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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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


MOL had nothing whatsoever to do with the Shuttle; it was a manned
reconsat that was canceled before the Shuttle program even started.

Pat

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