The Space Shuttle could pick satellites out of orbit. There was a reference mission that the military demanded the shuttle be capable of, involving grabbing a (possibly enemy) satellite and landing immediately. This mission drove (compromised) the design. There was also the possibility of using the shuttle for rapid first strike capability, destabilizing MAD. The Soviet military was right to be concerned.
I haven’t looked at the USSR’s budget but I’m skeptical that Big Science is the cause of their downfall. There was also the Afghan War, the fundamental weakness of socialist economics, the high costs of autarky and the geographic disadvantages of Russia. I bring this up because Big Science spending is a frequent target in the modern West among people who think “our money is better spent elsewhere.” These types don’t know (or don’t care) that Big Science is tiny fraction of our economy and the government’s budget.
The supposed military mission of a satellite snatcher doesn’t make sense as by the late 70s both sides had the means to monitor all their satellites 24⁄7 and could detect if a satellite was taken or modified somehow, and could supply credible evidence to every other country, the UN, etc., of such an event. Needless to say, this would just lead to an escalation spiral and/or be an embarrassment.
Which is likely why the US never tried to snatch a Soviet/Russian satellite, and the capability remained unused.
Maybe the US Air Force and/or Pentagon knew this already but insisted anyways just so they could get a veto on the project they knew would be unaffordable on a purely civilian basis. i.e. this would imply they sabotaged NASA to preserve their importance.
The more prosaic reason for such an inefficient design is simple pork barrel politics.
The Space Shuttle could pick satellites out of orbit. There was a reference mission that the military demanded the shuttle be capable of, involving grabbing a (possibly enemy) satellite and landing immediately. This mission drove (compromised) the design. There was also the possibility of using the shuttle for rapid first strike capability, destabilizing MAD. The Soviet military was right to be concerned.
I haven’t looked at the USSR’s budget but I’m skeptical that Big Science is the cause of their downfall. There was also the Afghan War, the fundamental weakness of socialist economics, the high costs of autarky and the geographic disadvantages of Russia. I bring this up because Big Science spending is a frequent target in the modern West among people who think “our money is better spent elsewhere.” These types don’t know (or don’t care) that Big Science is tiny fraction of our economy and the government’s budget.
The supposed military mission of a satellite snatcher doesn’t make sense as by the late 70s both sides had the means to monitor all their satellites 24⁄7 and could detect if a satellite was taken or modified somehow, and could supply credible evidence to every other country, the UN, etc., of such an event. Needless to say, this would just lead to an escalation spiral and/or be an embarrassment.
Which is likely why the US never tried to snatch a Soviet/Russian satellite, and the capability remained unused.
Maybe the US Air Force and/or Pentagon knew this already but insisted anyways just so they could get a veto on the project they knew would be unaffordable on a purely civilian basis. i.e. this would imply they sabotaged NASA to preserve their importance.
The more prosaic reason for such an inefficient design is simple pork barrel politics.