XPost: sci.physics, sci.space.policy   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   JF Mezei  wrote:   
      
   >On 2017-05-25 00:13, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Really?  Virtually any discussion of the choice to use SRBs on the   
   >> Shuttle will include this idea of keeping costs for military solid   
   >> rockets down.   
   >>   
   >   
   >I knew that ATK was getting pork because they also built military stuff.   
   >I didn't realise that this pork is to keep them alive for 30 years until   
   >the next order for ICBMs comes in.   
   >   
   >Which is why it would be better to replace these progressively with   
   >enough orders each year to keep ATK alive instead of mass replacements   
   >every 30 years.   
   >   
      
   Except it wouldn't.  This would be stupidly expensive, because you'd   
   need to have the new designs in hand NOW and you would then fuck up   
   your logistics chain by supporting multiple types of missile in what   
   is no longer the large force it used to be.  When you want to test   
   fire a missile, you would have to fire one of each type rather than   
   just a single missile.  It gets ugly fast.   
      
      
   --   
   "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."   
                              -- Charles Pinckney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)