Could Columbia have been Saved?

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ...

"Henry Spencer" wrote:

Current US ICBMs have little or no payload to orbit, as I recall --
they're just not designed for it. They definitely don't have upper
stages capable of significant orbital maneuvering.

Yes of course, their design is sub-orbital.

Which is not to say that such a rapid-reaction launcher couldn't be built.
But it's not something that's available off the shelf right now, not quite.

Little payload is correct. And actually, as I understand it
there is a rapid-reaction launcher (modified ICBM) on the
shelf right now. I'll have to dig up the details but I think
it has a payload to LEO of around a few hundred kg. I gather
that it's supposed to be mostly secret, since the mention of
the capability was rather vague.

Well these new Tridents being installed into subs look fast and
reliable. Of course there would be a need for a fouth stage to have
the ability to effectively rendevous. But as pointed out by Henry
this capability is 60's state-of-the-art, (Gemini and Titan).

While reading threw this thread many posters had various solutions
to the befuddled Columbia, but most solutions involved jury-rigging
onboard materials, with questionable results.

My general thinking is this, if America can keep 1000 minuteman
missiles on standby to destroy something, they should be able to
keep 2 to repair something, leaving an effective deterrent of 998
missiles.

Evidentally the Russians specialized in unmanned replenishment
capsules, but in some emergency to either a shuttle or alpha the
capsule could be a piloted craft, with supplies, and a capable
pilot dealing with anomalies.

Reagards
Ken S. Tucker