system@asuvax.UUCP (Marc Lesure) (09/27/88)
With the recent passage of the INF tready, I was wondering if it would be possible to destroy the warheads and recycle the delivery systems to be used as a low level satellite launch system? I don't know the details of the tready, so this may not be possible. However, can't the Titan class of launch system place an object in orbit? If it can, why not use them to help clear out the back log of satellites waiting to launch? Just a wild thought... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Lesure / Arizona State University / Tempe, AZ "Between the world of men and make-believe, I can be found..." "False faces and meaningless chases, I travel alone..." "And where do you go when you come to the end of your dream?" UUCP: ...!ncar!noao!asuvax!lesure Internet/CSNET/ARPA: lesure@asuvax.asu.edu
g-hollin@rocky.cs.wisc.edu.CS.WISC.EDU (Jeff Hollingsworth) (09/27/88)
In article <364@asuvax.UUCP> system@asuvax.UUCP (Marc Lesure) writes: >With the recent passage of the INF tready, I was wondering if it would be >possible to destroy the warheads and recycle the delivery systems to be >used as a low level satellite launch system? I don't know the details of Good idea, except the conditions of the INF tready call for the dectruction of the delivery systems, NOT the missiles. Each side can do anything they want with the warheads! Also the onsite inspection involves inspecting the plants to make sure both sides are not building new rockets of the same class. So we can't even reuse the technology. Jeff Hollingsworth hollings@rocky.CS.WISC.EDU
mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears) (09/28/88)
> With the recent passage of the INF tready, I was wondering if it would be > possible to destroy the warheads and recycle the delivery systems to be > used as a low level satellite launch system? I don't know the details of > the tready, so this may not be possible. However, can't the Titan class of > launch system place an object in orbit? If it can, why not use them to help > clear out the back log of satellites waiting to launch? > > Just a wild thought... I'm certainly no expert, nor do I claim to be, but I seem to recall that the INF treaty calls for the destruction of the delivery systems. However, the nuclear warheads themselves are not to be destroyed, but may, in fact, be reused on other non-banned delivery systems. Oh well, it's a start. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Marc Lesure / Arizona State University / Tempe, AZ > "Between the world of men and make-believe, I can be found..." > "False faces and meaningless chases, I travel alone..." > "And where do you go when you come to the end of your dream?" > > UUCP: ...!ncar!noao!asuvax!lesure > Internet/CSNET/ARPA: lesure@asuvax.asu.edu > ---------- David B. Mears Hewlett-Packard Cupertino CA hplabs!hpda!mears
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/28/88)
In article <364@asuvax.UUCP> system@asuvax.UUCP (Marc Lesure) writes: >With the recent passage of the INF tready, I was wondering if it would be >possible to destroy the warheads and recycle the delivery systems to be >used as a low level satellite launch system? No. The treaty requires destruction of all affected missiles in a rather limited time by carefully-specified methods; use as space launchers is not among them. >... However, can't the Titan class of >launch system place an object in orbit? Yes, but the Titans are ICBMs and have nothing to do with the INF treaty. (In any case, the last fifty or so military Titans are all now in storage pending conversion to space launchers -- for USAF payloads, since the USAF owns them -- already.) The missiles banned by the INF agreement are a bit small for space launchers. One can hope that the forthcoming (we hope) treaty on reduction of strategic missiles provides for conversion to space launchers. The trouble is, though, that in such a treaty one wants to be sure the missiles are *really gone* and will not be put back into service as soon as your back is turned. The Soviets could use up missiles as launchers relatively quickly, but the US is not prepared for the high launch rate that would be needed. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/30/88)
In article <1988Sep27.175719.16972@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > One can hope that the forthcoming (we hope) treaty on reduction of strategic > missiles provides for conversion to space launchers. The trouble is, though, > that in such a treaty one wants to be sure the missiles are *really gone* > and will not be put back into service as soon as your back is turned. The > Soviets could use up missiles as launchers relatively quickly, but the US > is not prepared for the high launch rate that would be needed. What an opportunity to lobby for a LEGO space station! "If you get rid of these missiles you get a free permanant space platform". Well, not free maybe, but ultra-cheap delivery to orbit. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
mph@rover.UUCP (Mark Huth) (10/04/88)
In article <6332@spool.cs.wisc.edu| hollings@rocky.CS.WISC.EDU (Jeff Hollingsworth) writes: |In article <364@asuvax.UUCP> system@asuvax.UUCP (Marc Lesure) writes: |>With the recent passage of the INF tready, I was wondering if it would be |>possible to destroy the warheads and recycle the delivery systems to be |>used as a low level satellite launch system? I don't know the details of | |Good idea, except the conditions of the INF tready call for the dectruction |of the delivery systems, NOT the missiles. Each side can do anything they |want with the warheads! Also the onsite inspection involves inspecting |the plants to make sure both sides are not building new rockets of the same |class. So we can't even reuse the technology. | Seems to me that what happens to a non-reuseable launch vehicle is that it is destroyed when it re-enters. There may be restrictions one how launch vehicles are destroyed, but the simple requirement that they be destroyed is met by a launch and re-entry. Mark Huth
news@afit-ab.arpa (News System Account) (10/06/88)
In article <364@asuvax.UUCP> system@asuvax.UUCP (Marc Lesure) writes: >With the recent passage of the INF tready, I was wondering if it would be >possible to destroy the warheads and recycle the delivery systems to be >used as a low level satellite launch system? > Funny, you should ask. This month's Air Force magazine quotes the general in charge of ballistic missle development (the BMO at Norton AFB) as saying the AF isn't allowed to use the old INF launchers for testing. Apparently, we're running out of old Miniteman I's to use for test purposes. Mike mproicou@afit-ab.arpa Mike Priocou mproicou@galaxy.afit.af.mil <- Preferred(?) Form mproicou@afit-ab.arpa <- Most Likely to Work? Go Figure!
vin@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Vincent E. Erickson) (10/20/88)
If you really want to discuss the failure of a policy like the INF treaty, look to the fact that if the Reagon administration hadn't deployed these missles in the first place, they wouldn't have needed a treaty to remove them! We are basically at the same place we were 8 years ago; thousands of warheads, no place to run. If we had been brave enough to have the nuclear freeze which Mr. Bush is so proud to bash on today, he and Mr. Reagon could have signed a treaty eliminating some REAL missles, not just clean up a couple of missles which mattered nothing to either side anyways.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/25/88)
In article <1072@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> vin@meccsd.UUCP (Vincent E. Erickson) writes: >If you really want to discuss the failure of a policy like the INF >treaty, look to the fact that if the Reagon administration hadn't >deployed these missles in the first place, they wouldn't have needed a >treaty to remove them! ... Uh, don't forget that the Soviets are scrapping a few missiles as part of the INF treaty too... -- The dream *IS* alive... | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but not at NASA. |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (10/30/88)
In article <1072@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> vin@meccsd.UUCP (Vincent E. Erickson) writes: | If you really want to discuss the failure of a policy like the INF | treaty, look to the fact that if the Reagon administration hadn't | deployed these missles in the first place, they wouldn't have needed a | treaty to remove them! ... In article <1988Oct24.181744.17664@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) replies: > Uh, don't forget that the Soviets are scrapping a few missiles as part > of the INF treaty too... One thing to keep in mind is that you cannot bargain missiles for "almost missiles." I.e., the Russians are not about to accept "if you destroy 200 SS-20s, we won't build the Small ICBM." Destroying missiles unilaterally is not too smart either. After WWI, most of Europe thought they had Germany beat forever, and disarmed themselves "to insure continued peace" or some such silly idea. You know the outcome of these acts of idiocy - Hitlers armies rolled right over most of Europe without significant resisitance. "Peace through strength" is the only option that has ever worked, and even then peace is VERY transitory. -- "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell "How come he didn't put `I think' at the end of it?" - James P. Hogan