OK, now please provide the several missing steps in logic that allows you to ask this question based on anything that Payton has said.

You seem to be able to miraculously knit an entire wardrobe of fantasy conjecture out of a slender thread of fact.

Smell an entitlement program for this mil SAT delivery system over others ?

“Still, he said, “we very intelligently have to walk down the path of the potential reduction in the solid rocket motor industrial base.” He said he had met just earlier in the week with NASA administrator Charles Bolden to discuss “how the Air Force, NRO, and NASA will work together as the future unfolds” with respect to the industrial base and other issues.”

Reductions in the solid rocket motor industry are also due to arms limitation agreements which is Ok. understand the logic here.
But why suddenly drop reliable civil HSF liquid & solid rocket motor hardware base to favor unproven launch system to deliver SAT controlled model airplanes (easily shot down by human pilot) by smaller cadre of companies?

I guess looking for ‘waldo’ in deserts has it’s benefactors over peaceful human space exploration-huh.

Was there supposed to be some intended relationship between this incoherent blather and what Payton said?

LOL!!

Let me get this right; you have a USAF deputy under secretary crowing about error in launch vehicles to put up recon, comm SATS for drone ops. in the field. And this high cost system is suppose to be better than the existing system the military blames as faulty when tageting enemy operations in some cases resulting in killing civilians in the theater.

Oh… and spare me the bad intel argument-please!

OMG!! He has to pay extra ’cause Obama/Bolden cut constellation?

Well Duh, you cut civil HSF down to nothing so the only people doing space ops is a politically correct NASA and Dot Space with the military industrial complex.

Is this crazy war logic for anyone-hello ?

The impact to the solid rocket motor industrial base is one part of the equation, but we should look at the broader impact the new NASA plans will have on the military, NOR, NOAA, and other government agencies that work in space or that use space products.

In the case of the military, we should look at

– the impact to the solid rocket motor industrial base and related prices
– the impact to the (currently over-capacity) military space access industrial base and related prices from changes like

* additional capabilities enabled by new funding for commercial cargo to ISS
*commercial crew and the related prospects for new launchers or greater use of existing launchers
*greater use of launchers because of more capabilities on ISS, more use of ISS, and longer support for ISS
*greater use of launchers because of the new lines of robotic HSF precursors
* greater use of launchers because of the new Earth observation missions
* new NASA use of commercial suborbital RLVs
* modernization of KSC and the Florida launch range
* greater use of launchers for exploration technology demonstrations
* greater use of launchers for general space technology demonstrations
* new heavy lift and propulsion technology work, including the U.S. RD-180 class engine possibly built with at DOD-NASA partnership and foundational propulsion research

– the impact to the military satellite industrial base and related prices from changes like

* potential changes to space access costs, reliability, responsiveness, and other characteristics from the items listed above that would affect the satellite business
* new Earth observation missions, including traditional ones and the new Venture-class line
* new HSF robotic precursor missions, including larger missions and smaller “Scouts”
* new NASA general space technology work, much of which is likely to apply to DOD satellites and their subsystems (for example, sensors, in-space propulsion, high bandwidth communications, energy storage systems, etc) … (some of this work will be done in partnership with DARPA, AFRL/Operationally Responsive Space, etc)
* new NASA exploration technology demonstrations, some of which may have implications for the DOD (eg: propellant depots, high performance materials, etc)

– the impact to the military aircraft industrial base and related prices from changes like

* new fuel efficient aircraft work
* integrating UAVs in the airspace

There are more examples like this. I’d argue that a lot of these changes are going to lower DOD costs or increase DOD capabilities. I’d argue the same for other government agencies like NRO and NOAA. However, that’s just a rough assessment by me. A serious analysis of the implications of the full scope of the NASA changes, not just the things that are being removed, across multiple agencies would be better than focusing on solid rockets.

I wonder how the Athena Ic and IIc fit into this discussion. These will use the Castor 120 and Castor 30 solids. Will these soften that 10 to 20 percent increase? Will they suffer from that increase?

“Lockheed Martin and ATK Announce 2nd Generation Athena Launch Vehicles”

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/0325_ss_athena.html

With NASA’s plans for a line of small “Scout” missions within the new robotic precursor budget, a line of small “Venture-class” Earth observation missions that can include smallsats, a line of “Edison Small Satellite Demonstration Missions” in the new Space Technology budget, a “Small Satellite Subsystem Technologies” line in the new Space Technology budget that may help drive smallsat business, and various other technology demonstrations that may come in all sizes, could there be a healthy need for Athena IIc services within NASA?

What if Orbital’s COTS entry Taurus II (second stage, Castor 30) gets more ISS cargo business because of the increased use and longer life of the ISS? What if it gets commercial crew business? Delta II replacement business?

Or … will the new $312M in the Commercial Cargo line allow Orbital to replace the Castor 30? Here’s the relevant line in the 2011 budget:

“Accelerating enhanced capabilities may include adding milestones for
early development of items such as the high energy engine for Orbital’s Taurus II upper stage…”

Not to mention that they probably don’t want their fragile birds to get shaken apart…

nothing there to disagree with…nicely put (both post BTW)

Robert G. Oler

It was a little unfortunate that Payton said “potentially double” in an earlier hearing, only to have another DOD official state that the SRM cost increase will be more like 20%. Payton probably should have just taken the question for the record rather than answer off the top of his head. But it wasn’t a big deal. Now that he’s differentiating between launch vehicle SRMs (Payton’s responsibility) and ICBM/SLBM SRMs (not Payton’s responsibility), Payton has better gotten his arms around the issue.

That said, my calculations don’t show whether the cost increase will be 20%, 100%, or something else. What my calculations show is that at 20% or 100% (or even something much higher than that), it’s far more cost-effective from a national perspective to take that hit on SRM costs rather than spend orders of magnitude more money extending Shuttle operations and/or completing Ares I/Orion. It makes no sense to spend billions or tens of billions of dollars at NASA to save hundreds of millions or even a few billion at DOD.

FWIW…