Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space?

In the Profile section of the July 14, 2003 issue of Space News was the very telling interview with Gen. John P. Jumper ("Space As A Means - Not An End In Itself.")

No wonder our spaceflight prospects are as poor as they are what with Blue-Suits like him running everything. I can't believe this man had the gall to say that his pro-space critics "should worry more about winning wars and less about protecting 'pet' projects."

Isn't that what the Navy said to Billy Mitchell, when he used (then new) air power to sink a battleship?

Or how about that $200 billion Joint Strike Fighter or the $10 billion dollar Crusader (a self-propelled howitzer!) Or the OSPrey heliplane/ air-a-copter, helicopter/airplane contraption that only knows how to kill Marine pilots?

Despite Jumper's challenge to debate anyone on his obvious bias against space - his bad attitude is all too apparent. For him to say that space hasn't been neglected is beyond belief. Our space-flight infrastructure is hurting because of both him and the very Air Force he serves under - and I can prove it.

Before NASA, NACA and Air Force could build decent rockets, we had the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) that was under the fine leadership of General J.B. Medaris, whose book Countdown For Decision should be required reading for anyone in the military.

I will say more on this in Part Two - A Leader Out of Time Speaks: The Legacy of General J.B. Medaris.

It was the ABMA that gave us the Redstone that launched our first, small satellite and Alan B. Shepard Jr. To space. It and the Jupiter bodies became the propellant tankage of the Saturn IB's first stage cluster (like Proton) while the Navy was blowing up Vanguards and McNamara was trying to kill the Apollo Program.

Outside of the Titans, which have become more expensive to launch than the Shuttle, the Air Force has been no friend to large liquid-fueled rockets. Their penchant for shrinking warheads to ride atop small, easily siloed solids - which give a fast but harsh ride unsuitable for all but the most hardened payloads - has come back to bite us all.

Though the Soviets bankrupted themselves with the development of too many ICBMs - their very largest missiles, though failures in a military sense, have become their bread-and-butter commercially.

Early Soviet warheads were unsophisticated and very large. This allowed their Chief Designer Korolov a chance to make a space-booster from the get-go. Though many howled in his country, finding the R-7 too large even for their heavy nuclear devices, calmer heads prevailed and the R-7 went on to launch Sputnik, Vostok, Voskhod, the Zenit spy-sat (still being built as automated Vostoks), Soyuz (Dennis Tito) and Progress re-supply ships to ISS

The future of the R-7 is still bright, as proved by the new plans to build a pad for it in Kourou. It can now carry around seven-to-eight tons to LEO. In 2007, the R-7 turns 50.

The Soviets fielded an even larger rocket called Proton, which started out as a Super-ICBM that was to launch the huge, 25-ton RDS-220 warhead - a 150-megaton bomb-that would have rivalled the 1883 eruption/explosion of Krakatoa in the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra. Thankfully, the UR-500 Proton never carried a warhead as far as we know.

But Proton went on to launch 20 metric ton payloads to Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO), like the DOS core-blocks for their Almaz/Salyut, Mir and Zvezda (ISS), and like the equally large TKS ferries/FGB tugs that are service blocks and station modules in their own right. These are plugged into the DOS core blocks (Kvant on Mir, Zarya on ISS, etc.)

Proton is now the workhorse for the Russians who use it commercially (thanks to ILS with Lockheed-Martin as a partner of sorts), while the kerosene strap-on boosters for the Soviet Space Shuttle Energia-Buran are being sold independently as the first stage of the Zenit booster (not the spysat) that is being used in Boeing's SeaLaunch venture. The Zenit’s single, four-nozzle engine is the RD-170, and has more thrust than the single chamber Saturn V F-1 engine. When 'chopped in half,' the RD-170 becomes the RD-180, now the main engine for Lockheed's brand new Atlas V EELV (Evolved Expendable launch Vehicle.)

So now both Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are using Soviet Space Shuttle engines for their commercial satellite business.

Zenit (the booster) is between R-7 and Proton in capability, and the single nozzle RD-191 will be used in the new Russian EELV, Angara, and perhaps in the Baikal and Zvityaz winged boosters.

Commercially speaking, the Russians are still winning the space-race, even if they lost their biggest battle to go for the moon.

Practical Army men knew that it was better to build bigger rockets than to over-shrink payloads which would be far more costly and complicated. Some Navy men knew this too, like Bob Truax.

Where Russian army men, who were deferential to their chief designers, made big, capable rockets from the start, we had to play catch-up - fighting Air Force antagonism toward liquid-fueled rocket development coming from the top down.

By the time brave EELV-backer General Moorman dragged the rest of the Air Force (kicking and screaming I might add) to build the first big non-ICBM rocket launcher in our history (save for our Shuttle and the Saturns), it was too late. The market fell out, and demand for com-sat rides diminished, due in part to a glut of big Russian launchers already saturating the market. They and the Europeans dominate 2/3 of all launches now.

Because of them, our aerospace giants are doing poorly and are wasting money fighting each other with lawyers over a vanishing com-sat market, while both still have to use Russian Space Shuttle engines to service it.

For the Air Force to blame the 'space people' as Gen. Jumper calls us for their failures of foresight - when it was their obstructionism that kept us from having big rockets all along, is beyond gall. By the time the EELVs were brought to market it was already too late. With the growing gigantism of space assets, the EELVs are already on the verge of being obsolete.

Only China, passing us while standing still, has a medium-heavy lift system in development large enough - and capable of growth—that will compete with Proton upgrades. We wouldn't even have a threat from their Long March to space were it not for the ugly way their chief designer Tsien Hsue-Shen was treated in this country, even after meeting Von Braun and helping our Army .

Even Ariane 5, first thought too large (made primarily to launch Hermes) has, as a reason for its most recent failure, an upgrade program to keep it competitive.

The reason behind ever-growing space assets may shock you. It is the miniaturization of electronics.

Thinking money could be saved, the Air Force (and others) neglected rocket development in favor of over-complicated electronic gadgetry. Early on, this worked well enough, what with older, but larger and more numerous computers on the ground sizing up evenly with newer, faster tech aboard spacecraft. But things worsened with time, when computers were put in the hands of consumers.

Russians placed whatever electronics were available inside simple, rugged spacecraft with an internally pressurized climate-controlled environment safe for any electronics at hand. This allowed cheap but rugged design. The (R-7 launched) Vostok/Voskhod type spacecraft became a spy-sat for many years.

Our solids were rather rough on craft, and our liquid-fueled launch capability was behind the Russian R-7 from the start. We could not encase our assets in heavy pressurized spheres for our launchers had no margin. So we had to shrink, toughen and space-rate our satellites - make them rad-hardened and vacuum-proof and heat resistant and...

After many years of work, the latest computer we have in space is a.....486 - now already obsolete by the throngs of much newer, much faster and much more numerous computers and Tvs, and Satellite Dishes and On*Stars that all want to communicate with that poor, little 486 now.

This scenario can only get worse. The only thing for it is to launch larger spacecraft with more power and more antennas and...

The shrinking of computers made our assets ever larger, like the monster MILSTAR. The poor old Atlas' and Deltas and even Titans were stretched beyond sense...the Delta III being an abortion from the start. By the time the EELVs came on the horizon, they were already in danger of being maxed out with Project Prometheus.

What is needed now is true heavy lift (80-100 tons to LEO) that can serve both NASA and Military interests for years to come - with plenty of growing room seeing as we ask more and more of space on a daily basis.

Liquid-fueled rockets have had the Air Force for an enemy for far too long. When launch vehicle developments are delayed the space people are unfairly blamed when Air Force obstructionists like Gen. John Jumper are the true cause of our problems and continue to make things worse.

When General Jumper was asked by Space News " Does the Pentagon need a separate space force?" He said that he saw "no reason for it."

Naturally he would say that, because the Air Force would no longer have space under its massive heel as has been the case ever since the blue-suiters and their buddies robbed the ABMA. This way, they can neglect space and indulge their fighter-jock fantasies at taxpayer expense. MIGs are not the enemy now. As of 9/11 our new enemy is the 757, 767, 727, etc.

Jumper said "'space people' just like fighter people and bomber people and ground people and naval people need to worry first about winning the war."

It is very easy for him to say that, seeing how Navy and Air Force people already enjoy huge defense budgets they don't need to fight for every day of their lives - with some weapons programs larger than NASA's yearly budget!

These titans already have too much their own way. When space advocates proposed their own branch, naturally the other services, who agreed on little else, ganged up on them - or else they might not have another super-carrier this, or a $200 billion Joint-Strike-Fighter that.

Space people NEED a much bigger budget, but get the least money and are railed at for failures that come from under-funding.

When Billy Mitchell shocked the old Navy brass with his "stunt," he got in trouble instead. I wonder how many admirals told him:

"You up-start airplane people need to quit being parochial in begging for funding. We need to worry about 'winning the war!' So we will be putting our finest battleships out in Pearl Harbor. Enough with your airplane projects!"

Imagine if the 'plane people' had to answer to folks like Jumper in the early 1900s. We wouldn't be flying at all now.

Not if Air Force men like Gen. Jumper have their way. Not when the man currently inhabiting the White House wants to play President of the World instead of the U.S. - blowing money here and there-while saying there is no money for space.

Even after Columbia, all NASA got was a $470 million boost (small compared to most expenditures) that was to have come anyway - though it was almost cut. NASA's real buying power has in fact been on the decrease.

If I told the President to only spend 470 million more dollars than what the military already gets for the War in Iraq, I'm sure he would ask;

How does he and the blue-suiters expect us to have a good space program for that same paltry sum?

It is not his job to blow my hard-earned taxpayer dollar on $10 billion AIDS programs overseas when wealthy, knowledgeable people in this country still contract it with risky behavior themselves.

While money is needed for equipment and uncommon genius, it doesn't help with common sense. No wonder our space program is, quite literally crumbling! Visit some of out facilities for proof of that.

It is not in fact, the primary job of Congress, the President, or the Air Force to waste my tax-money dropping munitions among other things atop someone else's buildings.

Their job is to make sure that no threats from the sky come down on any of our buildings.

So far, they have done a poor job of that, what with skyscraper, airliner, and Shuttle debris having rained down upon us the Nation over.

If anything, Congress is now considering a cut-back on anti-asteroid research spending, which is foolish, seeing that it is nature's ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction.

The way things are going now, we can't blow them up, shoot rogue airliners down, or destroy incoming missiles - not when we have SAC-happy B-52 "Buff"-drivers and fighter jocks running the show doing what they do best - being elitist snobs all the while soaking up Defense dollars better spent elsewhere.

It is time for us 'space people' to demand our leaders in Washington and have them give the Air Force a 'Jump-off.'

I had the honor of meeting General Jumper when he went through F-15 pilot training just before I retired from the Air Force. He is an exceptionally bright individual with a enviable service record.

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS

Defense Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal
Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster
Distinguished Flying Cross with two oak leaf clusters
Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters
Air Medal with 17 oak leaf clusters
Vietnam Service Medal with five service stars
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal

He has over 4000 hours of flight time in everything from small cargo planes to the top of the line AF Fighters. He also has 1400 hours of combat time during two tours of Vietnam.

If General Jumper says that bigger rockets aren't a priority for the Air Force, I would believe him. Satellites are nice, but steel on target is what wins wars.

Were the Battleship Admirals the enemy of air power?
I bet there were plenty of Hoplite generals who stood in the way of developing the Macedonian Phalanx. The established bureaucracy will always try and prevent change, it's more of a threat then any enemy...

Especially since a space based weapons system called THOR, basically orbiting bundles of kinetic kill "rods", capable of what amounts to a guided meteor storm anywhere in the world within minutes makes most Army, Navy and Air Force weapons systems obsolete. The country that grabs THIS high ground will rule the world for quite a while...

THOR sends a 10 foot long, 1 foot diameter rod into a target at 12,000 fps. It sounds like it would be good for high value assets, but would be too expensive for large scale use. I also think that this violates the treaty that we signed limiting weapons in space.

The real breakthrough in space will be when someone has the guts to build a horizontal launch, air breathing first stage, reusable orbital launcher.

There are several very practical ideas about how to do that (not the X-30) on the drawing boards.

My favorite being the turbojet powered craft that would launch lightly loaded, hit a KC-135 for fuel top off, and light a rocket in its tail to boost to 300k feet and mach 6, where it kicks out an upper stage that will go into orbit.

Now THAT is a practical method to get small payloads into orbit. And since you could fly it almost every day, assembling larger structures in orbit is a no-brainer.

But the article is right, the AF will not want it. But not because they're trying to protect turf (indeed, such a vehicle could be the most important thing they flew), but because if such a thing were built, the Chineese, and worse, Al-Quaeda would buy one quickly.

Quite simply, space fairing governments want space travel expensive and rare, so only they can afford it.

Some interesting comments on this general subject from Cold War rocket scientist / science fiction writer / political operative / Modern Renaissance Man Jerry Pournelle are here:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/SPACECOVER.html

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/gettospace.html

1. EVERY flag officer has an agenda. Recall the story of Billy Mitchell and the Battleship Admirals. 4 Stars on each shoulder do NOT prevent you from making errors in judgement. . . .

2. You want steel on target ? Ever hear of Project THOR ?
Imagine a 50 pound crowbar, fin-guided, dropped on a target from orbit. You don't NEED explosives. One would do a main battle tank, all by itself. Space-based sensors for guidance, and voila, you've just wiped a ground force with zero friendly casualties. Alas, you've also pretty much eliminated the need for all but cargo, and maybe recon pilots. And RPV fighters are already in prototype... the Pilots' Union, and ESPECIALLY the Fighter Pilots' Union know VERY well that Space and Space-based weaponry will pretty much make them obsolete. . .and worst still make all the remaining pilots "trash-haulers". . .

Well, as dedicated and bright as General Jumper may be, his mission is to protect the careers of the "fighter pilots"!

Everything the AF does now in space is "how can it help the guy in the cockpit" do his mission. It is a perfectly valid approach for the AF, but there are a lot of space missions (manned and unmanned)which go well beyond the arena of the atmosphere and are of great strategic importance and "outside of the box" for fighter jocks!

Right now, the USAF is in the same situation as the US Army was in 1915, "What in the heck are we supposed to do with those flying machines?". Hopefully, the "spaceies" will get their own Billy Mitchell to produce a separate operating service in space.

I think that it's a matter of competing priorities. The current problem is conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq and space based systems aren't as cost efficient as jets and guided weapons. It takes a lot of money to put an object in space - thousands of dollars per pound. Each THOR projectile would weigh almost 2.5 Tons and could only be used once.

I think that you're correct about some people in the Air Force protecting the fighter pilots. I saw a lot of resistance to unmanned aerial vehicles when I was in. Some of it was justified, but a lot of it was fear of change.

I think that it would be very difficult to justify taking money from manned aircraft development and putting it into space-based systems without a clear objective for the space-based platform and a detailed cost-benefits analysis showing that it has some advantage over manned aircraft. Maybe a space-age Billy Mitchell is the answer.

the Fighter Pilots' Union know VERY well that Space and Space-based weaponry will pretty much make them obsolete. . .and worst still make all the remaining pilots "trash-haulers". . .

I seriously doubt it. It costs several thousand dollars a pound to put something in orbit. I can't imagine any scenario where space-based weapons would be more cost effective in a conventional war.

As far as your comment about all flag officers having an agenda I agree. Most of them have the agenda of protecting the US using the best strategy and equipment that they're aware of. I've never met an Air Force Flag officer that felt that Air Power could be used by itself to win a war and I've never met an Army Flag officer that felt that ground forces could win without airpower.

How much does it cost, in logistics and ops costs, to take out a target in the conventional fashion. Weapons cost, logistics cost, operations and maintenance costs, etc.

It's a wash, with CURRENT launch costs. Given some research cash, we could drop on-orbit cost to a hundred bucks or less per pound, and THEN space-based weaponry really shines.

And I rellay admire your naivete about flag officers. Fighter pilots run the Air Force, that's why we have insufficient quantities of tankers, airlifters, bombers, etc.

Generals are all about winning the LAST war, not the NEXT one. . .

I doubt you could ever get a consensus on how much it costs to fly a mission because there's so many ways to compute it. We figured the direct cost of a one hour sortie at about $3400, but another base located 80 miles away flying the same model aircraft figured it at $5100.

The munitions cost depends on the type of munition. A dumb bomb is a couple of thousand and an Air Launched Cruise Missile is over a million.

The 4800 lb THOR projectile is going to cost 9.6 million dollars just to put it in space at $2000 a lb.

I don't doubt that the price of these systems would come down, but you get a lot more "bang for the buck" using conventional weapons from a UAV or A-10.

The only use that I can see for something this costly that could only hit stationary targets is for taking out deep bunkers with High Value Assets inside.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.