A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cheap Access to Space



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old January 16th 08, 05:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Cheap Access to Space

On Jan 15, 11:00 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 15 Jan, 17:45, Len wrote:

On Jan 15, 4:26 am, Ian Parker wrote:


On 14 Jan, 22:52, Len wrote:


On Jan 14, 12:27 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:


Ian Parker wrote:


:
:Not completely true. At about the time of Apollo there was a
:divergence between missile technology and space technology. Space
:technology is based on liquid fueled rockets.
:


Would that it were so. We'd have one more Shuttle flying if what you
just claimed was true.


:
:These have a higher
:specific impulse than the solid fueled missiles
:


Not necessarily true. Depends on just what 'liquid fuels' are used.


:
:... but have second strike capability.
:


???


The preceding makes no sense. Are you stupidly confusing 'launch
under attack' with 'second strike'?


This one threw me as well, Fred. As a principal in a very
hard-headed, multi-year, USAF HQ study of Survivable
Launch Vehicles during the height of the Cold War with the
former Soviet Union, let me assure everyone that the most
promising candidates did not depend upon such a simple
distinction between type of propellants. Some of the most
superficially promising systems seemed to have been flawed
under sufficient analyses; while some less promising concepts
got a lot better when you worked on them. Can't say more for
obvious reasons.


Now we have terrorists, instead of the USSR, a conceivable
ally. The problem has changed radically; not that is necessarily
easier.


Len


:
:If you have to launch a nuclear missile the last thing you want is to
:have to pump in tons of cryogenic fuel.
:


'Liquid' does not equate to 'cryogenic'. You've never heard of
missiles with storable liquid fuel motors?


:
:You just want to press the
:firing pin and forget. If you are planning a nuclear attack you will
:simply wipe out any prospective liquid fuelled retaliation on the
:first strike.
:


Also any prospective solid fueled retaliation.


:
:You will not have the time to fuel up and fire.
:


Of course you will. That's what hardened silos are for.


Are you suggesting that everyone is always operating under 'launch
under attack'? If so, you're an ignorant git.


:
:In fact
:these days with 2m CEPs a conventional first strike is perfectly
racticable.
:


Please cite ANY missile system that has all the following attributes:


1) 2 meter CEP (you're pretty much done right there).


2) Conventional explosive warhead.


3) Can crack open a 1500 PSI hardened silo (you're done here, too,
given (2) as a requirement).


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson- Hide quoted text -


In fact survivability options have changed with 2m CEP. I did mention
CONVENTIONAL attack. At 2m you can aim at doors. There is no point in
having an intact rocket if you doors are full of rubble and you can't
launch. Liquid/solid is I agree a little simplistic. The fact however
remains that no space rocket can be prepared for launch in the 15min
or so warning you get.


The key to our LV survivability study was to
survive an attack with short warning. Response
capability with a survivable system can be more
relaxed.


Our study was not focussed much on survivability
of the enemy capability. I agree that a conventional
attack with 2 m CEP can actually be useful--contrary
to actual use a nuclear attack capability. Actual use
of a nuclear response was always a basic admittance
of failure. Conventional attack with with low cost launch
systems that are not particularly vulnerable
to terrorist attack--because of sheer numbers of
potential launch sites rather than any other special
survivability provisions--would seem to be effective
against terrorists for some time to come--as well as
against rogue nations without the military capability of
the former USSR.


There is no alternative to nuclear retaliation agaist a major power
like Russia or China. The spead of missile technology is irrelevant
here they have all they need to deliver their nuclear weapons anyway.


There is always DDT and VX, and we've got lots of those two.
- Brad Guth
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Space Access Update #110 3/31/05 Henry Vanderbilt Policy 0 April 1st 05 12:47 AM
Cheap access to space Bootstrap Bill Space Station 6 October 18th 04 03:49 PM
Cheap access to space Andrew Nowicki Policy 26 August 11th 04 06:55 PM
How to access sci.space.history? rafael History 4 July 10th 04 08:33 PM
cheap access to space - majority opinion Cameron Dorrough Technology 15 June 27th 04 03:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.