Slashdot Mirror

I haven't seen anybody else mention it in this thread, but there was a really interesting pre-launch teleconference with Air Force Deputy Under Secretary for Space Programs (and former astronaut) Gary Payton. Payton gave quite a few details about the program I hadn't seen elsewhere, giving additional insight into the program's purpose and future plans. I've pasted a few highlights below:

http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/tag/gary-payton/
http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Blog_assets/PaytonX-37.pdf

Question: Mark Matthews with the Orlando Sentinel.
Two quick questions. If the tests are successful is the Air Force looking to be able to build more of these planes? And what do you say to concerns about how this could lead to the increased weaponization of space?
Mr. Payton: We do have a second tail number on contract. Currently we're looking at a 2011 launch for that second tail number. That assumes everything goes properly as predicted on this first flight. And truthfully, I don't know how this could be called wedaponizatino of space. It's just an updated version of the space shuttle kind of activities in space. We, the Air Force, have a suite of military missions in space and this new vehicle could potentially help us do those missions better.
Question: Gordon Lubold, Christian Science Monitor.
I guess I would just wonder if you could explain a little bit more about what the flight will test and clarify one thing. Is there not going to be a specific payload on it this time, or is there going to be and you can't tell us what it's going to be? Can you give us some sense of it? There seems to be a lot of mystery around the flight and I'm not sure if that's intended or not.
Mr. Payton: Like in many of our space launches, not all of them but many of them, the actual on-orbit activities we do classify. So we're doing that in this case for the actual experimental payloads that are on orbit with the X37. But again, our top priority is demonstrating the vehicle itself with its autonomous flight control systems, new generation of silica tile, and a wealth of other new technologies that are sort of one generation beyond the shuttle. ...
Question: It could capture a spacecraft that's already on orbit and bring it down for servicing or what have you?
Mr. Payton: Not on this flight. Again, this flight's intend is the experiments themselves, both during ascent, during entry, and on orbit. But there's no arm on this one. ...

Question: A quick follow-up on in-orbit capability. Do you have, what kind of props on this thing? I know you can get up to like 500 nautical miles, something like that. Is there any expectation to do some orbit maneuvering of this vehicle to different altitudes?
Mr. Payton: Just the way we handle satellites in general. We would, and like we handle low earth orbit satellites. We move them a little bit with their own on-board propulsion system.
You're starting to touch on the notion of using a winged vehicle to really change the inclination of the orbit by sort of dipping into the top of the atmosphere and turning and then bouncing back up off the top of the atmosphere. You need a very very good, very very high. Again, hypersonic lift over drag, in order for that to be beneficial. This bird does not have that high hypersonic lift over drag ratio that you would need to do that kind of maneuver.
Sorry, I didn't intend to give a lecture on Aero 562. ...

Question: Air Force Magazine.
You talked before about how this could handle a small sized satellite. In more lay person's terms, what does that mean? Is the payload large enough to hold like a Volkswagen Beetle or an SUV? Can you give us some idea there?
Mr. Payton: You know our ORS program, Operation Responsive Space?
Question: Yes.
Mr. Payton: Maybe a couple of satellites that are a few hu

Regardless, just having weapons didn't make these people acceptable targets.

I want to note that every household in Iraq is allowed to have an AK-47.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25921

In assessing the F-22 requirement, we also considered the advanced stealth and superior air-to-ground capabilities provided by the fifth-generation F-35s now being accelerated in this budget, the growing capability and range of unmanned platforms like the Reaper, and other systems in the Air Force and in other services

Surely, I'm not joking. Yes they do.. I guess this is just another case of facts having a well-established liberal bias.. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560 http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=103625013.html

Even President Obama's new director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, wrote in a memorandum to his staff last week that "high value information came from interrogations in which these methods were used," an assertion left out when the memorandum was edited for public release ...
Many intelligence officials, including some opposed to the brutal methods, confirm that the program produced information of great value, including tips on early-stage schemes to attack tall buildings on the West Coast and buildings in New York's financial district and Washington. Interrogation of one Qaeda operative led to tips on finding others, until the leadership of the organization was decimated. Removing from the scene such dedicated and skilled plotters as Mr. Mohammed, or the Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali, almost certainly prevented future attacks.

The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 2003, the US and several partners - acting on information from several detainees-disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners KSM and his network were behind the planning for this attack.

That said, the US is paying attention to trends in ballistic missiles. Look up the brand new Ballistic Missile Defense Review It's a very practicall look at where ballistic missiles are going in the world and where the US should go to defend against them.

Care to point me in the direction of any women who have managed to make General, in any branch of service? Last I checked, there were none. So women may be in the military, but they either lack the same potential as men -- or environmental factors are holding them back. Which one do you suppose it is?

Last you checked must have been before 1970 when the Army promoted their first general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Mae_Hays
Airforce in 1971:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Holm
Navy in 1972:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alene_B._Duerk

There are plenty of women generals. Maybe you should actually check and recognize the accomplishments of some great women rather then just saying women can't succeed in the military. Women fill officer ranks in higher proportion then women in military and they're promoted faster.

In 2005
http://prhome.defense.gov/poprep2005/summary/summary.html
Women are 15% of military
Women are 16% of Officers
Women received 16% of promotions
Women received 20% of officer promotions
92% of career fields are open to women

But when you take the numbers of Military with 25+ years in military it's far less. Which is why there's the holes in highest ranks (only 8% for 4-star generals the highest rank). That's not a matter of personal potential or environmental factors, it's a matter of 25 years ago things weren't as good as they are now.

Recruitment of women sucks (it actually started declining after the war started too), despite several attempts to target women for recruitment. Maybe they're driven away by the same ancient myths that women can't succeed in the military.

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11335

That is correct. And on top of that, recent satellites no longer have the technical capability to implement selective availability anyway (see http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11335). It is no longer needed for anything after having been turned off several years ago. That's because civilian users had developed multiple techniques - e.g. differential GPS - to get better accuracy even when back SA was still on. In short, SA is dead and buried forever.

How about we let the American public vote on these important offices rather than let a president that over 47% of the population opposed appoint them?

You're right. How dare a 53% majority rule in a democracy! Where's my ballot for Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy. Screw you Marilee Fitzgerald! I never voted for you!

There are some great US Army programs to become a US citizen. Any foreigner can sign up and fight for America and earn their citizenship in the process. One of the programs i know of is MAVNI, mostly for people who know languages other than english and people who know medicine.

http://www.army.com/enlist/mavni.html
http://www.goarmy.com/info/mavni
http://www.defense.gov/news/mavni-fact-sheet.pdf

Why would the White house dismiss the question? Have you read the transcript? Rumsfeld answered the question. If anything, he was more prepared than the reporter was.

#1 hit for "National Defense spending versus GDP" leads to a page with this chart. You'll note the steady decline past the Clinton days. Bush did ask for a 3.8 in 2003 (which would be a .8% increase....still not close to record highs, or even a real significant increase compared to the previous 5/10/or 20 years).

They will level Tokyo and Seoul before they consider San Diego, you know that

No...no ones know for certain who will attack whom. I'm sure in the mid-80s, as we handed weapons to Osama Bin Laden and helped them fight the Soviets, no one in their wildest dreams thought he would fund/manage/administer the group(s) that would bring down the Trade Towers. I'm certain as the Japanese ambassador was handing the medal (of friendship) to our government, no one had an inkling of the mass formation of aircraft carriers and their intended target.

You've made your point of terrorists being a threat, however, you've repeatedly been unable to give a convincing reason to discount the need to defend against missiles. Maybe you question the method, maybe you just don't trust "old generals in a room in the Pentagon"...I don't know your motives. I do, however, know war and am a trained professional in the profession of arms. Such training leads you to make calculated decisions based on varying levels of risk and the task at hand. The Department of Defense has one focus: To extend the foreign policy of the US, at a moments notice, anywhere across the Earth. The fulfillment of that mission is to break the others guys toys, kill them and save US lives (civilian or military). This is why the DoD will continue to watch both the large, and small scale bad guys. I very seriously doubt Hussein is the very last person to consider invading and annexing another country. (so before you say it...we're not the same...there will not be a 51st state). North Korea has been very blunt in threatening the US, as well as South Korea. An attack from them would not be in a vacuum, so they understand very well that an attack on anyone would prompt a US reaction. So, again, going to my earlier point, premptive strikes are best, and more effective when strong (e.g. shock and awe). So N.K. would be stupid to not give serious consideration to hit us at the same time. We would be even dumber to not be defensively ready for it....

As far as what's effective and what's not. I'm not going to touch it because I'm not jeopardizing my clearance by disclosing weapon capabilities. Let's just say...don't read everything you read, and some things you read are more true than you'd imagine...

ok...now can we get back on topic?