USAF FAST/RBS Reusable Booster System programs

[Orionblamblam]

No, because the RBS was turning out to be too expensive:

That's ALWAYS the arguement. So theUSAF and/or NASA spends a billion dollars and five years developing something then cancelling it because full development would cost two billion... then trying again five years later with the same result. Thus after a few decades you've spent ten billion and developed *nothing* rather than just biting the bullet and seeing it through to completion.

 

[sferrin]

No, because the RBS was turning out to be too expensive:

That's ALWAYS the arguement. So theUSAF and/or NASA spends a billion dollars and five years developing something then cancelling it because full development would cost two billion... then trying again five years later with the same result. Thus after a few decades you've spent ten billion and developed *nothing* rather than just biting the bullet and seeing it through to completion.

Yep. That seems to be the pattern for every high speed air-breather, booster, what-have-you. Hell, even LRASM-B (ASALM essentailly), which should have been a slam-dunk, got cancelled from a case of the frights.

 

[Hobbes]

That's ALWAYS the arguement. So theUSAF and/or NASA spends a billion dollars and five years developing something then cancelling it because full development would cost two billion... then trying again five years later with the same result. Thus after a few decades you've spent ten billion and developed *nothing* rather than just biting the bullet and seeing it through to completion.

Maybe the lesson should be that they need to get better at estimating development costs before committing to a project.

 

[sferrin]

That's ALWAYS the arguement. So theUSAF and/or NASA spends a billion dollars and five years developing something then cancelling it because full development would cost two billion... then trying again five years later with the same result. Thus after a few decades you've spent ten billion and developed *nothing* rather than just biting the bullet and seeing it through to completion.

Maybe the lesson should be that they need to get better at estimating development costs before committing to a project.

How can they estimate something they have zero experience taking to completion?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Maybe the lesson should be that they need to get better at estimating development costs before committing to a project.

HA! Ever see any estimates for what the Great Society programs would cost? Aerospace R&D overruns are as nothing compared to social program overruns. So *that* can't be the reason. Otherwise the FedGuv would be perfectly happy with a NASA budget of $400 billion a year that accomplishes no more than NASA currently does.

 

[Hobbes]

There's no point in building a reusable booster if it's going to cost more than the expendable rocket it replaces.


As to why the US spends so much on aborted projects, that's one of the unfortunate side effects of the US political system: who cares if a project has a tangible result as long as {fill-in-the-district} gets a few billion out of it.


Seeing a project through to completion got us the Space Shuttle. A magnificent achievement, but it was eyewateringly expensive and taught us mostly how not to do things. Cancelling a project is better than continuing against your better judgement.

 

[dark sidius]

With a mentality like this we go nowhere and futur will be a very dark period, with the same politicians ways years ago nobody go to the moon or in orbit and we propell the plane with piston, the last chance for military to developp high tech is propel the programms in black budget.

 

[flateric]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfoR8SbFhy8&feature=related

 

[Orionblamblam]

There's no point in building a reusable booster if it's going to cost more than the expendable rocket it replaces.

Sure there is... so long as you have a comittment to incremental improvements. Early jet aircraft were not exactly cheaper than contemporary prop-jobs, and ere not exactly better performing... but once the He 178 and Gloster E.28 got the bugs worked out of the basic concept, better and more practical designs followed.

who cares if a project has a tangible result as long as {fill-in-the-district} gets a few billion out of it.

Indeed. See: Great Society, War On Some Drugs, Social Security, affirmative action, ADA, etc.

Seeing a project through to completion got us the Space Shuttle. A magnificent achievement, but it was eyewateringly expensive and taught us mostly how not to do things.

And so people have been using that as an excuse to *not* do things.

 

[sferrin]

There's no point in building a reusable booster if it's going to cost more than the expendable rocket it replaces.

Sure there is... so long as you have a comittment to incremental improvements. Early jet aircraft were not exactly cheaper than contemporary prop-jobs, and ere not exactly better performing... but once the He 178 and Gloster E.28 got the bugs worked out of the basic concept, better and more practical designs followed.

who cares if a project has a tangible result as long as {fill-in-the-district} gets a few billion out of it.

Indeed. See: Great Society, War On Some Drugs, Social Security, affirmative action, ADA, etc.

Seeing a project through to completion got us the Space Shuttle. A magnificent achievement, but it was eyewateringly expensive and taught us mostly how not to do things.

And so people have been using that as an excuse to *not* do things.

Dude, "think of the children". You keep up with all this reality and somebody is going to sue you for tramatizing them.

 

[RyanC]

No, because the RBS was turning out to be too expensive

So truncate it down to something that delivers 1,000~ lb to LEO, instead of the proposed "10,000 lb, replace Atlas V" capability, which would significantly scale down the RBS size and thus cost; so we can test out technologies on a cheaper scale, and if it works out; scale it up to EELV size.

 

[Byeman]

Because people are short-sighted and stupid?

No, because there is no business case for them.

 

[RyanC]

No, because there is no business case for them.

I got a business case for you -- replacing our spy satellites and DoD communications satellites in a region temporarily after an opponent on day one begins zapping them with high powered lasers. Not everyone is going to be as dumb as Saddam Hussein in Iraq Wars I and II...

DoD doesn't want to stock EELVs for a contigency such as this, so a RBS system that can fly rapidly is the only choice.

 

[Hobbes]

Do they stock satellites for such a contingency?

 

[RyanC]

Do they stock satellites for such a contingency?

Who knows. But this is something that has to be looked into for future contigencies; so that we're prepared.

The stockpile satellites don't have to be as complex or as capable as the current systems on orbit -- why do so when their expected lifetime will be really short (we have to assume the enemy will try zapping them too.)

 

[Byeman]

(we have to assume the enemy will try zapping them too.)

And hence the fallacy in the argument. RBS launching replacements doesn't fix the problem.

 

[Byeman]

The stockpile satellites don't have to be as complex or as capable as the current systems on orbit -- why do so when their expected lifetime will be really short (we have to assume the enemy will try zapping them too.)

Easier have the stockpile on orbit.

 

[RyanC]

And hence the fallacy in the argument. RBS launching replacements doesn't fix the problem.

There is no fix to the problem other than flattening the enemy's anti-space access weaponry and as lasers become more powerful and compact, that will become very problematic -- look how hard it was to hunt down SCUDs in 1991.

 

[Orionblamblam]

There is no fix to the problem other than flattening the enemy's anti-space access weaponry

Overwhelm the enemy. One launch that sends up not only several satllite, but a number of decoys. Satellites that, when hit, give every indication of being killed, but are just putting on an act. Satellites that are made stealthy and difficult to find in the first place. Satellites that are stealthy and dark, and connected to bright shiny decoys by ten yards of nylon fishing line, so the bait takes the hit. Bait that is little more than sticks an mylar origami, and which are stored in a bin on the side of the satellite, and can be spat out one at a time to slowly drift nearby and take the hit and look dead. Satellites with good maneuver capability so they can go hide next to/behind existing satellites.

 

[mz]

It's unlikely that a flexible, reliable and low cost system could be developed directly from a blank sheet in one government program.

A slightly more realistic model might be that the government developed fundamental technologies and procured demonstrators and prototypes, then distributed that knowledge to the industry and would let them build the things for an open market without specifying exact solutions.

For this to work, the demonstrators would need to be small so that multiple paths could be pursued concurrently and even risky technologies tested.

 

[RyanC]

Overwhelm the enemy. One launch that sends up not only several satllite, but a number of decoys. Satellites that, when hit, give every indication of being killed, but are just putting on an act.

That works if the cost of each attack on a satellite is $1>M, but what if it falls to a few grand (amortization of cost of laser plus a few hundred gallons of fuel)? Then there would be a strong incentive to repeatedly zap the satellite with the laser to be sure.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Then there would be a strong incentive to repeatedly zap the satellite with the laser to be sure.

Indeed, which is why I suggested "stealth" satellites with nearby decoys.

Personally, my preferred solution is to overwhelm the enemy with *vast* numbers of small satellites. Launch a Sea Dragon a day with a load of a hundred thousand "Bitsy" satellites.

But that's me. Others might want to spend the same amount on something with far less return on investment, like welfare.

 

[Byeman]

And hence the fallacy in the argument. RBS launching replacements doesn't fix the problem.

There is no fix to the problem other than flattening the enemy's anti-space access weaponry and as lasers become more powerful and compact, that will become very problematic -- look how hard it was to hunt down SCUDs in 1991.

Sub launched UAV's

 

[RyanC]

So, basically instead of launching Tomahawks, a notational Ohio (or whatever replaces them in the SSGN role); spams forth tonnes of UAVs with pop-out wings, which all network together like a giant moving cellullar network to send data from over the horizon without a need for satellite links for over-the-horizon control?

We already are working on that (sort of) on a smaller scale, but with US Army tactical radios -- I forget the name of it, but the latest radios that are being deployed to Afghanistan have this networking capability to eliminate a few levels of radios so that fewer radio types do more jobs.

USAF is also currently working on very high speed data transfer via AESA radars on the F-22/F-35, so that they can share extremely large amounts of data back and forth in a very short time period.

Technologically, all the components are there today, it's just a matter of integration work to make it reliable enough.

I do have a quibble with your sub-launched UAV concept.

It defeats the purpose of a submarine's stealth, particularly if you have to keep feeding UAVs into the network to replace destroyed/shot down ones. I think a LHA/LHD would work better for this task.

 

[RGClark]

No, because the RBS was turning out to be too expensive:

That's ALWAYS the arguement. So theUSAF and/or NASA spends a billion dollars and five years developing something then cancelling it because full development would cost two billion... then trying again five years later with the same result. Thus after a few decades you've spent ten billion and developed *nothing* rather than just biting the bullet and seeing it through to completion.

Excellent point.

Bob Clark

 

[bobbymike]

Is this something?

AFRL Dual-Launch Technology To Save Time And Money For EELV

The Air Force Research Lab is working to mature dual-launch technologies, with the goal of lending efficiency and flexibility to the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's dual launch?

 

[dark sidius]

May be a part of launcher expendable and a part reusable may be, where do you find this dual launch program informations?

 

[bobbymike]

May be a part of launcher expendable and a part reusable may be, where do you find this dual launch program informations?

Inside Defense Newsstand Air Force Weekly newsletter didn't want to pay $10 for the full article

 

[flateric]

posts from the “Found on Ebay” thread added

I just wonder what it has to do with RBS/FAST?

 

[Jemiba]

I just wonder what it has to do with RBS/FAST?

Sorry, you're right, had searched for "reusable booster system" and got this ... :-[
And as the auction seems to be re-opened again, I moved it back to the Ebay section.

 

[dark sidius]

Hi Bobbymike, I read the article on Inside defense, this tech has nothing to do with a reusable booster, its a system ring on EELV to launch two different size and type of satellite on the same launcher, I think reusable booster is dead, we must see in a futur a system with an expendable launcher and a reusable orbiter satellite launcher like the X-37b system. The X-37b open a large possibility of operationnel missions, with a more bigger X-37C by exemple.

 

[Byeman]

Hi Bobbymike, I read the article on Inside defense, this tech has nothing to do with a reusable booster, its a system ring on EELV to launch two different size and type of satellite on the same launcher, I think reusable booster is dead, we must see in a futur a system with an expendable launcher and a reusable orbiter satellite launcher like the X-37b system. The X-37b open a large possibility of operationnel missions, with a more bigger X-37C by exemple.

X-37 is not a satellite launcher. It is a satellite itself.

 

[bobbymike]

2011 Study free and downloadable from National Academy Press

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13534

 

[airrocket]

Perhaps not all is lost....SpaceX is still flirting with the Grasshopper concept. Providing Boeing and SN continue to inch forward with dry-dock landing concepts Musk will need to go beyond splashing down to remain equal to or one step ahead. And grasshopper would do that in spades with a 90% RLV capable of dry-dock landings on good old terra-firma.

http://www.space.com/19039-spacex-private-reusable-rocket-test.html

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/what-its-like-to-ride-spacexs-grasshopper-reusable-rocket-video.php

Best of all the FEDs are not holding all the purse strings now. Not sure Elon was involved in the RBS program but I seem to recall some reference to the fact in the past. Anyway coolest thing I have seen in the aerospace world since "Abbott and Costello Go to mars", and the DCX.

 

[Byeman]

Wings have no place on space vehicles

 

[bobbymike]

Found on Aerojet Rocketdyne website

 

[DSE]

Found on Aerojet Rocketdyne website

Old stuff. Or have you forgotten?