From: bondage@frontiernet.net
william mook wrote:
>
> Joann Evans wrote in message news:<4
CF9793.2BA57161@frontiernet.net>...
> > william mook wrote:
> > >
> > > Joann Evans wrote in message new
:<40C8E863.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.
> > >
> > > Yes, absolutely. But, their motives will be clear to everyone, which
> > > will make things easier for our State Department.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And of course (espically in Korea's case), they will still want ELVs
> > > > as medium and long range weapons.
> > >
> > > But they won't have the fig leaf of space launch development. That's
> > > the point. They will clearly be developing weapons systems to
> > > threaten us and any coalation that we can assemble who is similarly
> > > threatned. Again, this makes things easier geopolitically for the US
> > > to contain missile proliferation.
> > >
> > > > 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.)
> > >
> > > Well, there are tactical issues and there are strategic issues.
> > > You've got the tactical right. The strategic you are ignoring.
> >
> > As noted in the other message, that distinction depends partly on who
> > and where you are.
>
> Correct. And by controlling who and where the RLVs are, we can
> mitigate the risks.
>
> >
> > > Consider a world where no RLVs exist and everyone still uses ELVs.
> > > Any nation can build an ELV and say they're doing so to become space
> > > capable. Its not as clear in this environment that they're building
> > > weapons systems.
> > >
> > > Now, consider a world where ELVs are a technology of the past and
> > > everyone's using RLVs. Those who make, maintain, and operate the
> > > RLVs, lack the capacity to mass produce the components on a scale
> > > needed to create threatening weapons systems. In fact, RLV
> > > manufacturers can be controlled in a way that still permits them to
> > > operate, but also allows them to demonstrate through inspection and
> > > whatnot that their systems are incapable of being converted to
> > > long-range missiles.
Which still does not mean it can't be part of a weapon system. In
addition to the example of the 747 as a cruise missle carrier, others
have been turned into laser platforms, C-130s have been modified from
cargo role, to specialized gunship. Once you sell a flying machine to
someone else, the posible modifications are limited only by his
technological capability. (Wide bodied jets have also been turned into
manned cruise misslies, but that was admittedly a special case.)
> > And what happens once they leave the manufacturer's hands?
>
> They are licensed and inspected and owned by licensed operators who
> routinely report to inspection agencies.
Inspection by one's equivalent of the FAA is one thing. By an
international agency is another. And an RLV bought and operated by
another government (as opposed to a foreign commercial carrier) is yet
another.
As today, a government, as a matter of policy, may forbid sales to
certain nations, but it doesn't mean that manufacturers in other
countries can't/won't.
> > We want
> > RLVs to ultimately be as common as, say, wide bodied jets.
>
> Yes.
>
> > What stops
> > someone from modifying one of those for some military purpose? (Some
> > wanted the US to use modified 747s as long range cruise missile
> > carriers, rather than develop the B-1, for example.)
>
> The same thing that stops airlines from modifying airliners for
> military purposes.
No profit. But airliners aren't governments. Again, you can currently
only be sure of what operators in *your* country are doing.
> > You can't really stop someone from customizing one of these.
>
> Why not? I can't modify the exhaust on my convertible beyond a
> certain range of noise and emissions. That's because my vehicle is
> licensed and inspected routinely, and I'm licensed to operate it and
> that is routinely renewed.
And this is done by the state you live in, not an international
agency. But stock, unmodified cars and trucks have been used in
Oklahoma, New York (the first attempt on the WTC) and various places in
the Middle East as explosive delivery systems.
And that doesn't even consider common-garden non-political smuggling
using cars.
Thus my example of using unmodified (cargo is cargo) RLVs to pre-place
weapons systems of one kind or another in orbit. Not one bolt need be
changed between these inspections.
> This makes owning a RLV far different than owning an ELV factory.
If it's built in your country, you knew what it was at the time of
delivery, yes.
> > And if
> > they're willing to clandestinely pre-place nukes (or other weapons) in
> > orbit, it doesn't even take modification.
>
> Preventing nukes from being pre-placed in orbit is as easily achieved
> as preventing nukes from being pre-placed in our cities. Operate the
> RLVs from disignated launch centers and monitor those launch centers
> for radiological emissions.
Hmm. "You may launch from only these locations.' I suspect that's yet
more soverignty that many nations will be reluctant to give up. Some
because of a hostile adgenda, some just on principle.
> Our spaceports will be as secure as our
> airports - RLVs are another more capable version of wide bodied jets -
> as you pointed out. Wide bodied jets pose significant risks as we
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
