4 ms·

I've noticed Mike Griffin's goals have been pretty consistent since he led the SDI (and conceived COTS). Follow the man's actions not what's written on the tin.

I've noticed Mike Griffin's goals have been pretty consistent since he led the SDI (and conceived COTS). Follow the man's actions not what's written on the tin. SpaceX's development has wed closely to the SDI requirements. Even Starship seems optimized for mass to LEO rather than Mars.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> SpaceX's development has wed closely to the SDI requirements Any launch vehicle would. I have no doubt Griffin may retain his SDI roots. That doesn’t mean they transferred to SpaceX, much less Starlink. The most we can say is SpaceX’s founders and allies were influenced by SDI. And that influence peaked in the 2000s, when SpaceX was dependent on grants versus launch contracts. > Starship seems optimized for mass to LEO rather than Mars That’s where the money is. Given Starship’s flexibility, concluding much about a secret purpose is untenable. (I agree it would seem to need sizing up for Mars. But if in-orbit propellant transfer really nails, LEO and Mars are practically neighbours. (9.4 km/s to LEO, another 3 to 4 to Mars. More to the Moon.)
- forgot-im-old 2y ago
  All those Mars Colony leaders were SDI people. Take a look at the latest stuff written by Zubrin.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Mars Colony leaders were SDI people. Take a look at the latest stuff written by Zubrin Who is related to Starlink in what respect? The link between Starlink and SDI is about as close as it is to anything space related the U.S. government has done. It’s equally correct to say Starlink has its roots in space planes. Like, sure, I can draw tenuous links between the two. But that’s like saying Juicero was a military project because Silicon Valley was seeded by the DoD.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  > Any launch vehicle would Not even remotely true. You can broadly classify SDI proposals into two categories; ones that require scientific breakthroughs, and ones that are really big engineering projects. The problem with scientific breakthroughs is you can't reasonably predict when and how they're going to happen, so these aren't serious proposals. The other sort, the large engineering problems, require tens of thousands of satellites (e.g. interceptors). An oldspace style rocket with a few launches a year will never move the needle on such a project, it needs a rocket like Falcon 9 or Starship. Michael Griffin's background is in this category of SDI proposal, there can be no doubt that he knew how many satellites it will take and that doing so without cheap reusable rockets would never work.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Sorry, I should have said any launch vehicle development would. Every launch vehicle developed since 2003, including Atlas, technically advances SDI’s agenda. SpaceX does it best because they’ve done launch best. But it’s ahistoric to link the cause of that effect to SDI.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Rockets like Vulcan do not materially advance an SDI agenda because building a plausible SDI project with such rockets isn't possible.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Rockets like Vulcan do not materially advance an SDI agenda Rockets like Vulcan are similarly capable for SDI purposes as the Falcon 1 was. I'm open to being corrected by anyone else who was involved with SpaceX in its early days. But the SDI connection to Falcon reusable, much less Starlink, is an expert exercise in retconning.
        lupusreal 2y ago
        Falcon 1 doesn't move the needle on SDI either, except insofar as it was intended as a developmental stepping stone towards a reusable rocket (which it was publicly claimed to be.) Vulcan isn't, SLS isn't... Blue Origin's work is. Now, you said that even Atlas rockets developed after 2003 are technically advancing an SDI agenda. I don't know which Atlas rocket you're talking about (Atlas V Heavy development?), but it definitely isn't true. There was never any pretext of the Atlas rocket family being a step towards reusability, and therefore it has nothing to do with any serious SDI proposal.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> SpaceX's development has wed closely to the SDI requirements Any launch vehicle would. I have no doubt Griffin may retain his SDI roots. That doesn’t mean they transferred to SpaceX, much less Starlink. The most we can say is SpaceX’s founders and allies were influenced by SDI. And that influence peaked in the 2000s, when SpaceX was dependent on grants versus launch contracts. > Starship seems optimized for mass to LEO rather than Mars That’s where the money is. Given Starship’s flexibility, concluding much about a secret purpose is untenable. (I agree it would seem to need sizing up for Mars. But if in-orbit propellant transfer really nails, LEO and Mars are practically neighbours. (9.4 km/s to LEO, another 3 to 4 to Mars. More to the Moon.)

forgot-im-old 2y ago
All those Mars Colony leaders were SDI people. Take a look at the latest stuff written by Zubrin.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Mars Colony leaders were SDI people. Take a look at the latest stuff written by Zubrin Who is related to Starlink in what respect? The link between Starlink and SDI is about as close as it is to anything space related the U.S. government has done. It’s equally correct to say Starlink has its roots in space planes. Like, sure, I can draw tenuous links between the two. But that’s like saying Juicero was a military project because Silicon Valley was seeded by the DoD.
lupusreal 2y ago
> Any launch vehicle would Not even remotely true. You can broadly classify SDI proposals into two categories; ones that require scientific breakthroughs, and ones that are really big engineering projects. The problem with scientific breakthroughs is you can't reasonably predict when and how they're going to happen, so these aren't serious proposals. The other sort, the large engineering problems, require tens of thousands of satellites (e.g. interceptors). An oldspace style rocket with a few launches a year will never move the needle on such a project, it needs a rocket like Falcon 9 or Starship. Michael Griffin's background is in this category of SDI proposal, there can be no doubt that he knew how many satellites it will take and that doing so without cheap reusable rockets would never work.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Sorry, I should have said any launch vehicle development would. Every launch vehicle developed since 2003, including Atlas, technically advances SDI’s agenda. SpaceX does it best because they’ve done launch best. But it’s ahistoric to link the cause of that effect to SDI.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Rockets like Vulcan do not materially advance an SDI agenda because building a plausible SDI project with such rockets isn't possible.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Rockets like Vulcan do not materially advance an SDI agenda Rockets like Vulcan are similarly capable for SDI purposes as the Falcon 1 was. I'm open to being corrected by anyone else who was involved with SpaceX in its early days. But the SDI connection to Falcon reusable, much less Starlink, is an expert exercise in retconning.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        Falcon 1 doesn't move the needle on SDI either, except insofar as it was intended as a developmental stepping stone towards a reusable rocket (which it was publicly claimed to be.) Vulcan isn't, SLS isn't... Blue Origin's work is. Now, you said that even Atlas rockets developed after 2003 are technically advancing an SDI agenda. I don't know which Atlas rocket you're talking about (Atlas V Heavy development?), but it definitely isn't true. There was never any pretext of the Atlas rocket family being a step towards reusability, and therefore it has nothing to do with any serious SDI proposal.