Airborne Launch Assist Space Access

[fredinno]

On Mon Feb 09 2015 15:43:52 GMT-0800, GoSlash27 said:

The problem with using recon sats is that everybody knows when they'll be overhead. They're easy to dodge and spoof.

Putting a recon sat in orbit on short notice can can catch an opponent off guard, allowing you to catch activity you otherwise wouldn't.

That's enough reason for the Air Force to move ahead with this proposal.

Best,

-Slashy

There already are LVs that can do this.

[fredinno]

On Mon Feb 09 2015 15:43:52 GMT-0800, GoSlash27 said:

10 minutes ago, Kryten said:

The point is cost and responsiveness. Minotaur is $10million+, SPARK barely any better, and both still need orders months in advance.

 

Minotaur and SPARK are supposed to launch quickly and on-demand, being funded by an office dedicated to making that happen for the DOD. They probably could launch quickly if the DOD needed them too- it would be more difficult though.

And I doubt this system will be much cheaper

Edited November 30, 2015 by fredinno

[Kryten]

11 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Minotaur and SPARK are supposed to launch quickly and on-demand, being funded by an office dedicated to making that happen for the DOD. They probably could launch quickly if the DOD needed them too- it would be more difficult though.

And I doubt this system will be much cheaper

 Yes, they're supposed to be able to launch within a few weeks of the order being given. Minotaur doesn't, and SPARK doesn't even work and will probably be cancelled.  How are you working for the cost, anyway? It's a 1.5 stage vehicle with a GLOW maybe a ton, versus a 36 ton 4 stage vehicle and a 27 ton 3 stage vehicle, that has to count for quite a lot.

[fredinno]

 

Just now, Kryten said:

 Yes, they're supposed to be able to launch within a few weeks of the order being given. Minotaur doesn't, and SPARK doesn't even work and will probably be cancelled.  How are you working for the cost, anyway? It's a 1.5 stage vehicle with a GLOW maybe a ton, versus a 36 ton 4 stage vehicle and a 27 ton 3 stage vehicle, that has to count for quite a lot.

Minotaur 1 can carry 6x as much as thus system, and SPARK, 3x. The cost per pound is probably lower, and both are still small enough  to be useful for small/cubesats. Minotaur doesn't even need to build most of its own parts- it uses mostly Minuteman IBM stages. SPARK is also still in development- the company making it said there would be a high chance of failure on the first flight anyways. 

[Kryten]

Again, the target for this is $1 million, if it gets anything close to that it'll be Minotaur and SPARK by miles for payloads in that category.

[fredinno]

20 minutes ago, Kryten said:

Again, the target for this is $1 million, if it gets anything close to that it'll be Minotaur and SPARK by miles for payloads in that category.

I'm  still doubtful about the system- how would they reduce the costs?

[Rakaydos]

6 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I'm  still doubtful about the system- how would they reduce the costs?

It's probably not the entire discount, but...

Eliminate launchpad support costs- it's launching form a normal runway who's costs are already figured into normal operations.

 

[Kryten]

Launch and range control would be mostly automated; that's a lot of highly paid people eliminated versus a normal launch.

[Shpaget]

Seriously, who cares about the cost? If it's a spy sat that needs to be in orbit in 12 hours, the cost is the last thing that someone will worry about. With the budget of more than 600 billion, what is a few million to launch a sat?

This is useful only if there is no alternative to launch immediately. However, I fail to see why would there be such a rush. If they can have a variety of payloads waiting in some storage for a hypothetical situation where there is a need for a speedy launch, they can just as well have couple of solid rockets mothballed with only their upper stages empty and in need for preparation for the launch, something that can be done just as fast as this airplane assisted thing.

[Jovus]

58 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Seriously, who cares about the cost? If it's a spy sat that needs to be in orbit in 12 hours, the cost is the last thing that someone will worry about. With the budget of more than 600 billion, what is a few million to launch a sat?

This is useful only if there is no alternative to launch immediately. However, I fail to see why would there be such a rush. If they can have a variety of payloads waiting in some storage for a hypothetical situation where there is a need for a speedy launch, they can just as well have couple of solid rockets mothballed with only their upper stages empty and in need for preparation for the launch, something that can be done just as fast as this airplane assisted thing.

Um, I do, for one. Less money spent per launch means more money spent elsewhere means a more effective fighting force. The difference between <$1M per launch and >$40M per launch is also the difference between, "Let's husband these and use them only when we feel we really need to," and, "Screw it, throw one up to see what's there and corroborate our intel," i.e. the difference between soldiers dying and living.

 

As for possible reasons for the cost-saving:

These planes are already on-station and require no special modification or training not already dedicated to other missions. That's a big one right there.

Facilities require no modification and no training beyond normal take-off procedures. That's another big one, right there.

 

Beside all that, what is this, Grinchmas? So DARPA's working to 'duplicate' the work of other people (which I don't think is true, but I'll grant for the sake of argument): why are we upset that there might be three microlaunch platforms instead of two? Aren't more platforms better?

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Kryten said:

Launch and range control would be mostly automated; that's a lot of highly paid people eliminated versus a normal launch.

Yes, but SPARK is also automating range control (I don't know about Minotaur)

[fredinno]

7 minutes ago, Jovus said:

Um, I do, for one. Less money spent per launch means more money spent elsewhere means a more effective fighting force. The difference between <$1M per launch and >$40M per launch is also the difference between, "Let's husband these and use them only when we feel we really need to," and, "Screw it, throw one up to see what's there and corroborate our intel," i.e. the difference between soldiers dying and living.

 

As for possible reasons for the cost-saving:

These planes are already on-station and require no special modification or training not already dedicated to other missions. That's a big one right there.

Facilities require no modification and no training beyond normal take-off procedures. That's another big one, right there.

 

Beside all that, what is this, Grinchmas? So DARPA's working to 'duplicate' the work of other people (which I don't think is true, but I'll grant for the sake of argument): why are we upset that there might be three microlaunch platforms instead of two? Aren't more platforms better?

My question is why DOD is pursuing so many (unless they plan to launch giant constellations of these things)

Actually, I was wrong, Minotaur 1 launches 12x as much as this thing (I thought it launched 100 kg instead of 100 lbs, which is about 50kg), meaning that it is actually MORE expensive per kg.

[Jovus]

Because that's what DARPA does. It pursues hundreds of different projects, only a handful of which ever come to fruition.

 

As to whether that's a good thing, well...I suspect it depends where you are on the contractor -- taxpayer axis.

[Shpaget]

This is not something that is launched on a daily basis. It's for emergencies, occasions that happen once in a decade or even less frequently.

You still need to store the rocket and whatever fuels it. There is very little difference in storing this small rocket and storing a bigger one. All the personnel, equipment and security you need for the big one, you also need for the small one.

[Rakaydos]

45 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

This is not something that is launched on a daily basis. It's for emergencies, occasions that happen once in a decade or even less frequently.

You still need to store the rocket and whatever fuels it. There is very little difference in storing this small rocket and storing a bigger one. All the personnel, equipment and security you need for the big one, you also need for the small one.

Well, a smaller rocket can be stored in a smaller, easier to guard room.