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

"Jake McGuire" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

So it was cheaper *and* easier.

The funny thing is that this lost US launch opportunity not only gave the
Russians some cash, but was also used to test their nuclear missile launch
capabilities at the same time. Sounds like US launch policies are doing a
great job of protecting US interests. :-(

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

Jeff Findley wrote:
The funny thing is that this lost US launch opportunity not only gave the
Russians some cash, but was also used to test their nuclear missile launch
capabilities at the same time. Sounds like US launch policies are doing a
great job of protecting US interests. :-(

The Russians sell hundreds of billions of dollars of oil a year. The
suggestion that giving them $4M makes a meaningful difference to the
readiness of their strategic rocket forces is loony.

-jake

On 29 Jun 2005 14:39:29 -0700, "Jake McGuire"
wrote:

The Russians sell hundreds of billions of dollars of oil a year. The
suggestion that giving them $4M makes a meaningful difference to the
readiness of their strategic rocket forces is loony.

Then why do the Russians bother selling the SLBM rocket launches in
the first place?

Brian

In article , Brian Thorn
wrote:

On 29 Jun 2005 14:39:29 -0700, "Jake McGuire"
wrote:

The Russians sell hundreds of billions of dollars of oil a year. The
suggestion that giving them $4M makes a meaningful difference to the
readiness of their strategic rocket forces is loony.

Then why do the Russians bother selling the SLBM rocket launches in
the first place?

Because giving them away would be loony

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

Brian Thorn wrote:
The Russians sell hundreds of billions of dollars of oil a year. The
suggestion that giving them $4M makes a meaningful difference to the
readiness of their strategic rocket forces is loony.

Then why do the Russians bother selling the SLBM rocket launches in
the first place?

Because they get paid?

Sure, it's useful for them to know that their SLBMs work, or not, as
the case may be. But if test launches aren't important enough for them
to spend $500k of their own money on, I'm not going to lose sleep over
the increase in risk that these launches pose.

Sure, if there was a country with very marginal ICBM capability (say,
North Koreans or maybe soon the Iranians) I'd not be inclined to give
them money for launches, since it would make a much larger difference.
But the Russians? I just don't see it.

-jake

Jeff Findley wrote:


The funny thing is that this lost US launch opportunity not only gave the
Russians some cash, but was also used to test their nuclear missile launch
capabilities at the same time. Sounds like US launch policies are doing a
great job of protecting US interests.



But on a SLBM that was in a different configuration than the one that
would be used for combat, been tested many times before, and is now
being phased out of service (Which I assume is why they are using them
for space launches rather than keeping their warheads on them). Which
means that really the launch was pretty much academic as far as a
practice drill for an actual missile launch under wartime conditions-
although its failure may be a good reason to speed up the withdrawal of
the missile from service even faster than had been planned.

Pat

Brian Thorn wrote:

Then why do the Russians bother selling the SLBM rocket launches in
the first place?



It gives them a way of getting rid of their obsolete SLBM's while at
least making some money in the process, rather as if we had sold small
satellite launches on surplus Poseidon or Minuteman I missiles.

Pat

In message
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

The funny thing is that this lost US launch opportunity not only gave the
Russians some cash,

Would you care to explain how a launch supplied by Russia also managed
to give them any cash?

Anthony

On 29 Jun 2005 15:58:32 -0700, "Jake McGuire"
wrote:


The Russians sell hundreds of billions of dollars of oil a year. The
suggestion that giving them $4M makes a meaningful difference to the
readiness of their strategic rocket forces is loony.

Then why do the Russians bother selling the SLBM rocket launches in
the first place?

Because they get paid?

What? TPS went to Moscow and said "Um, we have $4 million, can we
stick a satellite on top of one of your submarine launched nukes,
please?"

I don't think so. Russia needed cold hard cash to keep their navy
afloat any way they could get it, and someone had the bright idea of
trying to sell launches on top of a cranky old sub-launched nuke.

In other words, they needed the money and TPS was only too happy to
help the Russians practice annihilating us. This isn't like buying a
ride on a Proton, a rocket which never was an effective military
weapon, or a long-since retired Titan II. TPS bought a ride on a
rocket which is still in front-line service with the coordinates of
Norfolk, Pearl Harbor, and San Francisco loaded in their electronic
brains, and it gave the Russian Navy cash to help them practice nuking
the U.S.

Russia got to practice nuking Norfolk and TPS got nothing at all for
it. Thanks a lot, TPS. Next time, save your pennies and launch
secondary on Ariane or Delta instead of giving them to someone who
still wants to nuke us. Either that or take your next solar sail and
shove it where the Sun don't shine.

What's next, paying Al Qaeda to test fire a TPS scramjet on one of
their anti-aircraft missiles? Hey, it's cheap and reliable, and they
only have $4 million, so that's okay...

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

On 29 Jun 2005 15:58:32 -0700, "Jake McGuire"
wrote:




The Russians sell hundreds of billions of dollars of oil a year. The
suggestion that giving them $4M makes a meaningful difference to the
readiness of their strategic rocket forces is loony.


Then why do the Russians bother selling the SLBM rocket launches in
the first place?


Because they get paid?



What? TPS went to Moscow and said "Um, we have $4 million, can we
stick a satellite on top of one of your submarine launched nukes,
please?"

I don't think so. Russia needed cold hard cash to keep their navy
afloat any way they could get it, and someone had the bright idea of
trying to sell launches on top of a cranky old sub-launched nuke.

In other words, they needed the money and TPS was only too happy to
help the Russians practice annihilating us. This isn't like buying a
ride on a Proton, a rocket which never was an effective military
weapon, or a long-since retired Titan II. TPS bought a ride on a
rocket which is still in front-line service with the coordinates of
Norfolk, Pearl Harbor, and San Francisco loaded in their electronic
brains, and it gave the Russian Navy cash to help them practice nuking
the U.S.


Okay:
1.) The missile is being withdrawn from service.
2.) The missile didn't have practice RVs on board, so this wasn't a very
good test of it's capabilities.
3.) The missile's first stage failed, so the test was a failure.

Russia got to practice nuking Norfolk and TPS got nothing at all for
it. Thanks a lot, TPS.


Russia isn't about to "nuke Norfolk" or anywhere else in the U.S. for
that matter, because Russia doesn't want to get itself nuked- which will
happen if it nukes Norfolk.
Most of the Russian Navy is rusting away at dock or already sold to the
scrap yard. There are Juliet class missile subs serving as tourist
exhibits in several countries. You might as well be raising the alarm
about the Kaiser's Zeppelins being on the prowl by night, or Japanese
aircraft carriers being sighted near Hawaii.
Get with the fashion curve regarding our new enemies; nowadays the are
to the south and southeast of Russia, and either wear burnooses or eat
rice.

Next time, save your pennies and launch
secondary on Ariane or Delta instead of giving them to someone who
still wants to nuke us. Either that or take your next solar sail and
shove it where the Sun don't shine.

What's next, paying Al Qaeda to test fire a TPS scramjet on one of
their anti-aircraft missiles? Hey, it's cheap and reliable, and they
only have $4 million, so that's okay...



I've got news for you- World War III was fought during the 1990's on the
shelves of your local Wal-Mart store- the U.S. lost.

Pat