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
  #11  
Old September 7th 15, 05:09 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 8:43:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 23:29:48 UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 7:22:06 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 20:33:37 UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:
On 9/6/15 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:

Also, they never thought twice about shooting off hundreds of atomic bombs in the desert, despite them being "land-locked" and not as far south as Florida.

What are you talking about?

Meaning they were more worried about failed rockets falling than fall-out.


You started out bitching about NASA. Are you still talking about NASA, or have you moved on to the nebulous "they"?


Ok, so why if they are "so" convinced the tide is coming don't they immediately start making plans to move? Because like Al Gore talking about sea level rise and then buying 25,000sq ft mansion on a beach, it's all B.S.!!!


You only need to do a little Google research to learn that the rising sea is not the same everywhere on earth, but it is definitely happening in places. For example...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
  #12  
Old September 7th 15, 06:54 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Sunday, 6 September 2015 23:57:40 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 8:22:06 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

Meaning they were more worried about failed rockets falling than fall-out.


How would atomic bomb testing be made safer by doing it in Florida? Atomic bombs
don't have a preferred direction of causing problems, so the middle of the desert
is the safest place for them.

John Savard


I didn't say it would. I never mentioned moving the a-bomb tests to Florida. I pointed out they had no such considerations over atomic tests (apart from the testing grounds being isolated) that they did for Apollo / Shuttle launches out of Florida.
  #13  
Old September 7th 15, 06:56 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Sunday, 6 September 2015 23:59:07 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 9:43:19 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 23:29:48 UTC-4, palsing wrote:


Ok, so why if they are "so" convinced the tide is coming don't they immediately
start making plans to move? Because like Al Gore talking about sea level rise
and then buying 25,000sq ft mansion on a beach, it's all B.S.!!!


No doubt they will make plans to move when the time comes - but if it's early
enough now that global tragedy can still be averted, then of course it's better
to work on that!

John Savard


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. We should wait 100 years, live with the minor consequences of warming over that period (having to move a mile inland is pretty easy) and THEN when technology matures (improves, cheapens) do something about it..
  #14  
Old September 7th 15, 06:58 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Monday, 7 September 2015 00:09:53 UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 8:43:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 23:29:48 UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 7:22:06 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 20:33:37 UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:
On 9/6/15 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:

Also, they never thought twice about shooting off hundreds of atomic bombs in the desert, despite them being "land-locked" and not as far south as Florida.

What are you talking about?

Meaning they were more worried about failed rockets falling than fall-out.

You started out bitching about NASA. Are you still talking about NASA, or have you moved on to the nebulous "they"?


Ok, so why if they are "so" convinced the tide is coming don't they immediately start making plans to move? Because like Al Gore talking about sea level rise and then buying 25,000sq ft mansion on a beach, it's all B.S.!!!


You only need to do a little Google research to learn that the rising sea is not the same everywhere on earth, but it is definitely happening in places. For example...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm


Why shouldn't sea levels be rising? The end of the last ice-age is still happening (otherwise we'd be on a temperature downswing) and it has nothing to do with man. There is no such THING (after at least 10 known ice ages) as "stable" temperatures.
  #15  
Old September 7th 15, 04:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politics as usual)

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:23:57 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Also, they never thought twice about shooting off hundreds of atomic bombs in the desert, despite them being "land-locked" and not as far south as Florida.


Total non sequitur there.

You know, they don't launch nuclear weapons into space from that
desert. There is no "downrange" to worry about.

Florida was chosen for launching _orbital_ spacecraft because it is as
close to the equator as it's possible to get in the continental U.S.
and because of the safety and convenience afforded by making those
launches (which are almost always towards the east) from a place with
a large ocean on the east.
  #16  
Old September 8th 15, 02:02 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Scott M. Kozel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 160
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:56:07 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 12:17:01 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
Why would NASA have built launch pads in a state with such violent weather?


1) The Sun rises in the East. That means the Earth rotates so as to put an extra push behind rockets launched into orbit in an Eastward direction.

Thus, if you put the launching pad on the East Coast, if the rocket malfunctions, at least it won't crash on top of somebody.

2) The further south your launching pad is, the less inclined your orbit has to be, which reduces the amount of fuel you need if you want to leave orbit for some other destination on the Ecliptic, like Mars.

So that's basically why they picked Florida. Maybe Hawaii or Puerto Rico would have worked out even better, but transportation of rockets to the launch site would be more complicated.


Cape Canaveral has not been hit by a category 3 or higher hurricane since well before they started launching missiles there.
  #17  
Old September 8th 15, 02:42 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 10:58:15 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

Why shouldn't sea levels be rising? The end of the last ice-age is still happening (otherwise we'd be on a temperature downswing) and it has nothing to do with man.


Nothing at all? Almost 40 billion tons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by mankind each year, and you claim that this has 'nothing' to do with global warming? Really? NOTHING?

There is no such THING (after at least 10 known ice ages) as "stable" temperatures.


This is almost certainly true... but I think that man's contribution is significant in the final analysis, especially when talking about the rate of change we are observing.


  #18  
Old September 9th 15, 01:21 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 Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:59:07 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 9:43:19 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 23:29:48 UTC-4, palsing wrote:


Ok, so why if they are "so" convinced the tide is coming don't they immediately
start making plans to move? Because like Al Gore talking about sea level rise
and then buying 25,000sq ft mansion on a beach, it's all B.S.!!!


No doubt they will make plans to move when the time comes - but if it's early
enough now that global tragedy can still be averted, then of course it's better
to work on that!


NASA didn't begin the "space race" in earnest until the late '50s and by the late '60s most of the infrastructure had been built. Relocating would, in the grand scheme, be relatively easy should it ever come to that.

Most buildings and bridges only have a useful life of ~50 years anyway, so this is all much ado about nothing much.

  #19  
Old September 9th 15, 01:25 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 Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:43:19 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 23:29:48 UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 7:22:06 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 20:33:37 UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:
On 9/6/15 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:

Also, they never thought twice about shooting off hundreds of atomic bombs in the desert, despite them being "land-locked" and not as far south as Florida.

What are you talking about?

Meaning they were more worried about failed rockets falling than fall-out.


You started out bitching about NASA. Are you still talking about NASA, or have you moved on to the nebulous "they"?


Ok, so why if they are "so" convinced the tide is coming don't they immediately start making plans to move? Because like Al Gore talking about sea level rise and then buying 25,000sq ft mansion on a beach, it's all B.S.!!!


IIRC, owl bore's environmentally UNfriendly mansion isn't located too close to the water, nor at too low an altitude above sea level to be directly affected.
 




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 01:26 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.