|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
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" |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATK Plans Commercial Ares I | [email protected] | Policy | 32 | April 12th 08 09:46 AM |
I've added FOUR updates to my Ares-1 article with some NEW calculations that (clearly) show WHY the new Ares-1 can't fly | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | November 12th 07 10:21 AM |
NewSpace rockets __ EELVs __ Ares-I __ REVISED Orion/Ares-I __ FAST-SLV __ chances of success | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | June 16th 07 12:03 AM |
in my opinion (both) Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once! ...could NASA rockets win vs. privates on launch date and prices? | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | May 10th 07 11:11 PM |
Commercial use of SRB | [email protected] | Policy | 1 | September 12th 05 11:35 PM |