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

John Beamish wrote:
> 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.
>

Humm....

(A) Bigger birds can be more useful.

(B) The weaponization of space is just a misunderstanding away & being
able to lift more mass upwards at speed than a potential adversary is
always usefull.



> 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!
>

& both ways.....i.e. pay for a civie "satellite launcher" & get....

e.g. from a couple of years ago:

http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive03/programsarch_100703.html

"The U.S. Air Forceƒ ™s effort to replace its ground-based nuclear
missile arsenal by 2020 likely will be closely linked with a push to
develop low-cost satellite launchers that could be used on short notice.

Close coordination between the programs is necessary to keep costs down,
said Col. Rick Patenaude, chief of the deterrence and strike division at
Air Force Space Command. It is possible due to the fact that ICBMs and
so-called quick-reaction satellite launchers employ similar technology.

"We canƒ ™t afford to build new platforms with blinders on,"
Patenaude said in a telephone interview. "We have to think of multiple
uses for new platforms."

The money that can be saved by coordinating the ICBM and launcher efforts
will be determined in studies that will take place over the next few years,
said Air Force Brig. Gen. Simon "Pete" Worden, who is shepherding
the satellite launcher work as the serviceƒ ™s director of transformation.

"Clearly if you do your technology and basic development to meet two
different goals it saves a lot of money," Worden said in a brief
interview Sept. 23 at the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics Space 2003 conference in Long Beach, Calif.

The new ICBM likely will build on technology developed under the launch
vehicle effort, which has more of a near-term focus with demonstrations
planned for later this decade, Patenaude said. Just as the early space
launch vehicles evolved from ICBM technology, the next ICBM may evolve from
a new satellite launcher, he said. "



Adam

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