Message-ID: <3646@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Mar-84 14:44:16 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3646
Posted: Thu Mar 15 14:44:16 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Mar-84 14:44:16 EST
References: <152@hocse.UUCP>, <3392@lanl-a.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 30

*

In reference to the objection that space stations aren't >really< vulnerable:
Hoo, boy, are you wrong! You say that satellite killers work only in LEO;
not true, for them to work in higher orbits they need only be put on a 
larger booster. Besides which, the planned station is going to be in LEO
anyhow, making your argument pointless. You say that the thick radiation 
shielding and electromagnetic meteor-replellors would make a station well-
nigh invulnerable; those ideas are pure science-fiction, and don't
represent the state of the art of space station manufacture at all
well. A station would be built in a manner similar to the way Skylab
was, with the thinnest possible structurally sound walls, to save weight,
and with all kinds of necessary equipment (such as solar arrays and
heat radiators) hanging off the sides. This would be very vulnerable
to almost any sort of attack; thrown projrctiles, fragmentation bombs,
laser or beam weapons, etc. Thick shielding will come with later
stations, perhaps those hollowed out of asteroids. At present, however, we
don't have any asteroids to work with.
Lastly, you say that destroying a space station would be an act of war,
and so wouldn't occur in these unstable times, for fear of setting
off The Big One. Friend, the only reason the military would want to be
on a space station, is so that they could use it during The Big One!
If the Enemy were planning a war, and the US military had a satellite
base, the Enemy wouldn't quail at shooting the station down, any more
than they'd quail at shooting up a battleship or an air force base.
How then would the fact of shooting up the station being an act of war,
deter the Enemy from attacking the station during a war? Sheesh!

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll