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

If global change really raises ocean levels.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 3rd 12, 02:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default If global change really raises ocean levels.

where would launch facilties be relocated to? The KSC type stuff,
since they are literally on the beach.
  #3  
Old April 3rd 12, 04:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Catherine Jefferson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default If global change really raises ocean levels.

On 4/3/2012 6:14 AM, bob haller wrote:
where would launch facilties be relocated to? The KSC type stuff,
since they are literally on the beach.


Virgin Galactic built its Space Port America in New Mexico, at over
1,000 M / 3,000 ft. altitude. SpaceX would need a different type of
facility, since it uses vertical launch, but there is plenty of flat,
largely unused desert plateau land in New Mexico and Arizona and the
U.S. government owns quite a bit of it.


--
Catherine Jefferson
Blog/Personal: http://www.ergosphere.net
  #4  
Old April 3rd 12, 06:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default If global change really raises ocean levels.

On Apr 3, 11:12*am, Catherine Jefferson
wrote:
On 4/3/2012 6:14 AM, bob haller wrote:

where would launch facilties be relocated to? The KSC type stuff,
since they are literally on the beach.


Virgin Galactic built its Space Port America in New Mexico, at over
1,000 M / 3,000 ft. altitude. *SpaceX would need a different type of
facility, since it uses vertical launch, but there is plenty of flat,
largely unused desert plateau land in New Mexico and Arizona and the
U.S. government owns quite a bit of it.

--
Catherine Jefferson
Blog/Personal:http://www.ergosphere.net


how about the overflight risk? a malfunction booster coud drop debris
on atlanta or other major metropoltian area.

the rise in ocean levels and global teperatures appear a fact of life,
and look at the number and severity of storms and tornadoes
  #5  
Old April 3rd 12, 10:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Val Kraut
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default If global change really raises ocean levels.




where would launch facilties be relocated to? The KSC type stuff,
since they are literally on the beach.


I don't think you have to raise ocean levels - you just have to admit
to the existing Hurricane threat that we're told will get worst. Even
during tours they talked about how far up the VAB the water level
would be if a force 5 came ashore there.

While you're at it look at the statistics for launch delays due to
weather at the Cape. Not an ideal spot.especially if the nextset of
launch windows is 2 years away.

Avoiding population areas for New Mexico launches may be possible -
need to bring id down before or after - by the time it's over the East
Coast it must be at a high enough altitude to drop it in the ocean,
the Columbia debris pased over land and didn't hit anything. It would
take a real detailed study though.
  #6  
Old April 4th 12, 02:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Catherine Jefferson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default If global change really raises ocean levels.

On 4/3/2012 10:57 AM, bob haller wrote:
how about the overflight risk? a malfunction booster coud drop debris
on atlanta or other major metropoltian area.


That risk exists anywhere you put the space port. Cape Canaveral is a
bigger risk to large urban areas and populations than western New Mexico
is. Miami is under 200 miles south; Orlando and Disney World are less
than 50 miles west.

El Paso, at a population of between 600-700 K, and its sister city
Juarez, at a population of around 3 million, is the closest big urban
area to Virgin Galactic's "Space Port America". Los Angeles is 700
miles west and a couple degrees of latitude north, farther than Atlanta
is from Cape Canaveral. If somebody who is better at doing statistical
analysis with maps and geographic data than I am were to look at the
real risks, I'm quite sure that they'd put northern New Mexico on the
lower end of the risk spectrum.

the rise in ocean levels and global teperatures appear a fact of life,
and look at the number and severity of storms and tornadoes


None of this is new. :-) I don't like the idea of eroding coastlines
and flooded cities any better than most people do, but the human race
has survived greater temperature variations and more flooding than are
reasonably predicted now. We adapt. So far, we have adapted
successfully. When we quit adapting, we will die.

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to seeing commercial spaceflight take
off. It really is time, and past time.


--
Catherine Jefferson
Blog/Personal: http://www.ergosphere.net
  #7  
Old April 4th 12, 04:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default If global change really raises ocean levels.

On Apr 3, 6:14*am, bob haller wrote:
where would launch facilties be relocated to? The KSC type stuff,
since they are literally on the beach.


Sea-launch platform(s).

I have a way better design.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #8  
Old April 4th 12, 11:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Catherine Jefferson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default If global change really raises ocean levels.

On 4/3/2012 8:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
I'm sure that will comfort that sheep rancher and his family when you
crash something into them.

That's the problem with launching over land, you see. You s


True, but equally true of launching over water, especially on a coast as
full of watercraft as the Florida Atlantic coast.

How familiar are you with that part of New Mexico? I grew up in El
Paso. It isn't deserted, but it is possible to find locations in New
Mexico where you could easily launch on a trajectory that wouldn't take
you over inhabited land for a couple hundred miles at least.

Space Port America is adjacent to White Sands Missile Range, for
example. That's where they test much of the new missiles that the U.S.
military uses. The risks of a missile crashing and exploding are nearly
100%, and many of them are just as destructive (if not more) than a
crashing spacecraft would be.


--
Catherine Jefferson
Blog/Personal: http://www.ergosphere.net
 




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
Interesting look at global warming, or climate change uncarollo Amateur Astronomy 1 January 10th 12 10:53 PM
Global ocean circulation normal Mike Row - Brewer Amateur Astronomy 3 March 28th 10 10:42 PM
Global Orbital change oriel36 Amateur Astronomy 0 September 30th 07 07:28 PM
Global Warming - Climate Change - PETM - Foraminifera Thomas Lee Elifritz Policy 1 January 5th 06 07:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 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.