"the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

On Feb 14, 11:22*am, " wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:18*am, Jeff Findley wrote:



In article cc7186d0-b7b2-4caf-8dda-8c3b3d79f4b0
@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, says...

its commonly known that ISS can be taken out by a debris hit, and the
station has been hit many times. So far they have been lucky But
that cant last forever.

Wow, your mastery of statistical analysis is astounding... NOT!

A major hit to the station can not only take out ISS but contaminate
LEO ending manned stations in LEO.

Baseless assertion backed up by zero analysis of how long such a debris
cloud would remain in LEO.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

well the more the debris the more the debris created. pretty soon LEO
wouldnt be useful....

we have been very lucky a debris his hasnt taken out or caused major
damage to ISS

Using monochromatic infrared and optical wavelengths in a form of
Light-ranging and detection system has beenused to create a more
advanced system vastly more capable than any of the radar systems we
have discussed in this thread. Principally because of shortened
wavelengths small size isn't an issue. Holographic techniques
routinely detect objects 1/4 wavelength of reference beam in size.

Using a 1,000 nm wavelength near the IR window of Earth's atmosphere -
also suitable for power transmission - allows us to detect objects
down to 250 nm - a quarter micron - in size.

A holographic process has been used to detect the location and
direction of even slight doppler shifts in laser returns. Consider
that we already use slight doppler shifts in reflected laser light to
turn windows into microphones to spy on others. This system uses a
simple frequency mixing process between the emitted laser beam itself
and the doppler shifted reflected beam to detect very small amplitude
changes - both in size and speed. Such systems are easily adapted to
detect free moving objects.

Anyone who understands holography and how reference and image beams
work to create holograms can see how we can easily construct a 3D
version of this system. Such a system instantly creates a 3D picture
of moving objects around a sensor. I am aware that French submariners
are using a sonar version of this type process to look in all
directions at once underwater - before it went dark into the maul of
their secret black programs.

And that's the problem. We're not putting forth our best efforts in
space and the results we produce show that. We're more serious as a
species about lying to one another controlling one another and
intimidating one another while most space enthusiasts make do with
what former secrets a dead President (JFK) and discredited leader
(Kruschev) were able to break loose of the secret projects in the
early 1960s. Even this technology is poorly understood, due in part
to the abysmal education system post 1930, and due in part to a strong
and active disinformation campaign based on erroneous analysis of
missile and weapons threats.

So, we have the means to detect tiny things at great range and with
great fidelity, very quickly and simply with advanced holographic
techniques.

Now that we have addressed detection lets look at defense.

Using advanced laser power beaming processes - involving similar
holographic techniques as that described above, we can easily use the
'probe' beam to detect the 3D position and velocity of objects within
range of the spacecraft to direct a 'destruct' or 'power' beam
directly to the offending object. We can instantly direct a powerful
return pulse to any object that threatens the spacecraft - burning it
out of the sky instantly. This uses optical logic built into the
holographic system and operates seamlessly and quickly.

This is an easy adaptation of a power beaming process I developed a
few years ago;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI

FInally, consider that laser power beaming techniques can be used to
propel a spacecraft very efficiently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_9ac-w4DW8

These systems use the same optical power beaming and ranging
technologies. So, once we use laser power beaming techniques to power
laser propulsion systems our power system easily double as a defensive
shield by incorporating the ranging and switching technique into the
system that tracks and delivers propulsive power to the spacecraft.

This approach works in sub-orbital flight, orbital flight, cislunar
flight, interplanetary flight and even slow speed (1/3 light speed)
interstellar travel. Whether the thrust producing system be an array
of highly controllable MEMS devices forming a propulsive skin on a
personal spaceship - or a larger laser pulse plasma rocket system for
heavy lift launcher - or a photonic lift system crossing interstellar
space. (laser light sail type system of such high intensity that
more lift per unit area is produced than wings - far more practical
than laser light sails) - with energy beamed from the ground with
adaptive optics, from Earth orbiting satellites with adaptive
emitters, or sun orbiting satellites that use the gravity of the sun
to focus beams many light years - the problem of spacecraft safety
from debris is solved.

On Feb 14, 8:22*am, " wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:18*am, Jeff Findley wrote:



In article cc7186d0-b7b2-4caf-8dda-8c3b3d79f4b0
@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, says...

its commonly known that ISS can be taken out by a debris hit, and the
station has been hit many times. So far they have been lucky But
that cant last forever.

Wow, your mastery of statistical analysis is astounding... NOT!

A major hit to the station can not only take out ISS but contaminate
LEO ending manned stations in LEO.

Baseless assertion backed up by zero analysis of how long such a debris
cloud would remain in LEO.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

well the more the debris the more the debris created. pretty soon LEO
wouldnt be useful....

we have been very lucky a debris his hasnt taken out or caused major
damage to ISS

Dumb luck is about all that our spendy NASA has going for itself, and
in the past that luck kinda ran out, taking precious lives and
destroying billions of our public investments at the same time. Even
the intentionally foiled OCO mission is allowed to slide by, as though
nothing really bad ever happened.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 5/02/2011 8:14 AM, wrote:
"the Chinese ASAT strike against the
FY-1C weather satellite is the biggest
disaster in the history of space
exploration, and every statistic proves it.
As a result of that incident China
became the biggest contributing nation
to low orbit space debris. There are
some 2,500 major pieces of space
debris that will remain in earths low
orbit until at least 2030, and an
additional 100,000 smaller pieces of
debris that will not fall into earths
atmosphere until next century."

See:

http://www.informationdissemination....t-similar.html

Compared to other incidents like the
Challenger and Columbia disasters, and
the Nedelin disaster, can the Chinese
ASAT test really be called "the biggest
disaster in the history of space
exploration"?

Depends how you're defining "biggest disaster".

If you define it as the event that created the largest number of pieces
of space debris, then it may well be. If you define it as the event
that's so far killed the most people involved in space exploration then
it is not.

So before you can get an answer, you pretty much have to have decided
what the answer is.

Sylvia.

probably building the shuttle without launch boost escape

it cost boatloads of money to operate, killed 2 crews, put nasa miss
management on the nighly news.

dont get me wrong, it had great abilities, but so many downsides it
wasnt a optimum launcher for anything.....

you really dont need to risk lives to move freight

On 3/03/2011 2:24 PM, wrote:
probably building the shuttle without launch boost escape

it cost boatloads of money to operate, killed 2 crews, put nasa miss
management on the nighly news.

dont get me wrong, it had great abilities, but so many downsides it
wasnt a optimum launcher for anything.....

you really dont need to risk lives to move freight

Didn't stop the Ruskies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok-2M

"At 16:01 GMT on 18 March 1980, a Vostok-2M exploded during fuelling
Plesetsk Site 43/4, ahead of the launch of a Tselina-D satellite,
killing 48 people who were working on the rocket at the time. The cause
of the explosion was later established to have been a design fault in
the rocket's hydrogen peroxide filter system."

Sylvia.

On 03/02/2011 11:01 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 3/03/2011 2:24 PM, wrote:
probably building the shuttle without launch boost escape

it cost boatloads of money to operate, killed 2 crews, put nasa miss
management on the nighly news.

dont get me wrong, it had great abilities, but so many downsides it
wasnt a optimum launcher for anything.....

you really dont need to risk lives to move freight

Didn't stop the Ruskies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok-2M

"At 16:01 GMT on 18 March 1980, a Vostok-2M exploded during fuelling
Plesetsk Site 43/4, ahead of the launch of a Tselina-D satellite,
killing 48 people who were working on the rocket at the time. The cause
of the explosion was later established to have been a design fault in
the rocket's hydrogen peroxide filter system."

The Ruskies don't have the handicap of Hallrebskies.

On Mar 3, 12:34*am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
On 03/02/2011 11:01 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:





On 3/03/2011 2:24 PM, wrote:
probably building the shuttle without launch boost escape

it cost boatloads of money to operate, killed 2 crews, put nasa miss
management on the nighly news.

dont get me wrong, it had great abilities, but so many downsides it
wasnt a optimum launcher for anything.....

you really dont need to risk lives to move freight

Didn't stop the Ruskies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok-2M

"At 16:01 GMT on 18 March 1980, a Vostok-2M exploded during fuelling
Plesetsk Site 43/4, ahead of the launch of a Tselina-D satellite,
killing 48 people who were working on the rocket at the time. The cause
of the explosion was later established to have been a design fault in
the rocket's hydrogen peroxide filter system."

The Ruskies don't have the handicap of Hallrebskies.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

no but russia had common sense, they flew buran once and said ok we
showed them we could do it, hows soyuz and progress doing??

buran was a expensive we can do it exercise, near the end of that era

In article bfed4e2b-2f24-4ee2-b026-
, says...

you really dont need to risk lives to move freight

This is the *wrong* lesson to take away from the shuttle. If a vehicle
is safe enough for a crew, it's safe enough for cargo. The trouble with
the shuttle was that it simply wasn't safe enough for crew or cargo.
Your repeated suggestion of flying the shuttle unmanned does not solve
the problem, in fact it makes loss of vehicle and payload *more* likely.

Note the total loss (not just loss of life):

1. In addition to the crew, the Challenger disaster caused the loss of
Tracking Data Relay Satellite-2, the Spartan satellite, as well as
Challenger itself.

2. In addition to the crew, the Columbia disaster caused the loss of
the Spacehab double module, as well as Columbia itself.

Again, if the shuttle could have, should have, would have, been safer,
it would have been safer for the crew and cargo, which is a good thing.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

In article 1f31abba-ad0c-424f-8c64-
, says...

no but russia had common sense, they flew buran once and said ok we
showed them we could do it, hows soyuz and progress doing??

Makes no sense to spend the kind of money that they did on Buran and
shelve the program after a single flight. Buran's first flight was very
similar to Ares I-X. The program was in trouble and searching for
political support, so a demo mission made some sense to show the
politicians that they were making "progress". The reality was that
Buran, as flown, was only ready enough to risk an unmanned mission.

It was a huge gamble, but it came back in one piece. Since this was a
one-off mission, it didn't prove anything about Buran's safety, other
than showing there was a non-zero chance of success. The truth is that
the Russians may have gotten very lucky with that flight, or the truth
may be that Buran really would have been a very safe vehicle to fly.
But we'll never know, will we?

And by the way, Russia has always been looking for a Soyuz/Progress
replacement. The "designs" for a replacement are always there, but the
funding never is.

buran was a expensive we can do it exercise, near the end of that era

The motivation to build and fly Buran was less for the Russians because
they already had a fairly robust manned space program with Salyut/Mir.
Adding Buran on to that was almost certainly a direct response to the US
having the shuttle. When the Soviet Union was running out of money and
it finally fell, obviously the money to continue Buran (which was a tool
searching for its purpose) simply wasn't there.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On Mar 3, 8:39*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article bfed4e2b-2f24-4ee2-b026-
, says...



you really dont need to risk lives to move freight

This is the *wrong* lesson to take away from the shuttle. *If a vehicle
is safe enough for a crew, it's safe enough for cargo. *The trouble with
the shuttle was that it simply wasn't safe enough for crew or cargo. *
Your repeated suggestion of flying the shuttle unmanned does not solve
the problem, in fact it makes loss of vehicle and payload *more* likely.

Note the total loss (not just loss of life):

1. *In addition to the crew, the Challenger disaster caused the loss of
Tracking Data Relay Satellite-2, the Spartan satellite, as well as
Challenger itself. *

2. *In addition to the crew, the Columbia disaster caused the loss of
the Spacehab double module, as well as Columbia itself.

Again, if the shuttle could have, should have, would have, been safer,
it would have been safer for the crew and cargo, which is a good thing. *

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

cargo satellites, etc etc are easily replaceable.

lives once lost cant be.

sure the shuttle should of never hauled people because it lacked
launch boost escape.......

but it could be adapted for unmaned operations. thats only a matter of
money