| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space Forum » Why not Minuteman?
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Henry Spencer |
 Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 12:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <88d21cfd.0401081951.580c5bf0@posting.google.com>,
ed kyle <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Meanwhile what do you tell private companies that are bidding on that
market?
"Sorry, you're out of business for the next 300 launches?"
Maybe you would give them a chance to participate - as
Orbital Sciences has done with Minotaur.
And the ones that prefer liquid fuels, and aren't equipped to work with
solids (especially old mil-spec solids), just quietly go bankrupt? Any
way you slice it, this is subsidizing one particular solution at the
expense of potentially-superior alternatives -- giving some companies a
sweetheart deal and destroying the rest.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Gene DiGennaro |
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
edkyle99@hotmail.com (ed kyle) wrote in message news:<88d21cfd.0401081247.7d96538b@posting.google.com>...
Quote: I've recently been reading about the Minuteman ICBM
system. More than 2400 of these missiles were built
over the years. As many as 1000 at a time stood watch
in underground silos, fitted with thermonuke warheads.
More than 840 were launched on test missions or, in
two instances, as part of Minotaur space launch
vehicles.
Today, 500 Minuteman III missiles remain on duty.
There are probably some spares that are not in silos.
(I would guess 100-150). 450 Minuteman II missiles
were removed from service during the early 1990s. I
think that the solid rocket motors for many of these
have been stored.
Altogether the U.S. must have several hundred spare
Minuteman II rockets on hand. Studies have shown that
each one is capable of boosting about one-half ton
to low earth orbit, for about half the cost of
Pegasus, which offers similar capability. Minuteman
should be relatively reliable. More than 98% of the
Minuteman I and II tests were successful.
The problem is that these Minuteman assets have been
reserved for U.S. Defense launches. Why not make this
resource, capable of boosting perhaps 200-300 tons into
low earth orbit altogether, available for commercial
and civil space launches? Wouldn't such activity
provide benefits to the taxpayers who paid for
Minuteman?
- Ed Kyle
On a related note, I read in AvWeek that there is talk of placing
conventional warheads on some ICBMs, making them a really quick
strike force.
Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore,Md. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Gene DiGennaro |
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
edkyle99@hotmail.com (ed kyle) wrote in message news:<88d21cfd.0401081247.7d96538b@posting.google.com>...
Quote: I've recently been reading about the Minuteman ICBM
system. More than 2400 of these missiles were built
over the years. As many as 1000 at a time stood watch
in underground silos, fitted with thermonuke warheads.
More than 840 were launched on test missions or, in
two instances, as part of Minotaur space launch
vehicles.
Today, 500 Minuteman III missiles remain on duty.
There are probably some spares that are not in silos.
(I would guess 100-150). 450 Minuteman II missiles
were removed from service during the early 1990s. I
think that the solid rocket motors for many of these
have been stored.
Altogether the U.S. must have several hundred spare
Minuteman II rockets on hand. Studies have shown that
each one is capable of boosting about one-half ton
to low earth orbit, for about half the cost of
Pegasus, which offers similar capability. Minuteman
should be relatively reliable. More than 98% of the
Minuteman I and II tests were successful.
The problem is that these Minuteman assets have been
reserved for U.S. Defense launches. Why not make this
resource, capable of boosting perhaps 200-300 tons into
low earth orbit altogether, available for commercial
and civil space launches? Wouldn't such activity
provide benefits to the taxpayers who paid for
Minuteman?
- Ed Kyle
On a related note, I read in AvWeek that there is talk of placing
conventional warheads on some ICBMs, making them a really quick
strike force.
Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore,Md. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ed kyle |
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 4:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote in message news:<Hr713x.u9@spsystems.net>...
Quote: In article <88d21cfd.0401081247.7d96538b@posting.google.com>,
ed kyle <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote:
Altogether the U.S. must have several hundred spare
Minuteman II rockets on hand...
Not quite as many as you might think, because there have been a lot of
suborbital Minuteman launches from Vandenberg to Kwajalein for tests,
Minuteman crew training, and missile-defence R&D.
More than 2400 were built. About 840-some have been launched.
500 are still in service. I suspect the original 800 sets of
Minuteman IA/B hardware is long gone. Minuteman II, retired
in the early 1990s, amounted to 450 or so units that are the
most likely to have been stored. Some of the upper stages of
these have been used in missile defense tests. Some hardware
has been used for periodic ground test firings in Utah.
Quote: The problem is that these Minuteman assets have been
reserved for U.S. Defense launches. Why not make this
resource, capable of boosting perhaps 200-300 tons into
low earth orbit altogether, available for commercial
and civil space launches?
Because with some specialized exceptions, the government got out of the
launch-services business in 1986.
This would have to be a case of the government establishing
a way for commercial companies to access the hardware. The
government would not be in the launch services end any more
than they are with EELV, etc..
Quote:
Note that SpaceX is in the final stages of building a launcher which (if
the press releases are to be believed) will have a larger payload at lower
cost, not to mention a softer ride. So why bother?
If SpaceX delivers what it claims, than this will be
a non-issue because the company will have undercut the
likely price of any Minuteman-derived launcher.
But if the company doesn't deliver, why shouldn't U.S.
companies be able to access surplus Cold War hardware
the way that Russian launch companies have with Rokot,
Start, Dnepr, etc.? Orbital and, perhaps soon SpaceX,
must compete against these low-cost used, slightly
modified missiles if they want to win non-U.S. contracts.
As things stand, Orbital seems to have already lost the
non-U.S. smallsat market to Eurockot.
And why shouldn't this hardware resource be put to
productive use, rather than inevitably decaying in
storage?
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ed kyle |
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 4:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote in message news:<Hr713x.u9@spsystems.net>...
Quote: In article <88d21cfd.0401081247.7d96538b@posting.google.com>,
ed kyle <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote:
Altogether the U.S. must have several hundred spare
Minuteman II rockets on hand...
Not quite as many as you might think, because there have been a lot of
suborbital Minuteman launches from Vandenberg to Kwajalein for tests,
Minuteman crew training, and missile-defence R&D.
More than 2400 were built. About 840-some have been launched.
500 are still in service. I suspect the original 800 sets of
Minuteman IA/B hardware is long gone. Minuteman II, retired
in the early 1990s, amounted to 450 or so units that are the
most likely to have been stored. Some of the upper stages of
these have been used in missile defense tests. Some hardware
has been used for periodic ground test firings in Utah.
Quote: The problem is that these Minuteman assets have been
reserved for U.S. Defense launches. Why not make this
resource, capable of boosting perhaps 200-300 tons into
low earth orbit altogether, available for commercial
and civil space launches?
Because with some specialized exceptions, the government got out of the
launch-services business in 1986.
This would have to be a case of the government establishing
a way for commercial companies to access the hardware. The
government would not be in the launch services end any more
than they are with EELV, etc..
Quote:
Note that SpaceX is in the final stages of building a launcher which (if
the press releases are to be believed) will have a larger payload at lower
cost, not to mention a softer ride. So why bother?
If SpaceX delivers what it claims, than this will be
a non-issue because the company will have undercut the
likely price of any Minuteman-derived launcher.
But if the company doesn't deliver, why shouldn't U.S.
companies be able to access surplus Cold War hardware
the way that Russian launch companies have with Rokot,
Start, Dnepr, etc.? Orbital and, perhaps soon SpaceX,
must compete against these low-cost used, slightly
modified missiles if they want to win non-U.S. contracts.
As things stand, Orbital seems to have already lost the
non-U.S. smallsat market to Eurockot.
And why shouldn't this hardware resource be put to
productive use, rather than inevitably decaying in
storage?
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:53 am
|
|