Cheap Access to Space

On Jan 14, 5:52*pm, Len wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:27*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:



Ian Parker wrote:

:
:Not completely true. At about the time of Apollo there was a
:divergence between missile technology and space technology. Space
:technology is based on liquid fueled rockets.
:

Would that it were so. *We'd have one more Shuttle flying if what you
just claimed was true.

:
:These have a higher
:specific impulse than the solid fueled missiles
:

Not necessarily true. *Depends on just what 'liquid fuels' are used.

:
:... but have second strike capability.
:

???

The preceding makes no sense. *Are you stupidly confusing 'launch
under attack' with 'second strike'?

This one threw me as well, Fred. *As a principal in a very
hard-headed, multi-year, USAF HQ study of Survivable
Launch Vehicles during the height of the Cold War with the
former Soviet Union, let me assure everyone that the most
promising candidates did not depend upon such a simple
distinction between type of propellants. *Some of the most
superficially promising systems seemed to have been flawed
under sufficient analyses; while some less promising concepts
got a lot better when you worked on them. *Can't say more for
obvious reasons.

Now we have terrorists, instead of the USSR, a conceivable
ally. *The problem has changed radically; not that is necessarily
easier.

Oops, should have said: with successor Russian a conceivable
ally.

Len



:
:If you have to launch a nuclear missile the last thing you want is to
:have to pump in tons of cryogenic fuel.
:

'Liquid' does not equate to 'cryogenic'. *You've never heard of
missiles with storable liquid fuel motors?

:
:You just want to press the
:firing pin and forget. If you are planning a nuclear attack you will
:simply wipe out any prospective liquid fuelled retaliation on the
:first strike.
:

Also any prospective solid fueled retaliation. *

:
:You will not have the time to fuel up and fire.
:

Of course you will. *That's what hardened silos are for.

Are you suggesting that everyone is always operating under 'launch
under attack'? *If so, you're an ignorant git.

:
:In fact
:these days with 2m CEPs a conventional first strike is perfectly
racticable.
:

Please cite ANY missile system that has all the following attributes:

1) 2 meter CEP *(you're pretty much done right there).

2) Conventional explosive warhead.

3) Can crack open a 1500 PSI hardened silo (you're done here, too,
given (2) as a requirement).

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson