shuttle replacement

bob haller safety advocate wrote:

loaded bombs should never overfly populated areas at all because
accidents can occur.....


I'll remember that the next time I see a 747 flying overhead. Or a KC-130.


KSC is a excellent facility and should remain the countries space port

How many countries?



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Aug 3, 5:23*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
bob haller safety advocate wrote:



loaded bombs should never overfly populated areas at all because
accidents can occur.....

I'll remember that the next time I see a 747 flying overhead. *Or a KC-130.

KSC is a excellent facility and should remain the countries space port

How many countries?

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

A fully fueled rocket must be more dangerous than a airliner....
pilots of doomed airliners have been know to aim away from heavily
populated areas....

KSC should be marketed to all countries who have something to launch.
pure business saves others from building launch facilities and
provides jobs for americans

bob haller safety advocate wrote:

KSC should be marketed to all countries who have something to launch.


Doesn't Boeing have a mobile/floating launch facility that can launch
from equator ?

Forgetting shuttle restrictions for a minute, does the KSC weather
provide reliable launch schedules for conventional rockets ?

Wouldn't a facility away from hurricane alley be better ?


Forgetting national boundaries for half a second, wouldn't the southen
tip of the Baja peninsula provide good and safe launch, with water
providing "soft" landing for SRBs ?

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:53:31 -0700 (PDT), bob haller safety advocate
wrote:

A fully fueled rocket must be more dangerous than a airliner....
pilots of doomed airliners have been know to aim away from heavily
populated areas....

That's nice in theory, but in reality they are often unable to. There
are far too many airliner crashes into buildings, highways, and
neighborhoods:

- El Al 1862 crashed into an apartment building in Amsterdam. 39
people, almost as many as on the plane, died on the ground
- TAM 3054 killed 12 on the ground in Sao Paolo
- Pan Am 103, the Lockerbie bombing, killed 11 on the ground
- Pacific Southwest 182 crashed into a San Diego neighborhood, killing
9 on the ground.
- American 587 killed 5 on the ground in New York City
- Air Florida 90 killed 4 on the ground in Washington
- The Concorde crash killed 4 on the ground in Paris
- American 191 killed 2 on the ground in Chicago
- Delta 191 killed 1 on the ground at DFW

I won't mention 9/11.

KSC should be marketed to all countries who have something to launch.
pure business saves others from building launch facilities and
provides jobs for americans

Kourou is cheaper and has better orbital mechanics for GEO. Cape
Canaveral is run by the military, and commercial providers always have
and always will take a back seat to that.

Brian

In sci.space.policy John Doe wrote:
Doesn't Boeing have a mobile/floating launch facility that can
launch from equator ?

Were you perhaps thinking of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_launch

Forgetting national boundaries for half a second, wouldn't the
southen tip of the Baja peninsula provide good and safe launch, with
water providing "soft" landing for SRBs ?

Depends on how far out the SRBs drop - for polar, probably not an
issue, but for anything else, one is going to overfly the Mexican
mainland. You do get a few (?) degrees closer to the equator, but not
as close as if one were to launch from the Big Island of Hawaii or
perhaps Puerto Rico.

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
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...

On 8/3/2010 3:56 PM, John Doe wrote:


Doesn't Boeing have a mobile/floating launch facility that can launch
from equator ?

That's SeaLaunch; at the moment they are trying to come out of bankruptcy:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/27sealaunch/
If they do, they will be under 85% Russian ownership.

Pat

On 8/3/2010 4:22 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

That's nice in theory, but in reality they are often unable to. There
are far too many airliner crashes into buildings, highways, and
neighborhoods:

- El Al 1862 crashed into an apartment building in Amsterdam. 39
people, almost as many as on the plane, died on the ground
- TAM 3054 killed 12 on the ground in Sao Paolo
- Pan Am 103, the Lockerbie bombing, killed 11 on the ground
- Pacific Southwest 182 crashed into a San Diego neighborhood, killing
9 on the ground.
- American 587 killed 5 on the ground in New York City
- Air Florida 90 killed 4 on the ground in Washington
- The Concorde crash killed 4 on the ground in Paris
- American 191 killed 2 on the ground in Chicago
- Delta 191 killed 1 on the ground at DFW

The Tu-144 SST that crashed at the 1973 Paris Airshow killed eight
people on the ground.

Pat

On Aug 4, 6:17*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/3/2010 4:22 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

That's nice in theory, but in reality they are often unable to. There
are far too many airliner crashes into buildings, highways, and
neighborhoods:

- El Al 1862 crashed into an apartment building in Amsterdam. 39
people, almost as many as on the plane, died on the ground
- TAM 3054 killed 12 on the ground in Sao Paolo
- Pan Am 103, the Lockerbie bombing, killed 11 on the ground
- Pacific Southwest 182 crashed into a San Diego neighborhood, killing
9 on the ground.
- American 587 killed 5 on the ground in New York City
- Air Florida 90 killed 4 on the ground in Washington
- The Concorde crash killed 4 on the ground in Paris
- American 191 killed 2 on the ground in Chicago
- Delta 191 killed 1 on the ground at DFW

The Tu-144 SST that crashed at the 1973 Paris Airshow killed eight
people on the ground.

Pat

thats all well and good but lets ponder hypergolic fuels coming down
in a major city.......

frankly i think we should move far away from solids since the exhaust
is very bad for the environment

bob haller safety advocate wrote:

thats all well and good but lets ponder hypergolic fuels coming down
in a major city.......

I see you've moved the goalposts. Congrats.

In any case, there's plenty of reasons to reconsider the use of hypergolics,
especially on a re-usable craft. They are a pain to deal with in the
processing flow.


frankly i think we should move far away from solids since the exhaust
is very bad for the environment

At the flight rate we're at, that's a minimal concern. And again, there are
plenty of reasons to move away from them on a re-usable vehicle.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Aug 5, 11:44*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

bob haller safety advocate wrote:

thats all well and good but lets ponder hypergolic fuels coming down
in a major city.......

I see you've moved the goalposts. *Congrats.

Well, he IS Bob Haller, after all.



In any case, there's plenty of reasons to reconsider the use of hypergolics,
especially on a re-usable craft. *They are a pain to deal with in the
processing flow.

What vehicle is he thinking of that uses a hypergolic main fuel load?



frankly i think we should move far away from solids since the exhaust
is very bad for the environment

At the flight rate we're at, that's a minimal concern. *And again, there are
plenty of reasons to move away from them on a re-usable vehicle.

There are plenty of reasons to move away from them on a non-reusable
vehicle, too.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
* * live in the real world." *
* * * * * * * * * * * -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

my concern is any vehicle using hydrazine overflying a city...

launch complexes belong on the coast, away from inhabited areas in
possible launch failure areas..

solids are a bad idea for any manned vehicle..........

I would supportm moving nasa HQ and huston based operations to florida
to up efficency....