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
  #1  
Old September 6th 15, 07:16 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. politics as usual)

Why would NASA have built launch pads in a state with such violent weather? Hurricanes, torrential rain and thunderstorms. The extra cost due to scrubbed launches is in the billions. Politics. They should have built them in the desert. Now they're playing the global warming card. Does this nonsense EVER stop??
  #2  
Old September 6th 15, 02:35 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 Sat, 5 Sep 2015 23:16:53 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Why would NASA have built launch pads in a state with such violent weather? Hurricanes, torrential rain and thunderstorms. The extra cost due to scrubbed launches is in the billions. Politics. They should have built them in the desert. Now they're playing the global warming card. Does this nonsense EVER stop??


NASA is justifiably worried, since that region will be underwater in a
few decades.

They chose that location because it's as far south as they could get
in the continental U.S., and it is very useful to have your primary
launch site as close to the equator as possible. It is also a good
choice because nobody lives downrange (since it's over the ocean).
This provides safety from failed launches as well as the opportunity
for ocean recoveries of rocket stages.
  #3  
Old September 6th 15, 09:23 PM 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 09:35:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 23:16:53 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Why would NASA have built launch pads in a state with such violent weather? Hurricanes, torrential rain and thunderstorms. The extra cost due to scrubbed launches is in the billions. Politics. They should have built them in the desert. Now they're playing the global warming card. Does this nonsense EVER stop??


NASA is justifiably worried, since that region will be underwater in a
few decades.

We've heard dire predictions like this a decade ago, didn't come to pass. 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.
  #4  
Old September 7th 15, 01:33 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
lal_truckee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politicsas usual)

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?

  #5  
Old September 7th 15, 03:22 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 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.
  #6  
Old September 7th 15, 04:29 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 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"?
  #7  
Old September 7th 15, 04:43 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 23:29:48 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.!!!
  #8  
Old September 7th 15, 04:56 AM 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 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.

John Savard
  #9  
Old September 7th 15, 04:57 AM 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 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
  #10  
Old September 7th 15, 04:59 AM 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 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
 




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 02:03 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.