Conference 7.286::space

    I'd imagine Cape York would be preferable from the standpoint of proximity
    to the equator.  What's the scheduled date of completion for the
    spaceport there?

	If they want equator proximity, why don't they ask the ESA (or have
they?) for permission to use the Equitorial Guinea launch site?  This sounds
more like a political "we're working together in space" kind of thing rather
than a real launch need.  (Unless, of course, the ESA has already turned them
down.)

								-craig

    The tone of the base note was very much that the US Air Force would not
    allow Soviet launches from the Cape, but no real reason is given for
    this.
    
    If the reason is national security, it would seem to be a little
    paranoid, since steps could obviously be taken on a military base to
    prevent unauthorised access to sensitive areas.
    
    If the reason is just that of not wanting to allow a competitor to use
    US facilities, why not just put a large mark-up on the cost of using
    the facilities. This could more than make up for any state subsidies
    which the Soviets put into their launches. They would effectively then
    be subsidising the US space program, which surely would not be a bad
    thing.
    
    I sometimes get the impression that the US is never going to get over
    its anti-Soviet prejudice, no matter how the Soviets change their
    society to emulate Western societies.
    
    Launching into space is still an extremely costly exercise. If, as some
    of us would like, the human race is ever to exploit space fully, it
    will require the concerted efforts of many countries. Some will be able
    to supply hardware and technology. Others will be able to provide land
    for launch sites. Yet others will be able to provide both. There is no
    room for petty national jealousies to get in the way.
    
    
    Dave Hazel

>    I sometimes get the impression that the US is never going to get over
>    its anti-Soviet prejudice, no matter how the Soviets change their
>    society to emulate Western societies.

  Be glad that the people in charge have the mindset that they do.  The soviets
have historically been very good at talking, but not very big on doing.  The
current interaction with the Soviet Union has been really big on doing things,
which is unprecedented (and marvelous).  People in the U.S. are starting to
loosen up, but I, for one, want the military to be the last to do so.  Part of
their job is to be paranoid.

  You don't go from "Nuke 'em till they glow" to "Howdy neighbor" overnight.

John

    RE. .4:
    
    Since the Soviets aren't the only nation which has given cause for
    concern over the last 40 years, the fact that they are and always have
    been singled out as being the "baddies" does not make me glad. It is
    one thing to be prepared for agression on the part of a nation, but
    these apparent "hate campaigns" against potential aggressors do nothing
    positive and in fact present a threat to security by playing on
    people's emotions. Look what Iran's hate campaign against the US did
    for their national security. It made them more insecure than ever!
    
    (BTW, I am aware that my own country's government seems to have the
    same attitude towards the Soviet Union as the US government does, so
    the above comments would apply equally to them).
    
    
    Dave Hazel

>    Since the Soviets aren't the only nation which has given cause for
>    concern over the last 40 years, the fact that they are and always have
>    been singled out as being the "baddies" does not make me glad.

  The Soviets were merely the biggest bad guy, so naturally they were given the
most attention.  Similarly, they are now receiving the most attention for the
good things that they are doing now (or lack of bad things...)

>    It is
>    one thing to be prepared for agression on the part of a nation, but
>    these apparent "hate campaigns" against potential aggressors do nothing
>    positive and in fact present a threat to security by playing on
>    people's emotions. Look what Iran's hate campaign against the US did
>    for their national security. It made them more insecure than ever!

  I understand your point about Iran, but the west is more rational than that.
Could you refer to a specific "hate campaign" that has been in effect recently?
All I've seen is U.S. non-interest in entertaining representatives of the Soviet
Union at sensitive installations.
    
>    (BTW, I am aware that my own country's government seems to have the
>    same attitude towards the Soviet Union as the US government does, so
>    the above comments would apply equally to them).

  Don't worry, I'm not going to try to nail you for having a double-standard :)

John

    > Could you refer to a specific "hate campaign" that has been in effect recently?
    
    Let's try the COCOM restrictions on selling technology to the Soviets,
    compared with the open exchange of technology with China. If I was
    cynical, I might think this has more to do with being able to get cash
    out of the two countries, rather than any specific military reason.
    China has a "most favoured" trading status with the US vs. the Soviets'
    complete lack of any status, despite the fact that it has met the
    conditions which the US laid down for such a status. Which of these two
    countries has shown most attention to human rights lately?
    
    Dave Hazel

  A new relationship will come in time. Remember, it was just 2 years ago
that the cold war between the US and the Soviets was going full steam with
no sign of letting up. Even liberals were saying it would be 20 years or
so before relations between the super powers normalized and conservatives
were saying it would never happen. We've come a long way in 2 years.

  The Cape is the place from whence the U.S. Air Force launches all of it's
top secret star wars test hardware. Seeing as how we are still in the "trust
but verify" stage of U.S./Soviet, the Air Force probably feels it's a little
early to give them access to the most sensitive secrets.

  There are those who say that progress made in 2 years can be lost in 2
years. There are others who say the changes in the Soviet Union are so
fundamental that they can't go back. I don't know which side of this argument
is right and neither does the U.S. Air Force. For the time being the careful
course is to wait a bit, cooperate on less sensitive things, and see what
happens.

  If relations keep improving, I'm sure that in a few years this type of
relationship will be possible.

  George

    re: .8
    
    The progress made in two years can be lost in two months.  They could
    have another revolution, along the lines of the French revolution of
    the late 1700s.  Imagine every member of the Communist party hanging
    from a lamppost.  Now imagine what the military would do to avoid that.
    The Soviet Union is currently quite fragile.
        John Sauter

    I am disapointed with the West, I had tought that as the good guys
    we would be the first ones going for peace and friendly relations.
    
    This does not mean cutting all our defenses while the other side,
    does nothing. But at least taking a risk, starting first a small
    step at the time, then waiting for the other side to do the same.
    
    Instead even after the bad guys start things up, we still hang on,
    and are afraid to follow. And this Launch bussiness is just another
    example of this. The USA is acting like a spoiled brat.
    
    Gil

  I wonder what would happen if the U.S. came up with a great idea like doing
scientific work at a Soviet military base which had their most sensitive
technology?

  George

	Re: .11

	I bet we're afraid to ask in case the answer is "sure thing, but there
are some areas you won't be allowed to access" and expecting a similiar reply
to their request.

								-craig

    Re. .12:
    
    I agree that the US probably wouldn't ask, but I think the reason is
    more along the lines that US politicians, etc. are too sure that the
    Soviet facilities would be inferior to those in the US (ie. national
    pride). I'm sure this must be the case, too, else the Soviets would
    never have asked the US for use of such facilities.
    
    Dave Hazel

    Re:.13
    	Don't be too sure that the Soviet launch facilities are inferior to
    those in the US. While we may have better technology (e.g. computers,
    instrumentation, etc.) the Soviets have far superior infrastructure,
    launch techniques, and "user friendly" launch vehicles all of which
    minimizes vehicle preparation at the launch site, simplify checkout,
    and significantly decrease turn around times (all of which GREATLY
    impact the ultimate cost of launching payloads into orbit). While the
    Soviet's launch vehicles and ground support may be "low tech" compared
    to the US equivelant, it still gets the job done very well, thank you,
    and probably at a lower real cost than its American counterpart.
    	As far as the Soviet's reasons for launch from the Cape, there are
    two major ones:
    
    1) The US government could no longer object to launching Western 
    satellites on Soviet rockets on the grounds that the Soviets could
    dissect the satellites while in the Soviet Union (since they'll be in
    the hands of Soviet trained Western technicians primarily in US
    facilities).
    
    2) Since the Cape is closer to the equator than Baikanor, the Soviet
    launch vehicles can place more useful payload into low inclination
    orbits (e.g. GEO and GTO).
    
    				Drew
     

    I don't know about you, but if I had an industry I was trying to grow,
    I'd hardly invite my competitors to work in my factories. Economic
    competition may not be military confrontation, but it is competition.
    
    And, frankly, the US (as a whole) IS doing a lot of smaller ventures
    with the Soviets to see how they work. Why does this need to be the
    place to start? As soon as the US-Soviet joint ventures are allowed to
    bring their profits home in hard currency, we can discuss the matter.
    
    					-**Ted**-

    It seems that if the Soviets wanted a more southerly launching base,
    they would have worked out a deal to put one in Cuba, while relations
    were soo good during the 60's and 70's. If they could have proved that
    this wasn't going to be another Cuban Missisle Crisis, it would have
    worked out nicely for them. Of course, the US would want to make
    absolutely sure...

	Re: .16

	So who will pay for this new launch facility -- a bankrupt Cuba or a
nearly bankrupt USSR?  Its a lot cheaper for the USSR to pay for using ours.

								-c

  The Soviet Union did try to set up missiles in Cuba in October of 1962. 
We almost came to nuclear blows over the issue. I'm sure that if they
tried it again before last year it would have been somewhat destabilizing.

  True those were placed for military reasons but putting missiles there
for science purposes would have been a hard sell.

  George

    I wonder what the agreement said?  Maybe it said no launch pads.
    What can launch space shots can launch ICBMs.  Maybe under the
    agreement, the USSR can not build a spaceport in Cuba.
    
    Anyone know what the specifics were?
    
    Joe
    

	The connections between a spaceport and launching ICBMs is minimal,
at best.  The Soviets have a very nice mobile ICBM that is nothing more than
the missile strapped onto a platform that can be raised to vertical on the back
of an 18-wheeler.  (Well, it has more than 18 wheels, but you get the point.)
Compare that to all the support facilities needed to launch complex manned
spacecrafts...  Yes, if you have a spaceport you can launch ICBMs, but just
because you can launch ICBMs doesn't mean you have a spaceport.  (And, frankly,
using a spaceport to launch ICBMs doesn't make too much sense since what you've
rolled up to the pad isn't exactly well hidden.  SLBMs or mobile ICBMS are much
more handy even if you have a friendly spaceport nearby.)

	I still think the main reason the Soviets don't want to use Cuba for
their launches is simply one of rubles.  Given the state of their economy, it
would cost *way* too much for them to build an entire manned-flight-capable
spaceport literally halfway around the world from their resources.  From both
a business and glasnost perspectives, it makes much more sense for them to
contract out the launching to someone that already has the facilities.  It saves
"big rubles" and makes more friends in the process.

							-craig

    re .20
    
    They also have a nice mobile ELV, the Tsyklon, based upon their mobile
    ICBM technology.
    
    gary

  I agree that the equipment involved to launch space craft is different
from that involved with ICBM's, but remember, rational thought has had
little to do with our relationship with Cuba over the last 30 years. The
IRBM's in Cuba that everyone paniced about back in '62 were no more dangerous
than the ICBMs in the USSR proper but everyone felt a lot more threatened
by them being there.

  I'm certain that if the Soviet Union had made any attempt what so ever to
put anything remotely resembling a missile in Cuba it would have been a major
international event. Almost no one would have split hairs over what the
Soviets claimed it's purpose was to be. It would have pushed us very close
to war just as it did back in '62.

  Remember, the decicion to panic would not have been made by engineer types,
it would have been made by the Media, politicians, and average U.S. citizens, so
technical discussions of launcher types don't really apply. 

  George

>The IRBM's in Cuba that everyone paniced about back in '62 were no more
>dangerous than the ICBMs in the USSR proper but everyone felt a lot more
>threatened by them being there.

  How about time-to-target?  I can't believe that an ICBM from the Soviet Union
gets to US soil as quickly as a missile from Cuba.  It would be like a submarine
launch.  It results in a very short period in which to respond.

John

    <<< Note 647.23 by 2853::BUEHLER "Think "HONK" if you're a telepath" >>>
                                  -< Times? >-

>  How about time-to-target?  I can't believe that an ICBM from the Soviet Union
>gets to US soil as quickly as a missile from Cuba.  It would be like a submarine
>launch.  It results in a very short period in which to respond.

  Considering that there is no defense against an ICBM, the extra time may be
enough for you to kiss your behind good-by but that's about it. In any case,
the point remains that Cold War politics, not technical differences between
launcher types, would have precluded the Soviets from placing any type of
launcher in Cuba prior to 1989. Even now it would be difficult.

  George

	George,

	I disagree entirely with what you said in .24.  Time-to-target has a
very large meaning in terms of how "nasty" the weapon is.  Consider everything
that has to be done after the launch is initiated:

	1)  It has to be detected.  Today we have the technology to detect this
almost instantaniously, but we didn't back then so there is a time window before
the missile as gone to a high enough altitude that our radar can detect it.

	2)  Confirm the data from #1.  You don't want to be the person to wake
the President at 3am due to faulty data.  More time spent.

	3)  Get word to the appropriate agencies/authorities including the
President.

	4)  Gather/forward all of the information at hand -- number of missiles,
probable destinations, etc. -- to the President at.al.

	5)  Give him some time to consider the reaction.

	6)  Issue the orders.

	7)  Give time for the orders to propagate.

	8)  Due to new information (ie. point 4 continues all the time),
reconsider the situation and adjust the orders.

	9)  Propagate the news orders and hope they don't conflict with the
original set of orders.

	10)  Finally, kiss your butt goodbye.  ;-)

	There was an interesting article in Scientific American several years
ago (oh, my guess would be at least 8-10 years ago) that analyzed the entire
process of confirming a launch and issuing the counter-attack orders and showed
how there is only a few minute margin of "safety" for even ICBMs launched at the
US with their 30-minute flighttime.  Shorter flighttime missiles, either IRBMs
or SLBMs, make it nearly impossible to fully analyze the situation and issue
the right counter-attack orders which, the article concluded, would lead the
attacked nation to over-retaliate.

	Flighttime does make a difference.

								-craig

    Re:.25 et. al.
    
    	Whether the missile is launched from Cuba, the Soviet Union, from
    under the Artic ice pack, or from my grandmother's back yard, the
    result will be the same: We'll be dead! And personally at that point I
    really wouldn't give to shakes of a U-235 fuel rod whether or not we
    killed the person who did it. One way or another my existance would be
    at an end.
    
    				Drew
    

  First of all remember, the U.S. does not have a policy of launch on warning,
rather our policy is to launch only after confirmation of a 1st strike. True
the bombers wouldn't get off the ground, but they have been obsolete for the
last 3 decades anyway.

  Regardless of whether the launch came from the Soviet Union or Cuba, the
result would be the same. Nothing would happen 'till after the explosions, then
we'd launch what ever was left. Most likely if we didn't launch a single
missile, the Soviet missiles would kick off a nuclear winter and the entire
world would be back to the trilabite stage anyway.

  In any case, this is really off the topic. The reason this came up was that
someone suggested that if the Soviets wanted a southern launch site they could
have put the launcher in Cuba. In fact, they could not have done this and
probably still couldn't because of the political chaos that it would create
in the United States. True, scientific and engineering types could tell the
difference between IRBMS and research equipment but the political powers that
be would have gone critical long before any engineering report was made
available.

  George

    
    	Re: .27
    
    	You're right, this is way off the subject of this notesfile (how
    about if we continue it over in comet::defense_issues?).  Wouldn't matter
    now if they had missiles in Cuba or not.  The biggest difference
    between now and "then" is SLBMs.  Cuba doesn't provide anything today
    that a couple of SLBMs off the coast (any bets they aren't there?)
    couldn't do a whole lot better.
    
    	I still think it just boils down to a matter of rubles.  The
    Soviet economy is barely limping along right now and certainly couldn't
    pay for a new manned-flight-capable launch site halfway around the
    world from their main technology building supplies.
    
    							-c

  Although Cuba and Florida may be off limits for a time, it seems that the
Soviets should be able to use the French launch facilities in South America.
That would actually be better being right on the equator. I believe that the
Soviets and French have cooperated before.

  George

    A key issue that I haven't seen mentioned about the Cuba thing... Even
    if we said it was OK for us if they set up a launch facility in Cuba
    (and, personally, I don't think we'd heve too much problem with the
    idea), Cuba isn't Soviet territory. The Soviets have enough worries
    about keeping control of their facilities within the USSR, the last
    thing they want to do is dump billions into a facility in Cuba (even if
    they had billions to spend, which they don't). The Soviets can no
    longer do whatever they want in Cuba, and the ties between the two
    countries are likely to go away altogether, rather than return to
    chumminess. If Cuba continues to be "hard-line" as the USSR moderates
    (or disintegrates), they will drift apart. If Cuba moderates (free
    market economy, less restrictive policies, etc.) then we would stop
    turning them the cold shoulder and we'd be a much more useful ally than
    the USSR.
    
    Cheers!
    
    Charlie

    re: 30
    A good indication of the Soviets not wanting to build 
    and launch site in Cuba is the fact that they never
    built a man space relay station in Cuba.  Instead the
    Soveit depended on a fleet of track ships (SESS).
    
    If they did not want to build a simple satellite relay/tracking
    station in Cuba why would they build a launch sites.
    One would need the tracking station if they were to
    launch from Cuba....
    
    john