6 ms·

That doesn't make much sense. It's a single space ship that maybe has the same warhead payload capacity as a couple standard MIRV ballistic missiles. Any target

That doesn't make much sense. It's a single space ship that maybe has the same warhead payload capacity as a couple standard MIRV ballistic missiles. Any target the US is going to nuke in a first strike won't be destroyed enough to effectively prevent a counter strike, or all out nuclear war. It's probably something NRO related.

lumost 4y ago
The Space shuttle had a 60 ton payload as I recall. A large nuclear warhead is 1000kg, in theory 3 space shuttles could deliver ~90 large warheads or up to 900 smaller warheads. Space Shuttles would also have the ability to identify hard to find targets such as mobile ICBM launchers. The idea of using shuttles to manage or deliver a nuclear deterrent/first strike capability in space was probably considered at some point during its development. If there was one reason to scratch this idea, it would be that launching a nuclear shuttle would have been highly auspicious - and likely treated as the equivalent of an ICBM launch. It's highly unlikely that permanent orbital munitions would be tolerated either.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  > in theory 3 space shuttles could deliver ~90 large warheads or up to 900 smaller warheads. In practicality, all three shuttle launch facilities could not be used simultaneously. In fact, the two actually ever used could not have been used simultaneously. And space shuttles could not have been kept at standby, their launch sequence even in an emergency could never be reduced below 72 hours, and even that with tremendous difficulty. And even if you could get three shuttles airborne at once, where would you land them? Also, I'm not sure if the Vandenburg launch could land after a single orbit, I think that the Florida launches would land a white sands. > Space Shuttles would also have the ability to identify hard to find targets such as mobile ICBM launchers. Space shuttles overflying the Soviet Union on a polar trajectory had no ability to maneuver, they had to fly a very specific trajectory to make the landing site. And no way an orbital vehicle could identify a target on the ground and alter its inclination to overfly it on that orbit. That would require both enormous Delta-V and high lateral G loads. Then they'd have to readjust the inclination to land.
  - Vecr 4y ago
    You can land space shuttles anywhere with a good enough and long enough runway that's at the right angle. I think how many would be usable would depend on the mission, but with good pilots there would almost certainly be at least three.
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      The only US-allied nations with runways long enough to land a space shuttle are Spain, Canada, France, and India. For a polar mission the Canadian runway is no more useful than the American runways, and the Spanish and French runways are too far from the Pacific Ocean, where the orbiter needs to come down. Perhaps the shuttle could make two orbits and then land in India, using those big heavy wings for crossrange. However, I am looking at the Wikipedia list of runways in service today. I'm not about to embark on looking at historical data.
      - dboreham 4y ago
        Not in the Pacific, but RAF Machrihanish could also be used.
        dotancohen 4y ago
        That's nowhere near the ground path of a polar launch from either Vandenburg nor the Cape on the first few orbits, though.
        dboreham 4y ago
        True, I was responding to your post "the only...nations...".
        dotancohen 4y ago
        Oh, I see, thanks. Yes, most (maybe all) shuttle rollouts were less than the 10000 length of the Machrihanish runway, but that's really cutting it close. SLF Florida is 15000 feet. But I guess if the situation is so bad that the shuttle needs to come down outside the US, it's probably not going to be used again so why not mow the grass at the end of the runway.
BMc2020 4y ago
The responses seem to fall along the lines of 'it can't deliver a lot of warheads', but I think it's more for the scenario of delivering a single nuke clandestinely. Some terrorists in Absurdistan are trying to make a bomb but they accidentally blow themselves up? Too bad so sad.
- Sebb767 4y ago
  If it weren't for the fact that the nuke came from space, which is probably easily noticeable for the major players. Also, the brute force of a nuke doesn't really combine well with subtile operations. Unless you want to 'clandestinely' wipe out a whole city.
- meepmorp 4y ago
  That’s as even more ridiculous scenario. It’s incredibly high risk, militarily and politically, for no real benefit over other ways of dealing with such targets. You’re entitled to your opinion, but your reasoning is nonsensical.
  - BMc2020 4y ago
    yes, so very nonsensical" *Deployment of X-37B space plane For all its features and achievements, the primary objectives of the X-37B have remained largely classified during its existence, which has now been for more than a decade. The secrecy over the purposes of the space plane has even prompted Russia to say that apart from carrying out surveillance, the space plane could be harboring nuclear warheads. While the mystery over this remains unresolved...* https://interestingengineering.com/us-military-orbital-record-x-37b https://interestingengineering.com/us-military-orbital-recor...
  - BMc2020 4y ago
    You have to put yourself in the mindset of people who think big, are completely amoral and money is no object. A couple examples: There's encryption in use the NSA can't crack (SSL). So they..record the entire internet because someday they may be able to crack it. Sounds impossible, but they do. I don't know how many racks in how many data centers it takes, but money is no object. Create an entire war on drugs to..keep a few percent of the black population from voting. Sounds like evil on a scale that's impossible to believe. I'm sure your a decent person, which is why you discount how evil evil can get.

lumost 4y ago

The Space shuttle had a 60 ton payload as I recall. A large nuclear warhead is 1000kg, in theory 3 space shuttles could deliver ~90 large warheads or up to 900 smaller warheads. Space Shuttles would also have the ability to identify hard to find targets such as mobile ICBM launchers. The idea of using shuttles to manage or deliver a nuclear deterrent/first strike capability in space was probably considered at some point during its development. If there was one reason to scratch this idea, it would be that launching a nuclear shuttle would have been highly auspicious - and likely treated as the equivalent of an ICBM launch. It's highly unlikely that permanent orbital munitions would be tolerated either.

dotancohen 4y ago
> in theory 3 space shuttles could deliver ~90 large warheads or up to 900 smaller warheads. In practicality, all three shuttle launch facilities could not be used simultaneously. In fact, the two actually ever used could not have been used simultaneously. And space shuttles could not have been kept at standby, their launch sequence even in an emergency could never be reduced below 72 hours, and even that with tremendous difficulty. And even if you could get three shuttles airborne at once, where would you land them? Also, I'm not sure if the Vandenburg launch could land after a single orbit, I think that the Florida launches would land a white sands. > Space Shuttles would also have the ability to identify hard to find targets such as mobile ICBM launchers. Space shuttles overflying the Soviet Union on a polar trajectory had no ability to maneuver, they had to fly a very specific trajectory to make the landing site. And no way an orbital vehicle could identify a target on the ground and alter its inclination to overfly it on that orbit. That would require both enormous Delta-V and high lateral G loads. Then they'd have to readjust the inclination to land.
- Vecr 4y ago
  You can land space shuttles anywhere with a good enough and long enough runway that's at the right angle. I think how many would be usable would depend on the mission, but with good pilots there would almost certainly be at least three.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    The only US-allied nations with runways long enough to land a space shuttle are Spain, Canada, France, and India. For a polar mission the Canadian runway is no more useful than the American runways, and the Spanish and French runways are too far from the Pacific Ocean, where the orbiter needs to come down. Perhaps the shuttle could make two orbits and then land in India, using those big heavy wings for crossrange. However, I am looking at the Wikipedia list of runways in service today. I'm not about to embark on looking at historical data.
    - dboreham 4y ago
      Not in the Pacific, but RAF Machrihanish could also be used.
      - dotancohen 4y ago
        That's nowhere near the ground path of a polar launch from either Vandenburg nor the Cape on the first few orbits, though.
        dboreham 4y ago
        True, I was responding to your post "the only...nations...".
        dotancohen 4y ago
        Oh, I see, thanks. Yes, most (maybe all) shuttle rollouts were less than the 10000 length of the Machrihanish runway, but that's really cutting it close. SLF Florida is 15000 feet. But I guess if the situation is so bad that the shuttle needs to come down outside the US, it's probably not going to be used again so why not mow the grass at the end of the runway.

BMc2020 4y ago

The responses seem to fall along the lines of 'it can't deliver a lot of warheads', but I think it's more for the scenario of delivering a single nuke clandestinely. Some terrorists in Absurdistan are trying to make a bomb but they accidentally blow themselves up? Too bad so sad.

Sebb767 4y ago
If it weren't for the fact that the nuke came from space, which is probably easily noticeable for the major players. Also, the brute force of a nuke doesn't really combine well with subtile operations. Unless you want to 'clandestinely' wipe out a whole city.
meepmorp 4y ago
That’s as even more ridiculous scenario. It’s incredibly high risk, militarily and politically, for no real benefit over other ways of dealing with such targets. You’re entitled to your opinion, but your reasoning is nonsensical.
- BMc2020 4y ago
  yes, so very nonsensical" *Deployment of X-37B space plane For all its features and achievements, the primary objectives of the X-37B have remained largely classified during its existence, which has now been for more than a decade. The secrecy over the purposes of the space plane has even prompted Russia to say that apart from carrying out surveillance, the space plane could be harboring nuclear warheads. While the mystery over this remains unresolved...* https://interestingengineering.com/us-military-orbital-record-x-37b https://interestingengineering.com/us-military-orbital-recor...
- BMc2020 4y ago
  You have to put yourself in the mindset of people who think big, are completely amoral and money is no object. A couple examples: There's encryption in use the NSA can't crack (SSL). So they..record the entire internet because someday they may be able to crack it. Sounds impossible, but they do. I don't know how many racks in how many data centers it takes, but money is no object. Create an entire war on drugs to..keep a few percent of the black population from voting. Sounds like evil on a scale that's impossible to believe. I'm sure your a decent person, which is why you discount how evil evil can get.