Space Cruiser Part 1: APR Extra

Scott Ferrin wrote:


One of the few books from that era that I still have around :-)


I was going through my old collection of "Soviet Military Power"
yearly reports last night- you remember them; they were published by
Military-Industrial Complex Press back under Reagan. ;-)

Pat

Scott Ferrin wrote:


I liked the part about the pilot's head being exposed to space. Like
a space-going WWI biplane.

It needs a big fold-up ring sight like on a WW II anti-aircraft gun.
Come to think of it, it also needs a big anti-aircraft gun; I'm
thinking a 20 MM Vulcan rotary cannon here. With tracer rounds. Range
would be effectively unlimited, if you could figure out the
gravitational deflection of the projectiles...of course, any projectiles
that missed the target would go into strange orbits and be a hazard for
months or years to come....we need a weapon that doesn't cause recoil,
isn't deflected by gravity, and won't clutter space with unexploded 20
MM shells....and I think we both know just what that weapon should
be...the Space Cruiser needs a "LASER BEAM"!!!

You'd think they'd be a little bit
concerned about micro-sized impacts though.


I say they should have just reinforced the nose and started ramming
things with it. Mr. Commie would have soiled his red drawers when he saw
this thing bearing down on his Uragon space fighter, spitting coherent
photonic fire and with its diamond drill nose spinning at 2000 rpm! :-)

Pat

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

Delurking, but what's the machine half out of the picture at upper left?


Yours truly wondered that also, so I dug out my "Space Satellites" book-
and I think it is either the Japanese GMS/Himawari geosynchronous
meteorological satellite or one of our GOES geosynchronous satellites of
the same type (the designs are nearly identical)...as to how the Space
Cruiser got clean up to GEO is a very good question.
To me the whole thing smells of an attempt by Mr. Commie to control the
weather... probably by Teslanic means...who will be safe when the very
rain is fluoridated? But that's just the way your hard core commie
works, Group Captain... :-(

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:



Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

Delurking, but what's the machine half out of the picture at upper left?



Yours truly wondered that also, so I dug out my "Space Satellites"
book- and I think it is either the Japanese GMS/Himawari
geosynchronous meteorological satellite or one of our GOES
geosynchronous satellites of the same type (the designs are nearly
identical)


Looky what I found: http://dbx.cr.chiba-u.jp/TextBook/EnvRS/kiso/gms_bw.gif
Looks like it's payback time for all those 1970s Japanese car imports,
doesn't it?
If there's one thing I like less in my rainwater than fluoride, it's
sake! :-)

Pat

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:53:36 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Scott Ferrin wrote:


One of the few books from that era that I still have around :-)


I was going through my old collection of "Soviet Military Power"
yearly reports last night- you remember them; they were published by
Military-Industrial Complex Press back under Reagan. ;-)

Pat




Yep. Did you ever have the Russian War Machine or US War Machine? I
had two editions of the latter.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:26:11 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Yours truly wondered that also, so I dug out my "Space Satellites" book-
and I think it is either the Japanese GMS/Himawari geosynchronous
meteorological satellite or one of our GOES geosynchronous satellites of
the same type (the designs are nearly identical)...as to how the Space
Cruiser got clean up to GEO is a very good question.

The Space Cruiser is boosted to GEO by a Centaur derivative, both
initially carried to orbit in a shuttle payload bay.

Scott Ferrin wrote:


Yep. Did you ever have the Russian War Machine or US War Machine? I
had two editions of the latter.


I had the Russian one, yes (Russia is my specialty, as some may have
guessed by now). A really fun one I still have is "The Secret Cuban
Missile Crises Documents" published by the CIA, no less...what makes
that one interesting is noting where our intelligence estimates were
correct, and where we missed the boat.... and we made a major slip; we
thought that they had "Kennel" short range jet-powered cruise missiles
with conventional warheads on Cuba for use against approaching ships-
they fessed up in 1992 that what _they_ actually had were short range
Kennels....and "Frog" unguided artillery rockets with nuclear warheads
for use against approaching ships and landed invasion forces, with the
carte blanche right to use them against any surprise invasion without
getting Moscow's okay. So if we had tried to invade we would have come
under nuclear attack, taken massive casualties, and almost certainly
ended up in W.W. III within a few hours. Considering that the Joint
Chiefs were in favor of a invasion, things got way too close to the edge
in this matter.
As the crises grew to its apex, a recon jet snapped this photo of six of
the Frog missile trucks parked under a tree:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/46.jpg
But we still had no clue until the Soviets told us in 1992 that the
nuclear warheads for those missiles were already in Cuba at the time of
the crises. In fact, The first mention of Frog missiles being in Cuba at
all occurs in summery point number 7 of supplement 7 to the "Joint
Evaluation Of Soviet Missile Threat In Cuba" two days after that photo
was taken. Summery point number 9 of the same document is "Despite
Krushchev's statement to Mr. Knox of 24 October, we still lack positive
evidence that nuclear weapons are deployed in Cuba." in this case, Mr.
K wasn't just banging his shoe.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

It does now, but not when I wrote that- did the server have to
update?

No. I suspect your problem was that your computer had archived the
website, and didn't bother to refresh it when you dialed it up again.
I've noticed that several times on several PC's... especially with
Hobbyspace. Whenever I go there, I invariably see the webpage as it was
last downloaded... NOT as it currently is. Just hit the refresh button,
and you'll be fine.

Anyway, thanks for putting that stuff up- I've been wanting to find
out
more about this gizmo since it showed up in the book "Advanced
Technology Warfare" back in 1985.

That was one of my early sources as well (along with "Warplanes of the
future," IIRC). There's some stuff there that just doesn't make
sense... like launching the SC into orbit off the back of a 747,
without any additional boosters. Wouldn't even come *close*. However,
the next article will have drawings of the 747/Titan-derived booster
planned for SC, along with the SC/Centaur GEO booster from the Shuttle.

On 25 Dec 2004 13:52:38 -0800, "
wrote:


Pat Flannery wrote:

It does now, but not when I wrote that- did the server have to
update?

No. I suspect your problem was that your computer had archived the
website, and didn't bother to refresh it when you dialed it up again.
I've noticed that several times on several PC's... especially with
Hobbyspace. Whenever I go there, I invariably see the webpage as it was
last downloaded... NOT as it currently is. Just hit the refresh button,
and you'll be fine.

Anyway, thanks for putting that stuff up- I've been wanting to find
out
more about this gizmo since it showed up in the book "Advanced
Technology Warfare" back in 1985.

That was one of my early sources as well (along with "Warplanes of the
future," IIRC). There's some stuff there that just doesn't make
sense... like launching the SC into orbit off the back of a 747,
without any additional boosters. Wouldn't even come *close*. However,
the next article will have drawings of the 747/Titan-derived booster
planned for SC, along with the SC/Centaur GEO booster from the Shuttle.


There was a Lockheed aircraft in both of those books listed as a "Mach
5 methane powered aircraft". Come to think of it the 2nd book I'm
thinking of maybe have been "Future Figters". IIRC it was a smallish
book with a front view of the XFV-12. If we're talking about the
same book do you have any info on the Mach 5 aircraft and the Lockheed
flying aircraft carrrier?

In article ,
says...
Anyway, thanks for putting that stuff up- I've been wanting to find
out
more about this gizmo since it showed up in the book "Advanced
Technology Warfare" back in 1985.

That was one of my early sources as well (along with "Warplanes of the
future," IIRC). There's some stuff there that just doesn't make
sense... like launching the SC into orbit off the back of a 747,
without any additional boosters. Wouldn't even come *close*. However,
the next article will have drawings of the 747/Titan-derived booster
planned for SC, along with the SC/Centaur GEO booster from the Shuttle.


There was a Lockheed aircraft in both of those books listed as a "Mach
5 methane powered aircraft". Come to think of it the 2nd book I'm
thinking of maybe have been "Future Figters". IIRC it was a smallish
book with a front view of the XFV-12. If we're talking about the
same book do you have any info on the Mach 5 aircraft and the Lockheed
flying aircraft carrrier?

Gosh, sorry for butting into the thread.. I have both "Future Fighters"
(yep its the small one with the XFV-12 front view) and "Warplanes of the
Future" on the shelf right here..were essential reading as a teenager.
Cant recall if I ever saw "Advanced Technology Warfare", although I read
alot of that type of material from the library.
"Warplanes of the Future" was sort of like a large format expansion of
the small book, has alot of different illustrations and more 3-view
drawings..scope is a bit different. Both are by Gunston.