Cheap Access to Space

On 14 Jan, 01:08, wrote:
On Jan 11, 11:07*am, BradGuth wrote:





On Jan 10, 4:44 pm, wrote:

More crazy talk in a vain attempt to alienate all rational people from
even trying to figure out what's being said. *Do you ever leave your
mom's basement and you know, go out and get a meal at a restaurant?
Do you talk like that in public? * If you do you GOTTA know that
people find it offensive scary and worse. *You gotta know this. *So,
you gotta known chilling effect it has on people even bothering to
read this topic. *So, you KNOW you're a black propagandist, and likely
with all the other rat****ers out there - take misplaced pride in the
shock you think you cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat****ing

First off, there's nothing all that cheap about space travels,
especially if having to accommodate us frail humans. *Besides, China
is already accomplishing CATS at not 10% the cost of anything NASA.

Even if Mook's LH2 and LO2 were made free for the taking, the R&D and
complex infrastructure on behalf of accomplishing those composite
rigid spaceships and/or shuttles (aka Skylon or whatever) is simply
for the upper most 0.1% of humanity that doesn't actually trickle its
wealth down worth ****, and much less sharing of any power.

The proof being yourself and of those you continually brown-nose.
Lord all-knowing Mook doesn't actually give a tinkers damn about the
lower 99.9% of humanity, as in never did and never will, much less do
you have honest intentions of ever salvaging any part of our badly
failing environment unless it has something to do with stuffing our
hard earned loot into your offshore bank accounts, as you could have
been delivering your H2 and/or LH2 in bulk and at a fair market price
as of a decade ago.

Of what has been technically doable for decades isn't happening
because of folks like yourself. *So, you can't blame others outside of
your own mindset that believes your government and of its faith-based
puppeteers can do no wrong, especially if there's anything Jewish
involved.

As I've said before, that such clean and renewable energy that's
essentially unlimited should be made into all sorts of gas, fluid and
solid forms of stored energy, except that you ENRON and other big-
energy cartel folks have no honest intentions of ever allowing a spare/
surplus KW.hr worth of your energy to exist, and therefore your H2--LH2 plus LOx is never going to become all that cost effective, or

even thus far available at any price.

- Brad Guth

You say so many things that are wrong its hard to know where to
start. *Suffice to say that investment in R&D to lower the cost of
space access does bear results. *The USA stopped spending to reduce
space access costs back in the 1960s when it was clear we would make
it to the moon ahead of the Russians. *Why? *Because lower cost access
to space means lower cost access to strategic missiles. *We have to
get clear on this before any real progress can be made. *Do we want to
control missile proliferation? *Do we want low cost access to space?
At present we're supressing knowledge in the hopes of supressing
capabilities. * We need to have a more direct approach to controlling
conflict, and more open approach to rocket engine and space vehicle
development.- Hide quoted text -

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. These have a higher
specific impulse than the solid fueled missiles but have second strike
capability.

If you have to launch a nuclear missile the last thing you want is to
have to pump in tons of cryogenic fuel. 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. You will not have the time to fuel up and fire. In fact
these days with 2m CEPs a conventional first strike is perfectly
practicable.

The technology we are seeking to control is nuclear technology, not
missile technology. The main fear is that a nuclear weapon will be
smuggled into the US and assembled in a flat somewhere. There are
means, other than missiles of delivering nuclear weapons.

The main reason for the slowdown was not any fear of missile
technology but the simple fact that the objective was the Moon. Other
objectives were very much in the background.


- Ian Parker

On Jan 14, 4:15 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 14 Jan, 01:08, wrote:

On Jan 11, 11:07 am, BradGuth wrote:

On Jan 10, 4:44 pm, wrote:

More crazy talk in a vain attempt to alienate all rational people from
even trying to figure out what's being said. Do you ever leave your
mom's basement and you know, go out and get a meal at a restaurant?
Do you talk like that in public? If you do you GOTTA know that
people find it offensive scary and worse. You gotta know this. So,
you gotta known chilling effect it has on people even bothering to
read this topic. So, you KNOW you're a black propagandist, and likely
with all the other rat****ers out there - take misplaced pride in the
shock you think you cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat****ing

First off, there's nothing all that cheap about space travels,
especially if having to accommodate us frail humans. Besides, China
is already accomplishing CATS at not 10% the cost of anything NASA.

Even if Mook's LH2 and LO2 were made free for the taking, the R&D and
complex infrastructure on behalf of accomplishing those composite
rigid spaceships and/or shuttles (aka Skylon or whatever) is simply
for the upper most 0.1% of humanity that doesn't actually trickle its
wealth down worth ****, and much less sharing of any power.

The proof being yourself and of those you continually brown-nose.
Lord all-knowing Mook doesn't actually give a tinkers damn about the
lower 99.9% of humanity, as in never did and never will, much less do
you have honest intentions of ever salvaging any part of our badly
failing environment unless it has something to do with stuffing our
hard earned loot into your offshore bank accounts, as you could have
been delivering your H2 and/or LH2 in bulk and at a fair market price
as of a decade ago.

Of what has been technically doable for decades isn't happening
because of folks like yourself. So, you can't blame others outside of
your own mindset that believes your government and of its faith-based
puppeteers can do no wrong, especially if there's anything Jewish
involved.

As I've said before, that such clean and renewable energy that's
essentially unlimited should be made into all sorts of gas, fluid and
solid forms of stored energy, except that you ENRON and other big-
energy cartel folks have no honest intentions of ever allowing a spare/
surplus KW.hr worth of your energy to exist, and therefore your H2--LH2 plus LOx is never going to become all that cost effective, or

even thus far available at any price.

- Brad Guth

You say so many things that are wrong its hard to know where to
start. Suffice to say that investment in R&D to lower the cost of
space access does bear results. The USA stopped spending to reduce
space access costs back in the 1960s when it was clear we would make
it to the moon ahead of the Russians. Why? Because lower cost access
to space means lower cost access to strategic missiles. We have to
get clear on this before any real progress can be made. Do we want to
control missile proliferation? Do we want low cost access to space?
At present we're supressing knowledge in the hopes of supressing
capabilities. We need to have a more direct approach to controlling
conflict, and more open approach to rocket engine and space vehicle
development.- Hide quoted text -

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. These have a higher
specific impulse than the solid fueled missiles but have second strike
capability.

If you have to launch a nuclear missile the last thing you want is to
have to pump in tons of cryogenic fuel. 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. You will not have the time to fuel up and fire. In fact
these days with 2m CEPs a conventional first strike is perfectly
practicable.

The technology we are seeking to control is nuclear technology, not
missile technology. The main fear is that a nuclear weapon will be
smuggled into the US and assembled in a flat somewhere. There are
means, other than missiles of delivering nuclear weapons.

The main reason for the slowdown was not any fear of missile
technology but the simple fact that the objective was the Moon. Other
objectives were very much in the background.

- Ian Parker

That is also true on the USSR/Russian side of our mutually perpetrated
cold-war, whereas the moon itself was all or nothing. Too bad China
is going to beat us to actually having those rad-hard robotics walking
or somehow maneuvering upon that physically dark and electrostatic
dusty surface of our naked/anticathode moon that looks so gosh darn
bluish to the unfiltered camera...

Would you like to see another one of those official NASA/Apollo
unfiltered Kodak moments of our red, perfectly normal white and
otherwise extremely dark blue American flags, within a certain guano
island like foreground and background?

- Brad Guth

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'?

:
: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

On Jan 14, 9:27 am, 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'?

:
: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

In the highly bigoted eyes and infowar mindset of Usenet insiders (as
MI5/CIA spooks, moles and rusemasters of their very own Old Testament
incest mutated kind), the only GTNW game in tiown is one of an all out
first strike, because the supposed 2nd strike will be of little if any
point, especially if the first one included a fog layer of DDT and VX.

5+ billions dead and/or badly dying is about as good of an global
outcome as it's going to get. At least we'll not have to worry about
AGW for a while.

- Brad Guth

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

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.

In any case the vital question which I tried to answer is "Have
military considerations eg. missile proliferation, infulenced space
policy and is there a "conspiracy"? If anything the US allowing other
players to catch up may have actually increased the risk of missile
proliferation.

No, the basic fact is the Moon and the fact that there was no really
coherent post lunar strategy.


- Ian Parker

Comspiracies are often claimed when what really exists is
straightforward incompetance.

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.

Len


In any case the vital question which I tried to answer is "Have
military considerations eg. missile proliferation, infulenced space
policy and is there a "conspiracy"? If anything the US allowing other
players to catch up may have actually increased the risk of missile
proliferation.

No, the basic fact is the Moon and the fact that there was no really
coherent post lunar strategy.

* - Ian Parker

Comspiracies are often claimed when what really exists is
straightforward incompetance.

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.
:
:
: :
: :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).
:
:
:In fact survivability options have changed with 2m CEP.
:

In fact there are no systems with 2m CEP that will even scratch the
paint on a hardened silo.

:
: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.
:

Uh, "doors are full of rubble"? Do you have *ANY* clue what a missile
launching silo looks like? These things are built to take near misses
from large nuclear weapons (hardened to overpressures of 1000-1500
psi) and a little "rubble" isn't going to stop them.

:
:Liquid/solid is I agree a little simplistic. The fact however
:remains that no space rocket can be prepared for launch in the 15min
r so warning you get.
:

More than "a little simplistic", and well into "outright ignorant".

1) You get more warning than that (in the general case).

2) If you are on alert you can launch in a lot less than that.

:
:In any case the vital question which I tried to answer is "Have
:military considerations eg. missile proliferation, infulenced space
olicy and is there a "conspiracy"? If anything the US allowing other
layers to catch up may have actually increased the risk of missile
roliferation.
:

And just how do you expect we should stop someone from 'catching up'?
Nuke anyone with a space program?

:
:No, the basic fact is the Moon and the fact that there was no really
:coherent post lunar strategy.
:

Sure there was. There were actually plans to use the Saturn V and
Apollo hardware in what was known as the "Apollo Extension System"
(AES). That was intended to grow (from AES to ALSS to LESA I to LESA
II). LESA II would have provided for a 6-man Lunar base with mission
durations of 6 months.

It was all shut down in mid-1968. That's when "coherent post lunar
strategy" ended.

Now we're back to trying to start from scratch again.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

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.

Conventional weapons come in when you are contemplating a first strike
against a minor power. Russia and China are contained by deterrence.
Whether Iran or other minor powers can be "deterred" is an open
question, as is the question as to how far advanced their nuclear
program really is. Should Hezbullah be given a nuclear weapon which it
launches at Israel, there would without question be a retaliatory
strike. Whether this would consitute stable deterrence is open to
question


- Ian Parker

On Jan 15, 2:00*pm, 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.

MAD was aptly named--especially when it is
the only option. While the threat of nuclear
retaliation may be the ultimate deterrent, actual
use would be tantamount to failure. Even a
major nuclear power that is "beaten" by conventional
warfare might be likely to hang on to its nuclear
capability as a last-ditch negotiating weapon for
a more palatable cease fire. A strong--and usable
--conventional warhead capability plus an
effective missile defense system can reduce
MAD to a, perhaps necessary, but sideline
capability. I, for one, have felt that effective
missile defense has been a viable option that
has been wrongfully denied by many years of
sole dependence on MAD--as well as incredibly
clumsy approaches to the technical problem.

BTW, I object to those dedicated warriers on both
sides that equate Russia with the former USSR.
They seemed to be hell bent on making sure that
we are enemies rather than friends twenty years
from now--when the past 250 years of history
has been one mostly of friendship. Even during
the 70 years of the USSR existence, we have
been (forced, but effective and necessary) allies in
both major shooting wars. There was
no Marshall Plan at the end of the Cold War, since
our enemy threw out its own rascals. I am
somewhat less hopeful with China, but I hope
that we are basically friends with China twenty
years from now as well. I am hoping that this
country does not have to have a major enemy
to exist.


Conventional weapons come in when you are contemplating a first strike
against a minor power. Russia and China are contained by deterrence.
Whether Iran or other minor powers can be "deterred" is an open
question, as is the question as to how far advanced their nuclear
program really is. Should Hezbullah be given a nuclear weapon which it
launches at Israel, there would without question be a retaliatory
strike. Whether this would consitute stable deterrence is open to
question

Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists are a
difficult problem--with dire, but still limited--
consequences we may have to prepared to accept.
Remember that fear is the greatest weapon that
terrorists have.

As noted above, I disagree and have always
disagreed that MAD was the only option--and certainly
not the best option, especially with modern
non-nuclear weapons that can be of comparable
effectiveness in counter-force situations.
Counter value is another game--but a game that
does not fit this country's basic nature (Hiroshima
and Nagasaki aside).

* - Ian Parker