5 ms·

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

by 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.
        dboreham 4y ago
        According to wikipedia Machrihanish was "certified" as an emergency shuttle landing site. Local rumor is that it was used for SR-72/Aurora, black project flights. Lots of conspiracy theories, e.g. https://www.theregister.com/2000/07/10/top_secret_us_plane_caused/ https://www.theregister.com/2000/07/10/top_secret_us_plane_c...
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
  In a situation where space veichles are used to drop 90+ nuclear warheads on an enemy, landing the space veichles isn't the primary concern. Regardless, ICBM's would probably be more efficient way to do it.

by lumost 4y ago

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.
        dboreham 4y ago
        According to wikipedia Machrihanish was "certified" as an emergency shuttle landing site. Local rumor is that it was used for SR-72/Aurora, black project flights. Lots of conspiracy theories, e.g. https://www.theregister.com/2000/07/10/top_secret_us_plane_caused/ https://www.theregister.com/2000/07/10/top_secret_us_plane_c...
2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
In a situation where space veichles are used to drop 90+ nuclear warheads on an enemy, landing the space veichles isn't the primary concern. Regardless, ICBM's would probably be more efficient way to do it.