|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
BTW, to address a point you brought up in another thread. The proper solution to Columbia isn't a lunch on demand capability. *It's a "make damn sure it doesn't happen in the first place." -- Greg D. Moore actually its both......... make stuff as safe as humanely possible, and have a layer of additiona protection....... russia has been having lots of issues with its space program ........ imagine a soyuz launched into a poor orbit, it cant re enter but cant get to the station either. basically its stuck... even a non man rated falcon coud be useful under those situations its like planning for a shuttle stuck at station, when i asked about that possiblity i was laughed at here, and called chicken little. once columbia occured nasa planned for it...... |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
On Friday, November 23, 2012 12:44:26 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 22, 5:15*pm, Dean wrote: The only reason to put a rocket in a silo is for security and protection against incoming missiles. *The Falcon does not need that. falcon may have military uses............. the idea is a very fast always ready to go launch ability. that can be accomplished in many ways a silo being one. a building on wheels another. it would be sad to see ISS die just because the random event that causes a problem occurs when no vehicle is available. and with the growing debris issues its one likely cause. redundancy should be in nasas plans. not just in vehicles but for accidents and other unplanned events. it would be tragic to see ISS kill anyone on the ground, and a out of control tumbling ISS could cause mass panic on its ground track, which happens to be over most of the heavily populated area of our world...... Jesus, you are dense! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
On Nov 24, 9:45*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Dean wrote: On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:01:02 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote: Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to get emergency supplies to orbit. and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to get much of NASA permanetely defunded. In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old could occasionally launch some regular freight. Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old. And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and likely saved the crews lives. Hindsight is always 20/20. That's because his head is so far up his ass that it's easier to look back there. *However, in this case, his hindsight is just a little off, too, since the problem was not repairable on orbit and even imaging the Shuttle probably wouldn't have shown the problem. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the *truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson A fast supplies to orbit capability could of been used to support columbia in orbit till a way to rescue the crew would of been ready.. then columbia unmanned could of attempted auto land,,,, to save the vehicle. while there werent many supplies to attempt in orbit repairs, a rescue vehicle could of taken them along...... |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
On Nov 25, 11:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote: On Nov 24, 9:45 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: Dean wrote: On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:01:02 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote: Like I said theres no way to predict exactly what a debris hit will damage. But currently theres lots of times it would be impossible to get emergency supplies to orbit. and a crippled station hanging over everyones head, is a great way to get much of NASA permanetely defunded. In comparison with the overall manned space budget a few emergency vehicles in silos wouldnt cost that much, and so they dont get too old could occasionally launch some regular freight. Say one a year, so no vehicle would be over 3 years old. And consider THIS, if a emergency supplies to orbit had existed colubia managers would of had a reason to image the orbiter, and likely saved the crews lives. Hindsight is always 20/20. That's because his head is so far up his ass that it's easier to look back there. However, in this case, his hindsight is just a little off, too, since the problem was not repairable on orbit and even imaging the Shuttle probably wouldn't have shown the problem. A fast supplies to orbit capability could of been used to support columbia in orbit till a way to rescue the crew would of been ready.. Uh, so could a slow supplies to orbit capability, which already existed. *So what does your expensive (and at the time non-existent (hell, NOW non-existent)) capability bring to the table, again? Remember, all you're saving is vehicle stacking time. *You're still going to have all the fueling time. then columbia unmanned could of attempted auto land,,,, to save the vehicle. while there werent many supplies to attempt in orbit repairs, a rescue vehicle could of taken them along...... And of course your crystal ball told you exactly which supplies would be needed so that you could stack them on your siloed vehicle... -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar *territory." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn obviously the site the rockets are stationed at would have ready to go supplies for quick loading. one vehicle could be a escape capsule capable of deorbiting the entire crew in a dire emergency. ideally large enough for the max number of crew, plus a pilot and possibly co pilot for the job, figure 12 people tops, jammed in for a quick deorbit. one vehicle could carry supplies loaded once the situation is understood, and its engine could be used to stabilize the stations orbit... with a few vehicles ready to go at a moments notice it could save the station, or a soyuz enroute to the station that has a problem |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
Bobbert, are you even capable of pulling your head out of your ass and actually thinking? Freds idiot posts redacted. By having the emergency rockets stacked checked and ready to go saves way more than just stacking time.... now picture this a disaster occurs at the station, one soyuz can return with its 3 crew members. the other soyuz is damaged and cant reenter safely, and worse the station isnt really habitible..... now the next regular supply vehicle is due to launch in 4 weeks. it will need stacked, checked out , fueled, cargo loaded etc. even fast tracking means 2 weeks if everything goes flawlessely.. the emergency parts and supplies could keep the crew alive hunkered down till the next soyuz arrival. which do nte still leaves one astronaut stranded. the next soyus isnt due to launch for months, since a crew rotation had just occured.... so the crew dies for lack of fast ground support, this could of been avoided if we had just invested a little extra..... |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
On Sunday, November 25, 2012 5:37:41 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
Bobbert, are you even capable of pulling your head out of your ass and actually thinking? Freds idiot posts redacted. By having the emergency rockets stacked checked and ready to go saves way more than just stacking time.... now picture this a disaster occurs at the station, one soyuz can return with its 3 crew members. the other soyuz is damaged and cant reenter safely, and worse the station isnt really habitible..... now the next regular supply vehicle is due to launch in 4 weeks. it will need stacked, checked out , fueled, cargo loaded etc. even fast tracking means 2 weeks if everything goes flawlessely.. the emergency parts and supplies could keep the crew alive hunkered down till the next soyuz arrival. which do nte still leaves one astronaut stranded. the next soyus isnt due to launch for months, since a crew rotation had just occured.... so the crew dies for lack of fast ground support, this could of been avoided if we had just invested a little extra..... But it's NOT a little extra you knothead. Fred has explained very well that your thoughts and proposals are doable. If you know all this, why don't you work for NASA? And as it appears you do NOT know much, why don't you try to learn from some of the explanations being put forth? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
On Nov 25, 10:09*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote: Bobbert, are you even capable of pulling your head out of your ass and actually thinking? Freds idiot posts redacted. Yes, Bobbert snips everything he has no rational answer to. By having the emergency rockets stacked checked and ready to go saves way more than just stacking time.... How's that work, again? *What other time does it save? *You're still going to have to fuel the vehicle (liquid fuel rockets aren't kept fueled in silos). *You're still going to have to load your specialized supplies that you talked about in the part you snipped. *You're still going to have to do your analysis of the emergency to figure out what's needed. *You're still going to have to hit an appropriate launch window and program the vehicle for it. So just what time does it save, Bobbert? now picture this a disaster occurs at the station, one soyuz can return with its 3 crew members. the other soyuz is damaged and cant reenter safely, and worse the station isnt really habitible..... Ok, so let's pretend that a one in many billions chance occurs... now the next regular supply vehicle is due to launch in 4 weeks. it will need stacked, checked out , fueled, cargo loaded etc. even fast tracking means 2 weeks if everything goes flawlessely.. *the emergency parts and supplies could keep the crew alive hunkered down till the next soyuz arrival. which do nte still leaves one astronaut stranded. Note that your silo vehicle needs to be checked out, fueled, cargo loaded, etc. *All you've saved is stacking time and you've made loading cargo more difficult because the thing is in a hole in the ground. the next soyus isnt due to launch for months, since a crew rotation had just occured.... so the crew dies for lack of fast ground support, this could of been avoided if we had just invested a little extra..... Not by your scheme, it couldn't. *Do you think there is something magic about putting the rocket in a hole in the ground that suddenly makes all the steps magically complete? *There isn't. In an accident such as you postulate, the station cannot be saved (the damage is too severe, since you postulate that all existing supplies are destroyed). But, as usual, you will ignore reality and continue to bleat about how great your plan is, despite virtually everyone pointing out that you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the *truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson All of your statements are similiar to responses of a shuttle stuck at station...... before columbia. having some vehicles on standby saves the possible weeks or more that ignoring the issue cost our country , and the world in case a bad day occurs, which is growing more likely as the in orbit debris increase, although the issue could be from other problems, like a soyuz that cant deorbit or make it to the station. given russias space quality issues lately thats getting more likely.... when your operating a trillion dollar station its good practice to think about redundancy..... |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Large SRB test site in Florida
In article 7b1615fd-bf39-4a8a-8f49-
, says... On Nov 22, 5:15*pm, Dean wrote: The only reason to put a rocket in a silo is for security and protection against incoming missiles. *The Falcon does not need that. falcon may have military uses............. Of course it has "military uses". They are looking to launch satellites on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. But that does not require a hardened silo or any other countermeasures typically employed by ICBM's. We've got bloody ICBM's already! the idea is a very fast always ready to go launch ability. that can be accomplished in many ways a silo being one. a building on wheels another. it would be sad to see ISS die just because the random event that causes a problem occurs when no vehicle is available. and with the growing debris issues its one likely cause. redundancy should be in nasas plans. not just in vehicles but for accidents and other unplanned events. it would be tragic to see ISS kill anyone on the ground, and a out of control tumbling ISS could cause mass panic on its ground track, which happens to be over most of the heavily populated area of our world...... Get a clue. ISS has redundancy built in already. The redundancy is in orbit already. This sort of redundancy is needed for manned missions beyond LEO. It would be a shame if NASA implemented your solution for "redundancy" which then limited missions to LEO for decades to come. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Florida Weather+ Florida News | bert | Misc | 15 | June 22nd 10 06:05 PM |
Site in Northern Chile Selected for Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | May 18th 06 05:10 PM |
Site in Northern Chile Selected for Large Synoptic Survey Telescope(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 18th 06 05:08 PM |
Mars May Have Had Large Sea Near NASA Rover Landing Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 2 | September 10th 04 03:11 AM |
Mars May Have Had Large Sea Near NASA Rover Landing Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | September 8th 04 08:09 PM |