A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 4th 11, 10:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default "the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

"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"?
  #2  
Old February 5th 11, 01:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default "the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

On 2/4/2011 1:14 PM, wrote:

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"?


You want space debris, check out the West Ford Needles sometime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford

Pat

  #3  
Old February 5th 11, 03:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default "the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?


wrote in message
...

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"?



The War on Terror has caused a change in
US military posture that doesn't seem to be
discussed as much as it should. Which is that
the US has been charging militarily into space
at a fever pitch. The need for accuracy and speed
in responding means owning the high ground.

But China showed us they can easily level the
playing field in a war. I believe the ASAT test
was a Chinese response to our aggressive military
intentions with space.

And this space race began with the ill-fated
attempt to return to the Moon by Pres Bush.
The Chinese can only conclude it was a cover
for a military presence on the Moon.

Since we seem to be returning for no good reason.


Jonathan


s



  #4  
Old February 5th 11, 04:39 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Orval Fairbairn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 154
Default "the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

wrote in message
...

http://www.informationdissemination....re-not-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"?



The War on Terror has caused a change in
US military posture that doesn't seem to be
discussed as much as it should. Which is that
the US has been charging militarily into space
at a fever pitch. The need for accuracy and speed
in responding means owning the high ground.

But China showed us they can easily level the
playing field in a war. I believe the ASAT test
was a Chinese response to our aggressive military
intentions with space.

And this space race began with the ill-fated
attempt to return to the Moon by Pres Bush.
The Chinese can only conclude it was a cover
for a military presence on the Moon.

Since we seem to be returning for no good reason.


Just what in hell is the military advantage of a base on the Moon?
  #5  
Old February 5th 11, 05:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default "the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

the biggest disaster in space will be ISS being hit by debris, very
likely from that chinese test.......

with a big hole in the station, like a few inches , how long will it
take the crew to get in the soyuz?

how long can the station support a breach?

will the station be controlable without atmosphere?

we have a large vulnerable asset at high risk......
  #6  
Old February 5th 11, 09:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default "the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

On 2/4/2011 7:39 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:


Just what in hell is the military advantage of a base on the Moon?


Hell, both the Army and Air Force wanted one in the early 1960's:
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/prorizon.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/lunex.htm
Didn't make any sense then, doesn't make any sense now...but that
wouldn't stop the military from doing it if they could get it funded.
Then we must crew it with purple-haired ladies, like on "UFO".

Pat
  #7  
Old February 5th 11, 03:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default "the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

On Feb 5, 5:18*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
the biggest disaster in space will be ISS being hit by debris, very
likely from that chinese test.......


with a big hole in the station, like a few inches , how long will it
take the crew to get in the soyuz?


how long can the station support a breach?


will the station be controlable without atmosphere?


we have a large vulnerable asset at high risk......


Not to mention the damage from the spent fuel cooling pond on ISS...

"The sky is falling! *The sky is falling!"

Now run along, Chicken Little.

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


just wait as the out of control station tumbles breaking up all over
its ground track. pieces / modules falling randomly.

just who pays for the damage? let alone deaths. much of ISS is heavy
enough to survive re entry...

  #8  
Old February 6th 11, 01:48 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default "the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

On Feb 5, 12:19*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
On Feb 5, 5:18*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
the biggest disaster in space will be ISS being hit by debris, very
likely from that chinese test.......


with a big hole in the station, like a few inches , how long will it
take the crew to get in the soyuz?


how long can the station support a breach?


will the station be controlable without atmosphere?


we have a large vulnerable asset at high risk......


Not to mention the damage from the spent fuel cooling pond on ISS...


"The sky is falling! *The sky is falling!"


Now run along, Chicken Little.


just wait as the out of control station tumbles breaking up all over
its ground track. pieces / modules falling randomly.


And just how is it going to go 'out of control'? *You've been watching
too many disaster movies.



just who pays for the damage? let alone deaths. much of ISS is heavy
enough to survive re entry...


Cite for reentry survivability? *Betting you once again cannot be
bothered to actually support your claims.

Who pays for the damage is well established in law.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
* * live in the real world." *
* * * * * * * * * * * -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


many ISS parts are heavy enough to survive re entry.remember parts of
sklab survived, and skylab was very small in comparison to ISS. is
that a adquate cite for you?

the station needs atmosphere to cool control systems, lose atmosphere
lose control.Plus a debris strike could take out anything and if the
station tumbles dramatically the batteries will be depleted. No power
is no communication, and thus no control.

A out of control tumbling station dropping modules all over the globe,
would cause panic and might just get a international prohibition
against large stations in orbit. to avoid a reoccurence
  #9  
Old February 7th 11, 07:54 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 341
Default "the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

On Feb 4, 10:39*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
In article ,

Just what in hell is the military advantage of a base on the Moon?


A Lunar Garrison of 12 men on the moon provides an unassailable
nuclear launch site to shoot missiles back at Earth. An IRBM class
weapon on the moon strikes any point on Earth and the base is
unreachable by ICBM. Interplanetary boosters from Earth would take
between 9 hours and 4 days to arrive at the vicinity of the moon, and
are easily tracked and destroyed.

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/horizon/Horizon_V1.pdf
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/horizon/Horizon_V2.pdf

Project Horizon was a study to determine the feasibility of
constructing a military base on the Moon. On 8 June 1959, a group at
the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) produced for the U.S.
Department of the Army a report entitled Project Horizon, Declassified
plans are given above.

Additionally the Horizon lunar outpost was said to be necessary to
protect United States interests on the Moon, to conduct Moon-based
surveillance of the Earth and space, to act as a communications relay,
and to serve as a base for exploration of the Moon. The permanent
outpost would cost $6 billion and become operational in December 1966
with 12 soldiers.

Wernher von Braun, head of ABMA, appointed Heinz-Hermann Koelle to
head the project team at Redstone Arsenal. A lunar landing-and-return
vehicle would have shuttled up to 16 astronauts at a time to the base
and back. Rocket vehicle energy requirements would limit the base
location to an area of 20 deg latitude/longitude on the Moon, from
~20° N, ~20° W to ~20º S, ~20º E. Within this area, the project
selected three sites of interest;

* northern part of Sinus Aestuum, near the Eratosthenes crater
* southern part of Sinus Aestuum near Sinus Medii
* southwest coast of Mare Imbrium, just north of the Montes
Apenninus mountains.

This would be erected by;

* 1964: 40 Saturn launches.
* January 1965: Cargo delivery to the moon would begin.
* April 1965: The first manned landing by two men.
* November 1966: Outpost manned by a task force of 12 men.

This program required a total of 61 Saturn I and 88 Saturn II launches
up to November 1966. During this period some 220 tonnes of useful
cargo would be transported to the Moon

* December 1966 through 1967: First operational year of the lunar
outpost. A total of 64 launches were scheduled. These would result in
an additional 120 tons of useful cargo.

The base is defended against Soviet overland attack by man-fired
weapons:

* unguided Davy Crockett rockets with low-yield nuclear warheads
* conventional Claymore mines modified to puncture pressure suits

The basic building block for the outpost would be cylindrical metal
tanks, 3.05 m in diameter and 6.10 m in length.

Two nuclear reactors are located in pits to provide shielding and
provide power for the operation of the preliminary quarters and for
the equipment used in the construction of the permanent facility.
Empty cargo and propellant containers are assembled and used for
storage of bulk supplies, weapons, and life essentials.

Two types of surface vehicles are used, one for lifting, digging, and
scraping, another for more extended distance trips needed for hauling,
reconnaissance and rescue.

A lightweight parabolic antenna erected near the main quarters provide
communications with Earth. At the conclusion of the construction phase
the original construction camp quarters are converted to a bio-
science and physics-science laboratory.
  #10  
Old February 7th 11, 08:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 341
Default "the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

As usual, Fred is clueless.

Watch this video of the debris orbits, and the orbit of ISS by
comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmdgmBJGw2I

A collision with significant debris would cause destruction of the
station.
 




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
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP gaetanomarano Policy 3 September 15th 08 04:47 PM
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" Michael Gray Misc 0 April 18th 06 04:18 AM
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" Michael Gray Misc 0 April 17th 06 11:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:47 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.