kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) (03/30/91)
From: kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) I look on the articles about the missile launches out of cargo planes with interest. Could they possibly have been "feasability tests" for the Pegasus rocket project? The Pegasus is supposed to be able to put satellite- sized payloads into orbit after launching from a B-52. I seem to recall an article in the newspaper several years ago (3 or 4) in which the Soviets were throwing a fit over it. Consider: 1) The Air Force could lauch a new Keyhole so long as they have a Pegasus, they can launch it almost *anywhere*, and whenever they want it. 2) Why limit it to satellites. Weapon potential is obvious from the fact that ICBM's have been launched from aircraft. I don't remember many numbers on it, although I'm sure some basic numbers were released at some point. Anyone want to fill in the gaps there? I know it couldn't launch, say, a KH-13 or anything, but some of the earlier Keyholes could be put up I'm sure. Mark Kinney kinney@wku.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/31/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) > I look on the articles about the missile launches out of cargo planes >with interest. Could they possibly have been "feasability tests" for the >Pegasus rocket project? No, they are quite unrelated. Pegasus is a civilian, commercial project that owes much more to the X-15. The launch technique used for the C-5/Minuteman test -- roll the thing out the rear door, let it stabilize vertically under a drogue parachute, then light the fire -- bears little resemblance to Pegasus's horizontal launch. And the C-5/Minuteman work was a military project 10+ years ago, while Pegasus was developed by Orbital Sciences and Hercules, starting only about three years ago. > 1) The Air Force could lauch a new Keyhole so long as they have a >Pegasus, they can launch it almost *anywhere*, and whenever they want it. Uh, no go, sorry. Pegasus's payload is two orders of magnitude smaller than any of the current spysats. There *is* military interest in it, but a new generation of much smaller satellites will be needed. Pegasus's payload depends on the orbit, but the best case is a few hundred kilograms. > 2) Why limit it to satellites. Weapon potential is obvious from the >fact that ICBM's have been launched from aircraft. Launching ballistic missiles from aircraft long pre-dates any of this. The Skybolt medium-range ALBM was flying in the early 1960s; it was the intended primary armament of the B-52H. It had some development problems, but politics and the decline of the manned bomber had much more to do with its cancellation than technical difficulties. -- "The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 are all true." -D. Harrison| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
DWN102@psuvm.psu.edu (04/01/91)
From: DWN102@psuvm.psu.edu In article <1991Mar30.020340.27985@amd.com>, kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) says: > 1) The Air Force could lauch a new Keyhole so long as they have a >Pegasus, they can launch it almost *anywhere*, and whenever they want it. I don't think the Pegasus is capable of launching large loads into space. The last I heard small satellites were all it can launch. The KH-11/12 sate- llites are reported to be upwards of 20tons and the size of a schoolbus. The only thing vehicles currently capable of putting these into orbit are the Titan IV and the Space Shuttle. The new heavy lift rocket currently being designed by NASA to supplement the shuttle should also be able to handle the Keyholes. > 2) Why limit it to satellites. Weapon potential is obvious from the >fact that ICBM's have been launched from aircraft. Though the MX was tested from a C-5A I believe, why would you want to do this? In addition to buying several hundred ICBM's you would also have to buy and maintain quite a few aircraft to carry these missiles. Also would these planes be able to launch in all types of weather? I think it would be alot cheaper to plant the ICBM's in the ground. David Bancroft dwn102@psuvm.psu.edu
mcdowell@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Jonathan McDowell) (04/01/91)
From: mcdowell@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Jonathan McDowell) kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) writes: > I look on the articles about the missile launches out of cargo planes >with interest. Could they possibly have been "feasability tests" for the >Pegasus rocket project? [....] I >know it couldn't launch, say, a KH-13 or anything, but some of the earlier >Keyholes could be put up I'm sure. Wrong. Even the earliest KH satellites of 1959 were too heavy to fly on Pegasus, it can only launch very small satellites. There is interest in developing a small hi-tech observation satellite that could be Pegasus launched, but there isn't one yet. Pegasus is launched under the wing of the B-52 and derives more from the X-15 and lifting body experience than from missile drops from cargo planes. Jonathan McDowell (any reply by email please, I dont normally read this group)
PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu (04/12/91)
From: <PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu> >From: kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) >Pegasus rocket project? The Pegasus is supposed to be able to put satellite- >sized payloads into orbit after launching from a B-52. I seem to recall an Consider: >1) The Air Force could lauch a new Keyhole so long as they have a >Pegasus, they can launch it almost *anywhere*, and whenever they want it. There was an article a while ago in either Proceedings or Sea Power that addressed this idea from a naval standpoint. The idea was interesting, but I don't know about how practical it is. Here it is: If Pegasus could be miniturized enough, it could be launched from a smaller aircraft (e.g. F-14 or other carrier-based aircraft). This would give task-force commanders their own tactical satellite launching capability. Since these satellites would have to be very small, they wouldn't be able to last long, but that's no problem, since they would only be needed for short-term tactical use. Besides the problems of acquiring any new weapon ssystem, does anyone have any ideas about the feasibility of this? -- L. GORDON PAISLEY, PAISLEY@AUVM.AUVM.EDU THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON, DC USA
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/13/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: <PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu> >If Pegasus could be miniturized enough, it could be launched from a smaller >aircraft (e.g. F-14 or other carrier-based aircraft). This would give >task-force commanders their own tactical satellite launching capability... >... any ideas about the feasibility of this? Nothing theoretically difficult about it. You'd need to scale down Pegasus considerably -- it's the size of a fighter and very heavy -- but it could be done. You'd also, as Gordon mentioned, need some quite small satellites to be the payloads. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) (04/14/91)
From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) [11 unnecessary lines of quoted text deleted --CDR] >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Nothing theoretically difficult about it. You'd need to scale down Pegasus >considerably -- it's the size of a fighter and very heavy -- but it could >be done. You'd also, as Gordon mentioned, need some quite small satellites >to be the payloads. How far could one go with this sort of thing before concerns would be raised about such a vehicle having a ASAT capability and therefore being regulated by the ABM treaty? -- John K. Prentice john@unmfys.unm.edu (Internet) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA
gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) (04/16/91)
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) In article <1991Apr12.055442.14741@amd.com> PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu writes: >If Pegasus could be miniturized enough, it could be launched from a smaller >aircraft (e.g. F-14 or other carrier-based aircraft). This would give >task-force commanders their own tactical satellite launching capability. >Since these satellites would have to be very small, they wouldn't be able >to last long, but that's no problem, since they would only be needed >for short-term tactical use. *Any* satellite is a global *strategic* asset. Any given target area would be visible, at best, 20 minutes per day to a low orbit satellite of the type launchable by a Pegasus (or smaller!) rocket. The remaining 23 hours and 40 minutes of the day, the satellite would be somewhere else. Also the very small payload of the suggested system would preclude the types of sensors needed for effective tactical recon. For example, cameras capable of the kind of resolution provided by our current recon satellites would be far too large and heavy for the Pegasus to launch. Far better for tactical commanders to rely on aircraft recon and requests to strategic intelligence for satellite pictures. Gary
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (04/16/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) In article <1991Apr16.041607.28295@amd.com> prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes: >How far could one go with this sort of thing before concerns would be >raised about such a vehicle having a ASAT capability and therefore being >regulated by the ABM treaty? The ABM Treaty doesn't restrict the development of ASATs per se, but rather restricts the deployment of ABM launchers and tracking radars and prohibits development of "exotic" systems. One loophole in the 1972 treaty would allow testing of interceptor systems in an ASAT capacity. Congressional opposition, not bilateral agreements, is a greater obstacle to ASAT research.... [Any further discussion along this line should probably go to ARMS-D if its still around, not sci.military, since treaties don't fall within the group's charter. --CDR] -shane
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/17/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) >>[scaled-down Pegasus as shipboard satellite launcher] >How far could one go with this sort of thing before concerns would be >raised about such a vehicle having a ASAT capability and therefore being >regulated by the ABM treaty? Um, antisatellite weapons are *not* regulated by the ABM treaty. There has been talk of limits on antisatellite systems, but none have yet come about. In general, anything that can put a satellite into orbit can function as the launcher for a Soviet-style orbital antisatellite system. All you need is a maneuverable satellite with homing system and a warhead. Also in general, anything that can put X kg into orbit can put several times X kg into a suborbital trajectory intersecting a given low orbit, resulting in an antisatellite system resembling the old US one. All you need is some sort of homing interceptor that can find the target and maneuver to hit it despite a very high closing rate. If you want to restrict antisatellite systems, the crucial parts are the homing head and maneuvering system, not the launcher. A portable space launcher is a useful component of such a system, but not a particularly crucial one. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/18/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) >*Any* satellite is a global *strategic* asset. Any given target area would >be visible, at best, 20 minutes per day to a low orbit satellite of the >type launchable by a Pegasus (or smaller!) rocket. Nobody launches reconnaissance satellites into high orbit, so the choice of launcher is quite irrelevant. Some of the other military birds, like the eavesdropping satellites, go into high orbits, but anything that wants to image the ground has to stay low. >The remaining 23 hours and >40 minutes of the day, the satellite would be somewhere else. Quite true, but the question is, is this bad? Most of the personal computers in the world are idle 70%+ of the time. The issue is not whether there is capability being "wasted", but whether a dedicated system does a sufficiently better job during the time when it *is* active. If the small system is cheap enough, one might even consider launching it for a single pass over a crucial area, and never mind where it goes after that. >Also the very >small payload of the suggested system would preclude the types of sensors >needed for effective tactical recon. ... cameras capable of the kind >of resolution provided by our current recon satellites would be far too large >and heavy for the Pegasus to launch. You are assuming that the full resolution of current spysats is necessary for effective tactical recon. Considering some of the photos the Gemini astronauts got with small cameras attached to handheld commercial telescopes weighing only a few kilograms, I think there is reason to doubt this. Almost any tactical commander will prefer a low-resolution photo taken where and when he wants it over being able to read the license plates three days later. I would also note that small, cheap, expendable satellites can get back some of the resolution they lose due to smaller optics, by operating in orbits that are *too* low for the big strategic spysats. If you don't care what happens to the satellite after three days, you can use a rather lower orbit than a bird that needs to last for years. This is especially true if the timespan of interest is hours (i.e. one pass) rather than days. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) (04/18/91)
From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes: >.... Also the very >small payload of the suggested system would preclude the types of sensors >needed for effective tactical recon. For example, cameras capable of the kind >of resolution provided by our current recon satellites would be far too large >and heavy for the Pegasus to launch. Is this really true for a low earth orbit satellite? Satellites like the KH-11 are fairly high altitude compared to what could be done with a Pegasus launched cheap and dirty satellite. Also, you don't necessarily need high resolution. For example, to see a convoy you don't need to be able to read their license plates. I think a more interesting use of Pegasus would be to have small and cheap off the shelf survellience satellites that could be launched on a moments notice for strategic use. Right now we have to maneuver a big satellite over trouble spots and this is expensive. Also, we don't have the ability to put big satellites up as fast as one would like if a global confrontation were to occur. I assure you, you can design a satellite for this purpose, we have a proposal into DoD with such a design right now. Getting funded to field it is another question entirely however :-) . -- John K. Prentice john@unmfys.unm.edu (Internet) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA
prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) (04/18/91)
From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) > [Any further discussion along this line should probably go to > ARMS-D if its still around, not sci.military, since treaties > don't fall within the group's charter. --CDR] I think you are being too narrow about this. The technology and the treaties are tied up pretty tightly. Any meaningful discussion of military technology is inevitably going to involve politics and treaties at some point. To avoid discussions of how these treaties affect our ability to design technical systems would make this a very sterile and very unworldly newsgroup. [ It's a slippery slope that leads to general discussions about politics. The line between the science of warfare and the political aspects has to be drawn somewhere; I consider strategic treaties to be primarily political, and thus unsuitable under our charter in the sci heirarchy. You can always wait a few weeks and see if Bill's more lenient. :-) --CDR] -- John K. Prentice john@unmfys.unm.edu (Internet) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (04/18/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) >ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes: >>.... Also the very >>small payload of the suggested system would preclude the types of sensors >>needed for effective tactical recon. For example, cameras capable of the kind >>of resolution provided by our current recon satellites would be far too large >>and heavy for the Pegasus to launch. Something just occured to me about this discussion -- isn't this equivalent to giving surface ships and carrier-based aircraft ICBM capabilities? If a TAO has the ability to loft a mini-spy SAT into a low-earth orbit, couldn't he just as easily pack a low-yield warhead (perhaps comparable to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) on the Pegasus? Don't think the Sovs would be too happy 'bout that.... [ There *is* the matter of guidance... --CDR] -shane
pt@dciem (04/19/91)
From: cognos!geovision!pt@dciem henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >If the small system is cheap >enough, one might even consider launching it for a single pass over a crucial >area, and never mind where it goes after that. So why not use suborbital sounding rockets, rather than a sophisticated orbiter, with all the guidance and launching headaches that entails. Surely the best recon in that situation would come from launching a rocket that goes up to 100,000 ft or so, with an instrument package that drifts back down by balloon or parachute (or ballute)? -- Paul Tomblin, Department of Redundancy Department. ! My employer does Two roads diverged in a wood, and I/ I took the one less ! not stand by my travelled by/ And that is why I'm lost, dammit... ! opinions.... pt@geovision.gvc.com or {cognos,uunet}!geovision!pt ! Me neither.
gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) (04/21/91)
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) This is in response to Henry and John Prentice who question the need for detailed pictures from the proposed small tactical satellites. prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes: >launched cheap and dirty satellite. Also, you don't necessarily need >high resolution. For example, to see a convoy you don't need to be able >to read their license plates. The is probably true, but you *do* need to be over the target area when the convoy is there. My primary objection to tactical satellites is that they are over the target area for no more than twenty minutes a day in two ten minute passes separated by 12 hours. No quick launch satellite seems likely to be as useful to a tactical commander as a directed overflight with a recon aircraft would be. Nor would the quick looks by the small satellite be more useful than continous surveillance from a high orbit satellite system. Catching convoys on the ground seems a better mission for GSTARS aircraft than for a satellite that you may have to wait as much as twelve hours to access. Depending on the satellite design and the geography, you might have to wait for the satellite to pass over your location in order to program it to look at the area that you are interested in, wait for it to pass directly over that area maybe 12 hours later, then wait for it to return over your position another 12 hours later for the data dump. A 24 to 36 hour reaction time certainly seems less than timely for tactical data. Contrast this to the 1 hour or so turnaround from a ready recon aircraft or the near realtime info from a GSTARS aircraft or data relayed from a coordinated series of strategic high orbit satellites. It seems to me that the best system for satellite tactical recon would require a series of satellites in relatively high, >1000 mile, orbit where they would get a near hemispheric view. A target area could be handed off from one satellite to the next in such a fashion that the target area could be under near continous realtime surveillance. This type of system would require national strategic control centers rather than being operated at a field commander's whim. A use once and throw away system would still likely require one orbit to stablize the satellite and check out the cameras followed by another orbit to acquire the data and access to a global high data rate satellite communications network to relay the data back to the commander in the field. All of this would require coordination with national centers. It would be hardly as cost efficient or timely as simply ordering up a recon aircraft. This all sounds more like Pegasus and litesat proponents looking for a mission rather than an actual operational niche that needs to be filled. Gary
prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) (04/22/91)
From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes: >This all sounds more like Pegasus and litesat proponents looking for >a mission rather than an actual operational niche that needs to be filled. I think you have good and valid points. I really think the value of a Pegasus launched surveillance satellite is for quick response strategic intelligence, not tactical. If what I want to see is massing of troops on a border for example, then being able to put up a satellite in a few hours might be a real advantage over having to maneuver a big one. Opinions? As far as tactial surveillance, I read the other day that Schwarzkopf was not satisfied with satellite surveillance during the war. He apparently asked for and was denied SR-71 overflights. So they ended up using tactial aircraft for this purpose, something they are not really designed for or that good at (not to mention being vulnerable). His objections included the satellites not being there when he needed them and not being good at seeing through clouds (as I recall the article). I don't see how Pegasus launched satellites would solve any of the problems Schwarzkopf mentioned. I got the impression that Schwarzkopf would agree with Gary on this one. [Where possible its nice to mention where one might have read something so that people interested in details can dig further. I understand that's not always possible. --CDR] -- John K. Prentice john@unmfys.unm.edu (Internet) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA
brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass) (04/26/91)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass) Instead of all the high-tech gizmos of Pegasus launched sattelLITEs, why not use the little drone aircraft the Navy bought from Israel for fire-control on battleships? I would assume they have at least a 20 mile combat radius plus loiter time in order to be effective for the Navy. Does anyone know exact specs? From news reports when Lehman first ordered them in the mid-80s they are extremely stealthly (fiberglass body, wooden propeller, small, operate at 5,000 feet making them noiseless). When the Marine Commandant (Kelly?) went to Beirut to survey the disaster of the barracks bombing, the Israelis had one of the drones flying over that could read the license plate. When the Israelis sent a tape of their recon, it made quite an impression on the Commandant and Navy Secretary to see a cross-hair on the Commandant's head. That it could fly from Isreali controlled airspace to Beirut says a lot about capability. Wasn't the Army developing a drone of their own called the Amigo, or such, but was eventually cancelled? Point is you don't always have to go super-high-tech when a simpler yet effective solution is available. [The Aquila, I think, which some incredible sum of money has been spent on, unfortunately arguing against your last point where the Pentagon is concerned. I hadn't heard anything about a (richly deserved) cancellation, but may have missed it. :-( --CDR ] -- Brian Douglass brian@edat.uucp
brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass) (04/26/91)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass) prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes: >If what I want to see is massing of troops >on a border for example, then being able to put up a satellite in a >few hours might be a real advantage over having to maneuver a big one. And so probably why DARPA provided a good chunk of their funding and bought the first 6 (?) launchs. Of course NASA just wanted the hypersonic flight data. Scientists. Hmmph! (:-; -- Brian Douglass brian@edat.uucp
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (05/09/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) In article <1991Apr13.014851.22702@amd.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes [re: the feasibility of launching a scaled-down Pegasus type vehicle from a fighter-sized aircraft.] > Nothing theoretically difficult about it. You'd need to scale down Pegasus > considerably -- it's the size of a fighter and very heavy -- but it could > be done. You'd also, as Gordon mentioned, need some quite small satellites > to be the payloads. The problem with scaling down the Pegasus is that the payload would be extremely small, most likely too small to be a recon satellite. Pegasus itself is only capable of launching very small satellites. A major advance in booster technology would be required to raise specific impulse such that a smaller booster could launch a reasonably sized satellite. There was a proposal several years ago to build an anti-satellite missile. It was to be launched by an F-15 operating at near maximum altitude. There was some question about the legality of this system vis-a-vis arms limitation agreements. Some research was performed, but I've not seen any mention of it being fielded. In any case, the payload (warhead) in this case was to be quite small. Steve stevenp@decwrl.dec.com