DARPA Hypersonic Program Axed

[Hielor]

It's not about capsule design. It's the entire program-- going back to the moon. Been there, done that, sorry Charlie.

Good point, we've already been to the moon. Let's not go back there. Heck, we've already been to LEO. Let's not go there anymore either.

Where do you propose we go, if not the moon? Mars? Yes, let's go establish a permanent human residence on Mars without having any experience with offworld colonies.

Apollo going to the moon was, essentially, a stunt. The primary purpose was to win the space race. Constellation going back intends to actually be useful.

What SRBs have to do with this is a mystery to me.

The Ares I uses a modified shuttle SRB as its first stage. Or are you happy to insult the rocket without even knowing anything about it?

Sure the Ares I has issues right now. Guess what? All launchers do at this phase in their development.

That's exactly what I said. Were you agreeing?

It's more like: "It's a waste of my tax money because Apollo already did everything Constellation is planning to do."

And Mir already did everything the ISS is planning to do. Better just scuttle it, a station in LEO is so 80s.

The only non-proven systems you seem to be complaining about are the Falcon rockets used by SpaceX.

I'm referring to those "cool" systems that the Anti-Constellation crowd says we should be using instead.

A SpaceX launch would be about $19.2 million, if I recall correctly. And no more jumping through the hoops of government bureaucracy, either.

Well, if you consider that they only succeed 25% of the time, that brings it to $80 million, but anyway. Plus, why do you care about SpaceX? They're just going to LEO, and as you mentioned, there's no point in going there anymore because we've already been there.

And it's still a waste of my money.

So move to another country. You know, one that hasn't been one of the two leaders in "conquering" space since humans first went there.

 

[tblaxland]

It's more like: "It's a waste of my tax money because Apollo already did everything Constellation is planning to do."

Constellation Program officially includes a permanently manned lunar outpost phase so it is a bit more than Apollo.

 

[GregBurch]

OKEY DOKEY ... the informed criticism of Ares has NOTHING to do with an absence of "cool" and everything to do with:

1. Ares I is a NASA jobs program to build a rocket that won't do anything that existing RLVs either already can do or could have done for a lot less money.

2. Ares V is a super-heavy lifter we don't need. One thing NASA's proven is that it can do with ISS is on-orbit construction. Why launch everything at once on a super-duper heavy lifter when you could launch components and assemble them with smaller rockets? (There's AN answer to this, but it's not satisfying to me and lots of other people.)

3. The "moon base" envisioned in the Constellation/VSE program is far from real infrastructure on the moon. It really is "Apollo on steroids" and won't put enough people on the moon for long enough to do more than extended scientific survey work. That's a good thing, but it sure as heck isn't a "moon base," much less a "space colony."

4. A reusable LEO-lunar shuttle could have and should have been a goal of a real technology development program, a la TTM in 24 hours. NASA's not doing real "technology development" with Constellation -- just engineering and congressional pork.

5. The CTV has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk. More shrinking will follow, if the program is kept on life support. Why does NASA even need to be in the business of building a CTV at this point? It's proven technology. Why shouldn't the government buy the service from industry?

That's off the top of my head after a long day of work-work.

 

[Andy44]

Everything Greg said +1. Especially the part about NASA not developing new technology. That is NASA's mission! If a government agency can't even perform its mission it is wasting money.

NASA's job was not to ferry government employees back and forth from the sky. It was, ostensibly, to pool resources and focus development on new aeronautical and spaceflight technologies, which would then be made public domain for private industry to use.

Of course this was always a cover for NASA's real mission, which was to build "prestige" for diplomatic and ideological reasons having to do with the Cold War. Since there is no Cold War anymore and NASA, like all government agencies, wants to maintain its size and budget, they came up with Constellation, a massive jobs program.

The difference between NASA and SpaceX is very simple: NASA gets Congress to take my money against my will so they can waste it on boondoggles without fear of real consequences. SpaceX asks nicely for people to invest, and understands that if they don't deliver, they will eventually go out of business. It's the difference between voluntary and compulsory.


-----Posted Added-----


Let me add, though, that I disagree with Greg on the need for a heavy lifter. If you're going to build things in orbit, better to build them in bigger chunks. This saves on the mass penalty incurred by joints and fittings, and allows you to launch bigger diameter payloads when necessary. In fact, my problem with Ares V is not that it's too big, but that it's not big enough, and that it doesn't show much hope for growth. The Saturn V, by comparison, had planned upgrades that would have more than doubled it's payload capacity.

 

[Eagle]

Meh, Congress thinks they don't need Hypersonic planes. And they don't, yet. Maybe they'll reconsider if Russia or some other country develops a hypersonic or suborbital attack plane. But then again, military hardware is shifting towards asymmetric, regional warfare where extreme speed or range is less of an issue.

So to sum up: Slightly Disappointed Meh

 

[Linguofreak]

Meh, Congress thinks they don't need Hypersonic planes. And they don't, yet. Maybe they'll reconsider if Russia or some other country develops a hypersonic or suborbital attack plane. But then again, military hardware is shifting towards asymmetric, regional warfare where extreme speed or range is less of an issue.

So to sum up: Slightly Disappointed Meh

The problem is that military aircraft already have the speed and range they need even without going to asymetrical regional warfare, and, to the best I can tell, ICBMs already pretty much fill the role that this DARPA project was meant to fill. If Russia develops a hypersonic attack plane, it will be just as much of a waste of money for them as it was for us.

The problem with hypersonics is that while they're cool, and if R&D money were put into them they might really shine in the long term, they don't actually have much practical application in the short term that isn't already covered by existing technologies, and so they'd probably just be a big money sink for decades at least.

 

[simonpro]

My friend, I'd love to agree with you. On even-numbered days, I'm tempted to suspend my doubts and believe that those donuts on a rope mean something ... but then on odd-numbered days, I remove my tin-foil hat ... :lol:

It's less to do with donuts on a rope and all that stuff, more to do with a few rumors floating around (which I guess you could label as tin foil hat-like) and particularly to do with the Brits.
The British/Aussie scramjet program is pretty far advanced, and it had an absolutely miniscule budget, yet they've still built and tested a scramjet several times.
The US budget is at minimum 50ish times larger and they're always heading out to the pacific to fire things around from planes. Based solely on budget and testing I'd be incredibyl surprised if they didn't have something to show for it.
Could be wrong, though, maybe the budget went into pen-pushing

Constellation half-baked? What's wrong with the Constellation program? And do you have a better idea?

Greg's response sums up what I think (probably one of the few things we agree on!) so I'll just add that even from a gut level the entire thing seems wrong. I really hate the concept of an hodge-bodge mix of shuttle components and new technology, that isn't a step forward and NASA needs to take a step forward. I see no problem with them ferrying government employees around the place just as long as they develop or improve some technology to do so.

 

[tl8]

It's less to do with donuts on a rope and all that stuff, more to do with a few rumors floating around (which I guess you could label as tin foil hat-like) and particularly to do with the Brits.
The British/Aussie scramjet program is pretty far advanced, and it had an absolutely miniscule budget, yet they've still built and tested a scramjet several times.

See what happens when you hire uni students. They are the best cost cutters (like never filling up the petrol tank past 1/3 full)

 

[AstroCam]

Read Strike Force and Shadow Command by Dale Brown.. XR-A9 Black Stallion SSTO Spacebomber/Recon servicing a revitalised 1980s era space station thats controlling Hypersonic Kinetic impact missiles launched from an unmanned B1-B Excalibur, to take out an insurgent rocket launcher mounted on the back of a truck.
Ah, the awesomeness.

That said, After reading about the XR-A9 I'm suprised that someone hasn't seriously researched a similar vehicle. It takes off under its own power, does a mid-air refuelling to top up the fuel tanks and load the oxidiser (BOHM I believe its called - a noncryogenic oxdiser thats more efficent that LOX), tops up the fuel again, then fires its combined cycle turbofan/ram/scramjet engines to boost itself to orbit.
Not much paylod, 1.8tonnes max, but this is more than enough to deliver crew to a station, or drop a spread of four kinetic re-entry vehicles on a target.

I really recon aerial refuelling of the spaceplanes would be a major step to SSTO winged vehicles. Any comments?

 

[simonpro]

tl8, problem with uni students is they only ever do half the bloody work before they go for a beer

 

[tl8]

tl8, problem with uni students is they only ever do half the bloody work before they go for a beer

Ahhh, is that my problem.

I'm off to the pub.

 

[AstroCam]

You know, despite the fact i spend most of my time in uni in the room ABOVE the pub, i've never actually been there. I should probably get my ethanol tank examined...

 

[Andy44]

A hypersonic aircraft has lots of military utility. It's harder to shoot down and moves so fast the other side may not have time to react. Many modern antiship missiles are hypersonic for that reason. The problem with hypersonic aircraft is that even if you get one to work it has to be cheap enough to operate and maintain.

 

[Linguofreak]

A hypersonic aircraft has lots of military utility. It's harder to shoot down and moves so fast the other side may not have time to react. Many modern antiship missiles are hypersonic for that reason. The problem with hypersonic aircraft is that even if you get one to work it has to be cheap enough to operate and maintain.

The problem is that for applications where that high speed is needed, hypersonic missiles do the job just fine for less cost (eliminating the pilot, and thus life support costs and many minimum size requirements makes missiles invariably cheaper than planes), and that when something other than high speed is needed, especially things like loiter time, normal aircraft do as good or better than hypersonics, again for less cost.

 

[eveningsky339]

Good point, we've already been to the moon. Let's not go back there. Heck, we've already been to LEO. Let's not go there anymore either.

:blahblah:

Where do you propose we go, if not the moon? Mars? Yes, let's go establish a permanent human residence on Mars without having any experience with offworld colonies.

Putting words in my mouth, I see.

Apollo going to the moon was, essentially, a stunt. The primary purpose was to win the space race. Constellation going back intends to actually be useful.

Not when the design is basically a bigger Apollo capsule.

The Ares I uses a modified shuttle SRB as its first stage. Or are you happy to insult the rocket without even knowing anything about it?

Oh, I know what the Ares I rocket is. I don't care if we launch 10000 Ares rockets (though at the current state those things are nothing short of dangerous). The problem is the goals of the program.

That's exactly what I said. Were you agreeing?

:hmm: Don't know how that got there. No, I wasn't agreeing.

And Mir already did everything the ISS is planning to do. Better just scuttle it, a station in LEO is so 80s.

The ISS currently isn't doing much, actually.

I'm referring to those "cool" systems that the Anti-Constellation crowd says we should be using instead.

The "cool" systems are "cool" because they are "better" than the archaic flame-belching towers of Babel we are still relying on. Even SpaceX hasn't done much in this regard.

Well, if you consider that they only succeed 25% of the time, that brings it to $80 million, but anyway. Plus, why do you care about SpaceX? They're just going to LEO, and as you mentioned, there's no point in going there anymore because we've already been there.

Remind me when I said we should stay out of LEO. If I have not said such a thing (which I haven't), then that means you are putting words in my mouth just to fuel your attacks, and thus you are acting like an insolent child.

So move to another country. You know, one that hasn't been one of the two leaders in "conquering" space since humans first went there.

America has been to space in the past. How wonderful. Let's forsake the future and reminisce...

 

[tl8]

Guys please try and stay remotely on topic