Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Large SRB test site in Florida
103 views
Skip to first unread message
Greg (Strider) Moore
Nov 13, 2012, 9:44:39 AM11/13/12
to
http://www.businessinsider.com/aerojet-dade-abandoned-rocket-facility-2012-10
Anyone have more details?
Anyone have more details?
David Lesher
Nov 13, 2012, 12:18:40 PM11/13/12
to
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> writes:
>http://www.businessinsider.com/aerojet-dade-abandoned-rocket-facility-2012-10
>Anyone have more details?
How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
>http://www.businessinsider.com/aerojet-dade-abandoned-rocket-facility-2012-10
>Anyone have more details?
ground level?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Jeff Findley
Nov 13, 2012, 2:31:31 PM11/13/12
to
In article <AoednXSlHbxKwT_N...@earthlink.com>,
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
in particular. There is quite a bit of info about this on the Internet.
As usual, astronautix.com has a good summary:
AJ-260-2
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm
NASA Technical server has a very good report:
FINAL REPORT
DETERMINATION OF PROCESSING AND TEST FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE SOLID ROCKET MOTORS VOLUME I: TASKJ -FACILITY
MODIFICATION FOR FULL-LENGTH 260-IN.-DIA MOTOR PROCESSING AND TEST
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700027475_
1970027475.pdf
Also, there are several websites showing pictures of the site taken by
"urban explorers" (or whatever they like to call themselves these days).
Abandoned Florida - Aerojet-Dade Rocket Facility
http://www.abandonedfl.com/?p=627
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/aerojet-dade-abandoned-rocket-facility-2012-10
>
> Anyone have more details?
This is well known by space history buffs who are interested in solids
> http://www.businessinsider.com/aerojet-dade-abandoned-rocket-facility-2012-10
>
> Anyone have more details?
in particular. There is quite a bit of info about this on the Internet.
As usual, astronautix.com has a good summary:
AJ-260-2
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm
NASA Technical server has a very good report:
FINAL REPORT
DETERMINATION OF PROCESSING AND TEST FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE SOLID ROCKET MOTORS VOLUME I: TASKJ -FACILITY
MODIFICATION FOR FULL-LENGTH 260-IN.-DIA MOTOR PROCESSING AND TEST
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700027475_
1970027475.pdf
Also, there are several websites showing pictures of the site taken by
"urban explorers" (or whatever they like to call themselves these days).
Abandoned Florida - Aerojet-Dade Rocket Facility
http://www.abandonedfl.com/?p=627
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
b0bmo...@gmail.com
Nov 13, 2012, 5:43:47 PM11/13/12
to
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-6, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/aerojet-dade-abandoned-rocket-facility-2012-10
>
> Anyone have more details?
...Jeff nailed this one, and I'd posed the same question on Secret Projects a few weeks ago, having palm-in-face forgotten that this question had show up around here quite a while back. Mark Wade's entry in EA sums the situation up quite well.
> http://www.businessinsider.com/aerojet-dade-abandoned-rocket-facility-2012-10
>
> Anyone have more details?
OM
Brian Thorn
Nov 13, 2012, 7:43:37 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:18:40 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
<wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
>ground level?
There are Minuteman silos at Cape Canaveral. Challenger's wreckage is
<wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
>ground level?
interrred in two of them.
Brian
b0bmo...@gmail.com
Nov 13, 2012, 8:30:58 PM11/13/12
to
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:18:41 AM UTC-6, David Lesher wrote:
> How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
> ground level?
...Simple. You find a material to line the outer walls of the silo to prevent sandtrout from encysting the water. It helps keep the sandworm population down to a bare minumum, and if you think twenty thumpers will call a bunch of worms, just watch what happens when someone fires off an SRB or two from Canaveral!
> How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
> ground level?
OM
Philip Lantz
Nov 14, 2012, 12:48:21 AM11/14/12
to
David Lesher wrote:
> How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
> ground level?
I thought the same thing, and apparently others did at the time, too.
> How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
> ground level?
Encyclopedia Astronautica says, "There was considerable concern about
building such a huge facility below the water table, but the 50 m depth
proved no problem for a competent caisson contractor."
(http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm; thanks to Jeff for the
link.)
Jeff Findley
Nov 14, 2012, 8:29:47 AM11/14/12
to
In article <65ac8fcf-8145-475a...@googlegroups.com>,
b0bmo...@gmail.com says...
The document I linked to gives you an idea of just how hard handling
would have been for very large SRB's. Not only are the casings quite
heavy when empty, they're *extremely* heavy when loaded with fuel.
Ground handling equipment is necessarily sized to handle far higher
weights than for liquid stages, which can be fueled on the pad. Even
shuttle style SRB's, whose segments are sized for rail transport, give
handling headaches. The Aerojet solids would have been far too big to
transport by anything but barges.
b0bmo...@gmail.com says...
would have been for very large SRB's. Not only are the casings quite
heavy when empty, they're *extremely* heavy when loaded with fuel.
Ground handling equipment is necessarily sized to handle far higher
weights than for liquid stages, which can be fueled on the pad. Even
shuttle style SRB's, whose segments are sized for rail transport, give
handling headaches. The Aerojet solids would have been far too big to
transport by anything but barges.
Jeff Findley
Nov 14, 2012, 8:31:48 AM11/14/12
to
In article <d73e2368-a3ef-4b24...@googlegroups.com>,
b0bmo...@gmail.com says...
Surprisingly, urban explorers have not found as much water inside the
silo as one might expect. Certainly there is water at the lowest level,
but it's not like the silo is completely full of water. The engineers
must have done a good job making the thing relatively water tight. If
it had been used operationally, I'm sure an appropriately sized sump
pump would have sufficed to keep the silo dry.
b0bmo...@gmail.com says...
silo as one might expect. Certainly there is water at the lowest level,
but it's not like the silo is completely full of water. The engineers
must have done a good job making the thing relatively water tight. If
it had been used operationally, I'm sure an appropriately sized sump
pump would have sufficed to keep the silo dry.
David Lesher
Nov 14, 2012, 11:33:02 AM11/14/12
to
Philip Lantz <p...@canterey.us> writes:
>David Lesher wrote:
>> How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
>> ground level?
>I thought the same thing, and apparently others did at the time, too.
>Encyclopedia Astronautica says, "There was considerable concern about
>building such a huge facility below the water table, but the 50 m depth
>proved no problem for a competent caisson contractor."
The issue I see is how do keep it from popping out of the
>David Lesher wrote:
>> How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
>> ground level?
>I thought the same thing, and apparently others did at the time, too.
>Encyclopedia Astronautica says, "There was considerable concern about
>building such a huge facility below the water table, but the 50 m depth
>proved no problem for a competent caisson contractor."
ground in rainy season.
I know! Fire off a test every so often to drive it back down.
I'm still trying to grok how the "starter" worked. They talked about
it being tethered on cables and ?going around in circles? I think....
Greg (Strider) Moore
Nov 14, 2012, 11:38:12 AM11/14/12
to
In article <d73e2368-a3ef-4b24...@googlegroups.com>,
>b0bmo...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:18:41 AM UTC-6, David Lesher wrote:
>>
>> > How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
>> > ground level?
>>
>> ...Simple. You find a material to line the outer walls of the silo to
>> prevent sandtrout from encysting the water. It helps keep the sandworm
>> population down to a bare minumum, and if you think twenty thumpers will
>> call a bunch of worms, just watch what happens when someone fires off an
>> SRB or two from Canaveral!
>
>Surprisingly, urban explorers have not found as much water inside the
>silo as one might expect. Certainly there is water at the lowest level,
>but it's not like the silo is completely full of water. The engineers
>must have done a good job making the thing relatively water tight. If
>it had been used operationally, I'm sure an appropriately sized sump
>pump would have sufficed to keep the silo dry.
>
>Jeff
Well, part of the problem isn't so much water intrusion as much as creating
>b0bmo...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:18:41 AM UTC-6, David Lesher wrote:
>>
>> > How can you have a silo when the water table is a few feet below
>> > ground level?
>>
>> ...Simple. You find a material to line the outer walls of the silo to
>> prevent sandtrout from encysting the water. It helps keep the sandworm
>> population down to a bare minumum, and if you think twenty thumpers will
>> call a bunch of worms, just watch what happens when someone fires off an
>> SRB or two from Canaveral!
>
>Surprisingly, urban explorers have not found as much water inside the
>silo as one might expect. Certainly there is water at the lowest level,
>but it's not like the silo is completely full of water. The engineers
>must have done a good job making the thing relatively water tight. If
>it had been used operationally, I'm sure an appropriately sized sump
>pump would have sufficed to keep the silo dry.
>
>Jeff
a "raft". As long as you anchor the silo or somehow make it weigh enough,
it shouldn't float to the surface.
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Greg (Strider) Moore
Nov 14, 2012, 11:39:50 AM11/14/12
to
>"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
>news:MPG.2b0c39e94...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>In article <AoednXSlHbxKwT_N...@earthlink.com>,
>moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/aerojet-dade-abandoned-rocket-facility-2012-10
>>
>> Anyone have more details?
>
>This is well known by space history buffs who are interested in solids
>in particular. There is quite a bit of info about this on the Internet.
>As usual, astronautix.com has a good summary:
>
>AJ-260-2
>http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm
>
Hmm, I guess I wasn't aware they had actually done any testing. I know they
>In article <AoednXSlHbxKwT_N...@earthlink.com>,
>moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/aerojet-dade-abandoned-rocket-facility-2012-10
>>
>> Anyone have more details?
>
>This is well known by space history buffs who are interested in solids
>in particular. There is quite a bit of info about this on the Internet.
>As usual, astronautix.com has a good summary:
>
>AJ-260-2
>http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm
>
had talked a lot about monsters this big.
I just can't imagine a SRB 21' in diameter!
The acoustics on that at lift-off would have been... incredible.
>NASA Technical server has a very good report:
>
>FINAL REPORT
>DETERMINATION OF PROCESSING AND TEST FACILITY
>REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE SOLID ROCKET MOTORS VOLUME I: TASKJ -FACILITY
>MODIFICATION FOR FULL-LENGTH 260-IN.-DIA MOTOR PROCESSING AND TEST
>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700027475_
>1970027475.pdf
>Also, there are several websites showing pictures of the site taken by
>"urban explorers" (or whatever they like to call themselves these days).
>
>Abandoned Florida - Aerojet-Dade Rocket Facility
>http://www.abandonedfl.com/?p=627
>
>Jeff
--
David Lesher
Nov 14, 2012, 12:14:27 PM11/14/12
to
Turns out a friend has been there. He worked for a guy who had a
contract to make some sounding rockets for NASA. They visited
the site as a possible manufacturing location.
The only use being made of it at the time was the cops had a
target range in one building.
The rockets they made were solid fuel, with a nitrous oxide tank
on top. They topped it off as it boiled until just before ignition.
I got to sit in the control room at Wallops Island during one launch.
Orval Fairbairn
Nov 14, 2012, 12:16:03 PM11/14/12
to
In article <WsudndoD4_LKVD7N...@earthlink.com>,
Having spent a number of years reviewing test results on much smaller
SRBs, I can think of a rather large number of ways that a 21 ft diameter
SRB can go wrong and really bite you.
Just mixing and pouring the propellants is an art form, while handling
and storing are yet another. We had a number of SLBM FS motors barf
their nozzles, develop unstable burn patterns -- to name a couple of
situations that caused failure.
My conclusion is that solids are questionable for manned missions.
SRBs, I can think of a rather large number of ways that a 21 ft diameter
SRB can go wrong and really bite you.
Just mixing and pouring the propellants is an art form, while handling
and storing are yet another. We had a number of SLBM FS motors barf
their nozzles, develop unstable burn patterns -- to name a couple of
situations that caused failure.
My conclusion is that solids are questionable for manned missions.
bob haller
Nov 14, 2012, 5:13:43 PM11/14/12
to
adding flyash to concrete is said to help make it water proof.
even titan military silos had troubles with water getting in.
on a associated note I think some florida silos should be used to keep
emergency rockets to ISS available at all tmes. occasionally one could
be used tom launch a regular supply module to keep the vehicles fresh.
some day ISS is going to desperately need some key cargo on short
noitice. having a few boosters ready to go could help prevent a
disaster
even titan military silos had troubles with water getting in.
on a associated note I think some florida silos should be used to keep
emergency rockets to ISS available at all tmes. occasionally one could
be used tom launch a regular supply module to keep the vehicles fresh.
some day ISS is going to desperately need some key cargo on short
noitice. having a few boosters ready to go could help prevent a
disaster
Jeff Findley
Nov 15, 2012, 8:34:09 AM11/15/12
to
In article <6be6c300-9524-4255-ab83-b19121ccff27
@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
ISS has the following resupply options:
1. Progress on Soyuz launcher (Russian)
2. ATV on Ariane 5 (Europe)
3. HTV on H-IIB (Japan)
4. Dragon on Falcon 9 (US, from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station)
5. Cygnus on Antares, renamed from Taurus II (US, from Wallops Flight
Facility, in Virginia)
That's five *completely different* resupply options. None of these
share spacecraft, launch vehicles, or even launch location. Why in the
world would NASA pay to keep "missiles" in a launch silo in Florida?
> some day ISS is going to desperately need some key cargo on short
> noitice. having a few boosters ready to go could help prevent a
> disaster
There will always be a resupply mission "in the pipeline" that could
launch on relatively short notice. Besides, anything that crops up
that's too dangerous and the crew can abandon ISS. Remember that there
are always enough Soyuz spacecraft docked to ISS to evacuate it
completely.
Your "missiles in silos" suggestion makes no sense in today's world.
@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> on a associated note I think some florida silos should be used to keep
> emergency rockets to ISS available at all tmes. occasionally one could
> be used tom launch a regular supply module to keep the vehicles fresh.
This is dumb. What silos in Florida are still active? Why do this when
> on a associated note I think some florida silos should be used to keep
> emergency rockets to ISS available at all tmes. occasionally one could
> be used tom launch a regular supply module to keep the vehicles fresh.
ISS has the following resupply options:
1. Progress on Soyuz launcher (Russian)
2. ATV on Ariane 5 (Europe)
3. HTV on H-IIB (Japan)
4. Dragon on Falcon 9 (US, from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station)
5. Cygnus on Antares, renamed from Taurus II (US, from Wallops Flight
Facility, in Virginia)
That's five *completely different* resupply options. None of these
share spacecraft, launch vehicles, or even launch location. Why in the
world would NASA pay to keep "missiles" in a launch silo in Florida?
> some day ISS is going to desperately need some key cargo on short
> noitice. having a few boosters ready to go could help prevent a
> disaster
launch on relatively short notice. Besides, anything that crops up
that's too dangerous and the crew can abandon ISS. Remember that there
are always enough Soyuz spacecraft docked to ISS to evacuate it
completely.
Your "missiles in silos" suggestion makes no sense in today's world.
Rick Jones
Nov 15, 2012, 2:50:00 PM11/15/12
to
Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> This is dumb. What silos in Florida are still active? Why do this
> when ISS has the following resupply options:
> 1. Progress on Soyuz launcher (Russian)
> 2. ATV on Ariane 5 (Europe)
> 3. HTV on H-IIB (Japan)
> 4. Dragon on Falcon 9 (US, from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air
> Force Station)
> 5. Cygnus on Antares, renamed from Taurus II (US, from Wallops Flight
> Facility, in Virginia)
I'm going to to ahead and pick the nit on the fifth one there and say
> This is dumb. What silos in Florida are still active? Why do this
> when ISS has the following resupply options:
> 1. Progress on Soyuz launcher (Russian)
> 2. ATV on Ariane 5 (Europe)
> 3. HTV on H-IIB (Japan)
> 4. Dragon on Falcon 9 (US, from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air
> Force Station)
> 5. Cygnus on Antares, renamed from Taurus II (US, from Wallops Flight
> Facility, in Virginia)
you are counting an as-yet un-hatched chicken there.
Four! Four options for the resupplying mission! :)
It is perhaps even more of a nit, but option 2 ceases after the fifth
launch (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle)
Three! Three options for the resupplying mission! :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle isn't terribly
specific about continuing launches but I'll refrain from going down to
two :)
rick
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Greg (Strider) Moore
Nov 15, 2012, 3:27:14 PM11/15/12
to
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.2b0eb9367...@news.eternal-september.org...
Greg (Strider) Moore
Nov 15, 2012, 3:27:37 PM11/15/12
to
>"Rick Jones" wrote in message news:k83h18$k0t$2...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>I'm going to to ahead and pick the nit on the fifth one there and say
>you are counting an as-yet un-hatched chicken there.
>
>Four! Four options for the resupplying mission! :)
>
>It is perhaps even more of a nit, but option 2 ceases after the fifth
>launch (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle)
>
>Three! Three options for the resupplying mission! :)
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle isn't terribly
>specific about continuing launches but I'll refrain from going down to
>two :)
>
>rick
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 15, 2012, 11:51:03 PM11/15/12
to
Theres more in orbit debris endangering ISS and no tracking for
smaller pieces. LEO is getting crowded.
now abandoning ISS might save a crew, although a debris impact could
damage a attached soyuz. so crew survival, isnt assured.
beyond which a damaged ISS without a crew can endager anyone under the
ground track..
so having a few emergency transit vehicles in silos, with cargo pods
ready to go is just smart thinking like planning for a shuttle stuck
at station.
if we can pay to keep ICBMs ready for instant launch then we should be
able to afford some emergency supplies to orbit launchers
now imagine the horror, a small piece of space debris too small to
track damage ISS and just one of the 2 soyuz lifeboats.
3 crew members get back safely the remaing 3 die waiting for some
crucial supplies, the stations control is lost and ISS breaks up
depositing debris that survive re entry all along the ground track
hitting some major citys
nasa is put out of business after some congressional hearings.
all preventable with just a few emergency cargo rockets had been built
smaller pieces. LEO is getting crowded.
now abandoning ISS might save a crew, although a debris impact could
damage a attached soyuz. so crew survival, isnt assured.
beyond which a damaged ISS without a crew can endager anyone under the
ground track..
so having a few emergency transit vehicles in silos, with cargo pods
ready to go is just smart thinking like planning for a shuttle stuck
at station.
if we can pay to keep ICBMs ready for instant launch then we should be
able to afford some emergency supplies to orbit launchers
now imagine the horror, a small piece of space debris too small to
track damage ISS and just one of the 2 soyuz lifeboats.
3 crew members get back safely the remaing 3 die waiting for some
crucial supplies, the stations control is lost and ISS breaks up
depositing debris that survive re entry all along the ground track
hitting some major citys
nasa is put out of business after some congressional hearings.
all preventable with just a few emergency cargo rockets had been built
Jeff Findley
Nov 16, 2012, 7:14:45 AM11/16/12
to
In article <k83h18$k0t$2...@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, rick....@hp.com
says...
developed by established players, so in my opinion, the probability that
Cygnus will fly and (at least eventually) be successful is high. But
let us discount it, for now...
> Four! Four options for the resupplying mission! :)
>
> It is perhaps even more of a nit, but option 2 ceases after the fifth
> launch (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle)
True, but if it were truly needed (a must instead of a "nice to have"),
funding could be extended so that more are built and launched. It's at
least a realistic option. Unfortunately, it's an expensive expendable
spacecraft on an expensive launch vehicle.
> Three! Three options for the resupplying mission! :)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle isn't terribly
> specific about continuing launches but I'll refrain from going down to
> two :)
Same logic here as for the ATV.
I'd say that Bob's proposed silo launched ISS resupply idea is quite
easily the furthest from being funded (i.e. snowball's chance in hell).
says...
>
> Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > This is dumb. What silos in Florida are still active? Why do this
> > when ISS has the following resupply options:
>
> > 1. Progress on Soyuz launcher (Russian)
> > 2. ATV on Ariane 5 (Europe)
> > 3. HTV on H-IIB (Japan)
> > 4. Dragon on Falcon 9 (US, from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air
> > Force Station)
> > 5. Cygnus on Antares, renamed from Taurus II (US, from Wallops Flight
> > Facility, in Virginia)
>
> I'm going to to ahead and pick the nit on the fifth one there and say
> you are counting an as-yet un-hatched chicken there.
Cygnus and Antares are not operational, yet, but they are being
> Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > This is dumb. What silos in Florida are still active? Why do this
> > when ISS has the following resupply options:
>
> > 1. Progress on Soyuz launcher (Russian)
> > 2. ATV on Ariane 5 (Europe)
> > 3. HTV on H-IIB (Japan)
> > 4. Dragon on Falcon 9 (US, from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air
> > Force Station)
> > 5. Cygnus on Antares, renamed from Taurus II (US, from Wallops Flight
> > Facility, in Virginia)
>
> I'm going to to ahead and pick the nit on the fifth one there and say
> you are counting an as-yet un-hatched chicken there.
developed by established players, so in my opinion, the probability that
Cygnus will fly and (at least eventually) be successful is high. But
let us discount it, for now...
> Four! Four options for the resupplying mission! :)
>
> It is perhaps even more of a nit, but option 2 ceases after the fifth
> launch (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle)
funding could be extended so that more are built and launched. It's at
least a realistic option. Unfortunately, it's an expensive expendable
spacecraft on an expensive launch vehicle.
> Three! Three options for the resupplying mission! :)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle isn't terribly
> specific about continuing launches but I'll refrain from going down to
> two :)
I'd say that Bob's proposed silo launched ISS resupply idea is quite
easily the furthest from being funded (i.e. snowball's chance in hell).
Jeff Findley
Nov 16, 2012, 7:18:57 AM11/16/12
to
In article <7dc0650a-de37-48e6-9988-f35b20e95bb8
@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
replacements could be launched.
> beyond which a damaged ISS without a crew can endager anyone under the
> ground track..
Bullshit. ISS isn't going to quickly fall out of the sky if it is
unmanned. Orbital mechanics, get some...
> so having a few emergency transit vehicles in silos, with cargo pods
> ready to go is just smart thinking like planning for a shuttle stuck
> at station.
>
> if we can pay to keep ICBMs ready for instant launch then we should be
> able to afford some emergency supplies to orbit launchers
Bullshit. Different programs, different priorities, different levels of
funding.
> now imagine the horror, a small piece of space debris too small to
> track damage ISS and just one of the 2 soyuz lifeboats.
Damaging both at the same time is a neat trick. How is that supposed to
happen? Certainly it's possible, but it's highly unlikely. Space is
always going to be a bit risky. Grow a pair and accept the risks.
> 3 crew members get back safely the remaing 3 die waiting for some
> crucial supplies, the stations control is lost and ISS breaks up
> depositing debris that survive re entry all along the ground track
> hitting some major citys
>
> nasa is put out of business after some congressional hearings.
>
> all preventable with just a few emergency cargo rockets had been built
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
We've all heard this bullshit before, and that's all it is.
@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> Theres more in orbit debris endangering ISS and no tracking for
> smaller pieces. LEO is getting crowded.
>
> now abandoning ISS might save a crew, although a debris impact could
> damage a attached soyuz. so crew survival, isnt assured.
But if it damages the Soyuz, ISS would be used as a safe haven until
> Theres more in orbit debris endangering ISS and no tracking for
> smaller pieces. LEO is getting crowded.
>
> now abandoning ISS might save a crew, although a debris impact could
> damage a attached soyuz. so crew survival, isnt assured.
replacements could be launched.
> beyond which a damaged ISS without a crew can endager anyone under the
> ground track..
unmanned. Orbital mechanics, get some...
> so having a few emergency transit vehicles in silos, with cargo pods
> ready to go is just smart thinking like planning for a shuttle stuck
> at station.
>
> if we can pay to keep ICBMs ready for instant launch then we should be
> able to afford some emergency supplies to orbit launchers
funding.
> now imagine the horror, a small piece of space debris too small to
> track damage ISS and just one of the 2 soyuz lifeboats.
happen? Certainly it's possible, but it's highly unlikely. Space is
always going to be a bit risky. Grow a pair and accept the risks.
> 3 crew members get back safely the remaing 3 die waiting for some
> crucial supplies, the stations control is lost and ISS breaks up
> depositing debris that survive re entry all along the ground track
> hitting some major citys
>
> nasa is put out of business after some congressional hearings.
>
> all preventable with just a few emergency cargo rockets had been built
We've all heard this bullshit before, and that's all it is.
Jeff Findley
Nov 16, 2012, 7:19:27 AM11/16/12
to
In article <ZcWdncuzLqikzTjN...@earthlink.com>,
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>
> >"Rick Jones" wrote in message news:k83h18$k0t$2...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> >I'm going to to ahead and pick the nit on the fifth one there and say
> >you are counting an as-yet un-hatched chicken there.
> >
> >Four! Four options for the resupplying mission! :)
> >
> >It is perhaps even more of a nit, but option 2 ceases after the fifth
> >launch (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle)
> >
> >Three! Three options for the resupplying mission! :)
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle isn't terribly
> >specific about continuing launches but I'll refrain from going down to
> >two :)
>
> What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
> >"Rick Jones" wrote in message news:k83h18$k0t$2...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> >I'm going to to ahead and pick the nit on the fifth one there and say
> >you are counting an as-yet un-hatched chicken there.
> >
> >Four! Four options for the resupplying mission! :)
> >
> >It is perhaps even more of a nit, but option 2 ceases after the fifth
> >launch (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle)
> >
> >Three! Three options for the resupplying mission! :)
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle isn't terribly
> >specific about continuing launches but I'll refrain from going down to
> >two :)
>
> What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 18, 2012, 7:12:34 AM11/18/12
to
On Nov 16, 7:18 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <7dc0650a-de37-48e6-9988-f35b20e95bb8
> @h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> In article <7dc0650a-de37-48e6-9988-f35b20e95bb8
at here with the sky is falling till columbia, then posters quit
laughing and nasa made plans.
it is commonly accepted that a debris strile to anything in space will
lead to more debris. has anyone given thought to ISS where a primary
debris strike will likely do colateral damage to attached modules,
soyuz etc? and i dont believe soyuz are protected by blankets like ISS
modules are.
with the increasing amount of orbital debris, many are too small to be
trackable one day we may get a mayday call from ISS and the ability to
launch something to help instantly may not only be the difference
between life a death for the crew, but for many on earth too....
now go ahead and laugh, chicken little etc.
but i will be here to remind you if a dister like this occurs
Dean
Nov 18, 2012, 2:50:43 PM11/18/12
to
I bet you enjoy pulling the wings off flies, don't you?
Give a cite for your contention that it is commonly accepted that a debris strike will create more debris. I'd contend it is just as likely a bolt striking an orbiting object will punch a whole in it. You have visions of sciFi space battles in your head apparently.
Give a cite for your contention that it is commonly accepted that a debris strike will create more debris. I'd contend it is just as likely a bolt striking an orbiting object will punch a whole in it. You have visions of sciFi space battles in your head apparently.
bob haller
Nov 18, 2012, 7:10:03 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 2:50 pm, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I bet you enjoy pulling the wings off flies, don't you?
>
> Give a cite for your contention that it is commonly accepted that a debris strike will create more debris. I'd contend it is just as likely a bolt striking an orbiting object will punch a whole in it. You have visions of sciFi space battles in your head apparently.
no the problem is that most impacts create more debris, lately we had
> I bet you enjoy pulling the wings off flies, don't you?
>
> Give a cite for your contention that it is commonly accepted that a debris strike will create more debris. I'd contend it is just as likely a bolt striking an orbiting object will punch a whole in it. You have visions of sciFi space battles in your head apparently.
intential and accidental debris creations. at some point the entire
orbital zone could become unusable. debris tend the spread evenly over
the area.
this infor from roger balettie a retired shuttle FDO, flight dynamics
officer < controller>
and no i have never intentially hurt any living creature
Jeff Findley
Nov 19, 2012, 8:33:44 AM11/19/12
to
In article <641c58aa-9fa0-43a8-a0ad-9959bf0a06f8
@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
forward. Shuttle flights did not immediately and permanently end.
> it is commonly accepted that a debris strile to anything in space will
> lead to more debris. has anyone given thought to ISS where a primary
> debris strike will likely do colateral damage to attached modules,
> soyuz etc? and i dont believe soyuz are protected by blankets like ISS
> modules are.
Yes, NASA has made these sorts of risk assessments. But you don't
listen to anything anyone here says, so I doubt even those expert
analyses would sway your demented view of the world.
> with the increasing amount of orbital debris, many are too small to be
> trackable one day we may get a mayday call from ISS and the ability to
> launch something to help instantly may not only be the difference
> between life a death for the crew, but for many on earth too....
>
> now go ahead and laugh, chicken little etc.
>
> but i will be here to remind you if a dister like this occurs
If it happens, it happens. I'm well aware of the risks. Spaceflight
can be dangerous. It doesn't mean we have to prepare contingencies for
events that are extremely unlikely to happen in the real world.
If you ran the world, we'd have ejection seats for passengers in taxi
cabs in New York City, "just in case" some extremely unlikely scenario
might arise which would otherwise kill the occupants of the taxi. Never
mind the added risks and deaths caused by the ejection seats not used in
your unlikely scenarios.
You seem to be the only one who wants to live in your world of constant
fear. I choose to live in the real world, thank you very much.
@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> On Nov 16, 7:18 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> NASA failed to plan for a shuttle stuck at station, and I was laughed
> at here with the sky is falling till columbia, then posters quit
> laughing and nasa made plans.
Columbia was a tragedy, but fixes were made and the program went
> On Nov 16, 7:18 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> NASA failed to plan for a shuttle stuck at station, and I was laughed
> at here with the sky is falling till columbia, then posters quit
> laughing and nasa made plans.
forward. Shuttle flights did not immediately and permanently end.
> it is commonly accepted that a debris strile to anything in space will
> lead to more debris. has anyone given thought to ISS where a primary
> debris strike will likely do colateral damage to attached modules,
> soyuz etc? and i dont believe soyuz are protected by blankets like ISS
> modules are.
listen to anything anyone here says, so I doubt even those expert
analyses would sway your demented view of the world.
> with the increasing amount of orbital debris, many are too small to be
> trackable one day we may get a mayday call from ISS and the ability to
> launch something to help instantly may not only be the difference
> between life a death for the crew, but for many on earth too....
>
> now go ahead and laugh, chicken little etc.
>
> but i will be here to remind you if a dister like this occurs
can be dangerous. It doesn't mean we have to prepare contingencies for
events that are extremely unlikely to happen in the real world.
If you ran the world, we'd have ejection seats for passengers in taxi
cabs in New York City, "just in case" some extremely unlikely scenario
might arise which would otherwise kill the occupants of the taxi. Never
mind the added risks and deaths caused by the ejection seats not used in
your unlikely scenarios.
You seem to be the only one who wants to live in your world of constant
fear. I choose to live in the real world, thank you very much.
Jeff Findley
Nov 19, 2012, 8:52:18 AM11/19/12
to
In article <600bc64e-6373-48c9...@googlegroups.com>,
dama...@gmail.com says...
produce more, smaller, pieces of debris. But the details are pretty
complicated and are the subject of many, many research papers.
dama...@gmail.com says...
>
> I bet you enjoy pulling the wings off flies, don't you?
>
> Give a cite for your contention that it is commonly accepted that a debris strike will create more debris. I'd contend it is just as likely a bolt striking an orbiting object will punch a whole in it. You have visions of sciFi space battles in your head apparently.
This part is true. Debris is an issue and big collisions obviously
> I bet you enjoy pulling the wings off flies, don't you?
>
> Give a cite for your contention that it is commonly accepted that a debris strike will create more debris. I'd contend it is just as likely a bolt striking an orbiting object will punch a whole in it. You have visions of sciFi space battles in your head apparently.
produce more, smaller, pieces of debris. But the details are pretty
complicated and are the subject of many, many research papers.
bob haller
Nov 19, 2012, 6:19:35 PM11/19/12
to
> > Give a cite for your contention that it is commonly accepted that a debris strike will create more debris. I'd contend it is just as likely a bolt striking an orbiting object will punch a whole in it. You have visions of sciFi space battles in your head apparently.
>
> This part is true. Debris is an issue and big collisions obviously
> produce more, smaller, pieces of debris. But the details are pretty
> complicated and are the subject of many, many research papers.
>
> Jeff
> --
mayday call from the station is probably a good idea....
or wait till the accident occurs and kills some crew, which they are
well aware of the risks.
but for eartthers seeing the ISS ground track littered with modules
from a out of control station costing how many billions?
which could of been preventable with a small contingent of stand by
vehicles...
congress will zero nasas budget if such a disaster occurs.......
Jeff Findley
Nov 20, 2012, 8:36:48 AM11/20/12
to
In article <7eff6eaa-5f65-441d-86d2-78fdf1ef6902
@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
> but for eartthers seeing the ISS ground track littered with modules
> from a out of control station costing how many billions?
It is very doubtful this would happen. It would take quite a hit to
cause ISS to break apart so that its orbital track is "littered with
modules". Remember that orbital debris that can be tracked is tracked,
so there is a limit to how big of a hit ISS would take if it by a piece
of debris too small to track.
Again, you are not doing the math here and have nothing to support your
wild assertions. You can't do failure analyses "in your gut".
> which could of been preventable with a small contingent of stand by
> vehicles...
How in the hell would "stand by vehicles" prevent the ISS ground track
from being "littered with modules" due to a debris strike? You're
making far less sense than your usual insane ramblings. And you wonder
why you're the chicken little of the sci.space newsgroups. :-P
> congress will zero nasas budget if such a disaster occurs.......
Bullshit. Has not happened yet, despite the complete loss of three
crews since the 1960's. History has shown that there is a large
political will to spend billions on the manned space program even if
there is little to show for it in terms of science produced.
Just look at the billions being thrown down the SLS rat-hole for an
example. There is little innovation there. Also, there are far cheaper
ways to produce the same results. Congress doesn't care much about
innovation or cost as long as billions are spent in the right
congressional districts.
@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> > > Give a cite for your contention that it is commonly accepted that a debris strike will create more debris. I'd contend it is just as likely a bolt striking an orbiting object will punch a whole in it. You have visions of sciFi space battles in your head apparently.
> >
> > This part is true. Debris is an issue and big collisions obviously
> > produce more, smaller, pieces of debris. But the details are pretty
> > complicated and are the subject of many, many research papers.
>
> > > Give a cite for your contention that it is commonly accepted that a debris strike will create more debris. I'd contend it is just as likely a bolt striking an orbiting object will punch a whole in it. You have visions of sciFi space battles in your head apparently.
> >
> > This part is true. Debris is an issue and big collisions obviously
> > produce more, smaller, pieces of debris. But the details are pretty
> > complicated and are the subject of many, many research papers.
>
> Well given the dramatic increase of in orbit debris planning for a
> mayday call from the station is probably a good idea....
Done. Crews are trained for this.
> mayday call from the station is probably a good idea....
> but for eartthers seeing the ISS ground track littered with modules
> from a out of control station costing how many billions?
cause ISS to break apart so that its orbital track is "littered with
modules". Remember that orbital debris that can be tracked is tracked,
so there is a limit to how big of a hit ISS would take if it by a piece
of debris too small to track.
Again, you are not doing the math here and have nothing to support your
wild assertions. You can't do failure analyses "in your gut".
> which could of been preventable with a small contingent of stand by
> vehicles...
from being "littered with modules" due to a debris strike? You're
making far less sense than your usual insane ramblings. And you wonder
why you're the chicken little of the sci.space newsgroups. :-P
> congress will zero nasas budget if such a disaster occurs.......
crews since the 1960's. History has shown that there is a large
political will to spend billions on the manned space program even if
there is little to show for it in terms of science produced.
Just look at the billions being thrown down the SLS rat-hole for an
example. There is little innovation there. Also, there are far cheaper
ways to produce the same results. Congress doesn't care much about
innovation or cost as long as billions are spent in the right
congressional districts.
bob haller
Nov 20, 2012, 7:15:08 PM11/20/12
to
command and control. ISS flies in a low orbit, a debris hit that
causes atmosphere loss can cause overheating of control equiptement
causing ISS to tumble.
a tumbling ISS could spread modules all over bthe ground track.
Space travel has never really done damage on earth, no hitting citys
etc.
If that occurs and since manned space has very little science returns.
Drop a module in new york will see a zero budget for anything major
beyond necessary earth weather monitoring.
having some emergency supplies to orbit for ISS is just smart
thinking. Think of it like homeowners insurance......
A debris hit coiuld not only damage the station but take out in orbit
emergency supplies and spare parts....
a fast supplies to orbit could also help a ISS trannsit vehicle like
soyuz or private vehicle that runs into troubles
Greg (Strider) Moore
Nov 20, 2012, 11:40:17 PM11/20/12
to
>"bob haller" wrote in message
>news:c3b2fa1c-088d-49e0...@4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
the US and the Soviet one.
On top of that, if you still have a Soyuz or Progress attached (which you
most likely will) you have an additional source, albeit it a very weak one.
>
>a tumbling ISS could spread modules all over bthe ground track.
>
>Space travel has never really done damage on earth, no hitting citys
>etc.
>
>
>If that occurs and since manned space has very little science returns.
returns. You just refuse to listen because you're expecting some
groundbreaking, earth-shattering research. Hate to break it to you, that's
not the modus operandi of almost any lab, government or otherwise.
>Drop a module in new york will see a zero budget for anything major
>beyond necessary earth weather monitoring.
>
would almost certainly do less damage than American Airlines Flight 587
crash in NYC in 2001.
>having some emergency supplies to orbit for ISS is just smart
>thinking. Think of it like homeowners insurance......
>
supplies to an out of control space station?
And once you do, what the hell good do they do you?
>A debris hit coiuld not only damage the station but take out in orbit
>emergency supplies and spare parts....
>
And then you boost ISS to as high an orbit as you can and take a few YEARS
to develop a plan.
>a fast supplies to orbit could also help a ISS trannsit vehicle like
>soyuz or private vehicle that runs into troubles
>
Jeff Findley
Nov 21, 2012, 8:19:49 AM11/21/12
to
In article <c3b2fa1c-088d-49e0-aecb-756474fca1fc@
4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
> a tumbling ISS could spread modules all over bthe ground track.
Based on what? Your gut?
> Space travel has never really done damage on earth, no hitting citys
> etc.
>
>
> If that occurs and since manned space has very little science returns.
> Drop a module in new york will see a zero budget for anything major
> beyond necessary earth weather monitoring.
>
> having some emergency supplies to orbit for ISS is just smart
> thinking. Think of it like homeowners insurance......
Again, what in the hell are "emergency supplies" going to do in such an
emergency? What sort of "emergency supplies" would you have "ready to
launch" that are not already on ISS? If the supplies are that critical,
store them on ISS, not on top of a rocket "ready to launch". That's
just stupid.
> A debris hit coiuld not only damage the station but take out in orbit
> emergency supplies and spare parts....
Based on what? Your gut?
> a fast supplies to orbit could also help a ISS trannsit vehicle like
> soyuz or private vehicle that runs into troubles
Based on what? Your gut?
4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> a debris hit probably will not destroy the station but disable it,
> command and control. ISS flies in a low orbit, a debris hit that
> causes atmosphere loss can cause overheating of control equiptement
> causing ISS to tumble.
Based on what? Your gut?
> a debris hit probably will not destroy the station but disable it,
> command and control. ISS flies in a low orbit, a debris hit that
> causes atmosphere loss can cause overheating of control equiptement
> causing ISS to tumble.
> a tumbling ISS could spread modules all over bthe ground track.
> Space travel has never really done damage on earth, no hitting citys
> etc.
>
>
> If that occurs and since manned space has very little science returns.
> Drop a module in new york will see a zero budget for anything major
> beyond necessary earth weather monitoring.
>
> having some emergency supplies to orbit for ISS is just smart
> thinking. Think of it like homeowners insurance......
emergency? What sort of "emergency supplies" would you have "ready to
launch" that are not already on ISS? If the supplies are that critical,
store them on ISS, not on top of a rocket "ready to launch". That's
just stupid.
> A debris hit coiuld not only damage the station but take out in orbit
> emergency supplies and spare parts....
> a fast supplies to orbit could also help a ISS trannsit vehicle like
> soyuz or private vehicle that runs into troubles
bob haller
Nov 21, 2012, 9:01:02 AM11/21/12
to
Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will
damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to
get emergency supplies to orbit.
and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to
get much of NASA permanetely defunded.
In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency
vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old
could occasionally launch some regular freight.
Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.
And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed
colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and
likely saved the crews lives.
Jeff Findley
Nov 21, 2012, 9:55:57 AM11/21/12
to
In article <b09c6b57-eb83-4b53-bddf-6b1d44c07ef1
@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
it to lose all attitude control, causing it to spin out of control,
causing it to rip apart resulting in ISS modules strewn about the ground
track. It's been pointed out to you how unlikely this is, given that
ISS has multiple, redundant, ways of maintaining attitude control.
And even if such a thing were to happen, this is a very specific, highly
unlikely, scenario in which it makes no sense that "emergency supplies"
could be useful or could even be delivered if the station is spinning
out of control.
> and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to
> get much of NASA permanetely defunded.
Again, this is complete and utter b.s. An uncontrolled reentry is the
worst case result and even that is unlikely to do significant damage.
Most of the earth is ocean, which is largely unoccupied. Most of the
land on earth is likewise unoccupied, or very sparsely occupied. To
know for sure, you'd have to "do the math", which we know you won't do.
The next best thing would be a cite which supports your assertions,
which we also know you won't do.
> In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency
> vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old
> could occasionally launch some regular freight.
This is speculation and supposition. You don't know any such thing.
What existing launch vehicles, which are housed in silos, could deliver
a payload to ISS? Exactly none. ICBM's which can be housed in silos
are designed to deliver warheads on a trajectory towards the enemy, not
deliver "emergency supplies" to ISS.
You're talking about a capability which does not exist and asserting
that it would be cheap to develop and maintain such a capability over
the lifetime of ISS. In laymen's terms, you're full of $hit.
> Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.
>
> And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed
> colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and
> likely saved the crews lives.
Would have, could have, should have. NASA would have, could have,
should have actually done something about the foam shedding issue
instead of ignoring it, not invented hair brained schemes to deal with
the issue after it resulted in a hole in the wing.
@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will
> damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to
> get emergency supplies to orbit.
Actually, you keep speculating that a hit will depressurize ISS, causing
> Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will
> damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to
> get emergency supplies to orbit.
it to lose all attitude control, causing it to spin out of control,
causing it to rip apart resulting in ISS modules strewn about the ground
track. It's been pointed out to you how unlikely this is, given that
ISS has multiple, redundant, ways of maintaining attitude control.
And even if such a thing were to happen, this is a very specific, highly
unlikely, scenario in which it makes no sense that "emergency supplies"
could be useful or could even be delivered if the station is spinning
out of control.
> and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to
> get much of NASA permanetely defunded.
worst case result and even that is unlikely to do significant damage.
Most of the earth is ocean, which is largely unoccupied. Most of the
land on earth is likewise unoccupied, or very sparsely occupied. To
know for sure, you'd have to "do the math", which we know you won't do.
The next best thing would be a cite which supports your assertions,
which we also know you won't do.
> In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency
> vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old
> could occasionally launch some regular freight.
What existing launch vehicles, which are housed in silos, could deliver
a payload to ISS? Exactly none. ICBM's which can be housed in silos
are designed to deliver warheads on a trajectory towards the enemy, not
deliver "emergency supplies" to ISS.
You're talking about a capability which does not exist and asserting
that it would be cheap to develop and maintain such a capability over
the lifetime of ISS. In laymen's terms, you're full of $hit.
> Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.
>
> And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed
> colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and
> likely saved the crews lives.
should have actually done something about the foam shedding issue
instead of ignoring it, not invented hair brained schemes to deal with
the issue after it resulted in a hole in the wing.
Dean
Nov 21, 2012, 10:18:21 AM11/21/12
to
bob haller
Nov 21, 2012, 8:44:58 PM11/21/12
to
regular freight. it wouldnt cost that much and would add redundancy to
operations...
emergency supplies might be food, water or spare parts.....
In a true emergency a falcon always ready to launch could be the
difference between a bad day and a great nasa save.....
espically when the asset being protected costs as much as ISS!
Greg (Strider) Moore
Nov 22, 2012, 8:43:37 AM11/22/12
to
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:e2313c70-fe3a-4028...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Nov 21, 10:18 am, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:01:02 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
>> > Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will
>>
>> > damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to
>>
>> > get emergency supplies to orbit.
>>
>> > and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to
>>
>> > get much of NASA permanetely defunded.
>>
>> > In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency
>>
>> > vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old
>>
>> > could occasionally launch some regular freight.
>>
>> > Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.
>>
>> > And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed
>>
>> > colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and
>>
>> > likely saved the crews lives.
>>
>> Hindsight is always 20/20.
>
>So put some Falcons in silos for emergencies... launch one a year with
>regular freight. it wouldnt cost that much and would add redundancy to
>operations...
Gee, you're right Bob. I hadn't realized that SpaceX had designed and rated
>On Nov 21, 10:18 am, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:01:02 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
>> > Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will
>>
>> > damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to
>>
>> > get emergency supplies to orbit.
>>
>> > and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to
>>
>> > get much of NASA permanetely defunded.
>>
>> > In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency
>>
>> > vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old
>>
>> > could occasionally launch some regular freight.
>>
>> > Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.
>>
>> > And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed
>>
>> > colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and
>>
>> > likely saved the crews lives.
>>
>> Hindsight is always 20/20.
>
>So put some Falcons in silos for emergencies... launch one a year with
>regular freight. it wouldnt cost that much and would add redundancy to
>operations...
the Falcon 9 for launch from a silo. I mean they've launched how many from
silos now? Oh wait.. what they didn't and they haven't?
Big hint Bob. You can't just drop a rocket into a non-existent silo and
launch it.
That's the other problem, there's NO SILO built for Falcon 9.
>
>emergency supplies might be food, water or spare parts.....
>
>In a true emergency a falcon always ready to launch could be the
>difference between a bad day and a great nasa save.....
>
>espically when the asset being protected costs as much as ISS!
There's already close to a 1/2 dozen methods to access ISS. Now you want to
add one more for an extremely remote possibility.
BTW, to address a point you brought up in another thread.
The proper solution to Columbia isn't a lunch on demand capability. It's a
"make damn sure it doesn't happen in the first place."
Dean
Nov 22, 2012, 5:15:31 PM11/22/12
to
The only reason to put a rocket in a silo is for security and protection against incoming missiles. The Falcon does not need that.
bob haller
Nov 23, 2012, 12:44:26 AM11/23/12
to
On Nov 22, 5:15 pm, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only reason to put a rocket in a silo is for security and protection against incoming missiles. The Falcon does not need that.
falcon may have military uses.............
> The only reason to put a rocket in a silo is for security and protection against incoming missiles. The Falcon does not need that.
the idea is a very fast always ready to go launch ability. that can be
accomplished in many ways a silo being one. a building on wheels
another.
it would be sad to see ISS die just because the random event that
causes a problem occurs when no vehicle is available. and with the
growing debris issues its one likely cause.
redundancy should be in nasas plans. not just in vehicles but for
accidents and other unplanned events.
it would be tragic to see ISS kill anyone on the ground, and a out of
control tumbling ISS could cause mass panic on its ground track, which
happens to be over most of the heavily populated area of our
world......
bob haller
Nov 23, 2012, 12:52:14 AM11/23/12
to
>
> BTW, to address a point you brought up in another thread.
>
> The proper solution to Columbia isn't a lunch on demand capability. It's a
> "make damn sure it doesn't happen in the first place."
>
>
>
> --
> Greg D. Moore
make stuff as safe as humanely possible, and have a layer of additiona
protection.......
russia has been having lots of issues with its space program ........
imagine a soyuz launched into a poor orbit, it cant re enter but cant
get to the station either.
basically its stuck...
even a non man rated falcon coud be useful under those situations
its like planning for a shuttle stuck at station, when i asked about
that possiblity i was laughed at here, and called chicken little.
once columbia occured nasa planned for it......
Dean
Nov 23, 2012, 9:06:05 AM11/23/12
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 25, 2012, 9:19:44 AM11/25/12
to
On Nov 24, 9:45 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's because his head is so far up his ass that it's easier to look
> back there. However, in this case, his hindsight is just a little
> off, too, since the problem was not repairable on orbit and even
> imaging the Shuttle probably wouldn't have shown the problem.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
A fast supplies to orbit capability could of been used to support
columbia in orbit till a way to rescue the crew would of been ready..
then columbia unmanned could of attempted auto land,,,, to save the
vehicle.
while there werent many supplies to attempt in orbit repairs, a rescue
vehicle could of taken them along......
> back there. However, in this case, his hindsight is just a little
> off, too, since the problem was not repairable on orbit and even
> imaging the Shuttle probably wouldn't have shown the problem.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
A fast supplies to orbit capability could of been used to support
columbia in orbit till a way to rescue the crew would of been ready..
then columbia unmanned could of attempted auto land,,,, to save the
vehicle.
while there werent many supplies to attempt in orbit repairs, a rescue
vehicle could of taken them along......
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 25, 2012, 2:44:59 PM11/25/12
to
On Nov 25, 11:47 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> existed. So what does your expensive (and at the time non-existent
> (hell, NOW non-existent)) capability bring to the table, again?
>
> Remember, all you're saving is vehicle stacking time. You're still
> going to have all the fueling time.
> be needed so that you could stack them on your siloed vehicle...
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
obviously the site the rockets are stationed at would have ready to go
supplies for quick loading.
one vehicle could be a escape capsule capable of deorbiting the entire
crew in a dire emergency. ideally large enough for the max number of
crew, plus a pilot and possibly co pilot for the job, figure 12 people
tops, jammed in for a quick deorbit.
one vehicle could carry supplies loaded once the situation is
understood, and its engine could be used to stabilize the stations
orbit...
with a few vehicles ready to go at a moments notice it could save the
station, or a soyuz enroute to the station that has a problem
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 9:45 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:01:02 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
> >> >> Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will
> >> >> damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to
> >> >> get emergency supplies to orbit.
>
> >> >> and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to
> >> >> get much of NASA permanetely defunded.
>
> >> >> In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency
> >> >> vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old
> >> >> could occasionally launch some regular freight.
>
> >> >> Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.
>
> >> >> And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed
> >> >> colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and
> >> >> likely saved the crews lives.
>
> >> >Hindsight is always 20/20.
>
> >> That's because his head is so far up his ass that it's easier to look
> >> back there. However, in this case, his hindsight is just a little
> >> off, too, since the problem was not repairable on orbit and even
> >> imaging the Shuttle probably wouldn't have shown the problem.
>
> >On Nov 24, 9:45 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:01:02 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
> >> >> Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will
> >> >> damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to
> >> >> get emergency supplies to orbit.
>
> >> >> and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to
> >> >> get much of NASA permanetely defunded.
>
> >> >> In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency
> >> >> vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old
> >> >> could occasionally launch some regular freight.
>
> >> >> Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.
>
> >> >> And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed
> >> >> colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and
> >> >> likely saved the crews lives.
>
> >> >Hindsight is always 20/20.
>
> >> That's because his head is so far up his ass that it's easier to look
> >> back there. However, in this case, his hindsight is just a little
> >> off, too, since the problem was not repairable on orbit and even
> >> imaging the Shuttle probably wouldn't have shown the problem.
>
> >A fast supplies to orbit capability could of been used to support
> >columbia in orbit till a way to rescue the crew would of been ready..
>
> Uh, so could a slow supplies to orbit capability, which already
> >columbia in orbit till a way to rescue the crew would of been ready..
>
> existed. So what does your expensive (and at the time non-existent
> (hell, NOW non-existent)) capability bring to the table, again?
>
> Remember, all you're saving is vehicle stacking time. You're still
> going to have all the fueling time.
>
>
>
> >then columbia unmanned could of attempted auto land,,,, to save the
> >vehicle.
>
> >while there werent many supplies to attempt in orbit repairs, a rescue
> >vehicle could of taken them along......
>
> And of course your crystal ball told you exactly which supplies would
>
>
> >then columbia unmanned could of attempted auto land,,,, to save the
> >vehicle.
>
> >while there werent many supplies to attempt in orbit repairs, a rescue
> >vehicle could of taken them along......
>
> be needed so that you could stack them on your siloed vehicle...
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
obviously the site the rockets are stationed at would have ready to go
supplies for quick loading.
one vehicle could be a escape capsule capable of deorbiting the entire
crew in a dire emergency. ideally large enough for the max number of
crew, plus a pilot and possibly co pilot for the job, figure 12 people
tops, jammed in for a quick deorbit.
one vehicle could carry supplies loaded once the situation is
understood, and its engine could be used to stabilize the stations
orbit...
with a few vehicles ready to go at a moments notice it could save the
station, or a soyuz enroute to the station that has a problem
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 25, 2012, 5:37:41 PM11/25/12
to
> Bobbert, are you even capable of pulling your head out of your ass and
> actually thinking?
Freds idiot posts redacted.
By having the emergency rockets stacked checked and ready to go saves
way more than just stacking time....
now picture this a disaster occurs at the station, one soyuz can
return with its 3 crew members. the other soyuz is damaged and cant
reenter safely, and worse the station isnt really habitible.....
now the next regular supply vehicle is due to launch in 4 weeks. it
will need stacked, checked out , fueled, cargo loaded etc. even fast
tracking means 2 weeks if everything goes flawlessely.. the emergency
parts and supplies could keep the crew alive hunkered down till the
next soyuz arrival. which do nte still leaves one astronaut stranded.
the next soyus isnt due to launch for months, since a crew rotation
had just occured....
so the crew dies for lack of fast ground support, this could of been
avoided if we had just invested a little extra.....
Dean
Nov 25, 2012, 8:12:57 PM11/25/12
to
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 26, 2012, 3:25:33 AM11/26/12
to
On Nov 25, 10:09 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> going to have to fuel the vehicle (liquid fuel rockets aren't kept
> fueled in silos). You're still going to have to load your specialized
> supplies that you talked about in the part you snipped. You're still
> going to have to do your analysis of the emergency to figure out
> what's needed. You're still going to have to hit an appropriate
> launch window and program the vehicle for it.
>
> So just what time does it save, Bobbert?
> loaded, etc. All you've saved is stacking time and you've made
> loading cargo more difficult because the thing is in a hole in the
> ground.
> magic about putting the rocket in a hole in the ground that suddenly
> makes all the steps magically complete? There isn't.
>
> In an accident such as you postulate, the station cannot be saved (the
> damage is too severe, since you postulate that all existing supplies
> are destroyed).
>
> But, as usual, you will ignore reality and continue to bleat about how
> great your plan is, despite virtually everyone pointing out that
> you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about.
station...... before columbia.
having some vehicles on standby saves the possible weeks or more that
ignoring the issue cost our country , and the world in case a bad day
occurs, which is growing more likely as the in orbit debris increase,
although the issue could be from other problems, like a soyuz that
cant deorbit or make it to the station. given russias space quality
issues lately thats getting more likely....
when your operating a trillion dollar station its good practice to
think about redundancy.....
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Bobbert, are you even capable of pulling your head out of your ass and
> >> actually thinking?
>
> >Freds idiot posts redacted.
>
> Yes, Bobbert snips everything he has no rational answer to.
>
> >> Bobbert, are you even capable of pulling your head out of your ass and
> >> actually thinking?
>
> >Freds idiot posts redacted.
>
>
>
>
> >By having the emergency rockets stacked checked and ready to go saves
> >way more than just stacking time....
>
> How's that work, again? What other time does it save? You're still
>
>
> >By having the emergency rockets stacked checked and ready to go saves
> >way more than just stacking time....
>
> going to have to fuel the vehicle (liquid fuel rockets aren't kept
> fueled in silos). You're still going to have to load your specialized
> supplies that you talked about in the part you snipped. You're still
> going to have to do your analysis of the emergency to figure out
> what's needed. You're still going to have to hit an appropriate
> launch window and program the vehicle for it.
>
> So just what time does it save, Bobbert?
>
>
>
> >now picture this a disaster occurs at the station, one soyuz can
> >return with its 3 crew members. the other soyuz is damaged and cant
> >reenter safely, and worse the station isnt really habitible.....
>
> Ok, so let's pretend that a one in many billions chance occurs...
>
>
> >now picture this a disaster occurs at the station, one soyuz can
> >return with its 3 crew members. the other soyuz is damaged and cant
> >reenter safely, and worse the station isnt really habitible.....
>
>
>
>
> >now the next regular supply vehicle is due to launch in 4 weeks. it
> >will need stacked, checked out , fueled, cargo loaded etc. even fast
> >tracking means 2 weeks if everything goes flawlessely.. the emergency
> >parts and supplies could keep the crew alive hunkered down till the
> >next soyuz arrival. which do nte still leaves one astronaut stranded.
>
> Note that your silo vehicle needs to be checked out, fueled, cargo
>
>
> >now the next regular supply vehicle is due to launch in 4 weeks. it
> >will need stacked, checked out , fueled, cargo loaded etc. even fast
> >tracking means 2 weeks if everything goes flawlessely.. the emergency
> >parts and supplies could keep the crew alive hunkered down till the
> >next soyuz arrival. which do nte still leaves one astronaut stranded.
>
> loaded, etc. All you've saved is stacking time and you've made
> loading cargo more difficult because the thing is in a hole in the
> ground.
>
>
>
> >the next soyus isnt due to launch for months, since a crew rotation
> >had just occured....
>
> >so the crew dies for lack of fast ground support, this could of been
> >avoided if we had just invested a little extra.....
>
> Not by your scheme, it couldn't. Do you think there is something
>
>
> >the next soyus isnt due to launch for months, since a crew rotation
> >had just occured....
>
> >so the crew dies for lack of fast ground support, this could of been
> >avoided if we had just invested a little extra.....
>
> magic about putting the rocket in a hole in the ground that suddenly
> makes all the steps magically complete? There isn't.
>
> In an accident such as you postulate, the station cannot be saved (the
> damage is too severe, since you postulate that all existing supplies
> are destroyed).
>
> But, as usual, you will ignore reality and continue to bleat about how
> great your plan is, despite virtually everyone pointing out that
> you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
All of your statements are similiar to responses of a shuttle stuck at
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
station...... before columbia.
having some vehicles on standby saves the possible weeks or more that
ignoring the issue cost our country , and the world in case a bad day
occurs, which is growing more likely as the in orbit debris increase,
although the issue could be from other problems, like a soyuz that
cant deorbit or make it to the station. given russias space quality
issues lately thats getting more likely....
when your operating a trillion dollar station its good practice to
think about redundancy.....
Message has been deleted
Jeff Findley
Nov 26, 2012, 8:55:31 AM11/26/12
to
In article <e2313c70-fe3a-4028-8c9f-
42e62d...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
stored launch vehicles using LOX for oxidizer is not a trivial thing.
There are many reasons that the US stopped using LOX/kerosene for
ICBM's.
> emergency supplies might be food, water or spare parts.....
>
> In a true emergency a falcon always ready to launch could be the
> difference between a bad day and a great nasa save.....
>
> espically when the asset being protected costs as much as ISS!
You have yet to provide Cost benefit analysis. Do it.
42e62d...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> On Nov 21, 10:18 am, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hindsight is always 20/20.
>
> So put some Falcons in silos for emergencies... launch one a year with
> regular freight. it wouldnt cost that much and would add redundancy to
> operations...
Falcon was not designed to be stored in or launched from silos. Silo
> On Nov 21, 10:18 am, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hindsight is always 20/20.
>
> So put some Falcons in silos for emergencies... launch one a year with
> regular freight. it wouldnt cost that much and would add redundancy to
> operations...
stored launch vehicles using LOX for oxidizer is not a trivial thing.
There are many reasons that the US stopped using LOX/kerosene for
ICBM's.
> emergency supplies might be food, water or spare parts.....
>
> In a true emergency a falcon always ready to launch could be the
> difference between a bad day and a great nasa save.....
>
> espically when the asset being protected costs as much as ISS!
Jeff Findley
Nov 26, 2012, 8:58:22 AM11/26/12
to
In article <NOednenKFoSXsTPN...@earthlink.com>,
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
than a safety issue. The fact that no actual testing of impacts to the
RCC was done before Columbia is telling. It was always assumed it would
be "tougher" than the tiles.
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>
> BTW, to address a point you brought up in another thread.
>
> The proper solution to Columbia isn't a lunch on demand capability. It's a
> "make damn sure it doesn't happen in the first place."
Agreed. NASA was treating TPS damage more as a maintenance nuisance
> BTW, to address a point you brought up in another thread.
>
> The proper solution to Columbia isn't a lunch on demand capability. It's a
> "make damn sure it doesn't happen in the first place."
than a safety issue. The fact that no actual testing of impacts to the
RCC was done before Columbia is telling. It was always assumed it would
be "tougher" than the tiles.
Jeff Findley
Nov 26, 2012, 9:23:07 AM11/26/12
to
In article <7b1615fd-bf39-4a8a-8f49-
3c922b...@q5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. But that does not require a hardened silo
or any other countermeasures typically employed by ICBM's. We've got
bloody ICBM's already!
> the idea is a very fast always ready to go launch ability. that can be
> accomplished in many ways a silo being one. a building on wheels
> another.
>
> it would be sad to see ISS die just because the random event that
> causes a problem occurs when no vehicle is available. and with the
> growing debris issues its one likely cause.
>
> redundancy should be in nasas plans. not just in vehicles but for
> accidents and other unplanned events.
>
> it would be tragic to see ISS kill anyone on the ground, and a out of
> control tumbling ISS could cause mass panic on its ground track, which
> happens to be over most of the heavily populated area of our
> world......
Get a clue. ISS has redundancy built in already. The redundancy is in
orbit already. This sort of redundancy is needed for manned missions
beyond LEO. It would be a shame if NASA implemented your solution for
"redundancy" which then limited missions to LEO for decades to come.
3c922b...@q5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> On Nov 22, 5:15 pm, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only reason to put a rocket in a silo is for security and protection against incoming missiles. The Falcon does not need that.
>
> falcon may have military uses.............
Of course it has "military uses". They are looking to launch satellites
> On Nov 22, 5:15 pm, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only reason to put a rocket in a silo is for security and protection against incoming missiles. The Falcon does not need that.
>
> falcon may have military uses.............
on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. But that does not require a hardened silo
or any other countermeasures typically employed by ICBM's. We've got
bloody ICBM's already!
> the idea is a very fast always ready to go launch ability. that can be
> accomplished in many ways a silo being one. a building on wheels
> another.
>
> it would be sad to see ISS die just because the random event that
> causes a problem occurs when no vehicle is available. and with the
> growing debris issues its one likely cause.
>
> redundancy should be in nasas plans. not just in vehicles but for
> accidents and other unplanned events.
>
> it would be tragic to see ISS kill anyone on the ground, and a out of
> control tumbling ISS could cause mass panic on its ground track, which
> happens to be over most of the heavily populated area of our
> world......
orbit already. This sort of redundancy is needed for manned missions
beyond LEO. It would be a shame if NASA implemented your solution for
"redundancy" which then limited missions to LEO for decades to come.
Jeff Findley
Nov 26, 2012, 9:28:59 AM11/26/12
to
In article <8a375047-8f51-48f1-a543-5dd768e52cd9
@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the
crew home.
@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> All of your statements are similiar to responses of a shuttle stuck at
> station...... before columbia.
But Columbia wasn't stuck at ISS. If it had been, the "slow" way of
> All of your statements are similiar to responses of a shuttle stuck at
> station...... before columbia.
resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the
crew home.
bob haller
Nov 26, 2012, 9:45:22 AM11/26/12
to
On Nov 26, 9:29 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <8a375047-8f51-48f1-a543-5dd768e52cd9
> @l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> In article <8a375047-8f51-48f1-a543-5dd768e52cd9
>
>
>
> > All of your statements are similiar to responses of a shuttle stuck at
> > station...... before columbia.
>
> But Columbia wasn't stuck at ISS. If it had been, the "slow" way of
> resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the
> crew home.
>
> Jeff
> --
> "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
> magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
> than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
> and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
nasa never considered a shuttle stuck at station, posters here said
>
>
> > All of your statements are similiar to responses of a shuttle stuck at
> > station...... before columbia.
>
> But Columbia wasn't stuck at ISS. If it had been, the "slow" way of
> resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the
> crew home.
>
> Jeff
> --
> "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
> magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
> than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
> and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
impossible....
once columbia occured nasa planned for just such a possiblity......
if a debris strike occurs at a poor time when theres no soyuz progress
or other vehicle scheduled for a ISS we could lose everything, by
being cheap.....
given all the other costs of manned space not having some vehicles
ready for quick launch is just plain stupid.
being prepared would save time getting vehice/s to launch sites,
stacking, and testing plus the time to get the necessary supplies from
wherever they happen to be.......
could easily save a month or more.
a manned soyuz should always be ready for launch in russia...
supply ships should always be ready for launch here.
and the backup vehicles should be rotated in for regular operations so
they dont get stale... and minimizes the costs......
just in time inventory is ok if your building cars, but not so good if
your supporting a trillion dollar space station
bob haller
Nov 26, 2012, 9:50:41 AM11/26/12
to
>
> > All of your statements are similiar to responses of a shuttle stuck at
> > station...... before columbia.
>
> But Columbia wasn't stuck at ISS. If it had been, the "slow" way of
> resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the
> crew home.
>
> Jeff
station. which required lots of changes at ISS.
at some point columbia would of had to be cut clear, sent to attempt
re entry or burn up ......
so the shuttle wouldnt of always been available for space, power,
toilet facilities etc
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 27, 2012, 7:21:03 AM11/27/12
to
On Nov 26, 11:44 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > All of your statements are similiar to responses of a shuttle stuck at
> >> > station...... before columbia.
>
> >> But Columbia wasn't stuck at ISS. If it had been, the "slow" way of
> >> resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the
> >> crew home.
>
> >> > station...... before columbia.
>
> >> But Columbia wasn't stuck at ISS. If it had been, the "slow" way of
> >> resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the
> >> crew home.
>
> >there were consumable and power issues if columbia had got stuck at
> >station. which required lots of changes at ISS.
>
> So Columbia could operate independently but couldn't stay near ISS?
> >station. which required lots of changes at ISS.
>
> REALLY????
>
>
>
> >at some point columbia would of had to be cut clear, sent to attempt
> >re entry or burn up ......
>
> Why?
>
>
> >at some point columbia would of had to be cut clear, sent to attempt
> >re entry or burn up ......
>
>
>
>
> >so the shuttle wouldnt of always been available for space, power,
> >toilet facilities etc
>
> Nobody said anything about using a 'stuck Shuttle' for any of that.
>
>
> >so the shuttle wouldnt of always been available for space, power,
> >toilet facilities etc
>
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
a shuttle stuck at station if impossible to land would of been used to
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
depletion, till everything useful had been depleted....
since a station with suddenly 7 extra people indefinete consumables
would of been critical. remember when a shuttle visited the station
the shuttle was living space, power, bathroom for the visiting crew.
as to very fast launch to orbit, the military already has it, since a
attack on our country would target space assets.... our command and
control plus spying...
satellites are vulnerable in many ways....
since the military has fast launch to replace key satelites so should
ISS
fred tries to bury all posts with tons of garbage to try and discredit
anyone here
Message has been deleted
Dean
Nov 27, 2012, 7:52:12 AM11/27/12
to
bob haller
Nov 27, 2012, 8:35:39 AM11/27/12
to
> You do realize there AREN'T any shuttles anymore?
But after columbia nasa made lots of changes to support a shuttle
stuck at station.. they really werent prepared:(
and thats what this is all about ..... With our expensive station nasa
shoud always be prepared to support it as quickly as possible in a
true emergency..
even a small hole in a critical location could start a disaster.
now in freds world you store all the emergency supplies on the
station, the trouble is those supplies themselves might be damaged or
unavailable..
in freds word you depend on the regular resupply flights, if one just
arrived the next one may be a long time away.. and our just in time
system doesnt have extra vehicles waiting for launch....
so it might take a month or two to launch supplies ............
totally unacceptable where human life is at stake. not just the
astronauts, but people on the ground, mass panic can do far more harm
than incoming ISS debris.........
Jeff Findley
Nov 27, 2012, 8:41:01 AM11/27/12
to
In article <436e5bf5-7a0d-4b0b...@googlegroups.com>,
dama...@gmail.com says...
Bob loves to argue endlessly about the space shuttle. He's an expert,
in his own mind, about what should have, could have, would have been.
Unfortunately, his rants are not based in reality. Such as his
assertion "as to very fast launch to orbit, the military already has it,
"very fast launch to orbit", since that's the only launch vehicle
capable of replacing satellites tasked with "our command and control
plus spying".
His assertion that the military already has some secret ability to
launch large payloads into orbit is laughable.
dama...@gmail.com says...
in his own mind, about what should have, could have, would have been.
Unfortunately, his rants are not based in reality. Such as his
assertion "as to very fast launch to orbit, the military already has it,
since a attack on our country would target space assets.... our command
and control plus spying...". Funny, I didn't know EELV's could perform
"very fast launch to orbit", since that's the only launch vehicle
capable of replacing satellites tasked with "our command and control
plus spying".
His assertion that the military already has some secret ability to
launch large payloads into orbit is laughable.
bob haller
Nov 27, 2012, 10:09:01 AM11/27/12
to
On Nov 27, 8:41 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <436e5bf5-7a0d-4b0b...@googlegroups.com>,
> damark...@gmail.com says...
the military obviously has the ability to launch the existing
satellites that are in orbit, cant deny that..
plus and its been reported in the press they would replace those
damaged during a war. there would be lots of ways to take out existing
military satellites.
so a fast launch ability must already exist....
although ISS isnt a military asset it is probably the singles most
costly national asset thats so vulnerable......
> In article <436e5bf5-7a0d-4b0b...@googlegroups.com>,
> damark...@gmail.com says...
satellites that are in orbit, cant deny that..
plus and its been reported in the press they would replace those
damaged during a war. there would be lots of ways to take out existing
military satellites.
so a fast launch ability must already exist....
although ISS isnt a military asset it is probably the singles most
costly national asset thats so vulnerable......
Me
Nov 27, 2012, 10:35:08 AM11/27/12
to
On Nov 27, 10:09 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> plus and its been reported in the press they would replace those
> damaged during a war. there would be lots of ways to take out existing
> military satellites.
>
> so a fast launch ability must already exist....
It doesn't have that capability.
> plus and its been reported in the press they would replace those
> damaged during a war. there would be lots of ways to take out existing
> military satellites.
>
> so a fast launch ability must already exist....
Your idea is idiotic. The ISS is fine as it is.
.
Jeff Findley
Nov 27, 2012, 11:40:58 AM11/27/12
to
In article <8457134f-6031-4bab-b940-4a1e58c768a3
@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
True.
> plus and its been reported in the press they would replace those
> damaged during a war. there would be lots of ways to take out existing
> military satellites.
The possibility that some assets in orbit might be lost during a
conflict has certainly been considered. However, such an event has
never occurred, except in tests against a country's own satellites.
> so a fast launch ability must already exist....
This does *not* follow. There is no evidence to suggest that such a
capability actually exists.
In fact, even if such an ability existed, it would be useless unless
copies of every operational (military and recon) satellite in orbit were
ready to launch. The costs involved to make such a capability a reality
are *far* too high.
> although ISS isnt a military asset it is probably the singles most
> costly national asset thats so vulnerable......
In the big scheme of things, the complete loss of ISS would be small.
In fact, one could argue that such a "loss" would free up funding that
NASA could use for programs like Orion and SLS. In the past, some
posters here consistently called for the end of the shuttle program for
much the same reasons.
@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
> plus and its been reported in the press they would replace those
> damaged during a war. there would be lots of ways to take out existing
> military satellites.
conflict has certainly been considered. However, such an event has
never occurred, except in tests against a country's own satellites.
> so a fast launch ability must already exist....
capability actually exists.
In fact, even if such an ability existed, it would be useless unless
copies of every operational (military and recon) satellite in orbit were
ready to launch. The costs involved to make such a capability a reality
are *far* too high.
> although ISS isnt a military asset it is probably the singles most
> costly national asset thats so vulnerable......
In fact, one could argue that such a "loss" would free up funding that
NASA could use for programs like Orion and SLS. In the past, some
posters here consistently called for the end of the shuttle program for
much the same reasons.
bob haller
Nov 27, 2012, 11:52:50 AM11/27/12
to
On Nov 27, 11:40 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <8457134f-6031-4bab-b940-4a1e58c768a3
> @n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
while during a war, if its nuclear, most satellites would be damaged
if not totally inoperable.
with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
ability
> In article <8457134f-6031-4bab-b940-4a1e58c768a3
> @n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
if not totally inoperable.
with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
ability
bob haller
Nov 27, 2012, 11:55:20 AM11/27/12
to
> In the big scheme of things, the complete loss of ISS would be small.
> In fact, one could argue that such a "loss" would free up funding that
> NASA could use for programs like Orion and SLS. In the past, some
> posters here consistently called for the end of the shuttle program for
> much the same reasons.
>
> Jeff
ISS....
launch a rocket just in front of ISS with a ball bearing bomb.......\\
Jeff Findley
Nov 27, 2012, 1:01:00 PM11/27/12
to
In article <e18c7ccf-b48f-4050-bf08-e73b28d363c7
@w7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
assured destruction rears its ugly head. Besides, if EMP blasts from
nuclear weapons take out all the ground stations, exactly what is the
point of a military satellite in orbit following a nuclear exchange?
> with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
> plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
> ability
There is zero evidence that "quick launch" capability actually exists
for such replacements.
@w7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> while during a war, if its nuclear, most satellites would be damaged
> if not totally inoperable.
If the earth descends into nuclear war, "all bets are off" and mutually
> while during a war, if its nuclear, most satellites would be damaged
> if not totally inoperable.
assured destruction rears its ugly head. Besides, if EMP blasts from
nuclear weapons take out all the ground stations, exactly what is the
point of a military satellite in orbit following a nuclear exchange?
> with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
> plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
> ability
for such replacements.
Jeff Findley
Nov 27, 2012, 1:03:40 PM11/27/12
to
In article <511ad21c-a998-4531-8914-da535034a3a6
@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
which would have the capability to do this would be inviting the wrath
of the US Military upon them. Terrorists would not have such a
capability.
@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> > In the big scheme of things, the complete loss of ISS would be small.
> > In fact, one could argue that such a "loss" would free up funding that
> > NASA could use for programs like Orion and SLS. In the past, some
> > posters here consistently called for the end of the shuttle program for
> > much the same reasons.
>
> > In the big scheme of things, the complete loss of ISS would be small.
> > In fact, one could argue that such a "loss" would free up funding that
> > NASA could use for programs like Orion and SLS. In the past, some
> > posters here consistently called for the end of the shuttle program for
> > much the same reasons.
>
> it would certinally hurt our image, and evena dumb system could damage
> ISS....
>
> launch a rocket just in front of ISS with a ball bearing bomb.......\\
This has been discussed before. It's easier said than done. Countries
> ISS....
>
> launch a rocket just in front of ISS with a ball bearing bomb.......\\
which would have the capability to do this would be inviting the wrath
of the US Military upon them. Terrorists would not have such a
capability.
bob haller
Nov 27, 2012, 4:05:37 PM11/27/12
to
On Nov 27, 1:03 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <511ad21c-a998-4531-8914-da535034a3a6
> @n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> In article <511ad21c-a998-4531-8914-da535034a3a6
scud missle.
there are likely a wide variety of ways to damage ISS and I wouldnt
speculate here, theres no value in giving bad people ideas, but it
wouldnt require a major country to do it
bob haller
Nov 27, 2012, 4:26:08 PM11/27/12
to
O
> > while during a war, if its nuclear, most satellites would be damaged
> > if not totally inoperable.
>
> If the earth descends into nuclear war, "all bets are off" and mutually
> assured destruction rears its ugly head. Besides, if EMP blasts from
> nuclear weapons take out all the ground stations, exactly what is the
> point of a military satellite in orbit following a nuclear exchange?
>
> > with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
> > plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
> > ability
>
> There is zero evidence that "quick launch" capability actually exists
> for such replacements.
>
> Jeff
> --
A all out nuclear war is hopefully less likely today than in the 60s.
> > while during a war, if its nuclear, most satellites would be damaged
> > if not totally inoperable.
>
> If the earth descends into nuclear war, "all bets are off" and mutually
> assured destruction rears its ugly head. Besides, if EMP blasts from
> nuclear weapons take out all the ground stations, exactly what is the
> point of a military satellite in orbit following a nuclear exchange?
>
> > with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
> > plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
> > ability
>
> There is zero evidence that "quick launch" capability actually exists
> for such replacements.
>
> Jeff
> --
however the risks of terrorists getting a bomb is likely more just
because more exist, and places like pakistan security may be less than
perfect
bob haller
Nov 27, 2012, 4:31:00 PM11/27/12
to
> > with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
> > plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
> > ability
>
> There is zero evidence that "quick launch" capability actually exists
> for such replacements.
>
> Jeff
> --
miltary will lose all or nearly all its space assets for command and
control and lack a way to replace them fast
look at all the other spending for military, its doubled since 9
11......
but no way to quickly replace space command and control......
jeff you know this cant be true......
Greg (Strider) Moore
Nov 27, 2012, 8:20:06 PM11/27/12
to
>"bob haller" wrote in message
>news:b28e8541-88bd-42b8...@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>there was a theory saddam hussein could take pot shots at ISS using
>scud missle.
>
As I recall, YOU had such a theory, and pretty much everyone else including
>there was a theory saddam hussein could take pot shots at ISS using
>scud missle.
>
their dog pointed out the holes in it.
>there are likely a wide variety of ways to damage ISS and I wouldnt
>speculate here, theres no value in giving bad people ideas, but it
>wouldnt require a major country to do it
>
of infrastructure.
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Greg (Strider) Moore
Nov 27, 2012, 8:26:27 PM11/27/12
to
>"bob haller" wrote in message
>
>
>totally unacceptable where human life is at stake. not just the
>astronauts, but people on the ground, mass panic can do far more harm
>than incoming ISS debris.........
>
You know, this attitude actually pisses me off.
>
>totally unacceptable where human life is at stake. not just the
>astronauts, but people on the ground, mass panic can do far more harm
>than incoming ISS debris.........
>
Look Bob, the fact is, PEOPLE DIE. And whether you want to face reality or
not, every day decisions are made on the "value" of human life.
At some point one has to ask, "is the risk worth it?"
Even before Columbia, NASA had run the numbers on a LOCV incident before
station completion. Despite the risks, they and Congress accepted the
risks.
And more importantly, the astronauts who had to fly the missions accepted
the risks.
If the costs become too high, you decide to stop taking the risks.
What you propose would DRIVE UP costs so much that you'd end up having to
cancel the program.
bob haller
Nov 27, 2012, 9:20:16 PM11/27/12
to
On Nov 27, 8:26 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
shuttle stuck at station....
I was called chicken little, it would cost too much, stuck is
impossible etc etc....
once columbia occured nasa made changes to support a shuttle stuck at
station.
really it wouldnt cost a whole lot to add some some flights that would
be stacked so a few are always ready to go fast, along with necessary
anticipated emergency supplies, having a couple soyuz near ready to
fly would be helpful too.... just move up their production date, so
more are always in the pipeline
Or another safety board can again investigate why nasa wasnt prepared
and more died, leaving a out of control station causing what will be
mass panic under its ground track....
<moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> >"bob haller" wrote in message
> >news:c224047f-aa45-4667...@r4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >totally unacceptable where human life is at stake. not just the
> >astronauts, but people on the ground, mass panic can do far more harm
> >than incoming ISS debris.........
>
> You know, this attitude actually pisses me off.
>
> Look Bob, the fact is, PEOPLE DIE. And whether you want to face reality or
> not, every day decisions are made on the "value" of human life.
>
> At some point one has to ask, "is the risk worth it?"
>
> Even before Columbia, NASA had run the numbers on a LOCV incident before
> station completion. Despite the risks, they and Congress accepted the
> risks.
>
> And more importantly, the astronauts who had to fly the missions accepted
> the risks.
>
> If the costs become too high, you decide to stop taking the risks.
>
> What you propose would DRIVE UP costs so much that you'd end up having to
> cancel the program.
>
> --
> Greg D. Moore
well lets look back BEFORE COLUMBIA nasa didnt do things to support a
> >"bob haller" wrote in message
> >news:c224047f-aa45-4667...@r4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >totally unacceptable where human life is at stake. not just the
> >astronauts, but people on the ground, mass panic can do far more harm
> >than incoming ISS debris.........
>
> You know, this attitude actually pisses me off.
>
> Look Bob, the fact is, PEOPLE DIE. And whether you want to face reality or
> not, every day decisions are made on the "value" of human life.
>
> At some point one has to ask, "is the risk worth it?"
>
> Even before Columbia, NASA had run the numbers on a LOCV incident before
> station completion. Despite the risks, they and Congress accepted the
> risks.
>
> And more importantly, the astronauts who had to fly the missions accepted
> the risks.
>
> If the costs become too high, you decide to stop taking the risks.
>
> What you propose would DRIVE UP costs so much that you'd end up having to
> cancel the program.
>
> --
> Greg D. Moore
shuttle stuck at station....
I was called chicken little, it would cost too much, stuck is
impossible etc etc....
once columbia occured nasa made changes to support a shuttle stuck at
station.
really it wouldnt cost a whole lot to add some some flights that would
be stacked so a few are always ready to go fast, along with necessary
anticipated emergency supplies, having a couple soyuz near ready to
fly would be helpful too.... just move up their production date, so
more are always in the pipeline
Or another safety board can again investigate why nasa wasnt prepared
and more died, leaving a out of control station causing what will be
mass panic under its ground track....
Dean
Nov 27, 2012, 9:56:25 PM11/27/12
to
You are like a broken record. You just keep repeating stuff that makes no sense.
bob haller
Nov 27, 2012, 10:41:22 PM11/27/12
to
On Nov 27, 9:56 pm, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are like a broken record. You just keep repeating stuff that makes no sense.
the military sunk 20 BILLION int spy sats that werent used......
> You are like a broken record. You just keep repeating stuff that makes no sense.
So if they spent that much on spy sats but have no way to replace
command and control sats if they are attacked?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jeff Findley
Nov 28, 2012, 8:42:50 AM11/28/12
to
In article <b28e8541-88bd-42b8-b34e-fb432e0252a2
@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
provoke the US. He invaded Kuwait (a very tiny country by most
standards), thinking that he could get away with it since it didn't
*directly* provoke a large power that could defeat him. But he didn't
get away with it at all, did he?
Direct provocation of the US would have invited *instantaneous*
retaliation by the US. Note those big ships in the ocean we have with
planes on them and those big flying wings which are limited in range due
to the crews on-board thanks to in air refueling.
Again, even countries we brand as "rogue" aren't stupid enough to
*directly* provoke the US by attempting to destroy a US asset as high
profile as ISS. The US spends *far* more on defense than any other
country on the planet. If you mess with the US, we'll smack you down
*hard*, plain and simple.
> there are likely a wide variety of ways to damage ISS and I wouldnt
> speculate here, theres no value in giving bad people ideas, but it
> wouldnt require a major country to do it
You do nothing but speculate. Running out of "plausible" ways that ISS
could be crippled and come crashing down on our heads yet somehow be
saved by some crazy resupply scheme of yours? You should be, because
you haven't provided a truly plausible scenario.
@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> On Nov 27, 1:03 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > In article <511ad21c-a998-4531-8914-da535034a3a6
> > @n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> On Nov 27, 1:03 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > In article <511ad21c-a998-4531-8914-da535034a3a6
> > @n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> > > launch a rocket just in front of ISS with a ball
> > > bearing bomb...
> >
> > > bearing bomb...
> >
> > This has been discussed before. It's easier said than done. Countries
> > which would have the capability to do this would be inviting the wrath
> > of the US Military upon them. Terrorists would not have such a
> > capability.
>
> > which would have the capability to do this would be inviting the wrath
> > of the US Military upon them. Terrorists would not have such a
> > capability.
>
> there was a theory saddam hussein could take pot shots at ISS using
> scud missle.
Hussein was crazy, but even he was smart enough to not *directly*
> scud missle.
provoke the US. He invaded Kuwait (a very tiny country by most
standards), thinking that he could get away with it since it didn't
*directly* provoke a large power that could defeat him. But he didn't
get away with it at all, did he?
Direct provocation of the US would have invited *instantaneous*
retaliation by the US. Note those big ships in the ocean we have with
planes on them and those big flying wings which are limited in range due
to the crews on-board thanks to in air refueling.
Again, even countries we brand as "rogue" aren't stupid enough to
*directly* provoke the US by attempting to destroy a US asset as high
profile as ISS. The US spends *far* more on defense than any other
country on the planet. If you mess with the US, we'll smack you down
*hard*, plain and simple.
> there are likely a wide variety of ways to damage ISS and I wouldnt
> speculate here, theres no value in giving bad people ideas, but it
> wouldnt require a major country to do it
could be crippled and come crashing down on our heads yet somehow be
saved by some crazy resupply scheme of yours? You should be, because
you haven't provided a truly plausible scenario.
Jeff Findley
Nov 28, 2012, 8:44:11 AM11/28/12
to
In article <9c925e20-6144-403b-b03e-b5aac17a1e99
@dg10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
@dg10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> O
> > > while during a war, if its nuclear, most satellites would be damaged
> > > if not totally inoperable.
> >
> > If the earth descends into nuclear war, "all bets are off" and mutually
> > assured destruction rears its ugly head. Besides, if EMP blasts from
> > nuclear weapons take out all the ground stations, exactly what is the
> > point of a military satellite in orbit following a nuclear exchange?
> >
> > > with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
> > > plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
> > > ability
> >
> > There is zero evidence that "quick launch" capability actually exists
> > for such replacements.
>
> O
> > > while during a war, if its nuclear, most satellites would be damaged
> > > if not totally inoperable.
> >
> > If the earth descends into nuclear war, "all bets are off" and mutually
> > assured destruction rears its ugly head. Besides, if EMP blasts from
> > nuclear weapons take out all the ground stations, exactly what is the
> > point of a military satellite in orbit following a nuclear exchange?
> >
> > > with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
> > > plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
> > > ability
> >
> > There is zero evidence that "quick launch" capability actually exists
> > for such replacements.
>
> A all out nuclear war is hopefully less likely today than in the 60s.
> however the risks of terrorists getting a bomb is likely more just
> because more exist, and places like pakistan security may be less than
> perfect
Yawn.
> however the risks of terrorists getting a bomb is likely more just
> because more exist, and places like pakistan security may be less than
> perfect
Jeff Findley
Nov 28, 2012, 8:49:31 AM11/28/12
to
In article <6625ed0d-d66d-430e-9b0f-b591e723f553
@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
The US always prepares to fight the last war they've fought. The US has
never fought a war yet where we've needed to *quickly* replace a space
based military asset that's been destroyed by the enemy.
There is zero justification to develop such a "quick launch" capability,
given that DOD can simply "commandeer" the next EELV that's already "in
the pipeline". In an emergency, do you doubt they would bump any and
all "commercial" launches?
You're living in a fantasy land Bob. If the US had a "quick launch"
capability, it would be highly visible to those in the industry. You
can't develop (i.e. test) such a capability without being noticed.
EELV's is all the US has to launch "big" military satellites, plain and
simple.
@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
never fought a war yet where we've needed to *quickly* replace a space
based military asset that's been destroyed by the enemy.
There is zero justification to develop such a "quick launch" capability,
given that DOD can simply "commandeer" the next EELV that's already "in
the pipeline". In an emergency, do you doubt they would bump any and
all "commercial" launches?
You're living in a fantasy land Bob. If the US had a "quick launch"
capability, it would be highly visible to those in the industry. You
can't develop (i.e. test) such a capability without being noticed.
EELV's is all the US has to launch "big" military satellites, plain and
simple.
Jeff Findley
Nov 28, 2012, 8:54:52 AM11/28/12
to
In article <3d4bb818d8fqolnah...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
True, many of the important bits have been "gutted" for use in the SLS
program. The shuttles will *never* fly again, except in Bob's
delusions.
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> You do realize there AREN'T any shuttles anymore?
> >
> >Technically the still exist in museums.....
> >
>
> Actually, no. The shells exist.
> bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> You do realize there AREN'T any shuttles anymore?
> >
> >Technically the still exist in museums.....
> >
>
True, many of the important bits have been "gutted" for use in the SLS
program. The shuttles will *never* fly again, except in Bob's
delusions.
bob haller
Nov 28, 2012, 9:01:42 AM11/28/12
to
well terrorists have hit the US and done some real damage without fear
for what will occur, the US cole, 9 11, and attacking our embassy and
killing the ambasador........
the us admits fear of dirty bombs, and a EMP bomb detonated from a
aircraft could cripple our country.
most vehicles inoperable, power grid off line, computers doorstops,
even if we recovered fast it would take a long time, and lots of
people would die. lack of heat, water food and medicines just to name
a few.......
now attacking ISS would be a high profile occurence...
and no matter what the cause of ISS loss there will be congressional
investigations most of which wll ask the same questions I raised here.
why werent there some spare soyuz to evacuate the astronauts? why
werent there some ready and waiting supply vehicles.......
congress wouldnt accept chicken littles, its impossible, cost too
much, or any of the excuses posted here.....
they will ask was anyone tending nasa????????????
Jeff Findley
Nov 28, 2012, 9:20:30 AM11/28/12
to
In article <4b3d12e5-659d-4375-864b-83d7c30c2ac6
@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
> the us admits fear of dirty bombs, and a EMP bomb detonated from a
> aircraft could cripple our country.
Terrorists could not create a nuclear bomb capable of creating an EMP
which would "cripple our country". And even if they could, how would it
be delivered?
> most vehicles inoperable, power grid off line, computers doorstops,
> even if we recovered fast it would take a long time, and lots of
> people would die. lack of heat, water food and medicines just to name
> a few.......
>
> now attacking ISS would be a high profile occurence...
And would be met with such a huge US retaliation that only the most
insane person would ever even attempt it. We've done it before and
we'll do it again. Just try it...
> and no matter what the cause of ISS loss there will be congressional
> investigations most of which wll ask the same questions I raised here.
>
> why werent there some spare soyuz to evacuate the astronauts? why
> werent there some ready and waiting supply vehicles.......
>
> congress wouldnt accept chicken littles, its impossible, cost too
> much, or any of the excuses posted here.....
>
> they will ask was anyone tending nasa????????????
Your "scenarios" are so unlikely they would only be used in the worst
works of fiction. Even if the entire ISS crew is lost for *any* reason,
the US will "man up" and keep plodding along, just like we did after the
losses of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia. History is against you
Bob.
There is simply no need for NASA to spend tens or hundreds of billions
of dollars on "quick launch" capability.
@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> well terrorists have hit the US and done some real damage without fear
> for what will occur, the US cole, 9 11, and attacking our embassy and
> killing the ambasador........
Which has nothing to do with "quick launch" to orbit.
> well terrorists have hit the US and done some real damage without fear
> for what will occur, the US cole, 9 11, and attacking our embassy and
> killing the ambasador........
> the us admits fear of dirty bombs, and a EMP bomb detonated from a
> aircraft could cripple our country.
which would "cripple our country". And even if they could, how would it
be delivered?
> most vehicles inoperable, power grid off line, computers doorstops,
> even if we recovered fast it would take a long time, and lots of
> people would die. lack of heat, water food and medicines just to name
> a few.......
>
> now attacking ISS would be a high profile occurence...
insane person would ever even attempt it. We've done it before and
we'll do it again. Just try it...
> and no matter what the cause of ISS loss there will be congressional
> investigations most of which wll ask the same questions I raised here.
>
> why werent there some spare soyuz to evacuate the astronauts? why
> werent there some ready and waiting supply vehicles.......
>
> congress wouldnt accept chicken littles, its impossible, cost too
> much, or any of the excuses posted here.....
>
> they will ask was anyone tending nasa????????????
works of fiction. Even if the entire ISS crew is lost for *any* reason,
the US will "man up" and keep plodding along, just like we did after the
losses of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia. History is against you
Bob.
There is simply no need for NASA to spend tens or hundreds of billions
of dollars on "quick launch" capability.
Message has been deleted
Dean
Nov 28, 2012, 11:11:22 AM11/28/12
to
How many times must you have your ass handed to you here? Suggest a new topic, will you?
bob haller
Nov 28, 2012, 2:52:34 PM11/28/12
to
care to......
with enough bucks they can probably buy a nuke for pakistan.
now assume a nuke bomb was stolen from pakistan and did damage in our
country.
do you believe the US would retaliate against a friendly country that
had a nuke bomb stolen and detonated here?
plus you have places like north korea and iran, who may secretly fund
weapons to be used against the US.
and to claim our country has no ability to replace space based command
and control assets damaged at the beginning of a war is just plain
insane
bob haller
Nov 28, 2012, 3:39:29 PM11/28/12
to
On Nov 28, 10:47 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what EMP is, what causes it, or how it behaves, do you?
>
> You really are a clueless wanker, Bobbert.
> the effort required to do it.
> unreality again.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_terrorism
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >well terrorists have hit the US and done some real damage without fear
> >for what will occur, the US cole, 9 11, and attacking our embassy and
> >killing the ambasador........
>
> None of which even approach the things you're about to bring up.
>
> >well terrorists have hit the US and done some real damage without fear
> >for what will occur, the US cole, 9 11, and attacking our embassy and
> >killing the ambasador........
>
>
>
>
> >the us admits fear of dirty bombs, and a EMP bomb detonated from a
> >aircraft could cripple our country.
>
> And just where is this "EMP bomb" to come from? You really don't know
>
>
> >the us admits fear of dirty bombs, and a EMP bomb detonated from a
> >aircraft could cripple our country.
>
> what EMP is, what causes it, or how it behaves, do you?
>
>
>
> >most vehicles inoperable, power grid off line, computers doorstops,
> >even if we recovered fast it would take a long time, and lots of
> >people would die. lack of heat, water food and medicines just to name
> >a few.......
>
> The sky is falling! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!
>
>
> >most vehicles inoperable, power grid off line, computers doorstops,
> >even if we recovered fast it would take a long time, and lots of
> >people would die. lack of heat, water food and medicines just to name
> >a few.......
>
>
> You really are a clueless wanker, Bobbert.
>
>
>
> >now attacking ISS would be a high profile occurence...
>
> True, perhaps, but it would also be something not commensurate with
>
>
> >now attacking ISS would be a high profile occurence...
>
> the effort required to do it.
>
>
>
> >and no matter what the cause of ISS loss there will be congressional
> >investigations most of which wll ask the same questions I raised here.
>
> >why werent there some spare soyuz to evacuate the astronauts? why
> >werent there some ready and waiting supply vehicles.......
>
> >congress wouldnt accept chicken littles, its impossible, cost too
> >much, or any of the excuses posted here.....
>
> >they will ask was anyone tending nasa????????????
>
> Put down the crack pipe and take a nap, Bobbert. You've spun off into
>
>
> >and no matter what the cause of ISS loss there will be congressional
> >investigations most of which wll ask the same questions I raised here.
>
> >why werent there some spare soyuz to evacuate the astronauts? why
> >werent there some ready and waiting supply vehicles.......
>
> >congress wouldnt accept chicken littles, its impossible, cost too
> >much, or any of the excuses posted here.....
>
> >they will ask was anyone tending nasa????????????
>
> unreality again.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_terrorism
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages