http://www.space.com/10740-national-space-security-strategy.html

“hello. Allen can chime in for himself, he is one of the smart people in the field…but I suspect that the issue is not so much the boosters as it is the satellites themselves.”

Realistically, no manufacturing process is going to keep up with a developing modern conflict so it would be necessary to keep a small stockpile of satellites and launch vehicles. This is not as unusual as it sounds. Many commercial programs involve the creation of a ground spare. Even with government programs, I can think of examples where a block of satellites was build, stored and launched over an extended period of time as necessary. This strategy would involve building a number of spares after the system full operational capability was achieved and having them at the ready.

“they are almost “hand made” and each one is different from the next…attempts to develop “smaller” satellites in more populated constellations (grin) have floundered…”

Most satellites are hand made and it is arguable that commercial GEO satellites usually have customized payloads. However, building satellites in blocks is not unusual either (various GPS blocks, WGS blocks, Intelsat satellites up to series up to series VII and to a lesser degree up to IX, the various Inmarsat series 1 though 5 and so on). The government doesn’t have a good record on LEO constellation (SBIRS Low and space based radar) but GPS is a constellation and the commercial constellations are all preparing to launch second generation constellations (Orbcomm, Globalstar and Iridium). I wouldn’t rule out the constellation concept for government systems, especially if we can get responsive low cost launch.

“2. General principles
The Subscribing States resolve to abide by the following principles:

– the freedom of access to, exploration and use of outer space and exploitation of space objects for peaceful purposes without interference, fully respecting the security, safety and integrity of space objects in orbit”

I believe that quote of yours is more refering to banging other country’s satellites or activities that create more debri in local operational space (LEO2GEO).

refrain from any action which intends to bring about, directly or indirectly, damage or destruction of outer space objects unless such action is conducted to reduce the creation of outer space debris and/or is justified by the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the United Nations Charter or imperative safety considerations.”

That would potentially put the breaks on any discussion about utilizing in space resources, particularly large scale mining (which, I will grant, is more than a few years off)

I assume you dont agree with the rapid time from prototype to build…t certainly is a refurbishable platform.

I do not agree. At one point in the 80’s the shuttle was being considered as a sort of “flying test bed” for a whole series of different sort of payloads, some of which were classified and some of which were pure civilian.

These were one of a kind payloads where there was value (in fact a lot of it) in getting the payload back to analyze failure modes and to do modifications on the payload to allow it to fly again in a different form but with the same hardware.

I dont know for a fact it is happening on X-37 and besides it would be classified but I dont know for a fact that it is not happening but it wouldnt surprise me if it was. Where I went to Grad school there were all sorts of these payloads lining up for GAS and other special kind of flights on the shuttle when Challenger went bang.

Ball and OSC do have buses but none of them are reusable and hence the instruments end up being sort of “one of a kinds”.

Put another way, there is nothing that prohibits X-37 from being used in this manner and I dont think you can prove it is not!

take care Robert G. Oler

It does nothing of the sort nor even if is did, it would not provide any advantage over existing buses. Rapid spacecraft development is easy, look at the buses available, Ball and OSC have many of them and they can fly on many launch vehicles.

Allen Thomson wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 12:15 pm

“And replacing any one of them would take months at least; rebuilding the constellation would be a matter of years. We need to get serious about ORS.”…ooste

hello. Allen can chime in for himself, he is one of the smart people in the field…but I suspect that the issue is not so much the boosters as it is the satellites themselves.

they are almost “hand made” and each one is different from the next…attempts to develop “smaller” satellites in more populated constellations (grin) have floundered…

One of the things I suspect that X-37 is designed to address is not only the notion of a refurbishable platform but also more rapid time from prototype to build.

Robert G. Oler

“And replacing any one of them would take months at least; rebuilding the constellation would be a matter of years. We need to get serious about ORS.”

That means we need to get serious about operationally responsive launch.

The closest thing to that in the world was the Zenit luancher, which was designed to repopulate Soviet satellite constellations as fast as US ASATs could knock them down.

We need to be investing in small to medium launch vehicles that launched with minimal preparation time – no months long launch campaigns. HLVs need not apply.

things come in time and the time for Laser battle stations is not now…but we are inching that way….the Navy is going to have a laser main anti missile gun here soon…

It is highly likely that such stations will have to have a crew…not to operate but maintain…and we will get there. The technology either exist or is near term…but it exist

Robert G. Oler

What I mean is that the technology exists. Not as much for atmospheric laser. They can be fielded if need be. The infrastructure would require refueling in space but we could send multiple laser equipped satellites. Lasers are not that different from a jet engine… Technology exists and you don’t have to worry about atmospheric disturbances that kill effective atmospheric lasers.