Should the Space Shuttle Be Armed?

The space shuttle should be armed... With the Tzar Bomba, because then IF they felt that one of the Cosmonauts on the ISS was drinking too much vodka, they could put an end to it real quick.

Come on now, if aliens were going to attack us, they would have done it long ago.

I think that most people that are in space are more worried about dieing of, Oh I don't know, running out of oxygen, burning up in the atmosphere, freezing to death, having their blood boil due to cabin pressure loss, coming loose from their rope while on a space walk, getting hit by 25 km/s space junk, getting hit by a pea sized meteor, getting fried by a solar flare, being penetrated by too many gamma rays ect ect, than being intercepted by grey demons with a sport model.

So no, weapons would be wasted weight to haul to orbit. I really do beileve in ET's, and we have nothing to fear from them, as long as we don't attack them.

Space is clearly ours..... not ETs. and russia they're a joke (no offence intended) and EU is whpped b us so its ours..... if you dont agree we will kill you (better in russian accent or like Borat)

Originally posted by KezigluBey
Space is clearly ours..... not ETs. and russia they're a joke (no offence intended) and EU is whpped b us so its ours..... if you dont agree we will kill you (better in russian accent or like Borat)

name one thing the american space program has done apart form the moon landing that the russians didn't do first.
(by "american" space program i refer to the program based on the work of Wernher von Braun)

In Reply to Lexion:

"Should the Space Shuttle be armed?
Wow.
IMO, if this isn't a great fishing expedition
for points, I've never seen one.
The Shuttle. Armed.
It's a dice-roll every time it's launched.
And, you want to know if it should be
armed.
Sad, sad day. Lex"

Lex, while I do value your opinion and posts on the multiple threads in which i have read your contribution, I unfortunately do not like fishing and I do not like fish. Not to mention, my intentions are not to be in the rat race to get the most points, because even if you win your still going to be a rat, as can clearly be seen by your flock of points.

Rather, I contribute to the ATS community with topics that I find of interest, and I participate in threads that I find of interest. Points are a very useless addition IMO, what I concentrate on is the value of each's individual post rather than the massive scale of who has more points than who. Points as I said, IMO, are worth very little when compared to others contributions.

No one is forced to particpate in any thread on ATS, if I am not mistaken. Therefore, I dont see the reason behind your useless attacks nor insults or insinuations, however it is every persons right to do just that in the ATS community, as long as it does not disrupt the flow, if I am not mistaken.

Plus, I do not 'want to know if it should be armed', as you insinuated. Rather I posted a thread on a topic that I find interesting, and purely wanted to see what others opinions were on the such topic. I had also mentioned my standing on the topic itself on page 1, but I guess you haven't read my posts, and not to mention I have yet to see you actually contribute with where you stand on the topic.

But granted you are right on one thing. And that being that Yes it is a 'Sad Sad Day'. Especially when members cannot participate in a civil manner, and prefer to insinuate other members, without proof to back up their claims. So now I ask you Lex, please provide proof for your claims.

I also find it quite odd that you participate in a website who's motto is to 'Deny Ignorance' especially when you seem to have just Applied Ignorance, to a thread that you obviously care very little about. So I'm sorry that my thread did not meet your requirements or interests. But I am not sorry for speaking out in defense against your incorrect accusations, claims, and bullying.

So Lex, I guess that you showed your true self and I will be labeling your intentions here at ATS as nothing more than a Point Gatherer, you horde them and they obviously mean a great deal to you, my friend; as can be seen by your clumsy attack on me and your outlandish claims about imaginary points that I want to fish for.

So in conclusion I state that > Lex your the only thing fishy around here.


[edit on 8/20/2007 by agent violet]

[edit on 8/20/2007 by agent violet]

Originally posted by evilCorgi

Originally posted by KezigluBey
Space is clearly ours..... not ETs. and russia they're a joke (no offence intended) and EU is whpped b us so its ours..... if you dont agree we will kill you (better in russian accent or like Borat)

name one thing the american space program has done apart form the moon landing that the russians didn't do first.
(by "american" space program i refer to the program based on the work of Wernher von Braun)

Operation Starwars! Yea? we Got sharks with laserbeams in the foreheads... wait that was Dr. Evil... nvm

Ok so if the newer space shuttle models aren't armed, then should the International Space Station be armed? I wonder what if any downsides there are to arming the ISS. I see how the arming of the shuttle can be a problem mainly because of extra weight that would be added. But someone did raise a good question in this thread, about if they (the shuttles) get inspected by an outside source. Does anyone know the answer? While if they do get armed I dont think it would be in regards to aliens or their crafts but rather as a strategic movement for defense of control of a nation.



[edit on 8/20/2007 by agent violet]

the I in ISS = International.
If The United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, and Luxembourg agree on the installation and control of weapons on the ISS i will be very very surprised.

Another thing to take into account is Newtons laws of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
If you fire any decent sized weapons from the ISS it will probably end up doing a Mir impersonation...

If there is/is going to be any space based weapon system it will probably be an unmanned satellite designed for that purpose.


[edit on 20/8/07 by evilCorgi]

There's a Soyuz at ISS right now. It is armed. They have been since the seventies when upon landing the cosmonauts were forced "back inside" by wolves.

Since then every Soyuz has a Baikal sawed-off double barrel shotgun tucked under the commander's seat as standard equipment.

The shotgun was last used to my knowledge on the landing of ISS Expedition 6 which had a software "shortcoming" that sent the Soyuz in steep landing 300KM "short" - a rough ride downhill. Cosmonaut Budarin discharged a number of rounds to try and attract the attention of locals - they waited for hours for the ground crew support helo's.

Arm shuttle? I'd be afraid of shattering tile. Arm Constellation? A capsule? It already has serious mass problems. I would hope that civilian space travel would not involve arms. I would have the same hope for all space travel but covert weapons and military in space seem "like a done deal" done long ago no matter how it is spun.

Cheers,

Vic

[edit on 20-8-2007 by V Kaminski]

Thats another good thought about the whole un manned satellite option, but I would presume the weapon would not be anything of the bomb sort but rather lasers. that way they can be easily turned on and switched off.

the only way I can see the ISS having weapons is if there is a massive threat to planet, it may be used as a form of a last resort type of weapon.
but I agree, I would be very, very surprised too.

Originally posted by agent violet
Ok so if the newer space shuttle models aren't armed, then should the International Space Station be armed? I wonder what if any downsides there are to arming the ISS. I see how the arming of the shuttle can be a problem mainly because of extra weight that would be added. But someone did raise a good question in this thread, about if they (the shuttles) get inspected by an outside source. Does anyone know the answer? While if they do get armed I dont think it would be in regards to aliens or their crafts but rather as a strategic movement for defense of control of a nation.



[edit on 8/20/2007 by agent violet]

Would we have our fingers on the button or the UN?

Originally posted by agent violet
Thats another good thought about the whole un manned satellite option, but I would presume the weapon would not be anything of the bomb sort but rather lasers. that way they can be easily turned on and switched off.

the only way I can see the ISS having weapons is if there is a massive threat to planet, it may be used as a form of a last resort type of weapon.
but I agree, I would be very, very surprised too.

I believe a Laser Weapons platform was built 1980s as Operation Starwars.

hm. well I guess that if it were at the ISS then the UN would have the 'button', but collectively there would need to be a vote of sorts by UN affiliated countries to approve if the planet were in a dire(sp?) situation.

I strongly suspect that UN "button" won't matter. The one in the "secure undisclosed location" will be a "bigger" button. I can't recall ever seeing anything not to suggest that space based weapons weren't already possible... whether "classified" as space based weapons is a matter of some conjecture.

Nations have space capabilty, maybe covert. The UN? Yikes! It would take a month when to decide when to have the meeting to decide who should "pull the trigger" and a commission to recommend "when" and then it would get bogged down in the Security Council over "local" issues... Oh yeah and the all the side-deals...

The "other" one, perhaps two nations at this time would seem capable of some potential - there are more nations (India comes to mind) that do have orbital capabilities. Even garbage space junk and debris is a serious weapon in space. Odds of an ISS astronaut getting "plugged" on EVA? 1 in 496. There have been 92 spacewalks in support of ISS.

Any use of weapons that leave debris in orbit or de-orbit items uncontrolled are hazards potentially for decades. Space ecology is important to one's health. Even paint chips are a risk.

If you want space based weapons come up with one to "clean up" all the garbage that's already there - no debris - no explosions - just "phweet-poof gone" - dematerialized. Who's to say?

Nationalism in space is a freakin' reality - get a helmet. Aliens? If they are unfriendly? Bang 'em dead, "if" we can. I don't see any UN funded manned space flight coming - ever (just my opinion). Too many cooks...

There has been video of "something really freakin' big" landing way back when at Area 51. The piece which may or may not have a credible story attached to it suggested a "platform" with nuclear weapons onboard - lots of nuclear weapons. Maybe. Almost likely.

There would seem to be Russian hardware of which there are photos around of "something nasty looking" that went up in the 90's. Great big red star painted on it's matte black exterior all strapped up to a Proton. Russia has also had Buran and the "discontinued" Clipper. Roskavia is missing how much money? Who's Russia's accountant? Ah, the accounting offices of Darker, Blacke and Missing, St. Petersburg.

Wanna hide something in space to the naked eye? Colour it flat black. Not silver or white.

China has some "point and shoot" capability - messy and dangerous. They have Lunar ambitions. I really don't like that they deliberately detontated a satellite to study the effects. Lunatics - get a clue, with that balance of trade. Build a super-computer and simulate it.

India has orbital capability, so do others... soon many will and publicly. Covert? Well it's "National Security". Nations with wills. Not many humans without nationality at this point. That could change. Ever wonder why England doesn't have a manned space program? "Nah." Think of other nations... they may be thinking "National Security" too. Those with the best people and toys win - there would be alliances. Sad and very human.

Could just be that all this NACA/NASA stuff has been window dressing for public consumption from the start - perhaps for a very, very long time before in other ways. LOL. It would be a big joke on many if we find the future a rough neighbourhood and are not prepared for what we can do to ourselves as a species both positve and negative. Could be good or "maybe not-so-much."

I would almost say that last century's history may have been more than advertised and not as portrayed by "news"... one day if we still have history, some scholar will have to tune that up. This century? Well that's up to you and your children to find out.

Cheers,

Vic

Don't know much about the shuttle being armed - I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to have something like a big ass laser or some other sort of directed energy weapon already built to the specs required to fit in the cargo bay and just kept under wraps somewhere - I wonder what the quickest they could go for an unplanned launch 5-6 days?

Any who, as someone has previously said, the Ruskies have been packing heat on every mission cos they prefer landing the re-entry capsule on land, so it's probably used to fight off the locals if they try to take the last of the vodka

But the Russians have gone further than that, they had a machine gun on the military version of the Salyut space station (I say military because it seems that the name Salyut was also used for a completely different civilian project)

Virtually no information was available about the military Salyuts until recently, when access was opened up to a full-scale training model at the Moscow Aviation Institute. Well, guess what—Salyut 3 had a machine gun. The station had a 23 mm rapid-fire cannon mounted on the outside, along the long axis of the station “for defence against US space-based inspectors/interceptors”. Combat engagements would have been leisurely by Star Wars or fighter jet standards, since the only way to aim the cannon was to point the entire station at the target, using its attitude gyros. A periscope connected to a visor on the main control panel allowed drawing a bead on the intended target.

link


Almaz 3 (Salyuts 3)



Some of you may of realised the effect blasting away with a machine gun will have on your position in space - gun fires one way, you go the other so the station was equipped with orbital maneuvering engines which automatically fired when the cannon was blazing away to cancel its recoil thrust.

NASA also has plans to put nukes in orbit just in case we have to blast an asteroid off its path - but how hard would it be to turn those bad boys back on a ground target?

Well I do think that the arming of space is inevitable, there will be a confrontation over space.

I found some links out of dozens upon dozens on this topic.

Link 1: www.space.com...

The White House has just released the new U.S. National Space Policy from the Bush administration. The document makes several departures from past space doctrines. They include:Calling for the deployment of offensive weapons systems in space to
"deter" and "deny" others the "use of space." This is a very provocative
notion and will give the Pentagon the green light to put anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons in space that would be able to destroy other countries' satellites.

Link 2: www.boston.com...

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is asking Congress for hundreds of millions
of dollars to test weapons in space, marking the biggest step toward creating
a space battlefield since President Reagan's long-defunct ''star wars"
project during the Cold War, according to federal budget document. The Defense Department's budget proposal for the fiscal year
beginning Oct. 1 includes money for a variety of tests on offensive and
defensive weapons, including a missile launched at a small satellite in orbit, testing a small space vehicle that could disperse weapons while traveling at 20 times the speed of sound, and determining whether high-powered ground-based lasers can effectively destroy enemy satellites.

So I guess that operations are already in the midst of militarizing space.
I must admit it does sound kind of frightening.

What makes you think it isn't armed?

Ok, since I was asked.
"Should the Space Shuttle be armed" ?

Originally posted by agent violet

If so why?

I see absolutely no reason to arm a
civilian air/space craft.

and what should it be armed with, guns, bombs, rockets, lasers etc...

Since I think civilian craft should not be armed,
what's your opinion, Miss. Violet ?
Should it be armed ? And, if so; with which of the
weapons you listed ?

If you dont think it should armed why not?

Again, it's a civilian craft. (split hairs and say it does
military missions. It's still a civilian agency. Hence, a
civilian craft)

what do you think would be the consequences of arming the shuttle?

Well, added weight comes to mind, first.
Not only the system(s) added, but the ad-
ditional personnel needed to man said sys-
tem(s).

Second,
Antagonization of other space-capable/nearly
space-capable countries.
The world is on shaky enough ground.
Why add another element ?

also, what would need to happen for the shuttle to be armed?

This I can't answer. Weigh the points I've brought up.
Do you, Miss Violet see any reason to arm it ?

I do look forward to your response.

Regards,
Lex

Edit to say : I have apologised to
agent violet in a U2U for my original
post on this thread.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Lexion]

The main reason that the US abstains from all the UN votes on space based weapons is that it has plans to arm and control space, just as it has plans to control the planet itself. There are suspicions that they already have space based weaponry in orbit, designed to use chemical lasers and nuclear devices against ground targets. But this is all rumour and conjecture, as they aren't admitting anything.
I wouldn't be surprised if the shuttle had a weapons package designed to be loaded into the cargo bay and deployed while in orbit. It sounds like a very US / NASA thing to do.
Arming the International Space Station would be like arming my Great-Grandfather's outhouse. You could do it, but Great-Grandma would be real ticked and you would hear about it for years. Besides, where would you put it? They've got every square inch of that monstrosity cobbled together and wired tight. The recoil from a pop gun would blow every gasket and seal. There is more than one reason for the outhouse reference.

Originally posted by agent violet
Well I do think that the arming of space is inevitable, there will be a confrontation over space.

............ [missing bit]

So I guess that operations are already in the midst of militarizing space.
I must admit it does sound kind of frightening.

It's already been done. (refer to my prev post)

Gonna get more and edit/post on this subject. But did you know there were real plans during the cold war to nuke the moon!! (will add links).

Also ~ what do you consider to be a weapon?? They've been pointing satellites back at us for a very long time now. That is information that has and will be used for extremely accurate attacks.

Edit: Lex contributes, we are all aware of that

Lex ~ chill mate, this is not just your site some times you come off a bit wrong, get wot I mean


[edit on 21/8/2007 by Now_Then]

I have a better question, and i hope i m not off topic;

Do you think there is somewhere on the iss and on the shuttle a weapon,
locked in a case? A means a pistol, a rifle or a taser*?

Think about; if one or more astronauts going mad or crazy for some reason,
how you can stop it ?