Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

This could have a major effect on military space. Some have felt that the Air Force is not exploiting space-based capabilities as much as it could because the command structure is dominated by ex-pilots who are predisposed to spend their money on airplanes.

Posted by Aretemus at July 26, 2007 09:46 AM

Some have felt that the Air Force is not exploiting space-based capabilities as much as it could because the command structure is dominated by ex-pilots who are predisposed to spend their money on airplanes.

Yes, some feel that pilots are stupid and everything should be automated and run from missile control, but Space Command is not run by "ex-pilots," it's run by missile officers.

Between the military and NASA, the US has spent over a trillion dollars on space and missile systems. Why don't we have more to show for it? Certainly not because there were a few pilots involved.

Space Command has not even achieved the level of operability that stupid airplane drivers got with the X-15 in the 1960's. Maybe the reusable aircraft (spacecraft) approach isn't so stupid after all?

That's why I've argued space advocates should overcome their prejudices and try to talking to Air Combat Command, which has a better chance of building highly operational vehicles than Space Command and Stratcom.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 26, 2007 05:09 PM

Yes, some feel that pilots are stupid and everything should be automated and run from missile control, but Space Command is not run by "ex-pilots," it's run by missile officers.

(A)The story is about Stratcom, not Space Command,

and (2) Nobody claimed pilots were stupid

Between the military and NASA, the US has spent over a trillion dollars on space and missile systems. Why don't we have more to show for it?

Some guys walked on the moon, and we can tell from space when Kim Jong-Il gets a haircut. What else do you want, death rays?

Space Command has not even achieved the level of operability that stupid airplane drivers got with the X-15 in the 1960's. Maybe the reusable aircraft (spacecraft) approach isn't so stupid after all?

Feisty, aren't ya? Nobody said anybody was stupid.

I'm sure if Air Combat established a requirement for a spaceplane and was prepared to let some contracts, Space Command would be happy to help them develop it. Everyone would love an X-15 with cameras and guns, but the benefit doesn't justify the cost. Maybe in 20 years it will.

Posted by Artemus at July 26, 2007 06:01 PM

(A)The story is about Stratcom, not Space Command,

Yes. Do you know who operates space systems for Stratcom?

(2) Nobody claimed pilots were stupid

Then why blame them for the lack of space-based capabilities?

Some guys walked on the moon, and we can tell from space when Kim Jong-Il gets a haircut. What else do you want, death rays?

Why not? Or at least some good precision-guided kinetic energy weapons. The idea that space is only good for reconnaissance and shouldn't be used for warfighting is dangerous and naive, especially when potential enemies like China don't agree.

How many guys have walked on the Moon? Rounded off to the nearest hundred? Did they do anything useful? How many are up there now?

I'm sure if Air Combat established a requirement for a spaceplane and was prepared to let some contracts, Space Command would be happy to help them develop it.

I'm sure you haven't talked to many people at Space Command, if you're sure of that. They have about as much interest in manned spaceflight as JPL does.

Everyone would love an X-15 with cameras and guns, but the benefit doesn't justify the cost. Maybe in 20 years it will.

The cost??? The X-15 cost less to develop than missiles with similar performance. That wasn't 20 years from now, it was 40 years ago.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 26, 2007 06:44 PM

Yes, some feel that pilots are stupid and everything should be automated and run from missile control, but Space Command is not run by "ex-pilots," it's run by missile officers.

No, it isn't. General Chilton is the current commander of Air Force Space Command. He's a former pilot and a former astronaut. General Lord before him was a missileer.

Between the military and NASA, the US has spent over a trillion dollars on space and missile systems. Why don't we have more to show for it? Certainly not because there were a few pilots involved.

Why lump NASA in with the military? They have completely different goals and objectives for space. NASA's primary objective (other than maintaining its payroll) covers things like the Shuttle, ISS, Mars missions, etc. The military goes for operational utility (force enhancement), so they do things like field GPS (navigation & precision timing), DMSP (weather), DSP & SIBRS (launch detection), communications (DSCS-III, UFO, Milstar, etc). There's also a bunch of "national assets" that gather imagery and many other forms of intelligence gathering.

The cost??? The X-15 cost less to develop than missiles with similar performance. That wasn't 20 years from now, it was 40 years ago.

Factor in 40 years of inflation when you're comparing X-15 development costs verses current systems. The military has looked into space planes (manned and unmanned) over the years. None has ever been built. It isn't hard to understand why - they cost too much for the limited military utility you can get from one.

Posted by Larry J at July 27, 2007 03:18 PM

> Space Command is not run by "ex-pilots," it's run by missile officers.

No, it isn't. General Chilton is the current commander of Air Force Space Command. He's a former pilot and a former astronaut.

General Chilton does not run Space Command all by himself.

General Lord before him was a missileer.

Er, how does that prove that Space Command is not run by missile officers? Or that our lack of space capabilities is due to "ex-pilots"?

They have completely different goals and objectives for space. The military goes for operational utility (force enhancement), so they do things like field GPS (navigation & precision timing), DMSP (weather), DSP & SIBRS (launch detection), communications (DSCS-III, UFO, Milstar, etc).

Those are not goals or objectives, they are just supporting tools.

The military's real goal is not communicating, navigating, or predicting the weather. It's breaking things and killing people, to force the enemies of the United States to yield and sue for peace.

>The cost??? The X-15 cost less to develop than missiles with similar performance. That wasn't 20 years from now, it was 40 years ago.

Factor in 40 years of inflation when you're comparing X-15 development costs verses current systems.

I am not comparing the X-15 "verses current systems." Do you think no one developed missiles 40 years ago?

The military has looked into space planes (manned and unmanned) over the years. None has ever been built. It isn't hard to understand why - they cost too much for the limited military utility you can get from one.

I hope you're a high-ranking general in the Chinese Army, if you believe that.

Do some research and you'll discover that spaceplanes were not built for political reasons, not because they have "limited military utility." A low-cost spaceplane that can hit any target on Earth in less than 60 minutes would not have "limited" utility -- unless "limited" means "revolutionary but less than infinite."

As for your claim that spaceplanes would "cost too much," the development two Black Horse spaceplane prototypes was estimated at $96 million (Skunk Works cost model), $118 million (DAPCA IV model), or $120 million (Aerospace Corp).

Please explain to me why $120 million is too much money for the US government to pay for an orbital spaceplane but $120 billion for the International Space Station is a good deal.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 27, 2007 04:49 PM

I never said that the ISS was a good thing but you persist in mixing military space and NASA. They are two very different things. NASA is interested in perpetuating its bureaucracy (and so is the military to an extent). The military is more concerned with national defense.

Arm chair commandoes seem obsessed with wonder weapons and tactics. Military professionals are more concerned with logistics and fielding systems that provide specific capabilities. As a former military professional (milspace) who currently supports Air Force Space Command, I'm telling you that you don't know what you're talking about. Also, the fact that someone served on a missile crew doesn't mean they know all that much about military space operations. I've worked with quite a few people who sported the "pocket rocket". Many were quite good once they were trained on the appropriate space systems. Others, not so much. The ability to follow a checklist (read a step, do a step, eat a banana) and turn a key on que only goes so far when you're trying to fix a malfunctioning satellite.

Military space planes simply don't provide enough utility for the cost despite your sci-fi fantasies. The ability to strike quickly is being investigated with weapons ranging from hypersonic cruise missiles to converted ICBMs/SLBMs. None of them need humans on board.

Posted by Larry J at July 28, 2007 11:42 AM

I never said that the ISS was a good thing but you persist in mixing military space and NASA.

*I* persist in mixing military space and NASA???

Have I argued that we need to send NASA astronauts to the Moon to repel Chinese invaders?

Am I constantly whining about how the US Army spends more money in Iraq than NASA is getting for VSE?

Do I argue that NASA should not have to obey the Launch Service Purchase Act because "the Air Force owns its own fighters"?

I have pointed out repeatedly (and vainly) that NASA is *not* charged with protecting national security and does not have an automatic "entitlement" to equal budgetary treatment with the military services.

Arm chair commandoes seem obsessed with wonder weapons and tactics.

I see. Colonel Jack Wassink (USMC), General Richard C. Zilmer (USMC), Col. Jess Sponable (USAF-ret), General Pete Worden (USAF-ret), are "armchair commandoes" because they disagree with Larry J?

Is that the best you can do, Larry? Argument by namecalling?

As a former military professional (milspace) who currently supports Air Force Space Command, I'm telling you that you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, and the opponents of airpower said the same thing about airplanes.

"The aircraft carrier can never replace the battleship."

"This so-called atomic bomb will never work, and I speak as an expert on explosives."

"Air defense is impossible. The bomber will always get through."

Those who worked on yesterday's weapons often believe they have achieved the ultimate and see no value in anything new.

The ability to follow a checklist (read a step, do a step, eat a banana) and turn a key on que only goes so far when you're trying to fix a malfunctioning satellite.

Actually, Larry, pushing buttons is exactly the way NASA, JPL, and Space Command "fix" malfunctioning satellites. Without affordable access to space, that's all they can do.

Sure, if you're willing to spend $100 million for one air strike. They don't "need" humans on board. They just cost orders of magnitude more money.

Thank you for making my point, Larry. Even if Space Command is headed by a fighter pilot, it's still filled by people who "trained on the appropriate space system" and oppose any change in the status quo, especially if it involves pilots or low-cost access to space. Air Combat Command is a much better bet.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 28, 2007 03:03 PM

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question, Larry. If the United States can afford to spend $120 billion on ISS -- or $120 million on ICBMs for one air strike -- why is $120 million for a reusable spaceplane "too much"?

Why does a low-cost reusable vehicle that can fly global strike missions ten times a week have "limited value" compared to a high-cost expendable vehicle that can only fly one mission during its operational lifetime (and can never be operationally tested without expending it)?

I await your response. (Or, based on your last post, nonresponse. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at July 28, 2007 03:54 PM

Post a comment