|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |