Large SRB test site in Florida

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

actually its both.........

make stuff as safe as humanely possible, and have a layer of additiona
protection.......

russia has been having lots of issues with its space program ........

imagine a soyuz launched into a poor orbit, it cant re enter but cant
get to the station either.


basically its stuck...

even a non man rated falcon coud be useful under those situations

its like planning for a shuttle stuck at station, when i asked about
that possiblity i was laughed at here, and called chicken little.

once columbia occured nasa planned for it......

On Friday, November 23, 2012 12:44:26 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
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......

Jesus, you are dense!

On Nov 24, 9:45*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.

That's because his head is so far up his ass that it's easier to look
back there. *However, in this case, his hindsight is just a little
off, too, since the problem was not repairable on orbit and even
imaging the Shuttle probably wouldn't have shown the problem.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

A fast supplies to orbit capability could of been used to support
columbia in orbit till a way to rescue the crew would of been ready..

then columbia unmanned could of attempted auto land,,,, to save the
vehicle.

while there werent many supplies to attempt in orbit repairs, a rescue
vehicle could of taken them along......

On Nov 25, 11:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Nov 24, 9:45 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.

That's because his head is so far up his ass that it's easier to look
back there. However, in this case, his hindsight is just a little
off, too, since the problem was not repairable on orbit and even
imaging the Shuttle probably wouldn't have shown the problem.

A fast supplies to orbit capability could of been used to support
columbia in orbit till a way to rescue the crew would of been ready..

Uh, so could a slow supplies to orbit capability, which already
existed. *So what does your expensive (and at the time non-existent
(hell, NOW non-existent)) capability bring to the table, again?

Remember, all you're saving is vehicle stacking time. *You're still
going to have all the fueling time.



then columbia unmanned could of attempted auto land,,,, to save the
vehicle.

while there werent many supplies to attempt in orbit repairs, a rescue
vehicle could of taken them along......

And of course your crystal ball told you exactly which supplies would
be needed so that you could stack them on your siloed vehicle...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

obviously the site the rockets are stationed at would have ready to go
supplies for quick loading.

one vehicle could be a escape capsule capable of deorbiting the entire
crew in a dire emergency. ideally large enough for the max number of
crew, plus a pilot and possibly co pilot for the job, figure 12 people
tops, jammed in for a quick deorbit.

one vehicle could carry supplies loaded once the situation is
understood, and its engine could be used to stabilize the stations
orbit...

with a few vehicles ready to go at a moments notice it could save the
station, or a soyuz enroute to the station that has a problem

Bobbert, are you even capable of pulling your head out of your ass and
actually thinking?


Freds idiot posts redacted.

By having the emergency rockets stacked checked and ready to go saves
way more than just stacking time....

now picture this a disaster occurs at the station, one soyuz can
return with its 3 crew members. the other soyuz is damaged and cant
reenter safely, and worse the station isnt really habitible.....

now the next regular supply vehicle is due to launch in 4 weeks. it
will need stacked, checked out , fueled, cargo loaded etc. even fast
tracking means 2 weeks if everything goes flawlessely.. the emergency
parts and supplies could keep the crew alive hunkered down till the
next soyuz arrival. which do nte still leaves one astronaut stranded.

the next soyus isnt due to launch for months, since a crew rotation
had just occured....

so the crew dies for lack of fast ground support, this could of been
avoided if we had just invested a little extra.....

On Sunday, November 25, 2012 5:37:41 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
Bobbert, are you even capable of pulling your head out of your ass and

actually thinking?





Freds idiot posts redacted.



By having the emergency rockets stacked checked and ready to go saves

way more than just stacking time....



now picture this a disaster occurs at the station, one soyuz can

return with its 3 crew members. the other soyuz is damaged and cant

reenter safely, and worse the station isnt really habitible.....



now the next regular supply vehicle is due to launch in 4 weeks. it

will need stacked, checked out , fueled, cargo loaded etc. even fast

tracking means 2 weeks if everything goes flawlessely.. the emergency

parts and supplies could keep the crew alive hunkered down till the

next soyuz arrival. which do nte still leaves one astronaut stranded.



the next soyus isnt due to launch for months, since a crew rotation

had just occured....



so the crew dies for lack of fast ground support, this could of been

avoided if we had just invested a little extra.....

But it's NOT a little extra you knothead. Fred has explained very well that your thoughts and proposals are doable. If you know all this, why don't you work for NASA? And as it appears you do NOT know much, why don't you try to learn from some of the explanations being put forth?

On Nov 25, 10:09*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Bobbert, are you even capable of pulling your head out of your ass and
actually thinking?

Freds idiot posts redacted.

Yes, Bobbert snips everything he has no rational answer to.



By having the emergency rockets stacked checked and ready to go saves
way more than just stacking time....

How's that work, again? *What other time does it save? *You're still
going to have to fuel the vehicle (liquid fuel rockets aren't kept
fueled in silos). *You're still going to have to load your specialized
supplies that you talked about in the part you snipped. *You're still
going to have to do your analysis of the emergency to figure out
what's needed. *You're still going to have to hit an appropriate
launch window and program the vehicle for it.

So just what time does it save, Bobbert?



now picture this a disaster occurs at the station, one soyuz can
return with its 3 crew members. the other soyuz is damaged and cant
reenter safely, and worse the station isnt really habitible.....

Ok, so let's pretend that a one in many billions chance occurs...



now the next regular supply vehicle is due to launch in 4 weeks. it
will need stacked, checked out , fueled, cargo loaded etc. even fast
tracking means 2 weeks if everything goes flawlessely.. *the emergency
parts and supplies could keep the crew alive hunkered down till the
next soyuz arrival. which do nte still leaves one astronaut stranded.

Note that your silo vehicle needs to be checked out, fueled, cargo
loaded, etc. *All you've saved is stacking time and you've made
loading cargo more difficult because the thing is in a hole in the
ground.



the next soyus isnt due to launch for months, since a crew rotation
had just occured....

so the crew dies for lack of fast ground support, this could of been
avoided if we had just invested a little extra.....

Not by your scheme, it couldn't. *Do you think there is something
magic about putting the rocket in a hole in the ground that suddenly
makes all the steps magically complete? *There isn't.

In an accident such as you postulate, the station cannot be saved (the
damage is too severe, since you postulate that all existing supplies
are destroyed).

But, as usual, you will ignore reality and continue to bleat about how
great your plan is, despite virtually everyone pointing out that
you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

All of your statements are similiar to responses of a shuttle stuck at
station...... before columbia.

having some vehicles on standby saves the possible weeks or more that
ignoring the issue cost our country , and the world in case a bad day
occurs, which is growing more likely as the in orbit debris increase,
although the issue could be from other problems, like a soyuz that
cant deorbit or make it to the station. given russias space quality
issues lately thats getting more likely....

when your operating a trillion dollar station its good practice to
think about redundancy.....

In article e2313c70-fe3a-4028-8c9f-
, says...

On Nov 21, 10:18*am, Dean wrote:

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...

Falcon was not designed to be stored in or launched from silos. Silo
stored launch vehicles using LOX for oxidizer is not a trivial thing.
There are many reasons that the US stopped using LOX/kerosene for
ICBM's.

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!

You have yet to provide Cost benefit analysis. Do it.

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 ,
says...

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."

Agreed. NASA was treating TPS damage more as a maintenance nuisance
than a safety issue. The fact that no actual testing of impacts to the
RCC was done before Columbia is telling. It was always assumed it would
be "tougher" than the tiles.

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 7b1615fd-bf39-4a8a-8f49-
, says...

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.............

Of course it has "military uses". They are looking to launch satellites
on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. But that does not require a hardened silo
or any other countermeasures typically employed by ICBM's. We've got
bloody ICBM's already!

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......

Get a clue. ISS has redundancy built in already. The redundancy is in
orbit already. This sort of redundancy is needed for manned missions
beyond LEO. It would be a shame if NASA implemented your solution for
"redundancy" which then limited missions to LEO for decades to come.

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