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

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.

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.

Indeed. With more care, you might have seen my word "hope"; and
"immediate future" is not "instant now". And this is not a DoD matter;
the Falcon manifest shows that many organisations expect to be able to
trust Falcon 9 soon. To actually get a sensible decision out of
Adequate US Authority AND to get round to building it will take a lot
longer than "soon".


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.

To have a *reliable* quick NASA launch, one must at least have an
undamaged vehicle near at hand. For that, as space vehicles cannot be
hardened in the same way as ships (thick steel plate) can, one must have
a sufficiently hard storage facility. We have recently seen what US
East Coast weather can do : obviously the VAB, for example, is not quite
hard enough. But sufficiently hardened horizontal storage for a single
F9-sized vehicle just requires the sort of hangar that the RAF use for
protection of ready-use aircraft.

I doubt whether Florida weather can get much worse than MidWest weather
can get; and IIRC the MidWest has grain silos which usually survive the
local weather.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05.
Website http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

In article c5d15cb6-5d60-4209-a242-
, says...
so a soyuz that has a failure where it cant renenter or reach ISS
could kill the crew of 3?

What type of failure would that be?

do note russias detoriating success rate for unmanned launches, nearly
every one has issues.

Soyuz the launcher is not Soyuz the spacecraft. Soyuz the spacecraft is
designed to safely land if Soyuz the launcher fails.

program appears full of corruption

Unsupported assertion no doubt invented by your paranoid delusional
mind.

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 20, 1:58*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c5d15cb6-5d60-4209-a242-
, says...

so a soyuz that has a failure where it cant renenter or reach ISS
could kill the crew of 3?

What type of failure would that be?

do note russias detoriating success rate for unmanned launches, nearly
every one has issues.

Soyuz the launcher is not Soyuz the spacecraft. *Soyuz the spacecraft is
designed to safely land if Soyuz the launcher fails.

program appears full of corruption

Unsupported assertion no doubt invented by your paranoid delusional
mind.

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

The Russians have had a torrid run of space failures recently, leading
the head of the country's space agency to wonder even if saboteurs
were at work.

Western countries, which use Russian rockets to launch their
satellites, are just worried though that some systematic failures have
started to appear in what has traditionally been a highly regarded
space industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and such issues if they get into the soyuz manned launcher program n
adversely effect ISS and the crews flying to it....

reports talk of bribery, parts not space certified etc...general
corruption at the highest levels.....

soyuz long history of safety can be effected by corruption, thats
already infected its unmanned program

In article id,
lid 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?

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.

Indeed. With more care, you might have seen my word "hope"; and
"immediate future" is not "instant now". And this is not a DoD matter;
the Falcon manifest shows that many organisations expect to be able to
trust Falcon 9 soon. To actually get a sensible decision out of
Adequate US Authority AND to get round to building it will take a lot
longer than "soon".

If you're hoping and looking look to the future, I'd say the best hope
would be a Falcon launch vehicle with all reusable stages. Grasshopper
is flying now, proving it can be done and refining hardware, software,
and procedures.

Reusable vehicles typically have a remarkably low incremental cost to
add a single additional flight to the manifest. Even for the space
shuttle, this cost was relatively low (when compared to the total
program cost per year).

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.

To have a *reliable* quick NASA launch, one must at least have an
undamaged vehicle near at hand. For that, as space vehicles cannot be
hardened in the same way as ships (thick steel plate) can, one must have
a sufficiently hard storage facility. We have recently seen what US
East Coast weather can do : obviously the VAB, for example, is not quite
hard enough. But sufficiently hardened horizontal storage for a single
F9-sized vehicle just requires the sort of hangar that the RAF use for
protection of ready-use aircraft.

I doubt whether Florida weather can get much worse than MidWest weather
can get; and IIRC the MidWest has grain silos which usually survive the
local weather.

The VAB fared fairly well. If I remember correctly, it wasn't the only
building that was damaged. Surely the US is taking some chances by
having launch facilities in a hurricane prone area, but the fact is that
it's not important enough to warrant the sort of hardening Bob is
suggesting. Reasonable hardening of buildings and facilities would cost
*far* less than his silo proposal would cost.

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 21, 8:38*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
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?





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.

Indeed. *With more care, you might have seen my word "hope"; and
"immediate future" is not "instant now". *And this is not a DoD matter;
the Falcon manifest shows that many organisations expect to be able to
trust Falcon 9 soon. *To actually get a sensible decision out of
Adequate US Authority AND to get round to building it will take a lot
longer than "soon".

If you're hoping and looking look to the future, I'd say the best hope
would be a Falcon launch vehicle with all reusable stages. *Grasshopper
is flying now, proving it can be done and refining hardware, software,
and procedures.

Reusable vehicles typically have a remarkably low incremental cost to
add a single additional flight to the manifest. *Even for the space
shuttle, this cost was relatively low (when compared to the total
program cost per year).





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.

To have a *reliable* quick NASA launch, one must at least have an
undamaged vehicle near at hand. *For that, as space vehicles cannot be
hardened in the same way as ships (thick steel plate) can, one must have
a sufficiently hard storage facility. *We have recently seen what US
East Coast weather can do : obviously the VAB, for example, is not quite
hard enough. *But sufficiently hardened horizontal storage for a single
F9-sized vehicle just requires the sort of hangar that the RAF use for
protection of ready-use aircraft.

I doubt whether Florida weather can get much worse than MidWest weather
can get; and IIRC the MidWest has grain silos which usually survive the
local weather.

The VAB fared fairly well. *If I remember correctly, it wasn't the only
building that was damaged. *Surely the US is taking some chances by
having launch facilities in a hurricane prone area, but the fact is that
it's not important enough to warrant the sort of hardening Bob is
suggesting. *Reasonable hardening of buildings and facilities would cost
*far* less than his silo proposal would cost.

Jeff
--


do your remember the news when the VAB got damaged? If the storm had
been closer to KSC it would of destroyed all the shuttles and launch
facilities.

of course if global change is true KSC is in real danger of being
underwater sometime soon.

news reports last nite said the global temp was up 3 degrees last
year, the biggest change on record....

if much of florida ends up flooded, where would satellite launches
move too?

news reports about the various russian failures report the builders
and suppliers are corrupt, and getting payola for contracts.......

this has been n the news a lot

In article 2f3a9bb1-4d19-411a-bc28-
, says...

do your remember the news when the VAB got damaged? If the storm had
been closer to KSC it would of destroyed all the shuttles and launch
facilities.

of course if global change is true KSC is in real danger of being
underwater sometime soon.

news reports last nite said the global temp was up 3 degrees last
year, the biggest change on record....

if much of florida ends up flooded, where would satellite launches
move too?

I'm not even going to bother...

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 a06867d2-0f69-4f88-88f6-
, says...

news reports about the various russian failures report the builders
and suppliers are corrupt, and getting payola for contracts.......

this has been n the news a lot

Cite?

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

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


Reusable vehicles typically have a remarkably low incremental cost to
add a single additional flight to the manifest. Even for the space
shuttle, this cost was relatively low (when compared to the total
program cost per year).



When folks talk about lessons learned from the shuttle, this is one often
overlooked.

Incremental costs of a flight actually were fairly "cheap".

(cost per lb based on incremental costs at one point I estimated to be
cheaper than pretty much anything else.)

It was the friggen fixed costs that were a killer.

This is where Falcon (and others) will triumph, making sure the fixed costs
are cheaper.

(compare it to say JFK Airport, if it was only flying one 747 to Europe a
month. Incremental costs of adding a flight would be cheap, but your fixed
costs would kill you.)



Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Friday, December 21, 2012 9:48:18 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 2f3a9bb1-4d19-411a-bc28-

, says...



do your remember the news when the VAB got damaged? If the storm had

been closer to KSC it would of destroyed all the shuttles and launch

facilities.



of course if global change is true KSC is in real danger of being

underwater sometime soon.



news reports last nite said the global temp was up 3 degrees last

year, the biggest change on record....



if much of florida ends up flooded, where would satellite launches

move too?



I'm not even going to bother...



Jeff

I was going to but then read your comment. Appropriate.