RED STAR OVER AMERICA - Target USA
sof...@us.net
In 1989 China faced a military crisis. China was about to
become an ex-super power. In 1989, Major General Yang Huan,
Chinese Deputy Commander of the Second Artillery (Strategic
Rocket Forces), wrote a paper in the National Defense review.
Yang admitted that China had to rapidly improve the red nuclear
missile force or face third rank global status.
General Yang outlined three areas absolutely necessary for China
to "improve" its aging "first generation" of nuclear missiles.
General Yang's three goals were to improve "the survivability...
the striking ability... [And] the penetration technology of
strategic weapons." According to Yang, "accuracy and power are
chief factors used to judge weapon striking power."
Yang wrote in 1989 that China's strategic missiles were
cumbersome, inaccurate and unreliable. Yang predicted that in
the near future American anti-missile defenses would halt any
Chinese missile attack. According to Yang, "strategic weapons
can be used in actual fighting only when they can penetrate
enemy defenses and reach and strike the target a necessary
condition to protect itself and destroy a target."
Yang's fear was that America would deploy a "STAR WARS" system
large enough to neutralize China's nuclear missile force but
small enough to not threaten Russia. The U.S./Iraq Gulf war
that followed Yang's article was filled with nightly battles
between Patriot and SCUD. The results from the Iraq war
accelerated the military view that anti-missile systems could
neutralize Chinese rocket forces.
In 1994, General Ding Henggao served as Chairman, Commission on
Science, Technology and National Defense Industry (COSTIND).
General Ding solved China's nuclear strategic problems.
In 1994, General Ding wrote a small article titled REFORMING
DEFENSE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND INDUSTRY that appeared in China
Military Science. Ding wrote "in a future anti-aggression war,
our country will uphold the concept of active defense. It means
that active defense is not just defensive, it is offensive as
well. Our air-defense weapons system and even the whole weapons
system should have two capabilities. It could greatly help
overall quality and effectiveness if we possess one or two
effective weapons that can assume the offensive."
In 1994 COSTIND took the offensive - target USA. COSTIND Vice
Minister, Lt. General Shen met and consummated a series of
satellite deals with Bernard Schwartz the CEO of Loral. The
technology obtained from the COSTIND/Loral deals saved China
billions in missile R&D and turned the Second Corps into a
deadly force of thermonuclear war.
The Loral operation led by General Shen revealed the many flaws
in Chinese missile guidance and control systems. Improvements
in rocket electronics design and guidance system assembly
obtained directly from Loral were quickly applied to the Second
Artillery's force of CSS strategic missiles. Loral engineers
eagerly improved Chinese nuclear missile accuracy and
reliability to near state of the art.
Previous flight test results indicated that almost half of the
CSS class missile force would fail due to bad guidance. Today,
China operates with the verified results from Long March test
flights funded by U.S. satellite launches. The Chinese missile
force will perform flawlessly, dropping nuclear payloads within
yards of any target on Earth. The Second Artillery has a
reliable global reach with powerful accuracy thanks to the
successful COSTIND operation with Loral.
General Shen also led the successful penetration of Hughes in
the purchase of ASIASAT satellites. Again, through a series of
meetings with Brown and U.S. Commerce officials, Shen or his
operatives in front companies secured whole satellites from
Hughes. The Hughes satellites provide the Chinese Army with
secure communications that are invulnerable to earth combat and
highly accurate all weather navigation for strike bombers and
missiles.
In addition, the Hughes satellites provide direct TV and cable
TV broadcasts to most of Asia. Thus, cable and pay-per-view
services help pay for the Chinese Army satellites. The
brilliant planning and logistics mean that Chinese military
communications pay for themselves.
Another Hughes deal - the HS GEM satellite with a unique 40 foot
antenna will provide COSTIND owned Asia-Pacific mobile telecom
with 16,000 secure voice channels, using man portable phones and
radios. The APMT satellite can be used not only to provide
secure military communications but the spacecraft also has
"Passive ELINT interception capacity" - or the ability to listen
in on wide variety of earth signals, including military
communications.
The COSTIND penetration of Hughes was so successful that General
Shen managed to get his son, Shen Jun, a job at Hughes as the
lead software engineer for all Chinese satellites. According to
Hughes, Shen Jun had access to "proprietary" satellite source
code. Shen's access made sure that no secret back doors or
special computer virus traps were included inside the Hughes
spacecraft by American intelligence services such as the NSA.
COSTIND General Ding also spearheaded penetrations of American
military technology, using his relatives. Ding's wife, Madam
Nie Li, formed a "commercial" company called Galaxy New
Technology. Madam Nie, using contacts with Commerce Secretary
Brown and Defense Secretary Perry, purchased secure, real-time,
fiber optic communications systems from American companies.
The Galaxy New Technology secure fiber optic network is
invulnerable to interference from nuclear attack and currently
serves at the communications backbone for the General Logistics
Division of the Chinese Army. Madam Nie did have some technical
assistance from other COSTIND officials. Colonel Deng Changru,
director of PLA communications, and Colonel Xie Zhichao,
director of PLA electronics, are also members of Galaxy New
Technology.
Other COSTIND units working with the Ministry of Posts, China
Great Wall Industries and China Aerospace penetrated Motorola
using satellite orbit contracts as paying bait for Iridium
spacecraft. Motorola scientists eagerly modified, tested and
verified a Long March satellite orbit bus that is capable of
deploying two Iridium satellites.
In September 1998, the CIA testified before the Senate National
Security Committee that the Motorola technology is being
modified by China to double the number of nuclear warheads on
the CSS strategic missile. The Motorola transfer also allowed
China to upgrade their DF-15 (DONG FENG - Maoist slogan "East
Wind") missile with maneuvering warheads that can avoid American
anti-missile defenses such as Patriot and Standard. Motorola
transfers significantly upgraded the nuclear firepower and
accuracy of Chinese weapons. Motorola technology transfers mean
that Chinese warheads can now "penetrate enemy defenses".
President Clinton wrote the waivers for Hughes, Loral and
Motorola. President Clinton took money directly from COSTIND
operations in the form of donations from the same American
companies, and in some cases, donations directly from COSTIND
related front companies. President Clinton paraded many of the
projects as part of his golden era of economic expansion.
President Clinton personally arranged for Loral CEO Bernard
Schwartz to meet COSTIND Vice Minister General Shen.
The spectacular success of this single Chinese army unit turned
China into a regional power that dominates Asia and a world
power capable of flexing military force anywhere on earth. It
is no surprise that General Ding and COSTIND recently won the
honors of the Chinese communist party. In early October 1998,
Vice Premiere Zhu Rongji selected COSTIND over the Chinese Army
Central Military Command (CMC) to run all space programs,
including manned space flight.
COSTIND won out over the older regular Army staff officers in
the CMC for an obvious reason. General Ding is the most
successful Chinese military commander since Mao. Mao took
Mainland China in 1949 after fighting a twenty-year war against
both the warlords and the Imperial Japanese Army. General Ding
turned the Second Artillery Corps - the Chinese strategic
missile force - into a feared world power and defeated America
without firing a shot in the short span of six years.
General Ding and COSTIND will celebrate the 50th anniversary of
Mao's revolution with a PLA space rocket. In July 1999, China
will orbit a manned spacecraft. That craft will be under the
command of COSTIND and a tribute to Ding. The new space powers
granted to COSTIND are a reward to Vice Minister General Shen
Rou-jun and Minister General Ding Ganghao for their brilliant
and successful penetration of the Clinton White House.
===================================================================
General Ding & COSTIND Source Document index -
http://www.softwar.net/redstar.html
================================================================
1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775
Charles R. Smith
SOFTWAR http://www.softwar.net sof...@softwar.net
Pcyphered SIGNATURE:
673B1887264F4ED88F36522D046697F22424F3B7A3F2B27715AFD61E7020DB4F
4DF92E8D291044618E69DFD2A7166C4C555969C9B3031E6A6802D38D3D445247
06827204B121E9BD
================================================================
SOFTWAR EMAIL NEWSLETTER 10/13/1998
*** to unsubscribe reply with "unsubscribe" as subject ***
================================================================
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
wa...@wankeralliance.com
I think this should have read...
"WANKER STARR OVER AMERICA - Target USA"
...ain't that right Monica?
but seeing as its sofwar thickshit posting anti-Chinese posts, anti-Clinton,
anti-Loral, Motorola and other US organisations,
in a non-political newsgroup AGAIN, I think it should read...
"WANKER SOFTWAR SQUIRTING OVER AMERICA - Target WANKERS!"
He calls himself a journalist and I urge all responsible Journalists
and newspaper organisations to stop associating with him until he
stops spamming nuisance article to irrelevant newsgroups as a means
to earning his living.
He also thieves other journalists' articles for which countless requests
for clarification have went unanswered.
Just search DejaNews and you'll know what I mean.
If your articles have been thieved without permission,
then I suggest you sue the bugger.
--
Anti-Wanker Squirting Over America Task Force (A.W.S.O.A.T.F.)
j...@inxpress.net
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/smith/981013_cs_red_star_over_am.html
>
>In 1989 China faced a military crisis. China was about to
>become an ex-super power. In 1989, Major General Yang Huan,
>Chinese Deputy Commander of the Second Artillery (Strategic
>Rocket Forces), wrote a paper in the National Defense review.
>Yang admitted that China had to rapidly improve the red nuclear
>missile force or face third rank global status.
>
>General Ding and COSTIND will celebrate the 50th anniversary of
>Mao's revolution with a PLA space rocket. In July 1999, China
>will orbit a manned spacecraft. That craft will be under the
>command of COSTIND and a tribute to Ding. The new space powers
>granted to COSTIND are a reward to Vice Minister General Shen
>Rou-jun and Minister General Ding Ganghao for their brilliant
>and successful penetration of the Clinton White House.
>
All they had to do was walk in, since the front door
was wide open and Bill Clinton sent out invitations.
Allen Karchmer
sof...@us.net wrote:
>
> In 1989 China faced a military crisis.....
>
>[.....approx 180 lines deleted]
>
> granted to COSTIND are a reward to Vice Minister General Shen
> Rou-jun and Minister General Ding Ganghao for their brilliant
> and successful penetration of the Clinton White House.
>
Lions! And Tigers! And..and Bears!!!! Oh my...
And in (Mr., Ms.) Softwar's sig:
> 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775
Not quite:
One if by land, and two if by sea. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow -
poetry
1861 ("The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere")
Allen K.
(o o)
=======o00o==(_)===o00o====================
Si *hoc* legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Tom Abbott
Are you a Chinese/Clinton plant spreading discord and
disinformation?
Your posts are not relevant to sci.space.policy. Take your
pro-Clinton, pro-Chinese rhetoric elsewhere.
TA
la...@cucumberama.com
tab...@intellex.com "Tom Abbott" writes:
> Are you a Chinese/Clinton plant spreading discord and
>disinformation?
>
> Your posts are not relevant to sci.space.policy. Take your
>pro-Clinton, pro-Chinese rhetoric elsewhere.
>
>TA
Squeek! Yes I am plant.
I am a cucumber fed on Viagra tablets with a huge fixation
for small bottoms. Help me O B 1, I need a home...
Arrogance, Paranoia & Hatred of Fellow Man Getting You Down?
Then blow up an External Tank. It won't make you feel better, but
it will make us all feel a lot happier.
Thanks.
--
External Tank Kaboom Advisory Services Inc. (E.T.K.A.S.I.)
Alex Pozgaj
> On Tue, 13 Oct 98 11:15:40 GMT, wa...@wankeralliance.com wrote:
>
> >In article <6vv64k$4da$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> sof...@us.net writes:
> >
> >
> >I think this should have read...
> >
> >
> >"WANKER STARR OVER AMERICA - Target USA"
> >
> >...ain't that right Monica?
> >
> >
> >but seeing as its sofwar thickshit posting anti-Chinese posts, anti-Clinton,
> >anti-Loral, Motorola and other US organisations,
> >in a non-political newsgroup AGAIN, I think it should read...
> >
> >
> >"WANKER SOFTWAR SQUIRTING OVER AMERICA - Target WANKERS!"
> >
> >
> >He calls himself a journalist and I urge all responsible Journalists
> >and newspaper organisations to stop associating with him until he
> >stops spamming nuisance article to irrelevant newsgroups as a means
> >to earning his living.
> >He also thieves other journalists' articles for which countless requests
> >for clarification have went unanswered.
> >Just search DejaNews and you'll know what I mean.
> >If your articles have been thieved without permission,
> >then I suggest you sue the bugger.
>
>
> Are you a Chinese/Clinton plant spreading discord and
> disinformation?
>
> Your posts are not relevant to sci.space.policy. Take your
> pro-Clinton, pro-Chinese rhetoric elsewhere.
Sorry, but I can't find anything he said in this post that would
characterize him as pro-Clinton and/or pro-Chinese. Why do you say
that? If you agree with softwar's views, it's fine with me - but it
doesn't change the fact that this newsgroup (sci.space.policy, for
I see that this is pretty cross-posted) is not an appropriate place
to discuss it.
If you think Michael is pro-Clinton pro-Chinese because he pokes fun at
Starr, Monica and/or the whole affair, be assured that the rest of the
(non-US) world does it just as well. It's not about being pro-Clinton,
or pro-Chinese, it's about being highly amused by all the fuss US makes
about Clintons sex life (if it's about the sex life after all).
Oh, something more (I'm wasting the bandwidth anyway, so what the hell):
softwar should realy answer those accusations about the use of
copyrighted material - if he can. And if he can't, well, then he should
realy stop complaining about others. If you are supporting him and what
he does before this question is cleared, you can only put yourself in
an incomfortable situation.
I wonder if you'd support, say, Ed if he started posting copyrighted
material... I guess not :-).
Cheers, alex.
Alex Pozgaj
[snip]
> The new space powers
> granted to COSTIND are a reward to Vice Minister General Shen
> Rou-jun and Minister General Ding Ganghao for their brilliant
> and successful penetration of the Clinton White House.
"Penetration" AND "Clinton" AND "White House". I suppose quite a
few CDA-bots would filter out this post. :-)
Cheers, alex.
Tom Abbott
wrote:
Oh, because in many posts he tells Softwar to take his anti-Clinton,
anti-Chinese posts elsewhere. I assume there is a possiblity that he
is a Clinton supporter, or a Chinese supporter or both. I did ask a
question, rather than make a statement. And I don't recall him ever
complaining about any other off-topic posts in sci.space.policy, just
Softwar's. So I have to wonder about his motivations. I usually
don't comment, but I guess I just got fed up reading his garbage.
> If you agree with softwar's views, it's fine with me
I agree when I see hard facts. I don't form a set opinion without
that.
> - but it
>doesn't change the fact that this newsgroup (sci.space.policy, for
>I see that this is pretty cross-posted) is not an appropriate place
>to discuss it.
I would have to disagree. In the first place, there are no hard and
fast rules about topics in this newsgroup, and second, Softwar's posts
do for the most part contain information about missiles and satellites
and other things which are totally appropriate for a space policy
discussion. There is also a lot of politics, in his posts, but
there's a lot of politics in a lot of people's posts.
>
>If you think Michael is pro-Clinton pro-Chinese because he pokes fun at
>Starr, Monica and/or the whole affair, be assured that the rest of the
>(non-US) world does it just as well.
I don't know why he does it. That's one reason I asked, although I
expected to get the "answer" I got from him. But like I said, he
seems to be obsessed with Softwar's posts, and nothing else. Makes me
wonder why.
> It's not about being pro-Clinton,
>or pro-Chinese, it's about being highly amused by all the fuss US makes
>about Clintons sex life (if it's about the sex life after all).
I see you don't understand the problem.
>Oh, something more (I'm wasting the bandwidth anyway, so what the hell):
>softwar should realy answer those accusations about the use of
>copyrighted material - if he can. And if he can't, well, then he should
>realy stop complaining about others.
Well, I've seen the accusations against Softwar but I have no idea
what the accuser is referring to. I just assumed it was more of his
ranting. Still do. Maybe he would like to be specific. On second
thought, why ask for vegetable abuse.
> If you are supporting him and what
>he does before this question is cleared, you can only put yourself in
>an incomfortable situation.
I'm only a supporter of his right to post appropriate posts to
sci.space.policy, just as I support that right for everyone, even the
gardener. The veracity of the posts are his responsibility. I'm only
responsible for what *I* say and do.
>
>I wonder if you'd support, say, Ed if he started posting copyrighted
>material... I guess not :-).
>
I personally have not seen any copyright violations on
sci.space.policy. People do post excerpts, including myself, but the
ones I've noticed conform to the "fair use" provisions of the
copyright law. Congress is in the process of passing a new copyright
law, and I don't know exactly how that will affect things, but as of
now, everything looks to be within the law. I support anyone who
abides by the law.
TA
zu...@ix.netcom.com
sof...@us.net spewed a lot of RWFer blather:
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/smith/981013_cs_red_star_over_am.html
[snip]
> In 1994 COSTIND took the offensive - target USA. COSTIND Vice
> Minister, Lt. General Shen met and consummated a series of
> satellite deals with Bernard Schwartz the CEO of Loral. The
> technology obtained from the COSTIND/Loral deals saved China
> billions in missile R&D and turned the Second Corps into a
> deadly force of thermonuclear war.
Nice hyperbole. How about some _facts_? See below. . . .
> The Loral operation led by General Shen revealed the many flaws
> in Chinese missile guidance and control systems. Improvements
> in rocket electronics design and guidance system assembly
> obtained directly from Loral were quickly applied to the Second
> Artillery's force of CSS strategic missiles. Loral engineers
> eagerly improved Chinese nuclear missile accuracy and
> reliability to near state of the art.
The CZ-3 launcher that lost attitudinal control seconds after launch,
and for which LORAL and Hughes provided the failure assessment, had
previously had 9 successful launches, two partial failures (involving
third stage ignition failures), and no complete failures.
This CZ-3 launcher design was at least two versions later from
the IRBM that had provided the basic plan for the CZ-1. The
third stage on these missiles is not in any way related to
ballistic missile third stages.
> Previous flight test results indicated that almost half of the
> CSS class missile force would fail due to bad guidance. Today,
> China operates with the verified results from Long March test
> flights funded by U.S. satellite launches. . . .
Horsepuckey. See above.
> . . . The Chinese missile
> force will perform flawlessly, dropping nuclear payloads within
> yards of any target on Earth. The Second Artillery has a
> reliable global reach with powerful accuracy thanks to the
> successful COSTIND operation with Loral.
Bulltwaddly. There has been _no_, repeat, _no_ evidence that
anything of the sort has happened.
> General Shen also led the successful penetration of Hughes in
> the purchase of ASIASAT satellites. Again, through a series of
> meetings with Brown and U.S. Commerce officials, Shen or his
> operatives in front companies secured whole satellites from
> Hughes. The Hughes satellites provide the Chinese Army with
> secure communications that are invulnerable to earth combat and
> highly accurate all weather navigation for strike bombers and
> missiles.
They had _commercial_ communications satellites such as Asiasat.
They got another one. BFD. And accurate all weather navigation
for strike bombers"? Where'd _that_ piece of malarkey come from?
Someone here is clueless about the technology involved. And
someone is disingenuous or clueless in _reposting_ this pile of
flapdoodle, huh, Mr. Smith?
> In addition, the Hughes satellites provide direct TV and cable
> TV broadcasts to most of Asia. . . .
Horrors! I am _shocked_, simply _shocked_. . .
> . . . Thus, cable and pay-per-view
> services help pay for the Chinese Army satellites. The
> brilliant planning and logistics mean that Chinese military
> communications pay for themselves.
They _do_ seem to be quite a bit more brillint than these
foamers that write this trash. I can understand their awe
of the intellecutal powers of the Chinese. . . ;-)
[snip stuff I don't know about; I'll look into it when I get a
chance and time]
> The COSTIND penetration of Hughes was so successful that General
> Shen managed to get his son, Shen Jun, a job at Hughes as the
> lead software engineer for all Chinese satellites. According to
> Hughes, Shen Jun had access to "proprietary" satellite source
> code.
"Source code"? My goodness. . . AFAIK, there was someone with
Chinese relativess that did work on it, but he was a U.S. citizen.
I know many people with Chinese relatives. And a lot of Chinese
people have some connection with the PLA. Whoopdedoo. Are we
visiting the "sins of the fathers" here? Or simply engaging is
"yellow peril" racism?
> . . . Shen's access made sure that no secret back doors or
> special computer virus traps were included inside the Hughes
> spacecraft by American intelligence services such as the NSA.
_If_ you can show he was working _for_ the Chinese here. Big
"if", no?
> COSTIND General Ding also spearheaded penetrations of American
> military technology, using his relatives. Ding's wife, Madam
> Nie Li, formed a "commercial" company called Galaxy New
> Technology. Madam Nie, using contacts with Commerce Secretary
> Brown and Defense Secretary Perry, purchased secure, real-time,
> fiber optic communications systems from American companies.
Good thing they passed over that junky "non-real-time" fibre
optic communications; ROFL. . . These folks are clueless.
BFD. The Europeans would be just as glad to sell this stuff.
Run-of-the-mill telecommunications stuff.
> The Galaxy New Technology secure fiber optic network is
> invulnerable to interference from nuclear attack. . .
Bulltwaddly. If you think that any link that requires physical
integrity from end to end is "secure" from the effects of
a thermonuclear bomb _anywhere in the vicinity_, you have
not a _clue_. . . . Try it and see.
[snip]
> Other COSTIND units working with the Ministry of Posts, China
> Great Wall Industries and China Aerospace penetrated Motorola
> using satellite orbit contracts as paying bait for Iridium
> spacecraft. Motorola scientists eagerly modified, tested and
> verified a Long March satellite orbit bus that is capable of
> deploying two Iridium satellites.
Nope. On October 6, 1992, the CZ-2 C launch vehicle had delivered 2
satellites to orbit. On September 3, 1990. A CZ-4 had delivered three
satellites to orbit, and on February 8, 1994, A CZ-3 had delivered two
satellites to orbit.
They did this long before we came on the scene, so it's kind of hard
to claim we were responsible for giving them this technology. Unless
you would like to claim that the Reagan/Bush folks helped them do
this. . . .
> In September 1998, the CIA testified before the Senate National
> Security Committee that the Motorola technology is being
> modified by China to double the number of nuclear warheads on
> the CSS strategic missile. . . .
If they did, they're full of bull-f***ing-shit. . . .
> . . . The Motorola transfer also allowed
> China to upgrade their DF-15 (DONG FENG - Maoist slogan "East
> Wind") missile with maneuvering warheads that can avoid American
> anti-missile defenses such as Patriot and Standard. . . .
More hokum. _Nothing_ Motorola could have given them would give
them this capability.
> . . . Motorola
> transfers significantly upgraded the nuclear firepower and
> accuracy of Chinese weapons. Motorola technology transfers mean
> that Chinese warheads can now "penetrate enemy defenses".
Chris Cox's subcommmittee has been looking into this and actually
asking _people who know something_ about this. They have
indicated that _nothing_ untoward has happened here, although
they may have some recommendations for changes in export control
procedure in the future to tighten up any potential loose spots
they found.
[snip the rest of SOFTWAR's uninformed hysterical repost]
Charles:
Why don't you get a clue before you start posting such garbage?
I covered much of this same stuff a few months before in
another post. You just show that _you_ have no capability to
distinguish fact from fantasy, hype from reality, when you post
this kind of stuff.
There is some kind of irony that a person who would repost this
would write an article in a magazine called "Insight". You clearly
have _none_ in this particular area.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Kurt Lochner
>
> CharlesSmith wrote:
/snip!/ [...] Same olde same olde../del/
> >
>
> All they had to do was walk in, since the front door
> was wide open and Bill Clinton sent out invitations.
--Your baseless slander bespeaks poorly of your opinion...
Alex Pozgaj
> On 14 Oct 1998 10:26:02 +0200, Alex Pozgaj <al...@par.univie.ac.at>
> wrote:
>
> >tab...@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:
[snip - I hope nothing of importance]
JUST A NOTE TO THE READERS: the most of this discussion is
probably only relevant to the sci.space.policy group (if at all).
I left all the original groups in the cross-post list because of
the possibility that somebody else is also interested.
> >> Are you a Chinese/Clinton plant spreading discord and
> >> disinformation?
> >>
> >> Your posts are not relevant to sci.space.policy. Take your
> >> pro-Clinton, pro-Chinese rhetoric elsewhere.
> >
> >Sorry, but I can't find anything he said in this post that would
> >characterize him as pro-Clinton and/or pro-Chinese. Why do you say
> >that?
>
> Oh, because in many posts he tells Softwar to take his anti-Clinton,
> anti-Chinese posts elsewhere. I assume there is a possiblity that he
> is a Clinton supporter, or a Chinese supporter or both. I did ask a
> question, rather than make a statement.
Oh, in that case, it must be because of my english. Thank you for the
explanation.
However, after I read what you wrote again and after I asked two coleagues
of mine to do the same and tell me how they understood it, it still looks
exactly like a statement to me, not like a question.
> And I don't recall him ever
> complaining about any other off-topic posts in sci.space.policy, just
> Softwar's.
I suppose it's because softwar is the only poster around here who posts
long off-topic posts on a *regular* basis. And they are not even funny. :-)
Appart from that, I suppose that the main reason why Michael seems to
get so hot about softwar's posts is that this guy realy sounds like the
combination of an extreme right-wing politician-wannabe and a not
very talented, but a VERY loud TV-preacher. Numerous (I won't say all,
because I didn't read them *that* closely) points in his posts were
already shown to be completely wrong, but he still repeats them
over and over again, just like they were never refuted.
Somehow I always expect a large "PRAAAISE THE LORD!" at the end of
his posts. Maybe you're used to such guys in the US - in Europe, we've
had more than enough of them and are happy that they mostly belong to the
past. I'd say the most europeans are very likely to react to somebody
like softwar in a very similar way as the most americans would react when
they see a communist (something along the lines of running away in terror
and climbing the first suitable tree) ;-)
> So I have to wonder about his motivations. I usually
> don't comment, but I guess I just got fed up reading his garbage.
>
>
> > If you agree with softwar's views, it's fine with me
>
> I agree when I see hard facts. I don't form a set opinion without
> that.
I didn't want to accuse you of anything - I just said it's okay
with me if you agree with softwar. If the tone of my message suggested
something else, I can assure you that it wasn't my intention.
> > - but it
> >doesn't change the fact that this newsgroup (sci.space.policy, for
> >I see that this is pretty cross-posted) is not an appropriate place
> >to discuss it.
>
> I would have to disagree. In the first place, there are no hard and
> fast rules about topics in this newsgroup, and second, Softwar's posts
> do for the most part contain information about missiles and satellites
> and other things which are totally appropriate for a space policy
> discussion. There is also a lot of politics, in his posts, but
> there's a lot of politics in a lot of people's posts.
From what I've seen so far, it looks like softwar doesn't want to
discuss space policy issues at all (at least he never did such a
thing so far) - his *only* wish is to bash Clinton, Loral, Motorola, China
and whoever else. Therefore he *is* off-topic in this group.
'Star Track' heros also mention things like "plasma", "warp drive" and
"orbit" from time to time. Nevertheless, 'Star Track' is *not* about physics.
There is a big difference between talking about X and using X as a base
from where you can talk about Y, as I am sure you already know.
> >If you think Michael is pro-Clinton pro-Chinese because he pokes fun at
> >Starr, Monica and/or the whole affair, be assured that the rest of the
> >(non-US) world does it just as well.
>
> I don't know why he does it. That's one reason I asked, although I
> expected to get the "answer" I got from him.
Well, you do know Michael's sense of humor... :-)
> But like I said, he
> seems to be obsessed with Softwar's posts, and nothing else.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nothing else? You forgot about fractal robots? :-)
> Makes me wonder why.
I offered a possible explanation above (at least that's the reason why I
dislike softwar's posts; I can't talk for Michael).
> > It's not about being pro-Clinton,
> >or pro-Chinese, it's about being highly amused by all the fuss US makes
> >about Clintons sex life (if it's about the sex life after all).
>
> I see you don't understand the problem.
Oh, I never said I'm 100% sure to know where the problem is, but I suppose
I'm not too far off in my guess (if you're interested in what it is, I can
send you an e-mail, because that definately would be off-topic here :-) ).
To the majority of the world's population it sure *looks* like a sex
question. Even that "it's all just about false testifying, realy" is not
exactly what I would call honest - it all did start with sex, now the
republicans are just happy to have some more ammo in their hands...
(makes one wonder if they realy weren't able to find something else?)
> >Oh, something more (I'm wasting the bandwidth anyway, so what the hell):
> >softwar should realy answer those accusations about the use of
> >copyrighted material - if he can. And if he can't, well, then he should
> >realy stop complaining about others.
>
> Well, I've seen the accusations against Softwar but I have no idea
> what the accuser is referring to. I just assumed it was more of his
> ranting. Still do.
It's none of my bussines, of course, but you dismissed Michaels claims
based on what you assumed, rather than what you checked (some 10-20 lines
ago you said you don't form an oppinion without knowing the hard facts).
I know Michael sometimes has a strange sense of humor, but he's not a
fool. If he made such an accusation, it's up to softwar to answer it.
If he can prove it wrong, Michael would loose quite a lot of credibility.
If he keeps silent, he supports Michael's accusations.
> Maybe he would like to be specific.
That would help, yes.
> On second thought, why ask for vegetable abuse.
I'm sure I'll understand what this means, one day... :-)
> > If you are supporting him and what
> >he does before this question is cleared, you can only put yourself in
> >an incomfortable situation.
>
> I'm only a supporter of his right to post appropriate posts to
> sci.space.policy, just as I support that right for everyone, even the
> gardener. The veracity of the posts are his responsibility. I'm only
> responsible for what *I* say and do.
Noble position. The key word is *appropriate*. If you take a look at the list
to which his posts are cross-posted, you'll find out what softwars real
interests are (plain Clinton-related politics, not space policy).
> >I wonder if you'd support, say, Ed if he started posting copyrighted
> >material... I guess not :-).
>
> I personally have not seen any copyright violations on
> sci.space.policy. People do post excerpts, including myself, but the
> ones I've noticed conform to the "fair use" provisions of the
> copyright law. Congress is in the process of passing a new copyright
> law, and I don't know exactly how that will affect things, but as of
> now, everything looks to be within the law. I support anyone who
> abides by the law.
I can't comment on this, because I'm not very familiar with the US
copyright law.
Cheers, alex.
ban...@banaman.com
tab...@intellex.com "Tom Abbott" writes:
>>> Are you a Chinese/Clinton plant spreading discord and
>>> disinformation?
..
>>If you think Michael is pro-Clinton pro-Chinese because he pokes fun at
>>Starr, Monica and/or the whole affair, be assured that the rest of the
>>(non-US) world does it just as well.
>
> I don't know why he does it. That's one reason I asked, although I
>expected to get the "answer" I got from him. But like I said, he
>seems to be obsessed with Softwar's posts, and nothing else. Makes me
>wonder why.
..
> Well, I've seen the accusations against Softwar but I have no idea
>what the accuser is referring to. I just assumed it was more of his
>ranting. Still do. Maybe he would like to be specific. On second
>thought, why ask for vegetable abuse.
You should listen to Alex, he is 100% accurate.
Why ideed tempt vegetables when you post many posts with good insight
and then negate everything by proving to everyone
you are still posting from your cradle?
As for Softwar, he does _NOT_ understand what he posts - but he
is throwing stones at people because of their beliefs and nationality.
I picked up that on the second or third post I read, and I have
not been proven wrong from the first post ever made in reply to this menace.
Thanks to everyone with insight into the problem, he now has one
or two nits nibbling at his head every time he posts. 1) Abuse of
copyrighted material, 2) spamming sci.space.policy
without sci.space.policy content. He was posting frequently but
now he has to actually write some of the material and
apply himself to avoid 1+2; which means he is bogged down
wasting his own personal time.
Of course there is also worry No. 3) Me! .. I is a complete thick shit
fixated on cucumbers because I is born on banana plantation where no
cucumbers could be had for love of money or bended knees,
and thus I have always enjoyed bended cucumber plants for
their sheer entertainment value for rear guard applications...
--
Banana Depravity Treatment Centre
Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)
[snip]
>
> This CZ-3 launcher design was at least two versions later from
> the IRBM that had provided the basic plan for the CZ-1. The
> third stage on these missiles is not in any way related to
> ballistic missile third stages.
You should read the AW&ST article in the June 1, 1998 issue, titled
"China Controversy Has Complex Routes," page 23. Thre is an intersting
picture on page 24 that presents the CIA assessment on the applicability of
space launch vehicle technology to ballistic missile technology. In the
areas of reentry vehicles, payload seperation, internal guidance & control,
and strap-on boosters, the technologies are quite similar. For these areas,
space launch vehicle technology might be adequate for ballistic missile
usage, and "must be examined on a case by case basis."
In the areas of staging mechanisms, air frame, motor cases & insulation,
engines/motors, thrust vector control and ehaust nozzels, the space lauch
vehicle and ICBM are generally identical.
Looks to me that if we help their space launch system, we help their ICBM
system. Anyone forget that up until the Saturn launch vehicle, all US
astronauts went up in "modified" ICBMs?
Karl A
--
The first lady has described the Arkansas land dealings known as Whitewater
as "the never-ending fictional conspiracy" that "reminds me of some
people's obsession with UFOs and the Hale-Bopp comet."
What does that say about her creation of the VRWC? She Bopp!
zu...@ix.netcom.com
auer...@aros.net (Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)) wrote:
> In article <703nr9$865$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > the IRBM that had provided the basic plan for the CZ-1. The
> > third stage on these missiles is not in any way related to
> > ballistic missile third stages.
>
> "China Controversy Has Complex Routes," page 23. Thre is an intersting
> picture on page 24 that presents the CIA assessment on the applicability of
> space launch vehicle technology to ballistic missile technology. In the
> areas of reentry vehicles, payload seperation, internal guidance & control,
Ummm, I suppose you will enlighten us as to how the reentry technology
of the Motorola and Asiasat vehicles has been adapted for military
purposes. . . . }:^P
And see what I had to say about payload separation WRT warheads and
satellites a while back. And see what I said about Chinese technology
on multiple satellite insertion. I quoted you the numbers. Same for
guidance technology.
> and strap-on boosters, the technologies are quite similar.
Ummm, no strap-on boosters for the CZ-3, AFAIK.
> . . . For these areas,
> space launch vehicle technology might be adequate for ballistic
> missile usage, and "must be examined on a case by case basis."
Go for it. . . .
> In the areas of staging mechanisms, air frame, motor cases & insulation,
> engines/motors, thrust vector control and ehaust nozzels, the space lauch
> vehicle and ICBM are generally identical.
Nope. To begin with, fuel requirements for ICBMs are quite different
from those for launch vehicles. Some of the CZ series have cryogenic
upper stages. And the fuel _makes_ the motor, WRT thrust, pressure,
temperature, insulation, fuel pumps, etc. THe CZ series motors have
been changed many times since the divergence from the CSS-3 progenitor.
> Looks to me that if we help their space launch system, we help their ICBM
> system. . . .
We didn't _help_ their space launch system in any significant way, and
the payoff for ICBM technology is probably less yet.
> . . . Anyone forget that up until the Saturn launch vehicle, all US
> astronauts went up in "modified" ICBMs?
For some twenty years, our workhorse SLBMs and ICBMs have _all_ been
solid-fueled (and you probably remember what happened to one of our
ancient LF ICBMs a while back, resulting in their complete decommission).
Our space launch vehicles are _still_ primarily LF machines (albeit
with some SF adjuncts).
Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)
> In article <auerbach-ya0240800...@news.aros.net>,
> auer...@aros.net (Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)) wrote:
> > In article <703nr9$865$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > This CZ-3 launcher design was at least two versions later from
> > > the IRBM that had provided the basic plan for the CZ-1. The
> > > third stage on these missiles is not in any way related to
> > > ballistic missile third stages.
> >
> > You should read the AW&ST article in the June 1, 1998 issue, titled
> > "China Controversy Has Complex Routes," page 23. Thre is an intersting
> > picture on page 24 that presents the CIA assessment on the applicability of
> > space launch vehicle technology to ballistic missile technology. In the
> > areas of reentry vehicles, payload seperation, internal guidance & control,
> ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>
> Ummm, I suppose you will enlighten us as to how the reentry technology
> of the Motorola and Asiasat vehicles has been adapted for military
> purposes. . . . }:^P
Gee, why should I? See, I was merely telling you what was in the article.
The thrust of the article, if you even bothered to read it, was that there
is cross over between hardware used in China's military and commercial
vehicles. The applicability of some hardware system or subsystem dual-usage
has to be handled on a case by case basis.
Besides, the possible applicability, according to the article, is based in
the similarities between reentry systems, and return capsule technology.
Does Motorola or Asiasat vehiciles incorporate this? Beats me.
>
> And see what I had to say about payload separation WRT warheads and
> satellites a while back.
I'm not about to do a search to prove your point. That's your job. Give a
refernce or repost it here.
I do know that payload seperation from civilian LVs involves. I also know
that it isn't comparable to warhead sepearation, since warhead seperation
is also from some type of payload vehicle. So the insertion of the payloads
into some useful orbit isn't all that different except in the actual orbits
themselves.
> And see what I said about Chinese technology
> on multiple satellite insertion. I quoted you the numbers. Same for
> guidance technology.
Then do the work and dig 'em up or provide a reference. I'm going to hazard
a guess that you're looking at an individual tree, and ignoring that the
forrest is made of of a lot of similar trees.
>
> > and strap-on boosters, the technologies are quite similar.
>
> Ummm, no strap-on boosters for the CZ-3, AFAIK.
The article didn't reference a particular missile in the illustration. It's
purpose was that there are similarities between civilian and military
technology usage.
>
> > . . . For these areas,
> > space launch vehicle technology might be adequate for ballistic
> > missile usage, and "must be examined on a case by case basis."
>
> Go for it. . . .
That's the CIA talking. Better call them.
>
> > In the areas of staging mechanisms, air frame, motor cases & insulation,
> > engines/motors, thrust vector control and ehaust nozzels, the space lauch
> > vehicle and ICBM are generally identical.
>
> Nope.
Yep.
> To begin with, fuel requirements for ICBMs are quite different
> from those for launch vehicles.
Intersting. The one thing not mentioned in the list above.
> Some of the CZ series have cryogenic upper stages.
And some don't?
> And the fuel _makes_ the motor, WRT thrust, pressure,
> temperature, insulation, fuel pumps, etc.
No one said there isn't a paytload difference between commercial and
military applications. Big deal.
However, the technology and equipment required to make the staging
mechanisms, air frame, motor cases & insulation, engines/motors, thrust
vector control and exhaust nozzels STILL remains identical in many areas.
THAT was the thrust of the article. For example, if you acquire an improved
way of making motor casings for the civilan application, this same
improvement can be used in the military application. And vice versa.
> THe CZ series motors have
> been changed many times since the divergence from the CSS-3 progenitor.
And the CSS-3 hasn't? You want everyone to beleive that, in spite of the
basic hardware similarities between the two civilian and military usage,
that improvements in the civilian versions resulted in no improvements in
the military version? And had no effect in the development of the CSS-X-4?
Is China that inefficient? Did we build Peacekeeper only on Minuteman
technology?
>
> > Looks to me that if we help their space launch system, we help their ICBM
> > system. . . .
>
> We didn't _help_ their space launch system in any significant way, and
> the payoff for ICBM technology is probably less yet.
"Significant?" "Probable?"
Advancse in accuracy, i.e., guidance and control, greatly enhances a
systems ability to deliver a payload to some "location." In terms of
civilian usage, it equates to getting a payload to the correct orbit (there
may be some reentry considerations, but we'll asume a satellite). In
military weapon usage, it also equates to getting a payload to the correct
orbit so the deliviery system, or reentry system, can deliver the warhead
to the desired location. Advances in military guidance and accuarcy, the
ability to come within some acceptable CEP, greatly enhances any weapon
system. It allows for reducing the size of the warheads needed to destroy a
target, which can then allow for MIRV capability with very little change to
the boost part of the missile.
All that by increasing the accuracy/guidance. I would consider this
significant, if it occured.
>
> > . . . Anyone forget that up until the Saturn launch vehicle, all US
> > astronauts went up in "modified" ICBMs?
>
> For some twenty years, our workhorse SLBMs and ICBMs have _all_ been
> solid-fueled (and you probably remember what happened to one of our
> ancient LF ICBMs a while back, resulting in their complete decommission).
Yeah, I know a lot of history. That the US pursues independent technologies
for its commercial and miliatry LVs is rather unique to the US. We can do
this because of our wealth. In less wealthier countries, it makes sense to
duplicate both civilian and military technology: it saves money.
There was another reason why the US went to solid motors on military
missiles: keep the human out of the system. In the days of LF missiles, men
were required to remain on site to fuel the missiles prior to launch. If an
enemy could incapacitate the men, the missiles couldn't be launched. With
SFs, you could also spread the missile out over a larger area, increasing
survivability by requiring the enemy to improve accuracy (CEP) and expend
more warheads to attack. Both very costly endeavors.
Another advantage is in the time it takes to launch your SF missiles. Don't
have to fuel 'em, so launch when ready.
>
> Our space launch vehicles are _still_ primarily LF machines (albeit
> with some SF adjuncts).
You ignore that we're discussing China's capabilities, not ours.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
auer...@aros.net (Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)) wrote:
> In article <705dmm$cqa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > In article <auerbach-ya0240800...@news.aros.net>,
> > auer...@aros.net (Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)) wrote:
> > > In article <703nr9$865$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This CZ-3 launcher design was at least two versions later from
> > > > the IRBM that had provided the basic plan for the CZ-1. The
> > > > third stage on these missiles is not in any way related to
> > > > ballistic missile third stages.
> > >
> > > You should read the AW&ST article in the June 1, 1998 issue, titled
> > > "China Controversy Has Complex Routes," page 23. Thre is an intersting
> > > picture on page 24 that presents the CIA assessment on the applicability
> > > of space launch vehicle technology to ballistic missile technology. In
> > > the areas of reentry vehicles, payload seperation, internal guidance
> > > & control,
> >
> > Ummm, I suppose you will enlighten us as to how the reentry technology
> > of the Motorola and Asiasat vehicles has been adapted for military
> > purposes. . . . }:^P
>
> Gee, why should I? See, I was merely telling you what was in the
> article. The thrust of the article, if you even bothered to read it,
> was that there is cross over between hardware used in China's military
> and commercial vehicles. The applicability of some hardware system or
> subsystem dual-usage has to be handled on a case by case basis.
Sure. I have no reason to believe this was not done WRT any of the
China launches. Do you?
> Besides, the possible applicability, according to the article, is based
> in the similarities between reentry systems, and return capsule
> technology. Does Motorola or Asiasat vehiciles incorporate this?
> Beats me.
Ummm, hate to tell you this, but the Motorola and Asiasat _satellites_
are supposed to _stay_ up there. They are not supposed to reenter.
OK? Now, given that, is it starting to dawn on you that any claims
that this technology is readily adaptable from commercial satellites
to warheads is pure tripe? It really doesn't take a rocket scientist
to figure _this_ out. . . .
> > And see what I had to say about payload separation WRT warheads and
> > satellites a while back.
>
> I'm not about to do a search to prove your point. That's your job.
> Give a refernce or repost it here.
Search DejaNews for "Arne Langsetmo" and "ICBM", "CZ-3", "Rohrabacher",
or "LORAL", etc., for a few of the threads. If you also add "SOFTWAR",
you might get a more limited number of hits more specifically oriented
towards SOFTWAR's posts.
> I do know that payload seperation from civilian LVs involves.
Involves _what_?
? . . . I also know
> that it isn't comparable to warhead sepearation, since warhead
> seperation is also from some type of payload vehicle. So the
> insertion of the payloads into some useful orbit isn't all that
> different except in the actual orbits themselves.
Well, not really. warheads don't orbit per se. But one of the
main differences here is that warhead separation must be _very_
accurate, as you only get one chance, and no control for the most
part post-separation. OTOH, for satellite insertion, most
satellites have on-board thrusters or boost motors to put them
in the actual orbits desired. This is done over a long period
of time, and usually involves ground control and feedback
from externally derived orbit determination. This is _another_
way in which _guidance_ is quite different. Warheads must rely
on internal precision, and be spot on the first time. Satellites
can be positioned using external guidance, and they have many,
many orbits to get to where they are supposed to go. They can
compensate far better for initial inaccuracies.
> > And see what I said about Chinese technology
> > on multiple satellite insertion. I quoted you the numbers. Same for
> > guidance technology.
>
> Then do the work and dig 'em up or provide a reference. I'm going to
> hazard a guess that you're looking at an individual tree, and ignoring
> that the forrest is made of of a lot of similar trees.
Nope. I gave the numbers for prior multiple payload launches of
satellites on CZ series launchers in the earlier post on this thread.
Contrary to SOFTWAR's assertion and that of Rohrabacher earlier,
the Chinese had done multiple payload launches successfully prior
to the Motorola waiver, and in fact had done so during the Bush
administration. In fact they had done a prior launch of two
Iridium mass-simulators all by themselves, IIRC. To accuse Motorola
of handing them "bus" technology for MIRVing ICBMs is simply untrue
on the facts (as well as technically irrelevant because of the
different requirements of warhead release versus satellite
release).
> > > and strap-on boosters, the technologies are quite similar.
> >
> > Ummm, no strap-on boosters for the CZ-3, AFAIK.
>
> The article didn't reference a particular missile in the illustration.
> It's purpose was that there are similarities between civilian and military
> technology usage.
There are some, but the question here is whether anything that the
U.S. has provided WRT space launch technology has been applicable
to the Chinese strategic missile fleet. My considered opinion,
on the facts as I know them, is no. . . . But feel free to provide
any examples you can find that would refute this conclusion.
> > > . . . For these areas,
> > > space launch vehicle technology might be adequate for ballistic
> > > missile usage, and "must be examined on a case by case basis."
> >
> > Go for it. . . .
>
> That's the CIA talking. Better call them.
The CIA was full of it when they showed a picture of a Chinese
LF rocket exhaust nozzle, and tried to compare it with the
exhaust nozzle of a U.S. SF ICBM. Yes, they're both big and
conical, with a hole in the middle. Whoopdedoo. They totally shot
their credibility there. Sounds like they were engaging in a
little snow job on the technologically naive. If someone could
give me a _specific_ from their testimony which indicates that
there was any significant transfer, I would reconsider. But
what I saw was underwhelming.
> > > In the areas of staging mechanisms, air frame, motor cases &
> > > insulation, engines/motors, thrust vector control and ehaust
> > > nozzels, the space lauch vehicle and ICBM are generally identical.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Yep.
See below.
> > To begin with, fuel requirements for ICBMs are quite different
> > from those for launch vehicles.
>
> Intersting. The one thing not mentioned in the list above.
And a _major_ difference. ICBMs have to be fuelled at all times,
and the fuel must be stable and non-volative. Cryogenics are
_not_ used for ICBMs, therefore (it requires quite a plant to
keep such things topped off). Cryogenics _are_ used for
commercial launches, because of the better performance characteristics
of these fuels. Because these vehicles can be fuelled right before
launch, such cryogenics are practical for this. Other unstable
fuels may also be used; you don't have to worry about decomposition
over time (and under adverse temperature conditions).
And the fuel used makes a hell of a lot of difference in the
overall ehicle design, influencing motor and pump design, nozzle
geometry, insulation requirements, etc., etc. . . .
It also changes the stress limits on the vehicle itself. You
don't want to make a launch vehicle stronger than needed (it's
added weight), but you want to make it strong enough to withstand
launch stresses.
And you will find in the evolution of the CZ series launch vehicles,
from the original CZ-1 derived from the CSS-3, to the CZ-4, a
continuous change in the size, fuels, motors, etc. . . .
> > Some of the CZ series have cryogenic upper stages.
>
> And some don't?
Yes. No Chinese ballistic missile has any cryogenic stages,
AFAIK. . .
> > And the fuel _makes_ the motor, WRT thrust, pressure,
> > temperature, insulation, fuel pumps, etc.
>
> No one said there isn't a paytload difference between commercial and
> military applications. Big deal.
They're completely different vehicles.
> However, the technology and equipment required to make the staging
> mechanisms, air frame, motor cases & insulation, engines/motors, thrust
> vector control and exhaust nozzels STILL remains identical in many areas.
Try putting a Ford valve block on a Chevy. . . .
> THAT was the thrust of the article. For example, if you acquire an improved
> way of making motor casings for the civilan application, this same
> improvement can be used in the military application. And vice versa.
And we didn't help them with any of this. If you disagree, post your
evidence. If you say we gave them money, sure, but we give them
money for any number of things. Money is fungible. Money for
space launches is just as green (or maroon, as the PRC 1 yuan note is)
as money for cheap shoes.
> > . . . The CZ series motors have
> > been changed many times since the divergence from the CSS-3 progenitor.
>
> And the CSS-3 hasn't? You want everyone to beleive that, in spite of the
> basic hardware similarities between the two civilian and military usage,
> that improvements in the civilian versions resulted in no improvements in
> the military version? And had no effect in the development of the CSS-X-4?
> Is China that inefficient? Did we build Peacekeeper only on Minuteman
> technology?
I have my own views on some aspects of Chinese "efficiency", but that's
another story. But I don't believe that our trade has made much,
if any, difference on the military vehicles. The company that
makes the military vehicles tried to make a commercial space launcher
a while back; this variant seems to have been pretty much shelved,
IIRC. . .
> > > Looks to me that if we help their space launch system, we help their ICBM
> > > system. . . .
> >
> > We didn't _help_ their space launch system in any significant way, and
> > the payoff for ICBM technology is probably less yet.
>
> "Significant?" "Probable?"
Yep. Hell, if we give them angled toothbrushes so that their scientists
have better dental hygiene and come to work happier, that probably
also affects their capabilities. You have to draw a _practical_ line.
I see no reason to believe that Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did not do
so. . . .
> Advancse in accuracy, i.e., guidance and control, greatly enhances a
> systems ability to deliver a payload to some "location." . . .
See comments above WRT satellite versus ICBM guidance. The
fundamental _means_ are different.
> . . . In terms of
> civilian usage, it equates to getting a payload to the correct orbit
> (there may be some reentry considerations, but we'll asume a satellite).
> In military weapon usage, it also equates to getting a payload to the
> correct orbit so the deliviery system, or reentry system, can deliver
> the warhead to the desired location. Advances in military guidance and
> accuarcy, the ability to come within some acceptable CEP, greatly
> enhances any weapon system. It allows for reducing the size of the
> warheads needed to destroy a target, which can then allow for MIRV
> capability with very little change to the boost part of the missile.
Folderol. The requirements for ICBM accuracy are _already_ far greater
than those required for commercial launches.
> All that by increasing the accuracy/guidance. I would consider this
> significant, if it occured.
Give me even a semi-plausible scenario as to how it did. . . .
> > > . . . Anyone forget that up until the Saturn launch vehicle, all US
> > > astronauts went up in "modified" ICBMs?
> >
> > For some twenty years, our workhorse SLBMs and ICBMs have _all_ been
> > solid-fueled (and you probably remember what happened to one of our
> > ancient LF ICBMs a while back, resulting in their complete decommission).
>
> Yeah, I know a lot of history. That the US pursues independent technologies
> for its commercial and miliatry LVs is rather unique to the US. We can do
> this because of our wealth. In less wealthier countries, it makes sense to
> duplicate both civilian and military technology: it saves money.
But we already have evidence of the _divergence_ of the _Chinese_
commercial launch vehicles from their military forebearers. And for
good reasons; the same reasons it happened here.
> There was another reason why the US went to solid motors on military
> missiles: keep the human out of the system. In the days of LF missiles,
> men were required to remain on site to fuel the missiles prior to launch.
> If an enemy could incapacitate the men, the missiles couldn't be
> launched. . . .
Bull. The U.S. missiles were fuelled at all times. That is why that
Titan blew its top and they had to go looking for the warhead.
> . . . With
> SFs, you could also spread the missile out over a larger area,
> increasing survivability by requiring the enemy to improve accuracy
> (CEP) and expend more warheads to attack. Both very costly endeavors.
Bull. The Titans were also dispersed. That's why that farmer had that
one that blew in his back yard. . . .
> Another advantage is in the time it takes to launch your SF missiles. Don't
> have to fuel 'em, so launch when ready.
Not true.
> > Our space launch vehicles are _still_ primarily LF machines (albeit
> > with some SF adjuncts).
>
> You ignore that we're discussing China's capabilities, not ours.
I was pointing out the different requirements of ICBM technology and
space launch technology. Something that applies to the Chinese
just as much as us, and which is why the Chinese are developing SF
ballistic missiles.
Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)
Not sure this made it out, so I'll post again, with a couple of changes.
They're noted...
Well, since China isn't all that open about what's on its military
missiles, and probably wouldn't be if they were upgrading, then neither one
of us knows for sure.
>
> > Besides, the possible applicability, according to the article, is based
> > in the similarities between reentry systems, and return capsule
> > technology. Does Motorola or Asiasat vehiciles incorporate this?
> > Beats me.
>
> Ummm, hate to tell you this, but the Motorola and Asiasat _satellites_
> are supposed to _stay_ up there. They are not supposed to reenter.
> OK?
WOW! What an amazing discovery!
Now, want to explain why you chose to focus on just this one aspect of the
list provided? I'll give the answer: because it was the ONLY one that you
KNEW couldn't be included in your Motorola/Asiasat straw man. You
completely ignore what other aspects of Motorola/Asiasat technology could
be used for military missiles.
> Now, given that, is it starting to dawn on you that any claims
> that this technology is readily adaptable from commercial satellites
> to warheads is pure tripe? It really doesn't take a rocket scientist
> to figure _this_ out. . . .
Minuteman is currently going trhough an upgrade of its guidance system and
propulsion system. do you want to make the claim that no civilian
technoilogy improvements in those areas over the past 25 years are not
being incorporated into the mods? It doesn't take an idiot to figure _this_
out...
>
> > > And see what I had to say about payload separation WRT warheads and
> > > satellites a while back.
> >
> > I'm not about to do a search to prove your point. That's your job.
> > Give a refernce or repost it here.
>
> Search DejaNews for "Arne Langsetmo" and "ICBM", "CZ-3", "Rohrabacher",
> or "LORAL", etc., for a few of the threads. If you also add "SOFTWAR",
> you might get a more limited number of hits more specifically oriented
> towards SOFTWAR's posts.
Well, since I can see from the above that your arguement here lacks no
merit, I dount I'll take the opportunity to dig into more of your views.
>
> > I do know that payload seperation from civilian LVs involves.
>
> Involves _what_?
YOU"RE the one to make the distinction between civilin payloads and warheads.
>
> ? . . . I also know
> > that it isn't comparable to warhead sepearation, since warhead
> > seperation is also from some type of payload vehicle. So the
> > insertion of the payloads into some useful orbit isn't all that
> > different except in the actual orbits themselves.
>
> Well, not really. warheads don't orbit per se. But one of the
> main differences here is that warhead separation must be _very_
> accurate, as you only get one chance, and no control for the most
> part post-separation. OTOH, for satellite insertion, most
> satellites have on-board thrusters or boost motors to put them
> in the actual orbits desired. This is done over a long period
> of time, and usually involves ground control and feedback
> from externally derived orbit determination.
Guidance covers the entire flight regime from lift-off to deliver of
whatever payload in whatever desired orbit. Warheads are not inserted into
an orbit; the delivery vehicle, sometimes called reeentry system, is what
is paced in orbit. The RS used in Minuteman has some limited manuverability
in the vertical direction; it's designed to go lower in orbit to release
the warhead at the proper location.
On satellites, the on-board thrusters are worthless if the payload isn't
placed in the proper INTIAL orbit.
Failure to achive a desired orbit, for either military or civilian usage,
is disasterous.
> This is _another_
> way in which _guidance_ is quite different. Warheads must rely
> on internal precision, and be spot on the first time.
Warheads have no guidance.
> Satellites
> can be positioned using external guidance, and they have many,
> many orbits to get to where they are supposed to go. They can
> compensate far better for initial inaccuracies.
Than why have there been satellite failures? Why have satlellites failed to
reach their proper orbits? From your above arguement, this can't occur.
>
> > > And see what I said about Chinese technology
> > > on multiple satellite insertion. I quoted you the numbers. Same for
> > > guidance technology.
> >
> > Then do the work and dig 'em up or provide a reference. I'm going to
> > hazard a guess that you're looking at an individual tree, and ignoring
> > that the forrest is made of of a lot of similar trees.
>
> Nope. I gave the numbers for prior multiple payload launches of
> satellites on CZ series launchers in the earlier post on this thread.
> Contrary to SOFTWAR's assertion and that of Rohrabacher earlier,
> the Chinese had done multiple payload launches successfully prior
> to the Motorola waiver, and in fact had done so during the Bush
> administration. In fact they had done a prior launch of two
> Iridium mass-simulators all by themselves, IIRC. To accuse Motorola
> of handing them "bus" technology for MIRVing ICBMs is simply untrue
> on the facts (as well as technically irrelevant because of the
> different requirements of warhead release versus satellite
> release).
This doesn't say squat about any improvements to technology that may have
been provided by Motorola, accidently or not.
>
> > > > and strap-on boosters, the technologies are quite similar.
> > >
> > > Ummm, no strap-on boosters for the CZ-3, AFAIK.
> >
> > The article didn't reference a particular missile in the illustration.
> > It's purpose was that there are similarities between civilian and military
> > technology usage.
>
> There are some, but the question here is whether anything that the
> U.S. has provided WRT space launch technology has been applicable
> to the Chinese strategic missile fleet. My considered opinion,
> on the facts as I know them, is no. . . . But feel free to provide
> any examples you can find that would refute this conclusion.
Since China won't open it's miltiary missile technology status to the west,
your considered opinions are as "accurate" as mine. And since it takes time
for technology to work its way into actual hardware, we'll have to wait and
see.
>
> > > > . . . For these areas,
> > > > space launch vehicle technology might be adequate for ballistic
> > > > missile usage, and "must be examined on a case by case basis."
> > >
> > > Go for it. . . .
> >
> > That's the CIA talking. Better call them.
>
> The CIA was full of it when they showed a picture of a Chinese
> LF rocket exhaust nozzle, and tried to compare it with the
> exhaust nozzle of a U.S. SF ICBM. Yes, they're both big and
> conical, with a hole in the middle. Whoopdedoo. They totally shot
> their credibility there. Sounds like they were engaging in a
> little snow job on the technologically naive.
What, Aviation Weekly is now the technically naive?
> If someone could
> give me a _specific_ from their testimony which indicates that
> there was any significant transfer, I would reconsider. But
> what I saw was underwhelming.
What is significant? A slight improvement in guidance can result in
reductions in CEP. Improvements in rocket motor tecnology, thrust
termination, etc. can result in the same reductions.
You're asking for me someone to predict what usage China may find for
western technology. I have to wait until the technology is implemented, and
in the case of China also demonstrated, to decide whether US influence made
it to China's hardware.
>
> > > > In the areas of staging mechanisms, air frame, motor cases &
> > > > insulation, engines/motors, thrust vector control and ehaust
> > > > nozzels, the space lauch vehicle and ICBM are generally identical.
> > >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > Yep.
>
> See below.
See above.
>
> > > To begin with, fuel requirements for ICBMs are quite different
> > > from those for launch vehicles.
> >
> > Intersting. The one thing not mentioned in the list above.
>
> And a _major_ difference. ICBMs have to be fuelled at all times,
> and the fuel must be stable and non-volative. Cryogenics are
> _not_ used for ICBMs, therefore (it requires quite a plant to
> keep such things topped off). Cryogenics _are_ used for
> commercial launches, because of the better performance characteristics
> of these fuels. Because these vehicles can be fuelled right before
> launch, such cryogenics are practical for this. Other unstable
> fuels may also be used; you don't have to worry about decomposition
> over time (and under adverse temperature conditions).
>
> And the fuel used makes a hell of a lot of difference in the
> overall ehicle design, influencing motor and pump design, nozzle
> geometry, insulation requirements, etc., etc. . . .
This ignores the simple fact that technology improvements can help in both
soild fuel and liquid fuel birds.
>
> It also changes the stress limits on the vehicle itself. You
> don't want to make a launch vehicle stronger than needed (it's
> added weight), but you want to make it strong enough to withstand
> launch stresses.
>
> And you will find in the evolution of the CZ series launch vehicles,
> from the original CZ-1 derived from the CSS-3, to the CZ-4, a
> continuous change in the size, fuels, motors, etc. . . .
And there have no improvements in the CSS series?
>
> > > Some of the CZ series have cryogenic upper stages.
> >
> > And some don't?
>
> Yes. No Chinese ballistic missile has any cryogenic stages,
> AFAIK. . .
?
>
> > > And the fuel _makes_ the motor, WRT thrust, pressure,
> > > temperature, insulation, fuel pumps, etc.
> >
> > No one said there isn't a paytload difference between commercial and
> > military applications. Big deal.
>
> They're completely different vehicles.
Utilizing similar technology in both.
>
> > However, the technology and equipment required to make the staging
> > mechanisms, air frame, motor cases & insulation, engines/motors, thrust
> > vector control and exhaust nozzels STILL remains identical in many areas.
>
> Try putting a Ford valve block on a Chevy. . . .
For crying out loud, Ford DESIGNED their valve block for EXCLUSIVE use in
its engines. Cevy did the same thing.
Would a relatively poor country like China make this decision? Nope.
>
> > THAT was the thrust of the article. For example, if you acquire an improved
> > way of making motor casings for the civilan application, this same
> > improvement can be used in the military application. And vice versa.
>
> And we didn't help them with any of this.
Since China isn't open about its military technology, you don't know this.
> If you disagree, post your
> evidence. If you say we gave them money, sure, but we give them
> money for any number of things. Money is fungible. Money for
> space launches is just as green (or maroon, as the PRC 1 yuan note is)
> as money for cheap shoes.
And money wasn't emtioned, except by you.
>
> > > . . . The CZ series motors have
> > > been changed many times since the divergence from the CSS-3 progenitor.
> >
> > And the CSS-3 hasn't? You want everyone to beleive that, in spite of the
> > basic hardware similarities between the two civilian and military usage,
> > that improvements in the civilian versions resulted in no improvements in
> > the military version? And had no effect in the development of the CSS-X-4?
> > Is China that inefficient? Did we build Peacekeeper only on Minuteman
> > technology?
>
> I have my own views on some aspects of Chinese "efficiency", but that's
> another story. But I don't believe that our trade has made much,
> if any, difference on the military vehicles.
Ah, you don't know. Thank you.
> The company that
> makes the military vehicles tried to make a commercial space launcher
> a while back; this variant seems to have been pretty much shelved,
> IIRC. . .
Which means...?
>
> > > > Looks to me that if we help their space launch system, we help their
> > > >ICBM
> > > > system. . . .
> > >
> > > We didn't _help_ their space launch system in any significant way, and
> > > the payoff for ICBM technology is probably less yet.
> >
> > "Significant?" "Probable?"
>
> Yep. Hell, if we give them angled toothbrushes so that their scientists
> have better dental hygiene and come to work happier, that probably
> also affects their capabilities. You have to draw a _practical_ line.
> I see no reason to believe that Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did not do
> so. . . .
Good for you. Since we've established that we're both speaking
hypotheticals, have at it.
>
> > Advancse in accuracy, i.e., guidance and control, greatly enhances a
> > systems ability to deliver a payload to some "location." . . .
>
> See comments above WRT satellite versus ICBM guidance. The
> fundamental _means_ are different.
Bullshit. You launch, you orbit, you seperate. Difference in flight
profiles are really meaningless; they can be handled and addressed by
software.
>
> > . . . In terms of
> > civilian usage, it equates to getting a payload to the correct orbit
> > (there may be some reentry considerations, but we'll asume a satellite).
> > In military weapon usage, it also equates to getting a payload to the
> > correct orbit so the deliviery system, or reentry system, can deliver
> > the warhead to the desired location. Advances in military guidance and
> > accuarcy, the ability to come within some acceptable CEP, greatly
> > enhances any weapon system. It allows for reducing the size of the
> > warheads needed to destroy a target, which can then allow for MIRV
> > capability with very little change to the boost part of the missile.
>
> Folderol. The requirements for ICBM accuracy are _already_ far greater
> than those required for commercial launches.
Getting a payload to the proper orbit is critical in both cases.
Try launching a missile with a geostationary satellite payload in any old
direction, and see where it gets you.
>
> > All that by increasing the accuracy/guidance. I would consider this
> > significant, if it occured.
>
> Give me even a semi-plausible scenario as to how it did. . . .
Again, since China is not open about its military capabilites, this can not
be addressed.
But that wasn't my intention.
>
> > > > . . . Anyone forget that up until the Saturn launch vehicle, all US
> > > > astronauts went up in "modified" ICBMs?
> > >
> > > For some twenty years, our workhorse SLBMs and ICBMs have _all_ been
> > > solid-fueled (and you probably remember what happened to one of our
> > > ancient LF ICBMs a while back, resulting in their complete decommission).
> >
> > Yeah, I know a lot of history. That the US pursues independent technologies
> > for its commercial and miliatry LVs is rather unique to the US. We can do
> > this because of our wealth. In less wealthier countries, it makes sense to
> > duplicate both civilian and military technology: it saves money.
>
> But we already have evidence of the _divergence_ of the _Chinese_
> commercial launch vehicles from their military forebearers. And for
> good reasons; the same reasons it happened here.
Exactly. Now, convince us all that the technology used in the civilian
sector is completely divorced from the military. It sure isn't in this
country, or any where else in the world.
>
> > There was another reason why the US went to solid motors on military
> > missiles: keep the human out of the system. In the days of LF missiles,
> > men were required to remain on site to fuel the missiles prior to launch.
> > If an enemy could incapacitate the men, the missiles couldn't be
> > launched. . . .
>
> Bull. The U.S. missiles were fuelled at all times. That is why that
> Titan blew its top and they had to go looking for the warhead.
Gee, then why were men located "on-site?" Why were the LFS clustered around
a central maintenance facility that included fueling capabilities?
*change 1*
Titan II was indeed fueled all the time. I can't determine if Titan I was,
though a friend who worked on Titan II think it was not fueled all the
time. Atlas was not fueled all the time, and part of the launch process
required the fueling process.
Titan II had the on-site storage capability and equipment to remove the
fuel for maintenace and missile removal.
>
> > . . . With
> > SFs, you could also spread the missile out over a larger area,
> > increasing survivability by requiring the enemy to improve accuracy
> > (CEP) and expend more warheads to attack. Both very costly endeavors.
>
> Bull. The Titans were also dispersed. That's why that farmer had that
> one that blew in his back yard. . . .
Titans were just one of the liquid fuel missiles used. But since you only
want to talk baout them...
While somewhat dispersed, they still had the requirement of having on-site
crews to launch and maintain the missile.
*change 2*
Titan II was dispersed, but not as well as Minuteman. Titan II also
retained the inherent "problem" with having humans on-site. However, this
little tidbit does not affect the "story." I'm not sure of the dispersal
with Titan I or Atlas.
>
> > Another advantage is in the time it takes to launch your SF missiles. Don't
> > have to fuel 'em, so launch when ready.
>
> Not true.
For Titan II. I'm still checking on Atlas.
*change 3*
As mentioned above, Titan II was always fueled, Atlas was not. This "issue"
looks like a drawl.
>
> > > Our space launch vehicles are _still_ primarily LF machines (albeit
> > > with some SF adjuncts).
> >
> > You ignore that we're discussing China's capabilities, not ours.
>
> I was pointing out the different requirements of ICBM technology and
> space launch technology. Something that applies to the Chinese
> just as much as us, and which is why the Chinese are developing SF
> ballistic missiles.
Fine. Ignore dual use of technology. See if I care.
Karl
Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)
Well, since China isn't all that open about what's on its military
missiles, and probably wouldn't be if they were upgrading, then neither one
of us knows for sure.
>
> > Besides, the possible applicability, according to the article, is based
> > in the similarities between reentry systems, and return capsule
> > technology. Does Motorola or Asiasat vehiciles incorporate this?
> > Beats me.
>
> Ummm, hate to tell you this, but the Motorola and Asiasat _satellites_
> are supposed to _stay_ up there. They are not supposed to reenter.
> OK?
WOW! What an amazing discovery!
Now, want to explain why you chose to focus on just this one aspect of the
list provided? I'll give the answer: because it was the ONLY one that you
KNEW couldn't be included in your Motorola/Asiasat straw man. You
completely ignore what other aspects of technology could be used for
military missiles.
> Now, given that, is it starting to dawn on you that any claims
> that this technology is readily adaptable from commercial satellites
> to warheads is pure tripe? It really doesn't take a rocket scientist
> to figure _this_ out. . . .
Minuteman is currently going trhough an upgrade of its guidance system and
propulsion system. Do you want to make the claim that civilian technology
improvements in those areas over the past 25 years are not being
incorporated into the mods? It doesn't take an idiot to figure _this_
out...
>
> > > And see what I had to say about payload separation WRT warheads and
> > > satellites a while back.
> >
> > I'm not about to do a search to prove your point. That's your job.
> > Give a refernce or repost it here.
>
> Search DejaNews for "Arne Langsetmo" and "ICBM", "CZ-3", "Rohrabacher",
> or "LORAL", etc., for a few of the threads. If you also add "SOFTWAR",
> you might get a more limited number of hits more specifically oriented
> towards SOFTWAR's posts.
Well, since I can see from the above that your arguement is meant to
misdirect and confuse, I dont think I'll take the opportunity to dig into
more of your views.
>
> > I do know that payload seperation from civilian LVs involves.
>
> Involves _what_?
Oops, forgot to replace "that" with "what" when I edited my sentence. Oh well.
>
> ? . . . I also know
> > that it isn't comparable to warhead sepearation, since warhead
> > seperation is also from some type of payload vehicle. So the
> > insertion of the payloads into some useful orbit isn't all that
> > different except in the actual orbits themselves.
>
> Well, not really. warheads don't orbit per se. But one of the
> main differences here is that warhead separation must be _very_
> accurate, as you only get one chance, and no control for the most
> part post-separation. OTOH, for satellite insertion, most
> satellites have on-board thrusters or boost motors to put them
> in the actual orbits desired. This is done over a long period
> of time, and usually involves ground control and feedback
> from externally derived orbit determination.
Accuracy of warhead seperation and delivery is not a simple equation. Poor
accuracy usually means that large warheads are required to accomplish the
mission. As accuracy improves, the size of the warhead can decrease, which
also helps in further improvements in acucracy. (Warhead design
improvements also contributes, but that's another issue). Decreasing
warhead size reduces the requirements for missile throw weight, which
reduces thrust requirements and allows for the adopting of solid fuel
missiles.
Guidance covers the entire flight regime from lift-off to delivery of
whatever payload in whatever desired orbit. Warheads are not inserted into
an orbit; the delivery vehicle, sometimes called reeentry system, is what
is paced in orbit. The RS used in Minuteman has some limited manuverability
in the vertical direction; it's designed to go lower in orbit to release
the warhead at the proper location.
On satellites, the on-board thrusters are worthless if the payload isn't
placed in the proper INTIAL orbit.
Failure to achive a desired orbit, for either military or civilian usage,
is disasterous.
> This is _another_
> way in which _guidance_ is quite different. Warheads must rely
> on internal precision, and be spot on the first time.
Warheads have no guidance. They rely on the guidance provided during the
powered portion of flight.
> Satellites
> can be positioned using external guidance, and they have many,
> many orbits to get to where they are supposed to go. They can
> compensate far better for initial inaccuracies.
Than why have there been satellite failures? Why have satlellites failed to
reach their proper orbits? From your above arguement, this can't occur.
Satellites can compensate for very small errors in guidance. So can a
nuclear weapon.
>
> > > And see what I said about Chinese technology
> > > on multiple satellite insertion. I quoted you the numbers. Same for
> > > guidance technology.
> >
> > Then do the work and dig 'em up or provide a reference. I'm going to
> > hazard a guess that you're looking at an individual tree, and ignoring
> > that the forrest is made of of a lot of similar trees.
>
> Nope. I gave the numbers for prior multiple payload launches of
> satellites on CZ series launchers in the earlier post on this thread.
> Contrary to SOFTWAR's assertion and that of Rohrabacher earlier,
> the Chinese had done multiple payload launches successfully prior
> to the Motorola waiver, and in fact had done so during the Bush
> administration. In fact they had done a prior launch of two
> Iridium mass-simulators all by themselves, IIRC. To accuse Motorola
> of handing them "bus" technology for MIRVing ICBMs is simply untrue
> on the facts (as well as technically irrelevant because of the
> different requirements of warhead release versus satellite
> release).
This doesn't say squat about any improvements to technology that may have
been provided by Motorola, accidently or not, or how they could be
incorporated into CSS missiles.
>
> > > > and strap-on boosters, the technologies are quite similar.
> > >
> > > Ummm, no strap-on boosters for the CZ-3, AFAIK.
> >
> > The article didn't reference a particular missile in the illustration.
> > It's purpose was that there are similarities between civilian and military
> > technology usage.
>
> There are some, but the question here is whether anything that the
> U.S. has provided WRT space launch technology has been applicable
> to the Chinese strategic missile fleet. My considered opinion,
> on the facts as I know them, is no. . . . But feel free to provide
> any examples you can find that would refute this conclusion.
Since China won't open it's miltiary missile technology status to the west,
your considered opinions are as "accurate" as mine. And since it takes time
for technology to work its way into actual hardware, we'll have to wait and
see.
>
> > > > . . . For these areas,
> > > > space launch vehicle technology might be adequate for ballistic
> > > > missile usage, and "must be examined on a case by case basis."
> > >
> > > Go for it. . . .
> >
> > That's the CIA talking. Better call them.
>
> The CIA was full of it when they showed a picture of a Chinese
> LF rocket exhaust nozzle, and tried to compare it with the
> exhaust nozzle of a U.S. SF ICBM. Yes, they're both big and
> conical, with a hole in the middle. Whoopdedoo. They totally shot
> their credibility there. Sounds like they were engaging in a
> little snow job on the technologically naive.
What, Aviation Weekly is now the technically naive?
> If someone could
> give me a _specific_ from their testimony which indicates that
> there was any significant transfer, I would reconsider. But
> what I saw was underwhelming.
What is significant? A slight improvement in guidance can result in
reductions in CEP. Improvements in rocket motor tecnology, thrust
termination, etc. can result in the same reductions.
You're asking for me someone to predict what usage China may find for
western technology. I have to wait until the technology is implemented, and
in the case of China also demonstrated, to decide whether US influence made
it to China's hardware.
>
> > > > In the areas of staging mechanisms, air frame, motor cases &
> > > > insulation, engines/motors, thrust vector control and ehaust
> > > > nozzels, the space lauch vehicle and ICBM are generally identical.
> > >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > Yep.
>
> See below.
See above.
>
> > > To begin with, fuel requirements for ICBMs are quite different
> > > from those for launch vehicles.
> >
> > Intersting. The one thing not mentioned in the list above.
>
> And a _major_ difference. ICBMs have to be fuelled at all times,
> and the fuel must be stable and non-volative. Cryogenics are
> _not_ used for ICBMs, therefore (it requires quite a plant to
> keep such things topped off). Cryogenics _are_ used for
> commercial launches, because of the better performance characteristics
> of these fuels. Because these vehicles can be fuelled right before
> launch, such cryogenics are practical for this. Other unstable
> fuels may also be used; you don't have to worry about decomposition
> over time (and under adverse temperature conditions).
>
> And the fuel used makes a hell of a lot of difference in the
> overall ehicle design, influencing motor and pump design, nozzle
> geometry, insulation requirements, etc., etc. . . .
This ignores the simple fact that technology improvements can help in both
soild fuel and liquid fuel birds.
>
> It also changes the stress limits on the vehicle itself. You
> don't want to make a launch vehicle stronger than needed (it's
> added weight), but you want to make it strong enough to withstand
> launch stresses.
>
> And you will find in the evolution of the CZ series launch vehicles,
> from the original CZ-1 derived from the CSS-3, to the CZ-4, a
> continuous change in the size, fuels, motors, etc. . . .
And there have no improvements in the CSS series?
>
> > > Some of the CZ series have cryogenic upper stages.
> >
> > And some don't?
>
> Yes. No Chinese ballistic missile has any cryogenic stages,
> AFAIK. . .
I think we both know that the CZ is the civilian designator, and CSS is the
miltary designator. Now, you said some CZ have crogenic stages, which
implies that some don't and rely on non-crogenic stages. This would make
them very similar to the miltary usage. I'm not sure why you state the no
chinese ballistic miussile has a cryogenic stage.
>
> > > And the fuel _makes_ the motor, WRT thrust, pressure,
> > > temperature, insulation, fuel pumps, etc.
> >
> > No one said there isn't a paytload difference between commercial and
> > military applications. Big deal.
>
> They're completely different vehicles.
Utilizing similar technology in both.
>
> > However, the technology and equipment required to make the staging
> > mechanisms, air frame, motor cases & insulation, engines/motors, thrust
> > vector control and exhaust nozzels STILL remains identical in many areas.
>
> Try putting a Ford valve block on a Chevy. . . .
For crying out loud, Ford DESIGNED their "valve block" for EXCLUSIVE use in
its engines. Cevy did the same thing.
Would a relatively poor country like China make this decision? Nope. You
don't specialize until you have to. The US didn't specialize until the
Saturn V requirment.
>
> > THAT was the thrust of the article. For example, if you acquire an improved
> > way of making motor casings for the civilan application, this same
> > improvement can be used in the military application. And vice versa.
>
> And we didn't help them with any of this.
Since China isn't open about its military technology, you don't know this.
> If you disagree, post your
> evidence. If you say we gave them money, sure, but we give them
> money for any number of things. Money is fungible. Money for
> space launches is just as green (or maroon, as the PRC 1 yuan note is)
> as money for cheap shoes.
And money wasn't metioned, except by you.
>
> > > . . . The CZ series motors have
> > > been changed many times since the divergence from the CSS-3 progenitor.
> >
> > And the CSS-3 hasn't? You want everyone to beleive that, in spite of the
> > basic hardware similarities between the two civilian and military usage,
> > that improvements in the civilian versions resulted in no improvements in
> > the military version? And had no effect in the development of the CSS-X-4?
> > Is China that inefficient? Did we build Peacekeeper only on Minuteman
> > technology?
>
> I have my own views on some aspects of Chinese "efficiency", but that's
> another story. But I don't believe that our trade has made much,
> if any, difference on the military vehicles.
Ah, you don't know. Thank you.
> The company that
> makes the military vehicles tried to make a commercial space launcher
> a while back; this variant seems to have been pretty much shelved,
> IIRC. . .
Which means...?
>
> > > > Looks to me that if we help their space launch system, we help their
> > > >ICBM
> > > > system. . . .
> > >
> > > We didn't _help_ their space launch system in any significant way, and
> > > the payoff for ICBM technology is probably less yet.
> >
> > "Significant?" "Probable?"
>
> Yep. Hell, if we give them angled toothbrushes so that their scientists
> have better dental hygiene and come to work happier, that probably
> also affects their capabilities. You have to draw a _practical_ line.
> I see no reason to believe that Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did not do
> so. . . .
Good for you. Since we've established that we're both speaking
hypotheticals, have at it.
>
> > Advancse in accuracy, i.e., guidance and control, greatly enhances a
> > systems ability to deliver a payload to some "location." . . .
>
> See comments above WRT satellite versus ICBM guidance. The
> fundamental _means_ are different.
Bullshit. You launch, you orbit, you seperate. Difference in flight
profiles are really meaningless; they can be handled and addressed by
software.
>
> > . . . In terms of
> > civilian usage, it equates to getting a payload to the correct orbit
> > (there may be some reentry considerations, but we'll asume a satellite).
> > In military weapon usage, it also equates to getting a payload to the
> > correct orbit so the deliviery system, or reentry system, can deliver
> > the warhead to the desired location. Advances in military guidance and
> > accuarcy, the ability to come within some acceptable CEP, greatly
> > enhances any weapon system. It allows for reducing the size of the
> > warheads needed to destroy a target, which can then allow for MIRV
> > capability with very little change to the boost part of the missile.
>
> Folderol. The requirements for ICBM accuracy are _already_ far greater
> than those required for commercial launches.
Getting a payload to the proper orbit is critical in both cases.
Try launching a missile with a geostationary satellite payload in any old
direction, and see where it gets you.
>
> > All that by increasing the accuracy/guidance. I would consider this
> > significant, if it occured.
>
> Give me even a semi-plausible scenario as to how it did. . . .
Again, since China is not open about its military capabilites, this can not
be addressed.
But that wasn't my intention.
>
> > > > . . . Anyone forget that up until the Saturn launch vehicle, all US
> > > > astronauts went up in "modified" ICBMs?
> > >
> > > For some twenty years, our workhorse SLBMs and ICBMs have _all_ been
> > > solid-fueled (and you probably remember what happened to one of our
> > > ancient LF ICBMs a while back, resulting in their complete decommission).
> >
> > Yeah, I know a lot of history. That the US pursues independent technologies
> > for its commercial and miliatry LVs is rather unique to the US. We can do
> > this because of our wealth. In less wealthier countries, it makes sense to
> > duplicate both civilian and military technology: it saves money.
>
> But we already have evidence of the _divergence_ of the _Chinese_
> commercial launch vehicles from their military forebearers. And for
> good reasons; the same reasons it happened here.
Exactly. Now, convince us all that the technology used in the civilian
sector is completely divorced from the military. It sure isn't in this
country, or any where else in the world.
>
> > There was another reason why the US went to solid motors on military
> > missiles: keep the human out of the system. In the days of LF missiles,
> > men were required to remain on site to fuel the missiles prior to launch.
> > If an enemy could incapacitate the men, the missiles couldn't be
> > launched. . . .
>
> Bull. The U.S. missiles were fuelled at all times. That is why that
> Titan blew its top and they had to go looking for the warhead.
I don't believe Atlas was fueld all the time. Titan may have, but then why
were men located "on-site" along with fuel transfer capability? Could be
for the purpose of transportation of the missile back to base for
maintenance, but a base maintenance crew could handle that. I've got a call
in to check on it.
>
> > . . . With
> > SFs, you could also spread the missile out over a larger area,
> > increasing survivability by requiring the enemy to improve accuracy
> > (CEP) and expend more warheads to attack. Both very costly endeavors.
>
> Bull. The Titans were also dispersed. That's why that farmer had that
> one that blew in his back yard. . . .
Titans were just one of the liquid fuel missiles used. But since you only
want to talk baout them...
While somewhat dispersed, they still had the requirement of having on-site
crews to launch and maintain the missile.
>
> > Another advantage is in the time it takes to launch your SF missiles. Don't
> > have to fuel 'em, so launch when ready.
>
> Not true.
For Titan II. I'm still checking on Atlas. Remember, you made no
distinctions in your injtital references to liquid fuel missiles.
>
> > > Our space launch vehicles are _still_ primarily LF machines (albeit
> > > with some SF adjuncts).
> >
> > You ignore that we're discussing China's capabilities, not ours.
>
> I was pointing out the different requirements of ICBM technology and
> space launch technology. Something that applies to the Chinese
> just as much as us, and which is why the Chinese are developing SF
> ballistic missiles.
Fine. Ignore dual use of technology. See if I care.
Karl A
zu...@ix.netcom.com
auer...@aros.net (Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)) wrote:
>
> Not sure this made it out, so I'll post again, with a couple of changes.
> They're noted...
>
> In article <706ani$lt8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > In article <auerbach-ya0240800...@news.aros.net>,
> > auer...@aros.net (Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)) wrote:
> > > In article <705dmm$cqa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <auerbach-ya0240800...@news.aros.net>,
> > > > auer...@aros.net (Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)) wrote:
> > > > > In article <703nr9$865$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > This CZ-3 launcher design was at least two versions later from
> > > > > > the IRBM that had provided the basic plan for the CZ-1. The
> > > > > > third stage on these missiles is not in any way related to
> > > > > > ballistic missile third stages.
> > > > >
> > > > > You should read the AW&ST article in the June 1, 1998 issue, titled
> > > > > "China Controversy Has Complex Routes," page 23. Thre is an
> > > > > intersting picture on page 24 that presents the CIA assessment
> > > > > on the applicability of space launch vehicle technology to
> > > > > ballistic missile technology. In the areas of reentry vehicles,
> > > > > payload seperation, internal guidance & control,
> > > >
> > > > Ummm, I suppose you will enlighten us as to how the reentry technology
> > > > of the Motorola and Asiasat vehicles has been adapted for military
> > > > purposes. . . . }:^P
> > >
> > > Gee, why should I? See, I was merely telling you what was in the
> > > article. The thrust of the article, if you even bothered to read it,
> > > was that there is cross over between hardware used in China's military
> > > and commercial vehicles. The applicability of some hardware system or
> > > subsystem dual-usage has to be handled on a case by case basis.
> >
> > Sure. I have no reason to believe this was not done WRT any of the
> > China launches. Do you?
>
> Well, since China isn't all that open about what's on its military
> missiles, and probably wouldn't be if they were upgrading, then neither
> one of us knows for sure.
I was asking if you knew of any cases where they didn't look at the
applicability of any hardware before granting an export license.
Do you? Or are we just going to speculate like hell from here on
to the bottom of the article, and then call for Clinton's head for
treason based on these wild-assed speculations?
> > > Besides, the possible applicability, according to the article, is based
> > > in the similarities between reentry systems, and return capsule
> > > technology. Does Motorola or Asiasat vehiciles incorporate this?
> > > Beats me.
> >
> > Ummm, hate to tell you this, but the Motorola and Asiasat _satellites_
> > are supposed to _stay_ up there. They are not supposed to reenter.
> > OK?
>
> WOW! What an amazing discovery!
Which, of course, is why you didn't see my point the forst time. ;-)
> Now, want to explain why you chose to focus on just this one aspect
> of the list provided? . . .
Sure. It is a cinch to show that the article was _not_ looking at
the specific technology at issue in the present discussion, and thus
is somewhat inapplicable if not completely off-point.
> . . . I'll give the answer: because it was the ONLY
> one that you KNEW couldn't be included in your Motorola/Asiasat straw
> man. . . .
Ummm, why don't you let _me_ answer for myself? At least I can provide
a coherent sentence. BTW, _what_ "straw man"?
> . . . You completely ignore what other aspects of Motorola/Asiasat
> technology could be used for military missiles.
Ummm, and what would _those_ be? Out with it, so we may discuss them.
> > Now, given that, is it starting to dawn on you that any claims
> > that this technology is readily adaptable from commercial satellites
> > to warheads is pure tripe? It really doesn't take a rocket scientist
> > to figure _this_ out. . . .
>
> Minuteman is currently going trhough an upgrade of its guidance system
> and propulsion system. do you want to make the claim that no civilian
> technoilogy improvements in those areas over the past 25 years are not
> being incorporated into the mods? It doesn't take an idiot to figure
> _this_ out...
I dunno. You managed. You have to work on your insulting abilities
a bit more. ;-)
I never made such a claim. But I would note that the Chinese have
cancelled development of the DF-6 (as well as a few of the other
LF ballistic missiles, and are concentrating on development of their
SF ballistic missiles. They probably aren't doing a whole lot of work
on the DF-5 fleet (which is quite small as it is), and they probably
wouldn't bother with major upgrades, given that they would probably
have to waste a missile or two in testing. But even if they did,
this is a far cry from establishing that they did such a thing as
a result of our satellite launches on their commercial launch
vehicles.
> > > > And see what I had to say about payload separation WRT warheads and
> > > > satellites a while back.
> > >
> > > I'm not about to do a search to prove your point. That's your job.
> > > Give a refernce or repost it here.
> >
> > Search DejaNews for "Arne Langsetmo" and "ICBM", "CZ-3", "Rohrabacher",
> > or "LORAL", etc., for a few of the threads. If you also add "SOFTWAR",
> > you might get a more limited number of hits more specifically oriented
> > towards SOFTWAR's posts.
>
> Well, since I can see from the above that your arguement here lacks
> no merit, I dount I'll take the opportunity to dig into more of your
> views.
ROFLAMO!!!
Translation: "I'm getting my pants dusted here, so I really don't
want to embarrass myself further. But I just did, and I'm too clueless
to even realize it. . . ."
I agree that it is probably pretty much useless for you to go read
my old post, as it seems apparent that you probably don't even
pay attention to, or even _read_, what _you_ write. But, on the
off chance that it will do some good:
Check out the Rohrabacher
post reply I did:
Rohrapacher shows himself to be an idiot and "Red-scare" foamer. . . .
Author: zuch
Email: zu...@ix.netcom.com
Date: 1998/08/12
Forums: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Message-ID: <6qqra5$2su$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> > > I do know that payload seperation from civilian LVs involves.
> >
> > Involves _what_?
>
> YOU"RE the one to make the distinction between civilin payloads and
> warheads.
Look, it's _your_ sentence. And it makes no grammatical sense. OK?
> > > . . . I also know
> > > that it isn't comparable to warhead sepearation, since warhead
> > > seperation is also from some type of payload vehicle. So the
> > > insertion of the payloads into some useful orbit isn't all that
> > > different except in the actual orbits themselves.
> >
> > Well, not really. warheads don't orbit per se. But one of the
> > main differences here is that warhead separation must be _very_
> > accurate, as you only get one chance, and no control for the most
> > part post-separation. OTOH, for satellite insertion, most
> > satellites have on-board thrusters or boost motors to put them
> > in the actual orbits desired. This is done over a long period
> > of time, and usually involves ground control and feedback
> > from externally derived orbit determination.
>
> Guidance covers the entire flight regime from lift-off to deliver
> of whatever payload in whatever desired orbit. Warheads are not
> inserted into an orbit; the delivery vehicle, sometimes called
> reeentry system, is what is paced in orbit. . . .
No. You miss the salient point. Warheads are placed in single-pass
sub-orbital trajectories.
> . . . The RS used in Minuteman has some limited manuverability
> in the vertical direction; it's designed to go lower in orbit to
> release the warhead at the proper location.
Huh?
> On satellites, the on-board thrusters are worthless if the payload isn't
> placed in the proper INTIAL orbit.
Nope. The only _big_ problem is if the proper altitude is not reached.
Two of the Long March launchers failed to put their paylod into the
proper orbit because the third state motors quit too soon, so that
the proper GTO orbit was not achieved, and the patload was left way
too low to be useful. But this doesn't have much to do with guidance.
The reason the third stage motors cut out was apparently overpressure,
IIRC.
> Failure to achive a desired orbit, for either military or civilian usage,
> is disasterous.
You have to miss by a mile for sateliites. For ICBMs, missing by inches
early on will lead to real bad CEPs. (I'm using miles and inches
figuratively here).
> > . . . This is _another_
> > way in which _guidance_ is quite different. Warheads must rely
> > on internal precision, and be spot on the first time. . . .
>
> Warheads have no guidance.
Sorry, I was not being accurate. What I meant was strategic
payload delivery vehicles, ICBMs. But I think we both knew
what I was talking about.
> > . . . Satellites
> > can be positioned using external guidance, and they have many,
> > many orbits to get to where they are supposed to go. They can
> > compensate far better for initial inaccuracies.
>
> Than why have there been satellite failures?
Blowing up on the pad. Wind shear and structural failure. Failure
of the shroud/nosecone. Power loss to one of the guidance modules.
Excessive accelerations. Motor ignition failures. Premature
motor termination. All kinds of things. And similarly for U.S./E.S.A.
failures. I know of _no_ Chinese satellite failure attributable to
inaccuracies in the guidiance system. Do you? Provide documentation
or references if so.
> . . . Why have satlellites failed to
> reach their proper orbits? From your above arguement, this can't occur.
Covered above. Generally such failures have been due to major
failures of some launch vehicle component, and not to inaccuracies
of the guidance system.
> > > > And see what I said about Chinese technology
> > > > on multiple satellite insertion. I quoted you the numbers. Same for
> > > > guidance technology.
> > >
> > > Then do the work and dig 'em up or provide a reference. I'm going to
> > > hazard a guess that you're looking at an individual tree, and ignoring
> > > that the forrest is made of of a lot of similar trees.
> >
> > Nope. I gave the numbers for prior multiple payload launches of
> > satellites on CZ series launchers in the earlier post on this thread.
> > Contrary to SOFTWAR's assertion and that of Rohrabacher earlier,
> > the Chinese had done multiple payload launches successfully prior
> > to the Motorola waiver, and in fact had done so during the Bush
> > administration. In fact they had done a prior launch of two
> > Iridium mass-simulators all by themselves, IIRC. To accuse Motorola
> > of handing them "bus" technology for MIRVing ICBMs is simply untrue
> > on the facts (as well as technically irrelevant because of the
> > different requirements of warhead release versus satellite
> > release).
>
> This doesn't say squat about any improvements to technology that may
> have been provided by Motorola, accidently or not.
Neither did you. Lacking any such specifics, why don't we say that
nothing like that happened.
I did find a paper by an Air Force person that claimed that the
technology for the Motorola Iridium satellite dispeners and that
for MIRV technology was very similar, but his piece contained no
details on why he came to this conclusion. The Chinese _did_
develop a special third stage for the CZ-2C/SD vehicle to be
used for the Iridium launches, but I don't know much about
what Motorola did in this. AFAIK, they speced the SD stage,
but I don't think they helped design it; I believe it was done
by the CALT groupp in China. This SF motor is used to put the
SD into a circular orbit at the apoge of the initial elliptical
parking orbit achieved by the first two stages of the CZ-2C.
Whether such technology is useful for MIRVing is dubious in
my mind. MIRV RFV busses must make a number of smaller
corrections to trajectory between releases, and the motors
that do this may need to be restarted each time. The SF
motor in the SD stage is simply used to achieve a circular
orbit, and, needless to say, can't be restarted. There may
be more to this that I know about, but I don't see much here
of real concern. As I said before, satellites need to be
placed in fairly precise orbits, but they have all the time in
world to do that, something a MIRVed ICBM does not.
Not to mention that the Chinese, as I said before, had already
put up three launches with multiple satellites long before
Motorola came on the scene.
> > > > > and strap-on boosters, the technologies are quite similar.
> > > >
> > > > Ummm, no strap-on boosters for the CZ-3, AFAIK.
Let me amend that. _LF_ Strap-on boosters are used for the CZ-2E,
CZ-3B, and CZ-3C launchers. But these aren't being used for
Motorola launches. No ICMB, to my knowledge, is using strap-on
boosters.
> > > The article didn't reference a particular missile in the illustration.
> > > It's purpose was that there are similarities between civilian and
> > > military technology usage.
> >
> > There are some, but the question here is whether anything that the
> > U.S. has provided WRT space launch technology has been applicable
> > to the Chinese strategic missile fleet. My considered opinion,
> > on the facts as I know them, is no. . . . But feel free to provide
> > any examples you can find that would refute this conclusion.
>
> Since China won't open it's miltiary missile technology status to
> the west, your considered opinions are as "accurate" as mine. . . .
We don't have to know what they _are_ using. All we have to knwo is
what we might have provided them, and look to see of what use it
_could_ be to strategic missiles. Which I did. And rendered my
opinion on.
> . . . And since it takes time
> for technology to work its way into actual hardware, we'll have to
> wait and see.
Well, FYI, the Chinese are working on SF missiles for their ICBM
fleet. I'm not sure that anything we have given them is of much
helkp there. But feel free to bring something up if you know of
anything. Lacking such specifics, I will assume that the
speculation is groundless. . . .
> > > > > . . . For these areas,
> > > > > space launch vehicle technology might be adequate for ballistic
> > > > > missile usage, and "must be examined on a case by case basis."
> > > >
> > > > Go for it. . . .
> > >
> > > That's the CIA talking. Better call them.
> >
> > The CIA was full of it when they showed a picture of a Chinese
> > LF rocket exhaust nozzle, and tried to compare it with the
> > exhaust nozzle of a U.S. SF ICBM. Yes, they're both big and
> > conical, with a hole in the middle. Whoopdedoo. They totally shot
> > their credibility there. Sounds like they were engaging in a
> > little snow job on the technologically naive. . . .
>
> What, Aviation Weekly is now the technically naive?
No. The article I referred to was in the newspapers, and was about
stuff that the CIA had presented to Congress, who are by and large
technically naive (see, e.g., my Rohrabacher post).
> > . . . If someone could
> > give me a _specific_ from their testimony which indicates that
> > there was any significant transfer, I would reconsider. But
> > what I saw was underwhelming.
>
> What is significant? A slight improvement in guidance can result in
> reductions in CEP. . . .
And, as I said previously, the tolerances for ICBMs are _already_
a whole lot narrower than those required for satellite insertion.
For the reasons I have stated.
> . . . Improvements in rocket motor tecnology, thrust
> termination, etc. can result in the same reductions.
And have we helped them with this? Be specific.
> You're asking for me someone to predict what usage China may find
> for western technology. I have to wait until the technology is
> implemented, and in the case of China also demonstrated, to decide
> whether US influence made it to China's hardware.
No. You have to look at the technology under consideration, and
decide what use it _could_ be. Something you seem incapable of.
But something that, AFAIK, the U.S. _did_ do WRT satelliite export
waivers. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.
> > > > > In the areas of staging mechanisms, air frame, motor cases &
> > > > > insulation, engines/motors, thrust vector control and ehaust
> > > > > nozzels, the space lauch vehicle and ICBM are generally identical.
> > > >
> > > > Nope.
> > >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > See below.
>
> See above.
Why don't you dispute my points? You certainly haven't made any
worth while arguing.
> > > > To begin with, fuel requirements for ICBMs are quite different
> > > > from those for launch vehicles.
> > >
> > > Intersting. The one thing not mentioned in the list above.
> >
> > And a _major_ difference. ICBMs have to be fuelled at all times,
> > and the fuel must be stable and non-volative. Cryogenics are
> > _not_ used for ICBMs, therefore (it requires quite a plant to
> > keep such things topped off). Cryogenics _are_ used for
> > commercial launches, because of the better performance characteristics
> > of these fuels. Because these vehicles can be fuelled right before
> > launch, such cryogenics are practical for this. Other unstable
> > fuels may also be used; you don't have to worry about decomposition
> > over time (and under adverse temperature conditions).
> >
> > And the fuel used makes a hell of a lot of difference in the
> > overall ehicle design, influencing motor and pump design, nozzle
> > geometry, insulation requirements, etc., etc. . . .
>
> This ignores the simple fact that technology improvements can help in
> both soild fuel and liquid fuel birds.
Yes, but you're getting distracted here. What have _we_ done that
has improved the Chinese missile fleet. What have we done that could
_possibly_ have improved the Chinese missile fleet?
> > It also changes the stress limits on the vehicle itself. You
> > don't want to make a launch vehicle stronger than needed (it's
> > added weight), but you want to make it strong enough to withstand
> > launch stresses.
> >
> > And you will find in the evolution of the CZ series launch vehicles,
> > from the original CZ-1 derived from the CSS-3, to the CZ-4, a
> > continuous change in the size, fuels, motors, etc. . . .
>
> And there have no improvements in the CSS series?
Yes. They have swithced to storable propellants, and more lately,
to SF development. But the mainstay of the Chinese ICBM fleet
is some 20 or so DF-5s, a bird first flown in 1971, and made operational
in 1981. Since they developed a viable large-diameter SF motor, they
have ceased all LF development. And the CZ series is _still_ LF.
> > > > Some of the CZ series have cryogenic upper stages.
> > >
> > > And some don't?
> >
> > Yes. No Chinese ballistic missile has any cryogenic stages,
> > AFAIK. . .
>
> ?
They're _different_. OK? *sheesh*
> > > > And the fuel _makes_ the motor, WRT thrust, pressure,
> > > > temperature, insulation, fuel pumps, etc.
> > >
> > > No one said there isn't a paytload difference between commercial and
> > > military applications. Big deal.
> >
> > They're completely different vehicles.
>
> Utilizing similar technology in both.
Yes, you're right. Both utilize rocket motors. OK? Are you happy?
> > > However, the technology and equipment required to make the staging
> > > mechanisms, air frame, motor cases & insulation, engines/motors,
> > > thrust vector control and exhaust nozzels STILL remains identical
> > > in many areas.
> >
> > Try putting a Ford valve block on a Chevy. . . .
>
> For crying out loud, Ford DESIGNED their valve block for EXCLUSIVE use
> in its engines. Cevy did the same thing.
If it makes a difference in operational characteristics, yes.
> Would a relatively poor country like China make this decision? Nope.
Yep. They have switched to SF for their ballistic missile program.
Now you're talking the equivalent of puttting your Ford spark plugs
into your Chevy diesel Suburban.
> > > THAT was the thrust of the article. For example, if you acquire
> > > an improved way of making motor casings for the civilan application,
> > > this same improvement can be used in the military application. And
> > > vice versa.
> >
> > And we didn't help them with any of this.
>
> Since China isn't open about its military technology, you don't
> know this.
*sheesh* We _could also_ speculate that Clinton has turned over
the launch codes to U.S. missiles to the Chinese, given them the
plans to the MX warheads, and agreed to sing the Chinese national
anthem at ball games. But: Lacking any _evidence_ that this has
occurred, it ain't worth discussing. . . .
> > If you disagree, post your
> > evidence. If you say we gave them money, sure, but we give them
> > money for any number of things. Money is fungible. Money for
> > space launches is just as green (or maroon, as the PRC 1 yuan note is)
> > as money for cheap shoes.
>
> And money wasn't emtioned, except by you.
AFAIK, the only way that we could have helped them in what we are accused
of helping them with (i.e. improving ICBM guidance) is in such
indirect ways as paying them money for launches, thus giving them
money to be used for missile research, if that is what they choose
to do with it. . . .
> > > > . . . The CZ series motors have
> > > > been changed many times since the divergence from the CSS-3 progenitor.
> > >
> > > And the CSS-3 hasn't? You want everyone to beleive that, in spite of the
> > > basic hardware similarities between the two civilian and military usage,
> > > that improvements in the civilian versions resulted in no improvements in
> > > the military version? And had no effect in the development of the CSS-X-4?
> > > Is China that inefficient? Did we build Peacekeeper only on Minuteman
> > > technology?
> >
> > I have my own views on some aspects of Chinese "efficiency", but that's
> > another story. But I don't believe that our trade has made much,
> > if any, difference on the military vehicles.
>
> Ah, you don't know. Thank you.
You don't fr***ing know a goldarn thing here! You provide no evidence,
despite repeated requests for such. You provide no reasoning, no logic
for your assertions that we have helped them.
I point out that what we know we have given them is not at all alarming.
I point out that there is no evidence for the claimed technology transfer,
or even of any such improvement in Chinese ballistic missile technology
at all. And you keep coming back with "we can't know what they have
done to their forces"? Yes, we _can_ know. And there is no evidence
there! OK?
> > The company that
> > makes the military vehicles tried to make a commercial space launcher
> > a while back; this variant seems to have been pretty much shelved,
> > IIRC. . .
>
> Which means...?
They didn't know WTF they were doing, or that this particular bird wasn't
very good for commercial purposes.
> > > > > Looks to me that if we help their space launch system, we help their
> > > > > ICBM system. . . .
> > > >
> > > > We didn't _help_ their space launch system in any significant way, and
> > > > the payoff for ICBM technology is probably less yet.
> > >
> > > "Significant?" "Probable?"
> >
> > Yep. Hell, if we give them angled toothbrushes so that their scientists
> > have better dental hygiene and come to work happier, that probably
> > also affects their capabilities. You have to draw a _practical_ line.
> > I see no reason to believe that Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did not do
> > so. . . .
>
> Good for you. Since we've established that we're both speaking
> hypotheticals, have at it.
4Q azo. Translate that. I'm being as specific as possible. You
simply speculate wildly, but offer no facts, no _real_ information.
I could speculate that you are an axe-murdering pederast, to equal
end effect. And you see, I have no information to the contrary, so
that's perfectly permissible, right?
> > > Advancse in accuracy, i.e., guidance and control, greatly enhances a
> > > systems ability to deliver a payload to some "location." . . .
> >
> > See comments above WRT satellite versus ICBM guidance. The
> > fundamental _means_ are different.
>
> Bullshit. You launch, you orbit, you seperate. Difference in flight
> profiles are really meaningless; they can be handled and addressed by
> software.
You _still_ seem to miss the _fundamental_ difference in satellite
positioning compared to warhead positioning. It has to do with _time_.
You have all the time in the world for satellites. It may take _weeks_
to put a satellite into a new position.
> > > . . . In terms of
> > > civilian usage, it equates to getting a payload to the correct orbit
> > > (there may be some reentry considerations, but we'll asume a satellite).
> > > In military weapon usage, it also equates to getting a payload to the
> > > correct orbit so the deliviery system, or reentry system, can deliver
> > > the warhead to the desired location. Advances in military guidance and
> > > accuarcy, the ability to come within some acceptable CEP, greatly
> > > enhances any weapon system. It allows for reducing the size of the
> > > warheads needed to destroy a target, which can then allow for MIRV
> > > capability with very little change to the boost part of the missile.
> >
> > Folderol. The requirements for ICBM accuracy are _already_ far greater
> > than those required for commercial launches.
>
> Getting a payload to the proper orbit is critical in both cases.
Nope. You can correct for many inaccuracies in satellite placement.
The only thing of real importance is velocity and general direction.
All the rest can be compensated for over time.
> Try launching a missile with a geostationary satellite payload in any old
> direction, and see where it gets you.
You need to send it in the right direction, but not with absolute accuracy
the first pass.
> > > All that by increasing the accuracy/guidance. I would consider this
> > > significant, if it occured.
> >
> > Give me even a semi-plausible scenario as to how it did. . . .
>
> Again, since China is not open about its military capabilites, this can
> not be addressed.
I didn't ask you how it _did_ occur. I asked you how it possibly
_could_ have occurred. But that is seemingly beyond you.
> But that wasn't my intention.
Indeed. You seem to be completely oblivious to any request to
back up your speculative hypotheticals.
> > > > > . . . Anyone forget that up until the Saturn launch vehicle, all US
> > > > > astronauts went up in "modified" ICBMs?
> > > >
> > > > For some twenty years, our workhorse SLBMs and ICBMs have _all_ been
> > > > solid-fueled (and you probably remember what happened to one of our
> > > > ancient LF ICBMs a while back, resulting in their complete
> > > > decommission).
> > >
> > > Yeah, I know a lot of history. That the US pursues independent
> > > technologies for its commercial and miliatry LVs is rather unique
> > > to the US. We can do this because of our wealth. In less wealthier
> > > countries, it makes sense to duplicate both civilian and military
> > > technology: it saves money.
> >
> > But we already have evidence of the _divergence_ of the _Chinese_
> > commercial launch vehicles from their military forebearers. And for
> > good reasons; the same reasons it happened here.
>
> Exactly. Now, convince us all that the technology used in the civilian
> sector is completely divorced from the military. It sure isn't in this
> country, or any where else in the world.
No. But you have to show that this is of significance to the
question under discussion: Did we help their ballistic missile
program in any way?
[snip off-topic discussion of ancient U.S. ballistic missile technology]
> > > > Our space launch vehicles are _still_ primarily LF machines (albeit
> > > > with some SF adjuncts).
> > >
> > > You ignore that we're discussing China's capabilities, not ours.
> >
> > I was pointing out the different requirements of ICBM technology and
> > space launch technology. Something that applies to the Chinese
> > just as much as us, and which is why the Chinese are developing SF
> > ballistic missiles.
>
> Fine. Ignore dual use of technology. See if I care.
Show that the dual-usage potential is significant. Show that they _didn't_
use those angled toothbrushed we sent them for manufacture of insulating
plastic gaskets in their guidance systems instead of brushing their
teeth with them. Go on, prove it, or we'd better get the DoD involved in
dental hygiene exports as well to check for dual-use. . . .
*sheesh*
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
> Karl
>
> --
> The first lady has described the Arkansas land dealings known as Whitewater
> as "the never-ending fictional conspiracy" that "reminds me of some
> people's obsession with UFOs and the Hale-Bopp comet."
>
> What does that say about her creation of the VRWC? She Bopp!
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
kaue...@my-dejanews.com
This is getting tedious. Your entire arguement seems to be based on "Hey, no
evidence? Didn't happen." The purpose of the Aviation Weekly article was to
point out that there IS dual useage of some technology on civilian and
military birds. I merely pointed that out in reponse to your insistence that
there is no dual usage on a single comparison of two China birds.
And bashing Clinton was not something I brought up. In fact, to this point,
you and I haven't discussed this at all. Furthermore, since I know it serves
no purpose to the technical discussion, I won't touch it except for this
paragraph. I'll you dwell on why you chose to mention it.
>
> > > > Besides, the possible applicability, according to the article, is based
> > > > in the similarities between reentry systems, and return capsule
> > > > technology. Does Motorola or Asiasat vehiciles incorporate this?
> > > > Beats me.
> > >
> > > Ummm, hate to tell you this, but the Motorola and Asiasat _satellites_
> > > are supposed to _stay_ up there. They are not supposed to reenter.
> > > OK?
> >
> > WOW! What an amazing discovery!
>
> Which, of course, is why you didn't see my point the forst time. ;-)
On the contrary, I saw through your stupid point and recognized that you chose
to limit your response to that one area.
I'll say it again: the Aviation Weekly article, which you STILL haven't read
(more on that later), was a general discussion covering a range of
capabilities. Why you can't see that simple point is baffeling.
>
> > Now, want to explain why you chose to focus on just this one aspect
> > of the list provided? . . .
>
> Sure. It is a cinch to show that the article was _not_ looking at
> the specific technology at issue in the present discussion, and thus
> is somewhat inapplicable if not completely off-point.
Not really. Your insistence that no proof means nothing happened is ludicrous.
If China were utilizing technology unknowlingly acquired from the US, it
wouldn't be in the advertising market about it, if for no other reason than to
avoid killing the goose, as it were.
>
> > . . . I'll give the answer: because it was the ONLY
> > one that you KNEW couldn't be included in your Motorola/Asiasat straw
> > man. . . .
>
> Ummm, why don't you let _me_ answer for myself?
Because YOU don't provide the same curtesy.
> At least I can provide a coherent sentence.
Written by whom?
> BTW, _what_ "straw man"?
This one: hey, there isn't a returnable system on Motorola/Asiasat, therefore
discount the AW article; there was no tech transfer!
> > . . . You completely ignore what other aspects of Motorola/Asiasat
> > technology could be used for military missiles.
>
> Ummm, and what would _those_ be? Out with it, so we may discuss them.
Hey, I'M not in the business of stealing technology. I don't know what
technology China needs, so I don't know what they might be interestedin. Do
you?
>
> > > Now, given that, is it starting to dawn on you that any claims
> > > that this technology is readily adaptable from commercial satellites
> > > to warheads is pure tripe? It really doesn't take a rocket scientist
> > > to figure _this_ out. . . .
> >
> > Minuteman is currently going trhough an upgrade of its guidance system
> > and propulsion system. do you want to make the claim that no civilian
> > technoilogy improvements in those areas over the past 25 years are not
> > being incorporated into the mods? It doesn't take an idiot to figure
> > _this_ out...
>
> I dunno. You managed.
What, to discover you're an idiot? Didn't take much, just had to struugle thru
your BS.
> You have to work on your insulting abilities a bit more.
So I can become like you? No thanks.
>
> I never made such a claim.
Which is why I wrote: do you want to make the claim... See the difference?
Comprehension problems?
> But I would note that the Chinese have
> cancelled development of the DF-6 (as well as a few of the other
> LF ballistic missiles, and are concentrating on development of their
> SF ballistic missiles. They probably aren't doing a whole lot of work
> on the DF-5 fleet (which is quite small as it is), and they probably
> wouldn't bother with major upgrades, given that they would probably
> have to waste a missile or two in testing.
A lot of "probably"s up there. Not sure what point you want to make based on
probablys that is any more sound than mine. But that won't stop you...
> But even if they did,
> this is a far cry from establishing that they did such a thing as
> a result of our satellite launches on their commercial launch
> vehicles.
Gee, I'm not trying to establish anything. I'm simply pointing out potentials,
"probablys", if you will. Works for you, works for me!
>
> > > > > And see what I had to say about payload separation WRT warheads and
> > > > > satellites a while back.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not about to do a search to prove your point. That's your job.
> > > > Give a refernce or repost it here.
> > >
> > > Search DejaNews for "Arne Langsetmo" and "ICBM", "CZ-3", "Rohrabacher",
> > > or "LORAL", etc., for a few of the threads. If you also add "SOFTWAR",
> > > you might get a more limited number of hits more specifically oriented
> > > towards SOFTWAR's posts.
> >
> > Well, since I can see from the above that your arguement here lacks
> > no merit, I dount I'll take the opportunity to dig into more of your
> > views.
>
> ROFLAMO!!!
>
> Translation: "I'm getting my pants dusted here, so I really don't
> want to embarrass myself further. But I just did, and I'm too clueless
> to even realize it. . . ."
Here's more on the AW article you haven't read: you read that article, I'll
read your posts. Get it? It's a mutual thing. It's called respect; not that I
would expect it from you.
>
> I agree that it is probably pretty much useless for you to go read
> my old post, as it seems apparent that you probably don't even
> pay attention to, or even _read_, what _you_ write.
It's obvious that it's an affliction we share. I know, but on you, it looks
good!
> But, on the off chance that it will do some good:
>
> Check out the Rohrabacher
> post reply I did:
>
> Rohrapacher shows himself to be an idiot and "Red-scare" foamer. . . .
>
> Author: zuch
> Email: zu...@ix.netcom.com
> Date: 1998/08/12
> Forums: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> Message-ID: <6qqra5$2su$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
And you have the Aviation Weekly reference. Let me know when you've read it.
>
> > > > I do know that payload seperation from civilian LVs involves.
> > >
> > > Involves _what_?
> >
> > YOU"RE the one to make the distinction between civilin payloads and
> > warheads.
>
> Look, it's _your_ sentence. And it makes no grammatical sense. OK?
Sure. The "that" should have been a "what." So sue me.
>
> > > > . . . I also know
> > > > that it isn't comparable to warhead sepearation, since warhead
> > > > seperation is also from some type of payload vehicle. So the
> > > > insertion of the payloads into some useful orbit isn't all that
> > > > different except in the actual orbits themselves.
> > >
> > > Well, not really. warheads don't orbit per se. But one of the
> > > main differences here is that warhead separation must be _very_
> > > accurate, as you only get one chance, and no control for the most
> > > part post-separation. OTOH, for satellite insertion, most
> > > satellites have on-board thrusters or boost motors to put them
> > > in the actual orbits desired. This is done over a long period
> > > of time, and usually involves ground control and feedback
> > > from externally derived orbit determination.
> >
> > Guidance covers the entire flight regime from lift-off to deliver
> > of whatever payload in whatever desired orbit. Warheads are not
> > inserted into an orbit; the delivery vehicle, sometimes called
> > reeentry system, is what is paced in orbit. . . .
>
> No. You miss the salient point. Warheads are placed in single-pass
> sub-orbital trajectories.
Sorry, but the warheads are not placed in even sub-orbit. What is palced up
there is a platform that contains the warhead(s), as well as whatever guidance
is necessary to command the platform to release the warhead when it's in the
correct spot to achieve the correct entry to stike the target.
>
> > . . . The RS used in Minuteman has some limited manuverability
> > in the vertical direction; it's designed to go lower in orbit to
> > release the warhead at the proper location.
>
> Huh?
MM III is a MIRV (or was). The RS has the ability to lower it's "orbit" and
release a warhead, then climb back to the correct "orbit." We're not talking a
major orbital change here.
>
> > On satellites, the on-board thrusters are worthless if the payload isn't
> > placed in the proper INTIAL orbit.
>
> Nope. The only _big_ problem is if the proper altitude is not reached.
It isn't just altitude. Guidnace also supplies a little "lateral" corretion.
> Two of the Long March launchers failed to put their paylod into the
> proper orbit because the third state motors quit too soon, so that
> the proper GTO orbit was not achieved, and the patload was left way
> too low to be useful. But this doesn't have much to do with guidance.
> The reason the third stage motors cut out was apparently overpressure,
> IIRC.
We were talking general issues, and now we're back to talking about a single
bird type. Why the above example of thrust probnlems is used in response to a
general statement covering guidance is strange. Almost disingenuous.
>
> > Failure to achive a desired orbit, for either military or civilian usage,
> > is disasterous.
>
> You have to miss by a mile for sateliites. For ICBMs, missing by inches
> early on will lead to real bad CEPs. (I'm using miles and inches
> figuratively here).
So why use them? Could it be to exaggerate? To overemphasize the differences?
And what was your point?
>
> > > . . . This is _another_
> > > way in which _guidance_ is quite different. Warheads must rely
> > > on internal precision, and be spot on the first time. . . .
> >
> > Warheads have no guidance.
>
> Sorry, I was not being accurate.
Really?
> What I meant was strategic
> payload delivery vehicles, ICBMs. But I think we both knew
> what I was talking about.
Oh. I'm supposed to read into what you write? Care to provide the same
curtesy? Didn't think so....
>
> > > . . . Satellites
> > > can be positioned using external guidance, and they have many,
> > > many orbits to get to where they are supposed to go. They can
> > > compensate far better for initial inaccuracies.
> >
> > Than why have there been satellite failures?
>
> Blowing up on the pad. Wind shear and structural failure. Failure
> of the shroud/nosecone. Power loss to one of the guidance modules.
> Excessive accelerations. Motor ignition failures. Premature
> motor termination. All kinds of things.
Some of which could be guidance realted.
> And similarly for U.S./E.S.A.
> failures. I know of _no_ Chinese satellite failure attributable to
> inaccuracies in the guidiance system. Do you? Provide documentation
> or references if so.
I doubt that China would be all that forthcoming. But I only asked a general
question about satellite failures, nothing specific about China.
>
> > . . . Why have satlellites failed to
> > reach their proper orbits? From your above arguement, this can't occur.
>
> Covered above. Generally such failures have been due to major
> failures of some launch vehicle component, and not to inaccuracies
> of the guidance system.
Ah, "generally." You're pretty good at those caveats.
>
> > > > > And see what I said about Chinese technology
> > > > > on multiple satellite insertion. I quoted you the numbers. Same for
> > > > > guidance technology.
> > > >
> > > > Then do the work and dig 'em up or provide a reference. I'm going to
> > > > hazard a guess that you're looking at an individual tree, and ignoring
> > > > that the forrest is made of of a lot of similar trees.
> > >
> > > Nope. I gave the numbers for prior multiple payload launches of
> > > satellites on CZ series launchers in the earlier post on this thread.
> > > Contrary to SOFTWAR's assertion and that of Rohrabacher earlier,
> > > the Chinese had done multiple payload launches successfully prior
> > > to the Motorola waiver, and in fact had done so during the Bush
> > > administration. In fact they had done a prior launch of two
> > > Iridium mass-simulators all by themselves, IIRC. To accuse Motorola
> > > of handing them "bus" technology for MIRVing ICBMs is simply untrue
> > > on the facts (as well as technically irrelevant because of the
> > > different requirements of warhead release versus satellite
> > > release).
> >
> > This doesn't say squat about any improvements to technology that may
> > have been provided by Motorola, accidently or not.
>
> Neither did you. Lacking any such specifics, why don't we say that
> nothing like that happened.
You may say anything you like. Since "we" don't agree, "we" better not say
anything, right?
>
> I did find a paper by an Air Force person that claimed that the
> technology for the Motorola Iridium satellite dispeners and that
> for MIRV technology was very similar, but his piece contained no
> details on why he came to this conclusion.
Gee, both spit out a package at a designated point in their orbits. You're
right; can't possibly be any connection there.
> The Chinese _did_
> develop a special third stage for the CZ-2C/SD vehicle to be
> used for the Iridium launches, but I don't know much about
> what Motorola did in this. AFAIK, they speced the SD stage,
> but I don't think they helped design it; I believe it was done
> by the CALT groupp in China. This SF motor is used to put the
> SD into a circular orbit at the apoge of the initial elliptical
> parking orbit achieved by the first two stages of the CZ-2C.
> Whether such technology is useful for MIRVing is dubious in
> my mind.
Good for your mind, and you! Like that means anything.
> MIRV RFV
I'm not familair with the acronym RFV.
> busses must make a number of smaller
> corrections to trajectory between releases, and the motors
> that do this may need to be restarted each time.
Look at your "Huh?" comment above, and my response.
> The SF
> motor in the SD stage is simply used to achieve a circular
> orbit, and, needless to say, can't be restarted. There may
> be more to this that I know about, but I don't see much here
> of real concern. As I said before, satellites need to be
> placed in fairly precise orbits, but they have all the time in
> world to do that, something a MIRVed ICBM does not.
>
> Not to mention that the Chinese, as I said before, had already
> put up three launches with multiple satellites long before
> Motorola came on the scene.
But Motorola may have a btter way to release mutliple sats thatn China
posseses, and it amy also be supoerior to the ir MIRV capabilities. Since we
don't know the state of China's MIRV systems, we don't know.
>
> > > > > > and strap-on boosters, the technologies are quite similar.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ummm, no strap-on boosters for the CZ-3, AFAIK.
>
> Let me amend that. _LF_ Strap-on boosters are used for the CZ-2E,
> CZ-3B, and CZ-3C launchers. But these aren't being used for
> Motorola launches. No ICMB, to my knowledge, is using strap-on
> boosters.
I'll take your word for it. ICBMs don't use 'em, either.
>
> > > > The article didn't reference a particular missile in the illustration.
> > > > It's purpose was that there are similarities between civilian and
> > > > military technology usage.
> > >
> > > There are some, but the question here is whether anything that the
> > > U.S. has provided WRT space launch technology has been applicable
> > > to the Chinese strategic missile fleet. My considered opinion,
> > > on the facts as I know them, is no. . . . But feel free to provide
> > > any examples you can find that would refute this conclusion.
> >
> > Since China won't open it's miltiary missile technology status to
> > the west, your considered opinions are as "accurate" as mine. . . .
>
> We don't have to know what they _are_ using. All we have to knwo is
> what we might have provided them, and look to see of what use it
> _could_ be to strategic missiles.
Which require knowing what they _are_ using to see if it constitutes an
inprovement.
> Which I did. And rendered my opinion on.
And that's all it is: opinion. And worth it.
>
> > . . . And since it takes time
> > for technology to work its way into actual hardware, we'll have to
> > wait and see.
>
> Well, FYI, the Chinese are working on SF missiles for their ICBM
> fleet. I'm not sure that anything we have given them is of much
> helkp there.
So why the hell are we having this duiscussion? You don't know, you're not
sure, generally, probably, all these add up to guess work and opinion, which
isn't any better than mine.
> But feel free to bring something up if you know of
> anything.
What, the same I don't know, I'm not sure, generally, and probably that you're
working with? I've already done that, and in complete honesty.
> Lacking such specifics, I will assume that the
> speculation is groundless. . . .
Now I'M ROTFLMAO!
>
> > > > > > . . . For these areas,
> > > > > > space launch vehicle technology might be adequate for ballistic
> > > > > > missile usage, and "must be examined on a case by case basis."
> > > > >
> > > > > Go for it. . . .
> > > >
> > > > That's the CIA talking. Better call them.
> > >
> > > The CIA was full of it when they showed a picture of a Chinese
> > > LF rocket exhaust nozzle, and tried to compare it with the
> > > exhaust nozzle of a U.S. SF ICBM. Yes, they're both big and
> > > conical, with a hole in the middle. Whoopdedoo. They totally shot
> > > their credibility there. Sounds like they were engaging in a
> > > little snow job on the technologically naive. . . .
> >
> > What, Aviation Weekly is now the technically naive?
>
> No. The article I referred to was in the newspapers, and was about
> stuff that the CIA had presented to Congress, who are by and large
> technically naive (see, e.g., my Rohrabacher post).
And you responded to my article that included a CIA reference. Your comment
was ambiguous.
>
> > > . . . If someone could
> > > give me a _specific_ from their testimony which indicates that
> > > there was any significant transfer, I would reconsider. But
> > > what I saw was underwhelming.
> >
> > What is significant? A slight improvement in guidance can result in
> > reductions in CEP. . . .
>
> And, as I said previously, the tolerances for ICBMs are _already_
> a whole lot narrower than those required for satellite insertion.
> For the reasons I have stated.
What is significant? It's relative to current capabilities. The above is a
non- answer.
>
> > . . . Improvements in rocket motor tecnology, thrust
> > termination, etc. can result in the same reductions.
>
> And have we helped them with this? Be specific.
Why? I've always been discussing this in general terms.
>
> > You're asking for me someone to predict what usage China may find
> > for western technology. I have to wait until the technology is
> > implemented, and in the case of China also demonstrated, to decide
> > whether US influence made it to China's hardware.
>
> No.
Yes.
> You have to look at the technology under consideration, and
> decide what use it _could_ be.
But could be is based on knowing the current state of their technology,
something you siad was unnecessary above. Make up your mind.
> Something you seem incapable of.
Right.
> But something that, AFAIK, the U.S. _did_ do WRT satelliite export
> waivers. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.
>
> > > > > > In the areas of staging mechanisms, air frame, motor cases &
> > > > > > insulation, engines/motors, thrust vector control and ehaust
> > > > > > nozzels, the space lauch vehicle and ICBM are generally identical.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope.
> > > >
> > > > Yep.
> > >
> > > See below.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Why don't you dispute my points?
What, "Nope" and "See above" are points?
> You certainly haven't made any worth while arguing.
I'll let you provide the correct translation.
>
> > > > > To begin with, fuel requirements for ICBMs are quite different
> > > > > from those for launch vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > Intersting. The one thing not mentioned in the list above.
> > >
> > > And a _major_ difference. ICBMs have to be fuelled at all times,
> > > and the fuel must be stable and non-volative. Cryogenics are
> > > _not_ used for ICBMs, therefore (it requires quite a plant to
> > > keep such things topped off). Cryogenics _are_ used for
> > > commercial launches, because of the better performance characteristics
> > > of these fuels. Because these vehicles can be fuelled right before
> > > launch, such cryogenics are practical for this. Other unstable
> > > fuels may also be used; you don't have to worry about decomposition
> > > over time (and under adverse temperature conditions).
> > >
> > > And the fuel used makes a hell of a lot of difference in the
> > > overall ehicle design, influencing motor and pump design, nozzle
> > > geometry, insulation requirements, etc., etc. . . .
> >
> > This ignores the simple fact that technology improvements can help in
> > both soild fuel and liquid fuel birds.
>
> Yes, but you're getting distracted here. What have _we_ done that
> has improved the Chinese missile fleet.
Nothing. We're not in that business. What has China done? What have they told
us?
> What have we done that could
> _possibly_ have improved the Chinese missile fleet?
Won a contract to improve their birds? What a silly question.
>
> > > It also changes the stress limits on the vehicle itself. You
> > > don't want to make a launch vehicle stronger than needed (it's
> > > added weight), but you want to make it strong enough to withstand
> > > launch stresses.
> > >
> > > And you will find in the evolution of the CZ series launch vehicles,
> > > from the original CZ-1 derived from the CSS-3, to the CZ-4, a
> > > continuous change in the size, fuels, motors, etc. . . .
> >
> > And there have no improvements in the CSS series?
>
> Yes. They have swithced to storable propellants, and more lately,
> to SF development. But the mainstay of the Chinese ICBM fleet
> is some 20 or so DF-5s, a bird first flown in 1971, and made operational
> in 1981. Since they developed a viable large-diameter SF motor, they
> have ceased all LF development. And the CZ series is _still_ LF.
What about the CSS-X-4?
>
> > > > > Some of the CZ series have cryogenic upper stages.
> > > >
> > > > And some don't?
> > >
> > > Yes. No Chinese ballistic missile has any cryogenic stages,
> > > AFAIK. . .
> >
> > ?
>
> They're _different_. OK? *sheesh*
Hey, YOU'RE the stickler for details!
>
> > > > > And the fuel _makes_ the motor, WRT thrust, pressure,
> > > > > temperature, insulation, fuel pumps, etc.
> > > >
> > > > No one said there isn't a paytload difference between commercial and
> > > > military applications. Big deal.
> > >
> > > They're completely different vehicles.
> >
> > Utilizing similar technology in both.
>
> Yes, you're right. Both utilize rocket motors. OK? Are you happy?
You are getting humorous. Thanks.
>
> > > > However, the technology and equipment required to make the staging
> > > > mechanisms, air frame, motor cases & insulation, engines/motors,
> > > > thrust vector control and exhaust nozzels STILL remains identical
> > > > in many areas.
> > >
> > > Try putting a Ford valve block on a Chevy. . . .
> >
> > For crying out loud, Ford DESIGNED their valve block for EXCLUSIVE use
> > in its engines. Cevy did the same thing.
>
> If it makes a difference in operational characteristics, yes.
>
> > Would a relatively poor country like China make this decision? Nope.
>
> Yep. They have switched to SF for their ballistic missile program.
One SINGLE aspect. Nice job!
> Now you're talking the equivalent of puttting your Ford spark plugs
> into your Chevy diesel Suburban.
No, I'm not. Sorry.
>
> > > > THAT was the thrust of the article. For example, if you acquire
> > > > an improved way of making motor casings for the civilan application,
> > > > this same improvement can be used in the military application. And
> > > > vice versa.
> > >
> > > And we didn't help them with any of this.
> >
> > Since China isn't open about its military technology, you don't
> > know this.
>
> *sheesh* We _could also_ speculate that Clinton has turned over
> the launch codes to U.S. missiles to the Chinese, given them the
> plans to the MX warheads, and agreed to sing the Chinese national
> anthem at ball games. But: Lacking any _evidence_ that this has
> occurred, it ain't worth discussing. . . .
So why bring it up? We were talking about technology that might be in the
possession of Motorola, or even other aerospace companies, that would be
useful to China. But flail away...
Besides, launch codes wouldn't do China any good, the plans to the MX (that's
funny, it's been Peacekeeper for years now...) warhead wouldn't do them any
good (except improve their desing capability), and who cares about baseball?
>
> > > If you disagree, post your
> > > evidence. If you say we gave them money, sure, but we give them
> > > money for any number of things. Money is fungible. Money for
> > > space launches is just as green (or maroon, as the PRC 1 yuan note is)
> > > as money for cheap shoes.
> >
> > And money wasn't emtioned, except by you.
>
> AFAIK, the only way that we could have helped them in what we are accused
> of helping them with (i.e. improving ICBM guidance) is in such
> indirect ways as paying them money for launches, thus giving them
> money to be used for missile research, if that is what they choose
> to do with it. . . .
Read what you wrote: If you say we gave them money...
I said no such thing. Maybe you should remember your own complaint from above.
>
> > > > > . . . The CZ series motors have
> > > > > been changed many times since the divergence from the CSS-3 progenitor.
> > > >
> > > > And the CSS-3 hasn't? You want everyone to beleive that, in spite of the
> > > > basic hardware similarities between the two civilian and military usage,
> > > > that improvements in the civilian versions resulted in no improvements in
> > > > the military version? And had no effect in the development of the CSS-X-4?
> > > > Is China that inefficient? Did we build Peacekeeper only on Minuteman
> > > > technology?
> > >
> > > I have my own views on some aspects of Chinese "efficiency", but that's
> > > another story. But I don't believe that our trade has made much,
> > > if any, difference on the military vehicles.
> >
> > Ah, you don't know. Thank you.
>
> You don't fr***ing know a goldarn thing here!
Aw, embarrased about spelling fricking? Why not star out goldarn? Shocking!
> You provide no evidence,
> despite repeated requests for such. You provide no reasoning, no logic
> for your assertions that we have helped them.
I haven't asserted we HAVE helped them. I've always presented everything as
possibilites.
>
> I point out that what we know we have given them is not at all alarming.
That is the WH assertion.
> I point out that there is no evidence for the claimed technology transfer,
> or even of any such improvement in Chinese ballistic missile technology
> at all.
That is the WH assertion.
> And you keep coming back with "we can't know what they have
> done to their forces"? Yes, we _can_ know. And there is no evidence
> there! OK?
When you stop dealing in caveats, then maybe you can make the above claim.
>
> > > The company that
> > > makes the military vehicles tried to make a commercial space launcher
> > > a while back; this variant seems to have been pretty much shelved,
> > > IIRC. . .
> >
> > Which means...?
>
> They didn't know WTF they were doing, or that this particular bird wasn't
> very good for commercial purposes.
Well, they certainly don't need any US technology, huh?
>
> > > > > > Looks to me that if we help their space launch system, we help their
> > > > > > ICBM system. . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > We didn't _help_ their space launch system in any significant way, and
> > > > > the payoff for ICBM technology is probably less yet.
> > > >
> > > > "Significant?" "Probable?"
> > >
> > > Yep. Hell, if we give them angled toothbrushes so that their scientists
> > > have better dental hygiene and come to work happier, that probably
> > > also affects their capabilities. You have to draw a _practical_ line.
> > > I see no reason to believe that Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did not do
> > > so. . . .
> >
> > Good for you. Since we've established that we're both speaking
> > hypotheticals, have at it.
>
> 4Q azo. Translate that.
Add some stars, it might help.
> I'm being as specific as possible.
Still, a caveat.
> You
> simply speculate wildly, but offer no facts, no _real_ information.
I provided the AW article. I speak with 15 years working experience with
Minuteman.
> I could speculate that you are an axe-murdering pederast, to equal
> end effect.
I'd rather you not mentoin pederast and end in the same sentence. But since my
sexual experinces have nothing to do with technology, I would hazard your
speculation is probably a veiled proposition, and I"m not your type.
> And you see, I have no information to the contrary, so
> that's perfectly permissible, right?
That would depend on the discussion, and it's direction, wouldn't it?
>
> > > > Advancse in accuracy, i.e., guidance and control, greatly enhances a
> > > > systems ability to deliver a payload to some "location." . . .
> > >
> > > See comments above WRT satellite versus ICBM guidance. The
> > > fundamental _means_ are different.
> >
> > Bullshit. You launch, you orbit, you seperate. Difference in flight
> > profiles are really meaningless; they can be handled and addressed by
> > software.
>
> You _still_ seem to miss the _fundamental_ difference in satellite
> positioning compared to warhead positioning. It has to do with _time_.
> You have all the time in the world for satellites. It may take _weeks_
> to put a satellite into a new position.
So what? If you can't get it where you need it, it won't do you any good no
matter if you have eternity.
>
> > > > . . . In terms of
> > > > civilian usage, it equates to getting a payload to the correct orbit
> > > > (there may be some reentry considerations, but we'll asume a satellite).
> > > > In military weapon usage, it also equates to getting a payload to the
> > > > correct orbit so the deliviery system, or reentry system, can deliver
> > > > the warhead to the desired location. Advances in military guidance and
> > > > accuarcy, the ability to come within some acceptable CEP, greatly
> > > > enhances any weapon system. It allows for reducing the size of the
> > > > warheads needed to destroy a target, which can then allow for MIRV
> > > > capability with very little change to the boost part of the missile.
> > >
> > > Folderol. The requirements for ICBM accuracy are _already_ far greater
> > > than those required for commercial launches.
> >
> > Getting a payload to the proper orbit is critical in both cases.
>
> Nope. You can correct for many inaccuracies in satellite placement.
Only to a point.
> The only thing of real importance is velocity and general direction.
gee, guidnace issues again. Funny how they creep up...
> All the rest can be compensated for over time.
Not ALL the rest.
>
> > Try launching a missile with a geostationary satellite payload in any old
> > direction, and see where it gets you.
>
> You need to send it in the right direction, but not with absolute accuracy
> the first pass.
So let's fire a few birds off due north, and see what happens. Hell, let's
just send them off in any old direction. We have all the time and fuel in the
world!
>
> > > > All that by increasing the accuracy/guidance. I would consider this
> > > > significant, if it occured.
> > >
> > > Give me even a semi-plausible scenario as to how it did. . . .
> >
> > Again, since China is not open about its military capabilites, this can
> > not be addressed.
>
> I didn't ask you how it _did_ occur. I asked you how it possibly
> _could_ have occurred.
You're the one adverse to any speculation. But simple improvements in gyros,
IMUs, software algorithms, digital signal processing, memory storage, and some
others I could dig up would benifit both military and civilian birds.
>But that is seemingly beyond you.
To quote you: 4Q azo.
>
> > But that wasn't my intention.
>
> Indeed. You seem to be completely oblivious to any request to
> back up your speculative hypotheticals.
With what does one back up speculative hypotheticals? Hypothetical facts?
Specualtive truths?
>
> > > > > > . . . Anyone forget that up until the Saturn launch vehicle, all US
> > > > > > astronauts went up in "modified" ICBMs?
> > > > >
> > > > > For some twenty years, our workhorse SLBMs and ICBMs have _all_ been
> > > > > solid-fueled (and you probably remember what happened to one of our
> > > > > ancient LF ICBMs a while back, resulting in their complete
> > > > > decommission).
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I know a lot of history. That the US pursues independent
> > > > technologies for its commercial and miliatry LVs is rather unique
> > > > to the US. We can do this because of our wealth. In less wealthier
> > > > countries, it makes sense to duplicate both civilian and military
> > > > technology: it saves money.
> > >
> > > But we already have evidence of the _divergence_ of the _Chinese_
> > > commercial launch vehicles from their military forebearers. And for
> > > good reasons; the same reasons it happened here.
> >
> > Exactly. Now, convince us all that the technology used in the civilian
> > sector is completely divorced from the military. It sure isn't in this
> > country, or any where else in the world.
>
> No. But you have to show that this is of significance to the
> question under discussion: Did we help their ballistic missile
> program in any way?
Rephrase the question: Did any US technology make it to the military side on
missiles? We won't know for years.
>
> [snip off-topic discussion of ancient U.S. ballistic missile technology]
>
> > > > > Our space launch vehicles are _still_ primarily LF machines (albeit
> > > > > with some SF adjuncts).
> > > >
> > > > You ignore that we're discussing China's capabilities, not ours.
> > >
> > > I was pointing out the different requirements of ICBM technology and
> > > space launch technology. Something that applies to the Chinese
> > > just as much as us, and which is why the Chinese are developing SF
> > > ballistic missiles.
> >
> > Fine. Ignore dual use of technology. See if I care.
>
> Show that the dual-usage potential is significant.
As I said above, significant is a relative term. For example, the
introduction of the Ginzu knife would hardly be considered a significant
technological revolution in this country. But to a group using flint knives,
it would be very significant.
> Show that they _didn't_
> use those angled toothbrushed we sent them for manufacture of insulating
> plastic gaskets in their guidance systems instead of brushing their
> teeth with them.
Sorry, I don't prove negatives.
> Go on, prove it, or we'd better get the DoD involved in
> dental hygiene exports as well to check for dual-use. . . .
Since the DoD isn't involved in dental hygiene, except in that the individual
military services probably would like to keep their costs down, I doubt they
would care. Give it to the Surgeon General, if we ever get one...
Karl A
zu...@ix.netcom.com
kaue...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <70bn3r$rg9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > In article <auerbach-ya0240800...@news.aros.net>,
> > auer...@aros.net (Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)) wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <706ani$lt8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <auerbach-ya0240800...@news.aros.net>,
> > > > auer...@aros.net (Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)) wrote:
> > > > > In article <705dmm$cqa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <auerbach-ya0240800...@news.aros.net>,
> > > > > > auer...@aros.net (Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)) wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <703nr9$865$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
[snip]
> > > Well, since China isn't all that open about what's on its military
> > > missiles, and probably wouldn't be if they were upgrading, then neither
> > > one of us knows for sure.
> >
> > I was asking if you knew of any cases where they didn't look at the
> > applicability of any hardware before granting an export license.
> > Do you? Or are we just going to speculate like hell from here on
> > to the bottom of the article, and then call for Clinton's head for
> > treason based on these wild-assed speculations?
>
> This is getting tedious. Your entire arguement seems to be based on "Hey, no
> evidence? Didn't happen." . . .
Your entire argument seems to be based on "no evidence, mighta, coulda,
_did_ happen". . . .
> . . . The purpose of the Aviation Weekly article was to
> point out that there IS dual useage of some technology on civilian and
> military birds. I merely pointed that out in reponse to your insistence that
> there is no dual usage on a single comparison of two China birds.
I went and looked for the AWST article. Couldn't find it in their archives.
Do you have a copy?
But that there might be some dual-use does nothing to establish that such
was in any way significant to the specific topic at issue: U.S. transfer
of technology to the Chinese.
> And bashing Clinton was not something I brought up. In fact, to this point,
> you and I haven't discussed this at all. . . .
But pretty much everyone _else_ here that brings up this stuff is
clamouring for hanging Clinton for treason, or something like that.
Do you think this innuendo would keep getting such airplay if it
wasn't a possible way of bringing down Clinton?
> . . . Furthermore, since I know it serves
> no purpose to the technical discussion, I won't touch it except for this
> paragraph. I'll you dwell on why you chose to mention it.
It explains the constant reoccurrence of these rumours, baseless
allegations, and grotesque twists of the facts, despite the absence
of any evidence for the evils charged. If the only reason this stuff
is being bandied about is because it might hurt Clinton, I assume you
will take this into account in evaluating the credibility of the
"evidence" and the sources.
> > > > > Besides, the possible applicability, according to the article, is
based
> > > > > in the similarities between reentry systems, and return capsule
> > > > > technology. Does Motorola or Asiasat vehiciles incorporate this?
> > > > > Beats me.
> > > >
> > > > Ummm, hate to tell you this, but the Motorola and Asiasat _satellites_
> > > > are supposed to _stay_ up there. They are not supposed to reenter.
> > > > OK?
> > >
> > > WOW! What an amazing discovery!
> >
> > Which, of course, is why you didn't see my point the first time. ;-)
>
> On the contrary, I saw through your stupid point and recognized that you
> chose to limit your response to that one area.
I _never_ "choose to limit my response". Bad habit of mine. ;-)
What I was trying to point out was the apparent irrelevance, inaccuracy,
or inapplicability of the article. When they are talking about similarities
of re-entry systems, they sure aren't talking about commonality between
Iridium satellites and ICBM payloads.
Your question (from above):
. . . the possible applicability, according to the article, is
based in the similarities between reentry systems, and return
capsule technology. Does Motorola or Asiasat vehiciles incorporate
this? Beats me.
shows that you _were_ clueless about this point. Be a gentleman and
admit it. That isn't satire. That's cluelessness.
> I'll say it again: the Aviation Weekly article, which you STILL haven't read
> (more on that later), was a general discussion covering a range of
> capabilities. Why you can't see that simple point is baffeling.
Post the URL, and I'll read it. Or quote from it. Either is fine.
> > > Now, want to explain why you chose to focus on just this one aspect
> > > of the list provided? . . .
> >
> > Sure. It is a cinch to show that the article was _not_ looking at
> > the specific technology at issue in the present discussion, and thus
> > is somewhat inapplicable if not completely off-point.
>
> Not really. Your insistence that no proof means nothing happened is
> ludicrous. If China were utilizing technology unknowlingly acquired
> from the US, it wouldn't be in the advertising market about it, if for
> no other reason than to avoid killing the goose, as it were.
I note that this "reply" is unresponsive to my point.
[snip sniping]
> > BTW, _what_ "straw man"?
>
> This one: hey, there isn't a returnable system on Motorola/Asiasat,
> therefore discount the AW article; there was no tech transfer!
It's not a straw man. It shows that the article is not entirely
applicable. Post the parts _you_ think _are_ relevant (after my
little "correction" of your first offering). Their language
would be more persuasive than yours, as you seem to not be as
knowledgeable on this as they.
> > > . . . You completely ignore what other aspects of Motorola/Asiasat
> > > technology could be used for military missiles.
> >
> > Ummm, and what would _those_ be? Out with it, so we may discuss them.
>
> Hey, I'M not in the business of stealing technology. I don't know what
> technology China needs, so I don't know what they might be interestedin.
> Do you?
I note that once again this is unresponsive to my request. It sounds
more like an implicit admission of cluelessnes. Not very persuasive.
> > > > Now, given that, is it starting to dawn on you that any claims
> > > > that this technology is readily adaptable from commercial satellites
> > > > to warheads is pure tripe? It really doesn't take a rocket scientist
> > > > to figure _this_ out. . . .
> > >
> > > Minuteman is currently going trhough an upgrade of its guidance system
> > > and propulsion system. do you want to make the claim that no civilian
> > > technoilogy improvements in those areas over the past 25 years are not
> > > being incorporated into the mods? It doesn't take an idiot to figure
> > > _this_ out...
[snip sniping]
> > I never made such a claim.
>
> Which is why I wrote: do you want to make the claim... See the difference?
> Comprehension problems?
Yes, I do. Talking about "straw men", you're setting une up here to
knock down. No thnaks; I won't play that game.
> > But I would note that the Chinese have
> > cancelled development of the DF-6 (as well as a few of the other
> > LF ballistic missiles, and are concentrating on development of their
> > SF ballistic missiles. They probably aren't doing a whole lot of work
> > on the DF-5 fleet (which is quite small as it is), and they probably
> > wouldn't bother with major upgrades, given that they would probably
> > have to waste a missile or two in testing.
>
> A lot of "probably"s up there. Not sure what point you want to make
> based on probablys that is any more sound than mine. But that won't
> stop you...
Those "probablys" are based on reports from a couple of different sourecs,
and on common sense. The absence of testing is a verifiable fact.
AFAIK, they haven't flown a DF-5 in quite a while.
> > But even if they did,
> > this is a far cry from establishing that they did such a thing as
> > a result of our satellite launches on their commercial launch
> > vehicles.
>
> Gee, I'm not trying to establish anything. I'm simply pointing out
> potentials, "probablys", if you will. Works for you, works for me!
You are potentially an axe-murdering pederast. I have no evidence
to the contrary, and it is quite within your capabilities. Would it
make sense for me to treat you as such, based on that "potentiality"?
[snip]
> > But, on the off chance that it will do some good:
> >
> > Check out the Rohrabacher
> > post reply I did:
> >
> > Rohrapacher shows himself to be an idiot and "Red-scare" foamer. . . .
> >
> > Author: zuch
> > Email: zu...@ix.netcom.com
> > Date: 1998/08/12
> > Forums: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
> > Message-ID: <6qqra5$2su$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
> And you have the Aviation Weekly reference. Let me know when you've read it.
Post it. I can't find it on the Web archives.
[snip sniping]
> > > > > . . . I also know
> > > > > that it isn't comparable to warhead sepearation, since warhead
> > > > > seperation is also from some type of payload vehicle. So the
> > > > > insertion of the payloads into some useful orbit isn't all that
> > > > > different except in the actual orbits themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Well, not really. warheads don't orbit per se. But one of the
> > > > main differences here is that warhead separation must be _very_
> > > > accurate, as you only get one chance, and no control for the most
> > > > part post-separation. OTOH, for satellite insertion, most
> > > > satellites have on-board thrusters or boost motors to put them
> > > > in the actual orbits desired. This is done over a long period
> > > > of time, and usually involves ground control and feedback
> > > > from externally derived orbit determination.
> > >
> > > Guidance covers the entire flight regime from lift-off to deliver
> > > of whatever payload in whatever desired orbit. Warheads are not
> > > inserted into an orbit; the delivery vehicle, sometimes called
> > > reeentry system, is what is paced in orbit. . . .
> >
> > No. You miss the salient point. Warheads are placed in single-pass
> > sub-orbital trajectories.
>
> Sorry, but the warheads are not placed in even sub-orbit. . . .
Yes, they are. Release of warheads from the bus occurs early in the
post-boost flight.
> . . . What is palced up
> there is a platform that contains the warhead(s), as well as whatever
> guidance is necessary to command the platform to release the warhead
> when it's in the correct spot to achieve the correct entry to stike
> the target.
Ummm, you seem to be confused here and below. I'll comment below.
> > > . . . The RS used in Minuteman has some limited manuverability
> > > in the vertical direction; it's designed to go lower in orbit to
> > > release the warhead at the proper location.
> >
> > Huh?
>
> MM III is a MIRV (or was). The RS has the ability to lower it's
> "orbit" and release a warhead, then climb back to the correct "orbit."
> We're not talking a major orbital change here.
Nope. You seem to have the idea that the release bus is swooping over
targets, dipping down to drop a warhead like some kind of dive-bomber,
and then swooping back up to its next target. <*BZZZT*> Wrong.
Absolutely wrong. The trajectory of the entire bird is a sub-orbital
trajectory (orbital trajectoriews were proposed for the FOBS, but
few people think that FOBS is anything real useful). The early
trajectory is changed slightly betwen release. These _slight_
changes result in a considerable spread (but not unlimited spread)
of the reentry point at the far end of the trajectory. But over
most of the flight regime, the warheads travel in ballistic trajectories.
The _early_ release of the warheads is needed to achieve maximum
spread of the individual warheads.
> > > On satellites, the on-board thrusters are worthless if the payload isn't
> > > placed in the proper INTIAL orbit.
> >
> > Nope. The only _big_ problem is if the proper altitude is not reached.
>
> It isn't just altitude. Guidnace also supplies a little "lateral" corretion.
Agreed, lateral correction ability is limited, but over time a fair bit
can be done in this respect. Consider for a moment that many geosych
satellites are actually launched from well off the equator. As you
may know, satellites at higher altitudes move slower. As such, smaller
changes in velocity at these altitudes will have the same effect on
direction as much larger changes in velocity at lower altitudes, But
F = ma, as they say. Given a certain amount of thrust, you get the
same _acceleration_ regardless of where you are. The main problem
is getting the bird _up_ there.
> > Two of the Long March launchers failed to put their paylod into the
> > proper orbit because the third state motors quit too soon, so that
> > the proper GTO orbit was not achieved, and the payload was left way
> > too low to be useful. But this doesn't have much to do with guidance.
> > The reason the third stage motors cut out was apparently overpressure,
> > IIRC.
>
> We were talking general issues, and now we're back to talking about a
> single bird type. Why the above example of thrust probnlems is used in
> response to a general statement covering guidance is strange. Almost
> disingenuous.
I'm just pointing out the _known_ failure modes for the Chinese launchers.
They had _nothing_ to do with guidance. As such we have good reason to
ebliev that the Chinese may not be _seeking_ our help for their guidance
problems, if any. But people here on the newsgroups keep insisting,
ignorantly, that we have been giving the Chinese "missile guidance
technology".
> > > Failure to achive a desired orbit, for either military or civilian usage,
> > > is disasterous.
> >
> > You have to miss by a mile for sateliites. For ICBMs, missing by inches
> > early on will lead to real bad CEPs. (I'm using miles and inches
> > figuratively here).
>
> So why use them? Could it be to exaggerate? To overemphasize the differences?
No. The difference is there. But until you understand the orbital
dynamics of satellites and ICBMs, and learn how MIRVed ICBMs are targeted,
I'm afraid this point will elude you. I believe that some old Scientific
American articles on arms control actually go through the mechanics of
MIRVing, and have some good diagrams that show you the bvasics of what
happens. That, and a little physics, would help you understand.
> And what was your point?
*sigh*
> > > > . . . This is _another_
> > > > way in which _guidance_ is quite different. [ICBMs] must rely
> > > > on internal precision, and be spot on the first time. Satellites
> > > > can be positioned using external guidance, and they have many,
> > > > many orbits to get to where they are supposed to go. They can
> > > > compensate far better for initial inaccuracies.
> > >
> > > Than why have there been satellite failures?
> >
> > Blowing up on the pad. Wind shear and structural failure. Failure
> > of the shroud/nosecone. Power loss to one of the guidance modules.
> > Excessive accelerations. Motor ignition failures. Premature
> > motor termination. All kinds of things.
>
> Some of which could be guidance realted.
I know of no Chinese launch failures due to guidance _system_ failures.
The one "guidance" failure was actually apparently a power loss to one
entire guidance system. AFAIK, actual guidance system failures in
commercial launches by _all_ countries are rare if not nonexistent.
But there are web pages devoted to cataloguing launches, so you
can go check it yourself.
> > And similarly for U.S./E.S.A.
> > failures. I know of _no_ Chinese satellite failure attributable to
> > inaccuracies in the guidiance system. Do you? Provide documentation
> > or references if so.
>
> I doubt that China would be all that forthcoming. But I only asked a
> general question about satellite failures, nothing specific about China.
The data are there to be had on the web. Go chek out the Federation of
American Scientists web page on the China space programs:
http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/china/index.html
Launch data are in:
http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/china/launch/index.html
Links to other, more complete, sources such as:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/1921/launch.htm
are there too.
Military birds can be found at:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/index.html
> >
> > > . . . Why have satlellites failed to
> > > reach their proper orbits? From your above arguement, this can't occur.
> >
> > Covered above. Generally such failures have been due to major
> > failures of some launch vehicle component, and not to inaccuracies
> > of the guidance system.
>
> Ah, "generally." You're pretty good at those caveats.
All right. For the specific case of the Chinese launches, the
above comment covers _all_ failures. The one entry in the third
URL above concerning :attitude control lost" is the incident
where power was lost to the guidance module.
[snip]
> > I did find a paper by an Air Force person that claimed that the
> > technology for the Motorola Iridium satellite dispeners and that
> > for MIRV technology was very similar, but his piece contained no
> > details on why he came to this conclusion.
>
> Gee, both spit out a package at a designated point in their orbits. You're
> right; can't possibly be any connection there.
Wrong. They do not. Satellite release have _far_ more latitude
as to where the release is made. For satellites, it is the orbit
that is important, and not the intersection of the trajectory
on the first pass with a certain target point.
> > The Chinese _did_
> > develop a special third stage for the CZ-2C/SD vehicle to be
> > used for the Iridium launches, but I don't know much about
> > what Motorola did in this. AFAIK, they speced the SD stage,
> > but I don't think they helped design it; I believe it was done
> > by the CALT groupp in China. This SF motor is used to put the
> > SD into a circular orbit at the apoge of the initial elliptical
> > parking orbit achieved by the first two stages of the CZ-2C.
> > Whether such technology is useful for MIRVing is dubious in
> > my mind. . . .
>
> Good for your mind, and you! Like that means anything.
To me it does. Unfortunately, for you it seems not to. *sigh*
Why am I bothering? Probably fot the lurkers here. . . .
> > . . . MIRV RFV . . .
>
> I'm not familair with the acronym RFV.
Typo. RV.
> > . . . busses must make a number of smaller
> > corrections to trajectory between releases, and the motors
> > that do this may need to be restarted each time. . . .
>
> Look at your "Huh?" comment above, and my response.
*sugh*
> > . . . The SF
> > motor in the SD stage is simply used to achieve a circular
> > orbit, and, needless to say, can't be restarted. There may
> > be more to this that I know about, but I don't see much here
> > of real concern. As I said before, satellites need to be
> > placed in fairly precise orbits, but they have all the time in
> > world to do that, something a MIRVed ICBM does not.
> >
> > Not to mention that the Chinese, as I said before, had already
> > put up three launches with multiple satellites long before
> > Motorola came on the scene.
>
> But Motorola may have a btter way to release mutliple sats thatn
> China posseses, and it amy also be supoerior to the ir MIRV
> capabilities. . . .
Please supply a plausible scenario as to how. Thanks. All I
ask for is plausible. Once you supply that, we can discuss if
this scenario is likely to have _actually_ occurred.
> . . . Since we don't know the state of China's MIRV
> systems, we don't know.
"Coulda, mighta, did" again. . . . I prefer to work from knowledge
rather than from ignorance. But suit yourself.
> > > > > > > and strap-on boosters, the technologies are quite similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ummm, no strap-on boosters for the CZ-3, AFAIK.
> >
> > Let me amend that. _LF_ Strap-on boosters are used for the CZ-2E,
> > CZ-3B, and CZ-3C launchers. But these aren't being used for
> > Motorola launches. No ICBM, to my knowledge, is using strap-on
> > boosters.
>
> I'll take your word for it. ICBMs don't use 'em, either.
So we agree that strap-on booster technology is not relevant here,
and is not a possible avenue of technology transfer to Chinese ICBM
capability. Thank you. Then why did you mention it?
> > > > > The article didn't reference a particular missile in the illustration.
> > > > > It's purpose was that there are similarities between civilian and
> > > > > military technology usage.
> > > >
> > > > There are some, but the question here is whether anything
> > > > that the U.S. has provided WRT space launch technology has
> > > > been applicable to the Chinese strategic missile fleet. My
> > > > considered opinion, on the facts as I know them, is no. . . .
> > > > But feel free to provide any examples you can find that would
> > > > refute this conclusion.
> > >
> > > Since China won't open it's miltiary missile technology status to
> > > the west, your considered opinions are as "accurate" as mine. . . .
> >
> > We don't have to know what they _are_ using. All we have to knwo is
> > what we might have provided them, and look to see of what use it
> > _could_ be to strategic missiles.
>
> Which require knowing what they _are_ using to see if it constitutes an
> inprovement.
>
> > Which I did. And rendered my opinion on.
>
> And that's all it is: opinion. And worth it.
I beg to disagree. You seem to be a few bricks short of a full load
in this area. My opinion here seems to be worth more than yours.
[snip]
> So why the hell are we having this duiscussion? You don't know, you're
> not sure, generally, probably, all these add up to guess work and
> opinion, which isn't any better than mine.
See above.
[snip further "discussion" along the same line]
> > > > . . . If someone could
> > > > give me a _specific_ from their testimony which indicates that
> > > > there was any significant transfer, I would reconsider. But
> > > > what I saw was underwhelming.
> > >
> > > What is significant? A slight improvement in guidance can result
> > > in reductions in CEP. . . .
> >
> > And, as I said previously, the tolerances for ICBMs are _already_
> > a whole lot narrower than those required for satellite insertion.
> > For the reasons I have stated.
>
> What is significant? It's relative to current capabilities. The above
> is a non- answer.
Only when you don't _understand_ the issues. If ICBMs already require
tolerances far above those required for commercial launches to be even
minimally useful, advances in commercial guidance technology is not
likely to be of any significance. And, as I stated before, orbital
placement for satellites and warhead is _fundamentally_ different.
One is ground based, and slow, the other is self-contained, and
must be done right immediately the first time.
> > > . . . Improvements in rocket motor tecnology, thrust
> > > termination, etc. can result in the same reductions.
> >
> > And have we helped them with this? Be specific.
>
> Why? I've always been discussing this in general terms.
Is "general" a euphemism for non-factual?
> > > You're asking for me someone to predict what usage China may find
> > > for western technology. I have to wait until the technology is
> > > implemented, and in the case of China also demonstrated, to decide
> > > whether US influence made it to China's hardware.
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes.
>
> > You have to look at the technology under consideration, and
> > decide what use it _could_ be.
>
> But could be is based on knowing the current state of their technology,
> something you siad was unnecessary above. Make up your mind.
The two are not incompatible. _Both_ must occur for there to be any
reason for concern. The technology must be useful _and_ the Chinese
must not already have it.
[snip]
> > > > > > > In the areas of staging mechanisms, air frame, motor cases &
> > > > > > > insulation, engines/motors, thrust vector control and ehaust
> > > > > > > nozzels, the space lauch vehicle and ICBM are generally identical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope.
[snip "yes, it is, no , it isn't" colloquy]
I've already pointed out that no ICBM has a cryogenic third stage.
What is your idea of "identical"? Is an apple "identical" to an orange
in your mind? Tell you what, just go look at the _pictures_ on the
web pages I gave you above. . . . Even if the technology escapes
you, you might be able to undersatnd a picture. *sheesh*
[snip more "coulda, mighta, did. . ."]
> > What have we done that could
> > _possibly_ have improved the Chinese missile fleet?
>
> Won a contract to improve their birds? What a silly question.
Where? When? Provide specifics.
> > > > It also changes the stress limits on the vehicle itself. You
> > > > don't want to make a launch vehicle stronger than needed (it's
> > > > added weight), but you want to make it strong enough to withstand
> > > > launch stresses.
> > > >
> > > > And you will find in the evolution of the CZ series launch vehicles,
> > > > from the original CZ-1 derived from the CSS-3, to the CZ-4, a
> > > > continuous change in the size, fuels, motors, etc. . . .
> > >
> > > And there have no improvements in the CSS series?
> >
> > Yes. They have swithced to storable propellants, and more lately,
> > to SF development. But the mainstay of the Chinese ICBM fleet
> > is some 20 or so DF-5s, a bird first flown in 1971, and made operational
> > in 1981. Since they developed a viable large-diameter SF motor, they
> > have ceased all LF development. And the CZ series is _still_ LF.
>
> What about the CSS-X-4?
Never heard of it. Any sources for this?
> > > > > > Some of the CZ series have cryogenic upper stages.
> > > > >
> > > > > And some don't?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. No Chinese ballistic missile has any cryogenic stages,
> > > > AFAIK. . .
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > They're _different_. OK? *sheesh*
>
> Hey, YOU'RE the stickler for details!
Facts _are_ important in my book.
[snip]
> > > > > However, the technology and equipment required to make the staging
> > > > > mechanisms, air frame, motor cases & insulation, engines/motors,
> > > > > thrust vector control and exhaust nozzels STILL remains identical
> > > > > in many areas.
> > > >
> > > > Try putting a Ford valve block on a Chevy. . . .
> > >
> > > For crying out loud, Ford DESIGNED their valve block for EXCLUSIVE use
> > > in its engines. Cevy did the same thing.
> >
> > If it makes a difference in operational characteristics, yes.
> >
> > > Would a relatively poor country like China make this decision? Nope.
> >
> > Yep. They have switched to SF for their ballistic missile program.
>
> One SINGLE aspect. Nice job!
That's just a start. You're the one that said they were identical.
So mow one is "diesel" and one is "gasoline". Think that _might_ make
a difference?
> > Now you're talking the equivalent of puttting your Ford spark plugs
> > into your Chevy diesel Suburban.
>
> No, I'm not. Sorry.
Yes, you are. See above.
> > > > > THAT was the thrust of the article. For example, if you acquire
> > > > > an improved way of making motor casings for the civilan application,
> > > > > this same improvement can be used in the military application. And
> > > > > vice versa.
> > > >
> > > > And we didn't help them with any of this.
> > >
> > > Since China isn't open about its military technology, you don't
> > > know this.
> >
> > *sheesh* We _could also_ speculate that Clinton has turned over
> > the launch codes to U.S. missiles to the Chinese, given them the
> > plans to the MX warheads, and agreed to sing the Chinese national
> > anthem at ball games. But: Lacking any _evidence_ that this has
> > occurred, it ain't worth discussing. . . .
>
> So why bring it up? We were talking about technology that might be in the
> possession of Motorola, or even other aerospace companies, that would be
> useful to China. But flail away...
>
> Besides, launch codes wouldn't do China any good, the plans to the MX
> (that's funny, it's been Peacekeeper for years now...) warhead wouldn't
> do them any good (except improve their desing capability), and who cares
> about baseball?
I guess you're immune to sarcasm. Obtuseness does that.
My point is that we can actually discuss specifics here, or we can
engage in your pie-in-the-sky hypothesizing in generalities.. I prefer
the former.
> > > > If you disagree, post your
> > > > evidence. If you say we gave them money, sure, but we give them
> > > > money for any number of things. Money is fungible. Money for
> > > > space launches is just as green (or maroon, as the PRC 1 yuan note is)
> > > > as money for cheap shoes.
> > >
> > > And money wasn't emtioned, except by you.
> >
> > AFAIK, the only way that we could have helped them in what we are accused
> > of helping them with (i.e. improving ICBM guidance) is in such
> > indirect ways as paying them money for launches, thus giving them
> > money to be used for missile research, if that is what they choose
> > to do with it. . . .
>
> Read what you wrote: If you say we gave them money...
>
> I said no such thing. Maybe you should remember your own complaint from
> above.
I'm responding not only to you, but to the other wackos here that
think we have helped the Chinese military. I put forth one argument
heard here: That by funding them in one respect, we have freed up
funds for increasing military preparedness, and that we have thus
helped, albeit indirectly, theri military in this manner (as if
that was treasonous). But, as I said, that is the only _plausible_
argument I have seen for the oft-repeated assertion that we have
sold or given them ICBM guidance technology.
[snip]
> I haven't asserted we HAVE helped them. I've always presented
> everything as possibilites.
And I have asserted that it is possible you are an axe-murdering
pederast. The police are on their way.
> > I point out that what we know we have given them is not at all
> > alarming.
>
> That is the WH assertion.
And mine. And that of many saner heads.
[snip repeated "argument"]
> > > > The company that
> > > > makes the military vehicles tried to make a commercial space launcher
> > > > a while back; this variant seems to have been pretty much shelved,
> > > > IIRC. . .
> > >
> > > Which means...?
> >
> > They didn't know WTF they were doing, or that this particular bird wasn't
> > very good for commercial purposes.
>
> Well, they certainly don't need any US technology, huh?
You're finally catching on.
[snip]
> > You
> > simply speculate wildly, but offer no facts, no _real_ information.
>
> I provided the AW article. I speak with 15 years working experience with
> Minuteman.
Ask for you money back. Were you sweeping the floor? See above WRT
warhead dispensing.
[snip]
> > You _still_ seem to miss the _fundamental_ difference in satellite
> > positioning compared to warhead positioning. It has to do with _time_.
> > You have all the time in the world for satellites. It may take _weeks_
> > to put a satellite into a new position.
>
> So what? If you can't get it where you need it, it won't do you any good
> no matter if you have eternity.
*sigh*
[snip]
> > The only thing of real importance is velocity and general direction.
>
> gee, guidnace issues again. Funny how they creep up...
>
> > All the rest can be compensated for over time.
>
> Not ALL the rest.
>
> > > Try launching a missile with a geostationary satellite payload in any old
> > > direction, and see where it gets you.
> >
> > You need to send it in the right direction, but not with absolute accuracy
> > the first pass.
>
> So let's fire a few birds off due north, and see what happens. Hell, let's
> just send them off in any old direction. We have all the time and fuel in the
> world!
See above. I _did_ say "general direction".
> > > > > All that by increasing the accuracy/guidance. I would consider this
> > > > > significant, if it occured.
> > > >
> > > > Give me even a semi-plausible scenario as to how it did. . . .
> > >
> > > Again, since China is not open about its military capabilites, this can
> > > not be addressed.
> >
> > I didn't ask you how it _did_ occur. I asked you how it possibly
> > _could_ have occurred.
>
> You're the one adverse to any speculation. But simple improvements in gyros,
> IMUs, software algorithms, digital signal processing, memory storage, and some
> others I could dig up would benifit both military and civilian birds.
WTF does software algorithms, digital signal processing, and memory storage
have to do with any of this? And BTW, what is an IMU?
WRT gyros, as I have said before, the inertial guidance accuracy for ICBMs
already has to be far greater than for satellite launches.
[snip repeated argument]
> > Show that the dual-usage potential is significant.
>
> As I said above, significant is a relative term. For example, the
> introduction of the Ginzu knife would hardly be considered a significant
> technological revolution in this country. But to a group using flint knives,
> it would be very significant.
Very good. Now apply that to the situation as we know it.
> > Show that they _didn't_
> > use those angled toothbrushed we sent them for manufacture of insulating
> > plastic gaskets in their guidance systems instead of brushing their
> > teeth with them.
>
> Sorry, I don't prove negatives.
Very good. Why should I, then. You keep saying "mighta, coulda, did. . ."
Well, in fairness, you never say "did". But the implication is there.
The criticism of the Clinton policy is cast in quite a different tone
if none of the allegations _are_ true.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo