Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO018.ZIP/V16NO018

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Fri,  8 Jan 93 05:07:12
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #018
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  8 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 018

Today's Topics:
                DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet (2 msgs)
                Fabrication (was fast track failures)
          Great stuff at NASA (was Re: Latest Pegasus news?)
                 Justification for the Space Program
       Keeping ramjet stoked (was Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***)
                         Latest Pegasus news?
         Man rating again (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
           Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
     Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
                         question about SETI
                      RTG's on the Lunar Module
                         russian solar sail?+
  Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) (2 msgs)
          Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating) (2 msgs)
         Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:23:33 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Unnecessarily, if so, since the solutions developed for Skylab actually
>worked pretty well.  (Notably, the Skylab toilet worked.)  For rather
>longer than a week, too.

Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle?

One gets the impression that the number of competent people
at NASA fell below critical mass quite some time ago...

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 93 10:34:41 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle?

Probably because nobody wanted to go to Australia and pick up all the pieces.

:-)
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 93 19:13:43 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>You'll notice that after Saturn achieved it's Cold War objective of
>oneupmanship against the USSR, it was promptly dropped because no other
>missions could justify it's expense and there was never a hope of
>recouping it's development costs.

With your talent for rewriting history, it's too bad the Soviet Union
is no longer in business. :-)

In fact, there were plenty of missions that could have justified
its expense: the follow-on Apollo missions, additional Skylabs,
Space Base, nuclear-powered space tugs, and the manned Mars mission,
to name a few.  The Saturn was cancelled because Congress didn't
want to do those missions and NASA didn't want anything to compete
with Shuttle.


>We should never again make the mistake of killing our only operational
>system in favor of a paper spacecraft that hasn't established a solid
>track record of meeting it's performance and cost goals.

Instead, we should make the new mistake of funding a system
whose managers seek to crush any potential competition?

>Thus I champion continuing to fly Shuttle until there are proven
>systems on line to replace it.

And, like the Shuttle managers, bad-mouth any potential systems
that *might* replace it.  (Or seek keep them limited to research
programs only.)

>Neither the paper DC-1 nor the proposed Soyuz on Titan have that
>track record yet.

Why did you avoid mentioning Soyuz on Soviet launchers?

>Meanwhile Shuttle continues to maintain a presence in space for
>the USA that does worthwhile missions.

At the cost of how many worthwhile missions we can't do with
the Shuttle but could with a true space-transportation system?
Since you talk about the opportunity costs that would be incurred
by cancelling the Shuttle, why do you fail to consider the
opportunity costs involved in continuing it?


>Unlike Allen, I am completely convinced that killing Shuttle now will
>not cause any money to be reprogrammed to his pet schemes.

So am I.  I am also completely convinced it would wipe out
a major political base opposed to alternative launchers.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 93 13:00:53 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Great stuff at NASA (was Re: Latest Pegasus news?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
[responding to Allen Sherzer's question:]
>>This is not the case. There is lots of great stuff going on at NASA. I
>>criticize the unproductive things NASA does so that we can have more of
>>the good stuff. Why does that bother you so much?
>
>      Because very seldom does anyone ever mention the great stuff
>      going on at NASA.

Emphatically *not* true.  That's why God made Dennis Wingo.

Bill Higgins                         | Favorite carol around Higgins house:
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory| Glooooooooooooooria
Internet:  [e-mail]     | In excelsis Deo
Bitnet:     [e-mail]      | Deo
SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS          | Daylight come and me wanna go home

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 93 18:20:09 GMT
From: "James L. Felder" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

O.K., I just started following this group today, and already I see one of
my favorite topics up for vorciferous debate, so I'll just wade in here.  I
didn't get in on the beginning of this thread, so I'll not put any
quotation here, just some of my ideas.  If I am repeating previous
aurguments, then flame away if it make you feel better.

Premise 1.  We live on a finite planet with finite resources.

Premise 2.  Our technological society is highly dependent on resources that
are being used up faster than they can be replaced.

Premise 3.  Economists seem to insist that we must continue to grow to
increase our standard of living, and the public and politicians seemed to
have bought into this premise.  For proof one only has to look at the last
election to see cries that we are "loosing the American Dream" because we
are not better off than our parents held up as worthy compaign issues.  The
strong implication is that an ever increasing, I would hazard
materialistic, standard of living is something we must all strive for.

Premise 4.  We will not stumble across some unlimited sources of energy
(fusion) or materials (say a way to mine the earths core) here on earth.

Conclusions.  Energy and materials will become increasingly hard to obtain,
and that eventually the net energy and material production will decline
below what is required to maintain some existing standard of living.Unless
we find a way to circumvent the limited resources of our planet, we as a
technologically advanced society will cease to exist.  People will continue
to exist, but society will not be as we know it.  I do not know the time
frame, nor care to hazard a guess, but the end seems to me to be
unavoidable.

I agree that we can postpone it through careful husbandry of our resources,
but not escape it.  In fact we must learn to take better care of our planet
(control pollution, DECREASE population globally, etc.), if it is going to
be somewhere worth living. However, I see no earthbound solution to the
untimate problem of limited resources.  That lead to only one conclusion,
IMHO, we must look elsewhere besides earth.  We must, therefore, continue
to explore and learn to utilize resources off of our planet, and the only
way to do that is a space program.

Further, we must have a vigorous space program now because I think we are
near a cusp point in history.  That point is where we have the techological
where with all to undertake such a program and still have plentiful and
cheap enough energy and materials to allow society to "afford" it.  If we
wait any significant amount of time before beginning our space exploration,
the sources of very cheap energy, (mid-east oil, shallow coal fields and
the like) will begin to be exhausted.  New sources will be in harder to get
at places like the antarctic, deep water, and deep mines, making them more
expensive to produce.  This will cause costs of everything to rise, placing
an ever greater strain on society.  If the arguments against the space
program being a waste of time and money are at all effective now, imagine
how much more effective they will be energy and materials are several times
as expensive, in constant terms, as they are now.  Then a space program
will then be a luxury that our children or grandchildren could ill afford
in their ever greater struggles simple to stay afloat.  The time for a
space program is not in the future, it is now. Now while we still can.

A space program is not an answer to the problems of the world.  There are
too many of us and we pollute too much, but hese are beyond the ability of
the space program to fix.  I see no other alternative besides expanding
beyond the surface of this planet to escape the fate of an infinitely
consuming society in a finite world.

If anyone can see another approach to avoid this coffin corner we seem to
be headed towards, I would love to hear about it.


James L. Felder            [phone]         -My opinions are MINE-
Sverdrup Technology, Inc.  [e-mail]  I think that should
NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland 44135        cover all bases,
                                                  don't you.

"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge -
    other people gargle"

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 93 12:46:08 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keeping ramjet stoked (was Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jason Cooper) writes:
>>2) you won't have to carry
>>around what I see as becoming GIGANTIC amounts of antimatter...
>
> The amounts of antimatter get huge only when you start trying to achieve
> seriously relativistic velocities.

Does a Bussard ramjet work *at all* below seriously relativistic
velocities?

Seems to me below some large speed, which I recall as
something much bigger than .5c, you don't gather enough interstellar
hydrogen to keep things stoked.  Admittedly I remember details rather
fuzzily, and don't know how to apply them to the "ram-augmented
interstellar rocket" Henry is talking about.

To learn more, by the way, consult articles by A.R. Martin and others
concerning "ram-augmented interstellar rockets"  (RAIR) in *Journal of
the British Interplanetary Society* somewhere between 1975 and the
present.

Bob Forward did a bibliography of literature on interstellar flight in
the same period, which a couple of Czech guys updated later, all in
the pages of *JBIS*.   This may be very helpful to Jason Cooper in his
project.  Good luck finding a library that has this journal, though!

--
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:09:16 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Latest Pegasus news?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Apollo came in on time, as crash military programs sometimes do, and
>near budget, a budget more than double that of Shuttle in constant
>dollars, but where is it now?

You didn't say previous spacecraft were expensive to develop,
or that, once developed, they might be cancelled for political
reasons.  You said that had 200% overruns.

If you can't answer the question, change the subject. :-)


>It's you who expouses your whole cloth failure-seeking strawman. I
>expouse careful engineering planning for the inevitable developmental
>setbacks in any new venture.

There's a difference between careful engineering planning -- which
is just what was done in Project Apollo and is being done with
Delta Clipper and which you *hate* -- and spending three times
as much as the cost of the project on feasiblity studies, management
reviews, cost reviews, and redundant paperwork.  That's what you
espouse.  (Even the Shuttle program did not have enough unnecessary
overhead to please you.)


>That's not failure seeking, that's failure avoiding by providing
>alternatives to risky sections of a program.

Yet Project Apollo, which you rail against, was a success.  And
the Shuttle program, which you consider much better (though not
perfect) was a failure.

I guess when it comes to pleasing you, nothing succeeds like failure.


>There's a vast difference between the incremental improvements from
>one aircraft to the next in the series and in a clean sheet of paper
>design by a team who has never done any similar work. Name 5 vertical
>takeoff and landing reusable spacecraft designed by the MacDD team.

Name five jet airliners designed by Boeing before the model 707.
Name five unducted fanjets flying today.

Real engineers develop "clean sheet designs" all the time.  The
principles of engineering do not stop working just because a new
design operates in 0 psi instead of 5 psi.

I don't want to belabor the obvious, but since you seem to be
oblivous to suc things....

There have been hundreds of vertical takeoff and landing
vehicles built over the last 50 years.  Most of them are
called helicopters and, to best of my knowledge, every one
of them was reuseable.  A non-reuseable helicopter would
have been too expensive to develop, let alone operate.

Yet you don't claim that a helicopter is nearly impossible
to build.  It's the word "spacecraft" that makes you bug
your eyes and wet your pants.


>Knowledge of NACA airfoils and high
>bypass turbofans just doesn't transfer to vertical takeoff and landing
>rockets no matter how much you wave your hands about it.

Gosh.  It guess it's a good thing that spaceships don't need
airfoils or high-bypass turbofans.



------------------------------

Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 17:32:54 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man rating again (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>YOU say there's no need to man-rate. The astronaut community and anyone who
>>goes up on it IS going to disagree with you.
>
>Well after a successful test flight I would go up on it. I think lots of
>others would as well. Anybody with brains enough to read a test report
>and analyze risk wouldn't have any problem. I think most astronauts would
>be included in this list. The ones who don't want to go can quit.

Sure, but you aren't the funding source. Think about it. Was it you or someone
else who suggested that there's a difference between Astronauts and test
pilots? (The latter usually being "expendable.")

>>I realize you'd like to treat people as another type of expendable, but it just

>>ain't so in the Western World.
>
>Wake up guy! The value of a human life simply isn't infinite. Look at the
>cost model for any large project. Part of it will include the costs associated
>with the people killed on the project. In fact, I'll bet that at least one
>person was killed building each of the 5 shuttle orbiters. People aren't
>expendable but nither do they have infinite value.

>If what you said where actually true then nobody woluld be flying
>Shuttles anyway. So if you want perfect safety, then stay home and
>leave the next frontier to the rest of us.

There's no such thing as perfect safety, and I can see this is degenerating
into a "I'm man enough to die, you wimp" discussion.

I'm sure more people died across the United States in one day than on
Challenger. However, when a good part of national treasure and pride go up with
the vehicle, there IS a difference.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:40:02 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

No, NASA listened to Gary Coffman who said, "Don't be success-
oriented like the airlines, who believe one man is capable of
making a go/no-go decision on a flight.  Set up a bureaucracy
to make the decision instead."

NASA required so many people to sign off that it was impossible
to get them all to agree at the same time.  If someone hadn't said,
"fuck this requirement," no Shuttle flight would ever have got off
the ground.  The bureacracy was so large that no one person knew
which requirements were safe to waive and which weren't.  Yet each
flight required multiple waivers.

Somewhere along the line, someone made a mistake.  Immediately
the blame-fixers started their witch hunt.  They never bothered
to look too deeply, of course, for fear they would find themselves
looking into the mirror.  No bureaucrat is ever going to admit
that Bureaucracy itself was at fault.  Instead, they would take
the Gary Coffman approach.  If bureaucracy failed, it must be
because there wasn't enough of it.

Meanwhile, the airlines, who are "success-oriented" because
they must make money, rely on a single man -- the Captain -- to
decide if an aircraft is safe to fly, based on input from a very
small ground and flight crew.  And they fly thousands of planes
every day, man-, woman-, and child-rated, in good and bad weather,
with a very good safety record.

But, by all means, let's not look at the airline model.  Because
we're about space and, as Gary tells us, Space is Different. Let's
have more bureacracy, more paperwork, and more managers involved.
Make sure every decision is made by a committee of at least eight
people because a single person might make a mistake.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:43 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> tyersome@toxic (Randall Tyers) writes:
>In response to this question, a group called the Lunar Society appears
>to be interested funding space colonization.  I would like to know
>whether they are for real.  Does anyone know if this group is
>legitimate and whether they have any chance of reaching their stated
>goals?

The Lunar Society is for real, although I suppose you might call them
the radical fringe of space colonization.  (A characterization that
would probably give Jerry Pournelle apoplexy. :-))  It's an ambitious
program and their chances of success are hard to assess, but they are
neither joking nor crazy.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:36:46 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: question about SETI
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <tim.726364246@giaeb> [e-mail] (Tim Roberts) writes:
>Lots of money (I understand) is being spent on SETI...

Actually very little, as these things go.  The ongoing SETI efforts are
quite small.

>So, we are left with a civilisation that is probably very far ahead of ours,
>but wants to contact us (for some reason).  Now, how would they go about it ?
>Surely they'd set beacons somewhere in space...
>So, my question is, given that we ought to look for beacons that cannot be
>missed:  has anyone examined the immediate vicinity of pulsars ?  I mean,
>REALLY examined them ?

Astronomers are very interested in the immediate vicinity of pulsars,
because it's an excellent bet that you can find objects of great theoretical
interest (accretion disks and such) there.  Peculiar and conspicuous objects
thereabouts would not be missed.  And yes, astronomers take the possibility
of finding an extraterrestrial beacon quite seriously -- the first pulsars
caused a considerable stir until it was clear that they were just natural
phenomena.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 93 07:43:02 GMT
From: "Hoffman Eric J.SDO 5186 " <[e-mail]>
Subject: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Those interested in RTGs on the Moon and elsewhere in space
may want to chase down a copy of:

               "Atomic Power in Space: a History"
           U.S. Department of Energy  DOE/NE/32117-H1
                           March 1987

    This 180 pp paperback book deals with the entire history of
nuclear powered spacecraft and experiments, beginning with the
first nuclear-powered satellite, the Johns Hopkins Applied
Physics Laboratory's TRANSIT 4A for the Navy.  The coverage is
mostly U.S. history, with some Soviet information.  The lunar
ALSEP RTGs are discussed.  Plutonium fuel took various forms over
the years: metal, cermet, and oxide.

    I found my copy in a used book store, but it says inside that
copies can be obtained from:

             National Technical Information Service
                   U.S. Department of Commerce
                  Springfield, Virginia   22161

                                              -- Eric Hoffman
                                         JHU/APL Space Department

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:35:56 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: russian solar sail?+
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'd just like to mention than the Russian "solar sail" is not
a solar sail in the sense that people are discussing here.  Its
purpose is not propulsion.  Rather, it is what Karft Ehricke
called a "lunetta" -- an artificial moon or reflector designed
to light up a spot on the surface of the Earth.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 93 17:16:14 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>But the airlines do not contract out their operations.  They procure
>planes, and fly them, just like NASA buys shuttles and operates them.

Actually, it is not at all uncommon for airlines to lease planes complete
with crews, or to contract with specialists for support services like
maintenance.  Leasing services are among the airliner companies' biggest
customers.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:04:22 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>>Commercial launch services cost the government 30% to 50% less then when
>>government buys and operates the system itself. It is therefore very clear
>>that doing otherwise would be very beneficial.

>This has never been demonstrated for manned spaceflight, but may very
>well be.

So what is so special about human space flight? Do you actually believe
that Shuttle is the best that can be done?

>But didn't I read not long ago that MacDD would not operate DC?  Who would?

I understand that American Airlines has indicated some interest. Why
not them?

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:18:29 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Dillon Pyron) writes:
> BTW, the STS [Space Transporation System/the Shuttle]
> is the safest transportation system we have, based on fatalities
> per passenger mile.  But who would pay $1 billion apiece for a 747?  (Please
> attach a smiley to the safety record).

The rating of transportation system safety by fatalities per
passenger mile always struck me as bogus.  Subjectively, what
matters is the probability of exit.  That is if I climb in and
close the door, what are my chances of opening the door and
climbing out.  By this measure the STS is only about 1 in 50,
although it probably isn't as dangerous as, say, a fighter in combat.

Does anyone have any idea how various means of transport rate
according to probability of exit.  Is the private car better than
a commerical airliner?  {Lots of safe little trips would up the
exit probability.}
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 93 20:44:34 GMT
From: Ken Arromdee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>The rating of transportation system safety by fatalities per
>passenger mile always struck me as bogus.  Subjectively, what
>matters is the probability of exit.  That is if I climb in and
>close the door, what are my chances of opening the door and
>climbing out.  By this measure the STS is only about 1 in 50,
>although it probably isn't as dangerous as, say, a fighter in combat.

In that case, the probability of exit can be made as low as you want, for an
automobile, by stopping along the way.  (The risk of dying on the trip stays
the same, of course.  You just exit more times.)

Unless you mean "for a given length trip, the probability of getting in the
vehicle at the start and coming out at the end, no matter how many stops you
make along the way".  But _this_ measure is of course identical to safety-as-
measured-by-passenger-mile....
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee ([e-mail], [e-mail])

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:02:33 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>>Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions
>>a bit anyway, don't you think?

>Use of one or more nuclear weapons is going to invite an escalation which the
>attacking force will not wish to solicit, due to the stigma attached to them.

Oh?  Suppose you see two headlines in the New York Times.

One says, "6000 sailors perish in sinking of US carrier group."

The other says, "Nuclear weapon used to disable unmanned satellite."

Which would set your blood to boiling more?


>It is likely we have a quick-launch replacement capability, either through
>air breathing mysterious aircraft or (more likely) derivative ballistic
>missile capability, on land and at sea.

The US Navy considered coverting one Poseidon missile on each
submarine to a satellite launcher, however this was never carried
out.  (Unless it was done in secret.)  However, no US SLBM or ICBM
has the payload capacity to replace a large communications or
reconnaissance satelite.


>Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of
>force and thereby did so accordingly.

No, the US voted to remove Iraqi troops and the United States did so
accordingly.  (With help from some of our allies, yes, but no serious
observer suggests that we would have failed without that help.)

Besides, your claim was that "international public opinion" would
*prevent* nations like Iraq from making hostile acts.


>Ah. But for anything less than a full-scale nuclear exchange (which translates
>to 99.987% of the possible conflicts which will occur in the next 20 years),
>public opinion and what individual nations think DOES count.

Keep saying that, and people like Saddam Hussein will keep
showing you that you're wrong.

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 018
------------------------------