tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post8629987359606399661..comments2024-03-29T09:08:47.702-04:00Comments on The Silicon Graybeard: A Rocket Story Getting Little CoverageSiGraybeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-22626428728501628332021-06-10T12:03:19.646-04:002021-06-10T12:03:19.646-04:00Fair enough, but the 90:10 rule applies.
They'...Fair enough, but the 90:10 rule applies.<br />They'll spend 10% of the time getting something 90% of the way, then spend 90% of the time getting it the other 10%.<br /><br />Net result: exact same transport time as all-conventional, at a higher overall cost, and orders of magnitude more complexity.<br /><br />Which doesn't just make it likely the Pentagon will use it, it's almost a stone-carved certainty.<br /><br />This, from the people who brought you the LCS, the <i>Ford</i>, the F-35 Thunderjug, and "diversity is our strength".<br /><br />We're f**ked.Aesophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07834464741531503378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-80210993475665711172021-06-10T08:58:15.287-04:002021-06-10T08:58:15.287-04:00I did some searching around the web on "cargo...I did some searching around the web on "cargo plane shot down" and found references to isolated incidents but nothing very widespread. I know about Extortion 17 (losing the "SpecOps Chinook full of SEALs to goatherders with RPGs.") and have blogged about it a few times. I absolutely don't think that's the sort of mission being envisioned. <br /><br />I don't see them using this the way you're thinking of it. <br /><br />First off, anybody with half a brain (average Pentagon brain trust) has to realize that sending supplies by FedUPS (by which I mean any conventional carrier) is going to be cheaper. The source article says they use common carriers extensively today. Even if Musk gets the price to orbit down to the kind of numbers talked about out there for Starship, it's still cheaper to send stuff by the equivalent of cargo container ships and the Air Force's own cargo fleet of C-5s and C-17s. Pretty much any way is going to be cheaper than this. <br /><br />So what's left? This approach sounds to me like they're going to use it to well-controlled areas, like airports, very far from the front lines. They're going to have to use airports with the infrastructure to refuel the thing to send back home. In this case, if they needed to send something to Afghanistan, they won't send it to Bagram, they'll send it someplace a thousand miles from there. <br /><br />It just seems that when you add it all up it has to be the last resort, sort of, "when it absolutely, positively has to be there right freakin' now." If they're going to send a cargo rocket to the front lines without a way to refuel it, they have to know they're throwing it out. Yeah, I know the Washington/Pentagon speak, "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money," but cost has to get looked at. <br /><br />Another way of looking at the situation is that their logistics guys failed if they need to use a rocket to get something from the CONUS to another part of the world. <br /><br /><br />SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-60718785666778910612021-06-09T23:58:01.213-04:002021-06-09T23:58:01.213-04:00SiG,
1) Once again, C-17s and C-5s only work in p...SiG,<br /><br />1) Once again, C-17s and C-5s only work in permissive airspace. As in "in the rear, with the gear", and nothing hostile and threat-capable for dozens to hundreds of miles. C-130s and AC-130s, against far-from-peer adversaries and in contested airspace, tend to take quite a beating. <br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War<br /><br />We lost a SpecOps Chinook full of SEALs to goatherders with RPGs. Multiple millions of dollars apiece invested to train each DevGru SEAL and SpecOps pilot, X 8+8, plus a $30M dollar airframe, for the price of a $300 rocket.<br />Even Hadji can do that math, all day long.<br /><br />2) Let me know the cost-per-pound for rocket delivery to a rear area, vs. for a C-5 or C-17, both far from any front lines or contested airspace, and then make a case for why and under what circumstances you'd need the rocket express. I'm thinking that anyplace where time is that critical is exactly someplace where you don't have any sort of air superiority, and if you <i>did</i> have that, then why bother with a rocket in the first place? Catch-22.<br /><br />3) Then factor in a cost-per-platform, and whether it's anticipated to be a reusable asset, or intended to be expendable, and once again, do an apples-to-apples comparison between that cost vs. cargo aircraft used solely in permissive air environments, which a/c tend to last for decades if treated properly.<br /><br />4) I'm open to counter-argument based on actual data, but absent that, it's a potential capability in search of a reason, based on a highly dubious premise. Cool? Buck Rogers? Check and double-check.<br />Practical and useful? Not very likely. Economically sound? Almost certainly not.<br /><br />What Elon can pull off on pre-surveyed spots in Texas or Miami Beach on a clear sunny day is not the same thing he'll find easy on a dark and stormy night in some Trashcanistan or Shitholia, which is the entire problem the minute we add the "military" preface. Well, except for the theoretically critical men and equipment riding on the notional rockets, hoping to land at a speed conducive to military utility, unless we're anticipating recruiting <i>kamikazes</i>. At which point, we're better off sending a payload of warheads, not warriors.<br />QED<br /><br />5) Once you start launching rockets intercontinentally at enemy territory, at least 7 other known nuclear powers start getting itchy, and warming up certain assets in their silos. Next thing you know, people are fighting in the War Room, and we've got a Mineshaft Gap. "<i>Mein führer, I can walk!</i>"<br /><br />So this makes no sense, economically nor tactically, probably isn't useful, and likely isn't something we should want to go fooling around with, for all those reasons.<br /><br />But sure as God made little green apples, you go and build one, and some dipshit with stars on his shoulders will want to go using it, and we'll all get to find out in about 30 minutes afterwards how good or bad an idea it was all along.<br /><br />I've seen the Pentagon brain trust in action for decades, including up close, and it's no accident that "military intelligence" heads the all-time list of great oxymorons.<br /><br />I don't think you want to put any more eggs in that basket than you absolutely have to do.<br /><br />Just saying.Aesophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07834464741531503378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-16216799814940150092021-06-09T15:00:00.520-04:002021-06-09T15:00:00.520-04:00Pardon me if not having spent any time in the mili...Pardon me if not having spent any time in the military ruins my perspective, but do C-17s, C-5s, and the other cargo planes get shot down all the time? I don't seem to recall hearing that. <br /><br />I don't really see the difference. A cargo plane comes in horizontally, descending fairly slowly from cruising altitude to land, while I think the descending rocket would have a smaller amount of travel at low altitudes. I have read of cargo planes descending in a tight spiral. The cargo plane would seem to make a better target than something approaching vertically, go into a belly flop, then flip upright and use rocket engines to land. <br /> <br />Agreed that modern Surface to Air Missiles should be able to shoot down anything flying in, but I really see no difference between cargo planes and rockets. Again, not having worked in that world, I just may not understand. <br /><br /><br />SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-21616430283264359942021-06-09T12:47:13.937-04:002021-06-09T12:47:13.937-04:00Once again:
We're talking military applicatio...Once again:<br /><br />We're talking <i>military</i> applications. Theoretical thought exercises are meaningless.<br /><br />What you can do when no one's shooting at you pales into insignificance compared to what you can actually pull off when they are.<br /><br />Do this in a fully non-permissive environment, and get back to us.<br />That's the difference between sales brochures based upon vaporware, and real-world performance.<br /><br />If you can put 100 tons of payload somewhere, you're going to have to start with warheads, and lots of them, or else you're just sending lambs to the slaughter, the comic book exploits of Buck Rogers notwithstanding.Aesophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07834464741531503378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-45453104736973697032021-06-08T12:16:08.616-04:002021-06-08T12:16:08.616-04:00100 tons. Thats 800 armed soldiers weighing 250l...100 tons. Thats 800 armed soldiers weighing 250lbs each fully loaded or a battlion. Or over 7 million rnds of 5.56. Or 3 Bradley’s. <br /><br />Its an interesting concept. The naysayers of this idea would have said 25 years ago the same of what SpaceX has achieved today. <br /><br />Musk has built the technology and proven it can be done. So its not so farfetched as the technology currently exists. But should a mishap ocurr with 800 men on board, thats a significant single event loss of human life that even in wartime would not be acceptable. Fladavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11121044726811784873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-44369577053236413922021-06-08T12:01:14.132-04:002021-06-08T12:01:14.132-04:00Uh huh.
And you figure State farm is going to pic...Uh huh.<br /><br />And you figure State farm is going to pick up a policy on a battalion armored task force?<br /><br />Sh'yeah, as if.<br /><br />Call me when the price per pound is less tallies up to less than the entire pentagon budget for a year, with a delivery probability in the high 90th percentile.<br /><br />Spitballing, but that should be around the twelfth of Never.<br /><br />But like the lottery, it's fun to dream.<br /><br />BTW, the enemy gets a vote.<br /><br />The minute this has any military application in reality, rocket launching ceases to be a permissive environment. So when anti-rocket missiles take out 80% of your launch vehicles with 1990s technology, it's a lot less fun to try it.<br /><br />this is an idea from the people who brought you this:<br />"<i>If businesses would switch to computers, think how much they'd save by going totally paperless with all their documentation.</i>" - 1960s-era sales schmuck<br /><br />When I get my jetpack and flying car, we can start talking about rocket delivery of anything military beside warheads.Aesophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07834464741531503378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-88910214382862460652021-06-08T11:00:19.204-04:002021-06-08T11:00:19.204-04:00I don't think this would be used to go "a...I don't think this would be used to go "anywhere", but rather to established forward bases where the infrastructure has been built to refuel. Of course, if it were critical in an existential war, you'd just leave it there and grab another one.Malatropehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06130944283006020214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-25246173413984556082021-06-08T10:58:35.030-04:002021-06-08T10:58:35.030-04:00Satellites are insured. This is not a problem.Satellites are insured. This is not a problem.Malatropehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06130944283006020214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-32229915221661230072021-06-08T03:58:28.205-04:002021-06-08T03:58:28.205-04:00I don't see it being used for an M1 Abrams, bu...I don't see it being used for an M1 Abrams, but attack drones, specialist personnel, medical supplies and maybe even patients, small encapsulated cargo (with a slide chute like for escaping from an airliner) are all very very very doable.<br /><br />A great way to get a captured high value target out of an area.Beanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15293778848879361153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-16290612426859788622021-06-08T02:34:32.975-04:002021-06-08T02:34:32.975-04:00Given the failure rate of rockets getting someone ...Given the failure rate of rockets getting someone to insure the cargo is probably going to be impossible.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-52279354463954623292021-06-08T00:51:01.321-04:002021-06-08T00:51:01.321-04:00Given merely the logistics, I dare say such a sche...Given merely the logistics, I dare say such a scheme will flounder in the competition to out perform deliver by existing airframes. Which, by the way, can deliver to literally any point in the world.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15452530649659364201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-21712562586754377612021-06-08T00:49:14.884-04:002021-06-08T00:49:14.884-04:00Worse than pie in the sky dreaming, its plain and ...Worse than pie in the sky dreaming, its plain and simple idiotic think they're going to lift this concept off the pages of a comic book to bring into realty.<br /><br />Entirely new infrastructure will have to be planned, built, maintained. At both ends. Very little of existing infrastructure can be utilized. Then once at the other end, then what? The other end becomes a locked in place distribution point. Infrastructure is not mobile.<br /><br />Even with advances in the requisite technologies, recent history is replete with failed examples of high speed delivery which depends upon route logistics and/or terminal facilities. This all sounds like some bird colonel making a career path in civilian life and using the U.S. taxpayer as funding source. Oh sure, lets talk about trickle down new applications of existing tech. Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15452530649659364201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-65593023507266556122021-06-07T23:16:05.062-04:002021-06-07T23:16:05.062-04:00Yes, there's a lot more involved to this conce...Yes, there's a lot more involved to this concept than the basic "load it up and fly". This is a lot more complicated than loading a cooler in the trunk of your car and driving to the park. In my mind, it might be 90 minutes to fly to the other side of the world - after a month to plan the load, engineer the balance, clamps/bracing, actually load it, stage the rocket, fuel it and then hopefully launch and land it successfully.<br /><br />Myself, I still would keep the C130s and cargo ships around.The Neon Madmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09471284462048509853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-58663408398781567972021-06-07T21:42:11.930-04:002021-06-07T21:42:11.930-04:00Scott Manly covered this a few days ago.
https://...Scott Manly covered this a few days ago.<br /><br />https://youtu.be/xOKm-qKACv8<br /><br />I think it's unlikely in the near term, but I haven't ruled it out entirely.Ratushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02546867391478669489noreply@blogger.com