Large SRB test site in Florida

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley 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
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).

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 7dc0650a-de37-48e6-9988-f35b20e95bb8
@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.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
replacements could be launched.

beyond which a damaged ISS without a crew can endager anyone under the
ground track..

Bull****. 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

Bull****. 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 bull**** before, and that's all it is.

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 ,
says...

"Rick Jones" wrote in message ...

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!

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

On Nov 16, 7:18*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7dc0650a-de37-48e6-9988-f35b20e95bb8
@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.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
replacements could be launched.

beyond which a damaged ISS without a crew can endager anyone under the
ground track..

Bull****. *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

Bull****. *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 bull**** before, and that's all it is.

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 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.

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

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.

On Nov 18, 2:50*pm, Dean 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
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

In article 641c58aa-9fa0-43a8-a0ad-9959bf0a06f8
@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 16, 7:18*am, Jeff Findley 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
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.

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 ,
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
produce more, smaller, pieces of debris. But the details are pretty
complicated and are the subject of many, many research papers.

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

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
--

Well given the dramatic increase of in orbit debris planning for a
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.......

In article 7eff6eaa-5f65-441d-86d2-78fdf1ef6902
@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.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.

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.

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.......

Bull****. 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.

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