5 ms·

The Space Shuttle was developed as a covert weapons program as well, for deploying nuclear warheads directly from orbit to give enemies a much shorter response

The Space Shuttle was developed as a covert weapons program as well, for deploying nuclear warheads directly from orbit to give enemies a much shorter response window. This is why the Soviets quickly developed their own space shuttle program, because they recognized the military purpose behind it. There's a radical school of thinking of which I don't agree 100%, which is that the Space Shuttle program was a Cold War remnant stuck in a sunk cost fallacy, and set back space exploration for decades since it was extremely expensive and completely limited to LEO and siphoned funds that could've been used for more efficient rockets and modular stations beyond LEO.

throwanem 3y ago
> The Space Shuttle was developed as a covert weapons program as well, for deploying nuclear warheads directly from orbit to give enemies a much shorter response window. You need to cite this. While NASA's own history ("The Space Shuttle Decision", pub. no. SP-4221) describes the way in which the STS design was rescued from cancellation through Air Force-requested modifications to support satellite-capture missions which after Challenger never materialized, I have never seen any reference in any source to support the idea that the Shuttle was designed to serve as an orbital bombardment system in direct violation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
- ssnistfajen 3y ago
  https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3855/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3855/1 Why do you think Outer Space Treaty will matter in event of a hot war between two nuclear superpowers? NPT was signed a year earlier and it has been continuously violated by signatory powers to this day.
  - throwanem 3y ago
    Your own source describes the idea that this was a program design goal as a "myth," and clarifies that it was born of a Soviet capabilities analysis suggesting that this theoretically could be done with the Shuttle, not that there existed any evidence that it was intended. On the latter point you have your causation backward. The intent of treaties like the Outer Space Treaty was to reduce the likelihood of a hot war by interdicting the use of technologies that would destabilize the strategic balance.
    - ssnistfajen 3y ago
      Treaties work until they don't, and what can cause an escalation is future knowledge beyond our abilities to predict. In event of a hot war, none of these treaties would've mattered.
      - throwanem 3y ago
        Obviously. Again, the point of the treaty is to make it less likely things will go that far. Otherwise, why bother with it at all?
        ssnistfajen 3y ago
        Political theatre, of course. But if you buy into that discourse then you are being duped. Do you think propaganda doesn't exist in your home country?
        throwanem 3y ago
        No more than it doesn't in yours, comrade.
        ssnistfajen 3y ago
        Enjoy the blissful ignorance while it lasts for you.
        throwanem 3y ago
        What ignorance? That was sarcasm; I'm an American, but I like to hope I'm not a stupid American. It's fair to say that a promise not to risk escalation isn't the same as not risking escalation. But having made the promise used to count for something, too. Now? Especially with all the reciprocal geopolitical damnfoolishness going on in Eastern Europe, who the hell knows? That said, Russia has telescopes, and the X-37B by all reports isn't as stealthy as its designers would like it to be. While the absurdity of US (and Russian!) military planners is always hard to overestimate, I'd still be surprised to learn anyone seriously expected to successfully steal a march this way.
qbasic_forever 3y ago
Huh? I've never read about the shuttle being developed to deploy nuclear weapons. The idea of launching a warhead with the shuttle, which itself requires an immense amount of resources to leave the launch pad, only to just send the warhead back down to earth instead of just... launching the warhead from a slim little ICBM that a submarine is carrying... doesn't make a lot of sense. Warheads aren't designed to sit orbiting in space waiting to launch either--their payloads are constantly decaying and only have a limited service life. I can't see it ever making sense to not launch them from subs under the ocean. AFAIK the shuttle was intended to be a "tow truck" for satellites, able to launch and service them in low Earth orbit. Many of those satellites were for spying and espionage.
- ssnistfajen 3y ago
  Why do you think shuttles can "tow" satellites but not warheads? Shuttles can stay in orbit for weeks so they are reserved for when tensions are high. Launching anything from the surface will be almost immediately detected, giving opponents far more time to respond than something that immediately begins re-entry the moment it is deployed from orbit.
  - qbasic_forever 3y ago
    If you're going full fantasy thinking (since launching weapons from space would violate every weapons treaty both the US and USSR signed) the shuttle would have been an enormous and obvious target as it orbited Earth. The shuttle could have easily been knocked out by an ICBM and sub orbital weapon detonation--it had no real way to avoid it even if it knew weapons were being launched at it. If you're arguing there's some need for faster response than a nuclear sub launch, launching nuclear cruise missiles from B2 bombers makes far more sense than lugging warheads up to low orbit. We have more B2s than we ever had shuttles. But it just does not make sense vs. submarines as a launch platform. Three or four shuttles worth of weapons is nothing compared to a single Ohio class nuclear sub (20 missiles alone, and there are 18 of those subs in the US Navy).
    - ssnistfajen 3y ago

throwanem 3y ago

> The Space Shuttle was developed as a covert weapons program as well, for deploying nuclear warheads directly from orbit to give enemies a much shorter response window. You need to cite this. While NASA's own history ("The Space Shuttle Decision", pub. no. SP-4221) describes the way in which the STS design was rescued from cancellation through Air Force-requested modifications to support satellite-capture missions which after Challenger never materialized, I have never seen any reference in any source to support the idea that the Shuttle was designed to serve as an orbital bombardment system in direct violation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

ssnistfajen 3y ago
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3855/1 https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3855/1 Why do you think Outer Space Treaty will matter in event of a hot war between two nuclear superpowers? NPT was signed a year earlier and it has been continuously violated by signatory powers to this day.
- throwanem 3y ago
  Your own source describes the idea that this was a program design goal as a "myth," and clarifies that it was born of a Soviet capabilities analysis suggesting that this theoretically could be done with the Shuttle, not that there existed any evidence that it was intended. On the latter point you have your causation backward. The intent of treaties like the Outer Space Treaty was to reduce the likelihood of a hot war by interdicting the use of technologies that would destabilize the strategic balance.
  - ssnistfajen 3y ago
    Treaties work until they don't, and what can cause an escalation is future knowledge beyond our abilities to predict. In event of a hot war, none of these treaties would've mattered.
    - throwanem 3y ago
      Obviously. Again, the point of the treaty is to make it less likely things will go that far. Otherwise, why bother with it at all?
      - ssnistfajen 3y ago
        Political theatre, of course. But if you buy into that discourse then you are being duped. Do you think propaganda doesn't exist in your home country?
        throwanem 3y ago
        No more than it doesn't in yours, comrade.
        ssnistfajen 3y ago
        Enjoy the blissful ignorance while it lasts for you.
        throwanem 3y ago
        What ignorance? That was sarcasm; I'm an American, but I like to hope I'm not a stupid American. It's fair to say that a promise not to risk escalation isn't the same as not risking escalation. But having made the promise used to count for something, too. Now? Especially with all the reciprocal geopolitical damnfoolishness going on in Eastern Europe, who the hell knows? That said, Russia has telescopes, and the X-37B by all reports isn't as stealthy as its designers would like it to be. While the absurdity of US (and Russian!) military planners is always hard to overestimate, I'd still be surprised to learn anyone seriously expected to successfully steal a march this way.

qbasic_forever 3y ago

Huh? I've never read about the shuttle being developed to deploy nuclear weapons. The idea of launching a warhead with the shuttle, which itself requires an immense amount of resources to leave the launch pad, only to just send the warhead back down to earth instead of just... launching the warhead from a slim little ICBM that a submarine is carrying... doesn't make a lot of sense. Warheads aren't designed to sit orbiting in space waiting to launch either--their payloads are constantly decaying and only have a limited service life. I can't see it ever making sense to not launch them from subs under the ocean. AFAIK the shuttle was intended to be a "tow truck" for satellites, able to launch and service them in low Earth orbit. Many of those satellites were for spying and espionage.

ssnistfajen 3y ago
Why do you think shuttles can "tow" satellites but not warheads? Shuttles can stay in orbit for weeks so they are reserved for when tensions are high. Launching anything from the surface will be almost immediately detected, giving opponents far more time to respond than something that immediately begins re-entry the moment it is deployed from orbit.
- qbasic_forever 3y ago
  If you're going full fantasy thinking (since launching weapons from space would violate every weapons treaty both the US and USSR signed) the shuttle would have been an enormous and obvious target as it orbited Earth. The shuttle could have easily been knocked out by an ICBM and sub orbital weapon detonation--it had no real way to avoid it even if it knew weapons were being launched at it. If you're arguing there's some need for faster response than a nuclear sub launch, launching nuclear cruise missiles from B2 bombers makes far more sense than lugging warheads up to low orbit. We have more B2s than we ever had shuttles. But it just does not make sense vs. submarines as a launch platform. Three or four shuttles worth of weapons is nothing compared to a single Ohio class nuclear sub (20 missiles alone, and there are 18 of those subs in the US Navy).
  - ssnistfajen 3y ago