From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

John Beamish wrote:
> Oops ... hit "send" too soon.  See additional comments below.
>
>>
>> How many shuttle missions carry sensitive satellites?
>>
> I'm sure you have the exact numbers.  My guess?  In the initial years of
> the program it was the majority (possibly the vast majority) with
> senstive satellites.  These days?  Probably less than half since the
> remaining construction of the ISS still has a number of components that
> need launching and there's no other US way to launch and dock (unlike
> the Russian approach of two different launch vehicles).
>

Indeed so is the Shuttle a civie vehicle or a US "national security asset"?


>>
>>> As for the heavy-lift vehicles ... so?  There's not a single mil use of
>>> a Saturn V that I can recall in recent years so Saturn-style heavy-lift
>>> is nice but is covered by a wide variety of other launch vehicles.
>>>
>>
>> How much did Saturn V help with rocket engine design which then lead to
>> global reach SLBM'es & quick response ICBM'es etc?
>>
> The kinds of thrust delivered by the Saturn V far exceeded anything the
> US mil needed and, as was pointed out, the Dynasoar (which might have
> needed it) was never seriously funded by the pols.
>

Oh indeed. However by doing so they advanced US rocket tech & may have
thus allowed US missiles to travel further on less fuel etc. etc.


>
>> Part of the reason for the Shuttle "solid fuel boosters"
was that these
>> were an effect of the minuteman/trident spend.
>>
>
> Eactly ... an effect of.  The Minuteman/Trident spend came first.  And
> is still coming.
>
>>> The fascination of Brazil, Ukraine and others with civie space efforts
>>> is interesting but unimportant.
>>
>> To you. Not to Brazil & the Ukraine. Either than or all deterrence is
>> interesting but unimportant. Both can create Nukes fast & both are
>> maintaining an active "space launch capability".
>>
>
> You have mistaken my position.  I was referring to offensive
> capability.  As for defensive: sure it's very nice to have.

Big countries seem to like them.

> And if you
> were going to attach Brazil or the Ukraine what would be your first
> targets:  coffee plantations and wheat fields?


Sao Paulo, Rio, Brasilia, Kiev, Odessa. You know the place where people
live as usual.


>
>
>>
>>> About 75,000 containers go through US
>>> ports daily.  A GPS, a nuke and a container are much better.  Total
>>> deniablilty too since there's no missle track to give yourself away.
>>>
>>
>> & that helps you fend off an attack from the US/Russia/China/India etc
>> how exactly?
>>
>
> Again, I was looking at the offensive capability not the defensive one.
>

Big countries aren't looking at offensive capabilities against other big
countries or indeed nuclear capable countries. The price is too high.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5