Large SRB test site in Florida

On Nov 27, 11:40*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 8457134f-6031-4bab-b940-4a1e58c768a3
@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com, says...







On Nov 27, 8:41*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:21:03 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:

since the military has fast launch to replace key satelites so should

ISS

fred tries to bury all posts with tons of garbage to try and discredit

anyone here

You do realize there AREN'T any shuttles anymore?

Bob loves to argue endlessly about the space shuttle. *He's an expert,
in his own mind, about what should have, could have, would have been.

Unfortunately, his rants are not based in reality. *Such as his
assertion "as to very fast launch to orbit, the military already has it,
since a attack on our country would target space assets.... our command
and control plus spying...". *Funny, I didn't know EELV's could perform
"very fast launch to orbit", since that's the only launch vehicle
capable of replacing satellites tasked with "our command and control
plus spying".

His assertion that the military already has some secret ability to
launch large payloads into orbit is laughable.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

the military obviously has the ability to launch the existing
satellites that are in orbit, cant deny that..

True.

plus and its been reported in the press they would replace those
damaged during a war. there would be lots of ways to take out existing
military satellites.

The possibility that some assets in orbit might be lost during a
conflict has certainly been considered. *However, such an event has
never occurred, except in tests against a country's own satellites.

so a fast launch ability must already exist....

This does *not* follow. *There is no evidence to suggest that such a
capability actually exists.

In fact, even if such an ability existed, it would be useless unless
copies of every operational (military and recon) satellite in orbit were
ready to launch. *The costs involved to make such a capability a reality
are *far* too high.

although ISS isnt a military asset it is probably the singles most
costly national asset thats so vulnerable......

In the big scheme of things, the complete loss of ISS would be small.
In fact, one could argue that such a "loss" would free up funding that
NASA could use for programs like Orion and SLS. *In the past, some
posters here consistently called for the end of the shuttle program for
much the same reasons.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

while during a war, if its nuclear, most satellites would be damaged
if not totally inoperable.

with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
ability

In the big scheme of things, the complete loss of ISS would be small.
In fact, one could argue that such a "loss" would free up funding that
NASA could use for programs like Orion and SLS. *In the past, some
posters here consistently called for the end of the shuttle program for
much the same reasons.

Jeff

it would certinally hurt our image, and evena dumb system could damage
ISS....

launch a rocket just in front of ISS with a ball bearing bomb.......\\

In article e18c7ccf-b48f-4050-bf08-e73b28d363c7
@w7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

while during a war, if its nuclear, most satellites would be damaged
if not totally inoperable.

If the earth descends into nuclear war, "all bets are off" and mutually
assured destruction rears its ugly head. Besides, if EMP blasts from
nuclear weapons take out all the ground stations, exactly what is the
point of a military satellite in orbit following a nuclear exchange?

with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
ability

There is zero evidence that "quick launch" capability actually exists
for such replacements.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article 511ad21c-a998-4531-8914-da535034a3a6
@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

In the big scheme of things, the complete loss of ISS would be small.
In fact, one could argue that such a "loss" would free up funding that
NASA could use for programs like Orion and SLS. *In the past, some
posters here consistently called for the end of the shuttle program for
much the same reasons.

it would certinally hurt our image, and evena dumb system could damage
ISS....

launch a rocket just in front of ISS with a ball bearing bomb.......\\

This has been discussed before. It's easier said than done. Countries
which would have the capability to do this would be inviting the wrath
of the US Military upon them. Terrorists would not have such a
capability.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Nov 27, 1:03*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 511ad21c-a998-4531-8914-da535034a3a6
@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...



In the big scheme of things, the complete loss of ISS would be small.
In fact, one could argue that such a "loss" would free up funding that
NASA could use for programs like Orion and SLS. *In the past, some
posters here consistently called for the end of the shuttle program for
much the same reasons.

it would certinally hurt our image, and evena dumb system could damage
ISS....

launch a rocket just in front of ISS with a ball bearing bomb.......\\

This has been discussed before. *It's easier said than done. *Countries
which would have the capability to do this would be inviting the wrath
of the US Military upon them. *Terrorists would not have such a
capability.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

there was a theory saddam hussein could take pot shots at ISS using
scud missle.

there are likely a wide variety of ways to damage ISS and I wouldnt
speculate here, theres no value in giving bad people ideas, but it
wouldnt require a major country to do it

O
while during a war, if its nuclear, most satellites would be damaged
if not totally inoperable.

If the earth descends into nuclear war, "all bets are off" and mutually
assured destruction rears its ugly head. *Besides, if EMP blasts from
nuclear weapons take out all the ground stations, exactly what is the
point of a military satellite in orbit following a nuclear exchange?

with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
ability

There is zero evidence that "quick launch" capability actually exists
for such replacements.

Jeff
--

A all out nuclear war is hopefully less likely today than in the 60s.
however the risks of terrorists getting a bomb is likely more just
because more exist, and places like pakistan security may be less than
perfect

with the militarys heavy dependence on space communications for spying
plus command and control there is no doubt at least some replacement
ability

There is zero evidence that "quick launch" capability actually exists
for such replacements.

Jeff
--

with whats been spent on COG continuation of government you assume the
miltary will lose all or nearly all its space assets for command and
control and lack a way to replace them fast

look at all the other spending for military, its doubled since 9
11......

but no way to quickly replace space command and control......

jeff you know this cant be true......

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

there was a theory saddam hussein could take pot shots at ISS using
scud missle.


As I recall, YOU had such a theory, and pretty much everyone else including
their dog pointed out the holes in it.


there are likely a wide variety of ways to damage ISS and I wouldnt
speculate here, theres no value in giving bad people ideas, but it
wouldnt require a major country to do it


Yes, yes it would. Rocket science takes, well rocket scientists and a lot
of infrastructure.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


totally unacceptable where human life is at stake. not just the
astronauts, but people on the ground, mass panic can do far more harm
than incoming ISS debris.........


You know, this attitude actually ****es me off.

Look Bob, the fact is, PEOPLE DIE. And whether you want to face reality or
not, every day decisions are made on the "value" of human life.

At some point one has to ask, "is the risk worth it?"

Even before Columbia, NASA had run the numbers on a LOCV incident before
station completion. Despite the risks, they and Congress accepted the
risks.

And more importantly, the astronauts who had to fly the missions accepted
the risks.

If the costs become too high, you decide to stop taking the risks.

What you propose would DRIVE UP costs so much that you'd end up having to
cancel the program.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Nov 27, 8:26*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message
...

totally unacceptable where human life is at stake. not just the
astronauts, but people on the ground, mass panic can do far more harm
than incoming ISS debris.........

You know, this attitude actually ****es me off.

Look Bob, the fact is, PEOPLE DIE. *And whether you want to face reality or
not, every day decisions are made on the "value" of human life.

At some point one has to ask, "is the risk worth it?"

Even before Columbia, NASA had run the numbers on a LOCV incident before
station completion. *Despite the risks, they and Congress accepted the
risks.

And more importantly, the astronauts who had to fly the missions accepted
the risks.

If the costs become too high, you decide to stop taking the risks.

What you propose would DRIVE UP costs so much that you'd end up having to
cancel the program.

--
Greg D. Moore

well lets look back BEFORE COLUMBIA nasa didnt do things to support a
shuttle stuck at station....

I was called chicken little, it would cost too much, stuck is
impossible etc etc....

once columbia occured nasa made changes to support a shuttle stuck at
station.

really it wouldnt cost a whole lot to add some some flights that would
be stacked so a few are always ready to go fast, along with necessary
anticipated emergency supplies, having a couple soyuz near ready to
fly would be helpful too.... just move up their production date, so
more are always in the pipeline

Or another safety board can again investigate why nasa wasnt prepared
and more died, leaving a out of control station causing what will be
mass panic under its ground track....