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

From Scott Kozel:
(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.

Examples snipped from that post showed how the US Air Force complies
with the military insignia requirements specified in these Rules of
Air Warfare.

NASA doesn't.


Other examples from the X-15, X-20, ICBMs, etc can be examined as
well. If the Air Force agreed with your line of reasoning, they too
could abstain from their use of military markings. But these vehicles
are clearly marked in accordance with the Hague standard.


~ CT

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

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:
(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.

Examples snipped from that post showed how the US Air Force complies
with the military insignia requirements specified in these Rules of
Air Warfare.

NASA doesn't.

I snipped the rest of your post because my comments above were
sufficient to refute your argument.

The space shuttle is not a "military aircraft" and it is not an
"aircraft" at all during the cruise portion of its mission, so your cite
the Hague Rules of Air Warfare is irrelevant.

Other examples from the X-15, X-20, ICBMs, etc can be examined as
well. If the Air Force agreed with your line of reasoning, they too
could abstain from their use of military markings. But these vehicles
are clearly marked in accordance with the Hague standard.

The X-15 and X-20 were "aircraft" in that all or most of a mission was
in the atmosphere.

An ICBM is a weapon with a nuclear warhead, clearly intended for
"warfare", so it is logical for it to have military markings.

The space shuttle is not a "weapon", it is a commercial vehicle.

--
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:

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.)

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
The space shuttle is not a "weapon",...

That much should be obvious.

it is a commercial vehicle.

I don't think the definition of "commercial" can legitimately be stretched
that far.

"Alan Anderson" wrote in message
...
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
The space shuttle is not a "weapon",...

That much should be obvious.

it is a commercial vehicle.

I don't think the definition of "commercial" can legitimately be stretched
that far.

Welll, in the sense that a bus, truck or van is a commercial vehicle (no
matter who owns it) then the shuttle is one too

"Neil Gerace" wrote:

"Alan Anderson" wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

The space shuttle is not a "weapon",...

That much should be obvious.

it is a commercial vehicle.

I don't think the definition of "commercial" can legitimately be stretched
that far.

Welll, in the sense that a bus, truck or van is a commercial vehicle (no
matter who owns it) then the shuttle is one too

Actually I was thinking "government non military", so the correct word
for what I was thinking is "civilian". ("commercial" refers to private
enterprise).

--
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

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?