Large SRB test site in Florida

You are like a broken record. You just keep repeating stuff that makes no sense.

On Nov 27, 9:56*pm, Dean wrote:
You are like a broken record. *You just keep repeating stuff that makes no sense.

the military sunk 20 BILLION int spy sats that werent used......

So if they spent that much on spy sats but have no way to replace
command and control sats if they are attacked?

In article b28e8541-88bd-42b8-b34e-fb432e0252a2
@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

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

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

Hussein was crazy, but even he was smart enough to not *directly*
provoke the US. He invaded Kuwait (a very tiny country by most
standards), thinking that he could get away with it since it didn't
*directly* provoke a large power that could defeat him. But he didn't
get away with it at all, did he?

Direct provocation of the US would have invited *instantaneous*
retaliation by the US. Note those big ships in the ocean we have with
planes on them and those big flying wings which are limited in range due
to the crews on-board thanks to in air refueling.

Again, even countries we brand as "rogue" aren't stupid enough to
*directly* provoke the US by attempting to destroy a US asset as high
profile as ISS. The US spends *far* more on defense than any other
country on the planet. If you mess with the US, we'll smack you down
*hard*, plain and simple.

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

You do nothing but speculate. Running out of "plausible" ways that ISS
could be crippled and come crashing down on our heads yet somehow be
saved by some crazy resupply scheme of yours? You should be, because
you haven't provided a truly plausible scenario.

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 9c925e20-6144-403b-b03e-b5aac17a1e99
@dg10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

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.

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

Yawn.

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 6625ed0d-d66d-430e-9b0f-b591e723f553
@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

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......

The US always prepares to fight the last war they've fought. The US has
never fought a war yet where we've needed to *quickly* replace a space
based military asset that's been destroyed by the enemy.

There is zero justification to develop such a "quick launch" capability,
given that DOD can simply "commandeer" the next EELV that's already "in
the pipeline". In an emergency, do you doubt they would bump any and
all "commercial" launches?

You're living in a fantasy land Bob. If the US had a "quick launch"
capability, it would be highly visible to those in the industry. You
can't develop (i.e. test) such a capability without being noticed.
EELV's is all the US has to launch "big" military satellites, plain and
simple.

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...

bob haller wrote:


You do realize there AREN'T any shuttles anymore?

Technically the still exist in museums.....


Actually, no. The shells exist.

True, many of the important bits have been "gutted" for use in the SLS
program. The shuttles will *never* fly again, except in Bob's
delusions.

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

well terrorists have hit the US and done some real damage without fear
for what will occur, the US cole, 9 11, and attacking our embassy and
killing the ambasador........

the us admits fear of dirty bombs, and a EMP bomb detonated from a
aircraft could cripple our country.

most vehicles inoperable, power grid off line, computers doorstops,
even if we recovered fast it would take a long time, and lots of
people would die. lack of heat, water food and medicines just to name
a few.......

now attacking ISS would be a high profile occurence...

and no matter what the cause of ISS loss there will be congressional
investigations most of which wll ask the same questions I raised here.

why werent there some spare soyuz to evacuate the astronauts? why
werent there some ready and waiting supply vehicles.......

congress wouldnt accept chicken littles, its impossible, cost too
much, or any of the excuses posted here.....

they will ask was anyone tending nasa????????????

In article 4b3d12e5-659d-4375-864b-83d7c30c2ac6
@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, says...

well terrorists have hit the US and done some real damage without fear
for what will occur, the US cole, 9 11, and attacking our embassy and
killing the ambasador........

Which has nothing to do with "quick launch" to orbit.

the us admits fear of dirty bombs, and a EMP bomb detonated from a
aircraft could cripple our country.

Terrorists could not create a nuclear bomb capable of creating an EMP
which would "cripple our country". And even if they could, how would it
be delivered?

most vehicles inoperable, power grid off line, computers doorstops,
even if we recovered fast it would take a long time, and lots of
people would die. lack of heat, water food and medicines just to name
a few.......

now attacking ISS would be a high profile occurence...

And would be met with such a huge US retaliation that only the most
insane person would ever even attempt it. We've done it before and
we'll do it again. Just try it...

and no matter what the cause of ISS loss there will be congressional
investigations most of which wll ask the same questions I raised here.

why werent there some spare soyuz to evacuate the astronauts? why
werent there some ready and waiting supply vehicles.......

congress wouldnt accept chicken littles, its impossible, cost too
much, or any of the excuses posted here.....

they will ask was anyone tending nasa????????????

Your "scenarios" are so unlikely they would only be used in the worst
works of fiction. Even if the entire ISS crew is lost for *any* reason,
the US will "man up" and keep plodding along, just like we did after the
losses of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia. History is against you
Bob.

There is simply no need for NASA to spend tens or hundreds of billions
of dollars on "quick launch" 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 Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:01:42 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
well terrorists have hit the US and done some real damage without fear

for what will occur, the US cole, 9 11, and attacking our embassy and

killing the ambasador........



the us admits fear of dirty bombs, and a EMP bomb detonated from a

aircraft could cripple our country.



most vehicles inoperable, power grid off line, computers doorstops,

even if we recovered fast it would take a long time, and lots of

people would die. lack of heat, water food and medicines just to name

a few.......



now attacking ISS would be a high profile occurence...



and no matter what the cause of ISS loss there will be congressional

investigations most of which wll ask the same questions I raised here.



why werent there some spare soyuz to evacuate the astronauts? why

werent there some ready and waiting supply vehicles.......



congress wouldnt accept chicken littles, its impossible, cost too

much, or any of the excuses posted here.....



they will ask was anyone tending nasa????????????

Do you know what the "I" stands for in ISS? You keep ranting on like it is an exclusively American asset. It is not. Granted, the US has a large stake but so do RUSSIA, JAPAN, EU and others. I cannot think of a sovereign country that would risk attacking those interests. And you know very well that there are no terrorist capabilities to attack it.

How many times must you have your ass handed to you here? Suggest a new topic, will you?

On Nov 28, 11:11*am, Dean wrote:
On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:01:42 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
well terrorists have hit the US and done some real damage without fear

for what will occur, the US cole, 9 11, and attacking our embassy and

killing the ambasador........

the us admits fear of dirty bombs, and a EMP bomb detonated from a

aircraft could cripple our country.

most vehicles inoperable, power grid off line, computers doorstops,

even if we recovered fast it would take a long time, and lots of

people would die. lack of heat, water food and medicines just to name

a few.......

now attacking ISS would be a high profile occurence...

and no matter what the cause of ISS loss there will be congressional

investigations most of which wll ask the same questions I raised here.

why werent there some spare soyuz to evacuate the astronauts? why

werent there some ready and waiting supply vehicles.......

congress wouldnt accept chicken littles, its impossible, cost too

much, or any of the excuses posted here.....

they will ask was anyone tending nasa????????????

Do you know what the "I" stands for in ISS? *You keep ranting on like it is an exclusively American asset. *It is not. *Granted, the US has a large stake but so do RUSSIA, JAPAN, EU and others. *I cannot think of a sovereign country that would risk attacking those interests. *And you know very well that there are no terrorist capabilities to attack it.

How many times must you have your ass handed to you here? *Suggest a new topic, will you?

terrorists can buy what they need to attack just about any target they
care to......

with enough bucks they can probably buy a nuke for pakistan.

now assume a nuke bomb was stolen from pakistan and did damage in our
country.

do you believe the US would retaliate against a friendly country that
had a nuke bomb stolen and detonated here?

plus you have places like north korea and iran, who may secretly fund
weapons to be used against the US.

and to claim our country has no ability to replace space based command
and control assets damaged at the beginning of a war is just plain
insane