Selling off KSC facilities

Brian, in the bobbert's world, anything that comes into conflict with his
fantasies is either dismissed, ignored, or treated wth contempt. He's good
for laughs and nothing else.


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 21:23:41 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


hey I suggested a air launched rocket many years ago and was laughed
at Then along comes strato launcher

Um, and Pegasus since 1990. Or even way back to NOTSNIK in 1957. But
Pegasus is moribund and Stratolaunch has a business case which is
shaky to say the least.

given time most of my ideas will likely become reality

Stratolaunch isn't flying yet. I greatly doubt it ever will.

Brian

On Jan 8, 2:04*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
Brian, in the bobbert's world, anything that comes into conflict with his
fantasies is either dismissed, ignored, or treated wth contempt. He's good
for laughs and nothing else.

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message

...



On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 21:23:41 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

hey I suggested a air launched rocket many years ago and was laughed
at Then along comes strato launcher

Um, and Pegasus since 1990. Or even way back to NOTSNIK in 1957. But
Pegasus is moribund and Stratolaunch has a business case which is
shaky to say the least.

given time most of my ideas will likely become reality

Stratolaunch isn't flying yet. I greatly doubt it ever will.

Brian

laugh all you want, before columbia i predicted another shuttle loss.
based on the number of flying catches, nasa speak for almost lost
vehicle and crew.......

the difference between pegasus and other air launches, is
stratolauncer is big, large etc

In article 96286158-980f-4e74-a0bb-19cf418bbf78
@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.com, says...

I invite everyone to check the archives of my posts. I predicted we
would lose another shuttle asked about plans for a shuttle stuck at
station, the laughter became reality after columbias loss,

The shuttle was never stuck at ISS.

and talked
about air launched boosters, and that laughter became a reality......

"Air launched boosters" have been flying for decades (see Orbital
Sciences Corporation, Pegasus). You didn't invent the idea. Not that
it's a particularly good idea, especially in this day and age...

theres more, if your interested........

We're all well aware of your delusional rants.

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

In article d888cbb9-b30c-4456-8df7-60a4bac67c80
@d4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 8, 2:04*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
Brian, in the bobbert's world, anything that comes into conflict with his
fantasies is either dismissed, ignored, or treated wth contempt. He's good
for laughs and nothing else.

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message

...



On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 21:23:41 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

hey I suggested a air launched rocket many years ago and was laughed
at Then along comes strato launcher

Um, and Pegasus since 1990. Or even way back to NOTSNIK in 1957. But
Pegasus is moribund and Stratolaunch has a business case which is
shaky to say the least.

given time most of my ideas will likely become reality

Stratolaunch isn't flying yet. I greatly doubt it ever will.

Brian

laugh all you want, before columbia i predicted another shuttle loss.
based on the number of flying catches, nasa speak for almost lost
vehicle and crew.......

So what? After Challenger, NASA revised its numbers. Everyone was well
aware just how risky the shuttle was. Columbia was sad, but not at all
unexpected. On top of that, Columbia was never stranded at ISS. It was
never even near ISS in terms of orbital mechanics.

the difference between pegasus and other air launches, is
stratolauncer is big, large etc

And that will involve developing the largest carrier aircraft to date.
Its costs are not known at this time. They could very well be so large
that the concept never gets off the ground (pun intended).

Thanks,
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

Look back at the archives you and most laughed at large air launch
boosters and claimed it wasnt feasible , and the real issue was that
nasa NEVER PLANNED for a shuttle stuck at station....

On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 03:39:03 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

laugh all you want,

Not laughing, dismissing. What you really need is something like the
flyback booster concept that NASA studied for Shuttle circa 2000, or
the original two-stage Shuttle concept with its huge winged booster.
This handles both the altitude and the velocity.(Staging was to be at
something like 4,000 mph and 100,000 feet.)

Stratolaunch at 600mph (at best) and 30,000 ft. just isn't going to
cut it.

before columbia i predicted another shuttle loss.

But without details... how, where and why, your 'prediction' was just
internet babble. If you had said, "this debris liberation problem like
on STS-112 is going to kill a crew soon" we might have actually taken
notice. But you didn't. And the problems that were making news at the
time and you were here Chicken Littling about... nozzle leaks and flow
liners, etc. were not what actually caused the STS-107 disaster.
Instead, it was a problem that no one (not even you) noticed until Mr.
Oberg asked us if anyone knew if Columbia had an RMS onboard, because
there was a big impact event seen in launch films.

So congratulations for "predicting" that another manned spacecraft
would be lost during enty and landing, just like two of the previous
three manned flight disasters. Kreskin you're not.

based on the number of flying catches, nasa speak for almost lost
vehicle and crew.......

I here and now predict a large airliner will crash in 2013, based on
the wing cracks, uncontained engine failures, electrical problems, and
battery fires we've been seeing. Don't ask me for details, they're
unimportant. And if it crashes for some other reason, that's not
relevant. Listen to me! There's gonna be a crash. People are gonna
die!

See how that works, Bob? Without specifics, such predictions are
useless.

the difference between pegasus and other air launches, is
stratolauncer is big, large etc

Agreed. The problem is it isn't big enough, fast enough, and almost
certainly not cheap enough to compete. As big as Stratolaunch is, it
still won't be able to launch the lucrative high-end GEO satellites,
they are just too heavy, even from a launch point on the equator,
whicih Stratolaunch probably won't be able to travel to. So what
exactly does that leave Stratolaunch?

It leaves Chapter 11 in my opinion.

Brian

If you look back historically at the number of flying catches, nearly
lost vehicle and crew that number had grown dramatically for a year or
two before the columbia loss......

I stated it would be a management failure they were pushing schedule
ahead of safety...... and that was the ultimate cause of columbias
loss, which also uncovered other unsafe practices, that were addressed
during the down time......

:: the difference between pegasus and other air launches, is
:: stratolauncer is big, large etc

: Brian Thorn
: Agreed. The problem is it isn't big enough, fast enough, and almost
: certainly not cheap enough to compete. As big as Stratolaunch is, it
: still won't be able to launch the lucrative high-end GEO satellites,
: they are just too heavy, even from a launch point on the equator,
: whicih Stratolaunch probably won't be able to travel to. So what
: exactly does that leave Stratolaunch?

Hm. The US has a state with land as far south as 19 degrees north lattitude.
But that *does* seem to be too far away. So, all Stratolaunch needs to
do is build a many many many kilometer long rigid-enough barge and
park it right on the equator (in international waters, and successfully
argue the legal cases that will probably arise), and Bob's your uncle.
Hopefully a very very very very wealthy uncle. But hopefully not Sam.

I note that at every criticism, Bob's solution is to multiply the cost
by N for substantial values of N, and patch the deficiency. Doesn't fly
high enouth? Fast enough? Redesign it from scratch, maybe get us some
scramjets in addition to turbojets, fly it up to 120000 ft. Not enough
fuel to reach a point that gains much? Accompany it with a fleet of
air-refueling tankers. In short, throw money and imaginary engineers
and wishtech at it until it makes sense, which it doesn't now
(at least, not on the grounds Bob prefers).

I see an empty hanger, and half-assembled airplane parts,
if this shadow is not changed.

In article 4839d3ca-738b-40e0-997c-
, says...

Look back at the archives you and most laughed at large air launch
boosters and claimed it wasnt feasible , and the real issue was that
nasa NEVER PLANNED for a shuttle stuck at station....

Those claims were largely based on economics. The economics of
Stratolaunch are unproven because it has not yet flown.

Even if Stratolaunch is successful at scaling up orbital launch based on
its huge new carrier aircraft (and somehow turns a profit), its payload
to LEO will always be limited by the size of that carrier aircraft.
Larger payloads would necessarily mean developing yet another, even
larger, carrier aircraft, which is a very expensive proposition.

SpaceX, on the other hand, seems to have a fairly inexpensive route to
follow to go from Falcon 9 to Falcon Heavy.

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

In article 0948f7dc-4d48-4b81-bba6-
, says...

If you look back historically at the number of flying catches, nearly
lost vehicle and crew that number had grown dramatically for a year or
two before the columbia loss......

What you're saying is that you were "predicting" the future by looking
at past results. Good for you, do you want a cookie?

NASA already did that in excruciating detail after the Challenger
disaster. Its early (rosy) safety estimates often touted by its PAO
office were (finally) relegated to the trash bin of history. After
Challenger, *everyone* knew a shuttle flight was still risky. They took
the risk rather than being a Chicken Little, like you.

I stated it would be a management failure they were pushing schedule
ahead of safety...... and that was the ultimate cause of columbias
loss, which also uncovered other unsafe practices, that were addressed
during the down time......

So? Many "worker bees" love to blame "management" for any and all bad
decisions. As such, it does not surprise me that you have this attitude
as well. But what some of these "worker bees" don't understand is that
what may seem to be "black and white" to them truly isn't. The "worker
bees" never have the whole picture as they work on their little piece of
the puzzle.

And, for the record, I am a "worker bee". But I'm a "worker bee" with
nearly a quarter of a century of experience in my job, so I've seen
enough "management" decisions over the years to know that the "worker
bees" never know the whole story, at least not at first.

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