Comments on: The fate of the shuttle, and NASA http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Dfens http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/#comment-4360 Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:09:36 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=636#comment-4360 Damn, you’re right. Can we talk about something else now? I’m obviously lost in space.

]]> By: Ofens http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/#comment-4359 Thu, 25 Aug 2005 03:53:46 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=636#comment-4359 > It’s too bad shuttle was so far behind schedule
> that we let Skylab burn up. That thing was huge!
> It would have made a good starting point for the
> current station, and it was in a decent orbit.

Huh? Skylab was in a 50 degree inclination orbit. That’s not so different from the 51.6 degree orbit of ISS. What difference does 1.6 degrees make?

]]> By: Dfens http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/#comment-4358 Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:31:03 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=636#comment-4358 Whoops, I meant the change in velocity (delta V) would be about 60% and even got that wrong, it would be 50% for 30 degrees. The formula is 2*sin(A/2)*100. I was working on no caffeine. That’s not a huge delta V, so I suppose it would be possible. It’s too bad shuttle was so far behind schedule that we let Skylab burn up. That thing was huge! It would have made a good starting point for the current station, and it was in a decent orbit.

]]> By: Cecil Trotter http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/#comment-4357 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:51:36 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=636#comment-4357 Parker: “And lo and behold… http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kourou.html”

True that Russia will be launching vehicles out of Kourou but I still doubt that they would like the idea of being required to launch from Kourou to reach ISS. I think they will still want their primary launch site to be closer to home.

But it’s really a moot point, ISS’s orbit is not going to be changed anyway. I would bet good money on that.

]]> By: Dfens http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/#comment-4356 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:33:16 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=636#comment-4356 With friends like that…

Greg, I did what the Japanese are doing for several years. Remember the High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) program NASA Langley had going for a number of years? The Pacific Rim is a prime market for a supersonic jet in that class. Unfortunately HSCT was only ever about research to get funding to do more research. Building an actual airplane would have messed up everything. Finally, the fact Boeing bought MD ended it. If the Japanese stick with designs like that, their program won’t get too far. There are, however, some pretty obvious options that would work well.

]]> By: Kevin Parkin http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/#comment-4355 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:30:39 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=636#comment-4355 Dietz: “Electric propulsion probably makes more sense, since the station does have substantial PV arrays. However, reducing the inclination would make it impossible for the current Russian launch site to launch to ISS, so this couldn’t be done until they had an alternate launch site at lower latitude.”

And lo and behold…

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kourou.html

]]> By: Greg Kuperberg http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/#comment-4354 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:16:01 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=636#comment-4354 You should be glad that we aren’t doing what the Japanese are doing.

]]> By: Dfens http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/#comment-4353 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:16:28 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=636#comment-4353 If my calculation is anywhere near correct (no guarantees) it would take about 60% of the energy required to boost the station into orbit to change the inclination 30 degrees. I have jokingly made the proposal in the past that we should use astronaut waste as reaction mass for a rail gun thruster. I believe the only reason they carry it back to Earth now is to study its unique property of having no odor.

I got this in an email from a friend this morning:

From the today’s (8/23/05) selection of science and technology articles:

what the Japanese are doing.
what the Chinese are doing.
what the Americans are doing.

]]> By: Paul Dietz http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/#comment-4352 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:54:18 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=636#comment-4352 Donald: changing the inclination by 60 degrees requires nearly as much delta-V as getting to orbit in the first place. The mass of storable chemical propellant for reducing the inclination down to the Cape’s latitude would be more than the mass of the station itself, I think.

Electric propulsion probably makes more sense, since the station does have substantial PV arrays. However, reducing the inclination would make it impossible for the current Russian launch site to launch to ISS, so this couldn’t be done until they had an alternate launch site at lower latitude.

]]> By: Donald F. Robertson http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/19/the-fate-of-the-shuttle-and-nasa/#comment-4351 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:25:27 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=636#comment-4351 Dfens, maybe you can answer this. I know that large inclination changes are difficult, but how hard would it be to achieve a better inclination a couple of degrees a year, using surplus fuel.

— Donald

]]>