Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 11:43 am, "
wrote:
On Mar 11, 5:06 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

wrote:

Not an implication but a fact. It wasn't just "military goals", it
was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery

MOL had nothing whatsoever to do with the Shuttle; it was a manned
reconsat that was canceled before the Shuttle program even started.

Charlie is hung up on the misconception that prior to Reagan's
inauguration, modifications to SLC-6 (originally developed for the
MOL) reflected military design of the space shuttle. Hence my mention
of "supporting structure," which you apparently overlooked or didn't
understand why you should consider, Pat.

Hung, up? You are the one who can't get it

SLC-6 was modified by the USAF into a shuttle pad to support USAF
shuttle mission out of VAFB

In dozens of posts now, Charlie has plainly demonstrated no detailed
knowledge of any such modifications to SLC-6, at least not any that he
cares to post. We are to accept on blind faith that modifications
began at SLC-6 in 1979 and 1980, more specifically, modifications that
reflected the shuttle's *military* design.

Here are the Jan 79 dates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenb...unch_Complex_6
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...vafb-slc-6.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm

It is you that is screwed up. The Shuttle mods for the USAF are
independent of VAFB and SLC-6.

the conversion of SLC-6 into a shuttle pad was solely done by the
USAF for USAF requirement


The only work I'm aware of at SLC-6 during the Carter years was the
relocation of the tower by several feet. That was done only for the
*possibility* that SLC-6 might eventually launch a shuttle,

No, the work (the movement of the MST) wasn't done for a
"possibility". It was the start of the all the work to convert the
pad. There was no "might", it was full intent.

*after* a
satisfactory military design had been approved for the shuttle and
military shuttle development had been funded.

Wrong, there was only one type of shuttle, NASA's

On Mar 12, 9:18*pm, wrote:

Here are the Jan 79 dates

I found work described for only one specific date:

http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm

"1979 January 1 - Demolition and construction work began at Space
Launch Complex 6 ***in preparation for*** the Space Shuttle
***program***." [Emphasis added.] (Note that this was not for any
given shuttle design, specifically.)

Everything else you wrote in your last two messages is similarly naive
misinterpretation. Air Force back and forth with NASA in the 70s can
in no way be construed as formal design and development of a military
space shuttle. Only funding specifically authorizing such efforts can
get accountable work going. That began with Reagan's inauguration. You
can post till you're blue in the face, but you'll never change that
fact. Because you refuse to admit this, you have no credibility.

JTM

On Mar 12, 1:29 pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:53 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

wrote:
Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort
and money, man can eventually explore our solar system.

We've already done that via robotic spacecraft, and at a fairly
reasonable overall cost for return in data.

Pat

I'm sorry, I meant to say exploit our solar system.

Exploiting is about all that humanity is good for, especially of these
fossil and yellowcake energy sucking days. Too bad we're not even
smart enough to be using thorium, much less capable of extracting from
the vast amounts of 100% renewable energy that's of solar, wind, tidal
and geothermal (not to mention a few off-world alternatives), at least
not until we're locked into having to pay $10/gallon and $1/kwhr.
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 13, 9:09 am, "
wrote:
On Mar 12, 9:18 pm, wrote:

Here are the Jan 79 dates

I found work described for only one specific date:

http://www.astronautix.com/sites/vannberg.htm

"1979 January 1 - Demolition and construction work began at Space
Launch Complex 6 ***in preparation for*** the Space Shuttle
***program***." [Emphasis added.] (Note that this was not for any
given shuttle design, specifically.)

Wrong, There has only been ****THE**** Space Shuttle program and
there has been only one program with only one shuttle design
developed,
Columbia, OV-102 was delivered to KSC in March 1979, only two months
later. there was no other shuttle design. See you logic is flawed
(in fact all your logic), the USAF was building SLC-6 for "a" shuttle,
it was building it for "the" shuttle


Everything else you wrote in your last two messages is similarly naive
misinterpretation. Air Force back and forth with NASA in the 70s can
in no way be construed as formal design and development of a military
space shuttle.

I never said there was a separate military shuttle. There is the one
and only shuttle program and USAF requirements were incorporated into
it, specifically the 60 ' by 15' payload bay

You are really psychotic, deranged and unbalance and just generally
screwed up. You probably were responsible for some incidents for
shoddy and unsafe work that were covered up by SPC. I am glad you no
longer work on the shuttle program or live in florida.

Nothing you post, including your asinine website, can change history
or the facts. Your fantasy reality is not shared with the rest of
us. So just sit at your little computer and spin your tales and lies
but don't think you can pull the rest of the world into your delusions

On Mar 13, 8:38*am, wrote:

There has only been *****THE**** Space Shuttle program and
there has been only one program with only one shuttle design
developed,

Never forget how you began your tirade against me:

"The shuttle was designed for military launches from the beginning.
There is nothing in the military requirements that lead to any of the
disasters. And Reagan had nothing to do with it, the plan for DOD
use goes back to Nixon/Ford era. Also, it wasn't clandestine program.
It was well known that the DOD was going to use the shuttle."

Let's review my progress to date. By simply quoting Nixon and Fletcher
at the time Nixon announced his shuttle authotization, I proved that
"military uses" were only to be "noted," not made forcing factors.
Nixon stressed that the program was to be entirely open, not secret.
That refuted all the above with the exception of:

"There is nothing in the military requirements that lead to any of
the
disasters. And Reagan had nothing to do with it"

For that I referred you to Reagan's NSDDs, which you have steadfastly
refused to acknowledge. Until you do so, not only the unwarranted
attack you rudely interjected, but you personally, will continue to
have no credibility.

Columbia, OV-102 was delivered to KSC in March 1979, only two months
later. *there was no other shuttle design.

No Filament Wound Cases? There is quite obviously more to the shuttle
than the orbiter! Even so, Columbia didn't mark the end of orbiter
design and development. As just one example, due to Centaur Lockheed
shipped Challenger to Marietta for structural cuts not long before the
51-L disaster. Will you never stop being so utterly naive?

Nothing you post, including your asinine website, can change history
or the facts.

Sadly for you and our nation, history speaks for itself. I simply
tried to prevent intentionally negligent launch disasters. I succeeded
in preventing those at Vandenberg, and I still have the documentation
to prove it. Unfortunately, my Senate-requested written warnings for
Challenger were ignored, after I had been prematurely returned to
Vandenberg because of those Senate requests. My Vandenberg warnings
had too much support from others (as well as credibility because of
what had happened with Challenger) to go similarly ignored by Senators
Sasser and Hollings. Challenger remains today the Senate's disgrace.

JTM

wrote:
Wrong, There has only been ****THE**** Space Shuttle program and
there has been only one program with only one shuttle design
developed,
Columbia, OV-102 was delivered to KSC in March 1979, only two months
later. there was no other shuttle design. See you logic is flawed
(in fact all your logic), the USAF was building SLC-6 for "a" shuttle,
it was building it for "the" shuttle


There were three things that worked against the VAB launch site for the
Shuttle.

1.) The work on the SLC-6 launch site was considered to be pretty
shoddy, with the large flame duct for the shuttle's exhaust thought to
be prone to building up hydrogen gas venting from the ET prior to
lift-off and possibly causing a explosion on launch, as well as suspect
wiring due to it being a conversion of a existing pad instead of a
new-build one.

2.) The AF's annoyance over the seemingly constant flight delays of the
early Shuttle flights; they wanted a system that could be pretty much
guaranteed to get their payloads up on the day and hour planned, with
out system faults or weather interfering with the launch.

3.) The hints from the Soviets that if they ever saw a Shuttle approach
their country in a polar orbit, they were going to assume it was on a
bomber mission as a first strike weapon and blow it out of the sky. No
one knew if they were serious about this, but if they were this could
lead to a major diplomatic incident - so it wasn't worth taking the risk.
It was the Shuttle that led to renewed Soviet interest in a mini-shuttle
space fighter similar to the canceled "Spiral" space fighter:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/str126.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/spiral_5.htm#war
But launched by a Zenit booster rather than the manned fly-back booster.
This new version may have gone by the name "Uragan" ("Hurricane"):
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/uraeptor.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lks.htm


Pat

On Mar 13, 9:35Â*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:29 pm, wrote:

On Mar 12, 1:53 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

wrote:
Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort
and money, man can eventually explore our solar system.

We've already done that via robotic spacecraft, and at a fairly
reasonable overall cost for return in data.

Pat

I'm sorry, I meant to say exploit our solar system.

Exploiting is about all that humanity is good for, especially of these
fossil and yellowcake energy sucking days. Â*Too bad we're not even
smart enough to be using thorium, much less capable of extracting from
the vast amounts of 100% renewable energy that's of solar, wind, tidal
and geothermal (not to mention a few off-world alternatives), at least
not until we're locked into having to pay $10/gallon and $1/kwhr.
. - Brad Guth

As per usual, you mis-read what I've written and gone off on an inane
(if not outright insane) tangent. There are obviously two uses of the
word 'exploit' as a transitive verb; they are;

Main Entry: ex·ploit
Pronunciation: \ik-ˈsplȯit, ˈek-ˌ\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1838

1 : to make productive use of : utilize exploiting your talents

2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
exploiting migrant farm workers

I meant the first usage, you implied the second.

Humanity, or any species that survives in this world makes productive
use of resources in their range. At present humanity's range is
limited to the Earth. By expanding our range to encompass the solar
system we increase our living standard and improve our chances of long-
term survival. Humanity is the only species known on Earth that uses
technology to expand its range. That implies making productive use of
the environment - which is fairly described as exploting those
environments.

To rail and rant against humanity for making its way in the world, or
beyond it, is unfair and as pointed out above, inane and borderline
insane. In short, Brad, you have issues that taint your thinking.

Stop trying to make it look as though everything you say is always
100% correct, and of everything anyone else has to say is in one way
or another 100% incorrect. You are too smart not to have the
intellectual ability to properly interpret the technological intent or
jest of whatever others are having to share. Much like your other
topic of “space travel or war� is clearly about the options we have
had, and of why we’ve so often elected war instead of pursuing science
and exploration that could directly benefit the greater good of
humanity (not of just improving those rich and powerful) and help
salvage our badly failing environment at the same time.

Space Travel or War / by William Mook

Without a doubt, war it is, unless we can derail the ongoing GW Bush
and Dick Cheney fiasco, we’re going to go out of our way in order to
nail anyone having more than their fair share of energy, be it fossil
or nuclear. As you stipulated before of secret societies and special
interest groups or cults (especially of the faith-based kind) have
been pulling our strings for quite some time.

Internet Archive: John F. Kennedy Speech, April 27, 1961
YouTube - JFK Secret Society Speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs-x0-ffP0Q

I don’t recall any JFK specific mention of our private Federal Reserve
as our global banking cartel, although the highly exclusive history
about our Federal Reserve (not an actual part of any government
agency), is anything but all that public according to the book
“SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE� by William Greider. According to what little
we do know, our Federal Reserve is essentially a private banking
cartel that’s in charge of whatever gets affordably funded and what
doesn’t of government or private multi-mega ventures, so there’s not
much wonder as to why it’s going to be war and not renewable energy,
fusion or even thorium, much less advancements in space travel and
explorations instead of war, because there’s so darn little skimming
profits or compounded fees and subsequent tax revenues to behold of
renewable energy, and it’s not that much better if we start using
thorium as our nuclear fuel in order to easily create a vast surplus
of clean grid energy.
. – Brad Guth


On Mar 13, 7:57 am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:35 am, BradGuth wrote:



On Mar 12, 1:29 pm, wrote:

On Mar 12, 1:53 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

wrote:
Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort
and money, man can eventually explore our solar system.

We've already done that via robotic spacecraft, and at a fairly
reasonable overall cost for return in data.

Pat

I'm sorry, I meant to say exploit our solar system.

Exploiting is about all that humanity is good for, especially of these
fossil and yellowcake energy sucking days. Too bad we're not even
smart enough to be using thorium, much less capable of extracting from
the vast amounts of 100% renewable energy that's of solar, wind, tidal
and geothermal (not to mention a few off-world alternatives), at least
not until we're locked into having to pay $10/gallon and $1/kwhr.
. - Brad Guth

As per usual, you mis-read what I've written and gone off on an inane
(if not outright insane) tangent. There are obviously two uses of the
word 'exploit' as a transitive verb; they are;

Main Entry: ex·ploit
Pronunciation: \ik-ˈsplȯit, ˈek-ˌ\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1838

1 : to make productive use of : utilize exploiting your talents

2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
exploiting migrant farm workers

I meant the first usage, you implied the second.

Humanity, or any species that survives in this world makes productive
use of resources in their range. At present humanity's range is
limited to the Earth. By expanding our range to encompass the solar
system we increase our living standard and improve our chances of long-
term survival. Humanity is the only species known on Earth that uses
technology to expand its range. That implies making productive use of
the environment - which is fairly described as exploting those
environments.

To rail and rant against humanity for making its way in the world, or
beyond it, is unfair and as pointed out above, inane and borderline
insane. In short, Brad, you have issues that taint your thinking.

On Mar 13, 10:36*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

1.) The work on the SLC-6 launch site was considered to be pretty
shoddy, with the large flame duct for the shuttle's exhaust thought to
be prone to building up *hydrogen gas venting from the ET prior to
lift-off and possibly causing a explosion on launch

Unburned hydrogen was being expelled downward from the main engines
below the ET, not "vented" from the ET, as it is toward the top of the
ET. The USAF insisted on using newly developed Long Throw Igniters to
burn it off. They were to be tested first under 61-C. That failed to
materialize because of my Senate warnings, which plainly documented
that it was too hazardous. The USAF next vowed to test them live under
51-L. I again objected, more loudly this time, within weeks costing me
my job. Meanwhile the cold-soaking of Challenger's left booster
continued, despite my warnings about Pad B's facility leaks of liquid
hydrogen. The rest is history, but obviously not all of it is public
knowledge yet.

2.) The AF's annoyance over the seemingly constant flight delays of the
early Shuttle flights; they wanted a system that could be pretty much
guaranteed to get their payloads up on the day and hour planned, with
out system faults or weather interfering with the launch.

Vandenberg had its own weather problems, not limited to colder
temperatures in the winter. Sixty mph winds wreaked devastation on
necessary support structures.

As far as system faults, Lockheed and Martin were permitted to
contribute plenty of those. If you'd like me to quote from my third
report to the Senate, dated January 20, 1986, as requested by Senator
Charles Grassley, just let me know and I will be happy to oblige you.
He in fact has urged me to do so! If that is not enough, I can furnish
lengthy Lockheed supporting documents that I supplied for that report.
All the other reports have their own authentic documentary support as
well. Don't be bashful about helping me get the truth out there for
everyone to look at, Pat.

JTM

On Mar 12, 5:26*pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 3:57*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Mar 12, 4:56*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:36:03 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Mar 12, 12:01*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote:
The Shuttle got funded,
but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that
dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles
it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were
dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage,
increased operating costs.

Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant,

The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle

Mook seems to be going more and more over the deep end in recent
years. *Be careful. *If you disagree with him, he'll call you evil.

Clearly no different than when you call others "moron" and the like.

That's only clear to morons.

Yes, I knew you'd bite, and you ARE evil. LOL!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He should get a phd and he could call himself Dr. Evil and his son,
brad evil.

He would continue to keep Brad in his killfile. LOL!