A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politics as usual)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 9th 15, 03:19 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 9:44:51 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 05:21:59 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Relocating would, in the grand scheme, be relatively easy should it ever come to that.


Easy in some ways, but there's still the problem of where to move.
Further up the Florida coast to higher ground?


Why not???????!!!!!!
  #23  
Old September 9th 15, 04:30 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:19:29 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 9:44:51 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 05:21:59 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Relocating would, in the grand scheme, be relatively easy should it ever come to that.

Easy in some ways, but there's still the problem of where to move.
Further up the Florida coast to higher ground?


Why not???????!!!!!!


Further north means higher launch costs. Just something to consider in
weighing all the economics.


Further inland, to higher ground, not necessarily much further north. Property values are still modest in that area.

If launch costs bother you that much, Hawaii could be cheaper given its more southerly latitude.
  #24  
Old September 9th 15, 04:42 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:42:26 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:

Nothing at all? Almost 40 billion tons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by mankind each year,


How much of that 40 billion tons is yours?
  #26  
Old September 9th 15, 05:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:55:05 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:30:23 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Further north means higher launch costs. Just something to consider in
weighing all the economics.


Further inland, to higher ground, not necessarily much further north. Property values are still modest in that area.


I don't see a move inland because they aren't going to routinely
launch over inhabited areas. Too much liability.


There is no need to launch over inhabited areas, there is still enough mostly vacant land on the mainland that could be bought out.

Another possibility is that runway-launched craft might be developed eventually, which would carry little more liability than existing aircraft that occasionally fall out of the sky, killing those on whom they land.

If launch costs bother you that much, Hawaii could be cheaper given its more southerly latitude.


Maybe. It depends on the transportation costs associated with moving
everything off the continental U.S.


Not everything would need to be moved. Some missions would be better launched from Florida, others from Hawaii.



  #27  
Old September 9th 15, 08:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:56:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

There are those who say that if global warming (by man) is real, then we should
do nothing today because the technological solutions we have will bankrupt the
world.


Well, that almost seems like a reasonable response, given the solutions usually
proposed, that probably would come close to bankrupting the world.

The solution we have, though, that wouldn't bankrupt the world, that would
allow us to continue enjoying an abundant supply of energy, to fuel a vibrant
economy... keeps getting ignored.

You see, there's this element called uranium...

John Savard
  #28  
Old September 9th 15, 08:32 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Helpful person
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:16:36 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

economy... keeps getting ignored.

You see, there's this element called uranium...

John Savard


....and any accidents produced by nuclear plants are dwarfed by the damage done by coal plants.

http://www.richardfisher.com
 




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
Talking of launch pads.. Brian Gaff Space Shuttle 1 November 2nd 09 06:32 PM
Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet? kT History 23 February 29th 08 08:46 PM
Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet? kT Space Shuttle 18 February 29th 08 05:06 PM
Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet? kT Space Station 18 February 29th 08 05:06 PM
launch on need - two shuttles on launch pads at the same time boman Space Shuttle 20 November 7th 06 02:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:02 AM.


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.