From: "John Beamish" 

Monte summed up my perspective better than I was able:  there's no doubt
that the mil wants to put up more/bigger/better but it comes back to my
point that existing launch vehicles (Proton/Ariane/Atlas) are big enough to
put up anything currently needed by the mil -- expect, perhaps, for very
rare instances and it seems somewhat uneconomic to have a program to
develop/test/deploy a launch vehicle when it's going to be used only
occasionally.

I'm with you all the way, btw, on "dual use" technology -- a
large portion of which (and I agree with you 100% on this) were mil
"but could we please find some civie use so that it at least has the
appearance of being non-mil".  Every one of the items you mentioned
are initially mil and that trickled down to civ.  Heck ... what about DARPA
and the internet!

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:39:18 -0500, Adam field.near the bridge">
 wrote:

> John Beamish wrote:
>> I think you're misreading my point.
>>
>> As I said, once you've gone to orbit and then returned then there's
>> little else that a military would want.  So why continue with a civilian
>> program?
>
> Except to put larger & larger lumps of metal into orbit. How do you
> think the entire US "information based warfare" works?
>
> GPS - Mil or Civil?
> Photos from space - Mil or Civil?
> Radar measuring of the exact contours of the earth - Mil or Civil?
> Relaying signals round the planet - Mil or Civil?
> Listening in to every radio signal generated on earth Mil or Civil?
>
> Most have "dual use" but most were Mil.
>
>
>> Because it brings propaganda benefits.  The mil benefits as
>> you pointed out (and I took for granted so didn't bother mentioning
>> them) come from sputnik-like operations (carried out by the mil) and
>> clearly mil-focused operations (carried out, as you say, at Vandenberg
>> and many other locations).
>>
>
> How many shuttle missions carry sensitive satellites?
>
>
>> 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?
>
> Part of the reason for the Shuttle "solid fuel boosters" was
that these
> were an effect of the minuteman/trident spend.
>
>> 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".
>
>
>> 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?
>
> Adam

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