I'm still
not convinced that the Crew Exploration Vehicle isn't just the space tug
mentioned in the above report, and that NASA will find itself doing more
and more military-related research as time goes on, much in the way that
several of the historical X-plane programs were joint NASA/USAF
ventures- X-14B, X-15, X-24 A & B, and X-29. In the case of the X-30
NASP you had a suborbital attack bomber hiding under the guise of a
hypersonic intercontinental passenger aircraft/SSTO passenger and cargo
transport.
So a NASA/military tie is nothing new. And although NASA is a civilian
agency, some of its work is bound to have military applications-
sometimes it's just more overt, like the shuttle's high fidelity radar
mapping of the Earth's surface, which was done as much to get us highly
accurate maps to program cruise missile guidance systems as for any
scientific reason.
Note also that DART went into a polar orbit....that's surprising in
light of the fact that if you wanted to do a simple test of a automated
rendezvous system, there are plenty of targets to rendezvous with in
orbits at far lower inclinations- like say Hubble itself- and that
manned spacecraft aren't used in polar orbit...nor would they be for any
Moon or Mars mission due to the fact that you can launch more mass into
low inclination orbits, and fly at higher altitudes without straying
into the inner Van Allen belt.
But polar orbit is the home of the intelligence gathering satellites,
and some of the navsats that you would want to neutralize as a part of,
or a prelude to, war.



...Our DART was intended to approach a non-homing beacon equipped
target. Considering that it would be pretty easy to equip any spacecraft
that we intend something like DART to rendezvous with with some sort of
homing beacon to simplify the process, why does it have the capability
to do it on its own, sans any homing beacon?



Don't overlook the possibility that it's being done for some stupid,
unimportant reason -- e.g., because somebody influential has a bee in his
bonnet about some specific mission which can't conveniently accommodate
multiply-redundant homing beacons etc. (I can even think of one: Mars
sample return *really really really* wants to minimize the mass launched
off the Martian surface.) These decisions aren't necessarily made for
entirely rational reasons.



This thing smells funny...it's being touted as a part of the Bush manned
space initiative, and in that respect it doesn't seem to make a lot of
sense, as it would be a lot easier to give the spacecraft it's
rendezvousing with some ability to give it feedback to aid it in it's
rendezvous. Even the Mars sample return could afford the weight of a
simple radio pinger to help the recovery device to locate it. If it
doesn't carry one, then the recovery device is going to have to track it
down via radar, because unlike DART and a Earth satellite whose orbital
elements are very well known, the sample return ascent stage is probably
going to end up in a orbit around Mars which which is imprecise enough
to place it outside the range of optical acquisition and homing. And the
radar will add weight to the mission.



It's too small to deorbit spent rocket stages...



It's a technology test, not an operational system.



But if you made it big enough to give it that capability then it would
be going up on a pretty good sized rocket itself, and unless it keeps
the last stage attached (as DART did) it itself will generate space
debris via its last stage- but if the last stage is still attached and
contains enough residual fuel to accomplish the deorbit function (and
remember- the deorbit function only makes sense if something large is to
be deorbited that presents a threat if allowed to reenter at random-
like Hubble- but this spacecraft's origin is before the Hubble deorbit
mission, and indeed the presidency of George Bush and the new space
initiative. MUBLCOM went up in May of 1999, and was already equipped to
serve as a target for DART.) then we are talking one good-sized booster
to carry it, and a fairly massive orbital vehicle to perform the mission.
In the way it's presently configured, it has the ability to be a new
generation SAINT vehicle capable of covert air launch.
All you have to do is give the Pegasus folding wings and tail fins, and
you can slide it out of a C-130J, C-17, C141, or C-5B, and have it air
ignite and climb to orbit from anywhere you want it to without arousing
suspicion (except maybe when the C-5B shows up at Melanesia and the
local Cargo Cult takes it as a sign that John Frum and Tom Navy have
finally arrived with the things they promised- millions of cans of the
wondrous "Spam" and the miraculous "Powdered Eggs".)

* Which makes a very interesting read, as it explains quite a bit about
what the Chen...er...Bush administration is up to:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

Isn't it awful how all of our military bases are in the wrong places in
the post cold war world? We need new bases! Who shall build them? I
know! How about Halliburton? (pdf pages 26-33)

Isn't it awful that so many mundane jobs at military bases must be done
by solders? Who should do them? I know! How about Halliburton! (pdf page 22)

Isn't it awful how those National Guard enlistments are going through
the floorboards? Who will do the support services for our front-line
troops that the National Guard used to do? I know! How about
Halliburton? (pdf pages 37-38)

Shall we militarize space? Absolutely God-damned right! (pdf pages 67-69)

Is it time to improve the fearlessness of our troops via drugs?
Absolutely God-damned right! (pdf page 74)

I wonder how the work on the genetically modified diseases to target
specific genotypes as a "politically useful tool" is going? (pdf page
72) I guess if all the Arabs in the oil producing countries of the world
suddenly come down with the Reagan Pneumonia and the Bushie-Wushie Flu,
we'll know it's been a success. ;-)

Pat

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
On 2005-04-18, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

Not quite the same thing, but NASA was briefly used as a cover for the
U2 program - after that chap whose name I forget was shot down over the
USSR, ...

Francis Gary Powers.

See, I remembered "Gary Powers". And then I thought to myself "no, that
sounds like a name from a bad juvenile sf novel" and decided I couldn't
actually remember it...

But the US Government claiming it was a NASA program after the fact was
straight out of a bad juvenile sf novel. :-(

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

Andrew Gray wrote:

Not quite the same thing, but NASA was briefly used as a cover for the
U2 program - after that chap whose name I forget was shot down over the
USSR, a couple of hastily repainted U2s were shown to the press as a
NASA program of high-altitude research flights That Got Unlucky. (I
think this was dropped pretty quickly, though)



A closer relationship might be found between this:
http://www.air-and-space.com/nb52/730516dl.jpg
....and this: http://uk.geocities.com/osaka2015/fdl5.JPG

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Henry Spencer wrote:


Yes, but they knew it was a military satellite whose exact purposes
weren't discussed too much... and to judge by the pace it proceeded at
despite a steady string of failures, it was clearly something important.
This is very different from trying to hide a military program under a
civilian guise, especially across agency boundaries.


I just don't understand why DART needs the odd ability to operate
entirely autonomously and rendezvous with spacecraft that don't give it
any guidance feedback...

Well, there was that problem with Salyut 6 that completely drained the
batteries. In that case, a manned Soyuz docked without the aid of the
automated rendezvous and docking system.

Looking forward, such a system would be useful if you're launching cargo
into LEO and "picking it up" with a LEO based tug. To keep the costs of the
cargo launches low, you'd want completely passive systems on the cargo
container and put all the "smarts" on the LEO based tug. I could see this
being used by the CEV program to gather up (fully fueled) fuel tanks and
take them to a TLI stage for attachment/assembly.

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

Derek Lyons wrote:

Thats one of Pat's favorite hobbies.



"You're one of THEM, aren't you?" said Pat, grabbing the giant can of
Raid Ant and Roach killer spray.
I just looked at the DART flight the way the Pentagon would have looked
at a Soviet satellite that did the same thing, and judged it by its
capabilities, not its stated purpose.
I really wouldn't have any objection to the U.S. having a SAINT type
capability for use in wartime...I would have an objection to us using it
surreptitiously in peacetime against other nation's satellites though.
Anyway, DART seems to have worked every bit as well as our Alaskan test
ABM system does, whether it's really civilian or not.
And DART's builder- Orbital Sciences Corporation- does a _lot_ of
military related space work...including that Alaskan ABM system that
doesn't work either:
http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefens...ors/index.html
So would it surprise you that DART has Defense Department connections?

pat