Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!cbnews!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Ballistic missiles Message-ID: <1990Aug8.030510.25946@cbnews.att.com> Date: 8 Aug 90 03:05:10 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 30 Approved: military@att.att.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Mark Anderson >...How >hard is it to take a booster capable of putting something in low earth orbit >(LEO) (say about ~90 minutes period) and turn it into a IBCM, or at least >something capable of delivering payloads intra regionally? Easy, unless the warhead you want to deliver weighs a lot more than the satellites you can launch. What an ICBM does is to put its payload into an orbit that intersects the Earth -- an ellipse with perigee less than Earth's radius. This is generally somewhat easier than putting it into an orbit that clears the Earth. Of course, if you want it to be *accurate*, then things get harder. :-) Getting within a kilometer or two of a specified orbit is considered very good, but that's not impressive accuracy by ICBM standards. >This brings up the converse. How hard would it be to hack an IBCM to deliver >a satellite to LEO? ... Not difficult, although it will reduce the payload some. There was some discussion of a "basing mode" for MX that would have involved launching the warheads into orbit in a crisis (!). There are also rumors that a few of the existing ICBM/SLBM fleet normally sit with emergency comsats up top, rather than warheads. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry