|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure
(like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception to accomplish military goals. 2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts. 3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma. How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital capabilities? JTM |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 12:25 pm, "
wrote: 1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure (like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception to accomplish military goals. Not an implication but a fact. It wasn't just "military goals", it was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery 2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts. 3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma. How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital capabilities? It had nothing to with manned capabilities. The shuttle was The National launch vehicle and hence the DOD was flying payloads on it JTM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 1:05*pm, wrote:
On Mar 11, 12:25 pm, " wrote: 1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure (like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception to accomplish military goals. Not an implication but a fact. *It wasn't just "military goals", it was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery 2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts. 3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma. How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital capabilities? It had nothing to with manned capabilities. *The shuttle was The National *launch vehicle and hence the DOD was flying payloads on it JTM- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - From http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch9.htm: Nixon stated that NASA should stress civilian applications but should not hesitate to note the military uses as well. He showed interest in the possibility of routine operations and quick reaction times, for he saw that these could allow the Shuttle to help in disasters such as earthquakes or floods. He also liked the idea of using the Shuttle to dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into space. Fletcher mentioned that it might become possible to collect solar power in orbit and beam it to earth in the form of electricity. Nixon replied that such developments tend to happen much more quickly than people expect, and that they should not hesitate to talk about them. He liked the fact that ordinary people would be able to fly in the Shuttle, who would not be highly-trained astronauts. He asked if the Shuttle was a good investment, and agreed that it was indeed, for it promised a tenfold reduction in the cost of space flight. He added that even if it was not a good investment, the nation would have to do it anyway, because space flight was here to stay. Fletcher came away from the meeting saying, "The President thinks about space just like McCurdy does," referring to a colleague within NASA's upper management. Although his formal statement largely reflected NASA's views, Nixon edited the draft in his own hand. The final version showed a firmness and sense of direction that had been utterly lacking in his March 1970 statement on space policy. It also featured a grace note that might have suited John Kennedy: I have decided today that the United States should proceed at once with the development of an entirely new type of space transportation system designed to help transform the space frontier of the 1970s into familiar territory, easily accessible for human endeavor in the 1980s and '90s. This system will center on a space vehicle that can shuttle repeatedly from earth to orbit and back. It will revolutionize transportation into near space, by routinizing it. It will take the astronomical costs out of astronautics. In short, it will go a long way toward delivering the rich benefits of practical [413] space utilization and the valuable spinoffs from space efforts into the daily lives of Americans and all people.... ---------------------------- All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by implication, that NASA should "note" military uses. You say, "It had nothing to with manned capabilities." If the shuttle had nothing to do with manned capabilities, what in the world was Nixon talking about? JTM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, "
wrote: On Mar 11, 1:05 pm, wrote: On Mar 11, 12:25 pm, " wrote: 1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure (like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception to accomplish military goals. Not an implication but a fact. It wasn't just "military goals", it was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery 2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts. 3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma. 4)How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital capabilities? It had nothing to with manned capabilities. The shuttle was The National launch vehicle and hence the DOD was flying payloads on it You say, "It had nothing to with manned capabilities." If the shuttle had nothing to do with manned capabilities, what in the world was Nixon talking about? I was referring to your 4th point idiot JTM |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, "
wrote: All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by implication, that NASA should "note" military uses. And your point is? The rest of the document explains how USAF requirements influenced the shuttle design in the 70's |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
wrote in message
... On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, " wrote: All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by implication, that NASA should "note" military uses. And your point is? The rest of the document explains how USAF requirements influenced the shuttle design in the 70's Why do you keep responding to Maxson? He's a card-carrying nut case and won't listen to reason or even pay lip service to reality. Just kf him like the rest of us (you'll note you're the only one who responds to him). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 8:59*pm, wrote:
On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, " wrote: All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by implication, that NASA should "note" military uses. And your point is? * The rest of the document explains how USAF requirements influenced the shuttle design in the 70's "The rest of the document?" LOL Any influence then from the USAF was of the variety that doomed MOL. If the USAF had both forcefully and **competently** influenced shuttle design for military purposes, some sort of shuttle would have flown out of Vandenberg. The shuttle flew military missions out of KSC only, and solely during the Reagan/Bush years -- in violation of NASA's charter. NASA needed civilian AOA capability too, and civilian capability for large payloads. There was nothing uniquely military about the shuttle design that evolved during the 1970s. NASA was operated openly then, for the peaceful use of space. If the USAF had **competently** designed a shuttle in the 1970s for military purposes, it would be flying military missions today. Instead we got a typical DOD pork barrel for our bucks. Reagan/Bush/Bush turned defense into aggression. They have made the term DOD a mockery. JTM |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 2:01 pm, "
wrote: On Mar 11, 8:59 pm, wrote: On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, " wrote: All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by implication, that NASA should "note" military uses. And your point is? The rest of the document explains how USAF requirements influenced the shuttle design in the 70's "The rest of the document?" LOL Any influence then from the USAF was of the variety that doomed MOL. If the USAF had both forcefully and **competently** influenced shuttle design for military purposes, some sort of shuttle would have flown out of Vandenberg. wrong. NASA wanted a payload bay that was 40 x 12, it was USAF requirements that made it 60 x15. The shuttle flew military missions out of KSC only, and solely during the Reagan/Bush years -- in violation of NASA's charter. NASA needed civilian AOA capability too, and civilian capability for large payloads. 1. It is not violation of NASA's charter. There is nothing against NASA doing secret missions. 2. It was not the Reagan's doing. The payloads were in planning during the Carter Admin 3. You are clueless. The USAF AOA requirement back to drove a cross range requirement of 1000 miles. 4. NASA didn't need them that big There was nothing uniquely military about the shuttle design that evolved during the 1970s. NASA was operated openly then, for the peaceful use of space. The 60 x 15 payload bay and the 65,000 lbs to orbit are specifically USAF requirements If the USAF had **competently** designed a shuttle in the 1970s for military purposes, it would be flying military missions today.Instead we got a typical DOD pork barrel for our bucks. The USAF wasn't designing a shuttle, the USAF was giving requirements to NASA Reagan/Bush/Bush turned defense into aggression. They have made the term DOD a mockery. It had nothing to do with Reagan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 5:06*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote: Not an implication but a fact. *It wasn't just "military goals", it was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery MOL had nothing whatsoever to do with the Shuttle; it was a manned reconsat that was canceled before the Shuttle program even started. Charlie is hung up on the misconception that prior to Reagan's inauguration, modifications to SLC-6 (originally developed for the MOL) reflected military design of the space shuttle. Hence my mention of "supporting structure," which you apparently overlooked or didn't understand why you should consider, Pat. In dozens of posts now, Charlie has plainly demonstrated no detailed knowledge of any such modifications to SLC-6, at least not any that he cares to post. We are to accept on blind faith that modifications began at SLC-6 in 1979 and 1980, more specifically, modifications that reflected the shuttle's *military* design. The only work I'm aware of at SLC-6 during the Carter years was the relocation of the tower by several feet. That was done only for the *possibility* that SLC-6 might eventually launch a shuttle, *after* a satisfactory military design had been approved for the shuttle and military shuttle development had been funded. Can you provide any support for Charlie's empty contention in this regard, since he is obviously spinning about like a 45 platter stuck on a soundless groove? JTM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 81 | March 26th 08 04:15 PM |
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years | Jim Oberg | Policy | 7 | December 7th 06 03:15 AM |
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years | Jim Oberg | History | 7 | December 7th 06 03:15 AM |
First Civilian Astronaut | Jo | UK Astronomy | 1 | June 21st 04 07:11 PM |