ET Apogee

What's the typical apogee for the ET of a Shuttle mission bound for
ISS?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
What's the typical apogee for the ET of a Shuttle mission bound for
ISS?

D.

W/o number crunching too much, looks like 360,000-370,000 feet.
Page 332: 3rd Edition of Jenkins

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Mar 18, 12:39*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

...

What's the typical apogee for the ET of a Shuttle mission bound for
ISS?

D.

W/o number crunching too much, looks like 360,000-370,000 feet.
Page 332: 3rd Edition of Jenkins

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Incorrect for direct insertion. The tank follows the orbiter to
apogee where OMS-2 is performed

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
What's the typical apogee for the ET of a Shuttle mission bound for
ISS?

D.

W/o number crunching too much, looks like 360,000-370,000 feet.
Page 332: 3rd Edition of Jenkins

I wish to hell I could find where my my copy got off to.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Yes this must be so as the insertion low point is around 37 miles as I
recall. Its the burn that circularises things otherwise the shuttle would
presumably re enter as well.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 12:39 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

...

What's the typical apogee for the ET of a Shuttle mission bound for
ISS?

D.

W/o number crunching too much, looks like 360,000-370,000 feet.
Page 332: 3rd Edition of Jenkins

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Incorrect for direct insertion. The tank follows the orbiter to
apogee where OMS-2 is performed

Hmm, my mistake, I was reading the separation column. So, as far as I can
tell, Jenkin's doesn't provide the direct data on the ET apogee

But if we look at page 333, it does give the OMS2 burn apogee which again
eyeballing appear to be in the 180-200 mile range. (You can easily pick out
the HST flights since those show up at well over 300 miles). (note Jenkins
says "Miles" but not clear if it's Statute or Nautical in this case.) (chart
on page 332 clearly says nm though for "from prediction" on ET re-entry
point).





wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 12:39 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

...

What's the typical apogee for the ET of a Shuttle mission bound for
ISS?

D.

W/o number crunching too much, looks like 360,000-370,000 feet.
Page 332: 3rd Edition of Jenkins

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Incorrect for direct insertion. The tank follows the orbiter to
apogee where OMS-2 is performed

On Mar 18, 4:20�pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
Hmm, my mistake, I was reading the separation column. �So, as far as I can
tell, Jenkin's doesn't provide the direct data on the ET apogee

But if we look at page 333, it does give the OMS2 burn apogee which again
eyeballing appear to be in the 180-200 mile range. (You can easily pick out
the HST flights since those show up at well over 300 miles). (note Jenkins
says "Miles" but not clear if it's Statute or Nautical in this case.) (chart
on page 332 clearly says nm though for "from prediction" on ET re-entry
point).

wrote in message

...
On Mar 18, 12:39 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"





wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

...

What's the typical apogee for the ET of a Shuttle mission bound for
ISS?

D.

W/o number crunching too much, looks like 360,000-370,000 feet.
Page 332: 3rd Edition of Jenkins

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Incorrect for direct insertion. �The tank follows the orbiter to
apogee where OMS-2 is performed- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

imagine what sort of structure could be in orbit if most of the ETs
had been assembled into a station

bob haller wrote:

imagine what sort of structure could be in orbit if most of the ETs
had been assembled into a station

Interesting idea--I wonder if it would be possible to reach orbit with
the ET still attached (e.g. how much extra fuel would be required at
OMS-2)...

You could have a very massive structure up there by lashing several
together... now, how useful would it be based on the structure of the
ET... I guess it could be used as a storage facility... or refilled on
figure flights and used as an orbiting refueling station for later
deep-space missions...

"Who Needs Fender?" wrote in message
...
bob haller wrote:

imagine what sort of structure could be in orbit if most of the ETs
had been assembled into a station

Interesting idea--I wonder if it would be possible to reach orbit with the
ET still attached (e.g. how much extra fuel would be required at OMS-2)...


Please use the Googles for this. There's a lot out there.

Yes, to bring it into orbit wouldn't take much extra fuel.

HOWEVER, you then have a very large, light object in orbit. This will decay
fairly quickly. Which means you need a way of boosting its orbit even
further.

And then you have to find a way to keep the foam on the tank (or remove it
all) so that it doesn't come off in pieces while in orbit.

There has been a lot of thought that has gone into this, none of it has paid
off. (obviously :-)

You could have a very massive structure up there by lashing several
together... now, how useful would it be based on the structure of the
ET... I guess it could be used as a storage facility... or refilled on
figure flights and used as an orbiting refueling station for later
deep-space missions...



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Who Needs Fender?" wrote in message
...
bob haller wrote:

imagine what sort of structure could be in orbit if most of the ETs
had been assembled into a station

A pipe dream frought with problems hand-waved away by "ET station
advocates".

Interesting idea--I wonder if it would be possible to reach orbit with the
ET still attached (e.g. how much extra fuel would be required at OMS-2)...

Absolutely.

You could have a very massive structure up there by lashing several
together... now, how useful would it be based on the structure of the
ET... I guess it could be used as a storage facility... or refilled on
figure flights and used as an orbiting refueling station for later
deep-space missions...

There are many problems with plans to use ET's in orbit. Not the least of
which is the SOFI, which would degrade and popcorn off. It's not so much
the orbital debris problem as the thermal problem of having a bare Al (or
AlLi) tank in LEO. Where's the TPS? Where is the micrometeorite and
orbital debris protection? Where is all of the other equipment needed to
turn a bare ET into something useful.

It's far easier to launch modules fully outfitted than do the outfitting in
LEO. Look at the history of Skylab, and even ISS, and this becomes
abundantly clear.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson