|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:34:04 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote: 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? ....Phasers, Photon Torpedos, Mass Drivers, and Air Drops of Archie Comic Books. (Steve, just killfile Stuff4. He's nothing but a troll.) OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
* 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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gravity as Falling Space | Henry Haapalainen | Science | 1 | September 4th 04 04:08 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |
Space Calendar - July 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | July 24th 03 11:26 PM |