111–120 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cite?
I don't object to the respondent: it's true, SpaceX has broken out of earth orbit -- but that's still a far cry from deploying to Mars. My point stands: SpaceX needs to get to Mars once before we can start calling them serious interplanetary contenders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By assisting India you're paying for their ICBM development India is now part of MCTR (Missile Control Technology Regime) that limits ICBM development. So that's no longer a valid concern. Also, India has done well without the assistance of the US in space technology and will continue to do so. So if the US doesn't want to assist in technology, it's not going to be a show stopper for India. It will continue to eat…
> India is now part of MCTR (Missile Control Technology Regime) that limits ICBM development. So that's no longer a valid concern. That's regime sounds like a great intent, but the simple fact is that taking a satellite launching rocket, replacing the satellite with a nuke, and aiming it back at the ground somewhere is trivial.
ICBMs use much more stable fuels so they can sit in a silo for years on end. This requires totally different engines and fuel tanks.
tldr: You can't just stick a nuke on top of a liquid fueled rocket and use it like an ICBM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article mentions that we already buy rockets from China/Russia. It's hard to imagine India as a bigger security threat than either of those countries.
India is less a security threat than a destabilization threat. I'm sure the US is more worried about them firing nukes at Pakistan than California.
Uh, what? This is complete bullshit. Where do you get this kind of garbage from?
Use IRSO and we all lose. India's government is subsidizing these rockets. SpaceX, on the other hand, is developing technology that really makes space travel cheaper. Only the latter will move us forward in the long term.
What do you mean by subsidizing rockets? Launch costs are to be borne by customer, not Indian government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> India is now part of MCTR (Missile Control Technology Regime) that limits ICBM development. So that's no longer a valid concern. That's regime sounds like a great intent, but the simple fact is that taking a satellite launching rocket, replacing the satellite with a nuke, and aiming it back at the ground somewhere is trivial.
A typical liquid fueled satellite launching platform would make a very poor ICBM. Liquid fueled rockets can't be stored fully fueled. The fuel is extremely volatile and slowly seeps out of the tanks. This means you have to store it empty, adding a huge launch delay. ICBMs use much more stable fuels so they can sit in a silo for years on end. This requires totally different engines and fuel tanks. tldr: You can't just…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> like it lost the ability to launch people. The US has not remotely lost the ability to launch people in the context you're suggesting (lost knowledge, lost budget, lost political will). Its literally between launch systems. No knowledge or budget has been lost. On top of it, its doing what no other nation seems able to do, spark a space race between corporations with their own goals and cost-cutting measures. That'…
The US has not remotely lost the ability to launch people in the context you're suggesting (lost knowledge, lost budget, lost political will). Its literally between launch systems. NASA has failed at how many launch system projects since the Space Shuttle?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is India still in the bag? Don't they already have ICBM/nuke capabilities?
It does, look at AGNI-V and AGNI-VI
It is also possible they are not entirely out of the bag and pushing them out may not be a desirable goal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, would you count the civil wars and the war of independance as wars in which USA was the first aggressor? Oh nvm, that won't make a dent to the size of that list.
> would you count the civil wars and the war of independance as wars in which USA was the first aggressor? Civil wars are hard to classify in terms of "who is the aggressor", but none of my examples were civil wars. The American Revolution can plausibly be argued to be a US aggression, but it doesn't really match any of my examples either. Of course I would never make the totally daft claim that the US was never the…
Of course I never claimed you did, I just made a clever remark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you possibly compare the Indian armed action to regain occupied territory and her sovereignty back from the Portuguese to anything else? It was the only time India had to resort to military action, and it was shortly after her independence.
> How can you possibly compare the Indian armed action to regain occupied territory and her sovereignty back from the Portuguese to anything else? Quite easily. The claim was that India was never the aggressor, not that all the aggressions were justified by some extenuating circumstance or national interest or whatnot. The "never the aggressor" claim clearly doesn't hold for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> India is now part of MCTR (Missile Control Technology Regime) that limits ICBM development. So that's no longer a valid concern. That's regime sounds like a great intent, but the simple fact is that taking a satellite launching rocket, replacing the satellite with a nuke, and aiming it back at the ground somewhere is trivial.
A typical liquid fueled satellite launching platform would make a very poor ICBM. Liquid fueled rockets can't be stored fully fueled. The fuel is extremely volatile and slowly seeps out of the tanks. This means you have to store it empty, adding a huge launch delay. ICBMs use much more stable fuels so they can sit in a silo for years on end. This requires totally different engines and fuel tanks. tldr: You can't just…