On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:46:46 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:


Launch failure and range safety destruct results in debris falling all
over the launch site,

Who said anything about launching from KSC? I'd rather new systems launch
from places more like Edwards AFB,

So... to save a little money, you want to uproot the entire U.S.
launch infrastructure and rebuild it 3,000 mile away?

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:

Who said anything about launching from KSC? I'd rather new systems launch
from places more like Edwards AFB, where such failures are (or
historically
were) accepted as standard operating procedure when testing high
performance
experimental aircraft.

You're deluding yourself Jeff. The losses were expected, not
accepted. Even so, it doesn't matter where you launch from - nobody
is going to expect or especially accept the loss of millions of
dollars worth of hardware.

It's a hell of a lot easier to land such a vehicle on a huge, dry lakebed
than to try to land it on a relatively small concrete runway or landing
pad
surrounded by swampland.

Nonsense. If your control system isn't reliable enough to land on a
normal runway or landing pad, you shouldn't be flying the vehicle in
the first place. This is 2008, not 1948.

"Brian Thorn" <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:hqhjt3903n646cljqgq4j1u4sl4b77lji3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:46:46 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:


Launch failure and range safety destruct results in debris falling all
over the launch site,

Who said anything about launching from KSC? I'd rather new systems launch
from places more like Edwards AFB,

So... to save a little money, you want to uproot the entire U.S.
launch infrastructure and rebuild it 3,000 mile away?

Reusable launch vehicles should not need the same sort of "launch
infrastructure" you need for expendables.

"Derek Lyons" <fairwa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:47e10342.1842726984@news.supernews.com...

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Reusable launch vehicles should not need the same sort of "launch
infrastructure" you need for expendables.

Only if you've invented some kind of magical launch vehicle that
doesn't require infrastructure. Whether reuseable or expendable, real
launch vehicles requires hangars, maintenance facilities, fueling
facilities, personnel support, etc... etc...

Sure, but they don't necessarily need the *same* sort of launch
infrastructure originally put in place for Saturn V. The VAB,
crawler/transporters, MLP's, and huge fixed launch structures like the
Shuttle pads were all left over from Saturn V. It's just possible that
launch infrastructure designed 40 years ago isn't optimized for a high
flight rate, reusable, launch vehicle.

Jeff
--
The launch infrastructure is not just launch complexes, it includes

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Reusable launch vehicles should not need the same sort of "launch
infrastructure" you need for expendables.

Only if you've invented some kind of magical launch vehicle that
doesn't require infrastructure. Whether reuseable or expendable, real
launch vehicles requires hangars, maintenance facilities, fueling
facilities, personnel support, etc... etc...

The launch infrastructure �is not just launch complexes, it includes
the range and payload processing facilities- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hey you better tell sea launch somehow they are muddling thru at the
equator with a few ships

On Mar 18, 8:27 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Mar 18, 8:52 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com
wrote:

The launch infrastructure �is not just launch complexes, it includes
the range and payload processing facilities- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hey you better tell sea launch somehow they are muddling thru at the
equator with a few ships

Hey, I am telling you to don't bother to post since you are wrong

They aren't launching over land or near the public, which eliminates
range safety.
The command ship with is the same thing as the range wrt telemetry,
but the range can handle more launches
There is a large infrastructure in Long Beach for processing the
spacecraft

well that infrastructure is a fraction of what nasa would want to do
anything..........

On Mar 18, 8:52 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com
wrote:
hey you better tell sea launch somehow they are muddling thru at the
equator with a few ships

Hey, I am telling you to don't bother to post since you are wrong

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47db44b0.1597333000@news.supernews.com...
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:

Who said anything about launching from KSC? I'd rather new systems launch
from places more like Edwards AFB, where such failures are (or
historically were) accepted as standard operating procedure when testing high
performance experimental aircraft.

You're deluding yourself Jeff. The losses were expected, not
accepted. Even so, it doesn't matter where you launch from - nobody
is going to expect or especially accept the loss of millions of
dollars worth of hardware.

If we're ever to develop truly reusable launch vehicles, losses will be
unexpected, but accepted as part of the initial test program.

It's a hell of a lot easier to land such a vehicle on a huge, dry lakebed
than to try to land it on a relatively small concrete runway or landing
pad surrounded by swampland.

Nonsense. If your control system isn't reliable enough to land on a
normal runway or landing pad, you shouldn't be flying the vehicle in
the first place. This is 2008, not 1948.

Stuff happens and it's better to be prepared for it than not.

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Stuff happens and it's better to be prepared for it than not.

If your backups can't carry out a normal mission profile, you
shouldn't be flying in the first place. You shouldn't even be bending
metal.

If you lose your primary and backup for a major system - you're likely
augering in whether your target is a runway in a swamp or a runway on
a dry lake bed.

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47e19a75.2012506390@news.supernews.com...
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Stuff happens and it's better to be prepared for it than not.

If your backups can't carry out a normal mission profile, you
shouldn't be flying in the first place. You shouldn't even be bending
metal.

If you lose your primary and backup for a major system - you're likely
augering in whether your target is a runway in a swamp or a runway on
a dry lake bed.

Stuff still happens. Remember the Boeing 737 rudder actuator problem that
caused more than one 737 to auger in? That really ugly design problem
didn't raise its ugly head except in certain circumstances. The actuator
was designed such that it did have a backup, but under certain thermal
conditions, this backup caused the actuator to fail "hard" to one side.
Once everything else was ruled out, it took a heck of a lot of lab testing
to finally recreate the circumstances which would cause it to fail.

And the above example of a passenger airliner failure is from a class of
vehicles that we have orders of magnitude more experience with than reusable
spacecraft.

Losses are always unexpected, but will have to be accepted if
you want to make progress.

We don't have enough experience with reusable launch vehicles yet. It's the
unknown unknowns that really bite you in the ass.