As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

sooner or later a fast emergency supplies to orbit will be critical to
save not only lives but perhaps the station...

the only question will we be ready? or will we look really dumb for
not planning ahead??

In article id,
lid says...

In sci.space.history message -
september.org, Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:58:13, Jeff Findley
posted:


It's the "silo based launch" that's the truly stupid part of Bob's
"plan".

ISTM otherwise. To have a reasonably reliable emergency launch facility
sited on any likely part of the edges of the 48 that I can think of, the
vehicle needs to be completely protected from at least some of storm,
hurricane, sabotage, earthquake, and tsunami until very near launch
time. And it must be possible to launch in almost any weather. A silo
will do this. With appropriate construction, the silo can be above
ground like a grain silo rather than underground like an ICBM silo.

Russian rocket tradition has been to be able to launch on demand into a
full Siberian blizzard with incoming US nukes; US tradition has been to
hope for a nice day - or month. It shows.

A silo is an extremely expensive way to "harden" a launch site.

ISTM that the US's best practical emergency launch hope for the
immediate future is to have a ready-use Falcon 9 in a reinforced hangar,
and to pay SpaceX to speed up on their ideas about roll it out, tank it
up, light it off.

Except DOD does not yet trust Falcon 9. SpaceX has gotten a contract to
launch one Falcon 9 and one Falcon Heavy, presumably so DOD can evaluate
the launchers and how SpaceX operates. Any suggestion that Falcon is
the solution to this (non-existent) problem is premature at best.

But, as Henry Spencer pointed out (on ARocket), DOD could have an Atlas
ready to launch in a couple of days since the pad operations were
designed to allow launch in a couple of days after roll-out. DOD does
not keep an Atlas 5 in "ready to launch" condition at all times
precisely because it is *not* worth the cost.

Since keeping an Atlas V "ready to launch" would be the first step in
any "quick launch" scenario, any talk of hardening buildings or silo
launch is completely and utterly irrelevant.

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 61dc26b4-91bd-43b7-b2be-7a7611a1b530
@a6g2000vbh.googlegroups.com, says...

sooner or later a fast emergency supplies to orbit will be critical to
save not only lives but perhaps the station...

Unsupported assertion. The sort of capability you keep pushing for is
completely useless for anything but LEO (i.e. ISS), and you've failed
miserably to come up with a scenario which would even require it for
ISS!

the only question will we be ready? or will we look really dumb for
not planning ahead??

One of the supposed goals of ISS is to learn how to do things like
regenerative life support for longer missions away from LEO. There will
be *no* such thing as "fast resupply" on manned missions beyond LEO. In
other words, your proposal is a complete dead end and does nothing to
advance the state of the art in anything useful. Far from "planning
ahead", your idea is to bury your head in the sand and pretend that
missions beyond LEO will never exist.

This is exactly the sort of "pork project" you are supposedly against!
Your hypocrisy is utterly mind boggling.

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 Dec 18, 8:35*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 61dc26b4-91bd-43b7-b2be-7a7611a1b530
@a6g2000vbh.googlegroups.com, says...



sooner or later a fast emergency supplies to orbit will be critical to
save not only lives but perhaps the station...

Unsupported assertion. *The sort of capability you keep pushing for is
completely useless for anything but LEO (i.e. ISS), and you've failed
miserably to come up with a scenario which would even require it for
ISS!

the only question will we be ready? or will we look really dumb for
not planning *ahead??

One of the supposed goals of ISS is to learn how to do things like
regenerative life support for longer missions away from LEO. *There will
be *no* such thing as "fast resupply" on manned missions beyond LEO. *In
other words, your proposal is a complete dead end and does nothing to
advance the state of the art in anything useful. *Far from "planning
ahead", your idea is to bury your head in the sand and pretend that
missions beyond LEO will never exist.

This is exactly the sort of "pork project" you are supposedly against!
Your hypocrisy is utterly mind boggling.

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

theres a soyuz launching soon.......

so it has a booster problem and cant reach iSS or deorbit safely.

obviously there isnt another soyuz ready to go, and the stranded one
is too far from ISS to help.

now lets realize the stellar launch record of russia lately. whatever
is effecting their unmanned programs may have finally effected their
soyuz russia unmanned failure rate must be over 50%

Wouldnt it be better to have a rescue vehice waiting?

One of the supposed goals of ISS is to learn how to do things like
regenerative life support for longer missions away from LEO. *There will
be *no* such thing as "fast resupply" on manned missions beyond LEO.

actually there can be, to get small but critical things to a vehicle
in transit......

small vehicle with large nuke engine, ready to go during entire mars
mission......

accelerate halfway to where supplies are needed, decellerate halfway
too.

it wouldnt be superfast, but far better than nothing....

a mars mission should have 2 manned vehicles flying in loose formation
in transit, and enough supplies in orbit and on mars for a long
duration camp out in case of any critical failure..... like some extra
habitat modules on mars filled with spares that could be unloaded if
needed to live in.....

the mars base should be set up complete before any crew leave earth,
with habitat modules buried in a crater covered with mars soil for
radiation protection......

In article e3fe3c9a-e63c-462a-b2cb-
, says...

theres a soyuz launching soon.......

so it has a booster problem and cant reach iSS or deorbit safely.

B.S. scenario. Soyuz is designed such that a "booster problem" will
result in an abort. The ride may get a bit scary, but the crew ought to
survive. Note that a past Soyuz abort resulted in very high G's for the
crew, but they lived.

Again, you have failed to provide a single credible scenario where
"quick launch" would be useful.

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 d030dee3-77f0-409c-9e6a-e82e1040e520
@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com, says...


One of the supposed goals of ISS is to learn how to do things like
regenerative life support for longer missions away from LEO. *There will
be *no* such thing as "fast resupply" on manned missions beyond LEO.

actually there can be, to get small but critical things to a vehicle
in transit......

B.S. Orbital mechanics, learn some.

small vehicle with large nuke engine, ready to go during entire mars
mission......

accelerate halfway to where supplies are needed, decellerate halfway
too.

it wouldnt be superfast, but far better than nothing....

Even if it were possible (with a *really* big vehicle that's mostly fuel
being sent to a Mars transit vehicle that's still relatively close to
earth), all that money would be better spent on mission redundancy.

Smarter people than you have thought about how to solve this problem.
I'm not aware of anyone else advocating "quick launch" beyond LEO to
solve a problem.

a mars mission should have 2 manned vehicles flying in loose formation
in transit, and enough supplies in orbit and on mars for a long
duration camp out in case of any critical failure..... like some extra
habitat modules on mars filled with spares that could be unloaded if
needed to live in.....

Note that this solution *has* been proposed and makes *a lot* more sense
than a "quick launch". Flying two vehicles close to each other (or even
docked to each other), means a hell of a lot faster response time than
even your "quick launch" idea would allow.

the mars base should be set up complete before any crew leave earth,
with habitat modules buried in a crater covered with mars soil for
radiation protection......

Note that this solution *has* been proposed and makes *a lot* more sense
than a "quick launch" to another planet!

"Quick launch" isn't a viable solution for beyond LEO missions. Also,
"quick launch" is not needed in LEO for any credible scenario.
Therefore, "quick launch" is not needed at all.

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 Dec 18, 10:18*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d030dee3-77f0-409c-9e6a-e82e1040e520
@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com, says...



One of the supposed goals of ISS is to learn how to do things like
regenerative life support for longer missions away from LEO. *There will
be *no* such thing as "fast resupply" on manned missions beyond LEO.

actually there can be, to get small but critical things to a vehicle
in transit......

B.S. *Orbital mechanics, learn some.

small vehicle with large nuke engine, ready to go during entire mars
mission......

accelerate halfway to where supplies are needed, decellerate halfway
too.

it wouldnt be superfast, but far better than nothing....

Even if it were possible (with a *really* big vehicle that's mostly fuel
being sent to a Mars transit vehicle that's still relatively close to
earth), all that money would be better spent on mission redundancy.

Smarter people than you have thought about how to solve this problem.
I'm not aware of anyone else advocating "quick launch" beyond LEO to
solve a problem.

a mars mission should have 2 manned vehicles flying in loose formation
in transit, and enough supplies in orbit and on mars for a long
duration camp out in case of any critical failure..... like some extra
habitat modules on mars filled with spares that could be unloaded if
needed to live in.....

Note that this solution *has* been proposed and makes *a lot* more sense
than a "quick launch". *Flying two vehicles close to each other (or even
docked to each other), means a hell of a lot faster response time than
even your "quick launch" idea would allow.

the mars base should be set up complete before any crew leave earth,
with habitat modules buried in a crater covered with mars soil for
radiation protection......

Note that this solution *has* been proposed and makes *a lot* more sense
than a "quick launch" to another planet!

"Quick launch" isn't a viable solution for beyond LEO missions. *Also,
"quick launch" is not needed in LEO for any credible scenario.
Therefore, "quick launch" is not needed at all.

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 I sure HOPE your right......

However if quick launch had existed when columbia disaster occured
managers would of likely imaged the orbiter, seen the damage, it had
to be obvious, and sent care packages to keep the crew alive till
another shuttle could arrive......

so in that case quick launch might have saved a vehicle and
crew.........

you just dont like the idea since it was mine...........

small vehicle with large nuke engine, ready to go during entire mars
mission......

accelerate halfway to where supplies are needed, decellerate halfway
too.

it wouldnt be superfast, but far better than nothing....

Even if it were possible (with a *really* big vehicle that's mostly fuel
being sent to a Mars transit vehicle that's still relatively close to
earth), all that money would be better spent on mission redundancy.


actually smaller payload vehcle with realtively large nuclear booster
that could live permanetely in space... and be reused as necessary.
sent on a fast track to a nmars mission with some key components, then
it returns to the earth vacinity to await its next job, perhas it gets
a remote operated service? in any case the more capabilities you have
the better

now lets look back at apollo 13.....

a quick way to get that crew survival supplies would of no doubt made
it more comfy, and much safer..

In article 2794791d-96f2-4fae-8a30-40e45f49a9e7
@r14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com, says...
However if quick launch had existed when columbia disaster occured
managers would of likely imaged the orbiter, seen the damage, it had
to be obvious, and sent care packages to keep the crew alive till
another shuttle could arrive......

You're taking a very narrow (hindsight) view based on a vehicle design
that currently resides in museums! Current manned spacecraft and future
manned spacecraft do not and will not have fragile TPS exposed during
launch.

You have yet to provide a credible case for having "quick launch" either
for current ISS missions or future beyond LEO missions.

You're looking to the past to solve a problem that simply DOES NOT EXIST
today and WILL NOT EXIST in the future.

so in that case quick launch might have saved a vehicle and
crew.........

you just dont like the idea since it was mine...........

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your dumb idea.

I don't like the *idea* because it does *not* solve *any* current or
future problem. Implementing "quick launch" *now* would be a colossal
waste of time, money, and effort.

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