|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 06:03 PM |
Earth's birth date turned back: Formed earlier than believed (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 17th 03 11:28 PM |