On Mar 12, 2:01 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 11, 8:59 pm, wrote:

On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, "
wrote:

All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by
implication, that NASA should "note" military uses.

And your point is? The rest of the document explains how USAF
requirements influenced the shuttle design in the 70's

"The rest of the document?" LOL

Any influence then from the USAF was of the variety that doomed MOL.
If the USAF had both forcefully and **competently** influenced shuttle
design for military purposes, some sort of shuttle would have flown
out of Vandenberg.

wrong. NASA wanted a payload bay that was 40 x 12, it was USAF
requirements that made it 60 x15.


The shuttle flew military missions out of KSC only, and solely during
the Reagan/Bush years -- in violation of NASA's charter. NASA needed
civilian AOA capability too, and civilian capability for large
payloads.

1. It is not violation of NASA's charter. There is nothing against
NASA doing secret missions.
2. It was not the Reagan's doing. The payloads were in planning
during the Carter Admin
3. You are clueless. The USAF AOA requirement back to drove a cross
range requirement of 1000 miles.
4. NASA didn't need them that big

There was nothing uniquely military about the shuttle design
that evolved during the 1970s. NASA was operated openly then, for the
peaceful use of space.

The 60 x 15 payload bay and the 65,000 lbs to orbit are specifically
USAF requirements


If the USAF had **competently** designed a shuttle in the 1970s for
military purposes, it would be flying military missions today.Instead
we got a typical DOD pork barrel for our bucks.

The USAF wasn't designing a shuttle, the USAF was giving requirements
to NASA

Reagan/Bush/Bush
turned defense into aggression. They have made the term DOD a mockery.


It had nothing to do with Reagan