|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 8:52*am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote: The Shuttle got funded, but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage, increased operating costs. Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant, The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle Thiokol did - to the everlasting chagrin of vonBraun who wanted nothing to do with the SRBs. I count them as army. By the early 1970's there was concern that although national satellite systems were providing essential capabilities to the national and strategic levels, tactical users in the military services were not being provided adequate access to these classified systems. In 1973, the Army took the lead by establishing the Army Space Program Office (ASPO) to execute the Army Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities Program (TENCOP), serve as the unique technical and fiscal interface with the national program offices, and manage the TENCAP material acquisition. The Army's TENCAP program is based on exploiting current and future tactical potential of national capabilities and integrating these capabilities into the Army's tactical decision making process as rapidly as possible. This approach was so successful that Congress ordered all services to establish a TENCAP program based on the Army's model in 1977. National systems are designed to support strategic requirements. The ASPO leverages the national technology to provide downlinking of these strategic systems to tactical levels. This data provides and accurate and current picture of the enemy and the terrain during planning and execution. National data combined with data from other sources significantly enhances the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB). For Haiti, TENCAP systems provided the primary source of imagery directly to the JTF Commander's analysts for planning the operation and executing the initial assault. For Desert Storm, TENCAP systems provided the majority of targeting support for deep operations and imagery for IPB support of operation planning/maneuver for both XVIII and VII Corps. TENCAP systems are also a significant source of support to humanitarian efforts. For Hurricane Andrew, TENCAP systems provided the quickest and most detailed damage assessment to the task force commander. TENCAP's secondary dissemination and intelligence broadcast capabilities provide the quickest and most detailed damage assessment to the task force commander. TENCAP secondary dissemination and intelligence broadcast capabilities provide continuing awareness through all phases of operations. They provide the tactical commander the ability to "see deep" in today's battlefield and then to assess the impact of shooting deep. ASPO has developed and fielded over ninety systems to both Army and air Force tactical units. After twenty years the ASPO charter was revalidated in 1993. Today the Army TENCAP program is the largest and most successful of the individual services programs. Since the beginning of the Space shuttle Program, eight Army personnel have been selected by NASA as Space Shuttle astronauts. All have flown on Space Shuttle Missions as Mission Specialists. Additionally, one Army Warrant Officer has flown as a Payload Specialist. Applications for assignment as Space Shuttle Astronauts are submitted through the U.S. Army Personnel Command to NASA. Selection to the Astronaut Program is made by NASA. In 1980, three Army officers were assigned to the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in support roles as part of memorandum of understanding between NASA and the DA. They were the initial contingent of what became the JSC Detachment of the Army Space Agency (now the U.S. Army Space Command) in 1987. Numerous other Army personnel have subsequently filled positions in Houston, gaining space operations experience to bring back to the Army, or moving into the NASA Astronaut Corps. LTC Sherwood "Woody" Spring d. LTC Sherwood "Woody" Spring, selected by NASA in 1980, flew as a Mission Specialist on STS-61B (Atlantis) from 26 November to 3 December 1985. During the mission, the crew deployed three communications satellites. Additionally, LTC Spring and USAF MAJ Jerry Ross conducted and EVA to demonstrate the feasibility of constructing trusses in space. In January 1987, the U.S. Army Space Agency's NASA Detachment was established at Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. Army astronauts and other Army personnel working at NASA are assigned to this unit. Later in 1987, the Army presented a concept briefing to the DOD Military*Man*in*Space Prioritization Board for two manned experiments, Terra Scout and Terra Geode, to be conducted on the Space Shuttle. Terra Scout received a high priority and was manifested in September 1991. LTC James C. Adamson was a Mission Specialist on STS*28 (Columbia) which conducted a classified DOD mission from August 8 * 13, 1989. COL Adamson flew again on STS-43 (Atlantis), 2-11 August 1991, which deployed a communications satellite. MAJ Charles "Sam" Gemar flew as a mission specialist on STS*38 (Atlantis), a classified DOD mission, from 15-20 November 1990. LTC Gemar's second mission was STS-48 (Discovery), 12-18 September 1991, which deployed an atmospheric research satellite. His third flight was STS-62 (Columbia), 4-18 March 1994, a microgravity research mission where the Shuttle was lowered to 105 nautical miles, the lowest ever flown by a Space Shuttle. LTC James S. "Jim" Voss and CW3 Tom Hennen flew onboard STS-44 (Atlantis) in November 1991. During this mission a Defense Support Program (DSP) satellite was deployed with an Inertial Upper State rocket booster. Also, CW3 Hennen conducted the Terra Scout experiment. In December 1992, LTC Voss and LTC M. Richard "Rich" Clifford were crewmembers aboard STS-53 (Discovery) which carried a classified payload on the last DOD Shuttle flight. This was the first time that two Army officers were on the same shuttle flight. COL Voss' third mission was on STS-69 (Endeavour) which deployed and retrieved two research satellites. During this mission, COL Voss conducted and EVA to develop techniques to be used in the construction of the International Space Station. LTC Clifford was subsequently assigned to the crew of STS-59 (Endeavour) which conducted radar mapping of the surface and atmosphere of the earth 9-20 April 1994. His third Shuttle mission, STS-76 (Atlantis) took place in the Spring 1996. STS-76 will be the third Shuttle flight to rendezvous and dock with the Russian Space Station Mir. MAJ Nancy J. Currie (formerly Nancy Sherlock) was a crewmember on STS-57 (Endeavour), 21 June-1 July 1993, which retrieved a European research satellite. MAJ Currie became the first Army female officer in space. Her second mission was STS-70 (Discovery), 13-22 July 1995, during which a NASA Tracking and Data Relay communications satellite was deployed. LTC William S. "Bill" McArthur served as a Mission Specialist on STS-58 (Columbia), a record seven-person life science duration medical research flight. His second flight, STS-74 (Atlantis) took place in Fall 1995. STS-74 was the second Shuttle mission to rendezvous and dock with the Russian Space Station Mir. The U.S. Air Force Space Command was activated in September 1982. In March 1983, President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). This was a major shift in national defense philosophy from massive retaliation to an active, non-nuclear defense that would be able to defend the United States against ICBMs. Later that year, DOD formed the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) to manage the SDI research and development program and coordinate work within DOD. Also in 1983, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (VCSA) formed the Army Space Council made up of designated general officers. The Army Space Council meets periodically to coordinate actions, approve proposals and provide guidance on Army involvement in and use of space. Staff responsibilities, were, however, split among many offices within Headquarters, Department of the Army in the Pentagon. The Army Space Executive Working Group was formed to coordinate and work on space related actions, especially those that would go before the Space Council. Army Science Board In 1984, the Army Science Board studied the Army's use of space to support its missions. The board concluded that the Army made only minor use of existing space capabilities and was not active nor influential in the design and operation of most of the systems. In January 1985, the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) directed that a Space Directorate be formed at Fort Leavenworth. The Space Directorate consisted of six people assigned to the Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity (CACDA). This directorate was tasked with developing concepts, doctrine and operational requirements for the use of space to support Army operations. Army Space Initiatives Study In May 1985, General Thurman, the VCSA directed that a special study group be formed for six months to analyze how the Army should use space and the Army's role in space. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (DCSOPS) of the Army directed the establishment of the Army Space Initiatives Study (ASIS) group of 30 officers from throughout the Army be formed at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas to develop a blueprint for future Army involvement and investment in space that would enhance Army land operations around the world. On 1 July 1985, the U.S. Army Strategic Defense Command was activated using the resources of the Army's Ballistic Missile Defense Command (BMDSCOM) in Huntsville, Alabama. By August 1985, the Concepts Directorate of CACDA, with assistance from the Space Directorate, had prepared an interim operational concept titled Army Space Operations. On 23 September 1985, DoD established the United States Space Command (USSPACECOM) as a unified command with its headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Following World War II, the U.S. military became a leader in the development and use of space. These space capabilities continue to evolve as new technology is incorporated and users place greater and greater demands on space systems. The U.S. Army has had an important role in the development and use of space systems. In the early stages of the U.S. space program, the Army was instrumental in the development of rockets and satellites. The first U.S. satellite was launched into orbit by an Army Redstone rocket. Many of the Army's rocket and satellite programs were transferred to NASA shortly after it was created in 1958. The Army has always maintained heavy involvement in the design, development and operation of space systems. Since the mid*1980's, the Army has undergone an increase in the use of space systems to support its operations. This increased use of space systems resulted in new or improved capabilities during Operation DESERT STORM. Space systems provided essential support in the areas of communications, reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, weather, terrain analysis, position/navigation and early warning. All of the space systems used were already in existence but their incorporation into the Army was accelerated. This was the outcome of an evolutionary process that is still on*going. The U.S. space program was fragmented with efforts by the Army, Navy and Air Force. The military services were competing as hard against each other as they were against the Soviets. President Eisenhower's scientific advisor, Dr. James R. Killian, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), was tasked to study the situation and present a recommendation to the President. The military services lobbied hard to maintain control of the nation's space effort. Influenced by the President's "Space for Peace" policy, Dr. Killian recommended the establishment of a civilian agency to handle all aspects of research and development with civilian scientists guiding the space program. While plans for this new agency were tied up in red tape, the President could not let time and events overtake our space program. He directed the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) within the Department of Defense. ARPA's plans for space exploration were soon approved by the President, and in a sense ARPA was the first U.S. space agency. In June 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Act was adopted. This act created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), effective on 1 October 1958, and gave it a broad charter for civilian aeronautical and space research. The core of NASA's facilities came from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) which was disbanded. The Air Force would continue development of ICBMs and the Navy could continue development of sea*launched rockets although the Navy did transfer Project Vanguard and part of the Naval Research Lab to NASA in November 1958. The Army could continue to develop IRBMs but would transfer much of its rocket program to NASA. Most NASA facilities, launch sites and test ranges have been, and continue to be, built under the supervision of the Army Corps of Engineers. In 1961, the Department of Defense assigned the mission of managing and operating U.S. military space launch vehicles and satellites to the Air Force. Doubtless this is where you got the idea that the army had nothing to do with things. Well, a major army contractor then. Happy? Likely not. The Thiokol Chemical Company was founded in 1929. Its initial business was a range of synthetic rubber and polymer sealants, and Thiokol was a major supplier of liquid polymer sealants during World War II. When scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory discovered Thiokol's polymers made ideal rocket fuels, Thiokol moved into the new field, opening laboratories at Elkton, Maryland, and later production facilities at Elkton and at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. Huntsville produced the XM33 Pollux, TX-18 Falcon, and TX-135 Nike- Zeus systems. It closed in 1996. In the mid 1950s the company bought extensive lands in Utah for its rocket test range, and continues to have major operations in the state, at Magna and Promontory Utah. home of the Space Shuttle's SRB, and its current headquarters at Brigham City. The original Shuttle design did not have SRBs, it had a liquid fueled flyback first stage - a fully reusable system. It didn't have high cross-range, and didn't need tiles or wings. It used J2 engines, and didn't need an SSME- built around the best of the Apollo hardware and experience. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 8:57*am, "
wrote: On Mar 12, 7:28*am, wrote: Get a clue people. *Eisenhower was advised that the National Academy of Sciences should operate as a board directing NASAs strategic direction and growth - a Space Council that recieves a set amount of funding each year for five or ten year terms. *Eisenhower ignored this. To the best of your knowledge, or alternatively, in your opinion, what was Reagan's attitude toward or relationship with the National Academy of Sciences? Does anyone know where the phrase - to boldly go where no man has gone before - came from? It did not come from Gene Roddenberry. I will give the pointer to the source to anyone who asks. Okay, thanks in advance. JTM http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report61.html The Weisner Report briefing President Elect Kennedy on our space capabilities. Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort and money, man can eventually explore our solar system. Given his enormous curiosity about the universe in which he lives and his compelling urge to go where no one has ever been before, this will be done. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 8:55*am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:57*am, " wrote: On Mar 12, 7:28*am, wrote: Get a clue people. *Eisenhower was advised that the National Academy of Sciences should operate as a board directing NASAs strategic direction and growth - a Space Council that recieves a set amount of funding each year for five or ten year terms. *Eisenhower ignored this. To the best of your knowledge, or alternatively, in your opinion, what was Reagan's attitude toward or relationship with the National Academy of Sciences? Does anyone know where the phrase - to boldly go where no man has gone before - came from? It did not come from Gene Roddenberry. I will give the pointer to the source to anyone who asks. Okay, thanks in advance. JTM http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report61.html The Weisner Report briefing President Elect Kennedy on our space capabilities. Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort and money, man can eventually explore our solar system. Given his enormous curiosity about the universe in which he lives and his compelling urge to go where no one has ever been before, this will be done.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You not so neatly avoided my question about Reagan's relationship with the National Academy of Sciences. JTM |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 8:52*am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote: The Shuttle got funded, but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage, increased operating costs. Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant, Eisenhower was described at the time 'lukewarm' to Sputnik. Kennedy took a different tack and gain popular support. Specialists thought the public reaction irrational and emotionally driven and felt a more rational approach would be to ignore Sputnik and secretly pursue military applications. The Fuchs case weighed heavily on the President's mind and the fact that he though the Russians were up to no good with the publicity they were getting with this Sputnik thing. Its all in the declassified documents.. http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/d...documents.html A Civilian agency that was superior to military agencies in terms of having access to all scientific and technical capabilities for civilian use, a civilian agency that had a steady level of funding each year, administered by a chief executive (vonBraun would have been a good first candidate) and advised by a board of directors, would remove NASA from much of the political wrangling. The same way the National Science Foundation works. It is not up to individual politicians or the President to decide on each research program or activity. To put such power in the hands of politicians politicizes the process. Overall funding, general direction, sure. But to fund each program as a political process - turns NASA into a nightmare and makes it impossible to function strategically. EISENHOWER KNEW THIS - that's why he put it in the hands of the President to decide the role of NASA - not a board of specialists who would inflame and exploit public enthusiasm, perhaps with the help of space stunts from our enemies. Kennedy represented the everything Eisenhower feared - winning an election over a non-existant missile gap and plunging the nation into a race for the moon and a long-term commitment to manned solar system exploration. LBJ reduced Kennedy's vision to landing a man on the moon. Nixon reduced Kennedy's vision to man in space - which mean man on orbit. Ford and Carter ignored space Reagan accentuated space again with SDI - until the Challenger explosion. Bush asked NASA what it would cost to return to the moon or go to Mars -NASA said $100 billion - and Bush quietly forgot space - excepting as VP he developed many connections to military uses of space - Clinton ignored space - excepting Gore wanted a mission to Earth to study the environment - Clinton declassified GPS. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 10:11*am, "
wrote: On Mar 12, 8:55*am, wrote: On Mar 12, 8:57*am, " wrote: On Mar 12, 7:28*am, wrote: Get a clue people. *Eisenhower was advised that the National Academy of Sciences should operate as a board directing NASAs strategic direction and growth - a Space Council that recieves a set amount of funding each year for five or ten year terms. *Eisenhower ignored this. To the best of your knowledge, or alternatively, in your opinion, what was Reagan's attitude toward or relationship with the National Academy of Sciences? Does anyone know where the phrase - to boldly go where no man has gone before - came from? It did not come from Gene Roddenberry. I will give the pointer to the source to anyone who asks. Okay, thanks in advance. JTM http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report61.html The Weisner Report briefing President Elect Kennedy on our space capabilities. Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort and money, man can eventually explore our solar system. Given his enormous curiosity about the universe in which he lives and his compelling urge to go where no one has ever been before, this will be done.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You not so neatly avoided my question about Reagan's relationship with the National Academy of Sciences. JTM- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I didn't see it sorry - it was seen by mee as -show quoted text - http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c06sdi_1.htm http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Ronald Reagan's records are no available on line the way Eisenhower and Kennedy records are. So, I cannot say for sure. I do know that after speaking with Edward Teller, Reagan did reach out to the scientific community. OSTP was well established at that time and no doubt coordinated his contact with the scientific community. Like lil' Bush and WMDs in Iraq, Reagan tended to focus on the conclusions he was after for strategic and national reasons having nothing to do with science. As a result, there was a division between 'believers' and 'non-believers' in SDI. How this fell out, is hard to tell without unfettered (and search engine enabled) access to Presidential records from that time - organized by a thoughtful and honest librarian historian. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 5:06*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote: Not an implication but a fact. *It wasn't just "military goals", it was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery MOL had nothing whatsoever to do with the Shuttle; it was a manned reconsat that was canceled before the Shuttle program even started. Charlie is hung up on the misconception that prior to Reagan's inauguration, modifications to SLC-6 (originally developed for the MOL) reflected military design of the space shuttle. Hence my mention of "supporting structure," which you apparently overlooked or didn't understand why you should consider, Pat. In dozens of posts now, Charlie has plainly demonstrated no detailed knowledge of any such modifications to SLC-6, at least not any that he cares to post. We are to accept on blind faith that modifications began at SLC-6 in 1979 and 1980, more specifically, modifications that reflected the shuttle's *military* design. The only work I'm aware of at SLC-6 during the Carter years was the relocation of the tower by several feet. That was done only for the *possibility* that SLC-6 might eventually launch a shuttle, *after* a satisfactory military design had been approved for the shuttle and military shuttle development had been funded. Can you provide any support for Charlie's empty contention in this regard, since he is obviously spinning about like a 45 platter stuck on a soundless groove? JTM |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 12:01*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away, made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote: The Shuttle got funded, but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage, increased operating costs. Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant, The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle Mook seems to be going more and more over the deep end in recent years. *Be careful. *If you disagree with him, he'll call you evil. That's a lie Rand. Evil is a perfectly legitimate concept. I only call those things evil that may be any reasonable definition might be defined by a reasonable person AS evil. For example, someone who says that the poor and destitute of this world should be denied any and all hope for a better life. That's a pernicicous statement. When one adds that the rationale for this denial of hope because they MIGHT be inspired to improve their position. That's a shocking statement. Then when this person adds their final reasoning, they support the previous two statements because success MIGHT cause those in a superior position to have to work harder to maintain their position. That's evil Rand. Any person who subscribes to this view can rightly be termed to BE evil. I mean, apply that logic to your family. You would enslave a family member and then deny them even the HOPE of a better life because the MIGHT want to improve their position and that MIGHT adversely affect any benefit you MIGHT get from their enslavement? wow. shrug It that isn't evil, what is? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 81 | March 26th 08 04:15 PM |
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years | Jim Oberg | Policy | 7 | December 7th 06 03:15 AM |
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years | Jim Oberg | History | 7 | December 7th 06 03:15 AM |
First Civilian Astronaut | Jo | UK Astronomy | 1 | June 21st 04 07:11 PM |