NASA Launching Advanced Laser to Measure Earth’s Changing Ice

[Joe Wooten]

Nelson is gone, and since Culberson was defeated mostly by a campaign deriding his interest in space, the new dhimmicrap house will probably move to defund SLS now.

We'll see in January.....

[bernomatic]

The new space force is pretty much going to be gone before it even has a chance to start also. I just can't understand why we always have to wait till we get stabbed in the back before we ever do anything of a true defensive nature.

[luke strawwalker]

Well, SLS was just "the power of inertia" and the "sunk costs argument"... IOW, they had spent SO MUCH on Ares I/Ares V (meaning MOSTLY Ares 1, as Ares 5 never even got past the drawing board-- Ares I had SO many problems that they kept pushing off on Ares V, they couldn't even decide how many segments to put in the SRB's and how many main engines to put on the d@mn thing... mostly because of underperformance of Ares 1... Their backs were against the wall because 1) it was found that going to 6 segment boosters would simply overwhelm the existing crawler, crawlerways, and pad infrastructure... IOW it was too heavy to move, without essentially rebuilding everything at KSC from scratch, which of course would never happen. They figured that 5.5 segment boosters were the most they could *possibly* handle, so that became the baseline for the boosters. 2) They still needed MORE performance from Ares V to make up for Ares I shortfalls, so they were planning to add a SIXTH SSME (RS-25) engine to the core of Ares V, but then you need fuel to burn in it, driving a larger core, with the diameter fixed at 33 feet that meant a longer core, which then screwed up a bunch of other stuff... plus a longer core is HEAVIER, which reduces the hoped improvements from the added engine in the first place-- so at that point, they were PAST the points of "diminishing returns" and the design was going backwards...

NASA spent nearly $9 billion dollars between 2004 and its cancellation in 2010 on Ares I... all we got for it was a stripped-down design for Orion (whose design HAD to be stripped down for Ares I to even get it off the pad) and ONE test flight of an old four-segment SRB with an extra dummy segment topped with a "tuna can" battleship upper stage simulator. Oh, and the test was basically a failure, as the "reusable" SRB first stage came back SO badly bent that it had to be scrapped, due to the additional length and the parachutes not being able to take the strain, and the whole design was just iffy from the get-go. In that same time period, for less than 1/3 that amount of money, SpaceX built not ONLY an all new rocket engine (Merlin) which they redesigned from an ablative disposable design to a regeneratively cooled reusable design, built, tested, and flown, PLUS an all-new capsule (Dragon) that they built, tested, and flew, PLUS TWO all-new rockets (Falcon 1 and Falcon 9) that they built, tested, and flew, but they also started return-to-launch-site propulsive recovery, AND recovery at sea on automated barges, PLUS reuse of Dragon...

When the glaring shortcomings and problems of Ares I and the Constellation Program could no longer be hidden under a layer of patriotic hogwash about exploration and the human spirit, Constellation got cancelled and Ares I and Ares V along with it (along with Orion, technically). Orion was, at least on paper, more or less finished, so it was quickly revived as the MPCV, and later picked up its old moniker again. BUT, NASA had spent SO MUCH on Ares I and by extension, Ares V, that it was now "too big to fail", particularly when all the "shuttle mafia" usual suspects were now on board and getting "their piece of the action" and didn't want to see that go away! SO, Ares V "Lite" morphed into "SLS", the so-called "Senate Launch System"... which we're stuck with to this day. Thus "institutional inertia" was preserved, and the "chosen contractors" kept getting their gubmint checks in the mail, only now for SLS instead of Ares I/V, one "shuttle derived" solution replacing another.

It would be different if SLS actually had ANY chance whatsoever of ever actually performing any of the missions it's supposedly been built for. The problem is, it will cost well over a BILLION DOLLARS PER LAUNCH, and is ONLY designed to launch about once every 2-3 years. The fact that NASA essentially "sold" Pad 39-A to SpaceX, although it's termed a "long term lease", means NASA will ONLY have one single pad (39-B) to conduct their operations from on at KSC. Now that SpaceX has built their new hangar astride the crawlerway, there won't be any "conversion" of 39-A back to SLS capability, either, even if there were the money for it. NASA's "design reference missions" for Mars have AT LEAST 6 SLS Block 2 launches (a design requiring YEARS more development time and unallocated BILLIONS more in development funding to ever see the light of day... so far all we have is a stripped down "block 1" version, and all we'll likely ever have). At a launch rate of one every other year, it would take TWELVE YEARS just to assemble and fuel a Mars stack in Earth orbit to even CONTEMPLATE a Mars mission... Right now there's not even money to fly SLS AND keep paying for our part of the ISS, not beyond test missions anyway. There's a LOT of pressure to keep ISS going, internally and from the "international partners" so ISS isn't going anywhere in the short term, or even medium term-- it's become the same albatross around our neck that the shuttle was-- so long as it's REMOTELY viable, they'll keep it on life support and keep pouring billions into it. That, combined with the sustainment costs of SLS (it DOES take money to keep the lights on, keep key people on the payrolls, and keep the factories in shape and operational, even if nobody is ACTUALLY FLYING ANYTHING-- just "polishing wrenches"... but you have to pay those costs to keep the capability-- it's not like an auto plant that you can mothball for a few years, lay everybody off, and then go reopen and rehire a bunch of guys and teach them what to do to get it going again... once "the team" disappears, once the factory is shut down or repurposed, it's pretty much "gone forever". SLS will cost MILLIONS every year, even if it NEVER flies, simply in "sustainment costs". What's more, due to the low flight rate, each flight will have to bear MULTIPLE YEARS of sustainment costs on each flight, ie every guy's salary for TWO YEARS just for ONE flight, and that's assuming the "robust" flight rate of one SLS flight every other year... it only gets worse from there! It's like buying a school bus and hiring a driver and mechanic to keep the thing ready to run and be ready to drive it, and only having school one day every other year... it's SENSELESS, and ultimately it is UNSUSTAINABLE.

SLS isn't even a good solution to the problem. The RAC-2 studies showed that basically the BEST solution to a beyond-Earth-orbit exploration program was "a serially staged vehicle, with a kerosene powered first stage, and hydrogen powered second ascent stage, with a hydrogen powered third in-space propulsion stage" (sound familiar-- it should-- it's basically a modernized Saturn V!) Of course, the "thumb on the scale" used to justify the "Shuttle derived solution" (ie Ares I/V and/or SLS) was the "development costs" were supposed to be SO MUCH CHEAPER AND EASIER using the "existing" shuttle hardware, rather than developing "all new" technology for a serially staged liquid propulsion rocket. (Of course this overlooked the fact that the F-1 had been dusted off and test fired and an independent company was looking to re-create the F-1 capability in a new cheaper version, F-1B). This was also long before Blue Origin got their contract to create the BE-4 methane/LOX engine for a new (repowered) version of Atlas V, to replace the Russian RD-170 combined-cycle advanced kerosene engines. BE-4 would be a good "off the shelf" choice for a large clustered serially staged all-liquid vehicle in the future... LNG is close to kerosene in density and performance, making it ideal for first stage use.

Being that SLS has been the "chosen solution" since 2010, and has been in development for nearly NINE YEARS now, there's NO DOUBT that the argument of using "shuttle derived solutions" for a "cheaper and quicker" means of building a new booster, and using "existing technology" rather than having to design everything "all new" and "from scratch" is totally fallacious. Basically NOTHING from the shuttle program was capable of being used "off the shelf" without basically a COMPLETE redesign, which of course has taken years and cost billions. SO, at the end of the day, we're paying for a completely redesigned all-new "Lincoln Continental" but what we're getting is an old Edsel retooled and tweaked into a 'modern design'...

SO, when SLS goes bye-bye it won't be any surprise to me, and it's just a shame that it will have taken SO LONG for the PTB's to come to their senses and muster the courage to make the change... consuming SO MANY YEARS and SO MANY BILLIONS in pursuit of a dream based on an outdated design chosen solely to satisfy prurient interests of a few politically connected groups...

Then we'll get to wait again while they figure out what to do next and actually get around to funding something...

Later! OL J R

[luke strawwalker]

The new space force is pretty much going to be gone before it even has a chance to start also. I just can't understand why we always have to wait till we get stabbed in the back before we ever do anything of a true defensive nature.

Did they ever clearly spell out what this "space force" was SUPPOSED to be doing or what it was for, how it was different from the existing military powers and organization and division of responsibilities?

I mean, I've read the history of how the military was changed in the post-world war II era, from how it was set up in the interwar years... Spinning the Air Force off into it's own service instead of a subdivision of the Army made and makes plenty of sense, in the same way allocating all ICBM's and long-range missiles to the Air Force rather than the Army made sense, as they were an adjunct to the bomber forces. OF course having SLBM's and other long-range missile assets also under the purview of the Navy makes sense, as they're operated and maintained by the Navy. The Air Force, by extension of those developments, became heavily involved and primarily responsible for space operations via reconnaissance satellites, which were extensions of the manned reconnaissance planes leading the way before that. SO, the Air Force now runs the US Space Command, monitoring all the satellites, space junk, launches by other nations (friendly and foe alike) and analyzes threats and of course performs the reconnaissance missions that the Air Force has been doing basically since the Space Age began. SO, what's changed?? Why NOW is it "vital" to spin off these assets and capabilities into a "new Space Force"??

It's interesting that in the Soviet Union, the development of missiles basically were allocated as an "extension of artillery", as if they were "very long range guns" and thus fell under the purview of that branch of the Red Army, and were overseen and allocated resources from the artillery development and procurement process. The Red Air Force, by contrast, wasn't involved much beyond support providing flight crews and aircraft to move the rocket and missile developers and their crews around, and providing services like radar tracking facilities and crews and other flight-related ground support equipment and facilities to the developing rocket/missile program. When the Soviets decided that the missiles had grown to the point they were viable weapons in their own right, they created an entirely new branch of service, the Strategic Rocket Forces, to oversee and control all the land-based ballistic missile and cruise missile weaponry of the country. The Soviet Navy did get their SLBM's and sub-launched cruise missiles, and the Red Air Force got their own air-launched cruise missiles, but the land-based ICBM's and ground-launched cruise missiles all fell under the control of the Strategic Rocket Forces. As the Space Race began, the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Soviet space program were virtually synonymous, and worked hand-in-glove, since most Soviet space hardware was of course created as ballistic missiles and grew out of that endeavor. Basically even today, there is a FAR less defined line between the Strategic Rocket Forces and the supporting military establishments (services like the AIr Force providing transport and Army providing facilities and such) and the Russian Space Program than there is between the USAF and NASA... NASA was specifically created to "spin off" manned space activities into a "CIVILIAN organization" separate and apart from the pre-existing military space establishment, which of course provided ALL the facilities and MOST all the personnel early-on in the space program, and would for most of the first half of NASA's history, and which STILL supplies a lot of support to this day. Still, no such "clear dividing line" existed between the Soviet space program and the military back then, and it's rather fuzzy even today; the Russian space program is wholly dependent on military support, as it's SO underfunded, despite being a "civilian" enterprise, if perhaps "in name only"...

SO, I'd like to know what this "Space Force" was actually SUPPOSED to do, and how it would do it differently (better?) than it's being done now?? Or was it just about adding a sixth chair around the table in military leadership?? (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and now "Space Force"??) I wouldn't see ANY of the Air Force leadership wanting ANY part of this, as interservice rivalry would mean they'd lose power or position or prestige and have resources and facilities and personnel reallocated to this new "space force" and thus not part of their command structure anymore... Remember the Air Force and Navy (and a lesser extent the Army) were NOT happy about Eisenhower choosing to create NASA in the first place, and taking "space" out of the military's hands... The Army wasn't happy about losing control of ballistic missiles to the Air Force either, back in the day... heck I bet they were unhappy that the Air Force was spun off from the Army Air Forces back in '47...

Later! OL J R

[Commander]

Did they ever clearly spell out what this "space force" was SUPPOSED to be doing or what it was for, how it was different from the existing military powers and organization and division of responsibilities?

The first mission of a United States Space Force would be to protect American space-based assets against enemy attack and to strike at those of an enemy in time of war. Satellites can be hardened against attack or made easily replaceable by reusable rockets that can be launched on demand. Enemy satellite killers could be destroyed before they get into position to do their work. When the United States fully develops such a capacity it will also deter a war in space, to begin with.

Going beyond protecting American space assets and attacking those of an enemy, a number of other missions for a USSF present themselves. For example, the problem of cleaning up space junk, which would become a major problem in the event of a space war, would constitute a good peacetime task. Cleaning up the debris left by dead satellites would not only ensure that near Earth space remains navigable; it would constitute excellent practice for operating in space.

Farther down the line, with the United States and other countries as well as private industry heading back to the moon, a Space Force could take on the functions of a space-faring version of the Coast Guard, providing rescue services, enforcing the law, and helping to arbitrate disputes among nations and private entities beyond the Earth.

Finally, a United States Space Force could provide the ultimate defense against a threat that could arrive from deep space that could end civilization, if not the human species. Sixty-five million years ago, an asteroid hit the Earth in the region of the Yucatan, ending the reign of the dinosaurs and ensuring the rise of mammals as the dominant species on Earth. A similar event would destroy the human race, putting an end in one blow to thousands of years of achievement and progress.

What would the mission of the United States Space Force be? by Mark Whittington — June 19, 2018

The main thing with the forward thinking Space Force is that as the old adage goes, "Generals always are fighting the last war". Thus as Billy Mitchell found out prior to World War 2, overcoming not only political stagnation, but military stagnation is a hard task to accomplish. Add to that it being put forward by President Trump and it will be unlikely anything will come of it before it is too late.

There are myriad reasons to create a space force. Not least of which is that it will take special training by the the members to actually perform their duties in space. These people will not be akin to airmen patrolling an airbase but more akin to the submarine services of the Navy. We would be hard pressed to even begin to understand some of the duties these recruits would be tasked with, as their missions will undoubtedly change and grow as they accomplish things.

Dreaming of things, I came up with this a little while back. Could you imagine how much of a different outcome we might have had in Benghazi if we had a space force capable of manning capsules (akin to Blue Origins New Shepherd or Space X's Dragon) which could lift off in a short period of time and be almost anywhere in the world in under an hour. Imagine the possibilities. Go one step further and develop a capsule which would basically land and deploy as a fortress and the shock to the unfriendlies would be extreme.

[luke strawwalker]

Did they ever clearly spell out what this "space force" was SUPPOSED to be doing or what it was for, how it was different from the existing military powers and organization and division of responsibilities?

The first mission of a United States Space Force would be to protect American space-based assets against enemy attack and to strike at those of an enemy in time of war. Satellites can be hardened against attack or made easily replaceable by reusable rockets that can be launched on demand. Enemy satellite killers could be destroyed before they get into position to do their work. When the United States fully develops such a capacity it will also deter a war in space, to begin with.

Going beyond protecting American space assets and attacking those of an enemy, a number of other missions for a USSF present themselves. For example, the problem of cleaning up space junk, which would become a major problem in the event of a space war, would constitute a good peacetime task. Cleaning up the debris left by dead satellites would not only ensure that near Earth space remains navigable; it would constitute excellent practice for operating in space.

Farther down the line, with the United States and other countries as well as private industry heading back to the moon, a Space Force could take on the functions of a space-faring version of the Coast Guard, providing rescue services, enforcing the law, and helping to arbitrate disputes among nations and private entities beyond the Earth.

Finally, a United States Space Force could provide the ultimate defense against a threat that could arrive from deep space that could end civilization, if not the human species. Sixty-five million years ago, an asteroid hit the Earth in the region of the Yucatan, ending the reign of the dinosaurs and ensuring the rise of mammals as the dominant species on Earth. A similar event would destroy the human race, putting an end in one blow to thousands of years of achievement and progress.

What would the mission of the United States Space Force be? by Mark Whittington — June 19, 2018

The main thing with the forward thinking Space Force is that as the old adage goes, "Generals always are fighting the last war". Thus as Billy Mitchell found out prior to World War 2, overcoming not only political stagnation, but military stagnation is a hard task to accomplish. Add to that it being put forward by President Trump and it will be unlikely anything will come of it before it is too late.

There are myriad reasons to create a space force. Not least of which is that it will take special training by the the members to actually perform their duties in space. These people will not be akin to airmen patrolling an airbase but more akin to the submarine services of the Navy. We would be hard pressed to even begin to understand some of the duties these recruits would be tasked with, as their missions will undoubtedly change and grow as they accomplish things.

Dreaming of things, I came up with this a little while back. Could you imagine how much of a different outcome we might have had in Benghazi if we had a space force capable of manning capsules (akin to Blue Origins New Shepherd or Space X's Dragon) which could lift off in a short period of time and be almost anywhere in the world in under an hour. Imagine the possibilities. Go one step further and develop a capsule which would basically land and deploy as a fortress and the shock to the unfriendlies would be extreme.

Okay, that makes sense, but I see a LOT of "interservice rivalry" opposition to any such changes. The AF has the Space Command now and monitors all the space junk (and everything else in orbit, basically) and tracks all space launches. The AF and NAVY have the ASAT capabilities (as far as I know, the Army doesn't have anything in that department, unless THAAD has ASAT capabilities that I'm unaware of). Neither of them are going to want to give up those "assets", or control over them, particularly ASAT's (Standard Missiles) on NAVY missile cruisers. The AF isn't gonna want to give up their ASAT-armed F-15's either, and carrying "Space Force" ASAT's under Air Force planes as mobile launch platforms?? Hmmm... sounds problematical.

"Space Junk" and a possible "Kessler Syndrome" in space might be a viable mission, but it's at about the level air power was a week after the Wright Brother's first flight... IOW, it's got a LONG way to go before it's even a viable consideration. I wouldn't even put it at the "Billy Mitchell bombing an old cruiser and sinking it" level yet... more like somewhere before the "Fokker Scourge" of 1915 IMHO.

The "Space Coast Guard" idea sounds intriguing, but pretty premature I think. We haven't needed it so far, and yeah at some point it will probably be some sort of necessity, but at this point-- sorta like saying we need to establish a DEW line or develop a BOMARC air defense missile to protect against German dirigibles and Gotha biplane bombers in World War I... It's just a little premature I think, at least on that count. Meanwhile, we DO have international treaties prohibiting the militarization of space, which all the major space powers are signatories to, and if we're going to change our stance on that, we have to ask 1) what example we're setting, and 2) what the likely response from our "competitors" or "adversaries" will be, and 3) what the outcome of that will likely be. Not making a judgment call on whether it would be a good or bad outcome, BUT it's SURE to trigger CHANGE, for good or ill. (Remember our abandonment of the ABM treaty to do the Star Wars program-- which itself pretty much came to nothing, but it DID force the Soviets into investing heavily in a counter to Star Wars and their own crash program to duplicate the purported capabilities, expenditures of time, money, and effort they didn't have, which basically contributed to their collapse...)

SO, it boils down to "defense against NEO's/comet impacts". Okay... hasn't that been "historically" anyway, allocated as a job for NASA if and when the time comes?? Surely it would involve *some* level of military cooperation and support if such a mission proved necessary (as we've seen in any number of films), particularly if it involved some plan to "nuke" an incoming asteroid or comet, particularly with nuclear weapons... (the MIT study done on this eventuality back in the 70's, "Project Icarus", would have used the Saturn V to loft gigantic hand-built nuclear weapons specially constructed for the mission, larger than ANYTHING in the US stockpile (or anywhere else for that matter-- up to 500 megatons IIRC... Of course the Saturn V has been gone for decades, so I'm sure they've come out with "something else" by now...) It's an interesting idea, and I guess it makes sense to have such a mission allocated to a specifically organized military organization, BUT, justification for creating such a military branch of service for a one-time mission that may never come, well... it's questionable at best (I guess the same argument could be made about the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, as they are a separate branch of their military specifically charged with developing and maintaining nuclear ballistic missiles, which of course would basically be a "one time mission" that hopefully is NEVER NEEDED... and yet they have a separate service for that...

SO, I guess it "could be done", but I sense a great disturbance in the Force... as if "millions of voices" in the Pentagon, government, industry, and NASA suddenly cried out "NOPE!!!" and left the proposal "suddenly silenced"...

Later! OL J R

[luke strawwalker]

Dreaming of things, I came up with this a little while back. Could you imagine how much of a different outcome we might have had in Benghazi if we had a space force capable of manning capsules (akin to Blue Origins New Shepherd or Space X's Dragon) which could lift off in a short period of time and be almost anywhere in the world in under an hour. Imagine the possibilities. Go one step further and develop a capsule which would basically land and deploy as a fortress and the shock to the unfriendlies would be extreme.

Yeah, the Benghazi thing shouts to the fact that it's seriously time to consider developing of a "trans-atmospheric vehicle" (TAV) that would be capable of delivering shock troops anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes... I'd be surprised if nobody has considered getting a contract to Bezos or Elon Musk for a militarized version of "New Glenn" or Falcon 9, or BFR, capable of delivering troops at least a few thousand miles in a matter of minutes... not to orbit, but a ballistic vehicle capable of launching, transiting above the sensible atmosphere, then turning around and landing (with or without a first stage, which itself would be reusable) making a rapid landing anywhere and disgorging its troops and equipment at a safe distance but close enough to immediately join the battle or make an interdiction as needed... It wouldn't necessarily HAVE to be able to deliver troops "halfway around the world" at a moment's notice; IF it were designed to be strategically based elsewhere (like say at Diego Garcia, Guam, or on an aircraft carrier (or converted ship of the necessary size and facilities) capable of moving it into pre-positioned "areas of coverage" and having the required personnel standing by for immediate "scramble"... (like SEAL teams or whatever).

Something like a 21st century version of "glider troops" or paratroops from WW2... (which were innovative at the time and played important roles).

A contract for something like that would go a LONG WAY to paying for development for BFR or "New Glenn" or whatever...

Later! OL J R

[luke strawwalker]

Of course, thinking about it, you could just put up a space station armed with poison gas globes... "First, a necklace of death above the Earth-- 50 globes, each releasing its nerve gas over a designated area-- each capable of killing 100 million people, and the human race, as you know it, will cease to exist... then, a rebirth-- a NEW WORLD..."

Oh wait... that's my inner Drax showing. Stand by to laser it! Still, having one's own "spacecraft" capable of disgorging armed troops and equipment anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes from the "Go!" order would be a shocking thing and excellent capability...

Later! OL J R

[Commander]

Of course, thinking about it, you could just put up a space station armed with poison gas globes... "First, a necklace of death above the Earth-- 50 globes, each releasing its nerve gas over a designated area-- each capable of killing 100 million people, and the human race, as you know it, will cease to exist... then, a rebirth-- a NEW WORLD..."

You forgot about interviewing all the acceptable young ladies...