Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

A real comment from a surprising source. Found in the March, 2005 issue of Scientific American, the "50, 100 & 150 Years Ago" column:

"March 1855. Capt. Norton made a number of very useful inventions in shot and shells, and recommended them to the head men in the British army more than ten years ago, but they were passed over unheeded, and now when danger threatens them in the Crimea, they rub their eyes and inquire about their utility. In 1826 one of his rifle percussion shells for cannons was shown to Lord Fitzroy Somerset (now Lord Raglan). That personage replied, 'All inventions in the improvement of arms tend to place the weak on a level with the strong; we are the strong, and therefore do not encourage improvements.' No better evidence could be afforded of the incapacity of Lord Raglan, to conduct the war in the Crimea, than the above piece of mud-headed enterprise."

Posted by Greg at March 30, 2005 08:48 AM

Um, Rand... The article dates 1938, but you used both "Bush Administration" in the beginning, and "Roosevelt Administration" in the middle. You also reference the 2006 budget towards the end...

Posted by John Breen III at March 30, 2005 08:48 AM

Russian - French cooperation at Kouru and the deployment of Galileo are two examples of steps already being taken to counter US space supremacy.

And since the invention of a low cost off the shelf RLV will utterly thwart any Pentagon plan to dominate LEO, do not be surprised if NASA fails to support alt-space any more than they already are.

Posted by BIll White at March 30, 2005 09:06 AM

That's why I have sharp-eyed readers to catch things like that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 30, 2005 09:06 AM

And since the invention of a low cost off the shelf RLV will utterly thwart any Pentagon plan to dominate LEO

It would? Who knew?

How does that work, exactly? Is that like the way the development of low-cost fishing boats and private yachts has thwarted the Navy's ability to dominate the oceans?

do not be surprised if NASA fails to support alt-space any more than they already are.

NASA reports to the Pentagon? Who knew?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 30, 2005 09:23 AM

Hee! Hee! Well snarked, Rand.

The functional equivalent of an ICBM is hardly a fishing boat and I am not too keen on Prince Sultan ibn al ibn buying handfuls of RLVs off the shelf even if they allegedly are for taking his five wives on excursions to LEO.

And sooner or later one of those RLVs will somehow land in China or the Ukraine where engineers being paid starvation wages will start spitting out copies as fast as Mother Russia made T-34 tanks in WW2.

Posted by Bill White at March 30, 2005 10:50 AM

Personally, I'm in favor of the weaponization of space. If we could fight all our wars out there, it would be safer for those of us who live on earth.

On a more serious note, arms controls don't end conflicts, they prolong them.

Posted by Half Canadian at March 30, 2005 10:54 AM

With your philosophy, we wouldn't have allowed the development of business jets, because they are the "functional equivalent of long-range bombers."

If "functional equivalents of ICBMs" (not that I agree with that characterization of space transports) is a problem, then the solution is to develop defenses against ICBMs and their "functional equivalents," not hold back progress in reducing the cost of space access and pretending that we can keep the genie in the bottle.

I would love to see China cranking out cheap (assuming they're reliable) space transports. That's how costs get reduced.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 30, 2005 11:02 AM

Russia is a basket case. They're not going to churn copies of anything like they did T-34's in WWII.

The Chinese are a slightly different story, but the end result is the same. Despite fear-mongering by Western pundits, and ill-coordinated initiatives by their sclerotic bureacracy, their emphasis is going to continue to be consumer goods, not military hardware.

Posted by Eric Blair at March 30, 2005 11:19 AM

I think most of the issue here with these people is an idealistic, almost Star Trek like view of space. They do hate American power, but they really hate the idea of the final frontier being weaponized. Personally, we should secure our assets, worry about the consequences if they do arise.

Posted by Noel at March 30, 2005 11:22 AM

Bill White:

The issue of space dominance is only tangentially related to that of ICBM and missile proliferation.

The point of Krepon, Hitchens, etc., is to forestall the militarization of space, i.e., the deployment of ASAT and other capabilities. Space launch systems, associated with ICBMs, are only a minimal part of the issue.

In this regard, it is akin to the development of nuclear power. There is no treaty or agreement out there to prevent a nation from developing a nuclear energy infrastructure---the NPT only limits states from developing nuclear weapons. Similarly, there is nothing to prevent a nation from trying to develop a space-launch capability.

So, if your argument is that we need or can prevent nations from developing a space launch capacity, rotsa ruck---you're going to be launching a whole lotta wars.

As for the idea of churning out RLVs like T-34s, China already has the ability to churn out launchers at lower cost than us. Funny, though, nations don't seem intent on using Chinese launch services---something possibly related to a combination of reliability and being banned from launching American sub-systems.

BTW, are you the same Bill White associated with the Utopian Anarchist Party?

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 30, 2005 11:25 AM

In your parody, don't forget to have pundits nattering on about "the unproven Air-Plane system, which has many limitations" and how "studies have repeatedly demonstrated the ineffectiveness of attacks against ships. In one highly-publicized test attack against an anchored target ship, only one bomb of eight managed to score a hit; it is clear that a maneuvering ship, defended by anti-aircraft guns and producing a smoke screen, would be completely invulnerable to air attack."

Posted by DensityDuck at March 30, 2005 11:58 AM

To Eric Blair -- I would not be so confident about Russia being a basket case in the area of military development -- take a look. How about the part -- "The aircraft has demonstrated manoeuvres yet to be emulated by any western aircraft." And it was designed almost 10 years ago.

Posted by BU at March 30, 2005 12:12 PM

"And it was designed almost 10 years ago."

That is far more critical to the point than you seem to realize.

Posted by celebrim at March 30, 2005 01:46 PM

BTW, are you the same Bill White associated with the Utopian Anarchist Party?

Nope. Nor am I the mayor of Houston. = wink =

* * * *

Lets try this another way.

Today, the United States holds undisputed supremacy in low Earth orbit due to our 1st class technology. However, in the age of the internet, future technological advances cannot be easily contained within the United States (like when the English killed anyone who helped export cloth making machines, IIRC).

Ultra-low cost lift-to-LEO will level the playing field in a manner detrimental to United States security interests. Even if we remain "ahead" in absolute terms.

Galileo is arguably inferior to our next-gen GPS system however China having access to an inferior Galileo system helps "level the playing field" even if our GPS remains superior. China however is more likely to just keep buying our bonds and industrialize riding on America's love affair with Wal-Mart.

Given current US technological superiority, perhaps all progress that would tend to "level the playing field" is bad for the national interest of the United States if our objective is Anglo-sphere global pre-eminence.

Posted by Bill White at March 30, 2005 01:57 PM

Clever, but back in the 30's the Navy Department ran the fleet while the War Department handled the army.

Posted by norm at March 30, 2005 02:07 PM

[ Ultra-low cost lift-to-LEO will level the playing field in a manner detrimental to United States security interests. Even if we remain "ahead" in absolute terms.

If a war started between opponents armed with efficacious space weapons, some of the first systems to be attacked would be both Galileo and GPS.

If the US had lower cost space launch, we could facilitate the survival of GPS service by putting additional, redundant GPS platforms up there. Same goes for the Franco-German-Chinese Neue Axis.

If we had lower cost space lauch systems, we could put lots of Brilliant Pebbles-type interceptors up there, with lots of Space Based Infrared Sensors to cue the interceptors to ascending missiles. Our opponents could do likewise.

My point is, cheaper space launch systems will facilitate the militarization of space, which is OK with moi. The main thing holding back US military space ambitions now is America's paucity of cheaper launch systems.

Herbivorous Star Trek propeller head beanie Utopians who hope otherwise are hoping in vain.

Posted by David Davenport at March 30, 2005 02:26 PM

[ And since the invention of a low cost off the shelf RLV will utterly thwart any Pentagon plan to dominate LEO, do not be surprised if NASA fails to support alt-space any more than they already are. ... ]

In the event of a serious war, the other side's space launch systems would themselves would be targets of attack, whether the launch systems are low cost and off the shelf, or bespoke and spendy.

If you're worried that the Chinese will be able to build 'em faster than we can shoot 'em down, that is a legitimate worry.

As far as alt-space, here's my prediction: the DoD is gonna co-opt alt-space, using a DARPA beard to cover funding for innovative firms such as Scaled Composites.

Posted by David Davenport at March 30, 2005 02:48 PM

Bill White:

Did you ever read Falkenberg's Legions? The US and the USSR, in order to maintain the Co-Dominium of the earth, basically ban all scientific R&D, in recognition that just about any scientific breakthrough has a potential military side-effect.

The reality is that short of some kind of enforced ban, R&D will happen. So, you have a choice: try and discourage R&D in the belief that any advances might "level the playing field" to our detriment, or maintain a very robust R&D effort so that the playing field itself is constantly changing.

More to the point of Rand's original piece: The belief that you can somehow prevent R&D from happening thanks to arms control treaties is simply ludicrous. Those who have an interest in "leveling the playing field" will continue R&D. Those who are atop the system will then face the same choice above: Either engage in R&D to stay apace, or shut your eyes, remind everyone they signed a treaty, and hope that the field doesn't change (b/c no one's prepared to actually wage a preventive war to prevent R&D, as we've seen in the reaction to the war with Iraq, and the non-responses to Iran and North Korea).

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 30, 2005 02:51 PM

Personally, I favor massive scientific R&D and plentiful RLVs to improve the standard of living for every human being on the planet. I am also saying that will tend to undermine American supremacy for the reasons you give.

Therefore, I also favor our acceptance that the Anglo-sphere will become one of several essentially co-equal spheres of influence in a multi-polar world. No more sui generis superpower and then everyone else as a second class citizen.

India, for example, might well become a superb partner for upholding a global order premised on free markets and respect for human rights and the rule of law =IF= we do not demand that they accept subservience to an Anglo-sphere world view.

Posted by Bill White at March 30, 2005 03:14 PM

In the spirit of Rand's parody of pre-WWII warship limitation conferences, here's my modification of Glenn Reynold's Tech Central Station piece referenced here in www.instapundit.com:

"RAND SIMBERG has thoughts on arms control in outer space. I wrote something on that topic myself, a while back [link].

"Krepon's piece makes a number of good points, and having written something very similar in 1912, I suppose I'm in a poor position to argue. Here's what I wrote then:

"Military battles in 20th century Europe and on or under the seas around Europe are unlikely to occur because Europe is already too valuable as a center of commercial activity. Communications alone are a multibillion-mark-per-year industry, and the value of communications in tying together global industries is far greater than the monetary figure suggests. A major disruption of communications -- a near-certain side effect of significant European combat, even among automated devices -- would bring global business to a near-standstill in short order, with phenomenal costs. And communications is only one of the many civilian and commercial activities that already take place in Europe and on the high seas, although not necessarily the most valuable activity over the long term. .."

...

"In short, war in 20th century Europe or on or under the seas makes no more sense as an arena for 'clean' warfare than do the floors of the world's stock exchanges, and the ultimate consequences of such warfare would be similar."

Also:

"Today's environment is rather different. The biggest threat to U.S. space assets isn't Russia, or (probably) even China."

Are you rilly sure about that, Glenn, at least the Chinese part? (Probably) not.

Posted by David Davenport at March 30, 2005 03:19 PM

[ Personally, I favor massive scientific R&D and plentiful RLVs to improve the standard of living for every human being on the planet. I am also saying that will tend to undermine American supremacy for the reasons you give. ]

What reasons, Bill? There are flaws in your thinking. You seem to assume that the American military establishmnet isn't interested in having lower cost launch systems to use for American military purposes. Furthermore, you seem to think that US military power will be inexorablly weakened if and when other nations join the space race. That is incorrect.

What's going to happen is: Chinese or Iranian or whoever's space feats will rejuvante America's space programs. The space race will be resumed! Yes, a new Cold War, and we like it!

Another parody:

"Personally, I favor massive scientific R&D and plentiful aeroplanes to improve the standard of living for every human being on the planet. I am also saying that will tend to undermine American supremacy for the reasons you give -- the aeroplane has not remained an American monopoly, even though lighter than air flying machines are the invention of the American Wright brothers, who have since lost their early supremacy in building aeroplanes."

Posted by David Davenport at March 30, 2005 03:34 PM

Bill, get a load of this:

DARPA takes on space plane project
NASA transfers X-37 lead role to Pentagon agency

By Brian Berger
Space News staff writer

Updated: 9:12 p.m. ET Sept. 16, 2004WASHINGTON - NASA has transferred its X-37 technology demonstration program to the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which plans to go ahead with atmospheric drop tests of the prototype space plane next year.

advertisement

NASA spokesman Michael Braukus said Wednesday that the U.S. space agency would remain involved in the X-37 program, but that DARPA would now be running the show.

Braukus had told Space News on Tuesday that the X-37 program had been transferred to another U.S. government agency, but that NASA could not disclose that agency’s identity for reasons of national security. On Thursday, Braukus said he had since been given permission to identify DARPA as X-37’s new government sponsor.

DARPA spokeswoman Jan Walker could not immediately confirm the defense organization’s takeover of the X-37 program.

Is White Knight involved?

News that lead responsibility for the X-37 program was changing hands was first reported by the Desert News, a newspaper covering Mojave, Calif., and surrounding areas. The newspaper also reported that the X-37 would be carried aloft for next year’s drop tests by the White Knight, the Scaled Composites-built aircraft that carried SpaceShipOne aloft in June for its historic manned suborbital space shot.

Braukus said Scaled Composites would be involved in the X-37 approach and landing demonstrations next year, but could not say whether the Mojave-based company would be using the White Knight or some other aircraft. The B-52 aircraft that NASA normally uses for such drop tests would not be used, a decision made by the agency now in charge of the X-37 program, he said. "The cost analysis favored Scaled Composites," Braukus said.

Scaled Composites spokeswoman Kay LeFebvre would not confirm the company’s involvement in the planned dropped tests and referred questions about the White Knight’s role in the X-37 program to American Mojave Aerospace Ventures. That company, a Paul Allen and Burt Rutan partnership that owns SpaceShipOne and its carrier aircraft, recently announced that it would make its first official try for the $10 million Ansari X-Prize Sept. 29.

A telephone call placed to Jeff Johnson at American Mojave Aerospace Ventures was not immediately returned.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6001932/

Posted by David Davenport at March 30, 2005 03:58 PM

David writes:

As far as alt-space, here's my prediction: the DoD is gonna co-opt alt-space, using a DARPA beard to cover funding for innovative firms such as Scaled Composites.

I believe this is very likely.

Taking tourists for joy-ride jaunts to LEO will be given a very low priority compared with keeping these capabilities secret. And since I do not want Prince Sultan ibn al ibn overflying Topeka or Tel Aviv in his RLV, this is also a good thing.

Posted by Bill White at March 30, 2005 04:01 PM

What's going to happen is: Chinese or Iranian or whoever's space feats will rejuvante America's space programs. The space race will be resumed! Yes, a new Cold War, and we like it!

I agree with this, more or less, also. But if the US is too far ahead no one will race with us.

Posted by Bill White at March 30, 2005 04:05 PM

Bill: "Ultra-low cost lift-to-LEO will level the playing field in a manner detrimental to United States security interests. Even if we remain "ahead" in absolute terms."

David: "My point is, cheaper space launch systems will facilitate the militarization of space, which is OK with moi. The main thing holding back US military space ambitions now is America's paucity of cheaper launch systems."

Ultra-low-cost or even low-cost US access to space has a _stabilizing_ effect for all involved.

Unless we are willing to surrender the space-based advantage at the beginning of any serious conflict, we must have a way to ensure that the advantages our spaced-based systems provide are safeguarded.

It follows that costly and non-routine access to space pushes you towards a stockpiling situation where you must stockpile either weapons in space, or replacement satellites and their launchers and weapons to guard them on the ground. This is the arms race type scenario.

On the other hand, low-cost routine access to space pushes you towards an assured access situation in which orbital assets can be replaced at high rate as needed in a flash conflict, and there need not be weapons launched to guard them because replacing them is easy. This is the dominance scenario, in which there is no point in trying to develop ASAT weapons to knock out US satellites because everybody knows they are too easy to replace.

Posted by Kevin Parkin at March 30, 2005 04:07 PM

How can practical, affordable RLVs be anything but an advantage to the US?? The US is still far enough ahead on the tech curve that by the time China or Russia, or whatever potential foe you want to pick, reverse engineers them, it would have a huge advantage.

Not only would SSTOs/RLVs further cement the US's advantage in space, can you doubt that the US's expertise in Network Warfare (fusing sensing, communications and combat capabilities) would not be even further advanced?? With RLVs the US would dominate space, be able to deploy new global reach systems like a THOR to project power even more quickly and precisely than it can today, and defend itself and its space-borne assets from missile attacks.

RLVs also hold huge potential for new industry sectors in LEO and beyond taht could fuel the US economy -- space tourism, R&D, transportation, manufacturing, SPS, etc.

Posted by John Cunningham at March 30, 2005 04:14 PM

Personally, I crave plentiful RLVs.

I assert they would give the NORAD generals migraines.

Solution? DoD buys up all the promising RLV tech and makes sure it stays out of civilian and foreign hands.

Posted by Bill White at March 30, 2005 04:18 PM

Kevin, IIRC, writes:

Ultra-low-cost or even low-cost US access to space has a _stabilizing_ effect for all involved.

If USA has exclusive access to low cost LEO lift then I agree with you. And if kept as a military secret, all funding must be taxpayer based.

Which requires prevention of rapid replenishment of Galileo assets after our ASAT strikes, for example, during a Taiwan scenario.

(u-Cats = ultra cheap access to space)

Our having u-CATS is good. Letting the French, Russians or Chinese acquire u-CATS is bad. The ability to deny use of Galileo is part of the equation for space dominance and if they can replenish their sats cheaply, our dominance is lessened.

Solution? DoD buys up all the alt-space tech and shares very little of the capability with the civilian market.

Posted by Bill White at March 30, 2005 04:42 PM

"If USA has exclusive access to low cost LEO lift then I agree with you. And if kept as a military secret, all funding must be taxpayer based."

In the USA leaks are too common, there's no way to keep a secret from foreign adversaries for more than a few months. Perhaps a couple of years with the most stringent controls. The only thing secrecy does is keep the general public in the dark and make it more likely new technologies do not benefit us economically or are lost entirely.

Therefore, the best way to pursue this is just to stay ahead of the curve - there's no other way. And staying ahead of the curve means opening up the program to US commercial and well as military interests, just as long as the payloads aren't harmful to national security.

"DoD buys up all the alt-space tech and shares very little of the capability with the civilian market."

Not sure what you mean by alt-space tech. If you mean new ideas, yes it's true that very little of certain types of research and the new ideas that arise from it are funded by industry or other private concerns. In this area I can speak from first-hand experience.

Posted by Kevin Parkin at March 30, 2005 06:16 PM

Bill White:

Is there some proprietary process which will allow the United States to deny u-CATs to other nations? Some means of patenting the laws of physics or somesuch?

Because unless you think there's some kind of unique process that can be kept hidden, and in which other nations' research will automatically be forced to fail, you've about as much chance of "denying" u-CAT technologies or even manufacturing processes from other nations as you do denying them the ability to research and develop nuclear weapons.

Sure, you can make it harder by classifying the processes and the like. But you can't stop them. Notice that the USSR was working on its own nuclear weapons (as were the Chinese)---the Rosenbergs hastened the Soviet process, but Sakharov and company would have eventually developed it on their own, once they knew it could be done.

In the process, though, you'd be retarding our own development (since it's still corporations that actually make the various systems we employ). It'd be like trying to deny the Japanese the ability to manufacture cheap, quality cars---exactly what could you have classified to prevent that?

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 31, 2005 03:47 AM

I favor plentiful u-CATS.

During a NASA tour I personally heard astronaut Story Musgrave say we should do everything possible to help the Chinese with their space program. The audience was stunned.

If the United States military feels it "needs" LEO supremacy to assure we can deploy military space assets and deny every other nation the ability to deploy space assets, then I very much doubt we can allow either of the above to occur.

US military space supremacy and civilian space development are contradictory goals. We will need to choose.

Personally, I favor opening up the playing field and getting as many people as possible to the Moon, Mars and beyond as fast as possible. Expand the Anglo-sphere with commerce rather than military supremacy.

= = =

The cheapest solution to our CEV needs would be to just buy Kliper. We buy clothes from China because they are cheaper. We hire programmers from Bangladore because they are cheaper. We buy grapes from Chile in February because they grow.

National security is the reason for not calling up Russia and buying 6 copies of Kliper for say, $8-$10 billion plus Zenit boosters at $125 million each, half of Delta IV.

Posted by Bill White at March 31, 2005 05:22 AM

If the United States military feels it "needs" LEO supremacy to assure we can deploy military space assets and deny every other nation the ability to deploy space assets

Yes, and if your aunt had balls, he'd be your uncle. Who said anything about denying every other nation the ability to deploy space assets? Did it come to you in a drug-induced fantasy?

US military space supremacy and civilian space development are contradictory goals. We will need to choose.

Yes, just as US naval supremacy and civilian ocean activities and development are contradictory goals. That must be why there are no private charters, yachts, or cruises. They are contradictory with having a military capable of projecting power and defending our military and civil assets.

Why are you so obtuse, Bill? Why do you keep repeating the same indefensible nonsense, no matter how often corrected?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2005 05:52 AM

Rand, denial of space based assets to all potential adversaries is one cornerstone of US military space policy. Our inability to "turn off" Galileo is why we fought so hard to convince the French not to deploy it in the first place.

On March 1, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed a new National Defense Strategy paper that said the use of space "enables us (to) project power anywhere in the world from secure bases of operation." A key goal of Rumsfeld's new strategy is "to ensure our access to and use of space and to deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries."

Deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries.

If =they= acquire u-CATS doing this will be much more difficult.

Posted by Bill White at March 31, 2005 07:13 AM

Yes, right. The spectrum issues had nothing to do with it.

Deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries.

Which is not the same thing as "denying every other nation the ability to deploy space assets." But if you don't yet understand that I don't know how to explain it to you. But as a hint, our naval policy is exactly the same. Yet somehow, we still have all those cruise ships, yachts, dive boats, fishing boats, and even Chinese submarines and battleships.

Why don't you quit thinking about this, Bill? It's obviously making your brain hurt.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2005 07:46 AM

Bill White:

The US also aims at air superiority, in terms pretty much the same as those for space. Are you going to suggest next that the United States should seek to deny another country aircraft? Or an aerospace industry?

Denying an opponent the ability to exploit space can take many forms---yours is the most bizarre. Just as air superiority can involve everything from bombing airfields to destroying aircraft in flight, space superiority is hardly the same as preventing an opponent from developing the ability to launch a satellite. Jamming space-based platforms, destroying down-links, destroying the actual satellites, all would seem to be (by comparison) easily achievable and far more feasible means.

Moreover, even at the height of air superiority (say, over Western Europe in 1944-1945, to keep with Rand's comparisons), it did not mean that the Luftwaffe didn't have a single plane or a single sortie. It meant that the Germans could not freely control the air, that at any given time, it was more likely that the Allies could put aircraft in the sky and suppress German responses. The kind of "superiority" you're talking about (wherein other countries could somehow be forbidden from developing capabilities that are already well within their scientific and industrial capacity) is so outlandish, it equates with either a savage peace beyond that of Versailles, or a strawman.

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 31, 2005 07:47 AM

I find the concerns about the militarization of space alternately amusing and tiresome. It's too late folks. Space was militarized when the first reconnaissance satellite was put up. Recall that the first military use of airplanes was reconnaissance and artillery spotting. Pursuit planes (fighters to you young folk) were developed to deny the enemy that capability. Right now the main military use of space is reconnaissance, so it is natural (and probably inevitable) for someone to develop anti-satellite weapons. It is also natural that countries would want to protect their satellites.

Cheap launch systems will complicate the situation, but it doesn't mean the end of the use (or even dominance) of space, just as the existence of cheap, shoulder fired surface to air missiles didn't mean the end of military aircraft or air superiority.

Military strategy, tactics and technology has never been static, and thinking they are or can be made to be static is foolish and dangerous.

"The Pentagon is developing a suborbital space capsule that could hit targets anywhere in the world within two hours of being launched from U.S. bases." This is not exactly a new idea. Remember Dyna-Soar? I believe that concepts like this were proposed prior to WW II.

Posted by ray_g at March 31, 2005 10:52 AM

Read this:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/afdd2_2_1.pdf

Page 10 is a letter from General Teets. He says quite openly that the ability to disable the Galileo system and to deny access to commercial sat imagery is a legitimate aspect for attaining genuine US space superiority.

Frankly, I agree.

If a Taiwan scenario develops and China is targeting US assets with JDAM-like weapons that use Galileo and the dastardly French refuse to "turn Galileo off" then the US Air Force needs to be able to destroy the Galileo constellation.

An ability to rapidly replenish Galileo makes that mission more difficult.

If there are 50 space hotels in LEO filled with rich tourists and each contains a Galileo like navigational transponder (rather like cell towers on Terran hotels) how do we deny the Chinese access to JDAM capability?

A substantial civilian human presence in LEO makes the Air Force mission more difficult just as airliners flying through a combat zone makes the Air Force mission more difficult.

= = =

Today "responsible" commercial sat operators will not sell satellite imagery of sensitive US locations to suspected terrorists. But what about the future? Therefore, it is in our interest to control or limit the number of cameras that overfly the US and US bases overseas that are not owned by "responsible" parties.

= = =

Obviously, there is balancing to be done.

No civilians in space, period, will make the Air Force mission easier to accomplish. Can anyone disagree with that? But that is plainly going "too far"

Where do we draw that line? RLVs owned by wealthy Arab princes that sympathize with bin Laden are not a good idea, in my opinion.

= = =

In World War II we actively sought total air superiority meaning no German planes were in the air. We could not achieve that objective and therefore larger numebers of American died.

In Desert Storm, the ground war did not begin until we achieved a level of air superiority that meant an Iraqi aircaft or helicopter would not survive beyond a few hours (or minutes) after becoming airborne.

That is the level of space superiority that will minimize US casualties. Total denial of JDAM-like capability to every US adversary and maximum denial of access to space imagery to potential adversaries.

How do we atttain that? Destroy every sat we cannot control or neutralize by diplomacy or other means.

Posted by Bill White at March 31, 2005 11:13 AM

Ray writes:

I find the concerns about the militarization of space alternately amusing and tiresome. It's too late folks. Space was militarized when the first reconnaissance satellite was put up.

True.

I DO NOT oppose the mission as described by General Teets. I do not oppose space militarization which is inevitable.

But I also will not be surprised when the US government continues to pay "lip service" to civilians in space and genuine LEO tourism but then somehow never provides much funding or other support.

Posted by Bill White at March 31, 2005 11:19 AM

Lurking Observer says my scenario is "bizarre"

My scenario is nothing more than the thought that DoD will buy up promising u-CATS technology and keep it classified, not sharing with the civiian or foreign market. As they darn well should do!

And that the US Congress will not fund or support a robust commercial or civilian presence in space, which they are not doing now.

How is that bizarre?

Posted by Bill White at March 31, 2005 11:24 AM

I find it tremendously strange that you think that a statement of the obvious somehow supports your assertions. We have to have the ability to do that during wartime, and accept whatever diplomatic consequences ensue. That's not the same thing as saying that we can't allow the French to put it up in peacetime. I really don't understand why you can't get your head around such a simple distinction. The rest of your comments, as usual, are utter non-sequiturs.

Where do we draw that line? RLVs owned by wealthy Arab princes that sympathize with bin Laden are not a good idea, in my opinion.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is. RLVs are not going to be very effective weapons if we have have countermeasures to them, and we will.

I also will not be surprised when the US government continues to pay "lip service" to civilians in space and genuine LEO tourism but then somehow never provides much funding or other support.

Who are you arguing with, other than the voices in your head? No one will be surprised at that, since no one seriously expects them to provide much funding or other support, other than a sane regulatory regime, which is in the process of being developed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2005 11:27 AM

My scenario is nothing more than the thought that DoD will buy up promising u-CATS technology and keep it classified, not sharing with the civiian or foreign market. As they darn well should do!

Whether they should or not, the notion that they will be able to do so is what's bizarre.

You seem to operate under the delusion that CATS is a technology problem. It is not. It is a market and financing problem, and one that's being solved, and there's nothing that the Air Force can (or should) do about that. I suggest that you read my essay in last summer's The New Atlantis, because you seem to be seriously clueless about the nature of space technology and the problems of space access.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2005 11:32 AM

Okay, okay!

CATS will arrive any day now and it will not give any of our NORAD generals heartburn.

I sayeth "uncle"

:-)

Posted by Bill White at March 31, 2005 12:57 PM

CATS will arrive any day now and it will not give any of our NORAD generals heartburn.

One more non-sequitur. Again, it would be nice if you'd respond to what we actually wrote, instead of your own fevered fantasies of what you want to think that we wrote. Again, if you're just going to argue with the voices in your head, waste someone else's bandwidth and disk space with it.

Of course it will give NORAD generals heartburn, just as admirals would prefer to not allow civilian ships in the ocean. Getting heartburn is part of their job. But it will happen regardless of the condition of their gastrointestinal systems.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2005 01:08 PM

One last try:

Low-cost launcher systems are a matter of industrial engineering, manufacturing techniques, and labor costs. There is nothing particularly unique or secret about them.

Any nation with the capacity to manufacture launch systems can, if they put their mind to it, make smaller or cheaper ones. Japan can do it. China can do it. Probably, w/ a little effort, India or South Korea or even North Korea can do it.

It is no more possible to "classify" said technologies than it is to classify the techniques of making small, fuel efficient cars.

And just as the arrival of small cars eventually made Detroit Big-3 execs have heart-burn, yes, u-CATS, small RLVs, or whatever you want to call them will make our military's stomachs churn. But just as the solution in the 1970s was not to "classify" small-cars (as though that could be done), or worse, pretend that you could (which is pretty much what happened), the solution today is not to believe that you can somehow make the problem go away by waving a wand or a big paycheck. That's assuming that DoD could outbid, say, an EU consortium or the Chinese government.

More important, though, and utterly unaddressed in your various comments, is what would sit atop those RLVs. A nuclear warhead? That's the point of the various non-proliferation efforts (not to mention the war w/ Iraq and rolling up AQ Khan, Libya, etc.). A KKV? That's a level of technology that's a tad more advanced than a cheap launcher. A half-ton of gravel? Sorry, we're all kinda hosed, if you're prepared to shotgun an entire orbital plane.

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 31, 2005 01:23 PM

http://space.au.af.mil/books/deblois/ch07.pdf

Posted by Kevin Parkin at March 31, 2005 02:03 PM

"They are engaging in linguistic legerdemain..."

Seems to me that your "the usual suspects are hysterically opposed..." qualifies as that, as I see no hysteria in any of the quotes in the WaPo article.

As for the 1938 analogy: IIRC, the US army then was something like 25th or 30th in the world; both Japan and Germany had comparable (where not superior) weapons technology and had been on a tear of territorial aggrandizement.

2005? US military spending equals that of the next 15-20 nations combined. China has matched early-1960s Mercury flight and is racing towards mid-1960s Gemini-level capabilities. Russia? I'm sure they have terawatt Powerpoint shows, but it's not clear they'd be *doing* much of anything in space absent ISS activity (if you can call it that :-) Over all, the level of global ASAT R&D seems to me considerably lower than it was in 1980-85.

I'm by no means "opposed to US military superiority." Sometimes arms races are necessary; at other times, when you're miles ahead, it might be worth an actual look over your shoulder -- rather than an alternate-history reverie of 1938 -- before breaking into a sprint.

Posted by Monte Davis at March 31, 2005 02:58 PM

I'll admit that I'm inferring the hysteria, Monte, but the arms controllers really are concerned about space becoming just another military theatre of operations, and no longer a haven through which ballistic missiles can pass unimpeded.

At least since the Afghan and Iraq wars, the Chinese are now very aware of how dependent we are on our space assets, and I can't imagine how you know how many resources they're devoting to coming up with ways to neutralize them. We can't afford to take the chance of an orbital Pearl Harbor.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2005 03:12 PM

Rand, I re-read your New Atlantis piece.

Concerning the five myths, I largely agree with what your wrote. Yup. I do agree with your five myths analysis. ;-)

I may be less convinced than you that $100 per pound (or $50 per pound) to LEO is readily achieved, today, but any differences are merely a matter of degree and not of principle. Not if, but when.

Therefore it seems we merely argue past each other as if talking different languages.

I am trying to say that Defense (as a bureaucratic entity) benefits from continuing these myths. So does big aerospace.

"Keep the myths alive!" they say.

CATS will also make accomplishing their mission harder adding more reasons to resist CATS, perhaps by making quiet communications with Congress or in other ways such as buying up promising technologies.

Now, where did these "five myths" come from? Why do they persist?

You do not address (IIRC) how to dispel these myths, other than for people to stop being stupid about it. But if some smart people at DoD know CATS is feasible, but support these myths anyway, what to do?

I would suspect that NASA, Defense and the big contractors all play a role in maintaining these myths. Including Defense which would find abundant (hundreds? thousands?) of RLVs flying about in LEO to be damn annoying. Even if all they do is photograph US military bases.

Space based imagery is a powerful tool that could be accomplished by a supposedly civilian tourist CATS RLV.

So, how do we overcome institutional resistance, the bureacracy that benefits from perpetuation of the myths you describe?

One idea: Building and flying an honest-to-God RLV from a Caribbean Island (outside US jurisdiction but also NOT at a location that will benefit US enemies) might be a way to dispel these myths.

Might also make a cool novel.

Posted by Bill White at March 31, 2005 03:39 PM

"..the Chinese are now very aware of how dependent we are on our space assets, and I can't imagine how you know how many resources they're devoting to coming up with ways to neutralize them."

I don't. But I do know, as you do, what has been blindingly obvious since before we all started hearing about "the new high ground" in 1957: that the same facts of physics that make orbit a good place for surveillance and communications make it vulnerable. Things up there tend to be easier to spot than things concealed in ground clutter; they tend to be in predictable places at predictable times; and they can be approached in three dimensions at miles per second.

So to the extent that we've chosen to make ourselves dependent on space resources, I tend to think that dollars spent on being able to replace them readily at need will go farther than dollars spent on defending them.

Posted by Monte Davis at March 31, 2005 03:43 PM

[ More important, though, and utterly unaddressed in your various comments, is what would sit atop those RLVs. A nuclear warhead? That's the point of the various non-proliferation efforts (not to mention the war w/ Iraq and rolling up AQ Khan, Libya, etc.). A KKV? That's a level of technology that's a tad more advanced than a cheap launcher ... ]

If the goal is to wreck a large, expensive satellite, all one needs is the ability to plot the orbital postion of the targeted platform as a a function of time, and the launch capability to place a kilogram or so of lead fishing line sinkers on a collision course with the target.

Satellites are frail, vulnerable targets.

Posted by David Davenport at March 31, 2005 08:12 PM

[ ... Including Defense which would find abundant (hundreds? thousands?) of RLVs flying about in LEO to be damn annoying. Even if all they do is photograph US military bases. ]

There's another side to that scenario. The USAF also wants to use RLV's for miltary missions surveiling the Earth's surface. Furthermore, It will be useful to hide American miltary RLV flights by blending them in with civilian or ostensibly civilian flights.

.... Uh, in this regard, hasn't it occurred to you that the Space Shuttles have carried some unadvertised military payloads?

Other people's sats photographing American fixed bases and warships at sea -- that's not new. It is a problem, but not a new problem.

[... Space based imagery is a powerful tool that could be accomplished by a supposedly civilian tourist CATS RLV. ]

Yes, I expect that both the USA and its opponents will do that. What's your point?

Manned vehicles aren't necessary for that application, btw. Something like an X-47 will do.

[ ...
One idea: Building and flying an honest-to-God RLV from a Caribbean Island (outside US jurisdiction but also NOT at a location that will benefit US enemies) might be a way to dispel these myths. ... ]

How do you know what locations would or wouldn't be of military value? For example, the People's Liberation Army may launch suborbital reconn. vehicles over North America from Cuba or Venezuela in the future, perhaps hiding behind a cover story about doing peaceful, cooperative space projects with the Progressive people of Latin America.

Likewise, crafty US operatives might want to develop ASAT's at an offshore location using some ostensibly civilian, New Age-y, alt-space firm as a cover story.

Oh, there's a lot of things to worry about. If you're not paranoid, you're naive!

Posted by David Davenport at March 31, 2005 08:42 PM

Post a comment