A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

$110 Million to Retire?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 17th 05, 06:51 PM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Davis wrote in
. 247.90:

Pat Flannery wrote:

Read "The Corona Project" sometime...hide in plain site. Once
the taped-on craft paper comes off of the Canaveral launched
Discover satellites camera aperture, they amazingly transform
into recon sats during first stage burn.


Are you sure *you* read "The Corona Project"? All CORONA missions
were launched from Vandenberg, all were launched by the DoD, NASA had
no connection.


Besides, he's still missing Ed's point. The DoD is already running their
own autonomous rendezvous/prox ops/docking program (XSS-11) openly. They
have little interest in NASA's DART program (they're convinced that XSS-11
will work better than DART, anyway), so the idea that DART is some kind of
"hide in plain sight" DoD program is pretty ludicrous.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #12  
Old April 17th 05, 07:48 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jim Davis wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:



Read "The Corona Project" sometime...hide in plain site. Once
the taped-on craft paper comes off of the Canaveral launched
Discover satellites camera aperture, they amazingly transform
into recon sats during first stage burn.



Are you sure *you* read "The Corona Project"? All CORONA missions
were launched from Vandenberg, all were launched by the DoD, NASA had
no connection.


Okay, major slip on my part (I'd had a few before I staggered over to
the computer- note that interesting spelling on "sight" :-[ ); but the
point still stands- very few of the people working on the Discoverer
program knew it was a recon satellite- although I can't help thinking
that a lot of them suspected that.
The thing that hits me as odd about DART is the statements that this is
designed to test some sort of autonomous rendezvous technology that will
be used in future NASA flights to the Moon and Mars to allow the
automatic assemble of component parts in space. Fine, good idea- we'd
finally have gotten the same capability the Russians have had since 1965.
But there is one big difference in our set up; the Russians used a
system that required (and still requires) that both spacecraft signal
each other to achieve rendezvous and docking, as this greatly simplifies
the whole process in regards to getting the alignment and velocity
right. 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? It's too small to deorbit
spent rocket stages (plus it would generate at least one orbital stage
of its own as it rode it to orbit), plus it is also too small to carry
any worthwhile amount of cargo or equipment to something in orbit.
But it's just the right size to carry an inspection camera and small
explosive charge to non-U.S. satellite; and its Pegasus launch technique
means that it is amiable to launch over the ocean to reach any orbital
inclination it wants without the concern of its booster stages falling
in populated areas (indeed, provided that you launch it off of an
aircraft that takes off at night, and launches far from shore, you can
keep the whole launch secret). If you didn't want to be as intrusive as
physically damaging a foreign satellite via shooting it or detonating a
fragmentation explosive charge near it, you could either jam it or knock
it permanently out via the use of a small focused EMP device using
conventional explosives from a distance, or some other means of
destroying it.
Indeed, if you brought the "DART/SAINT" into close proximity with the
target satellite in such a way that it wouldn't interfere with either
the target satellite's earthlink antennas or solar arrays, the
microgravity between the two objects would slowly draw them together
until the they come into physical contact, and the device could then be
left attached to the target satellite like a limpet mine, ready to
receive a coded command to activate it.

Pat
  #13  
Old April 17th 05, 08:07 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jorge R. Frank wrote:


Besides, he's still missing Ed's point. The DoD is already running their
own autonomous rendezvous/prox ops/docking program (XSS-11) openly. They
have little interest in NASA's DART program (they're convinced that XSS-11
will work better than DART, anyway), so the idea that DART is some kind of
"hide in plain sight" DoD program is pretty ludicrous.



It has the capability to do a ASAT mission, and being that it rides on a
Pegasus, do it on a budget- and that shouldn't be overlooked.
It's also odd that it doesn't require the target object to at least be
equipped with a transponder to aid it in its rendezvous.
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.

Pat
  #14  
Old April 17th 05, 08:25 PM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Besides, he's still missing Ed's point. The DoD is already running
their own autonomous rendezvous/prox ops/docking program (XSS-11)
openly. They have little interest in NASA's DART program (they're
convinced that XSS-11 will work better than DART, anyway), so the idea
that DART is some kind of "hide in plain sight" DoD program is pretty
ludicrous.


It has the capability to do a ASAT mission, and being that it rides on
a Pegasus, do it on a budget- and that shouldn't be overlooked.


DART can get away with a Pegasus because it's a test vehicle, with no
operational objectives once it arrives at the target. Operational vehicles
will undoubtedly require larger launchers.

It's also odd that it doesn't require the target object to at least be
equipped with a transponder to aid it in its rendezvous.


It's not odd at all if you've been paying attention to the news. NASA is
required to provide a safe deorbit for HST at the end of its service life.
HST has no navaids to assist a rendezvousing spacecraft, so if the shuttle
mission isn't reinstated, the spacecraft must be able to do without them.
Thus NASA has a legitimate need for a capability like DART's.

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.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #15  
Old April 17th 05, 08:43 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Pat Flannery
writes


Jim Davis wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:


Read "The Corona Project" sometime...hide in plain site. Once
the taped-on craft paper comes off of the Canaveral launched
Discover satellites camera aperture, they amazingly transform
into recon sats during first stage burn.


Are you sure *you* read "The Corona Project"? All CORONA missions were
launched from Vandenberg, all were launched by the DoD, NASA had no
connection.

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? It's too small to deorbit
spent rocket stages (plus it would generate at least one orbital stage
of its own as it rode it to orbit),


Interesting point, especially as the US is presumably developing
something to de-orbit HST when the time comes, as required by treaty
(though IMO you shouldn't be wasting the money :-)
  #16  
Old April 17th 05, 09:06 PM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 17 Apr 2005 19:25:16 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

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


....Just because we're looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist
doesn't really mean it doesn't exist.

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
  #17  
Old April 17th 05, 10:30 PM
Ed Kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pat Flannery wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

XSS-11, a similar DoD project that apparently hasn't
failed, is more likely to be that step than DART,
which is a NASA program. It would be amazingly
hard, if not impossible, to hide a secret project
via. NASA.


Read "The Corona Project" sometime...hide in plain site. Once the
taped-on craft paper comes off of the Canaveral launched Discover
satellites camera aperture, they amazingly transform into recon sats
during first stage burn.


As others have pointed out, Discoverer was advertised
as a Pentagon science program (as a cover for Corona).
The rocket was an Air Force Thor-Agena. The launch
pads were at Vandenberg AFB. NASA had nothing to do
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
outlaws such activity. A scandal involving the
discovery of such an effort could do serious harm to
NASA.

In theory, a NASA project could be a good cover for
a secret space effort, but in practice it is very
difficult for an open agency like NASA to keep the
deepest secrets. (It is hard enough for the secret
defense organizations to keep secrets. Remember
that it was they who gave away our deepest cypto
secrets with the capture of the Pueblo and the
sale of info to the Soviets by John Walker. The
Soviets read our most secret coded messages for
years.)

The Air Force hated having to launch some satellites
on shuttle so much that it started planning a new
Titan production run even before the Challenger
accident. This was when national policy was to
move everything to shuttle.

- Ed Kyle

  #18  
Old April 18th 05, 12:21 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jorge R. Frank wrote:

DART can get away with a Pegasus because it's a test vehicle, with no
operational objectives once it arrives at the target. Operational vehicles
will undoubtedly require larger launchers.


What if their purpose is to be an ASAT? Pegasus is just fine for this
type of mission as even a small explosive charge will destroy a target
in close proximity. And note the way the gizmo approaches its target
with no input from the ground; which is exactly what you want for a
mission like this, so as not to leave fingerprints on what happened.
What happened to the target satellite? Who knows? One day a meteor may
have hit it or something.
Also note what the target satellite was: MUBLCOM, a military
communications test satellite built for the Space and Terrestrial
Communications Directorate (S&TCD) of the Army
Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) with the aid of DARPA which
was outfitted to serve as a target vehicle for Dart with optical
retroreflectors to make it easier for DART to detect.
So though DART is theoretically civilian in nature, its target is a
military satellite- a very small military satellite, like one would
expect a test target to be.



It's also odd that it doesn't require the target object to at least be
equipped with a transponder to aid it in its rendezvous.



It's not odd at all if you've been paying attention to the news. NASA is
required to provide a safe deorbit for HST at the end of its service life.
HST has no navaids to assist a rendezvousing spacecraft, so if the shuttle
mission isn't reinstated, the spacecraft must be able to do without them.
Thus NASA has a legitimate need for a capability like DART's.


And so DART was designed and built after the decision to make no more
flights to Hubble was arrived at? That's interesting, as MUBLCOM was
launched in may of 1999, prior to the loss of the Columbia, and long
before the decision was made to ditch Hubble- as well as before Bush's
new space directive was born... that DART is supposed to be in support
of. And yet MUBLCOM was equipped with the DART target optics. And
although MUBLCOM was supposed to be the first of lots of small military
satellites launched eight at a time on Pegasus boosters, the sky isn't
yet acrawl with these minisats.



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.


If you were going to design a spacecraft to surreptitiously investigate
and or disable foreign satellites, it would need several abilities to
make it viable and effective:
1. It should be cheap and capable of fast response times if needed.
DART/Pegasus meets those criteria.
2. It should be capable of being launched secretly into any inclination
orbit. Dart/Pegasus makes that possible via air launch from anywhere in
the world; which means launches can be performed well clear of inhabited
regions where they would be detected (note how we air-launched a ABM
target test missile from a C-17 over the Pacific on April 8th- when did
the public know that had happened? After the launch had occurred and the
Pentagon told them about it, that's when.) and planned in such a way
that the booster stages fall into the sea.
3. It should be able to approach its target with stealth. DART comes in
under internal control with no tell-tale control link to the ground.
4. It should rely on non-emmitting means of homing, so as to not be
detected by its target. DART uses its optical homing system to lock
itself onto the target, rather than radar. It's lasers work in concert
with the MUBLCOM's retroreflectors, but the interest was in if they
would also work without reflectors simply by illuminating the exterior
of the target satellite's body. Any system capable of detecting low
intensity laser illumination over the entire exterior of a satellite's
body would also be prone to interference from the Sun; so you might well
be able to approach your target from sunwards.
5. After its mission is over (be it inspection of or disabling the
target spacecraft) the vehicle should leave the vicinity, so as not to
arouse suspicion. DART did just that after its encounter with MUBLCOM.
Now if the _whole_ spacecraft doesn't leave... say only most of it
leaves, after emplacing a small remote-control explosive charge on the
exterior of its target to be detonated at a later date, or even just a
small rocket motor to be activated to cause the target to be spun out of
control, or some sort of device that would damage the satellite's
electronics in such a way that its owners would think that it had
suffered a unexpected fault rather than tampering. Now that's real
plausible deniability.
Now I'm not saying that NASA is about to go into the stealth ASAT
business, but a lot of what went into DART/Pegasus would be exactly the
sort of things a stealth ASAT would need, and I find that intriguing.

Pat
  #19  
Old April 18th 05, 12:29 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



OM wrote:

On 17 Apr 2005 19:25:16 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:



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



...Just because we're looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist
doesn't really mean it doesn't exist.



"This 'OM' might know a little too much for his own...or rather our
own... good." the cigarette-smoking man said, with a sly chuckle.

Pat
  #20  
Old April 18th 05, 05:41 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
...point still stands- very few of the people working on the Discoverer
program knew it was a recon satellite...


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.

...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.

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


It's a technology test, not an operational system.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
$110 Million To Retire Von Fourche Misc 0 April 16th 05 06:59 PM
cheap access to space - majority opinion Cameron Dorrough Technology 15 June 27th 04 03:35 AM
Bechtel Nevada: Control of the World's Largest Nuclear Weapons Facilities * Astronomy Misc 0 May 2nd 04 05:29 PM
Heavy Lift launcher is allready here serge Policy 27 February 13th 04 07:03 PM
Earth's birth date turned back: Formed earlier than believed (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 July 17th 03 11:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.