Abandon the space station?

I suggest that the US should demonstrate it's
commitment to the wellbeing of humanity by transferring
ownership of the ISS to the United Nations.

Menwith

Nick Hull wrote:

Rather than abandon Hubble it would seem to make more sense to abandon
the ISS and use the remaining parts to build a new smaller space station
in a Hubble compatible orbit. The current ISS is in a poor orbit to
please the Russians and produces very little real science. If we use
the shuttle to boost a small space station closer (orbitwise) to Hubble
we can have both, a space stetion (USA) and the hubble.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Bill Barto" nospam@noaddress wrote in message
...
Just where did you get the idea that the ISS is in a poor orbit to please
the Russians. The ISS's orbit is inclined much more than the HST to make
it
easier for the Russians to get to it. The ISS also passes over Russian
territory whereas the HST does not.


I think you misread what Nick intended to write.

It is in a poor orbit for the US, so that we could please the Russians.

(I'd disagree with "please" so much as "so that we could partner with the
Russians", but otherwise his point on that is essentially correct.)


The low inclination or the HST makes it easier for the US to get to to it
and much harder for the Russians.

"Nick Hull" wrote in message
...
Rather than abandon Hubble it would seem to make more sense to abandon
the ISS and use the remaining parts to build a new smaller space station
in a Hubble compatible orbit. The current ISS is in a poor orbit to
please the Russians and produces very little real science. If we use
the shuttle to boost a small space station closer (orbitwise) to Hubble
we can have both, a space stetion (USA) and the hubble.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article , JazzMan
wrote:

Nick Hull wrote:

Rather than abandon Hubble it would seem to make more sense to abandon
the ISS and use the remaining parts to build a new smaller space station
in a Hubble compatible orbit. The current ISS is in a poor orbit to
please the Russians and produces very little real science. If we use
the shuttle to boost a small space station closer (orbitwise) to Hubble
we can have both, a space stetion (USA) and the hubble.

Because of the constant stream of junk that emanates from
ISS (or any other space station for that matter) it would
be a bad idea to have it near Hubble or any other space
telescope. It would be only a matter of time before the
mirror was contaminated by the gases and other bits of
trash that leaked from the station.

That's why I said 'Hubble compatible" orbit. It can be pretty far from
the Hubble but still take little energy for the trip.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

JazzMan wrote in :

Besides, ISS will likely be deorbited just two or three
years after its completion and the end of the Shuttle program
anyway. By 2014-2015 the US should be completely out of
the manned space business and the space science business.

Not likely. The US is planning to remain in the ISS program until 2016.
Even then, the station will not necessarily be deorbited - the US will
simply pull out of the program and the international partners will decide
what to do with the station, which by then will be past its design
lifetime. The US does not even have the *capability* to deorbit ISS - only
the Russians can do that now. ESA will gain the capability once ATV is
flying.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

John Doe wrote in :

Bill Barto wrote:
The low inclination or the HST makes it easier for the US to get to
to it and much harder for the Russians.

"easier" isn't quite the word. A lower inclination gives launchers
from KSC greater cargo capacity to such an orbit, as well as longer
launch windows.

And better abort options for single-engine-failure cases (though worse for
multiple-engine-failure cases).

Forgetting Cuba and landing site for a minute, should NASA want to
launch the shuttle to a 5° orbit, would the 23° deviation to the south
cost more fuel than a 23° deviation to the north ?

(when launching to station, the KSC intercepts the orbital plane, but
launching to a lesser inclination, KSC never intersects).

That will cost *way* more. You're not grasping the orbital mechanics here.
Take a globe and some hula hoops and work on it. Launching into an orbit
inclination higher than launch site latitude merely requires using a more
northerly launch azimuth. But if you simply try the same thing with a
southerly launch azimuth, you will still end up in a high-inclination orbit
- max latitude will merely shift west of the launch site instead of east.
To launch into an inclination less than the launch site latitude requires
that the rocket fly a southerly azimuth to get to the required latitude,
*then* perform a very expensive "dogleg" maneuver to get into the required
inclination.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Nick Hull wrote in
:

In article , JazzMan
wrote:

Nick Hull wrote:

Rather than abandon Hubble it would seem to make more sense to
abandon the ISS and use the remaining parts to build a new smaller
space station in a Hubble compatible orbit. The current ISS is in
a poor orbit to please the Russians and produces very little real
science. If we use the shuttle to boost a small space station
closer (orbitwise) to Hubble we can have both, a space stetion
(USA) and the hubble.

Because of the constant stream of junk that emanates from
ISS (or any other space station for that matter) it would
be a bad idea to have it near Hubble or any other space
telescope. It would be only a matter of time before the
mirror was contaminated by the gases and other bits of
trash that leaked from the station.

That's why I said 'Hubble compatible" orbit. It can be pretty far
from the Hubble but still take little energy for the trip.

And just where would that be? The contamination from a space station
spreads out in a ring at the station's altitude and orbit plane, so
anywhere along that ring will still be exposed to contamination. And if you
place HST in the station's orbit plane but at a higher altitude (to put it
above the contamination, so to speak), differential nodal regression will
soon take it out of the station's orbit plane. Once the two spacecraft are
out-of-plane, it's pretty much game-over as far as a shuttle reaching both
on the same flight.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Menwith wrote in :

I suggest that the US should demonstrate it's
commitment to the wellbeing of humanity by transferring
ownership of the ISS to the United Nations.

I suggest that the UN would have to pay for it.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Bill Barto wrote:
"easier" isn't quite the word. A lower inclination gives launchers
from KSC greater cargo capacity to such an orbit, as well as longer
launch windows.
THEN "Jorge R. Frank" wrote
And better abort options for single-engine-failure cases (though worse for
multiple-engine-failure cases).

Jorge, please elaborate. I recall that ISS launches have East Coast sites
for multiple engine outs (HST wouldn't), but how is a single-engine-out
abort easier for 28 than 51.6, with the closing of most (or all) TAL sites
in West Africa?

Menwith wrote
I suggest that the US should demonstrate it's
commitment to the wellbeing of humanity by transferring
ownership of the ISS to the United Nations.
THEN "Jorge R. Frank" wrote
I suggest that the UN would have to pay for it.

Good idea -- they could use some of the money they skimmed off the
oil-for-palaces
program with Saddam. Considering how Saddam had bought and paid for the
obedience of some UN officials and West European leaders, the widespread
claim
that we should grant these guys veto power over enforcing international law
is preposterous.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

JazzMan wrote:

Besides, ISS will likely be deorbited just two or three
years after its completion and the end of the Shuttle program
anyway. By 2014-2015 the US should be completely out of
the manned space business and the space science business.

Not likely. The US is planning to remain in the ISS program until 2016.
Even then, the station will not necessarily be deorbited - the US will
simply pull out of the program and the international partners will decide
what to do with the station, which by then will be past its design
lifetime.

I thought that one of the main marketing points to justify the
super-high cost of the ISS, was that it would be permanent.