Thread: Sat launches
View Single Post
  #7  
Old March 20th 06, 02:24 AM posted to sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sat launches

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:06:30 +1100, "BlagooBlanaa"
wrote:

Thanks for the replies

they don't hold water though, heres why

1) ISS to be moved via electromagnetic tether (google it)


Then it can no longer be supplied or crewed by the Russians. They're
stuck launching to 51.6 deg. orbits. Any do you might have noticed, no
one else is supplying or crewing ISS lately.

2) Different orbits, schmorbits - what dictates energetics of mission
parameters?


Objective of the mission, of course. You still can't expect the same
results from an Earth Observation satellite at 28.5 degrees just
because that's where the Orbital MRO Depot is.

If sats are assembled on orbit then you don't need to worry about this so
much


Yes, you do. Where they're built has little impact on where they're
going. (No one builds satellites at Kourou.)

3) Geosynchronous IS a different matter, hence I posited that it may be a
good enough reason to have Geosynchronous habitats


Better to have a Maneuvering Vehicle that can go up there and get
them. You don't want to be sending crews back and forth through the
van Allen belts willy nilly.

4) ISS is resupplied via Russian cargo rockets...


Which can get no lower than 51.6 deg. inclination. (why ISS is there
instead of the Shuttle's optimal 28.5 deg orbit.)

5) ISS is stupidly expensive, not all habitats/factories have to be so.


True, but to handle satellite servicing, ISS is probably close to the
size you'll need. Fewer lab modules, but more spare parts and tool
depots and at least two servicing hangars. Probably need more people,
too. In the end, the Orbital MRO Depot is going to be a beast.

Brian