About the resupply missions in "The Martian".

Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a week

total lack of planning

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is
well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded
payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a
week

total lack of planning

Tell me more about this active ICBM silos in Florida.

I'll wait

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

In article ,
says...

Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a week

total lack of planning

Bull**** Bob. At some point you accept the risk and you fly.

Besides, what you describe does not work unless you have (at a minimum)
a maneuverable spacecraft bus with some sort of cargo container on top.
Think "mini" version of Orbital ATK's Cygnus spacecraft. Keeping such a
thing fully fueled and ready to launch within a week's notice would have
been hideously expensive.

Commercial cargo would have been a better way to go, assuming one was
"in the pipeline", ready to launch whenever a shuttle was launched on a
mission which wasn't to ISS. But that would never have happened because
the space shuttle was the *only* manned spacecraft NASA could afford at
the time. It could never even afford a CRV for ISS, let alone a "stand-
by" cargo craft. The space shuttle *was* the cargo vehicle.

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 Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 4:13:19 PM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message
...

Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is
well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded
payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a
week

total lack of planning

Tell me more about this active ICBM silos in Florida.

I'll wait

--
Greg D. Moore

they were no longer active for launching ICBMs

last i heard one houses the recovered debris from challenger, nasa poured a concrete cap on the silo to prevent tampering. theft of contents

the silos are still there, they could of rehabed a few andput them back to work.

and used them for occasional satellite launches, rotating the stock

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 5:38:38 PM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a week

total lack of planning

Bull**** Bob. At some point you accept the risk and you fly.

Besides, what you describe does not work unless you have (at a minimum)
a maneuverable spacecraft bus with some sort of cargo container on top.
Think "mini" version of Orbital ATK's Cygnus spacecraft. Keeping such a
thing fully fueled and ready to launch within a week's notice would have
been hideously expensive.

Commercial cargo would have been a better way to go, assuming one was
"in the pipeline", ready to launch whenever a shuttle was launched on a
mission which wasn't to ISS. But that would never have happened because
the space shuttle was the *only* manned spacecraft NASA could afford at
the time. It could never even afford a CRV for ISS, let alone a "stand-
by" cargo craft. The space shuttle *was* the cargo vehicle.

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

redundancy, the belt and suspenders approach isnt a waste of money, its just called proper planning.

if it had been available nasa would of imaged columbia, identified the damage, and the crew would of proably survived, and perhaps the vehicle too.

today a ISS debris impact could disable one of the soyuz and were back in the same leaky boat.

In article ,
says...


they were no longer active for launching ICBMs

last i heard one houses the recovered debris from challenger, nasa poured a concrete cap on the silo to prevent tampering. theft of contents

the silos are still there, they could of rehabed a few andput them back to work.

and used them for occasional satellite launches, rotating the stock

As usual, your "idea" is based on conjecture, hearsay, and your memory.

Look, an empty, likely flooded (because Florida), concrete hole in the
ground isn't useful for anything. And as Fred pointed out, payload
would be very small and the orbit would be more than a bit random (due
to the use of solid stages in ICBMs, who don't care much about the exact
terminal velocity of its deployed warhead(s)).

Commercial Cargo would have been cheaper, but again, NASA had no money
to finish CRV (which had real safety benefits to ISS crew-members,
considering the somewhat sketchy reliability history of Soyuz), let
alone money for cargo vessels. CEV conceptually could have performed
cargo delivery, if it had the ability to be launched on an EELV and fly
autonomously. But even CEV was slated to be delivered to ISS in the
shuttle bay, so it would have been useless in the Columbia disaster
scenario.

The only reason we have Commercial Cargo and hopefully soon Commercial
Crew *now* is the shut down of the shuttle program and the complete
unsuitability of Orion/SLS for those roles (completely different
requirements not to mention the fact that SLS has yet to fly once).

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...

redundancy, the belt and suspenders approach isnt a waste of money, its just called proper planning.

It is a waste of money if the contingency covered is very unlikely.
Look, Columbia was very unlucky that its TPS was damaged on a mission
not going to ISS and in an orbit not reachable by the Russians. Had
Columbia been at ISS, it is far more likely that the damage would have
been seen (easy enough to look for damage before docking to ISS by
taking pictures from ISS). And ISS is a far easier refuge, even if the
existing ISS crew-members had to be evacuated to reduce the load on the
life support systems. That and cargo resupply could have been rushed by
the Russians.

if it had been available nasa would of imaged columbia, identified the damage, and the crew would of proably survived, and perhaps the vehicle too.

Unnecessary for ISS flights.

today a ISS debris impact could disable one of the soyuz and were back in the same leaky boat.

You're channeling Chicken Little again!!!!! Look, ISS is one big
fracking lifeboat with more than one resupply option available. A Soyuz
debris impact which makes the Soyuz unusable is actually a very tame
scenario to deal with.

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

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 2015-11-10 06:16, Jeff Findley wrote:

ground isn't useful for anything. And as Fred pointed out, payload
would be very small and the orbit would be more than a bit random (due
to the use of solid stages in ICBMs, who don't care much about the exact
terminal velocity of its deployed warhead(s)).


One of the "problems" with NASA is that if it was to do something, that
something had to be foolproof, expensive, tested a gazillion times,
rehersed ad-nauseum etc etc.

Using an ICBM to launch emergency supplies would not fit the above.

But when you look at Apollo 13, once a real emergency was declared, NASA
was able to ditch the rules and fit a square CO2 filter into a round hole.

Now, once you have a space station and flying shuttles, perhaps NASA
should have toyed with emergency delivery of cargo to orbit. After
Columbia, this was achieved by having the next shuttle close enough to
be launched.


A "real" rocket is a problem because you can never garantee that one is
available for launch at the time you need it. ICBMs are maintained and
ready for launch at a moment's notice. So if NASA could have developped
a mini cargo space tug that could be launched on an ICBM, then in an
emergency, it could have sent minimal supplies to the stranded vehicle.

In terms of precision, aren't ICBMs relatively precise ? Can't the
russian ones target the white house and american ones target the kremlin
? Seems to me that getting to the right orbital inclination with the
proper launch time to be in phase with stranded vehicle should be
doable. It isn't as of the ICBM will reach the stranded vehicle, you
still need that mini space tug to do the work. (NASA could have used the
systems from progress to build a mini space tug).

We are also not needing a vehicle that can spend months in space. We're
talking about 3 or 4 days max. So simpler tech that would not last a
multi month mission may be usable for a 3-4 day mission.

Part of how an ICBM is precise is it finishes up its targeting during
re-entry.

A bit late for orbital work. ;-)




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