SPACE.com reported yesterday that some members of Congress may seek to find ways to convert ballistic missiles earmarked for destruction under arms reduction treaties into small launch vehicles. Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), speaking at a space policy conference in Montana last weekend, said he felt it made more sense to use retired Peacekeeper missiles as launch vehicles, particularly if it costs no more to covert them than it would to destroy them. Rehberg said that he and two colleagues, Chet Edwards (D-TX) and Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), plan to “delve into the Peacekeeper use within the arena of non-proliferation.”
Unfortunately, there’s not much more information about what exactly Rep. Rehberg wants to do. ICBM assets are already being converted into launch vehicles through the Air Force’s Orbital Suborbital Program (OSP): a Minotaur 1 rocket, whose lower stages are from Minuteman 2 missiles, launched the STP-R1 satellite for DARPA just last night. The Minotaur costs about $20 million a launch, which may not exactly be “low-cost”, particularly in the eyes of university smallsat developers; it’s also limited to government-sponsored payloads. You can also imagine that companies developing small low-cost launches would also not be pleased to see increased competition from converted missiles.
With amendment to the atmospheric test ban treaty, the nuclear charges on top the retired ICBMs could have a second life fuel for a nuclear pulse propulsion craft like the vehicle designed in Project Orion.
I was going to post something about the impact that this ICBM conversion plan (which has been proposed repeatedly since the 1980s) would have on Falcon, or AirLaunch, or other low-cost rocket entrepreneurs. After all, why should I invest money in one of these companies if the government is just going to (once again) kill the market.
But then I saw Mr. Kavanagh’s comment and fell into a bout of despair. Has the comments section of Space Politics always been populated by goofballs, or has it just gotten much worse recently? Seriously, watching Kuperberg, Dfens, and all the other regulars pratter on endlessly has made the comments section here essentially pointless.
Berger: “Seriously, watching Kuperberg, Dfens, and all the other regulars pratter on endlessly has made the comments section here essentially pointless.”
Yep.
Everyone has his/her own pet idea of how “all would be perfect if only..” and nothing outside of that narrow view is even slightly plausible.
This comments section is now only: Bush sucks, VSE sucks, Griffin sucks, NASA sucks, CEV “looks” like Apollo so it sucks…..
Is it any wonder that with a splintered “support group” such as this that US manned space exploration has stood still for the past 30 years?
If you don’t like reading opinions that disagree with your own, perhaps the problem is with yourself, not with those opinions.
The space advocacy community has been fulminating about what it perceives as unfair or uninformed criticism for decades, even as that criticism has been proved, in retrospect, to have been better founded than the prognostications of the true believers. Van Allen, Proxmire, and the like wouldn’t have been demonized if their arguments were completely off the wall.
(Proposing Orion-like systems is completely nuts, though.)
I don’t think it really makes economic sense to convert the ICBM’s to satellite launchers. My view is that one can carry the cost-saving efforts only so far before they begin to hurt the bigger picture. Converting the missiles is a case in point. Others have pointed out, correctly, that the overall health, long term, of the VSE depends upon the full participation of the commercial market. That market is emerging, but is economically vulnerable for now. To convert the ICBMs would hurt companies like SpaceX, for example, by taking their potential market share away. If we go ahead and convert the missiles anyway, there will come a point in time when that stock is used up. We will then NEED to use the commercially developed capabilities, but they probably won’t be there. They will have been driven out of business by this cost-saving measure. It’s not worth the potential savings that could be realized.
The Non Proliferation Treaty says to “distroy” the missiles. So that’s what we should do: distroy the missiles.
If this space is not exclusively reserved for William Berger, here is a different view of what the “alternative space” companies are saying:
Almost every time that the government gives away something that people actually need, private interests complain that it stifles commerce. Earlier this year, Rick Santorum sponsored a crazy bill to prevent the National Weather Service from giving away most of its weather forecasts. The NWS has to have weather forecasts to get anything done, but how dare it give away what AccuWeather wants to sell. Santorum thinks that NWS should keep its weather forecasts secret.
The private interests that make these arguments are invariably profiteers. If they were right, then the government shouldn’t even sell its old missiles for scrap, because that would stifle the aluminum industry. If they were right, then the government shouldn’t fix potholes either, because it stifles the car repair industry. It also discourages entrepeneurs from inventing winged cars that can glide over the potholes.
The reality is that when the government gives away old missiles, the world ends up with more space launches, not fewer. If the startups want something to do, they can help refurbish these missiles.
I’m not so sure, Greg. I could see college students being a big market for Peacekeeper class rockets. I mean, they’re just made of money. But what do I know, the “space support” mind ray hasn’t worked on me since I started wearing these aluminum foil hats.
By the way, why do you think that particular form of nuclear propulsion is nuts, Paul? It seems to me it has 2 advantages over what NASA has been studing lately. You get rid of the nasty radio active stuff as you go, and the explosion makes it’s own reaction mass. Is it really nuts, or just outside the box?
Berger: “why should I invest money in one of these companies if the government is just going to (once again) kill the market”
If Minotaur is anything to go by Falcon has no worries. Also, isn’t the reliablity of these ICBM systems rather low? At least, the Russian ICBM didn’t work out for the Planetary Society Solar Sail launch, nor were the odds good to start with
Yes, Dyson and his team were not stupid and nuclear pulsed propulsion will probably work, but for obvious reasons the US will not be the place where it happens first.
For my part, I apologize for being pessimistic, but I’m unable to make the mental contortions necessary to be happy about the present situation.
I know some people are fountains of joy, but usually they have the money/power to operate independently of these issues, or they’re just in ignorant bliss; in my case I’m very much affected by NASA/DOD space policy. The commentary on space.com is always cheery, but it also omits much of the below-the-surface stuff we mull over on here.
The Russian ICBMs work about as well as their space station hardware.
Personally, I don’t think anyone should have to apologize for having a clue. I have, however, long been intrigued by the bliss of ignorance and have signed up for the corporate lobotomy at every opportunity. I’ve been told it’s only for those with management potential. It seems odd to me they would only provide this surgical procedure to those who don’t need it, but to those who have already had one, I’m sure this policy, like all the rest, makes perfect sense. If my disposition seems suddenly brighter, you’ll know what happened.
Also, isn’t the reliablity of these ICBM systems rather low? At least, the Russian ICBM didn’t work out for the Planetary Society Solar Sail launch, nor were the odds good to start with
CCCP IBM’s not = USA IBM’s. I know some Space Politickers have been taught that all
military hardware = Black Hole of Evil Evil Evil
and therefore no further disernment is necessary.
Howver, in addition to the Roosky missile being an SLBM, the error seems to have been failure of the solar sail payload to separate from the top stage.
Hmmm, aren’t Lefty liberals always insisting that American strategic missile defenses will never work, because our opponents can easily build warheads with inflatable decoys that will outwit our sensors?
It’s also interesting that that the Streak satellite program has seemingly eluded you guys.
“Streak is a technology demonstrator whose objective is to demonstrate rapid response, short mission life, low Earth orbit space technologies and gather information about the low Earth orbit environment,” a DARPA spokesperson said.
Dfens: it’s not possible to test on Earth, or even in the magnetosphere (since that would trap the debris, much of which would end up in the atmosphere). It would ruin many of the satellites in earth orbit unless detonated far away. It would violate treaties the US finds useful. It would be very expensive to develop, and the existing fissionable material stockpiles would not last very long.
At best, I could see nuclear pulse propulsion being developed after there is substantial industrial infrastructure on the moon, so vehicles can be built and tested there (inverted, in a convenient crater). I am sure this will not happen in my lifetime.
Paul Dietz has just explained WHY Orion style propulsion cannot be allowed anywhere near the Earth or LEO. The Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) from the detonations will fry all electronics within a very substantial radius.
Some people also overlook the implications of this for missile defense. Detonate an H-bomb (or two) at 100 miles altitude and both ground based and orbital radars are fried for hours if not permanently.
Minutes later, Red team ICBMs then fly through this electromagnetic cloud invisible to U.S. targeting radar. We can’t see ‘em so we can’t hit ‘em.
Thank you, Paul Dietz.
You have just explained in a simple cogent fashion WHY Orion style propulsion cannot be allowed anywhere near the Earth or LEO. The Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) from the detonations will fry all electronics within a very substantial radius.
Some people also overlook the implications of this for missile defense. Detonate an H-bomb (or two) at 100 miles altitude and both ground based and orbital radars are fried for hours if not permanently
Contemporary US strategic and theater missile defense systems use no nuclear, nucular or nu-clear warheads.
So please spare us the pinko red herrings.
David: he may mean the attacker would detonate bombs up there, to make defense radars less effective.
Detonate an H-bomb (or two) at 100 miles altitude and both ground based and orbital radars are fried for hours if not permanently
I am not sure that the statement is factually, technically true for radiation-hardened electronics at the bottom of 100 miles of earth’s atmosphere or high up in geostationary orbit.
Besides, the main line of sensors will
be the Space Based Infrared Satellite system. At any one time, Earth will shield half the lower SBIRS tier from high altitude nu-klar detonations.
The fact is, our missile defense sensor system might be able to survive such an attempt to blind it by means of thermonuclear bombs.
In addition to higher-tech lectronic radiation hardening, satellites as well as surface installations can be afforded additional radiation shielding by simple mass — armored satellites!.
There would be a lot of elctromagnetic noise in the atmosphere from re-radiating aerosal particles for hours after a nuclear air burst, but that EM noise wouldn’t blind SBIRS.
Anyway, what are the alternatives to missile defense? The alternatives are
(a) to meekly accept Mutually Assured Destruction Parity with China, Iran, etc.;
or
(b) a first strike if and when appropriate, perhaps using high altitude fission bomb explosions to blind the opposition’s air defenses.
By the way, I think Project Orion is a wacky idea.
On the other hand, fission-thermal propulsion using liquid H2 as the propellant is a good idea. A specific impulse of about 1K seconds may be achieved using fission thermal propulsion.
Here, check this out:
TW/SNTP
For more than a decade, the Particle Bed Reactor (PBR) has been a capability in search of a mission. The nascent PBR technology promises higher operating temperatures than those of conventional solid core reactors such as were developed in the 1960s under the NERVA program, which can translate into a more efficient power generator, or a more capable propulsion system.
Despite these claimed advantages, proponents have failed to identify a high priority mission that would justify the expense of resolving the many remaining technical uncertainties. The technical risks of the PBR include:
+ Challenges in fabricating the high temperature fuel particles that are the key to this technology — efforts to date have failed to conclusively demonstrate that fuel particles can withstand the rigors of the reactor operating environment;
+ The low thermal capacity of the reactor core increases the risk of thermal damage to the core in off-normal conditions, or during reactor cool-down;
The particle bed reactor has been evaluated for applications that range from multi-megawatt burst-mode electric power supply for space-based weapons, to nuclear rocket engines for strategic defense interceptors and piloted interplanetary missions. Nearly $200 million has been spent by the Defense Department for development of this technology for military propulsion applications as part of the highly classified Timberwind program.
Beginning in 1990 the Defense Department, and the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization which sponsored Timberwind, began seeking support from other agencies for broader applications for this technology. In particular, efforts were made to apply the PBR technology to NASA’s new Space Exploration Initiative. This process culminated in the establishment by the Air Force of the Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion program in late 1991, which assumed much of the work previously conducted under the Timberwind program.
…
http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c08tw_1.htm
Is it any wonder that with a splintered “support group” such as this that US manned space exploration has stood still for the past 30 years?
So the main problem with NASA all this time has been all the naysayers on the internet, and if we all shut up Griffin’s new architecture is suddenly going to become cheap?
Phil: Yeah, just like so many other great ideas, human spaceflight has been jinxed by the naysayers. Like the war in Iraq, for example. Also psychic spoon-bending.
On the other hand, fission-thermal propulsion using liquid H2 as the propellant is a good idea. A specific impulse of about 1K seconds may be achieved using fission thermal propulsion.
Fission Thermal-Electric, a hybrid approach, can do a bit better than that. The idea would be use the H2 flow to generate electricity, exploiting nuclear heat, before injecting the fluid into the thrust chamber. After the propellant passes the reactor, it would be arc- or microwave-heated to even higher temperature (beyond the thermal limit of the reactor core materials) using this electricity, then expanded through a nozzle.
Phil: Yeah, just like so many other great ideas, human spaceflight has been jinxed by the naysayers. Like the war in Iraq, for example. Also psychic spoon-bending.
I’m sorry, do you want to talk about spaceflight or your own ideas about the war in Iraq?
Phil: This analogy is food for thought: The war in Iraq is to the war on terrorism what the space station is to space exploration.
Just to go back to the conversion of US ICBMs for a moment…
This Peacekeeper proposal suffers from a lack of “corporate memory” (“gov’t memory”). The Minotaur is the result of the last attempt at this.
When the government proposed turning Minutemen into satellite launchers, Orbital threw a big fit, complaining (as others here have noted) that the government would put small launch providers out of business, even if the adapted launchers were used selectively for … student payloads.
Hello!
The result today is that we have Orbital-topped Minotaurs at $20 million a launch, out of the range of most student payloads.
Hard to see that this wouldn’t play out exactly the same way with Peacekeepers, which use a first stage similar to that which Thiokol markets for small launchers as the Castor 120, which in turn power the Lockheed Martin Athena and the Orbital Taurus, which in turn aren’t really cost-effective and don’t fly a whole lot.