3 ms·
The actual weapon issue came from the wings. They were far too big. They were designed for a massive cross-range, such as a single surprise overflight then re
by sandworm101 4y ago
The actual weapon issue came from the wings. They were far too big. They were designed for a massive cross-range, such as a single surprise overflight then return to the launch center rather than risk overflying the target twice. That looked very much like a weapons delivery profile.
The cargo retrieval potential was also suspect. Nukes are the one thing that could never be de-orbited into the atmosphere. Shuttle looked like something that could enable nuke weaponry in orbit.
- Symmetry 4y agoIn particular, the Space Shuttle looked like it could nuke Moscow from the south where there weren't any early warning radars pointed.
- smalley 4y agoI mean isn't the B in ICBM for ballistic reentry, that's probably about as fast a deorbit from the height of the space station as you would get?
- sandworm101 4y agoA nuke warhead can certainly be made to survive reentry, but that isn't the same as safely bringing one back for maintenance.
- dotancohen 4y agoActually, intercontinental suborbital trajectories get even higher than the space station. The space station is only 400 km up. Newer ICBMs are actually orbital, so they don't have to go so high and thus be visible over the horizon to radar. But they obviously deorbit after less than half an orbit. It also enables them to get to the target in much, much less time.
- nradov 4y agoThe cross range capability was supposedly also intended for military reconnaissance missions. Back then film cameras were still used. So they wanted to be able to launch from California into a polar orbit, make a single pass over the USSR, and land back at the launch site for immediate film processing. Of course they never actually flew such a mission.