A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Large SRB test site in Florida



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #52  
Old November 26th 12, 03:45 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

On Nov 26, 9:29*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 8a375047-8f51-48f1-a543-5dd768e52cd9
@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com, says...



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


But Columbia wasn't stuck at ISS. *If it had been, the "slow" way of
resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the
crew home.

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


nasa never considered a shuttle stuck at station, posters here said
impossible....

once columbia occured nasa planned for just such a possiblity......

if a debris strike occurs at a poor time when theres no soyuz progress
or other vehicle scheduled for a ISS we could lose everything, by
being cheap.....

given all the other costs of manned space not having some vehicles
ready for quick launch is just plain stupid.

being prepared would save time getting vehice/s to launch sites,
stacking, and testing plus the time to get the necessary supplies from
wherever they happen to be.......

could easily save a month or more.

a manned soyuz should always be ready for launch in russia...

supply ships should always be ready for launch here.

and the backup vehicles should be rotated in for regular operations so
they dont get stale... and minimizes the costs......

just in time inventory is ok if your building cars, but not so good if
your supporting a trillion dollar space station
  #53  
Old November 26th 12, 03:50 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Large SRB test site in Florida



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


But Columbia wasn't stuck at ISS. *If it had been, the "slow" way of
resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the
crew home.

Jeff


there were consumable and power issues if columbia had got stuck at
station. which required lots of changes at ISS.

at some point columbia would of had to be cut clear, sent to attempt
re entry or burn up ......

so the shuttle wouldnt of always been available for space, power,
toilet facilities etc
  #54  
Old November 27th 12, 01:21 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

On Nov 26, 11:44*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

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


But Columbia wasn't stuck at ISS. *If it had been, the "slow" way of
resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the
crew home.


there were consumable and power issues if columbia had got stuck at
station. which required lots of changes at ISS.


So Columbia could operate independently but couldn't stay near ISS?
REALLY????



at some point columbia would of had to be cut clear, sent to attempt
re entry or burn up ......


Why?



so the shuttle wouldnt of always been available for space, power,
toilet facilities etc


Nobody said anything about using a 'stuck Shuttle' for any of that.

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


a shuttle stuck at station if impossible to land would of been used to
depletion, till everything useful had been depleted....

since a station with suddenly 7 extra people indefinete consumables
would of been critical. remember when a shuttle visited the station
the shuttle was living space, power, bathroom for the visiting crew.

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...

satellites are vulnerable in many ways....

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
  #55  
Old November 27th 12, 01:52 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:21:03 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 26, 11:44*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

bob haller wrote:




All of your statements are similiar to responses of a shuttle stuck at


station...... before columbia.




But Columbia wasn't stuck at ISS. *If it had been, the "slow" way of


resupplying ISS would have been sufficient to (eventually) bring the


crew home.




there were consumable and power issues if columbia had got stuck at


station. which required lots of changes at ISS.




So Columbia could operate independently but couldn't stay near ISS?


REALLY????








at some point columbia would of had to be cut clear, sent to attempt


re entry or burn up ......




Why?








so the shuttle wouldnt of always been available for space, power,


toilet facilities etc




Nobody said anything about using a 'stuck Shuttle' for any of that.




--


"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar


*territory."


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn




a shuttle stuck at station if impossible to land would of been used to

depletion, till everything useful had been depleted....



since a station with suddenly 7 extra people indefinete consumables

would of been critical. remember when a shuttle visited the station

the shuttle was living space, power, bathroom for the visiting crew.



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...



satellites are vulnerable in many ways....



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?
  #56  
Old November 27th 12, 02:35 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Large SRB test site in Florida


You do realize there AREN'T any shuttles anymore?


Technically the still exist in museums.....

But after columbia nasa made lots of changes to support a shuttle
stuck at station.. they really werent prepared

and thats what this is all about ..... With our expensive station nasa
shoud always be prepared to support it as quickly as possible in a
true emergency..

even a small hole in a critical location could start a disaster.

now in freds world you store all the emergency supplies on the
station, the trouble is those supplies themselves might be damaged or
unavailable..

in freds word you depend on the regular resupply flights, if one just
arrived the next one may be a long time away.. and our just in time
system doesnt have extra vehicles waiting for launch....

so it might take a month or two to launch supplies ............

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.........
  #57  
Old November 27th 12, 02:41 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

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
  #58  
Old November 27th 12, 04:09 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

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..

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.

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

although ISS isnt a military asset it is probably the singles most
costly national asset thats so vulnerable......
  #59  
Old November 27th 12, 04:35 PM posted to sci.space.history
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

On Nov 27, 10:09*am, bob haller wrote:

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.

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


It doesn't have that capability.
Your idea is idiotic. The ISS is fine as it is.
..

  #60  
Old November 27th 12, 05:40 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Large SRB test site in Florida

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
 




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
Florida Weather+ Florida News bert Misc 15 June 22nd 10 06:05 PM
Site in Northern Chile Selected for Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 May 18th 06 05:10 PM
Site in Northern Chile Selected for Large Synoptic Survey Telescope(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 May 18th 06 05:08 PM
Mars May Have Had Large Sea Near NASA Rover Landing Site (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 2 September 10th 04 03:11 AM
Mars May Have Had Large Sea Near NASA Rover Landing Site (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 September 8th 04 08:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 PM.


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.