Large SRB test site in Florida

This part is true. Debris is an issue and big collisions obviously
produce more, smaller, pieces of debris. But the details are pretty
complicated and are the subject of many, many research papers.

Well given the dramatic increase of in orbit debris planning for a
mayday call from the station is probably *a good idea....

Done. *Crews are trained for this.

but for eartthers seeing the ISS ground track littered with modules
from a out of control station *costing how many billions?

It is very doubtful this would happen. *It would take quite a hit to
cause ISS to break apart so that its orbital track is "littered with
modules". *Remember that orbital debris that can be tracked is tracked,
so there is a limit to how big of a hit ISS would take if it by a piece
of debris too small to track.

Again, you are not doing the math here and have nothing to support your
wild assertions. *You can't do failure analyses "in your gut".

which could of been preventable with a small contingent of stand by
vehicles...

How in the hell would "stand by vehicles" prevent the ISS ground track
from being "littered with modules" due to a debris strike? *You're
making far less sense than your usual insane ramblings. *And you wonder
why you're the chicken little of the sci.space newsgroups. *:-P

congress will zero nasas budget if such a disaster occurs.......

Bull****. *Has not happened yet, despite the complete loss of three
crews since the 1960's. *History has shown that there is a large
political will to spend billions on the manned space program even if
there is little to show for it in terms of science produced.

Just look at the billions being thrown down the SLS rat-hole for an
example. *There is little innovation there. *Also, there are far cheaper
ways to produce the same results. *Congress doesn't care much about
innovation or cost as long as billions are spent in the right
congressional districts.

Jeff

a debris hit probably will not destroy the station but disable it,
command and control. ISS flies in a low orbit, a debris hit that
causes atmosphere loss can cause overheating of control equiptement
causing ISS to tumble.

a tumbling ISS could spread modules all over bthe ground track.

Space travel has never really done damage on earth, no hitting citys
etc.


If that occurs and since manned space has very little science returns.
Drop a module in new york will see a zero budget for anything major
beyond necessary earth weather monitoring.

having some emergency supplies to orbit for ISS is just smart
thinking. Think of it like homeowners insurance......

A debris hit coiuld not only damage the station but take out in orbit
emergency supplies and spare parts....

a fast supplies to orbit could also help a ISS trannsit vehicle like
soyuz or private vehicle that runs into troubles

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
This part is true. Debris is an issue and big collisions obviously
produce more, smaller, pieces of debris. But the details are pretty
complicated and are the subject of many, many research papers.

Well given the dramatic increase of in orbit debris planning for a
mayday call from the station is probably a good idea....

Done. Crews are trained for this.

but for eartthers seeing the ISS ground track littered with modules
from a out of control station costing how many billions?

It is very doubtful this would happen. It would take quite a hit to
cause ISS to break apart so that its orbital track is "littered with
modules". Remember that orbital debris that can be tracked is tracked,
so there is a limit to how big of a hit ISS would take if it by a piece
of debris too small to track.

Again, you are not doing the math here and have nothing to support your
wild assertions. You can't do failure analyses "in your gut".

which could of been preventable with a small contingent of stand by
vehicles...

How in the hell would "stand by vehicles" prevent the ISS ground track
from being "littered with modules" due to a debris strike? You're
making far less sense than your usual insane ramblings. And you wonder
why you're the chicken little of the sci.space newsgroups. :-P

congress will zero nasas budget if such a disaster occurs.......

Bull****. Has not happened yet, despite the complete loss of three
crews since the 1960's. History has shown that there is a large
political will to spend billions on the manned space program even if
there is little to show for it in terms of science produced.

Just look at the billions being thrown down the SLS rat-hole for an
example. There is little innovation there. Also, there are far cheaper
ways to produce the same results. Congress doesn't care much about
innovation or cost as long as billions are spent in the right
congressional districts.

Jeff

a debris hit probably will not destroy the station but disable it,
command and control. ISS flies in a low orbit, a debris hit that
causes atmosphere loss can cause overheating of control equiptement
causing ISS to tumble.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's two separate control systems,
the US and the Soviet one.

On top of that, if you still have a Soyuz or Progress attached (which you
most likely will) you have an additional source, albeit it a very weak one.


a tumbling ISS could spread modules all over bthe ground track.

Space travel has never really done damage on earth, no hitting citys
etc.


If that occurs and since manned space has very little science returns.

Again, do your homework. People have repeatedly pointed out the science
returns. You just refuse to listen because you're expecting some
groundbreaking, earth-shattering research. Hate to break it to you, that's
not the modus operandi of almost any lab, government or otherwise.


Drop a module in new york will see a zero budget for anything major
beyond necessary earth weather monitoring.


A module on NYC would do far less damage than Superstorm Sandy. Heck, it
would almost certainly do less damage than American Airlines Flight 587
crash in NYC in 2001.

having some emergency supplies to orbit for ISS is just smart
thinking. Think of it like homeowners insurance......


Ok, so tell me if you're such a genius, how do you dock your emergency
supplies to an out of control space station?

And once you do, what the hell good do they do you?


A debris hit coiuld not only damage the station but take out in orbit
emergency supplies and spare parts....


In which case you board the Soyuz and go home if it's that bad.

And then you boost ISS to as high an orbit as you can and take a few YEARS
to develop a plan.

a fast supplies to orbit could also help a ISS trannsit vehicle like
soyuz or private vehicle that runs into troubles


Right because the requirements are so close to each other.




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

In article c3b2fa1c-088d-49e0-aecb-756474fca1fc@
4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

a debris hit probably will not destroy the station but disable it,
command and control. ISS flies in a low orbit, a debris hit that
causes atmosphere loss can cause overheating of control equiptement
causing ISS to tumble.

Based on what? Your gut?

a tumbling ISS could spread modules all over bthe ground track.

Based on what? Your gut?

Space travel has never really done damage on earth, no hitting citys
etc.


If that occurs and since manned space has very little science returns.
Drop a module in new york will see a zero budget for anything major
beyond necessary earth weather monitoring.

having some emergency supplies to orbit for ISS is just smart
thinking. Think of it like homeowners insurance......

Again, what in the hell are "emergency supplies" going to do in such an
emergency? What sort of "emergency supplies" would you have "ready to
launch" that are not already on ISS? If the supplies are that critical,
store them on ISS, not on top of a rocket "ready to launch". That's
just stupid.

A debris hit coiuld not only damage the station but take out in orbit
emergency supplies and spare parts....

Based on what? Your gut?

a fast supplies to orbit could also help a ISS trannsit vehicle like
soyuz or private vehicle that runs into troubles

Based on what? Your gut?

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

Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will
damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to
get emergency supplies to orbit.

and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to
get much of NASA permanetely defunded.

In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency
vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old
could occasionally launch some regular freight.

Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.

And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed
colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and
likely saved the crews lives.

In article b09c6b57-eb83-4b53-bddf-6b1d44c07ef1
@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will
damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to
get emergency supplies to orbit.

Actually, you keep speculating that a hit will depressurize ISS, causing
it to lose all attitude control, causing it to spin out of control,
causing it to rip apart resulting in ISS modules strewn about the ground
track. It's been pointed out to you how unlikely this is, given that
ISS has multiple, redundant, ways of maintaining attitude control.

And even if such a thing were to happen, this is a very specific, highly
unlikely, scenario in which it makes no sense that "emergency supplies"
could be useful or could even be delivered if the station is spinning
out of control.

and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to
get much of NASA permanetely defunded.

Again, this is complete and utter b.s. An uncontrolled reentry is the
worst case result and even that is unlikely to do significant damage.
Most of the earth is ocean, which is largely unoccupied. Most of the
land on earth is likewise unoccupied, or very sparsely occupied. To
know for sure, you'd have to "do the math", which we know you won't do.
The next best thing would be a cite which supports your assertions,
which we also know you won't do.

In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency
vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old
could occasionally launch some regular freight.

This is speculation and supposition. You don't know any such thing.
What existing launch vehicles, which are housed in silos, could deliver
a payload to ISS? Exactly none. ICBM's which can be housed in silos
are designed to deliver warheads on a trajectory towards the enemy, not
deliver "emergency supplies" to ISS.

You're talking about a capability which does not exist and asserting
that it would be cheap to develop and maintain such a capability over
the lifetime of ISS. In laymen's terms, you're full of $hit.

Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.

And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed
colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and
likely saved the crews lives.

Would have, could have, should have. NASA would have, could have,
should have actually done something about the foam shedding issue
instead of ignoring it, not invented hair brained schemes to deal with
the issue after it resulted in a hole in the wing.

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 Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:01:02 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will

damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to

get emergency supplies to orbit.



and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to

get much of NASA permanetely defunded.



In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency

vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old

could occasionally launch some regular freight.



Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.



And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed

colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and

likely saved the crews lives.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

On Nov 21, 10:18*am, Dean wrote:
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:01:02 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will

damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to

get emergency supplies to orbit.

and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to

get much of NASA permanetely defunded.

In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency

vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old

could occasionally launch some regular freight.

Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.

And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed

colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and

likely saved the crews lives.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

So put some Falcons in silos for emergencies... launch one a year with
regular freight. it wouldnt cost that much and would add redundancy to
operations...

emergency supplies might be food, water or spare parts.....

In a true emergency a falcon always ready to launch could be the
difference between a bad day and a great nasa save.....

espically when the asset being protected costs as much as ISS!

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Nov 21, 10:18 am, Dean wrote:
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:01:02 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will

damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to

get emergency supplies to orbit.

and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to

get much of NASA permanetely defunded.

In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency

vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old

could occasionally launch some regular freight.

Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old.

And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed

colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and

likely saved the crews lives.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

So put some Falcons in silos for emergencies... launch one a year with
regular freight. it wouldnt cost that much and would add redundancy to
operations...

Gee, you're right Bob. I hadn't realized that SpaceX had designed and rated
the Falcon 9 for launch from a silo. I mean they've launched how many from
silos now? Oh wait.. what they didn't and they haven't?

Big hint Bob. You can't just drop a rocket into a non-existent silo and
launch it.

That's the other problem, there's NO SILO built for Falcon 9.


emergency supplies might be food, water or spare parts.....

As others have pointed out, this stuff is already there.


In a true emergency a falcon always ready to launch could be the
difference between a bad day and a great nasa save.....

espically when the asset being protected costs as much as ISS!

Right because money grows on trees.

There's already close to a 1/2 dozen methods to access ISS. Now you want to
add one more for an extremely remote possibility.

BTW, to address a point you brought up in another thread.

The proper solution to Columbia isn't a lunch on demand capability. It's a
"make damn sure it doesn't happen in the first place."





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

The only reason to put a rocket in a silo is for security and protection against incoming missiles. The Falcon does not need that.

On Nov 22, 5:15*pm, Dean wrote:
The only reason to put a rocket in a silo is for security and protection against incoming missiles. *The Falcon does not need that.

falcon may have military uses.............

the idea is a very fast always ready to go launch ability. that can be
accomplished in many ways a silo being one. a building on wheels
another.

it would be sad to see ISS die just because the random event that
causes a problem occurs when no vehicle is available. and with the
growing debris issues its one likely cause.

redundancy should be in nasas plans. not just in vehicles but for
accidents and other unplanned events.

it would be tragic to see ISS kill anyone on the ground, and a out of
control tumbling ISS could cause mass panic on its ground track, which
happens to be over most of the heavily populated area of our
world......