A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 10th 12, 01:50 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

On Dec 10, 6:42*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:59*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 9, 3:11*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


Florida does not have any silos


You are absolutely wrong, there are many silos either in KSC , or the
attached military base. Fact is it was called silo road.


Uh, there's one there; 31B. *There's a second one at an abandoned
Aerojet facility near Miami that has and old solid booster that was
never developed sitting in it.


The remains of challenger were entombed in one of those silos.


So now there are none that don't have something in them. *And they
weren't 'entombed'. *They were just put in there. *'Entombed' implies
they were sealed up and going to stay there forever.


I believe there were 20 or 30, they used to be visible on google
earth, but sometime ago that entire area was obscured, no doubt for
security reasons


What you believe and the state of our present reality seem frequently
to be at odds. *This would appear to be another of those cases.


Oh, and I just looked at Google Earth and nothing is "obscured". There
are lots of launch sites for various things (Wikipedia even has a
map), but no vast field of silos.


the challenger was entombed since a large concrete cap was poured over
the silos entrance.


'Placed', not 'poured', you idiot. *Go look at the pictures. *A crane
can lift that back off.


"Hugh W. Harris, a spokesman at the Kennedy Space Center, said all the
boxes of shuttle debris had been catalogued and would be stored so
that they could be retrieved in case they were needed as evidence in
any lawsuits or for any subsequence investigations of the causes of
the accident." *-- NY Times.


I suspect that siol is flooded since there is no
way to maintain any pumps inside it


You always 'suspect' all sorts of silly ****, Bobbert. *Virtually none
of it seems to actually match our present reality.


well it really doesnt matter, challenger is for all intents and
purposes in that silo, which is likely flooded being so close to the
ocean with that concrete cap theres no easy way to maintain any
pumps......


at least the columbia debris are accesible for research and some for
display


So once again you were talking ****e and when you get your nose rubbed
in reality, it turns out "it really doesn't matter".

Bobbert, have someone show you what a clue looks like....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn


well at least you now agree challenger is in a abandoned
silo.....????

one you denied existed
  #22  
Old December 10th 12, 03:18 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

In article 887436f6-4df8-441e-889f-bd87cf201ed6
@r20g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...

bob haller wrote:
You are absolutely wrong, there are many silos
either in KSC , or the
attached military base. Fact is it was called silo road.


well at least you now agree challenger is in a abandoned
silo.....????


That was never the point and you know it.

one you denied existed


You're straying far and wide of your original claim. You claimed there
were *many* silos in Florida. There are not "many" silos in Florida.
Furthermore, the ones that are there have not been used for launches in
a *long* time.

On top of that, even if there was a silo in Florida that was "ready for
use", an ICBM silo is not suitable for launching any of today's orbital
launch vehicles. There would be *no* point in putting a launch vehicle
in a silo, unless your goal was to **** away money for no reason at all.

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
  #23  
Old December 10th 12, 07:46 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

On Dec 10, 9:18*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 887436f6-4df8-441e-889f-bd87cf201ed6
@r20g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...



bob haller wrote:
You are absolutely wrong, there are many silos
either in KSC , or the
attached military base. Fact is it was called silo road.


well at least you now agree challenger is in a abandoned
silo.....????


That was never the point and you know it.

one you denied existed


You're straying far and wide of your original claim. *You claimed there
were *many* silos in Florida. *There are not "many" silos in Florida.
Furthermore, the ones that are there have not been used for launches in
a *long* time.

On top of that, even if there was a silo in Florida that was "ready for
use", an ICBM silo is not suitable for launching any of today's orbital
launch vehicles. *There would be *no* point in putting a launch vehicle
in a silo, unless your goal was to **** away money for no reason at all.

Jeff
--


Well a launcher in a silo is supper secure not only from terrorists
but more importandly weather. the vehicle may not like freezing
weather but snug and warm in a silo it could still be launched.

with all the work level platforms in a silo should make some pad rat
jobs easier, no weather like cold and rain or ice to deal with.....

  #24  
Old December 10th 12, 08:01 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

In article eba9b008-43aa-4369-960e-b05b1c53e9b8
@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 10, 9:18*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 887436f6-4df8-441e-889f-bd87cf201ed6
@r20g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...



bob haller wrote:
You are absolutely wrong, there are many silos
either in KSC , or the
attached military base. Fact is it was called silo road.


well at least you now agree challenger is in a abandoned
silo.....????


That was never the point and you know it.

one you denied existed


You're straying far and wide of your original claim. *You claimed there
were *many* silos in Florida. *There are not "many" silos in Florida.
Furthermore, the ones that are there have not been used for launches in
a *long* time.

On top of that, even if there was a silo in Florida that was "ready for
use", an ICBM silo is not suitable for launching any of today's orbital
launch vehicles. *There would be *no* point in putting a launch vehicle
in a silo, unless your goal was to **** away money for no reason at all.


Well a launcher in a silo is supper secure not only from terrorists
but more importandly weather. the vehicle may not like freezing
weather but snug and warm in a silo it could still be launched.

with all the work level platforms in a silo should make some pad rat
jobs easier, no weather like cold and rain or ice to deal with.....


There are easier solutions to these sorts of problems than silos. As
far as I know, KSC is restricted airspace and there are fences, guards,
etc. on the ground too.

As for weather, our Russian friends have experience launching in the
worst winter weather imaginable. The key is to do most of the work
*inside*, before you roll the launch vehicle out to the pad.
Alternatively, you have (enclosed) structures at the pad than can be
moved away from the vehicle before launch (e.g. space shuttle's rotating
payload support structure, or whatever it was called).

Why not just admit that your "silo" idea is a bad idea?

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
  #25  
Old December 10th 12, 10:56 PM posted to sci.space.history
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

On Dec 9, 12:45*pm, bob haller wrote:
Florida does not have any silos


You are absolutely wrong, there are many silos either in KSC , or the
attached military base. Fact is it was called silo road.


Wrong, idiot. I work theyre
A. There are no silos on KSC
B. There were two silos for Minuteman on CCAFS, but those have been
sealed and one has Challenger in it.
c. There is no Silo road
  #26  
Old December 10th 12, 10:56 PM posted to sci.space.history
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

On Dec 9, 12:45*pm, bob haller wrote:

I believe there were 20 or 30, they used to be visible on google
earth, but sometime ago that entire area was obscured, no doubt for
security reasons


That is a joke. There are only 2

  #27  
Old December 11th 12, 01:51 AM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)


Why not just admit that your "silo" idea is a bad idea?

Jeff


like everything in life silo has advantages and disadvantages....

the big disadvantage is cost.

however

silos are virtually indestructible, other than a direct nuke bomb hit

the vehicle could remain stacked forever

weather wouldnt matter. a launch could even occur during a quick break
in otherwise unlanchable weather

service platforms would make doing things easy for workers

Since the military has used it forever the technology is easily
understood
  #28  
Old December 11th 12, 02:08 AM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

In article 68ed152f-b291-43d3-b880-
, says...
Why not just admit that your "silo" idea is a bad idea?


like everything in life silo has advantages and disadvantages....

the big disadvantage is cost.


That's not the only disadvantage...

however

silos are virtually indestructible, other than a direct nuke bomb hit

the vehicle could remain stacked forever


Sure, if you're willing to accept ICBM reliability. Better have two or
three "ready to go" to make sure at least one makes it to ISS.
Disadvantage: launcher sitting in a silo for an indeterminate amount of
time before launch.

weather wouldnt matter. a launch could even occur during a quick break
in otherwise unlanchable weather


Again, the Russians have launched in weather that's rather extreme. In
an emergency, other launch sites could no doubt be used with other ISS
resupply vehicles that are in the pipeline.

service platforms would make doing things easy for workers

Since the military has used it forever the technology is easily
understood


Other than the fact that the truly useful bits of technology are likely
to be classified. But I suppose you'll just wave your magic wand and
make that issue go away as well, since you seem to think silo launches
are so easy.

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
  #29  
Old December 11th 12, 01:49 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:16:14 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:



On Dec 10, 9:18*am, Jeff Findley wrote:


In article 887436f6-4df8-441e-889f-bd87cf201ed6


@r20g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...








bob haller wrote:


You are absolutely wrong, there are many silos


either in KSC , or the


attached military base. Fact is it was called silo road.




well at least you now agree challenger is in a abandoned


silo.....????




That was never the point and you know it.




one you denied existed




You're straying far and wide of your original claim. *You claimed there


were *many* silos in Florida. *There are not "many" silos in Florida..


Furthermore, the ones that are there have not been used for launches in


a *long* time.




On top of that, even if there was a silo in Florida that was "ready for


use", an ICBM silo is not suitable for launching any of today's orbital


launch vehicles. *There would be *no* point in putting a launch vehicle


in a silo, unless your goal was to **** away money for no reason at all.






Well a launcher in a silo is supper secure not only from terrorists


but more importandly weather. the vehicle may not like freezing


weather but snug and warm in a silo it could still be launched.




with all the work level platforms in a silo should make some pad rat


jobs easier, no weather like cold and rain or ice to deal with.....






And so you show that you are too ignorant to even have a discussion

with.



--

"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


I have yet to see anyone who really agrees with any of Bob's contentions or statements.
  #30  
Old December 11th 12, 02:21 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

On Dec 10, 8:08*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 68ed152f-b291-43d3-b880-
, says...

Why not just admit that your "silo" idea is a bad idea?


like everything in life silo has advantages and disadvantages....


the big disadvantage is cost.


That's not the only disadvantage...

however


silos are virtually indestructible, other than a direct nuke bomb hit


the vehicle could remain stacked forever


Sure, if you're willing to accept ICBM reliability. *Better have two or
three "ready to go" to make sure at least one makes it to ISS.
Disadvantage: *launcher sitting in a silo for an indeterminate amount of
time before launch.

weather wouldnt matter. a launch could even occur during a quick break
in otherwise unlanchable weather


Again, the Russians have launched in weather that's rather extreme. *In
an emergency, other launch sites could no doubt be used with other ISS
resupply vehicles that are in the pipeline.

service platforms would make doing things easy for workers


Since the military has used it forever the technology is easily
understood


Other than the fact that the truly useful bits of technology are likely
to be classified. *But I suppose you'll just wave your magic wand and
make that issue go away as well, since you seem to think silo launches
are so easy.

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


Russia launches in the winter. snowstorms not really a issue at KSC.

plus as I said before the silo launchers would be rotated in for
routine resupplys, so they wouldnt get stale..... and if there were 3
on stand by that might be better than existing resupply vehicles that
may not be ready at a moments notice.

many posters here try to discredit me, like they did before columbia
when I asked about a shuttle stuck at station. and was called chicken
little, a shuttle couldnt get stuck in orbit etc etc.......

clearly all of you who claimed that were dead wrong
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Military Space Plane = Space life boat? David E. Powell Space Shuttle 247 December 9th 09 07:20 AM
Around the world, organized military forces of governments have manydifferent types of military uniforms that they wear. Clearly being one of thefounding fathers of the uniform, the militaries of countries have contributedgreatly towards what constit [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 April 20th 08 06:44 PM
A New Military Space Age Rand Simberg Policy 6 January 23rd 07 04:17 PM
A New Military Space Age Rand Simberg History 6 January 23rd 07 04:17 PM
Predicted space progress Kevin McCarthy Policy 4 January 9th 04 06:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.