> Edward, the other side doesn’t currently have much or any continuous satellite
> -based infrared or radar sensor coverage of Earth’s south polar latitudes.

SLBMs currently operate in the *north* polar latitudes. There are more potential military targets in the northern hemisphere than the south, and the Trident missile doesn’t quite have the desired global range as it is. Moving Trident SLBMs to the Antarctic Ocean would put many targets out of range, which defeats the goal of “Prompt Global Strike.” It would also mean longer transit times to patrol areas, less time on station, increased operating costs, etc.

Which “other side” are you alluding to? China? Korea? Iran? India? Al Queda? Any hypothetical enemy that with systems that can detect and shoot down spaceplanes would certainly have the capability to put up infrared early warning satellites.

Edward, the other side doesn’t currently have much or any continuous satellite-based infrared or radar sensor coverage of Earth’s south polar latitudes.

And your evidence for this is…???

Oh, right. Space is “supposed” to be expensive.

Do you even know how much it costs to operate an SLBM?

> Would military space spaceplanes have as much endurance and time on station? No, particularly if the “spaceplanes” were manned.

And your evidence for this is…???

Submarines can remain on station for only a few months.

An airbase in the US is always on station.

> Would military spaceplanes be easier to detect and track? Yes.

And your evidence for this is…???

> Could a submerged submarine launch an anti-satellite missile — even to shoot down a spaceplane — from
> a submerged location in the south polar seas in such a way that other nations would have a hard time
> detecting the launch? Yes.

A missile that won’t show up on infrared sensors??? Neat trick.

What will propel this missile? Warp drive?

Of course, you assume a spaceplane couldn’t shoot back or change course to avoid this super-missile.

> Could an orbting spaceplane attack a submarine? Not likely.

And your evidence for this is…???

One kinetic energy round would send a submarine to the bottom before it ever left its pen.

> Armed Dynasoar was a good idea in 1961 or ’62.

Yes — despite similar flawed arguments at the time. It’s still a good idea today.

The United States cannot live in the 60’s forever. The world is too dangerous a place.

(a)Would military spaceplanes be any cheaper than submarines already operating? No.

(b)Would military space spaceplanes have as much endurance and time on station? No, particularly if the “spaceplanes” were manned.

(c) Would military spaceplanes be easier to detect and track? Yes.

(d) Could a submerged submarine launch an anti-satellite missile — even to shoot down a spaceplane — from a submerged location in the south polar seas in such a way that other nations would have a hard time detecting the launch? Yes.

(e) Could an orbting spaceplane attack a submarine? Not likely.

Advantage: submarines. Armed Dynasoar was a good idea in 1961 or ’62.

“Eventual,” yes — but not in our lifetimes, or those of our grandchildren.

> I think the VSE is the most realistic route to those goals in the current political and financial environment

Yes, we *know* you think VSE is the only Politically Correct route.

That’s the problem with NASA’s leaders and cheerleaders. Anything that would save money or increase effectiveness, you reject because of Political Correctness.

Turnabout is fair play: It seems to me that your and other scientists’ extreme devotion to mechanical toys because they are cheaper in the short run is far more pathelogical than my efforts to do the up-front work required to get my own fellow human beings into a position where they can get their gloves dirty. That is, directly study and observe and experiment — and do all the other things that human beings do.

— Donald

What we have here is a space policy example of Stockholm syndrome.

Nonsense. Pick up any history book and you’ll read about Plymouth, Boonesboro, and a thousand other places.

Many of which are thriving today.

On the other hand, Apollo did not create a socialist utopia on the Moon. Why should we believe one will develop merely because we repeat Apollo (and reject any alternative as politically incorrect)?

> I will gladly accept any role the military and private sector care to contribute.

You’ve already said that you *won’t* accept any alternative to Apollo on Steroids. You can’t “spin” opposition into acceptance.

> I certainly hope that AvWeek is correct and the intelligence agencies
> have already developed a two-stage-to-orbit vehicle, though if so I
> wish they’d let some of your commercial friends in on the secret.

We are in on the secret, Don. Aren’t you?

Here it is. The story is a hoax. “Blackstar” doesn’t exist. We *could* have had that capability 30 years ago, but Jack Kennedy wanted bread and circuses (Apollo) instead.

Now, you want us to waste another 40 years pursuing another pointless Apollo program.

No, thank you.

> You are the one, Edward, who seems to feel they have been revealed
> the only one true way, with no room for any other strategies.

That slander is getting old, Don.

I’ve suggested a dozen different strategies, in various conversations with you. You’ve rejected all of them.

You just keep saying NASA’s VSE is the only politically correct strategy.

I know you don’t do math, but you must surely understand the difference between one and many.

If you can’t argue honestly, at least think up a new slander. This one’s worn out.

> I am giving up here. This has turned into essentially a religious argument.

Since you apparently can’t argue honestly, it’s just as well.

— Donald

Too bad you can’t bring yourself to support similar roles for the military and private sector today