From: bondage@frontiernet.net   
      
   william mook wrote:   
   >   
   > Joann Evans  wrote in message news:<4   
   C8E863.E0B1EB69@frontiernet.net>...   
   > > william mook wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > This would also help the US contain missile proliferation.  If a   
   > > > low-cost RLV of the type described here were operational by a US based   
   > > > firm, it would undercut the rationale others in other nations have (as   
   > > > in Korea) for building an expendable launch vehicle.   
   > >   
   > >    As a commercial satellite launcher for world markets, yes. Some   
   > > nations who can't build (or buy) RLVs will still look at ELVs to   
   > > maintain an independent launching capability, however.   
   > >   
   > >    And of course (espically in Korea's case), they will still want ELVs   
   > > as medium and long range weapons. The fact that the other guy operates a   
   > > fleet of RLVs won't affect that. (Except perhaps to the extent that he   
   > > knows that the other guy can get someone up there for recon on short   
   > > notice.)   
   >   
   > The ability to orbit a payload with a rocket means that same rocket   
   > can be adapted to send a payload to any point on Earth.  Suborbital   
   > flight is easier than orbital flight.  The US used space as a means to   
   > pay for the development of ICBMS and so did the USSR.  So did every   
   > nation who has long range missiles.  That's why we have ELVs and not   
   > RLVs.  Movement toward RLVs will remove the connection between weapons   
   > systems and space launchers.   
      
       Thhat distinction is already present. Aside from the fact that many   
   satellite ELVs are descended from ballistic missile weapons (such as   
   Atlas, Titan [Thor]Delta) and the Soyuz launcher) others (from Pegasus   
   to Saturn) never were employed as weapons.   
      
   >  It will clarify things and give us a   
   > sound basis on which to destroy launcher activity as soon as they're   
   > detected.   
      
      Not all ELVs are weapons, not all RLVs will be civil/commercial.   
      
      And even if not carrying weapons, they may still have military value.   
   Again and espically for reconnisance. Having humans present doesn't   
   change the equation. Not all pilotless aircraft are cruise missiles, for   
   example.   
      
      
   >  This won't happen right away for the reasons you state.   
   > But, I can imagine a day when the US, or the collective power of a   
   > group of nations along with the US,   
      
      Who decides? Who do you trust? Who trusts us?   
      
   > will destroy any ELV capacity at   
   > first detection, since it is in effect a gun pointed at the US and its   
   > allies - no matter what is said about it.   
      
      At what threshold? Is high-power Amateur Rocketry okay? Sounding   
   rockets? Depending on how close your adversary is (remember the limits   
   on Iraq misiles?), some fairly small rockets are major threats. What's a   
   tactical weapon from the US-Russia point of view, is a strategic weapon   
   to India-Pakastan.   
      
      All that sounds like risking an act of war. (which might be carried   
   out by non-missile means) Or at least either encouraging clandestine   
   rocket development, or the legal develpopment/aquisition of RLVs and   
   modifying them for weapons.   
      
   --   
      
      You know what to remove, to reply....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)