SpaceX's Dragon capsule captured by ISS

[GIThruster]

Obviously a limiting factor on how far you scale up the X-37 is how much you're willing to spend on the LV.

IIRC the X37C could still be launched on a AtlasV but without the shroud. Not sure now about what version of the AtlasV either, but I would guess it is a slightly heavier version.

Scaling X-37 is contingent upon several payloads/missions that can't fit in the current toy. since all the intel on the missions is classified, I don't pay much heed to suppositions that X-37 will ever be scaled.

It's obviously true we'd learn a lot by putting a larger vehicle atop an Atlas V with no shroud. The question is, is this sort of thing necessary as relates to the planned missions? X-37 was shrouded and put in service because it was able to provide off the shelf, a remedy to specific needs by DOD. They didn't have an intent to research the vehicle. They are using it to research other things. I'd guess no reason to scale, but one never knows.

[Skipjack]

Code: Select all

I don't pay much heed to suppositions that X-37 will ever be scaled. 

I am not saying that it will ever be done, but Boeing sure has thought about it seriously:
http://www.gizmag.com/x37b-manned-spaceplane/20175/

It's obviously true we'd learn a lot by putting a larger vehicle atop an Atlas V with no shroud.

Well the Dream Chaser will be launched that way pretty soon (probably sooner than a X37C would come online if it ever was built).

[ladajo]

Yesm Boeing has thought about it seriously. I have sat through the Boeing breifs on it. The LV is part of the package as noted.
There are also DOD requirements for upsizing the vehicle and its capabilities. Whether or not the LV package comes along fast enough is another thing.

I have to admit that I had a good chuckle when Joseph compared X-15 and X-series to STS, and then even tossed in the russian vehicle, like it was ever viable as a sustainable system...giggle.

Joseph, whenever you are ready, spin up a list of controlled pin-point landing space vehicles. It will be fun to see what you put on it.

[Skipjack]

At least the Dragon will be able to do powered landing (and pinpoint landing too, according to SpaceX). The orion capsule wont even do that.

[Joseph Chikva]

I have to admit that I had a good chuckle when Joseph compared X-15 and X-series to STS, and then even tossed in the russian vehicle, like it was ever viable as a sustainable system...giggle.

Joseph has not compared but only said that X-15 as well as earlier X-???? and may be also later X-???????? were predecessors of Shuttle. I found good name for this "technology test platform". As if know how to build plane flying at 2M, it is not obvious that you have capability to fly at 5-6M.
Russian vehicle “Buran” now is in a museum in Moscow.
That was quite sustainable system and as I remember allowed even automatic landing - the feature that original Space Shuttle had not.
Nevertheless Russian/Soviets refused from reusable vehicles as they are not at this stage of technology cost-effective and single use launch vehicles technology is well developed in Russia.
Technologically Shuttle technology is in existence in Russia. Certainly, if they not lost that as result of politic perturbation of late 80 - early 2000s. And now Russia has a big problems but tries to prove the contrary.
But Soviet Union had many technologies that even USA had not. Certainly, also that is true that Buran is copy of Shuttle. And Soviets had capabilities to make good copy and even copy may be better than original.

[ladajo]

Joseph, I guess you should then add the Wright Brothers aircraft to the shuttle technology testers. For the record, X-15 was testing materials and flight controls for the Oxcart program and other high speed concept craft. STS was an indirect beneficiary of related research, you know, just like what was learned from Orville and Wilbur.

How many times did Butan fly? How many times did it make orbit? I bet you don't run out of fingers on one hand when you combine those. You think that is demonstrated sustainment?
STS did have automated flight control which were capable of landing. Lots of aircraft do. Nothing special there. Hell, we can even do it on CVNs, and have been able to do so for years and years.

I am also sure that the Soviets (and Russians) have made up many stories about techology they claimed to have but did not. I am also sure that they copied many things and probably not for the better.
Interestingly, my recent (continued) work with some senior russian military officers lent to a discussion that brought them to say that they thought US officers were not as good because our systems were so good that our guys do not have to think, whereas the russian systems are not good, and it makes them use their heads more. Of course they miss the point that our guys are more free to think about the fight vice thinking about the shot. But that is an entirely different discussion that centers on something still missing from former Soviet Block military culture, which would be the concept of initiative.

[Joseph Chikva]

jhgf

[Joseph Chikva]

How many times did Butan fly? How many times did it make orbit? I bet you don't run out of fingers on one hand when you combine those. You think that is demonstrated sustainment?
STS did have automated flight control which were capable of landing. Lots of aircraft do. Nothing special there. Hell, we can even do it on CVNs, and have been able to do so for years and years.

You are right about short term of Buran (not Butan) operation.
But you are wrong that in 80s of last century Soviet Union had less capabilities in building of Space or high speed aerodynamic flight platforms.
Automatic landing capability was not trivial only in that tome (80s). At this moment all UAVs and even some hobby aircraft models has such capabilities.

I am also sure that the Soviets (and Russians) have made up many stories about techology they claimed to have but did not.

Right in many aspects. Not right in all.

I am also sure that they copied many things and probably not for the better.

Many innovations in military branch USA has copied from SU, Nazi Germany. Etc. Quick example is IFV concept for high speed motorized infantry invasion. Whose innovation?
What origin have machine guns used in US infantry inventory? Not Belgium (FN Herstall)?
M249 = Minimi, M240 = FN MAG, M2 forgot original name

Interestingly, my recent (continued) work with some senior russian military officers lent to a discussion that brought them to say that they thought US officers were not as good because our systems were so good that our guys do not have to think, whereas the russian systems are not good, and it makes them use their heads more. Of course they miss the point that our guys are more free to think about the fight vice thinking about the shot. But that is an entirely different discussion that centers on something still missing from former Soviet Block military culture, which would be the concept of initiative.

I heard those fairy tails many times. The truth about the Soviet (Russian) military culture is the following: in 1941 to captivity got more Soviet soldiers than number of the invased Germans. Despite to a permanent superiority in quantity Soviets started to win when Stalin started to shoot the running.
The biggest Russian military secret is that Russia has been rotten through from top to the bottom.
To my regret my country despite to loud statements of our President wasn't ready to win that not so numerous and rotted-through army in 2008. But instead our soldiers are wared similar to NATO soldier and llok nice in parads.

Pardon I had mistaken on M2 Originally M2 was developped in USA by John Browning. He has dead in 1926 while

FN Herstal has manufactured the M2 machine gun since the 1930s

But I see the trend in US military to use the best solutions from around the world.
Also statement of your Russian friends that they have better officers but worse equipment is wrong as:
-US army and therefor its officers has more real tadoy's battle experience gained in many expeditionary operation around the world,
-US e.g. pilots make more hours in the sky while each Russian pilot has only 20-30 hours,
-US officers have better training equipment,
-and human factor - US nation is more healthy then heavily drinking Russians.

[ladajo]

Joseph,
I did not say that they have officers that think better. I said "They said". I also did not say I agreed with the analysis. I made the point that our (US) officers think about different things, given that technology frees them from details.
The key take away is that these guys (cold war experienced, all of them) feel and felt that US systems have always been better. Both in capability and reliability. They also noted that ironically, they knew more about US systems than Soviet/Russian systems due to training over the years. It speaks to the thought that the Soviets and now Russians are/have been pathologically obsessed with US systems and a feeling of inferiority they maintain.
These guys are former operators as well, they are not staff minions. For example, one was a cold war Akula Attack Submarine Commander.

By the way, the US has maintained automated landing system capability for aircraft for decades, and that includes the 80s. It is not hard once you figure out how. An interesting point I have heard from aviators is that they preferred to land manual on carriers due to two points, one was that they wanted to be practiced in case the auto system was down, the other was that the auto system was too good and tended to wear a hole in the flight deck coatings where the hook hit when using it.

I never said that the Soviets/Russians were/are not capable of building space systems or high speed flight platforms. I did say that they are not capable, I do maintain that they have not EVER fielded better systems. Equal, well a big maybe, in in very specific cases only. Better, NEVER. And when you start talking about better, as I know you will, you will need to clearly define what you mean when you say "better".

As far as the US copying technology. Yes, absolutely, and in most cases, we had the guy(s) himself do it. But, I am not sure that is a copy, vice a development. The US has also been in the habit of paying folks to develop stuff, vice the Soviet/Russian model of stealing it.

Can you tell me something the US has stolen and used to make our own?
I can tell you a large number of things the Soviets/Russians and Chinese have stolen, and continue to try and steal.

[Joseph Chikva]

Joseph,
I did not say that they have officers that think better. I said "They said". I also did not say I agreed with the analysis. I made the point that our (US) officers think about different things, given that technology frees them from details.
The key take away is that these guys (cold war experienced, all of them) feel and felt that US systems have always been better. Both in capability and reliability. They also noted that ironically, they knew more about US systems than Soviet/Russian systems due to training over the years. It speaks to the thought that the Soviets and now Russians are/have been pathologically obsessed with US systems and a feeling of inferiority they maintain.
These guys are former operators as well, they are not staff minions. For example, one was a cold war Akula Attack Submarine Commander.

By the way, the US has maintained automated landing system capability for aircraft for decades, and that includes the 80s. It is not hard once you figure out how. An interesting point I have heard from aviators is that they preferred to land manual on carriers due to two points, one was that they wanted to be practiced in case the auto system was down, the other was that the auto system was too good and tended to wear a hole in the flight deck coatings where the hook hit when using it.

I never said that the Soviets/Russians were/are not capable of building space systems or high speed flight platforms. I did say that they are not capable, I do maintain that they have not EVER fielded better systems. Equal, well a big maybe, in in very specific cases only. Better, NEVER. And when you start talking about better, as I know you will, you will need to clearly define what you mean when you say "better".

As far as the US copying technology. Yes, absolutely, and in most cases, we had the guy(s) himself do it. But, I am not sure that is a copy, vice a development. The US has also been in the habit of paying folks to develop stuff, vice the Soviet/Russian model of stealing it.

Can you tell me something the US has stolen and used to make our own?
I can tell you a large number of things the Soviets/Russians and Chinese have stolen, and continue to try and steal.

I also do not say "better". As "good" "worse" should be considered in the frame of concept of use. Speaking about Shuttle Buran I say that both are very similar conceptually. Was Shuttle better? I do not know. And I am sure that nobody knows. As we can assume that Shuttle program was inexpediently expensive but because that was USA brand, it was very difficult for USA people to refuse that. As I mentioned I have read academician Pheoktistov's estimation on 1 kg launch cost something about 30 USD. I think that Shuttle always was too far for that desired goal.
Russians have refused from Buran very easily because that was not their brand product.
Could everything develop according to such scenario or not?

I know their (Russians) promotional slogans about their weapon systems developed in best cases in 80s but as a rule much ager: "no analogs in the world" (about everything), "almost impregnable" mostly about their tanks), etc. These all are for two target group of listeners: internal listeners who should be proud with their native and also for prospective customers who mainly are Arab leaders or Venezuela, etc. And average Russian believes that their e.g. T-90 are much capable than e.g. M1.

But they really have some capable weapon systems. I see that you are high rank Navy officer. What do you think about their anti-ship missiles? Not a serious threat for any Navy? I do not think that those better than Harpoon. But velocity of some models is higher at terminal phase. And, so, may be better. And may be not.

They have stolen many things including Nuke bomb but I also can say you that I know many very qualified engineers who can perform any task needlessly to steal from anybody ideas. But political and economical system in Russia is rotten from the top to the bottom.

[ladajo]

Was Shuttle better? I do not know. And I am sure that nobody knows

STS was better. It flew operationally, Buran did not. Ever.

Yes, the Soviets/Russians have made some good systems. They are "famous" for ASCMs. They like fast, as tey understand it always becomes a question of the clock with modern systems. But they also understand how hard it is to beat AEGIS/SPY and the supporting systems.
This could be a reason that they keep coming up with "newer & better" systems, whereas the US has maintained a core family of weapons/sensors for a while now. We have added some gloss here and there around the edges and trim, but the core funtionality remains the same. And it is regarded by all as the best there is. Can you identify better?

As for Harpoon, it is a very good weapon. The newest variant is really smart. The folks it would most likely be shot at do not really have good defense. However, we have found although useful, it is not fully neccessary in a fight. There are many other easier and more effective ways to defeat the target set it addresses. Although I will admit that this point is argued both ways by many. I, personally, am a Harpoon advocate. I am also a TASM advocate. I would love to see it come back.
All that said, the new ASCM being worked on by us is a purdy darn slick looking system. Add that to the hypersonics work, and ohhhh my. For the record, the russians are way behind on hypersonics, and they know it. So are the chinese. That is one lane that I think really makes them nervous about where we are going. They have much to worry on these days based on what is in the public realm on US Defense RDT&E. As my Russian colleagues have noted, "just when we think we are getting a grip on what you guys are doing, you go and change all the rules, again."
And this is what cost them the cold war. They could not afford to keep up. SDI was a success. The added burden it and other US military systems placed on Societ planners and aquisitions was in the end bankrupting.

[Joseph Chikva]

STS was better. It flew operationally, Buran did not. Ever.

At least STS is not operational today. When necessity for USA to space access still remains and may be even grew. To what it testifies?
Not that in world economic crisis conditions all including USA are compelled to spend money more economically and prefer to use cheaper in operation system? As I know the main goal of Shuttle program was to achieve cheap access. Have you data of launch cost of unit of mass at the same orbit for STS and for single use launch vehicles as well? As I am sure that only cost effectiveness and as Mr 9….3 said safety factor” were the reasons why program was canceled.

Yes, the Soviets/Russians have made some good systems. They are "famous" for ASCMs. They like fast, as tey understand it always becomes a question of the clock with modern systems. But they also understand how hard it is to beat AEGIS/SPY and the supporting systems.
This could be a reason that they keep coming up with "newer & better" systems, whereas the US has maintained a core family of weapons/sensors for a while now. We have added some gloss here and there around the edges and trim, but the core funtionality remains the same. And it is regarded by all as the best there is. Can you identify better?

From my layman's side of viwe offensing side needs lees quantity of faster missiles for saturation of warhip/warship formation's missile defense system.
Distinction of approaches is difficult be not to noticing. While the USA maintain the proved systems long up to their obsolescence, Russian constantly try to create the new. I think that this is only for keeping work places in their design beuros and attempt to keep today’s already very weak technology level.
USA constantly improves systems during their life cycle so they quite meet modern requirements. And at Russian the impression is made that weapon systems are left constantly unfinished.
It is remembered to me that for example the Ministry of Defence of India was extremely dissatisfied with Smerch MLRS systems and they need operated guided artillery shells, bought the first contract - 3000 Krasnopol shells and then didn't prolong the contract for more quantity.

And this is what cost them the cold war. They could not afford to keep up. SDI was a success. The added burden it and other US military systems placed on Societ planners and aquisitions was in the end bankrupting.

This is your side of view from outside. My impression seeing all from inside differs from yours. Stalin created politic system working effectively only the leader is Stalin or person like Stalin.
As soon as the grasp of the power weakened system started to rot, decayed 30 years and then fell. It didn't fall in 40 years when Germans reached Moscow, it exhausted by the hardest war didn't fall in 1945 when Truman with a hint showed to Stalin what he made with two Japanese cities. But it fell with a minimum of external influence when decayed from within enough. As Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev weren't Stalin. The Soviet Union and today's Russia too are very eclectic formations which can't be held together without Stalin methods.

[ladajo]

Yes, I agree the initial systemic corruption and resulting rot took a firm permanent hold at the beginning, and then grew exponentially over time. The drama was in context of a global environment. If not for the global pressures of trying to compete with the west and in particular the US, the Soviets would have remained something of a North Korea Hermit Kingdom. It was not the choice made by them in the final maneuvers. It could have been, but was not.

War, and armed conflict is always a contest of resources. These resources are varied and include human capital. But at the end, they are resources and when used more effectively and efficiently than the other guy, it leads to terms favorable for your side.
The idea that you have on less missiles needed when they are "faster" is a very simplistic view of a layman as you noted. Then end result of the balance is that they think that in order to achieve saturation it takes tthe same or more of a more capable missile. Thus are pressed to keep striving to tilt the balance as they see it in thier favor. Soviet/Russian modern designs are not "easy" to beat, but they are not impossible either. Especially when one makes the operational space inclusive of all points in the chain. In professional terminology, this is know as the "full kill chain". And it could include the mines where mineral ore is sourced, to the storage, proccessing, transportation, manufacturing, storage, transport, mounting systems, supporting systems targeting, command and control, logistics, and anything else that is somehow required to get the weapon to its target in an effective manner. The is called a systems analysis approach to seeking the center of gravity of a capability or effect at the tactical level. You would be very surprised to know how much of an insurmountable burden this approach to warfare places on the other side. Inevitably a critical node or center of gravity is uncovered, that can be exposed and defeated that collapses the entire kill chain. This is why the soviets/russians lost. They came to the final conclusion they could not manage resources to beat the US/Western capabilities and achieve a favorable outcome. We kept holding them at risk in most all lanes, and they could no longer "afford" to "protect" themselves using the then current model.
In simple terms, consider that SDI, like missile defense systems today could be considerd effective against a low percentage of total fired weapons. In weaponeering and targeting terms that means an incremental increase in required number of weapons to achieve goals. Now consider that you do not exactly know which targets are being defended, and how robustly. That in turn means that you will need to up your weapons count for all targets in your set to ensure your goals. That in turn exponentially increases required resources, to gain the weapons, and field them. Which in turn creates exponential burdens on your entire system, as well as places an ever increasing number of critical nodes at greater risk, in turn requiring further defense, in turn requiring further resources...etc, etc, etc.
This simple explanation shows you how a small but effective improvement in defensive systems can lead to massive burden increases on the attacking side.

[Joseph Chikva]

In simple terms, consider that SDI, like missile defense systems today could be considerd effective against a low percentage of total fired weapons.

Are you not too optimistic on today US technology level? Are you really believe that AEGIS, THAAD, Patriot shield and several tens GBI in Europe capable intercept significant part of simultaneously launched thousands Russian or Chinese or even hundreds North Korean ballistic missiles with nuke warheads? As again in my layman’s opinion in the best case only not more than 10% will be intercepted.

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was proposed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983,[1] to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles. The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the United States Department of Defense to oversee the Strategic Defense Initiative.
The ambitious initiative was widely criticized as being unrealistic, even unscientific….

I think (sure) that reason of decaying of SU is more prosaic – national tensions between compact living there people when e.g. me – Georgian began thinking that State forcing my children to give advantage not to my native language but to Russian (the process beginning in 70s) is not my country. Soviet Union became like Frankenstein with organs rejection problems.

[ladajo]

You miss my entire point.

Pay attention, and read it again.

10% intercept rate is brutal and crushing to the attacking planners.

5% is also brutal.

3% as well.

The entire point is that you do not need to be 100% effective to drastically impact the efforts of the other side. In fact, as it turns out, you can be less than 10% effective and dramatically impact the efforts of the other side.