|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
Steve Hix wrote:
In article , (Alan Anderson) wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: The space shuttle is not a "weapon", it is a commercial vehicle. I don't think the definition of "commercial" can legitimately be stretched that far. Well, how about "experimental/developmental" edging toward's commercial? No, "civilian" was the proper term. It's owned and operated by the government, which is quite incompatible with "commercial". |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
* Newsflash *
Do you think that the multi-billion dollar GPS system was launched so that Cadillac could have OnStar? Those remarks were alluding to the comments made earlier in this thread: ---- Along with such missiles, it is also curious to note that at the time NSDD-42 was drafted, the Navstar/GPS program was well on its way with seven Block 1 satellites already in orbit. GPS was designed and funded as a system that would get nuclear warheads to their targets more accurately. Aside from the obvious application of bomber navigation, GPS technology was developed from a system that was designed to improve guidance and control of ICBMs themselves (I searched the sci.space archives and could not find a single comment on MOSAIC, MObile System for Accurate ICBM Control). ---- ~ CT |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote: 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. There are many who would say that these Rules of Air Warfare are irrelevant no matter what. Even for regular aircraft. Notice that Tokyo firebombing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc came *well after* these rules were drafted. 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. I don't see any way for the space shuttle to fit *that* description. ~ CT |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
In article ,
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote: (Stuf4) wrote: * Newsflash * Do you think that the multi-billion dollar GPS system was launched so that Cadillac could have OnStar? Those remarks were alluding to the comments made earlier in this thread: ---- Along with such missiles, it is also curious to note that at the time NSDD-42 was drafted, the Navstar/GPS program was well on its way with seven Block 1 satellites already in orbit. GPS was designed and funded as a system that would get nuclear warheads to their targets more accurately. You got a source for that statement? GPS provides for passive navigational purposes primarily for civil uses, and is not a "weapon". It does *now* but it *was* designed, funded and deployed for military use first. Until Clinton required the AF to turn it off, GPS used to have a "feature" that intentionally degraded accuracy by a factor of about 10 to 20, IIRC. That "feature" was turned off in about 1998 or 1999, I think. It shouldn't be too hard to look it up if you want full details. As it is, even the "clean" civilian-use signals provide less accuracy that the still-encrypted military signals. -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
GPS was designed and funded as a system that would get nuclear warheads to their targets more accurately. You got a source for that statement? GPS provides for passive navigational purposes primarily for civil uses, and is not a "weapon". It is indisputable that GPS was initially funded as a military program. It had many earlier military predecessor systems, such as TRANSIT, SECOR, and TIMATION. DOD provided the considerable funding needed to develop and build out the system. The navy had been using TRANSIT to determine positions of ballistic missile subs, but GPS was faster and operationally superior. It's not surprising that GPS has had many other military and eventually civilian applications, and that the civilian applications are increasingly important, but that doesn't mean the civilian applications were the primary reason the system was built. http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/...MR614.appb.pdf Paul |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
In article ,
Scott M. Kozel wrote: GPS provides for passive navigational purposes primarily for civil uses, Hardly. If it was *primarily* for civil uses, it wouldn't be run by the military. Civil uses are encouraged, but when push comes to shove, GPS is a military navigation system and the military makes all the decisions. and is not a "weapon". That part is correct. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)
In sci.space.policy Stuf4 wrote:
From Scott Kozel: (Stuf4) wrote: 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. There are many who would say that these Rules of Air Warfare are irrelevant no matter what. Even for regular aircraft. Notice that Tokyo firebombing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc came *well after* these rules were drafted. So... The criminal codex is obviously irrelevant as murders get commited daily? Can youplease grow a brain before posting again? ~ CT -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lunar base and space manufacturing books for sale | Martin Bayer | Space Shuttle | 0 | May 1st 04 04:57 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |