UPDATE: Cosmos 1 Solar Sail Update - Spacecraft Signal May Have Been Detected

Phil Fraering wrote:





Well, at least we can get some good out of this. We'll be able to use the
results to convince Canada that some sort of strategic defense is a good
idea after all.



Which would work if the shot the missiles from the arctic over Canada
and at the U.S.... but wouldn't work if they came at us from the
Atlantic or Pacific seaboard directions or even out of the South Pacific
or South Atlantic, which of course being sub mounted, they can do.
All that Canada's deploying an ABM force might do is get Canada put on a
nuclear targeting list for anyone wanting to attack the U.S. that
figures the first step in that process would be destroying the Canadian
ABM defenses via nuclear armed cruise missile attack. Then Canada will
have to deploy SAMs and aircraft to counter the cruise missiles.
Why should the Canadian's foot the bill and the risk of attack for
defending the United States from attack? If we want to defend ourselves,
it's our problem- not theirs.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

IMO the launch improved Russian readiness by
1) providing a missile boat crew an opportunity to
live-fire a missile, 2) giving tracking crews a live
fast-moving target to track, and 3) identifying a
problem with the missile itself that might now be
fixed by a change in design or operations. As a
result of these events, the U.S. is a little more
endangered than it was before the launch because
their guys are a little better prepared to kill.

First off, what they fired wasn't a standard configured missile; it was
a missile with a new top stage flying a trajectory far different from
what it would in wartime, so how usable this is as a simulated missile
launch is open to question.

According to:

"http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/images/Sail_Pics/2nd%20phase%20demo.jpg"

the mission used a complete three-stage Volna missile
(two boost stages and one post-boost stage with
externally-mounted liquid thrusters) topped by the
payload, which had its own apogee kick motor that
acted like a fourth stage. According to Jonathan
McDowell "http://planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html"
the Volna missile flew a suborbital trajectory that
probably wasn't much different from an operational
flight. Orbital velocity was to have been imparted
by the apogee kick motor.

That the launch was performed by an operational combat
boat is clear from:

"http://www.rednova.com/news/space/157648/bbc_monitoring_quotes_from_russian_press_thursday_ 23_june_2005/"


which said that the Volna was launched "from a strategic
nuclear submarine of the Northern Fleet. The combat group
carried out its work in accordance as planned, Navy
Commander-in-Chief Admiral of the Fleet Vladimir Kuroyedov
said, and there were no problems with the launch. The
crew of the boat are continuing to carry out the tasks set
before them."

According to: "http://russianforces.org/eng/navy/",
96 R-29R (SS-N-18) Volna missiles are currently on
duty in a half-dozen Delta III class submarines.
These missiles carry a total of 288 thermonuclear
warheads with an aggregate yield of nearly 60
megatons (equivalent to the yield of about 4,620
Hiroshima bombs). Many are aimed at North American
targets.

But since the R-29R types are being replaced by
heavier, more capable R-29RM variants over the
next few years, Russia stopped testing R-29Rs
after 1999. The space-related Volna launches have
thus provided the only R-29R readiness testing
for Russia's Strategic naval forces during the
past five years.

- Ed Kyle

Pat Flannery wrote:



Phil Fraering wrote:





Well, at least we can get some good out of this. We'll be able to
use the results to convince Canada that some sort of strategic
defense is a good idea after all.



Which would work if the shot the missiles from the arctic over
Canada and at the U.S.... but wouldn't work if they came at us from
the Atlantic or Pacific seaboard directions or even out of the South
Pacific or South Atlantic, which of course being sub mounted, they
can do. All that Canada's deploying an ABM force might do is get
Canada put on a nuclear targeting list for anyone wanting to attack
the U.S. that figures the first step in that process would be
destroying the Canadian ABM defenses via nuclear armed cruise
missile attack. Then Canada will have to deploy SAMs and aircraft to
counter the cruise missiles. Why should the Canadian's foot the bill
and the risk of attack for defending the United States from attack?
If we want to defend ourselves, it's our problem- not theirs.

First - If anyone thinks that Canada is off _anyone's_ nuclear
targetting lists, you're passing Balloon Gas. The DPRK, for example,
is still at war with Canada (And the U.S., and the U.K., and France,
and Turkey, and Ethiopia, and the ROK, and Kim only knows who else.
They never signed a Peace Treaty, only a Cease Fire. They reserved
the right to restart hostilities at any time. Any of the current
religiously motivated bad actors would be just as happy to nuke
Toronto as De Moines - we all look alike to them.

Second - Nobody's been talking about giving the Canadians the ABMs
themselves, only including them in the coverage. The ABM system
would be controlled (Just like the interceptors, of which the
Canadians still have a few, and SAMS, of which nobody really has any,
in North America, from an Area Defense point of view) are controlled
by a joint U.S.-Canadian organization (You've heard of NORAD, Pat.
Air Defence Command may be long gone, but NORAD's still there.)
That's where the political hoo-haw (A Tempest in a Teacup).
Given the location of Canada's population and industrial centers, they
end up under the U.S. defense umbrella no matter what.

Third - If it gets to the point where somebody's trying to take out an
ABM system with Nuclear Cruise Missiles, then it's Global
Thermonuclear War Time, and thin-shield ABM systems are, to be frank,
irrelevant. At that point, you're talking about a major power going
Balls Out.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

In article ,
Peter Stickney wrote:
Third - If it gets to the point where somebody's trying to take out an
ABM system with Nuclear Cruise Missiles, then it's Global
Thermonuclear War Time, and thin-shield ABM systems are, to be frank,
irrelevant. At that point, you're talking about a major power going
Balls Out.

Moreover, cruise missiles are slow and vulnerable to interception. If you
wait for them to take out the other side's ABMs, your ICBMs and their
control sites may be radioactive craters by the time you get around to
giving launch orders.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article .com, Ed Kyle
says...

John Schilling wrote:
The Russians have long had and will long have an arsenal of rockets capaple
of lofting a ton or so onto the continental United States. They will from
time to time test-fire one of these rockets just to keep in practice. ..

When they practice rocketry, they obviously have to aim the rocket somewhere
other than at the continental United States. One place a rocket capable of
lofting a ton or so to CONUS can go, is Low Earth Orbit. ..

So if there is someone out there with a bit of payload that they want to
put into LEO, and a bit of cash to pay for it, it is pure profit for the
Russians to load it onto one of the rockets they are going to practice
launching from a submarine under the Arctic Ocean anyway.

I wonder how many of The Planetary Society members
who helped fund this project realized that they were
helping Russia test the readiness of a missile
system designed to kill United States citizens by
the tens of millions.


Yes, as good patriotic American citizens, they should have pried an old
Titan II out of the DoD, or at least a Minotaur for partial credit.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On 28 Jun 2005 14:12:49 -0700, John Schilling
wrote:


I wonder how many of The Planetary Society members
who helped fund this project realized that they were
helping Russia test the readiness of a missile
system designed to kill United States citizens by
the tens of millions.


Yes, as good patriotic American citizens, they should have pried an old
Titan II out of the DoD, or at least a Minotaur for partial credit.

Turns out the DoD just gave a perfectly good Titan IIG to a museum.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
John Schilling wrote:
I wonder how many of The Planetary Society members
who helped fund this project realized that they were
helping Russia test the readiness of a missile
system designed to kill United States citizens by
the tens of millions.

Yes, as good patriotic American citizens, they should have pried an old
Titan II out of the DoD, or at least a Minotaur for partial credit.

Turns out the DoD just gave a perfectly good Titan IIG to a museum.

There's been a Titan II (not sure what flavor) sitting at the
Pima Air Museum in Tuscon, AZ for literally decades.

Unfortunately, out in the open exposed air, so she's probably not
recoverably flight-ready.


-george william herbert
/

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:14:26 -0000, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

Yes, as good patriotic American citizens, they should have pried an old
Titan II out of the DoD, or at least a Minotaur for partial credit.

Turns out the DoD just gave a perfectly good Titan IIG to a museum.

There's been a Titan II (not sure what flavor) sitting at the
Pima Air Museum in Tuscon, AZ for literally decades.

Unfortunately, out in the open exposed air, so she's probably not
recoverably flight-ready.

No, I'm talking about the surplus Titan 23G, the last Titan II rebuilt
for space launch duty in the 80s, that was just turned over to a
museum in Oregon instead of launching something. It was a perfectly
good launch vehicle.

http://katu.com/stories/77971.html

I wonder if TPS knew anything about this. Um, on second thought maybe
we shouldn't tell 'em.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
No, I'm talking about the surplus Titan 23G, the last Titan II rebuilt
for space launch duty in the 80s, that was just turned over to a
museum in Oregon instead of launching something. It was a perfectly
good launch vehicle.

http://katu.com/stories/77971.html

I wonder if TPS knew anything about this. Um, on second thought maybe
we shouldn't tell 'em.

My guess is they knew, but launching on a Russian missile was cheaper and/or
easier than launching on the Titan 23G.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:
I wonder if TPS knew anything about this. Um, on second thought maybe
we shouldn't tell 'em.

My guess is they knew, but launching on a Russian missile was cheaper and/or
easier than launching on the Titan 23G.

I'm pretty sure that one Commercial Space Act or another prohibits the
sale of surplus ICBMs to non-government parties so as to not kill
commercial small launch providers. But I also think the cost of flying
an old Titan II was somewhere around $7M, and the entire Cosmos 1
budget was something like $4M, so it's not clear that they'd have been
able to afford it anyway.

-jake