| Author |
Topic:
The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
3/8 2:43pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Here is the wiki article on the subject. Also, this appears to be one of the original papers on the subject.
I'm really not seeing the benefit for most satellites. While fractionated spacecraft would indeed mean a problem with one module wouldn't take down the entire satellite, it seems to me that this is the equivalent of adding "moving parts"; where more things can go wrong. For the satellite itself, my primary concern would be the actual insertion of the fractionated spacecraft into orbit as well as the insertion of a replacement module when one fails. The paper in the second link mentions a theoretical magnetic device to keep the free-floating modules together during course corrections, and maybe that technology is worth checking out, but it does not seem anywhere near ready to me. Additionally, I wonder how well the wireless power transmission works.
The other major problem I see with this concept is that while satellites are not cheap (hence the desire to use replaceable modules rather than putting all your eggs in one basket), space launch is not cheap either. It would seem to me that the costs of replacing failed modules would quickly become prohibitive after more than one or two exchanges.
If you ask me, the biggest step we could take now toward responsive space is proceeding to develop common satellite buses (the part of the spacecraft that provides power, temperature regulation, stabilization, propellant, telemetry, etc), with the payload (the actual package that performs the mission) designed to fit with a bus rather than designing a bus around the spacecraft requirements.
-----signature-----
As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences. -Eugene McCarthy
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
3/29 1:04pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Returning to an earlier subject- Last week, an Air Force B-1B bomber broke the sound barrier while using a blend of Fischer-Tropsch fuel. The actual mixture still contained traditional jet fuel, but was comprised of at least 50% of coal.
It was the first aircraft to achieve supersonic flight using synthetic fuel.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
3/29 2:31pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
If the fuel mixture's 50% coal-derived, wouldn't that be "worse" for the environment in terms of greenhouse emissions? Not that the Pentagon's really going to worry about that, but I can't see that they'd be willing to endure protests against military recruitment with an added "anti-green" dimension too. 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
3/29 3:19pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
- Date Edited:
3/29 3:22pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
Yeah, that's true right now.
However, the military is also developing the capability to capture the waste C02, and divert it into other uses as well.
The process fits within the US military's larger strategy of energy independence. The ultimate goal is to have the military supply its own fuel needs and not rely on any outside source. (and the obvious foreign policy freedoms that it would allow) The final fuel wouldn't be derived from petroleum at all, and the military has 2 Fischer-Tropsch processing plants that are in varying stages.
The capturing of C02 adds to the cost of the coal liquefaction, but all that cost would remain "in-house" as the military would be both the producer and the end user. What I don't know is how well the capability would transfer to the civilian/commercial market.
EDIT: Of course, with something like this, our resident energy expert will have more information....
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/1 7:48am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
I can geek out all over the place about carbon sequestration in another post, but did anyone notice the NYT article "Inside the Black Budget"? I really enjoyed this 509th bomb wing patch:
"Tastes like chicken." 
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/1 8:08am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
I can geek out all over the place about carbon sequestration in another post
Yes, please do. Although I'll attempt to predict the tone, and ask- It can't be all bad, can it?
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/1 8:41am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
- Date Edited:
4/1 8:51am (3 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
No, it's not all bad. Carbon capture and sequestration is a great idea. One of the best ideas for "what to do with captured carbon" is to inject it into declining oil wells to maintain wellhead pressure as part of secondary and tertiary recovery projects. This is already done to some extent, so it has the advantage of being an existing technology as opposed to some kind of pie in the sky technology that is not feasible to implement. C02 oil well injection could prove to be extremely valuable economically particularly since every year more and more of the world's oil producing regions are in decline and late-stage oil recovery is an increasing challenge.
The challenge here would be: how do you economically transport C02 from where it is released to where it can be used and/or stored. There is a huge disconnect between where coal needs to be burned and where C02 can be injected into some kind of underground storage.
Also, I'm very pleased that the Air Force is experimenting with Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuel. Although it would be difficult and expensive to scale it up to the level of U.S. military demand, it's not impossible. It can be done at a huge cost, and since coal prices are rising rapidly along with oil prices it doesn't necessarily get more attractive economically as oil prices rise. The issue though isn't necessarily cost, it's access to oil. Nazi Germany was facing the same problem when their bid for Russian oilfields collapsed. The U.S. armed forces are asking themselves: how can we maintain the world's most energy-intensive military in a world of tight oil supplies? Fischer-Tropsch is probably the only viable answer to that question. I would also guess the U.S. military is going to become a world leader in pioneering energy efficiency over the next 15-20 years.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
4/2 12:40am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
This is probably another topic that's been discussed before....but shall we discuss the F-22 and stealth technology? The Raptor isn't up for exports for the time being, but that's not the case for the F-35. And supposedly China and Russia are working their own "stealth" aircraft. Does anyone smell an arms race?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/3 11:53am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
I can't see any kind of stealth "arms race," although the technology for this is certainly increasing across the board. The main hurdle here is that Russia and China are developing 1st generation stealth capability, while the US is now on the 4th generation of the same.
1st and 2nd generation stealth is extremely sensitive to the environment. The b-2 bomber has to have its stealth coating reapplied after a couple of flights because the combination of rain, salt, etc.. degrades its effectiveness. Of course, the counter to stealth is increased radar detection, and Western radar can already detect lower generations of stealth by comparing flight characteristics of the object.
The F-22 is the first "multi-spectrum" stealth aircraft, as it counters radar, infrared, and sonar. More importantly, these capabilities are sealed against the weather.
The F-35 could probably be called "stealth-lite" as it incorporates stealth aspects in order to make it generally more effective.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
4/6 6:47am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
In terms of an arms race..yeah, har har. How about no-like the poster above said, Russia and China are on generation one; we're on generation four, with five (a 2018-timeframe midsize bomber) and six (a 2037-timeframe heavy bomber) planned.
It's like worrying about the PLAN taking on the USN; something for "novelists" like Dale Brown to worry about.
-----signature-----
Upstate NY: First-World Country,
Third-World Infrastructure.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LtNOWIS
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
4/6 5:45pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
Stealth aside, Russia has new planes like the MiG-35, the Su-35, and the Su-30, the latter of which is in service with China and Venezuela. They probably can't touch the Raptor, but our margin of air to air dominance is less than it once was.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/6 9:08pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
But in all honestly, the actual technology of the plane is probably on the bottom of the air superiority list.
The problem with Russian and Chinese fighters is that they still use the doctrine of "ground-air vectoring." Basically, what this means is that a ground radar station detects a threat and remotely guides the fighter to the target. All the pilot does is decide to shoot/not shoot, and then climb away. Seriously, pilots could probably be removed from Russian and Chinese jets, and not really suffer that great of a tactical loss. It's almost a completely foreign concept to Western fighter pilots, but RU/CH pilots have almost no independence while in the air.
The former Soviets taught the Iraqis G-A vectoring, and the real world results of it are there for anyone to examine. Keep in mind that back in 1991, the Iraqi Air Force was the largest in the Middle East, and flew MiG-21 and MiG 25 "Foxbat" fighters, as well as modern French Mirage interceptors.
One of the lessons that the US learned from Vietnam, and which caused a complete re-organization of the fighter based services was fighter combat, even in the jet age.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
4/7 2:42pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
The Su-30, MiG-35, and Su-35 are all above-par fighters...if, that is, we were still living in a pre-Stealth, pre-supersonic cruise timeframe like the 1980s. Any of those planes is gonna be meat on the table when matched up against an F-22. It can hang with them in a dogfight, but the odds of actually getting close enough to scrap with an F-22 if you're not stealthy are slim to none, as you're probably going to be getting AMRAAMed from 60+ miles away before you even know F-22s are in the area.
-----signature-----
Upstate NY: First-World Country,
Third-World Infrastructure.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LtNOWIS
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
4/7 6:33pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Well, speak of the devil.
Another reason those new Russian fighters are important, is they probably won't be deployed against the US. More likely, it'll be one of their allies versus one of our allies. In an India versus Pakistan or Venezuela versus Colombia conflict, I think those new fighters could be a deciding factor.
Not that I want to be a pessimist or anything; the US can still defeat any other nation.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
4/14 4:48pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
You're making one fatal assumption, Nowis: You're assuming Pakistan will still be a functioning nation in the next decade or so.
-----signature-----
Upstate NY: First-World Country,
Third-World Infrastructure.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
