cheap access to space - majority opinion

(william mook) wrote in message . com...
snip
Now, consider a world where ELVs are a technology of the past and
everyone's using RLVs. Those who make, maintain, and operate the
RLVs, lack the capacity to mass produce the components on a scale
needed to create threatening weapons systems. In fact, RLV
manufacturers can be controlled in a way that still permits them to
operate, but also allows them to demonstrate through inspection and
whatnot that their systems are incapable of being converted to
long-range missiles....

How would one demonstrate that a RLV can't be converted to a weapon?

Here is more detailed description of the system
of Earth-to-orbit transportation I have described
in the first post:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SPBI114.HTM

William Mook wrote:

Well, if you want cheap, reliable and tested, you're
talking about modifying existing hardware.

Big mistake! All existing liquid fuel engines have
expensive turbopumps which are designed for minimum
weight rather than maximum durability. This is not
the best way to make a reusable spacecraft.

...Meanwhile, tank 4 re-enters and is recovered as
in the other six tanks.

The first stage tanks may be recovered by landing
like a plane (e.g., russian Baikal). The second
stage tanks will break during reentry unless they
are heavy tanks of the pressure fed rocket. Recovering
the third stage tanks is very difficult.

By the way, some news servers ignore very long posts.

I agree on all your points Andrew. However, the difficulties you
detail are fully addressed by the technologies developed for SSTO.
That is, while SSTO wasn't funded at levels to guarantee success,
SSTO did some amazing things - and those things address the issues you
raise. So, you can count these as solved problems - that make a
common element for a multi-element launcher a reality. Since a
multi-element vehicle is not as constrained by structural fraction as
SSTO - it is achievable with today's technology - virtually off the
shelf.

This is the second time I've responded to this point - my bit bucket
must be very large.



Cheers


Andrew Nowicki wrote in message ...
William Mook wrote:

Well, if you want cheap, reliable and tested, you're
talking about modifying existing hardware.

Big mistake! All existing liquid fuel engines have
expensive turbopumps which are designed for minimum
weight rather than maximum durability. This is not
the best way to make a reusable spacecraft.

...Meanwhile, tank 4 re-enters and is recovered as
in the other six tanks.

The first stage tanks may be recovered by landing
like a plane (e.g., russian Baikal). The second
stage tanks will break during reentry unless they
are heavy tanks of the pressure fed rocket. Recovering
the third stage tanks is very difficult.

By the way, some news servers ignore very long posts.

Joann Evans wrote in message ...
william mook wrote:

Joann Evans wrote in message ...
william mook wrote:

This would also help the US contain missile proliferation. If a
low-cost RLV of the type described here were operational by a US based
firm, it would undercut the rationale others in other nations have (as
in Korea) for building an expendable launch vehicle.

As a commercial satellite launcher for world markets, yes. Some
nations who can't build (or buy) RLVs will still look at ELVs to
maintain an independent launching capability, however.

Yes, absolutely. But, their motives will be clear to everyone, which
will make things easier for our State Department.


And of course (espically in Korea's case), they will still want ELVs
as medium and long range weapons.

But they won't have the fig leaf of space launch development. That's
the point. They will clearly be developing weapons systems to
threaten us and any coalation that we can assemble who is similarly
threatned. Again, this makes things easier geopolitically for the US
to contain missile proliferation.

The fact that the other guy operates a
fleet of RLVs won't affect that. (Except perhaps to the extent that he
knows that the other guy can get someone up there for recon on short
notice.)

Well, there are tactical issues and there are strategic issues.
You've got the tactical right. The strategic you are ignoring.

As noted in the other message, that distinction depends partly on who
and where you are.


Correct. And by controlling who and where the RLVs are, we can
mitigate the risks.


Consider a world where no RLVs exist and everyone still uses ELVs.
Any nation can build an ELV and say they're doing so to become space
capable. Its not as clear in this environment that they're building
weapons systems.

Now, consider a world where ELVs are a technology of the past and
everyone's using RLVs. Those who make, maintain, and operate the
RLVs, lack the capacity to mass produce the components on a scale
needed to create threatening weapons systems. In fact, RLV
manufacturers can be controlled in a way that still permits them to
operate, but also allows them to demonstrate through inspection and
whatnot that their systems are incapable of being converted to
long-range missiles.

And what happens once they leave the manufacturer's hands?

They are licensed and inspected and owned by licensed operators who
routinely report to inspection agencies.

We want
RLVs to ultimately be as common as, say, wide bodied jets.

Yes.

What stops
someone from modifying one of those for some military purpose? (Some
wanted the US to use modified 747s as long range cruise missile
carriers, rather than develop the B-1, for example.)

The same thing that stops airlines from modifying airliners for
military purposes.


You can't really stop someone from customizing one of these.

Why not? I can't modify the exhaust on my convertible beyond a
certain range of noise and emissions. That's because my vehicle is
licensed and inspected routinely, and I'm licensed to operate it and
that is routinely renewed.

This makes owning a RLV far different than owning an ELV factory.

And if
they're willing to clandestinely pre-place nukes (or other weapons) in
orbit, it doesn't even take modification.

Preventing nukes from being pre-placed in orbit is as easily achieved
as preventing nukes from being pre-placed in our cities. Operate the
RLVs from disignated launch centers and monitor those launch centers
for radiological emissions. Our spaceports will be as secure as our
airports - RLVs are another more capable version of wide bodied jets -
as you pointed out. Wide bodied jets pose significant risks as we
saw. These have been addressed. RLVs pose the same risks - not more.

Then you have the added issue
of demanding satellite inspection for everyone, when anyone can launch
anything on an RLV.

Every commercial satellite launched in the US from a US launch center
is inspected now. Not so in Korea say.

The way to think about this is as follows;

In a world of ELVs -the world today- Korea get into the space race by
spending a billion dollars on an ELV development. For their money
they get a factory to build multi-stage rockets and a launch center.
They can do anything they want there, and there are no inspections -
and this development poses a significant risk. Since they can defend
this investment as an investment in space travel, they confuse the
issues about risk to the US and others.

In a world of regulated RLVs - the world I propose- Korea gets into
the space race by spending a billion dollars on a fleet of RLVs. For
their money they get a fleet of proven RLVs operated from approved
space ports - and if they sign the appropriate treaties - a space port
of their own. They can do anything they want in space - as long as
they follow the guidelines of the space agency in charge of regulating
space launch.

In such an environment, someone who set up an
assembly line to produce hundreds of ELVs would have a very hard time
of it geopolitically.

Mot everyone will care.

Mot? Do you mean 'Not'? or 'Most'?

They'd be asked what with all the aid and
incentives given by the US and its allies, why they chose the ELV
route? There would be a very clear sense of international threat and
as a result a very high probability of effective action to shut the
ELV system down - either through negotation and cooperation - or
through decisive limited military intervention - dropping a set of
precision guided tungsten KKV rounds from orbit onto the plant.

Hmmm...acting pre-emptively has a bad reputation these days. and
similary, your intel had better be good.

Acting pre-emptively against a space launch builder is difficult.
Acting pre-emptively against an unregulated missile factory less so.

william mook wrote:

Joann Evans wrote in message ...
william mook wrote:

Joann Evans wrote in message ...
william mook wrote:

This would also help the US contain missile proliferation. If a
low-cost RLV of the type described here were operational by a US based
firm, it would undercut the rationale others in other nations have (as
in Korea) for building an expendable launch vehicle.

As a commercial satellite launcher for world markets, yes. Some
nations who can't build (or buy) RLVs will still look at ELVs to
maintain an independent launching capability, however.

Yes, absolutely. But, their motives will be clear to everyone, which
will make things easier for our State Department.


And of course (espically in Korea's case), they will still want ELVs
as medium and long range weapons.

But they won't have the fig leaf of space launch development. That's
the point. They will clearly be developing weapons systems to
threaten us and any coalation that we can assemble who is similarly
threatned. Again, this makes things easier geopolitically for the US
to contain missile proliferation.

The fact that the other guy operates a
fleet of RLVs won't affect that. (Except perhaps to the extent that he
knows that the other guy can get someone up there for recon on short
notice.)

Well, there are tactical issues and there are strategic issues.
You've got the tactical right. The strategic you are ignoring.

As noted in the other message, that distinction depends partly on who
and where you are.

Correct. And by controlling who and where the RLVs are, we can
mitigate the risks.


Consider a world where no RLVs exist and everyone still uses ELVs.
Any nation can build an ELV and say they're doing so to become space
capable. Its not as clear in this environment that they're building
weapons systems.

Now, consider a world where ELVs are a technology of the past and
everyone's using RLVs. Those who make, maintain, and operate the
RLVs, lack the capacity to mass produce the components on a scale
needed to create threatening weapons systems. In fact, RLV
manufacturers can be controlled in a way that still permits them to
operate, but also allows them to demonstrate through inspection and
whatnot that their systems are incapable of being converted to
long-range missiles.


Which still does not mean it can't be part of a weapon system. In
addition to the example of the 747 as a cruise missle carrier, others
have been turned into laser platforms, C-130s have been modified from
cargo role, to specialized gunship. Once you sell a flying machine to
someone else, the posible modifications are limited only by his
technological capability. (Wide bodied jets have also been turned into
manned cruise misslies, but that was admittedly a special case.)


And what happens once they leave the manufacturer's hands?

They are licensed and inspected and owned by licensed operators who
routinely report to inspection agencies.

Inspection by one's equivalent of the FAA is one thing. By an
international agency is another. And an RLV bought and operated by
another government (as opposed to a foreign commercial carrier) is yet
another.

As today, a government, as a matter of policy, may forbid sales to
certain nations, but it doesn't mean that manufacturers in other
countries can't/won't.

We want
RLVs to ultimately be as common as, say, wide bodied jets.

Yes.

What stops
someone from modifying one of those for some military purpose? (Some
wanted the US to use modified 747s as long range cruise missile
carriers, rather than develop the B-1, for example.)

The same thing that stops airlines from modifying airliners for
military purposes.

No profit. But airliners aren't governments. Again, you can currently
only be sure of what operators in *your* country are doing.

You can't really stop someone from customizing one of these.

Why not? I can't modify the exhaust on my convertible beyond a
certain range of noise and emissions. That's because my vehicle is
licensed and inspected routinely, and I'm licensed to operate it and
that is routinely renewed.


And this is done by the state you live in, not an international
agency. But stock, unmodified cars and trucks have been used in
Oklahoma, New York (the first attempt on the WTC) and various places in
the Middle East as explosive delivery systems.

And that doesn't even consider common-garden non-political smuggling
using cars.

Thus my example of using unmodified (cargo is cargo) RLVs to pre-place
weapons systems of one kind or another in orbit. Not one bolt need be
changed between these inspections.


This makes owning a RLV far different than owning an ELV factory.

If it's built in your country, you knew what it was at the time of
delivery, yes.

And if
they're willing to clandestinely pre-place nukes (or other weapons) in
orbit, it doesn't even take modification.

Preventing nukes from being pre-placed in orbit is as easily achieved
as preventing nukes from being pre-placed in our cities. Operate the
RLVs from disignated launch centers and monitor those launch centers
for radiological emissions.

Hmm. "You may launch from only these locations.' I suspect that's yet
more soverignty that many nations will be reluctant to give up. Some
because of a hostile adgenda, some just on principle.

Our spaceports will be as secure as our
airports - RLVs are another more capable version of wide bodied jets -
as you pointed out. Wide bodied jets pose significant risks as we
saw. These have been addressed. RLVs pose the same risks - not more.

Then you have the added issue
of demanding satellite inspection for everyone, when anyone can launch
anything on an RLV.

Every commercial satellite launched in the US from a US launch center
is inspected now. Not so in Korea say.

The way to think about this is as follows;

In a world of ELVs -the world today- Korea get into the space race by
spending a billion dollars on an ELV development. For their money
they get a factory to build multi-stage rockets and a launch center.
They can do anything they want there, and there are no inspections -
and this development poses a significant risk. Since they can defend
this investment as an investment in space travel, they confuse the
issues about risk to the US and others.

In a world of regulated RLVs - the world I propose- Korea gets into
the space race by spending a billion dollars on a fleet of RLVs. For
their money they get a fleet of proven RLVs operated from approved
space ports - and if they sign the appropriate treaties - a space port
of their own. They can do anything they want in space - as long as
they follow the guidelines of the space agency in charge of regulating
space launch.

In such an environment, someone who set up an
assembly line to produce hundreds of ELVs would have a very hard time
of it geopolitically.

Mot everyone will care.

Mot? Do you mean 'Not'? or 'Most'?

That should have been 'Not.'

They'd be asked what with all the aid and
incentives given by the US and its allies, why they chose the ELV
route? There would be a very clear sense of international threat and
as a result a very high probability of effective action to shut the
ELV system down - either through negotation and cooperation - or
through decisive limited military intervention - dropping a set of
precision guided tungsten KKV rounds from orbit onto the plant.

Hmmm...acting pre-emptively has a bad reputation these days. and
similary, your intel had better be good.

Acting pre-emptively against a space launch builder is difficult.
Acting pre-emptively against an unregulated missile factory less so.

Locating, and being certain of its purpose can be quite difficult.
Irag and Germany (V-2 production) are examples.

And there's still the issue of just how much ELV (amateur and small
sounding rockets...which might even be reusable) it takes to cross your
threshold...


--

You know what to remove, to reply....