Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.space.policy > #54679 > unrolled thread

About the resupply missions in "The Martian".

Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy

Contents

  About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:56 -0500
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-03 13:08 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-04 05:51 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 04:56 -0800
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:35 -0700
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:34 -0700
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-03 22:19 -0500
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:45 -0800
        "wget" will download it. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-04 05:26 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-11-04 00:19 -0700
        Nitro Pro and SumatraPDF.  Not Adobe. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-04 05:09 -0800
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2015-11-04 17:13 +0000
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-11-04 00:03 -0700
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-11-05 09:18 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-05 22:39 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-05 19:44 -0800
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-06 06:25 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-06 06:24 -0500
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-06 07:18 -0500
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-04 05:48 -0500
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> - 2015-11-07 18:59 +0000
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> - 2015-11-08 01:18 +0000
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-11-07 23:43 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> - 2015-11-08 23:18 +0000
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-11-07 20:58 -0700
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-08 12:34 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-08 16:13 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-09 04:55 -0800
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-10 06:16 -0500
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-10 14:02 -0500
              Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-11 08:07 -0500
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-08 17:38 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-09 05:04 -0800
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 20:08 -0700
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-10 06:21 -0500
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 19:03 -0700
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-08 23:50 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 00:11 -0700
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-10 14:31 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-10 18:17 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-11 00:24 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 05:38 -0700
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-11 13:55 -0500
              Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 12:13 -0700
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 21:51 -0700
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-10 14:36 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-10 18:18 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-11 00:27 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-11 04:12 -0800
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 05:54 -0700
              Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-12 06:15 -0500
                Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 06:50 -0700
                  Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-12 15:05 -0500
                    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-13 07:50 -0500
                      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-15 23:31 -0500
                    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-11-13 16:26 -0500
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 21:52 -0700
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-11 20:03 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 21:33 -0700
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-13 07:41 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 13:45 -0700
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-13 16:13 -0500
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-12 05:11 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 06:54 -0700
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-13 07:46 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-14 01:59 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-15 13:05 -0500
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-15 23:28 -0500
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-14 08:18 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 15:55 -0700
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-14 20:46 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 23:56 -0700
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-15 05:05 -0800
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-15 13:24 -0500
              Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-15 15:04 -0500
                Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-15 16:06 -0500
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 18:49 -0700
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-15 13:21 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-15 23:34 -0500
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-15 13:11 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-15 10:52 -0800
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-15 16:00 -0500
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-15 16:12 -0800
              Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 19:25 -0700
              Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-15 21:46 -0500
            Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-15 20:24 -0500
              Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-15 21:52 -0500
                Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-15 20:07 -0800
                  Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 01:38 -0700
              Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-15 23:42 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 19:12 -0700
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-15 17:44 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 19:29 -0700
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-15 23:48 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-16 02:05 -0500
    Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2015-11-16 14:06 -0800
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2015-11-16 21:47 -0500
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-17 00:20 -0500
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-17 06:03 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-17 15:43 -0500
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 22:56 -0700
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-11-17 01:17 -0500
          Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 06:08 -0700
        Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-17 06:16 -0500
      Re: About the resupply missions in "The Martian". Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2015-11-17 05:57 -0500

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#54703

On 03/11/15 14:56, Robert Clark wrote:
> Two instances were discussed in the film where unmanned cargo ships were
> mentioned to send up supplies to extend the time Whatney or the crew of
> the Hermes could survive.
[...]
> BTW, since this is in regards to "The Martian", for you chemistry heads
> out there, are there some foods, liquids, or common materials that might
> be on the shuttles that could have filtered out the CO2 in air other
> than the lithium canisters? For instance perhaps the solubility of CO2
> in water is different than in O2 and there could have been a way to
> separate out the CO2 from the air that way.

Lithium (peroxide) canisters do not just absorb carbon dioxide, they 
also produce oxygen:

2 Li2O2 + 2 CO2 → 2 Li2CO3 + O2

ie about half the oxygen previously absorbed and turned into CO2 by the 
astronauts is given off.



One method for getting rid of excess CO2 might be to heat the used 
lithium canisters using eg a mirror and sunlight, and then reuse the 
canisters; but lithium carbonate does not decarboxylate easily, it takes 
about 1300C.


There are several ways to reversibly absorb CO2, including eg the use of 
zeolites, molecular sieves, activated carbon, the mixed-metal-oxide 
system used on the Shuttle, or the amine system used in the Space Station.





-- Peter Fairbrother

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54705

On 07/11/15 21:24, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> schrieb:
>
>> Lithium (peroxide) canisters do not just absorb carbon dioxide, they
>> also produce oxygen:
>>
>> 2 Li2O2 + 2 CO2 → 2 Li2CO3 + O2
>
> Actually, it is water that is being produced.
>
> The net reaction is
>
> 2 LiO + CO2 --> Li2CO3 + H2O


There is no hydrogen in the input to your reaction to produce the water 
in the output of your reaction. It does not balance, in atomic terms.




Some early spacecraft canisters used lithium hydroxide or hydrated 
lithium hydroxide instead of lithium peroxide, which would produce water:

2 LiOH + CO2 ->  Li2CO3 + H2O

or for hydrated lithium hydroxide:

2 LiOH.H2O + CO2 → Li2CO3 + 3 H2O



Lithium hydroxide is still used in some other 
CO2-scrubbing-of-breathing-gas applications, eg scuba rebreathers and 
submarine emergency systems - but it isn't often used in spacecraft 
nowadays, lithium peroxide is generally preferred.





-- Peter Fairbrother

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54707

The shuttles may have been changed at some point to use regenerative methods 
to reclaim the oxygen from the CO2, however, Columbia was still using 
lithium hydroxide:

http://io9.com/how-nasa-might-have-been-able-to-rescue-the-columbia-cr-1531638458

  Bob Clark

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in 
human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions,
to discover life on another world. By commercial space, launch and 
spacecraft costs can be slashed by a factor of 10 or more.
This would be a cost that could be financed privately. And at costs this low 
it can even be done at a profit:

Low cost Europa lander missions.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Peter Fairbrother"  wrote in message news:n1m7p3$f0d$1@dont-email.me...

On 07/11/15 21:24, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> schrieb:
>
>> Lithium (peroxide) canisters do not just absorb carbon dioxide, they
>> also produce oxygen:
>>
>> 2 Li2O2 + 2 CO2 → 2 Li2CO3 + O2
>
> Actually, it is water that is being produced.
>
> The net reaction is
>
> 2 LiO + CO2 --> Li2CO3 + H2O


There is no hydrogen in the input to your reaction to produce the water
in the output of your reaction. It does not balance, in atomic terms.

Some early spacecraft canisters used lithium hydroxide or hydrated
lithium hydroxide instead of lithium peroxide, which would produce water:

2 LiOH + CO2 ->  Li2CO3 + H2O

or for hydrated lithium hydroxide:

2 LiOH.H2O + CO2 → Li2CO3 + 3 H2O

Lithium hydroxide is still used in some other
CO2-scrubbing-of-breathing-gas applications, eg scuba rebreathers and
submarine emergency systems - but it isn't often used in spacecraft
nowadays, lithium peroxide is generally preferred.

-- Peter Fairbrother

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54713

On 08/11/15 04:43, Robert Clark wrote:
>
> The shuttles may have been changed at some point to use regenerative
> methods to reclaim the oxygen from the CO2, however, Columbia was still
> using lithium hydroxide:
>
> http://io9.com/how-nasa-might-have-been-able-to-rescue-the-columbia-cr-1531638458


You are correct in that Columbia used LiOH canisters for primary CO2 
scrubbing (though I don't think anyone suggested regenerative methods 
were used for oxygen regeneration).

NASA qualified a regenerative solid amine bed based CO2 scrubber system 
for the Shuttle, but afaik it was never used in flight.

I've done a bit of research, and contrary to what I had thought (and 
several references saying otherwise), metal-oxide regenerative scrubbers 
were not directly used in Shuttle.

My apologies for the error.

Regenerative Metox scrubbers were used in the later Shuttle/ISS EMUs, 
(early Shuttle IMUs used LiOH) - but Metox was not used in the main 
Shuttle cabin.

On regeneration the CO2 was released back into the cabin or the ISS, and 
finally absorbed by the ISS systems, or occasionally by the Shuttle 
lithium hydroxide system.


On ISS, Metox scrubbers are still used in the NASA ISS EMUs and the 
airlocks, but not in the ISS cabin itself - on regeneration the CO2 is 
again released back into the cabin, and finally absorbed in ISS systems, 
which consist of the zeolite molecular sieve (US CDRA) and amine-based 
(Soviet Vozdukh) regenerative systems, with lithium hydroxide canisters 
for backup.



-- Peter Fairbrother


> "Peter Fairbrother"  wrote in message news:n1m7p3$f0d$1@dont-email.me...
>
> On 07/11/15 21:24, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> schrieb:
>>
>>> Lithium (peroxide) canisters do not just absorb carbon dioxide, they
>>> also produce oxygen:
>>>
>>> 2 Li2O2 + 2 CO2 → 2 Li2CO3 + O2
>>
>> Actually, it is water that is being produced.
>>
>> The net reaction is
>>
>> 2 LiO + CO2 --> Li2CO3 + H2O
>
>
> There is no hydrogen in the input to your reaction to produce the water
> in the output of your reaction. It does not balance, in atomic terms.
>
> Some early spacecraft canisters used lithium hydroxide or hydrated
> lithium hydroxide instead of lithium peroxide, which would produce water:
>
> 2 LiOH + CO2 ->  Li2CO3 + H2O
>
> or for hydrated lithium hydroxide:
>
> 2 LiOH.H2O + CO2 → Li2CO3 + 3 H2O
>
> Lithium hydroxide is still used in some other
> CO2-scrubbing-of-breathing-gas applications, eg scuba rebreathers and
> submarine emergency systems - but it isn't often used in spacecraft
> nowadays, lithium peroxide is generally preferred.
>
> -- Peter Fairbrother
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54706

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:

>Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> schrieb:
>
>> Lithium (peroxide) canisters do not just absorb carbon dioxide, they 
>> also produce oxygen:
>>
>> 2 Li2O2 + 2 CO2 ? 2 Li2CO3 + O2
>
>Actually, it is water that is being produced.
>
>The net reaction is
>
>2 LiO + CO2 --> Li2CO3 + H2O

You start with two lithium, four oxygen and a carbon.  You end with
two lithium, four oxygen, a carbon and a hydrogen.

There's a serious problem here.

>which is understandable because water is a much lower energy.

-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54710

Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a week

total lack of planning 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54711

"bob haller"  wrote in message 
news:2282096f-7d8f-4044-a92e-4eb5135207e1@googlegroups.com...
>
>Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is 
>well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded 
>payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a 
>week
>
>total lack of planning

Tell me more about this active ICBM silos in Florida.

I'll wait

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54717

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 4:13:19 PM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
> "bob haller"  wrote in message 
> news:2282096f-7d8f-4044-a92e-4eb5135207e1@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is 
> >well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded 
> >payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a 
> >week
> >
> >total lack of planning
> 
> Tell me more about this active ICBM silos in Florida.
> 
> I'll wait
> 
> -- 
> Greg D. Moore       

they were no longer active for launching ICBMs

last i heard one houses  the recovered debris from challenger, nasa poured a concrete cap on the silo to prevent tampering. theft of  contents     

the silos are still there, they could of rehabed a few andput them back to work.

and used them for occasional satellite launches, rotating the stock

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54720

In article <73535582-dadd-4e7c-897b-f7930c3f56d0@googlegroups.com>, 
hallerb@aol.com says...
> 
> 
> they were no longer active for launching ICBMs
> 
> last i heard one houses  the recovered debris from challenger, nasa poured a concrete cap on the silo to prevent tampering. theft of  contents     
> 
> the silos are still there, they could of rehabed a few andput them back to work.
> 
> and used them for occasional satellite launches, rotating the stock

As usual, your "idea" is based on conjecture, hearsay, and your memory.

Look, an empty, likely flooded (because Florida), concrete hole in the 
ground isn't useful for anything.  And as Fred pointed out, payload 
would be very small and the orbit would be more than a bit random (due 
to the use of solid stages in ICBMs, who don't care much about the exact 
terminal velocity of its deployed warhead(s)).  

Commercial Cargo would have been cheaper, but again, NASA had no money 
to finish CRV (which had real safety benefits to ISS crew-members, 
considering the somewhat sketchy reliability history of Soyuz), let 
alone money for cargo vessels.  CEV conceptually could have performed 
cargo delivery, if it had the ability to be launched on an EELV and fly 
autonomously.  But even CEV was slated to be delivered to ISS in the 
shuttle bay, so it would have been useless in the Columbia disaster 
scenario.

The only reason we have Commercial Cargo and hopefully soon Commercial 
Crew *now* is the shut down of the shuttle program and the complete 
unsuitability of Orion/SLS for those roles (completely different 
requirements not to mention the fact that SLS has yet to fly once).

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 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54722

On 2015-11-10 06:16, Jeff Findley wrote:

> ground isn't useful for anything.  And as Fred pointed out, payload 
> would be very small and the orbit would be more than a bit random (due 
> to the use of solid stages in ICBMs, who don't care much about the exact 
> terminal velocity of its deployed warhead(s)). 


One of the "problems" with NASA is that if it was to do something, that
something had to be foolproof, expensive, tested a gazillion times,
rehersed ad-nauseum etc etc.

Using an ICBM to launch emergency supplies would not fit the above.

But when you look at Apollo 13, once a real emergency was declared, NASA
was able to ditch the rules and fit a square CO2 filter into a round hole.

Now, once you have a space station and flying shuttles, perhaps NASA
should have toyed with emergency delivery of cargo to orbit. After
Columbia, this was achieved by having the next shuttle close enough to
be launched.


A "real" rocket is a problem because you can never garantee that one is
available for launch at the time you need it. ICBMs are maintained and
ready for launch at a moment's notice. So if NASA could have developped
a mini cargo space tug that could be launched on an ICBM, then in an
emergency, it could have sent minimal supplies to the stranded vehicle.

In terms of precision, aren't ICBMs relatively precise ? Can't the
russian ones target the white house and american ones target the kremlin
? Seems to me that getting to the right orbital inclination with the
proper launch time to be in phase with stranded vehicle should be
doable.  It isn't as of the ICBM will reach the stranded vehicle, you
still need that mini space tug to do the work. (NASA could have used the
systems from progress to build a mini space tug).

We are also not needing a vehicle that can spend months in space. We're
talking about 3 or 4 days max. So simpler tech that would not last a
multi month mission may be usable for a 3-4 day mission.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54735

"JF Mezei"  wrote in message 
news:56423f57$0$37571$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com...
>
>On 2015-11-10 06:16, Jeff Findley wrote:
>
>> ground isn't useful for anything.  And as Fred pointed out, payload
>> would be very small and the orbit would be more than a bit random (due
>> to the use of solid stages in ICBMs, who don't care much about the exact
>> terminal velocity of its deployed warhead(s)).
>
>
>One of the "problems" with NASA is that if it was to do something, that
>something had to be foolproof, expensive, tested a gazillion times,
>rehersed ad-nauseum etc etc.
>
>Using an ICBM to launch emergency supplies would not fit the above.
>
>But when you look at Apollo 13, once a real emergency was declared, NASA
>was able to ditch the rules and fit a square CO2 filter into a round hole.
>
>Now, once you have a space station and flying shuttles, perhaps NASA
>should have toyed with emergency delivery of cargo to orbit. After
>Columbia, this was achieved by having the next shuttle close enough to
>be launched.
>
>
>A "real" rocket is a problem because you can never garantee that one is
>available for launch at the time you need it. ICBMs are maintained and
>ready for launch at a moment's notice. So if NASA could have developped
>a mini cargo space tug that could be launched on an ICBM, then in an
>emergency, it could have sent minimal supplies to the stranded vehicle.
>
>In terms of precision, aren't ICBMs relatively precise ? Can't the
>russian ones target the white house and american ones target the kremlin
>? Seems to me that getting to the right orbital inclination with the
>proper launch time to be in phase with stranded vehicle should be
>doable.  It isn't as of the ICBM will reach the stranded vehicle, you
>still need that mini space tug to do the work. (NASA could have used the
>systems from progress to build a mini space tug).
>
>We are also not needing a vehicle that can spend months in space. We're
>talking about 3 or 4 days max. So simpler tech that would not last a
>multi month mission may be usable for a 3-4 day mission.

Part of how an ICBM is precise is it finishes up its targeting during 
re-entry.

A bit late for orbital work. ;-)


>

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54712

In article <2282096f-7d8f-4044-a92e-4eb5135207e1@googlegroups.com>, 
hallerb@aol.com says...
> 
> Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a week
> 
> total lack of planning 

Bullshit Bob.  At some point you accept the risk and you fly.

Besides, what you describe does not work unless you have (at a minimum) 
a maneuverable spacecraft bus with some sort of cargo container on top.  
Think "mini" version of Orbital ATK's Cygnus spacecraft.  Keeping such a 
thing fully fueled and ready to launch within a week's notice would have 
been hideously expensive.  

Commercial cargo would have been a better way to go, assuming one was 
"in the pipeline", ready to launch whenever a shuttle was launched on a 
mission which wasn't to ISS.  But that would never have happened because 
the space shuttle was the *only* manned spacecraft NASA could afford at 
the time.  It could never even afford a CRV for ISS, let alone a "stand-
by" cargo craft.  The space shuttle *was* the cargo vehicle.

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 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54718

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 5:38:38 PM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <2282096f-7d8f-4044-a92e-4eb5135207e1@googlegroups.com>, 
> hallerb@aol.com says...
> > 
> > Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a week
> > 
> > total lack of planning 
> 
> Bullshit Bob.  At some point you accept the risk and you fly.
> 
> Besides, what you describe does not work unless you have (at a minimum) 
> a maneuverable spacecraft bus with some sort of cargo container on top.  
> Think "mini" version of Orbital ATK's Cygnus spacecraft.  Keeping such a 
> thing fully fueled and ready to launch within a week's notice would have 
> been hideously expensive.  
> 
> Commercial cargo would have been a better way to go, assuming one was 
> "in the pipeline", ready to launch whenever a shuttle was launched on a 
> mission which wasn't to ISS.  But that would never have happened because 
> the space shuttle was the *only* manned spacecraft NASA could afford at 
> the time.  It could never even afford a CRV for ISS, let alone a "stand-
> by" cargo craft.  The space shuttle *was* the cargo vehicle.
> 
> 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

redundancy, the belt and suspenders approach isnt a waste of money, its just called proper planning.

if it had been available nasa would of imaged columbia, identified the damage, and the crew would of proably survived, and perhaps the vehicle too.

today a ISS debris impact could disable one of the soyuz and were back in the same leaky boat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54719

bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> wrote:

>
>redundancy, the belt and suspenders approach isnt a waste of money, its just called proper planning.
>

But silly and unworkable plans are NOT proper planning.

>
>if it had been available nasa would of imaged columbia, identified the damage, and the crew would of proably survived, and perhaps the vehicle too.
>

Total and utter bullshit.

>
>today a ISS debris impact could disable one of the soyuz and were back in the same leaky boat.
>

Or someone could fart and blow the bloody thing up, but it's pretty
damned unlikely.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54721

In article <89904c1a-21ea-44b4-b0dd-94f430839891@googlegroups.com>, 
hallerb@aol.com says...
> 
> redundancy, the belt and suspenders approach isnt a waste of money, its just called proper planning.

It is a waste of money if the contingency covered is very unlikely.  
Look, Columbia was very unlucky that its TPS was damaged on a mission 
not going to ISS and in an orbit not reachable by the Russians.  Had 
Columbia been at ISS, it is far more likely that the damage would have 
been seen (easy enough to look for damage before docking to ISS by 
taking pictures from ISS).  And ISS is a far easier refuge, even if the 
existing ISS crew-members had to be evacuated to reduce the load on the 
life support systems.  That and cargo resupply could have been rushed by 
the Russians.  
 
> if it had been available nasa would of imaged columbia, identified the damage, and the crew would of proably survived, and perhaps the vehicle too.

Unnecessary for ISS flights.
 
> today a ISS debris impact could disable one of the soyuz and were back in the same leaky boat.

You're channeling Chicken Little again!!!!!  Look, ISS is one big 
fracking lifeboat with more than one resupply option available.  A Soyuz 
debris impact which makes the Soyuz unusable is actually a very tame 
scenario to deal with.  

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 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54714

bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> wrote:

>
>Of course had nasa kept some rockets in the empty florida silos which is well understoodfor ICBMs waiting to attack russia. they could of loaded payload and taken emergency supplies to columbia in probably less than a week
>
>total lack of planning 
>

You might want to look into just how little cargo a rocket that will
fit into those silos can get into orbit, Bob.  Keeping rockets in
silos is 'well understood' because you have crews that maintain the
things.

In other words, what you're proposing is that NASA spend a bunch of
money on crews and maintenance to keep some rockets that essentially
do them no good and will never go anywhere.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54715

On 2015-11-08 21:03, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> In other words, what you're proposing is that NASA spend a bunch of
> money on crews and maintenance to keep some rockets that essentially
> do them no good and will never go anywhere.


Lets look at it from a different perspective:

There are countless silos in USA with missiles ready to be fired at a
moment's notice , right ?  Nobody needs to have NASA maintain its own
ICBM 24/365.

How long would it take (in an emergency) to remove warhead and replace
it with a different cargo payload ?

Say that cargo payload was a mini space vehicle with basic guidance and
thrusters and enough battery autonomy for 3 or 4 days (enough to rendez
vous with a stranded orbiting vehicle).

Would an ICBM have enough delta V to bring such a mass to an orbit where
only minor manoeuvering would be needed to circularize and make approach
to stranded vehicle ?



From an orbital mechanics point of view, would it save on the space
vehicle energy requireemnts if the ICBM brought it to 350km elliptical
orbit so that after circularizing, it would be at 300km to meet the
stranded vehicle ?

(as opposed to ICBM leaving vehicle at 300 elliptical and vehicle then
expected to add lots of delta V for the perigee section of orbit ?

Remember that such space vehicle would only need station keeping
capability near shuttle long enough to either be grappled by arm or
lassooed by astronaut during spacewalk and then pulled towards shuttle
where cargo contents (tanks, CO2 filters, food) would be extracted and
placed in airlock ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54716

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2015-11-08 21:03, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> In other words, what you're proposing is that NASA spend a bunch of
>> money on crews and maintenance to keep some rockets that essentially
>> do them no good and will never go anywhere.
>>
>
>Lets look at it from a different perspective:
>
>There are countless silos in USA with missiles ready to be fired at a
>moment's notice , right ?  Nobody needs to have NASA maintain its own
>ICBM 24/365.
>

Yep.  And those missiles are tasked and don't belong to NASA.  Who's
going to pay USAF for the rocket, silo, launch services,
modifications, etc?

>
>How long would it take (in an emergency) to remove warhead and replace
>it with a different cargo payload ?
>

I'm not sure it can even be done without some remanufacture.  I doubt
it could be done in the silo and it would definitely take a bunch of
new special purpose software.  Most repurposing of ICBM parts involves
additional stages from commercial sources.

>
>Say that cargo payload was a mini space vehicle with basic guidance and
>thrusters and enough battery autonomy for 3 or 4 days (enough to rendez
>vous with a stranded orbiting vehicle).
>

Total payload would probably be under 1 ton. 

>
>Would an ICBM have enough delta V to bring such a mass to an orbit where
>only minor manoeuvering would be needed to circularize and make approach
>to stranded vehicle ?
>

Orbital accuracy is going to suffer because an ICBM is all solid
motors, so there's no good way to turn them off when you hit your
desired orbital insertion velocities.

>
>Remember that such space vehicle would only need station keeping
>capability near shuttle long enough to either be grappled by arm or
>lassooed by astronaut during spacewalk and then pulled towards shuttle
>where cargo contents (tanks, CO2 filters, food) would be extracted and
>placed in airlock ?
>

Not going to be much payload left for cargo.

-- 
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
                           -- Charles Pinckney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54723

nasa never planned for a shuttle stuck at station, never even looked at the possiblity:(

with the normal ISS crew and 7 shuttle astronauts things like consumables would be in short supply....

I posted about this possiblity before columbias accident and was laughed at here and told it was impossile:(

after columbia nasa made some changes, increased consumables, created the cheater cable to remotely return a unmanned shuttle.....

but things like this should of been planed for, along with the emergency cargo to ISS.

even today if someting super critical must be at ISS quickly, like less than a week we are screwed.

with a crew of 6, the total cost of the program, and the fact if a out of control ISS re entered uncontrolled, it would break up probably all along its orbital track and could put people on the ground at risk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54725

In article <6d8d33eb-5321-4ee7-b37a-d2b54751e3fd@googlegroups.com>, 
hallerb@aol.com says...
> 
> nasa never planned for a shuttle stuck at station, never even looked at the possiblity:(

NASA never planned for an Apollo 13 style emergency either.  A shuttle 
stuck at ISS would have given NASA many options that simply were not 
there for Columbia.

> with the normal ISS crew and 7 shuttle astronauts things like consumables would be in short supply....

So you evacuate the ISS crew immediately (in their Soyuz) and work with 
Russia to quickly send up supplies.  The shuttle crew could then be 
rescued either by another shuttle, or two at a time in Soyuz capsules.  

> I posted about this possiblity before columbias accident and was
> laughed at here and told it was impossile:(

It never happened either.  

> after columbia nasa made some changes, increased consumables, created
> the cheater cable to remotely return a unmanned shuttle.....

Because those changes were cheap and easy to make.  Your ICBM resupply 
"idea" would be neither cheap nor easy.
 
> but things like this should of been planed for, along with the emergency cargo to ISS.

All of this was in hindsight.  What you cried about in Chicken Little 
fashion before Columbia *never* happened.
 
> even today if someting super critical must be at ISS quickly, like less than a week we are screwed.

The docked Soyuz capsules can always evacuate the station.  Plus the 
systems on ISS are redundant with the US and Russian sides preventing 
common failure modes.  ISS is as safe as it needs to be to get the job 
done.
 
> with a crew of 6, the total cost of the program, and the fact if a 
> out of control ISS re entered uncontrolled, it would break up probably
> all along its orbital track and could put people on the ground at
> risk 

Not this uncontrolled ISS re-entry b.s. again.  Do you really want 
another verbal lashing over this topic?  

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 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy

csiph-web