International Military Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by SaiK »

^we think, huddle and come up with ideas.. and they deliver it!
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by SaiK »

awesome U2 time lapse video

[youtube]EW7M4CDHIes?list=PL15KbAxfKZE2DnUA9RNWn4IJQGR6VsBkF[/youtube]

stage separation seen from space for the first time! awesome again!!!

[youtube]v184lSB2LHI?list=PL15KbAxfKZE2DnUA9RNWn4IJQGR6VsBkF[/youtube]

and warthog demoing the GAU-8 avenger guns @ 3,900 rounds per minute

[youtube]yd2QyIEdDGc?list=PL15KbAxfKZE2DnUA9RNWn4IJQGR6VsBkF[/youtube]

can we have a separate thread for such videos and pics?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

There is a multimedia thread that already exists..
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by PratikDas »

RBTH: Launch of Russian foreign ‘submarine hunter’ satellite fails
December 7, 2015 ANNA SOROKINA
Defense Ministry loses satellite capable of tracking foreign submarines
The Russian Space Forces have failed to put into orbit the Kanopus-ST satellite, which is fitted with equipment for detecting submerged foreign submarines, the daily broadsheet Izvestia reports.

In addition to Kanopus-ST, the launch on Dec. 5 also involved a calibration sphere (a mockup for testing the software of the new upper-stage rocket Volga, which – together with the new Soyuz 2.1v rocket – was on only its second ever space mission). The sphere was attached to the adapter that linked the booster and the main satellite.

The Russian Space Forces have failed to put into orbit the Kanopus-ST satellite, which is fitted with equipment for detecting submerged foreign submarines, the daily broadsheet Izvestia reports.

In addition to Kanopus-ST, the launch on Dec. 5 also involved a calibration sphere (a mockup for testing the software of the new upper-stage rocket Volga, which – together with the new Soyuz 2.1v rocket – was on only its second ever space mission). The sphere was attached to the adapter that linked the booster and the main satellite.

Video by Mil.ru / YouTube

A source in a Defense Ministry research institute associated with the launch told Izvestia that, according to preliminary findings, the launch of the calibration sphere went according to plan, but Kanopus then failed to detach from the booster and become operational.

Initially designed as a weather satellite, Kanopus-ST was first described as a submarine hunter in 2010: Vladimir Boldyrev of the Kosmonit scientific and technological center operated by the company Russian Space Systems said at the time that Kosmonit “had designed a Konopus-ST module which, having been put into a low-earth orbit, will be capable of remote ocean sensing, monitoring the surface and underwater situation and detecting submerged submarines.”

This is the first setback suffered by the Russian Space Forces this year. The other two failed launches this year were carried out by the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos): in April, the launch of a Progress rocket with cargo for the International Space Station ended in failure, and in May, a Proton rocket failed to take a Mexican telecommunications satellite into space.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by shiv »

This is a classic example of how to create a TFTA picture - something that Desi media have to learn. Even Pakis do it
Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

US-Israel Arrow-3 Intercepts Target in Space
By 8:17 a.m., the system had selected from among several objects flying through space — each not much larger than a one liter bottle of Coke — and steered its warhead into a direct hit of the correct target, program officials said.

“The Arrow system in operational configuration detected and selected the right target from several in exo-atmospheric conditions. We intercepted the correct target very accurately as planned from the beginning,” said Yair Ramati, director of the Israel Missile Defense Organization (IMDO).

“As soon as Arrow-3 opened its sensor, it activated its warhead very precisely into the middle of the correct target,” said Boaz Levy, general manager of IAI’s Systems, Missiles and Space Group.

“It was truly unprecedented, and it all occurred deep in space,” Levy added.

In a Thursday briefing, Ramati said the test brings the program “back on track” after a belatedly declared “no test” following an attempted interception in September 2014. In that test, while the AWS succeeded in detecting and tracking the target, the Silver Sparrow target missile, developed by state-owned Rafael, failed to eject its so-called low-mass warhead target.

“After two successful flyouts, one no-test and now one successful interception, we’re looking forward to working together with the US Missile Defense Agency” on continued spiral development and eventual deployment of Arrow-3 as part of the AWS, Ramati said.

Designed to fly nearly twice as high at half the weight of Arrow-2, the Arrow-3 will constitute Israel’s upper-most layer of the Arrow Weapon System in defense against advanced, maneuvering Iranian Shihab-class ballistic missiles.

The interceptor is expected to provide multiple opportunities to destroy targets in space, with backup provided by Arrow-2, which is designed to intercept targets high in Earth’s atmosphere.

In salvo scenarios, Arrow-3 will be able to shoot twice against a single target, assess for battle damage and, if needed, divert to other approaching threats.

According to Pentagon budget justification documents, the upper-tier Arrow-3 “will increase the system’s capability against advanced threats by providing approximately four times the current Arrow-2 battlespace.”

Additional flight tests are planned next year as IMDO and the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency continue the joint program of progressive improvements and interoperability of the AWS.

“The success of the Arrow 3 system today … is an important step toward one of the most important projects of the state of Israel and for Israel Aerospace Industries," said Joseph Weiss, IAI’s president and chief executive officer.

The Block 4.5 AWS tested Thursday includes the Super Green Pine radar by IAI’s Elta Systems, the Citron Tree Battle Management Center and the Hazlenut Tree Launcher Control Center by Elbit Systems. State-owned Israel Military Industries produces the rocket motor for Arrow-2 and Arrow-3, with Boeing supporting the program with US-based production of the Arrow intercepting missiles.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2429
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

shiv wrote:This is a classic example of how to create a TFTA picture - something that Desi media have to learn. Even Pakis do it
Image
Needs some explosions in the background and heavy metal soundtrack ;)
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

Needs some explosions in the background and heavy metal soundtrack
Sadly an explosion occurred when he walked away and an Indian delegation arrived. :(

Did not have a sound track.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Philip »

A yr. old ,but this report sheds light on the covert strategic "axis of evil" between the Saudis,Chinese and Pakis.With the escalation of the crisis in Syria,where the Saudis are playing a pivotal role with their benami ISIS,the danger of the Saudis going nuclear cannot be ruled out.
Saudi Arabia’s New Missile Force
Feb 26, 2014

A recent article in Newsweek reported that “according to a well-placed intelligence source,” in 2007 Saudi Arabia began to purchase CSS-5 (DF-21) ground-to-ground missiles from China. While similar reports appeared in the past, the recently published information is distinguished by its confirmation by an official – albeit anonymous – source, and by the revelation that the Americans knew about the Saudi-Chinese deal and were involved in it. The report raises many questions about the Saudis’ motivations, the implications of the deal, and the timing of the exposure. INSS analysts Yiftah Shapir , Yoel Guzansky wrote in a recent INSS analysis.

A recent article in Newsweek reported that “according to a well-placed intelligence source,” in 2007 Saudi Arabia began to purchase CSS-5 (DF-21) ground-to-ground missiles from China. While similar reports appeared in the past, the recently published information is distinguished by its confirmation by an official – albeit anonymous – source, and by the revelation that the Americans knew about the Saudi-Chinese deal and were involved in it. The report raises many questions about the Saudis’ motivations, the implications of the deal, and the timing of the exposure.
Denied purchase of ground-to-ground missiles by the United States in the 1980s, the Saudis, unbeknownst to the United States, purchased about ten launchers and several dozen Chinese DF-3A missiles (called CSS-2 by NATO), which apparently were customized to carry conventional warheads. The missiles were stationed in a number of sites in Saudi Arabia and maintained by Chinese technicians. The covert deal led to a crisis in relations between Riyadh and Washington, particularly because the missiles were originally intended to carry nuclear warheads. The crisis ended when Saudi Arabia agreed to join the NPT.
The DF-3A missiles were already outdated when the Saudis purchased them, and it was only a matter of time until they would seek to replace them or add more modern missiles to their arsenal. Moreover, these missiles use liquid fuel, are cumbersome to prepare for launching, and have low accuracy. And indeed, for several years there have been reports on Saudi expansion of its missile arsenal. In 2009, the existence of additional sites suspected of belonging to the Saudi missile arsenal was reported. A book by a former CIA employee published in 2010 even claimed that in 2003, the Saudis, with the knowledge of the United States, purchased advanced ground-to-ground missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Also in 2010, there were reports that the strategic missile arsenal was being upgraded and that a new headquarters was dedicated outside of Riyadh for the kingdom’s Strategic Missile Force. Already then, doubts surfaced as to whether the Saudis needed the facility if they still had the old missiles.
The latest report confirms the previous ones: the Saudis did in fact purchase missiles from China, with the knowledge of the United States. According to the report, CIA personnel examined the missiles in Saudi Arabia in order to confirm that they did not carry nuclear warheads. It may be that the deal was not revealed until now because the Americans examined the missiles and were not concerned by what they found or because of a desire to avoid embarrassment on both sides. The Americans may also have understood that if they were not involved in the process, Saudi Arabia could do without them, as it did in the past, and they preferred to retain control of the process.
The Dong Feng 21 missile (East Wind 21) is a two-stage ballistic missile that uses solid fuel, which shortens the launch preparation time and makes maintenance easier. It has a range of some 1,700 kilometers and can carry a load of about 600 kilograms. It is much more accurate than the old DF-3A, and its CEP (Circular Error Probable, a measure of accuracy) is estimated at about 300-400 meters. Its later models are also equipped with terminal guidance, which enables it to hit pinpoint targets (though it is unlikely that these later models were exported).
It is possible that the Saudis have purchased other missiles in addition to the DF-21, including other models produced in China (such as the DF-11 or the DF-15) or Pakistani-made missiles, such as one of the Shaheen series. Moreover, the Saudi efforts to acquire long range weapons have extended to cruise missiles, and the British reportedly sold the kingdom Storm Shadow cruise missiles as part of the Saudi program to upgrade its Tornado jets. The missile has a range of some 500 kilometers (and therefore, its export is restricted under the Missile Technology Control Regime agreements). An unofficial confirmation of the sale of the missile appeared in WikiLeaks documents in 2009, and in 2013 it was reported that in contrast to previous refusals, the United States had agreed to sell the Saudis SLAM-ER cruise missiles.
While the new missiles have a shorter range than their predecessors, they have better accuracy. This gives them a greater deterrent value in Saudi eyes, even if they have conventional warheads, because of their ability to hit government buildings, strategic facilities, and military bases in Iran. Does the presence of these missiles significantly change the military balance in the region? Not as long as the missiles are armed with conventional warheads.

The recent Newsweek report raises new questions as to the kingdom’s intentions in the nuclear realm. Officials in Saudi Arabia, which is in the midst of a significant conventional military buildup, have often stated that the kingdom is focusing on a nuclear program to meet the country’s energy needs and reduce its dependence on oil. However, Saudi Arabia has previously examined the military nuclear path, and to this end, has increased its cooperation with a number of countries, in particular Pakistan. It has had military cooperation with Pakistan for some years, and funded part of its nuclear program. In addition, several unusual comments from Riyadh since 2011 have indicated Saudi Arabia’s willingness to examine the nuclear path if the international community is unable to prevent Iran from attaining military nuclear capability. Because Saudi Arabia lacks an independent knowledge infrastructure, if it makes a decision to pursue a nuclear option, it will presumably prefer to purchase an off-the-shelf nuclear deterrent.
The Saudis’ motivation in purchasing the missiles is Iran’s progress in its missile program and the growth and improvement in its ground-to-ground missile arsenal. It is possible that the progress in the Iranian nuclear program will lead to increased Saudi pressure on Pakistan to provide the kingdom with some type of nuclear guarantees, whether through extended deterrence, the stationing of nuclear forces in Saudi Arabia, or transfer of nuclear warheads to the Saudis for installation on the new missiles (in a regulated move or by turning a blind eye).

Not only have Saudi Arabia’s concerns not been mitigated by the interim agreement signed with the Islamic Republic; they have actually intensified, if only because of the agreement’s significance for Iran’s international and regional status. The Saudis are anxious about the Iranian buildup, and it may be that the “revelations” on its missile arsenal are part of an attempt by Saudi Arabia to make its fears public. Furthermore, the report on the American involvement comes in advance of an expected visit by President Obama to the kingdom, which inter alia is designed to assuage Saudi fears that current American policy endangers Saudi security interests.
In recent years, the discussion on strategic issues inside and outside the kingdom has become more public, and therefore, it is likely that further “revelations” can be expected. This is due to the negotiations with Iran and the significance Riyadh attributes to deterrent signals of this kind. The deal itself is also significant, indicating China’s growing interest in selling advanced weaponry to the region (and to Saudi Arabia, China’s largest oil supplier), but perhaps also the weakness of America’s standing in the region.
To date there is no solid evidence that Saudi Arabia intends to pursue the nuclear route, even though nuclear weapons in Iranian hands would be a grave threat to the kingdom. However, in light of its great wealth and relative military weakness, Saudi Arabia will likely seek to construct security arrangements that will lend it more independence in decision making and better chances of maintaining a stable balance of deterrence in the Gulf over time. This is because of the tension in relations with the United States and the fear that it will reduce its involvement in the region after improving its relations with Iran, which would once again turn Iran into the dominant power in the Gulf.

It is not clear whether Israel has received any guarantees from the United States (perhaps even from Saudi Arabia) about the deals in question. Israel, as a rule, does not favor equipping an Arab state with advanced weapons that are capable of threatening it too. In the past, Israel actively opposed any such buildup. However, in recent years, given the joint Iranian threat, Israel has preferred to turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s military buildup (and that of the other Gulf states), which has even been perceived in Jerusalem as an advantage. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia’s arming itself with modern ballistic missiles should worry Israel. In addition to the fact that these weapons are in the hands of a state hostile to Israel, the buildup, particularly the silence surrounding it, and the nature of US involvement, bode ill for the stability of the region and the struggle against missile proliferation.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

It would be naïve to think that the kingdom of Saudi Arabia (much like Israel in the past) would not go Nuclear to protect their strategic interests in a event that Iran's nuclear intentions are made clear post the deal signed with the rest of the world. There however will be strategic costs to pay if they decide to take that decision however they are an energy giant and as such would be courted by a lot many parties. The Chinese-Pakistan route it perhaps the only route that they can take short of starting (or perhaps continuing) their own program or an ARAB program. Besides that they are currently leading the charge to create a GCC missile defense shield and have contracted the US Missile defense agency to develop something for them. Its one big cluster &*&% at the moment in the region in the absence of a stabilizing force that can act as a buffer between the strategic tussle between Iran and Saudi-Suni interests.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 731
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by member_23694 »

NASA Launches Go Ultra-High Definition

[youtube]wZYa9ZKZeDk&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Japan considers introduction of new U.S. system for defense against North Korean missiles
The Defense Ministry has launched a full-fledged study on introducing a state-of-the-art U.S. missile defense system to guard against ballistic missiles from North Korea, it was learned Thursday.

The ministry is aiming to deploy the ground-based Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system under its next five-year defense buildup program, starting in fiscal 2019, informed sources said.

After a meeting with senior officials of the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii late last month, Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani told reporters: “Introducing the THAAD system could be one of concrete measures to boost Japan’s missile defense capabilities. We’ll accelerate our study on Japan’s future defense system.”

Japan currently has a two-stage ballistic missile defense strategy that calls for first trying to destroy a missile in space with Standard-Missile 3, or SM-3, interceptors launched from an Aegis destroyer and, in case the SM-3 misses the target, intercepting it within the atmosphere with the Patriot Advance Capability-3, or PAC-3, surface-to-air missile system from ground bases.

The THAAD system is designed to shoot down a missile with higher accuracy than PAC-3 when it reenters the atmosphere.

In recent years, North Korea has been speeding up the development of medium- and long-range ballistic missiles and smaller nuclear warheads.

The Defense Ministry is also considering deploying the Aegis-based SM-3 system on the ground, the sources said.

The ministry has already asked Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. to conduct research on how to operate the THAAD system and ground-based SM-3 interceptors.


But high costs are a major hurdle to introducing the new missile defense strategy. In addition, China could raise its opposition by saying that the Japanese move could destroy the regional balance in terms of missile defense posture, the sources said.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

Am reading a very small article on "The New World of Rapidly Configurable AESA Radar", in ECN.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by SaiK »

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Japan Begins Assembling First F-35A at Nagoya FACO
Japan’s first indigenously made F-35A has begun the manufacturing process on the country’s final assembly and checkout line in Nagoya.

The aircraft, dubbed AX-5, began assembly Dec. 15 when its wings, fuselage and tails were joined there. The aircraft is slated for introduction into the Japanese Air Self Defense force in 2017.

The first four Japanese F-35As are in various stages of assembly on Lockheed Martin’s main F-35 final assembly line in Fort Worth. The first, AX-1, is slated for delivery next year.

Japan plans to buy 42 aircraft, but Tokyo is not a development partner. Japan, Israel and South Korea are the program’s three foreign sales customers so far that did not contribute to the development project. The $400 billion program — including life cycle cost for the U.S. — includes eight foreign allies: the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Turkey, Denmark, Canada and Norway.

Japan, however, invested in the FACO at Nagoya in part to provide high-tech jobs to its aerospace industry. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is the industrial partner in establishing the facility. Unlike Italy’s FACO at Cameria Air Base in Northern Italy, Japan lacked a large space for the plant. Thus, engineers decided to create what F-35 Program Executive Officer USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan calls a “vertical FACO” at Nagoya, including elevators to shuttle structures among the work stations. Ultimately, however, the design is intended to mimic closely the F-35 FACO at Fort Worth.

A total of 38 F-35s will be assembled there for Japan. But the facility was also selected to be the program’s maintenance, repair and overhaul and upgrade site for heavy airframe work. So it will eventually join a network of facilities globally used to maintain the F-35s potentially for a variety of militaries for decades to come.

Lockheed and Mitsubishi are working to complete the Nagoya facility even as AX-5 begins its journey down the production line.

Italy, which spent about $1 billion on its FACO with Alenia as the industrial lead, delivered its first Italian F-35A from Cameri Dec. 3. More than 150 F-35s have been delivered to customers to date.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

ATD-X Wind Tunnel Model, to fly next year some time. One copy made for $440 mil.

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Finally, Musk and Mueller managed to do it !!
Last edited by brar_w on 22 Dec 2015 06:48, edited 1 time in total.
saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4392
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by saip »

Looks like SpaceX made history today. The first stage of their rocket has successfully vertically landed after launching 11 satellites.

Live on Spacex.com/webcast
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by ldev »

Watched it live on the SpaceX website. Astounding performance!! Will change the economics of the launch business on its head.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by ldev »

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4392
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by saip »

Amazing, you can see the satellites being deployed live. ISRO are you watching?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

#Innovation

Go to 9:30

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Some were questioning his sanity, some even here doubted that he could accomplish his current strategy. I think the Space X team had been clear the changed to the F9 down the road would make them much better at full recovery on land or at sea. Elon Musk himself gave his team a 50% chance to have this goal met by the end of December (I think over a dozen launches) which he barely met. Now the race is on, since ULA, and Europeans have also interest in having the ability to reuse given the levels of profits SX can generate as long as they are the only ones that can do this.

SpaceX Nails Falcon 9 First-Stage Landing

SpaceX engineers and on-board software maneuvered the first stage of a Falcon 9 launch vehicle back to a steady, tail-down landing at Cape Canaveral Monday, 10 min. after returning the kerosene-fueled rocket to flight following an ascent explosion on a mission to the International Space Station in June.

Success in recovering the stage, after two unsuccessful attempts to land on a barge in the Atlantic, marks a major step toward the long-sought dream of reusable commercial space launchers. While Blue Origin brought its liquid-hydrogen/liquid oxygen New Shepard vehicle back from a suborbital launch to space on Nov. 23, Monday’s SpaceX recovery was the first known landing for an unmanned orbital launcher.

Silicon Valley venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson, an early SpaceX backer, tweeted “Congrats @SpaceX for landing the rocket back on land!!!! Incredible!!! One giant leap!”

The landing at a surplus launch pad on Cape Canaveral AFS, Florida, came in the middle of three significant milestones for commercial spaceflight. For SpaceX, it marked a return to flight for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle that is the linchpin of the company’s business in the near term. For its customer, Orbcomm, it completed launching of a 17-spacecraft low Earth orbit (LEO) constellation of second-generation Machine-to-Machine “OG2” satellites.

Although only a secondary test objective on the Orbcomm-2 mission, landing the Falcon 9 stage at Launch Complex 13 on Cape Canaveral — a surplus Atlas launch site designed “Landing Complex 1” by SpaceX — was a major achievement for the Hawthorne, California-based company.

In an effort to develop a game-changing reusable flyback first stage, SpaceX has eased stages back to controlled, tail-down impacts with the ocean surface, and has twice come close to landing a stage on an unmanned ocean-going barge downrange from its launch site. The work — which included a Space Act agreement with NASA to share infrared supersonic retropropulsion data that may be applied to future Mars landings — was stalled by the June 28 failure of a Falcon 9 second stage on a mission to deliver cargo to the International Space Station. Blamed on a broken strut in the stage’s liquid oxygen tank, the mishap grounded the Falcon 9 until Monday’s launch.

SpaceX delayed an attempt to launch the Orbcomm-2 mission on Dec. 20 after what company founder and CEO Elon Musk said in a tweet were Monte Carlo probabilistic results giving “a 10% higher chance of a good landing” on Monday.

According to the mission timeline released before the launch, the landing process started 4 min. after liftoff, which came in a 60-sec. window that opened at 8:33 p.m. EST, and 1 min., 36 sec. after stage separation. As the second stage’s single Merlin engine pushed the 11 OG2 spacecraft toward orbit, the first-stage reignited for a “boostback” burn, followed 4 min. later by a “1st-stage reentry burn.”

The stage flew back with its engines facing the Earth to touch down on its retractable landing legs 10 min. after launch. The landing site is south of Launch Complex 40, where the Falcon 9 took off, and just east of the Air Force station’s industrial area. The earlier touchdowns and landing attempts at sea apparently convinced Air Force officials that SpaceX would be able to control the descending stage well enough to avoid damaging other facilities on the base.

The successful recovery foreshadows the long-awaited day when reusable launch vehicles can reduce the cost of delivering payloads to orbit, which in theory would broaden the range of spaceflight applications by lowering their cost. NASA’s space shuttle was conceived with that in mind, but the cost of maintaining its human crew overshadowed any savings from its reusability.

Since SpaceX started work on recovering the Falcon 9 first stage en route to launcher two potential commercial-launch competitors — United Launch Alliance (ULA) and Blue Origin — have announced their intentions to develop at least partially reusable orbital launchers, both using the BE-4 engine Blue Origin is developing. ULA has said it will develop a recoverable engine module for its planned Vulcan launch vehicle, and Blue Origin CEO Jeff Bezos says the as-yet-unnamed orbital launcher it plans to launch from Cape Canaveral will also have a reusable stage.

As the first stage descended toward its historic landing, the upper stage jettisoned its fairing and began a 5-min. satellite deployment sequence that started 15 min. after launch.

Crowds outside the company’s headquarters control center cheered as an engineering camera displayed deployment of the final Orbcomm satellite.

With six times the capacity of the first-generation OG1 spacecraft fielded by Orbcomm, the new LEO satellites are designed to provide global VHF links for transportation, maritime, utility, government and other applications that monitor remote hardware.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by ldev »

Musk is a true visionary. Read his biography by Ashlee Vance. To go to into space and to Mars has been his childhood dream. Bezos and the ULA guys are financial wheeler-dealers.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by vina »

Watched it live on the SpaceX website. Astounding performance!! Will change the economics of the launch business on its head.
Yawn.. I remember another "breakthrough" fully reuseable vehicle, which promised to do exactly this, ie, change the "economics of launch business on it's head" . The vehicle actually flew for close to 30 years with a 99% success rate. But guess where it end up ? (hint I am talking of the space shuttle program).

Yeah, Falcon is "cost optimised", that is not because of the fly back stuff, but rather because it uses exactly ONE engine (10 of those in the vehicle, large manufacturing lot sizes , economies of scale) and uses pretty much off the shelf el-cheapo RP1 and LOX. No fancy schmanzy stuff. All basic meat and potatoes only, cutting out all the side dishes.
Last edited by vina on 22 Dec 2015 19:52, edited 1 time in total.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by ldev »

LOL!!

Good to be skeptical. But the difference is that the shuttle was an "optional payload". Recovery of the 1st stage, which is a necessary "payload", is what will make the difference. And....the 1st stage which is recovered does not go into orbit unlike the shuttle, hence the difference in expended energy.

Anyway, the true test will be when "this specific" first stage, now recovered,will be reused for another launch. That will be the acid test.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by vina »

ldev wrote: Good to be skeptical. But the difference is that the shuttle was an "optional payload". Recovery of the 1st stage, which is a necessary "payload", is what will make the difference. And....the 1st stage which is recovered does not go into orbit unlike the shuttle, hence the difference in expended energy.
Pliss to egg splain in Inglees. Shuttle already did what SpaceX plans to do (in terms of 2nd stage recovery). The only thing expended in the shuttle was the external fuel tank!
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by ldev »

And old article from 2013 but gives a breakdown of costs from the perspective of SpaceX. The cost of the 1st stage for SpaceX is fully 75% of the cost of the total launch vehicle which is $60 million. It helps that the Falcon 9 launch vehicle has only 2 stages.

SpaceX Chief says Reusable first stage will slash launch costs
Musk reiterated the origin of the SpaceX production model, saying fuel is only 0.3 percent of the total cost of a rocket, with construction materials accounting for no more than 2 percent of the total cost, which for the Falcon 9 is about $60 million.

Given that the rocket's constituent materials are such a small part of the total vehicle cost, he said: "Clearly people were doing something silly in how they put those materials together. By eliminating those foolish things, we were able to make a rocket for much less."

Musk said that a rocket's first stage accounts for three-quarters of its total price tag, so a vehicle with a reusable first stage can be produced at far less cost — assuming the hardware is fully and rapidly reusable.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by ldev »

vina wrote: Pliss to egg splain in Inglees. Shuttle already did what SpaceX plans to do (in terms of 2nd stage recovery). The only thing expended in the shuttle was the external fuel tank!
The Shuttle had to carry a 165,000 lb payload into orbit i.e. itself, every single time. Satellites to be launched were in addition to that. That 165,000 lb was lost payload for every single shuttle mission. Falcon 9 does not put the 1st stage into orbit and then recovers it. 1st stage burnout is at an altitude of 90 kms when velocity was roughly 2km/sec. The difference in terms of cost per payload kg/lb to orbit will be significant.

The only time it will put a recoverable payload into orbit is for manned missions.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by TSJones »

The shuttle was the most complicated machinery system ever built on earth at that time.

it took 1000's of people to maintain and service the shuttle for each launch. Costing in 2011 over 450 million each launch. After the shuttle was retired over 7000 people were let go at Houston and 1000's more at Kennedy. It took 400 people just to man the launch and countdown rooms at Kennedy and Houston.

The shuttle was expensive but it was versatile and could get 35,000 lb payload to the ISS.

SpaceX will save even more money as they hone their recovery procedures for each launch.

Boeing seems to think they can compete against SpaceX with the CT100 and ULA Atlas V. We'll have to wait and see. Boeing has been given a contract for two manned launches already.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Recovering the first stage (or multiple first stages in case of the heavy) is about economics and here the shuttle won't really compete or apply. If they repeat this, and then demonstrate that recovered articles can be relaunched with a degree of success they would essentially increase their profit margins given the cost of the rocket itself. Once more folks start doing this ( Bezos is a few years behind still, ULA may do it before the end of the decade and the Europeans also have a program) then the market forces should lead to lower launch costs which would trickle down to payload costs as well (due to lower weight/cost pressure).
"The Falcon rocket costs about $60 million to build. It’s kind of like a big jet, but the cost of the propellant, which is mostly oxygen and the gases, is only about $200,000, so that means that the potential cost reduction over the long term is probably in excess of a factor of 100," Musk was quoted as saying after the Falcon 9 landed
http://www.ibtimes.com/whats-next-space ... 16-2236428

IDev - with regards to wheeler dealers, Bezos is a tech company boss, and so is musk they are all pretty much cut from the same cloth but obviously have different passions. ULA is in one business that is assured access to space and its customer is willing to pay for that. That will now change with the Falcon family but SpaceX is still some time out. ULA is also a rather fragile alliance given one of the partners doesn't really want to be in it for the long run.

Musk's plan was reasonable until he suggested that the Department of Defense (DOD) split the assured launch contracts based on the two systems with both ULA and SX having a monopoly in their respective domains (after he lobbied (and rightly so) to break ULA's monopoly). Then there are political concerns that always prop as was witnessed this year with the back and forth between John McCain and Richard Shelby on the Russian engines.

Even with the heavy he is planning to reuse all first stage components

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM

Its good time if you are interested in the space launch market. the ROC being designed by Scaled Composites for Paul Allen's Stratolaunch Systems is going to be the largest aircraft ever to fly and is expected to begin testing by early year.
Built for Stratolaunch by Scaled Composites, the Roc will be the largest aircraft ever made with a wingspan of 385 ft. This compares to 320 ft for the Hughes H-4 Hercules (Spruce Goose), 290 ft for the six-engined Antonov An-225, 262 ft. for the Airbus A380, and 225 ft. for the Boeing 747-8. Powered by six reconditioned Pratt & Whitney PW4056 engines salvaged along with other parts from two ex-United Airlines Boeing 747-400s, the twin-fuselage carrier aircraft resembles a vastly enlarged version of the Scaled-built WhiteKnightTwo developed for Virgin Galactic.


http://aviationweek.com/blog/inside-rocs-lair

The best thing Space X and Blue Origin have done is develop an interest within the Silicon valley and other tech community for a line of business (aerospace) that has a fraction of margin their own lines of business have. Musk's personality does that 10x better than all the NASA led efforts and outreaches to the valley.
Last edited by brar_w on 23 Dec 2015 06:10, edited 6 times in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

SX's goal is Mars, these launches (as the person in the video stated) are to pay the bills.

Also, SX uses relatively cheap laborthey do rely on a lot of college kids (interns). We know because a segment of my company deals exclusively in AeroSpace and place all sorts of space junkies (who, BTW, give great brown bag talks - a lot more interesting than NoSQL and Big Data). But have been turned away by SX - not one placement. Everyone is pretty young at SX.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

Image
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by TSJones »

^^^^hate to be picky but that is not an accurate depiction.

the darn thing actually reverses trajectory and *flies* back to nearly the same longitude and lands just a few miles south of its launch site.

as explained on TV the technical skill required would be for an object the size of a pencil flying over the Empire State Building in New York City, breaks in half, reverses trajectory and lands one block south upon a shoe box.

Image

as you can see, it launches from site 40 and lands at site 13.

it's about a mile difference in longitude.

Blue Origin has leased launch site 36 and it is rebuilding it.

Image

site 36 is a double launch facility so Bezos is thinking big.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by ldev »

^^^
You are correct. The first stage actually reverses course by flipping around and firing I believe 3 of its 9 merlin engines to go back to its launch area. And then when closer to the atmosphere flips around again so that it is vertical and descending. The distance between the launch and landing pads is I read somewhere, 9 kilometers (just over 5 miles).
Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 534
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Nick_S »

Image

& now rocket trash talk:

Jeff BezosVerified account
‏@JeffBezos
Congrats @SpaceX on landing Falcon's suborbital booster stage. Welcome to the club!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Jeff BezosVerified account
‏@JeffBezos
Congrats @SpaceX on landing Falcon's suborbital booster stage. Welcome to the club!
This is great! Who would have thought that commercial launch business would all of a sudden become a sexy enough domain for a tech industry billionaire to trash talk :). I hope they (BO) loose sleep over this and accelerate their dev cycles to catch up as soon as possible. What SX has done is totally different. Their approach was to launch commercial payload into orbit, bring the first stage back, and then launch again using the same first stage. They have done 2 of these three things with this mission. Blue Origin has done neither yet. For Space X its not repeating this over and over again and getting the first stage back up and demonstrating success with re-launch. Still some way to go but they are well on their way and Musk seems to have met his goal of doing this at least once by the end of 2015 (though barely). He shouldn't have trouble seeking more business and even raising more money.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by ldev »

SpaceX want to do a relaunch of one of the recovered 1st stages sometime in 2016, so the full validation cycle should be complete in less than 1 year.

Jeff Bezos's tweets :P , I did say he was a wheeler-dealer!!

No comparison with what SpaceX has achieved and yet he thinks he is playing in the same league....

I think the real reason that ULA have agreed to buy his BE-4 engines under development is that without it they will be outperformed by SpaceX i.e. Musk is shaping up to be such a formidable competitor that Bezos and ULA have been forced to team up for engine development.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by brar_w »

I think the real reason that ULA have agreed to buy his BE-4 engines under development is that without it they will be outperformed by SpaceX
They are looking for a way to quickly rid themselves of the reliance from the Russian engine because the chairman of the Senate armed services committee who is one of the most powerful and influential person in congress is dead against that option. They were only saved this time by the appropriators that appropriated something that the authorizers did not authorize. They know that they may not be as lucky in the future. Even then ULA and the Pentagon is hoping that the anti-Russian engine crowd within the congress runs out of steam because the alliance simply makes sense. It gives the pentagon and ULA a reliable propulsion option allowing them to spend precious R&D money elsewhere. Even the new Vulcan is an year by year funding something that is unheard off in R&D circles where plans are drawn out for multi-year appropriations for project completion. They are setting themselves up to cancel the Vulcan if the congressional pressure against the Russian engine lifts.

One point of note here is that the only way commercial launches become cheaper is if others accomplish what Musk has done. The cost savings are substantial since the first stage costs as much as $60 million. Even if they spend a third to have it ready for the next flight there are substantial savings. However, most of those savings will be 'profit-margins' for the commercial business (not so much military since there is a cap) unless others do the same and let market forces dictate the cost of launch. Lower payload cost would open up many other options for payloads that were restricted earlier due to weight considerations. Payloads would become cheap and the overall LEO business would grow substantially.
Musk is shaping up to be such a formidable competitor that Bezos and ULA have been forced to team up for engine development.
And that while reduces the reliance on Russian engine is a rather poor allocation of precious resources that could have been spent on a ton of other space programs. Where Musk turns into a wheeler dealer himself is when he fights off (successfully) a monopoly and demands another monopoly be created instead i.e. he gets a monopoly on LEO. At the end of the day he is also an ambitious businessman who also happens to be very passionate about space. He is now firmly in the assured launched business with the Pentagon so he'll also be getting assured long term contracts just like ULA.
Post Reply