Commercial Ares I?!

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Space - History Forum » Commercial Ares I?!

Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Author

Message

Pat Flannery

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:47 pm

Guest

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/ATK04098.xml&show=us
Okay, that makes Atlas V, Delta IV, and Ares I...three rockets to do one
job, with NASA funding the development of a competitor to commercial
vehicles that were partly funded by the Air Force and NRO.
If nothing else, I can see my speculation about that "Ares*" name from a
couple of years back was correct; it might well indeed having a military
mission.

*Greek god of war.

Pat

Dave Michelson

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:05 pm

Guest

Pat Flannery wrote:

Quote:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/ATK04098.xml&show=us

Okay, that makes Atlas V, Delta IV, and Ares I...three rockets to do one
job, with NASA funding the development of a competitor to commercial
vehicles that were partly funded by the Air Force and NRO.
If nothing else, I can see my speculation about that "Ares*" name from a
couple of years back was correct; it might well indeed having a military
mission.

Ares was also the name of the shuttle-derived launch vehicle that was
proposed by Zubrin et al. back in the early 1990's.

cf. Zubrin's design

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/areirect.htm

with

NASA's design

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aresv.htm

Not identical, but cousins nonetheless.

--
Dave Michelson
davem@ece.ubc.ca

Alan Erskine

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:53 pm

Guest

"Dave Michelson" <davem@ece.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:fPyLj.40340$rd2.28611@pd7urf3no...

Quote:

Yeah, but when you're working with essentially the same components, there's
only so many combinations you can come up with.

Dave Michelson

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:40 pm

Guest

Alan Erskine wrote:

Quote:

Ares was also the name of the shuttle-derived launch vehicle that was
proposed by Zubrin et al. back in the early 1990's.

Not identical, but cousins nonetheless.

Yeah, but when you're working with essentially the same components, there's
only so many combinations you can come up with.

Of course! My point is that calling the new vehicles "Ares I" and "Ares
V" was more likely a tip of the hat to Zubrin et al. instead of a "wink
wink" to the military, as Pat suggests.

--
Dave Michelson
davem@ece.ubc.ca

Pat Flannery

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:10 am

Guest

Dave Michelson wrote:

Quote:

Of course! My point is that calling the new vehicles "Ares I" and "Ares
V" was more likely a tip of the hat to Zubrin et al. instead of a "wink
wink" to the military, as Pat suggests.

By the time they came up with the Ares name, the Mars mission had been
pretty much dropped, so it didn't really make much sense to name it
after the war god's planet.
I checked out my original posting on this from Oct.19, 2006:
http://tinyurl.com/5yffgc

Quote:

"Gareth Slee wrote:
This shouldn't upset any other country!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6063926.stm

Yeah, I saw this one coming a mile off- this is out of that "Rebuilding
America's Defenses" study of Cheney's PNAC again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

"The PNAC and its members had long called for the United States to
abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the US and the Soviet
Union, from which the US withdrew in 2002. The PNAC also proposes to
control the new "international commons" of space and "cyberspace" and
pave the way for the creation of a new military service — U.S. Space
Forces — with the mission of space control. In 1998, Donald Rumsfeld
chaired a bipartisan commission on the US Ballistic Missile Threat
toward advancement of these goals. It is unclear how "space control"
will affect US adherence to the Outer Space Treaty. President George W.
Bush stated in his address to the nation on September 11, 2006 [4] that
the war on terror "will set the course for this new century and
determine the destiny of millions across the world." "

You watch- that whole "manned Moon mission" with its Ares boosters
(named after the Greek god of war) is somehow tied in with all this.

Now we find out that Ares I has a rapid launch capability that the
military wants.
The nice thing about the Bush administration is their consistency;
whatever they tell you, you can rest assured it is a lie.

Pat

Jeff Findley

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:21 am

Guest

"Pat Flannery" <flanner@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:CJSdnbhwaYbSKGPanZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@northdakotatelephone...

Quote:

I'm starting to think that ATK is getting nervous that the problems with
Ares I may result in Congress realizing it's a complete dog and needs to be
cancelled. Unfortunately, for ATK, it's in the same payload class as Delta
IV Heavy and (the as yet unflown) Atlas V Heavy.

Their argument seems to be that the bird in the bush is worth more than the
two birds in the hand.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

Michael Gallagher

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:15 am

Guest

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:47:48 -0500, Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Except that the Altas and Deltas are also used for military,
commercial, and NASA missions. Why shouldn't Ares have the same mix?

I think the name is just an hommage to the Saturn seris, with Ares 1
taking the place of Saturn 1B. Big Deal.

Quote:

*Greek god of war.

Pat

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Michael Gallagher

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:15 am

Guest

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:10:38 -0500, Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Now we find out that Ares I has a rapid launch capability that the
military wants.

Isn't it also cheaper to get it on the pad an launch it as quickly as
possible? (Assuming you can quickly stack the solid booster, which I
doubt.)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Derek Lyons

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:01 pm

Guest

Michael Gallagher <mikejoe7g@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:10:38 -0500, Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com
wrote:

Now we find out that Ares I has a rapid launch capability that the
military wants.

Isn't it also cheaper to get it on the pad an launch it as quickly as
possible? (Assuming you can quickly stack the solid booster, which I
doubt.)

No, it's cheaper to minimize the man hours and materials costs
required to get it on the pad and launch it.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:12 pm

Guest

Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:

Quote:

Given your habit of tying virtually everything into a deep and dark
(and hysterical) conspiracy theories revolving around Cheney and the
Bush Administration, like Copy Boy and a stopped clock... you were
bound to be quasi correct eventually.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Jorge R. Frank

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:41 am

Guest

Derek Lyons wrote:

Quote:

Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:

By the time they came up with the Ares name, the Mars mission had been
pretty much dropped, so it didn't really make much sense to name it
after the war god's planet.
I checked out my original posting on this from Oct.19, 2006:
http://tinyurl.com/5yffgc

Now we find out that Ares I has a rapid launch capability that the
military wants.

Given your habit of tying virtually everything into a deep and dark
(and hysterical) conspiracy theories revolving around Cheney and the
Bush Administration, like Copy Boy and a stopped clock... you were
bound to be quasi correct eventually.

I suppose it never occurred to him that Mars was the Roman counterpart
of the Greek god Ares, and therefore Horowitz and Griffin thought Ares
would be an appropriate name for a rocket that would eventually be used
to send people to Mars.

But no, you're right, he's sliding into bBo hallreB territory. Can
GuthBall territory be far behind?

Dave Michelson

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:19 am

Guest

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Quote:

Besides, Zubrin and co. had already pointed NASA in the right direction
with their own shuttle-derived Mars booster called 'Ares' in the early
90's. (I can't imagine that the thought never crossed Griffin and co.'s
mind.)

--
Dave Michelson
davem@ece.ubc.ca

Pat Flannery

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:23 am

Guest

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Quote:

Given your habit of tying virtually everything into a deep and dark
(and hysterical) conspiracy theories revolving around Cheney and the
Bush Administration, like Copy Boy and a stopped clock... you were
bound to be quasi correct eventually.

I suppose it never occurred to him that Mars was the Roman counterpart
of the Greek god Ares, and therefore Horowitz and Griffin thought Ares
would be an appropriate name for a rocket that would eventually be
used to send people to Mars.

But no, you're right, he's sliding into bBo hallreB territory. Can
GuthBall territory be far behind?

As I pointed out, by the time the Ares names had been assigned to the
rockets, the Mars mission was a dead duck (that had occurred within a
month of the program's inception), and attention had shifted to a Moon
mission and possible permanent lunar base.
So I thought the name was odd, and suggested it might be related to some
military mission, given the intention to dominate the new "international
commons" of space shown in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by The
Project for the New American Century:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
(which reads very much like the blueprint of everything the Bush/Cheney
White House did in the last eight years:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm The PNAC is now
kaput after the triumph of Iraq*)
And when I posted the theory that Ares might be military related, I was
jumped on as a paranoid.
So now Ares I is shown to be military related, so now this shows the
depth of my paranoia.
I find it very amusing to see the Bush/Cheney peanut gallery still
cheering him on - it's reminiscent of the old "Krazy Kat" cartoons. They
do so want to believe that Bush loves them like they love him, and is
telling them the honest truth... at least this time...but every time
they cuddle up to Bush, they get another brick in the head, and wander
off muttering "lil darlin, always fetful".
What I'd worry about (other than NASA funds being used to build a
military-related space booster) is what exactly the Pentagon needs a
rapid launch orbital capability with a large payload for?
Atlas V and Delta IV are going to be taking care of the missions Titan
IV flew, so this must be some new mission.
So back to the PNAC report:

2. Control of Space — "RAD" advises instituting a new "Space Service"
thereby escalating U.S. military preparedness "from the theatre level to
the global level" in order to achieve worldwide dominance, both
militarily and commercially.
"Yet to truly transform itself for the coming century, the Air Force
must accelerate its efforts to create the new systems – and, to repeat,
the space-based systems – that are necessary to shift the scope of air
operations from the theater level to the global level" (p. 64).
"…control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure
access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an
ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element
of our military strategy" (p. 55).
"Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international
commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new
'international commons' be a key to world power in the future. An
America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in
space or the 'infosphere' will find it difficult to exert global
political leadership" (p. 51).
"The proliferation of technologies for delivering highly accurate fires
over increasingly great distances poses a great challenge for both the
Army and the Marine Corps, but rather than attempting to compete in the
game of applying long-range fires, both services would be better off
attempting to complement the vastly improved strike capabilities of the
Navy and Air Force, and indeed in linking decisive maneuvers to future
space capabilities as well" (p. 6 Cool

.
"Target significant new investments toward creating capabilities for
operating in space, including inexpensive launch vehicles, new
satellites and transatmospheric vehicles, in preparation for a decision
as to whether space warfare is sufficiently different from combat within
earth’s atmosphere so as to require a separate 'space service'. Such a
transformation would in fact better realize the Air Force’s stated goal
of becoming a service with true global reach and global strike
capabilities" (p. 64).
"Given the advantages U.S. armed forces enjoy as a result of this
unrestricted use of space, it is shortsighted to expect potential
adversaries to refrain from attempting to disable or offset U.S. space
capabilities. And with the proliferation of space know-how and related
technology around the world, our adversaries will inevitably seek to
enjoy many of the same space advantages in the future. Moreover, 'space
commerce' is a growing part of the global economy. In 1996, commercial
United States, and commercial revenues exceeded government expenditures
on space. Today, more than 1,100 commercial companies across more than
50 countries are developing, building, and operating space systems.
"The complexity of space control will only grow as commercial activity
increases. American and other allied investments in space systems will
create a requirement to secure and protect these space assets; they are
already an important measure of American power. Yet it will not merely
be enough to protect friendly commercial uses of space.
"As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the
capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space
platforms for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts.
Indeed, space is likely to become the new 'international commons', where
commercial and security interests are intertwined and related. Just as
Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote about 'sea-power' at the beginning of the 20th
century in this sense, American strategists will be forced to regard
'space-power' in the 21st" (pp. 54-55).
"In short, the unequivocal supremacy in space enjoyed by the United
States today will be increasingly at risk" (p. 55).
"As Colin Gray and John Sheldon have written, 'Space control is not an
avoidable issue. It is not an optional extra.' For U.S. armed forces to
continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by
Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of
operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the
use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy.
If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global
military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and
potentially fatally compromised" (p. 55).
"But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably
require the application of force both in space and from space, including
but not limited to anti-missile defenses and defensive systems capable
of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot be
sustained in any other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or
airforce, or by electronic warfare. This eventuality is already
recognized by official U.S. national space policy, which states that the
'Department of Defense shall maintain a capability to execute the
mission areas of space support, force enhancement, space control and
force application.' (Emphasis added.)" (p. 56).

This sounds like some sort of concept to destroy "enemy" satellites (say
a commercially owned satellite that's broadcasting Al Jazeera) via
launching armed robotic "Space Tugs" that would maneuver around up in
GEO, launch some sort of trans-atmospheric bomber vehicle, or insert a
squad of troops anywhere in the world via the loopy "Hot Eagle"
approach: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001815.html
At least the launch facilities needed for the Ares I are fairly
substantial, so it should be fairly easy to keep track of what's going
on with it in a military sense.
But if anyone starts noticing really big holes being dug down at
Vandenberg AFB, something odd might be going on. :-)

* BTW, a list of the big wheels that were in the PNAC isn't exactly a
cavalcade of future triumphs either:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

"PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President Dick Cheney and
his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby; Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz;
National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms
Control and International Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of
the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members exerting
influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the
Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce
Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer
for the /Weekly Standard/. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and
governor of Florida, is also a member."

Most now having either "resigned" or "indicted" appended to their names.

Pat

Pat Flannery

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:35 am

Guest

Dave Michelson wrote:

Quote:

I've seen designs for SRB related boosters going way back into the very
early 1980's.
NASA probably remembered Zubrin's little slip on figuring out the mass
of his Mars ships when he neglected to put food aboard for the crew. Smile

In the Science Channel's show about where the Ares/Orion came from
("Starship Orion"), Zubrin's input was noted, as was that slip.
So what's he up to these days?:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/6/12235/79208

Pat

Brian Thorn

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:01 am

Guest

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:23:51 -0500, Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com>
wrote:

Quote:

And when I posted the theory that Ares might be military related, I was
jumped on as a paranoid.
So now Ares I is shown to be military related, so now this shows the
depth of my paranoia.

ATK trying to sell Ares I to the military is not "Military Related".
The Airbus A330 is not "Military Related" except that Airbus is now
selling some to various world military arms, including ours. That
doesn't mean A330 was some secret European plan to dominate the world
with Military Airbusses all along.

Quote:

This sounds like some sort of concept to destroy "enemy" satellites (say
a commercially owned satellite that's broadcasting Al Jazeera)

"We all see what we want to see. Coffey looks and he sees Russians. He
sees hate and fear. We have to look with better eyes than that."

- Lindsey Brigman,
"The Abyss"

Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:58 am Science Forum Index