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

Bob? *Have you no kill rules? *I'm only interested in what *I*, and the
few sane others here, are suggesting. *For that, with the reasonable
probability of worse future weather than past weather, the VAB is
clearly not quite good enough - and too big - and IIRC the top does not
open.


I could ignore fred and some others but since most people lurk they
need to know the truth, or at minimum the other side of things....

I really dont know for sure that global warming is real, or man made,
or a natural process.

but i do know islands are disappearing, the poles are melting, storms
appear worse and more frequent...

all of this can lead to food shortages, it takes infrastructure to
grow crops, its not just drpping seeds as you walk down a path. a
current breadbasket could say made unproductive for food production,
and another area get better weather......

which is all well and good, unless the now better weather area happens
to have poor soil

and anyone thats been to KSC knows its on the beach, and only a few
feet over normal sea level. a bad storm surge could flood the space
launching infrastructure......

anyone who has had a aquarium knows theres a carrying capacity. put to
many fish into too small a aquarium leads to all sorts of troubles....
algea bloom, fish death, too much nitrogen and ammonia.

its possible our earth has reached its carrying capacity and we are
seeing the effects. in any case the risks are great and you should
always respect anything thats such a big risk, because the effects can
be devastating......

In the US alone moving people and some entire citys away from the
coasts, the economic costs can be devastating...

On Dec 23, 10:43*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Bob? *Have you no kill rules? *I'm only interested in what *I*, and the
few sane others here, are suggesting. *For that, with the reasonable
probability of worse future weather than past weather, the VAB is
clearly not quite good enough - and too big - and IIRC the top does not
open.

I could ignore fred and some others but since most people lurk they
need to know the truth, or at minimum the other side of things....

If you'd stop Bobberting there would be a lot more 'truth'. *Your
'other side' of truth just wastes everyone's time pointing out how
you're wrong time after time after time after....



I really dont know for sure that global warming is real, or man made,
or a natural process.

You really don't seem to know much of anything, Bobbert. *That would
be OK, if only you weren't so stubborn about retaining your ignorance
when people who DO know something correct you.



but i do know islands are disappearing, the poles are melting, storms
appear worse and more frequent...

You appear to 'know' lots of things that aren't quite in 1:1 accord
with our present reality.



all of this can lead to food shortages,

Even if your claims were true, we don't grow a lot of crops on islands
that start out inches above sea level or at the poles.



it takes infrastructure to
grow crops, its not just drpping seeds as you walk down a path. *a
current breadbasket could say made unproductive for food production,
and another area get better weather......

Ok, agriculture is another thing Bobbert doesn't know anything about.
The changes are neither so fast nor so extreme that agricultural
patterns won't adjust to them.



which is all well and good, unless the now better weather area happens
to have poor soil

You mean like a lot of our cropland out west?



and anyone thats been to KSC knows its on the beach, and only a few
feet over normal sea level. a bad storm surge could flood the space
launching infrastructure......

Another thing that Bobbert knows that just isn't right.



anyone who has had a aquarium knows theres a carrying capacity. put to
many fish into too small a aquarium leads to all sorts of troubles....
algea bloom, fish death, too much nitrogen and ammonia.

We're not fish, Earth isn't an aquarium, and just what does this have
to do with anything?



its possible our earth has reached its carrying capacity and we are
seeing the effects. in any case the risks are great and you should
always respect anything thats such a big risk, because the effects can
be devastating......

The sky is falling! *THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!



In the US alone moving people and some entire citys away from the
coasts, the economic costs can be devastating...

It's a good thing we don't have to worry about that sort of thing for
a few thousand years, then...

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

laugh now, cry later........

terrorists arent the problem rining our environment is

On Dec 22, 2:21*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.history message -
september.org, Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:38:44, Jeff Findley
posted:









In article id,
says...

In sci.space.history message -
september.org, Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:22:47, Jeff Findley
posted:

In article id,
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.

Hardening ICBMs with silos against a rain of nukes is expensive.
Hardening against most things except a *local* earthquake or a missile
is much cheaper.

Correct, so why bother with the expense of silo launch when hardened,
above ground, buildings and launch facilities would be far cheaper to
build and maintain?

You are too militaristic. *You seem to think of a silo as ONLY the sort
of thing they put underground in the Great Plains, with a truly massive
lid, to launch ICBMs out of. *Think instead of the silos that I suppose
they have in the Canadian wheatlands (if any). *Something similar but
stouter, and guyed, inside berms, will protect a ready-to-fire launcher
from anything that Nature can provide other than a landslide, avalanche,
or pyroclastic flow - none of which is likely to occur in most parts of
the CONUS coast.

It would be, in fact, a moderately hardened building of peculiar shape.


That is overkill also. The Atlas V VIF is all that is needed and a
vehicle can be kept in it and be only 16 hrs from launch.

The militarys budget has doubled since 9 11......

its highly possible the terrorists are winning, just by making our
country spend so much money that we are going bankrupt....

just as Regan did to the USSR back when the berlin wall was torn
down.....

our country is spending far too much and pergect protection isnt
possible at any spending level.

fred being part of the military so he will support more spending......

but that overspending will lead to our utimate economic
failure.........

meanwhile bigger threats are being ignored, like global warming

On Dec 24, 9:17*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
The militarys budget has doubled since 9 11......

its highly possible the terrorists are winning, just by making our
country spend so much money that we are going bankrupt....

just as Regan did to the USSR back when the berlin wall was torn
down.....

our country is spending far too much and pergect protection isnt
possible at any spending level.

It's still lower than it was during the Cold War and still below the
point where it has major economic impacts.



fred being part of the military so he will support more spending......

I'm not part of the military. *You have the short term memory of a
mayfly. *Once you eliminate the funding for combat operations, the
Defense budget has increased only moderately from the LOW in Defense
spending shortly prior to 9/11 (which is why people like Bobbert like
to use that as a starting point; because it was an historically low
level that wasn't sustainable whether we got in a war or not).

My job isn't in danger no matter what they do with the Defense budget.



but that overspending will lead to our utimate economic
failure.........

You might want to look at where money is actually being spent, unless
you don't want your opinions clouded by the facts.



meanwhile bigger threats are being ignored, like global warming

Utter hogwash. *Go look at the original predictions of the IPcC and
compare them to our present reality....

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

sure social securitty, medicare and other entitlements are a problem
too, but run away overall military spending is a large part of the
problem. its not just combat operations.. although those 2 unnecessary
wars have cost the budgets of many foreign countries...

congress though should begin by cutting its own budget 25%

I bet the fiancial cliff which cuts fed spending leaves congress
untouched........

although i havent heard anything from the media on that area.

In sci.space.history message 71251b19-702e-45a3-9fd4-d9aaa6d3edfd@10g20
00yqk.googlegroups.com, Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:38:14, Me
posted:

On Dec 22, 2:21*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

It would be, in fact, a moderately hardened building of peculiar shape.


That is overkill also. The Atlas V VIF is all that is needed and a
vehicle can be kept in it and be only 16 hrs from launch.

If the VIF can, certainly and without other than cosmetic damage,
withstand the worst that the forces of Nature, including hurricanes and
tsunamis, plus the forces of Man, including another vehicle exploding on
or above another pad, have any chance of throwing at it within its
working life, then it is already sufficiently hardened to form a
reliable part of an emergency launch system.

If it cannot, it needs to be hardened more than it at present is - or
there needs to be an alternate emergency launch area far enough away not
to be affected by the same incident.

PKUATBT.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Dec 25, 4:47*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.history message 71251b19-702e-45a3-9fd4-d9aaa6d3edfd@10g20
00yqk.googlegroups.com, Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:38:14, Me
posted:

On Dec 22, 2:21*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

It would be, in fact, a moderately hardened building of peculiar shape..

That is overkill also. *The Atlas V VIF is all that is needed and a
vehicle can be kept in it and be only 16 hrs from launch.

If the VIF can, certainly and without other than cosmetic damage,
withstand the worst that the forces of Nature, including hurricanes and
tsunamis, plus the forces of Man, including another vehicle exploding on
or above another pad, have any chance of throwing at it within its
working life, then it is already sufficiently hardened to form a
reliable part of an emergency launch system.

If it cannot, it needs to be hardened more than it at present is - or
there needs to be an alternate emergency launch area far enough away not
to be affected by the same incident.

PKUATBT.

--
*(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. *Mail via homepage. *Turnpike v6..05 *MIME.
* Web *http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
* Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
*No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

there should be multiple emergency launch sites so a weather disaster
cant ground the entire emergency system.....

a good example would be a hurricane at KSC, obviously having only one
site wouldnt be a good idea...

On Dec 26, 1:06*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:47*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.history message 71251b19-702e-45a3-9fd4-d9aaa6d3edfd@10g20
00yqk.googlegroups.com, Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:38:14, Me
posted:

On Dec 22, 2:21*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

It would be, in fact, a moderately hardened building of peculiar shape.

That is overkill also. *The Atlas V VIF is all that is needed and a
vehicle can be kept in it and be only 16 hrs from launch.

If the VIF can, certainly and without other than cosmetic damage,
withstand the worst that the forces of Nature, including hurricanes and
tsunamis, plus the forces of Man, including another vehicle exploding on
or above another pad, have any chance of throwing at it within its
working life, then it is already sufficiently hardened to form a
reliable part of an emergency launch system.

If it cannot, it needs to be hardened more than it at present is - or
there needs to be an alternate emergency launch area far enough away not
to be affected by the same incident.

PKUATBT.

there should be multiple emergency launch sites so a weather disaster
cant ground the entire emergency system.....

a good example would be a hurricane at KSC, obviously having only one
site wouldnt be a good idea...

Still waiting for a scenario that warrants any additional expense to
maintain some sort of (half) vast 'emergency launch system',
Bobbert...

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

ISS has been heavily damaged by debris hit, which also took out one
soyuz. small untrackable fast moving debris which happened to hit
critical systems

3 crew leave by soyuz but the remaining 3 short on supplies and with a
crippled ISS need to return home immediately or at least get some
parts to keep the station usable. its controlable but not for long. no
extra soyuz is available to rescue the crew.

the crew die, and the now uncontrolable station tumbles, breaking
apart shedding parts all over its ground track. causing mass panic on
the ground after one module hits paris france

all preventable if they had just been prepared

In article 171fd13d-e0f8-4eb7-bc93-36631b9c6076
@a6g2000vbh.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 26, 1:06*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Still waiting for a scenario that warrants any additional expense to
maintain some sort of (half) vast 'emergency launch system',
Bobbert...

ISS has been heavily damaged by debris hit, which also took out one
soyuz. small untrackable fast moving debris which happened to hit
critical systems

A hit that bad would literally destroy ISS. The crew would die before
they had a chance to even get to the one functioning Soyuz.

3 crew leave by soyuz but the remaining 3 short on supplies and with a
crippled ISS need to return home immediately or at least get some
parts to keep the station usable. its controlable but not for long. no
extra soyuz is available to rescue the crew.

the crew die, and the now uncontrolable station tumbles, breaking
apart shedding parts all over its ground track. causing mass panic on
the ground after one module hits paris france

all preventable if they had just been prepared

B.S. If the hit is bad enough that it takes out multiple modules, i.e.
US life support *and* Russian life support *and* a Soyuz, everyone dies
quickly due to the big fracking holes in the pressure vessels!

If the hit isn't bad enough to do the damage you describe, there is
plenty of time to patch holes in the pressure vessels. And, there are
multiple redundancies allowing for evacuation and/or safe haven (US life
support, Russian life support, and two Soyuz craft).

Your "scenario" is not plausible.

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 26, 9:29*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 26, 1:06*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:47*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.history message 71251b19-702e-45a3-9fd4-d9aaa6d3edfd@10g20
00yqk.googlegroups.com, Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:38:14, Me
posted:

On Dec 22, 2:21*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

It would be, in fact, a moderately hardened building of peculiar shape.

That is overkill also. *The Atlas V VIF is all that is needed and a
vehicle can be kept in it and be only 16 hrs from launch.

If the VIF can, certainly and without other than cosmetic damage,
withstand the worst that the forces of Nature, including hurricanes and
tsunamis, plus the forces of Man, including another vehicle exploding on
or above another pad, have any chance of throwing at it within its
working life, then it is already sufficiently hardened to form a
reliable part of an emergency launch system.

If it cannot, it needs to be hardened more than it at present is - or
there needs to be an alternate emergency launch area far enough away not
to be affected by the same incident.

PKUATBT.

there should be multiple emergency launch sites so a weather disaster
cant ground the entire emergency system.....

a good example would be a hurricane at KSC, obviously having only one
site wouldnt be a good idea...

Still waiting for a scenario that warrants any additional expense to
maintain some sort of (half) vast 'emergency launch system',
Bobbert...

ISS has been heavily damaged by debris hit, which also took out one
soyuz. small untrackable fast moving debris which happened to hit
critical systems

To take out a Soyuz AND all redundant backups of a critical system you
would have to shred the station. *No survivors. *Your "small
untrackable fast moving debris" would have to be damned near
retrograde to be small enough AND fast enough. *In other words, you're
talking about a deliberate attack on ISS. *I think we'd see that
coming when it was launched.



3 crew leave by soyuz but the remaining 3 short on supplies and with a
crippled ISS need to return home immediately *or at least get some
parts to keep the station usable. its controlable but not for long. no
extra soyuz is available to rescue the crew.

The station won't just 'go uncontrollable'. *It's either tumbling or
it isn't. *Even if there were survivors from your proposed incident
(and there wouldn't be), if the station is tumbling you cannot get
supplies to them. *If it is not tumbling, you don't have the problem
you're putting forward.



the crew die, and the now uncontrolable station tumbles, breaking
apart shedding parts all over its ground track. causing mass panic on
the ground after one module hits paris france

What made it tumble? *Were Newton's Laws repealed?



all preventable if they had just been *prepared

Such a preposterously impossible scenario doesn't warrant spending
money to be 'prepared' for it.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

such a large object in orbit wll almost certinally tumble without
station keeping. the solar panel drag will cause tumbling
eventually....

heck even skylab tumbled. in skylabs case once controllers got it back
under nominal control, they stoped the tumble to get it in as log a
drag position as possible to try and direct it to a water impact, and
only ordered it to tumble just before decay....