National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
Reagan clearly backed the use of the space shuttle as a militarily
operated vehicle, carrying military payloads, flown by military crews.
(An interesting side question that I haven't heard anyone ask is
whether it was improper to fly the space shuttle on such overtly
military missions without painting military insignias on the vehicle.)

Well, are you asking the question now?

Why is it any less proper than sending military personel or goods using
civilian aircraft or ships? The mission was not a war-time mission, it
didn't involve combat. According to the US Law of Land Warfare (FM 27-10)
the only time it is really required to be identified as a member of a
combatant armed forces is when engaged in combat.

From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote
Reagan clearly backed the use of the space shuttle as a militarily
operated vehicle, carrying military payloads, flown by military crews.
(An interesting side question that I haven't heard anyone ask is
whether it was improper to fly the space shuttle on such overtly
military missions without painting military insignias on the vehicle.)

Well, are you asking the question now?

Sure.

Why is it any less proper than sending military personel or goods using
civilian aircraft or ships? The mission was not a war-time mission, it
didn't involve combat.

....and Gary Powers was on vacation taking photos for his scrapbook!

(I'll get back to the other question.)

According to the US Law of Land Warfare (FM 27-10)
the only time it is really required to be identified as a member of a
combatant armed forces is when engaged in combat.

I don't know where that came from. In contrast to your statement,
consider this direct quote from FM 27-10 (change 1, 15 Jul 76):

8. Situations to Which Law of War Applicable
a. Types of Hostilities. ... a state of war may exist prior
to or subsequent to the use of force. The outbreak of war
is usually accompanied by a declaration of war.

(http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at.../27-10/Ch1.htm)

This says that you don't need a declaration of war. You don't even
need combat. (It's easy to see that the US was motivated to stretch
the definition so that it covered cold war as well as hot ones.)

This FM 27-10 goes on to specify a need for "having a fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance".

(http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at.../27-10/Ch3.htm)




The extension of land and sea rules of warfare made for very specific
guidelines for the use of aircraft:


The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923

http://lawofwar.org/hague_rules_of_air_warfare.htm

Excerpts:

CHAPTER I-Applicability: Classification and Marks.

ARTICLE III
A military aircraft shall bear an external mark indicating its nation;
and military character.

[Note: There are no external markings on military shuttle missions
that indicate the military character of its missions (-the original
point in question-).]


ARTICLE VII
The external marks required by the above articles shall be so affixed
that they cannot be altered in flight. They shall be as large as is
practicable and shall be visible from above, from below and from each
side.

[Note: Standard markings on USAF, USN, USMC, and USA include
distinctive military insignia that comply, more or less, with this
Hague standard. Not so for military space shuttle missions.]

....

ARTICLE XIV
A military aircraft shall be under the command of a person duly
commissioned or enlisted in the military service of the State; the
crew must be exclusively military.

[Note: I'm not aware of any non-military crewmembers who have flown
on designated military space missions. Apparent compliance here.]


ARTICLE XV
Members of the crew of a military aircraft shall wear a fixed
distinctive emblem of such character as to be recognizable at a
distance in case they become separated from their aircraft.

ARTICLE XXVII
Any person on board a belligerent or neutral aircraft is to be deemed
a spy only if acting clandestinely or on false presences he obtains or
seeks to obtain, while in the air, information within belligerent
jurisdiction or in the zone of operations of a belligerent with the
intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

ARTICLE XXXII
Enemy public aircraft, other than those treated on the same footing
private aircraft, shall be subject to confiscation without prize
proceedings.

ARTICLE XXXVI
When an enemy military aircraft falls into the hands of a belligerent,
the members of the crew and the passengers, if any, may be made
prisoners of war.
....
__________

Note:
The Rules of Air Warfare was published as the second part of a two
part document. Part I was restrictions on the use of wireless
telegraphy. It's strange to think that after WWI, the regulation of
radios was given priority over the regulation of aircraft.



Now let's revisit that question from the top:

Why is it any less proper than sending military personel or goods using
civilian aircraft or ships?

The obvious answer is that civilian marked transports being used for
military missions are not in compliance with these international
standards (and it has been noted that such a practice puts normal
airliners and cargo ships at risk of being treated as military
targets).

But there are also critical differences to note:

- US civilian aircraft and ships being used by the military
(CRAF/CRAFTS) avoid the territory of hostile nations. During the
Cold War, the space shuttle routinely flew overhead the USSR (along
with China, Cuba, etc).

- CRAF/CRAFTS serve logistical functions. Space shuttle military
missions serve operational functions as well.

And these same points can be used to check the situation from the 60s
as well. For one example, compare the military insignia on this USAF
Gemini:

http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/gemini/gb_01.html

....to non-military markings on a NASA Gemini:

http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/Images/Spac...65-1261_a.jpeg

Similar capsules. Similar boosters. Both to be launched from the
same military facility. Both to be piloted by active duty military
test pilots. Both even accomplishing military objectives in their
missions...

One conforms to the Hague standard. The other doesn't.

For a hypothetical situation where Grissom and Young, say, have to
abort and this military crew has their civilian-marked capsule land in
hostile territory, that government has grounds for arresting them in a
similar manner to how Francis Gary Powers was treated.

And if there were to be a high profile trial, we might expect Gus's
Kodak camera to be presented as Exhibit A.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923

http://lawofwar.org/hague_rules_of_air_warfare.htm

Excerpts:

CHAPTER I-Applicability: Classification and Marks.

ARTICLE III
A military aircraft shall bear an external mark indicating its nation;
and military character.

[Note: There are no external markings on military shuttle missions
that indicate the military character of its missions (-the original
point in question-).]

A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

In article ,
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

Moreover, even when it's an aircraft, it's not a combat aircraft. One can
reasonably argue that it's a chartered civilian cargo aircraft -- there is
no question that even on military shuttle flights, final control of the
vehicle remains with NASA -- and those do not require military markings
even when carrying military cargo.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

Moreover, even when it's an aircraft, it's not a combat aircraft. One can
reasonably argue that it's a chartered civilian cargo aircraft -- there is
no question that even on military shuttle flights, final control of the
vehicle remains with NASA -- and those do not require military markings
even when carrying military cargo.

In addition, the shuttle doesn't fly in the airspace of any "enemy" or
"adversary" nation. National territory doesn't extend into space; space
belongs to everybody.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

From Scott Kozel:

In addition, the shuttle doesn't fly in the airspace of any "enemy" or
"adversary" nation. National territory doesn't extend into space; space
belongs to everybody.

The intent of the Outer Space Treaty was to restrain space from
becoming militarized. The United States has militarized space anyway,
populating it with offensive weaponry capability that is used for
killing masses of people.

The shuttle program, from the very beginning, has been a willful
participant in this militarization of space. Ironic for you to seek
its protection by invoking the very treaty that it violates.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

In addition, the shuttle doesn't fly in the airspace of any "enemy" or
"adversary" nation. National territory doesn't extend into space; space
belongs to everybody.

The intent of the Outer Space Treaty was to restrain space from
becoming militarized. The United States has militarized space anyway,
populating it with offensive weaponry capability that is used for
killing masses of people.

That's baloney any way you slice it.

The U.S. has NOT put any "offensive weaponry" in orbit. The U.S. has
put reconnaissance satellites in orbit just like several other nations
have.

The shuttle program, from the very beginning, has been a willful
participant in this militarization of space. Ironic for you to seek
its protection by invoking the very treaty that it violates.

More baloney. Any way you slice it.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

(Stuf4) wrote:

The intent of the Outer Space Treaty was to restrain space from
becoming militarized. The United States has militarized space anyway,
populating it with offensive weaponry capability that is used for
killing masses of people.

You're claiming that the US has space-based WMD? Where are these
offensive weapons platforms hiding? When have they been used?

The shuttle program, from the very beginning, has been a willful
participant in this militarization of space.

(On the other hand, the Air Force had to be coerced into the partnership,
and quickly distanced itself when it could.)

In article ,
(Stuf4) wrote:

The intent of the Outer Space Treaty was to restrain space from
becoming militarized. The United States has militarized space anyway,
populating it with offensive weaponry capability that is used for
killing masses of people.

What offensive weaponry, in particular?

From Henry Spencer:
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
A space shuttle is an 'aircraft' for relatively brief portions of its
mission, and then only for ascent-to-orbit and descent-from-orbit.

Its actual mission is carried out in space, where "Rules of Air Warfare"
and rules for "military aircraft" do not apply to a spacecraft.

Moreover, even when it's an aircraft, it's not a combat aircraft. One can
reasonably argue that it's a chartered civilian cargo aircraft -- there is
no question that even on military shuttle flights, final control of the
vehicle remains with NASA -- and those do not require military markings
even when carrying military cargo.

It is a military crew conducting a military mission. Even NASA makes
that perfectly clear.

As far as final control remaining with NASA, I expect that you have an
awareness of the level of control that the military maintained over
their military missions. And even disregarding anything that happened
on the ground, I would point out that the final control of the vehicle
can be exercised with a simple push of the CSS button.

(Examples of a military crew exerting military command and control
over their vehicle were posted earlier today in another thread.)


~ CT