#21
|
|||
|
|||
Is ISS at risk?
Jeff Findley scribbled something like ...
I always forget about the B-1B. In a world where B-2 bombers can take out ground based air defenses and B-52's can carry stand-off cruise missiles, followd by B-52's carpet bombing using "dumb" bombs, I suppose I don't see much of a point to the B-1B. Isn't that what happened to it? It's mission fell off the table, but there was enough emotional investment to bring a token number online. I miss the B-58, too. /dps |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Is ISS at risk?
: bob haller
: i didnt buy into it just mentioned that the military probably has the : ability to fry sats. Way to move the goal posts. "It can be taken down by a scud and some ball bearings!". Well, not really. "So ok, ok, it can be taken down by a twenty gazillion dollar installation built over a period of some years and enough power to run a medium sized city! Oh noes!" And of course that's even if you believe HAARP can fry satellites, which seems moderately doubtful. The point is, yes, the US military could fry satellites SOME way. But that's not where you set the goalposts. You set them at a rag-tag band of disgruntled fringe lunatics get their hands on a scud and some ball bearings. Which is quite some distance away. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Is ISS at risk?
I assume you're referring to HAARP. *Why am I not surprised that you buy into yet another conspiracy theory? i didnt buy into it just mentioned that the military probably has the ability to fry sats. No, you didn't "just mention" that. *You claimed that "russia has tried to blame the US for the loss of grunt, blaming the loss on a US site in alaska". I asked for a cite supporting that claim. there you go, http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/0...s-wacky-r.html you must live in a vacuum to not be up to date with current news |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Is ISS at risk?
...
Russia hints at foul play in its space failures AFP – Tue, Jan 10, 2012... .. 2 .... . .. .. Related Content. .. ... File illustration photo shows the Soyuz rocket blasting off from Russia's Baikonur … ... .. .. The head of Russia's beleaguered space programme hinted on Tuesday that foreign powers may be behind the string of failures that struck his agency in the past year. Roskosmos chief Vladimir Popovkin told the Izvestia daily he could not understand why several launches went awry at precisely the moment the spacecraft were travelling through areas invisible to Russian radar. "It is unclear why our setbacks often occur when the vessels are travelling through what for Russia is the 'dark' side of the Earth -- in areas where we do not see the craft and do not receive its telemetry readings," he said. "I do not want to blame anyone, but today there are some very powerful countermeasures that can be used against spacecraft whose use we cannot exclude," Popovkin told the daily. One of Russia's most high-profile recent failures involved the November launch of a Mars probe called Phobos-Grunt that got stuck in a low Earth orbit and whose fragments are now expected to crash back down on Sunday. Popovkin said there was "no clarity" as to why the 13.5-tonne probe's booster rocket failed to fire on schedule. But he admitted the mission was risky to begin with because it involved an underfunded project whose original designs went back to Soviet times. "If we did not manage to launch it in the window open in 2011 for a Mars mission, we would have had to simply throw it away, writing off a loss of five billion rubles ($160 million)," he said. Popovkin was named the head of Russia's space agency in April after its previous chief was sacked in the wake of an embarrassing loss of three navigation satellites during launch. Yet the problems only multiplied under his watch as Russia lost several more satellites and also saw its Progress cargo ship experience its first-ever failure on a mission to the International Space Station. The Mars mission setback was followed last month by the loss of the Meridian communications satellite. Its fragments crashed into the Novosibirsk region of central Siberia and hit a house ironically located on Cosmonaut Street. No injuries were reported but the 50-centimetre (20-inch) fragment blew a hole in the home's roof. .... .. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Is ISS at risk?
On Jan 15, 6:00*pm, bob haller wrote:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/12011...-data-htv.html could a terrorist command a HTV to *ram ISS??? There is simpler means to damage or destroy the station other than ramming it. And yes it has been worried about. Though it would require lots of cooperation but some nation like Iran could pull it off. I didn't mention the means.......................Trig |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Is ISS at risk?
In article ,
says... bob haller wrote: there you go, http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/01/russias-wacky- r.html you must live in a vacuum to not be up to date with current news That's not a cite. It's a meta-cite. It's pointing to some unnamed Russian source about some unnamed Russians making claims. I asked for a CITE. Note the title of the article? That's not considered 'news' by sane people; it's "wacky". Bob, Fred is right. These kinds of b.s. articles using unnamed sources come out of "the Russian media" all the time. They're created to sell newspapers. That doesn't mean that a word of it is true, especially when you thrown in Russian to English translation by someone who may not have a clue how to translate technical terms, especially ones used by aerospace engineers. Jeff -- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. " - tinker |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Is ISS at risk?
On Jan 20, 8:29*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... bob haller wrote: there you go,http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/01/russias-wacky- r.html you must live in a vacuum to not be up to date with current news That's not a cite. *It's a meta-cite. *It's pointing to some unnamed Russian source about some unnamed Russians making claims. I asked for a CITE. Note the title of the article? *That's not considered 'news' by sane people; it's "wacky". Bob, Fred is right. These kinds of b.s. articles using unnamed sources come out of "the Russian media" all the time. *They're created to sell newspapers. *That doesn't mean that a word of it is true, especially when you thrown in Russian to English translation by someone who may not have a clue how to translate technical terms, especially ones used by aerospace engineers. Jeff -- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it * up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. " * *- tinker thats a nasawatch article.or at least a similiar one was there i doubt its true the us would have no reason to attack grunt/ but the us military has stated publically it wants control of space. that unmanned mini shuttle could be designed for such a use... and much is said about first strike and new style attacks like taking out the nations power grid. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Is ISS at risk?
In article e28e77f9-02e8-4426-a81c-ac404017cbf8
@a40g2000vbu.googlegroups.com, says... On Jan 20, 8:29*am, Jeff Findley wrote: These kinds of b.s. articles using unnamed sources come out of "the Russian media" all the time. *They're created to sell newspapers. *That doesn't mean that a word of it is true, especially when you thrown in Russian to English translation by someone who may not have a clue how to translate technical terms, especially ones used by aerospace engineers. thats a nasawatch article.or at least a similiar one was there Keith put it on NASA Watch so he could point out how *stupid* the Russian news media accusations are. Keith also liked to a James Oberg article on the subject: Russian Probe Crash Sparks New Controversy POSTED BY: James Oberg / Tue, January 17, 2012 http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/a...russian-probe- crash-sparks-new-controversy Quote from above: Sadly, this knee-jerk blame shifting in the space industry has ramped up in recent years. The real danger in the Russian nonsense about finding the United States at fault for the crash isn't just the blow to diplomacy and public attitudes. Also important is how such claims prevent a proper investigation and get in the way of implementing a reliable "fix." Phantom "causes" lead to delusional, even damaging, responses. That raises the level of danger to which everybody whose lives depend on Russian spacecraft?and that now includes U.S. and other astronauts-is exposed. In other words, James Oberg believes that such wild accusations, which you seem to specialize in, actually hurt the program rather than help it. You seem to be on the losing team Bob. Jeff -- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. " - tinker |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Is ISS at risk?
On Jan 20, 12:52*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article e28e77f9-02e8-4426-a81c-ac404017cbf8 @a40g2000vbu.googlegroups.com, says... On Jan 20, 8:29*am, Jeff Findley wrote: These kinds of b.s. articles using unnamed sources come out of "the Russian media" all the time. *They're created to sell newspapers. *That doesn't mean that a word of it is true, especially when you thrown in Russian to English translation by someone who may not have a clue how to translate technical terms, especially ones used by aerospace engineers. thats a nasawatch article.or at least a similiar one was there Keith put it on NASA Watch so he could point out how *stupid* the Russian news media accusations are. Keith also liked to a James Oberg article on the subject: Russian Probe Crash Sparks New Controversy POSTED BY: James Oberg */ *Tue, January 17, 2012http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/russian-probe- crash-sparks-new-controversy Quote from above: * *Sadly, this knee-jerk blame shifting in the space industry * *has ramped up in recent years. The real danger in the Russian * *nonsense about finding the United States at fault for the * *crash isn't just the blow to diplomacy and public attitudes. * *Also important is how such claims prevent a proper * *investigation and get in the way of implementing a reliable * *"fix." * *Phantom "causes" lead to delusional, even damaging, responses. * *That raises the level of danger to which everybody whose * *lives depend on Russian spacecraft?and that now includes U.S. * *and other astronauts-is exposed. In other words, James Oberg believes that such wild accusations, which you seem to specialize in, actually hurt the program rather than help it. *You seem to be on the losing team Bob. Jeff -- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it * up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. " * *- tinker i wasnt stating it occured, just that it was reported and some of the quoted russians appear in management rolls. beyond which someone knowledgable might try to command a sat nearby ISS to ram the station. most likely a nutjob who works in the industry and controls sats for a living. years ago a cairo airlines pilot crashed a large commercial airliner he was piloting intentially into the ocean. this was covered on air emegency tv show. it looks back into the facts of how accidents happen. theres that fed x cargo pilot who tried unsuccessfuly to fly a large airliner into the fed x hub. it was a close thing, the other flight crew stopped him but cant pilot anymore. they have brain damage from the baseball bat he used...... that fellow is serving a life sentence with no parole in supermax florence colorado. a windowless prison, with sound proof cells, no tv, no radio, no one to talk to, minimal food. out of cell in shackles just one hour a day. guards arent allowed chit chat wuth the inmates...... most inmates end up insane in no time at all, many were likely nuts before sentence to jail. these are bad people and deserve to be locked up! but our constitution clearly says no cruel punishment. our country ha lost it founding fathers values |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
where doesn't Ignatius risk all | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 14th 07 08:08 AM |
NYT on shuttle risk | [email protected] | Policy | 2 | July 27th 05 05:53 AM |
NYT on shuttle risk | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 27th 05 05:53 AM |
2004 MN4 impact risk (Torino scale 2 risk) | George William Herbert | Policy | 102 | January 15th 05 04:09 PM |
2004 MN4 risk fades away. | George William Herbert | Policy | 13 | December 29th 04 12:17 AM |