Whats nasa plan for this?

On Sep 1, 10:29*am, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:18:43 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

On 8/31/2011 2:22 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

exactly what would nasa do? espically if it couldnt be intentially
deorbited in the pacific........

Russia brought back Salyut 6 from the brink.

That was Salyut 7 that had the problems and needed the repair mission;
Salyut 6 was a highly successful station.

Poor Salyut 6, always getting blamed for things its younger brother
did... * :-)

Brian

its sad skylab and mir could be safely abandoned in orbit wheres ISS
has a 50% chance of loss of control by one year without a crew.

heck skylabs job was done the station shut down except for one
receiver just in case they ever wanted to contact it again.

nasa managed to contact it get telemetary back and control it till the
last moment when they ordered it to tumble for a safe rentry near
australia.....

In article 03c6b494-05a0-4be8-905a-4d1fb6fd7c67
@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 1, 10:29*am, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:18:43 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

On 8/31/2011 2:22 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

exactly what would nasa do? espically if it couldnt be intentially
deorbited in the pacific........

Russia brought back Salyut 6 from the brink.

That was Salyut 7 that had the problems and needed the repair mission;
Salyut 6 was a highly successful station.

Poor Salyut 6, always getting blamed for things its younger brother
did... * :-)

Brian

its sad skylab and mir could be safely abandoned in orbit wheres ISS
has a 50% chance of loss of control by one year without a crew.

Safely is relative. Before a Soviet satellite spewed radioactive
material over parts of Canada, few here on earth worried over such
things. The Soviet radioactive satellite accident made this a "hot
button" topic, so naturally NASA did "everything it could" to control
Skylab's reentry.

heck skylabs job was done the station shut down except for one
receiver just in case they ever wanted to contact it again.

Which they did only because they didn't want to look like "they didn't
try" to prevent Skylab coming down in an "uncontrolled" fashion.

nasa managed to contact it get telemetary back and control it till the
last moment when they ordered it to tumble for a safe rentry near
australia.....

"Control" only in a very lose sense. It's not like they had a big
honking rocket motor on the thing. From what I remember, much of the
"control" was changing the orientation of Skylab to either reduce or
increase drag caused by the very thin upper atmosphere.

Are you getting the sense that NASA "controlling" the Skylab reentry was
largely a public relations stunt? You should.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Sep 1, 2:14*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 03c6b494-05a0-4be8-905a-4d1fb6fd7c67
@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...







On Sep 1, 10:29*am, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:18:43 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

On 8/31/2011 2:22 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

exactly what would nasa do? espically if it couldnt be intentially
deorbited in the pacific........

Russia brought back Salyut 6 from the brink.

That was Salyut 7 that had the problems and needed the repair mission;
Salyut 6 was a highly successful station.

Poor Salyut 6, always getting blamed for things its younger brother
did... * :-)

Brian

its sad skylab and mir could be safely abandoned in orbit wheres ISS
has a 50% chance of loss of control by one year without a crew.

Safely is relative. *Before a Soviet satellite spewed radioactive
material over parts of Canada, few here on earth worried over such
things. *The Soviet radioactive satellite accident made this a "hot
button" topic, so naturally NASA did "everything it could" to control
Skylab's reentry.

heck skylabs job was done the station shut down except for one
receiver just in case they ever wanted to contact it again.

Which they did only because they didn't want to look like "they didn't
try" to prevent Skylab coming down in an "uncontrolled" fashion. *

nasa managed to contact it get telemetary back and control it till the
last moment when they ordered it to tumble for a safe rentry near
australia.....

"Control" only in a very lose sense. *It's not like they had a big
honking rocket motor on the thing. *From what I remember, much of the
"control" was changing the orientation of Skylab to either reduce or
increase drag caused by the very thin upper atmosphere.

Are you getting the sense that NASA "controlling" the Skylab reentry was
largely a public relations stunt? *You should.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well by reducing drag till the very last moment, then ordering sklab
into a high drag tumble they were able to aim to to a largely
uninhabitible part of our world....

it wasnt public relations it was very good thinking, just ordering
skylab to charge its batteries was a big accomplishment at the
time......

On 9/1/2011 6:29 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:

That was Salyut 7 that had the problems and needed the repair mission;
Salyut 6 was a highly successful station.

Poor Salyut 6, always getting blamed for things its younger brother
did... :-)

That was a pretty impressive repair operation, ranking right up there
with the Skylab repair missions.
When the core module of Mir was launched, some though that they would
maneuver it over to dock with Salyut-7.
That never came to pass, but they did undock the Soyuz from Mir, flew it
over to Salyut-7, docked, stripped it of any useful goodies and
supplies, then took them back to Mir. That was the first time a "Space
Taxi" type operation was done, like in the old scifi movies.

Pat

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
The station has a major problem, its damaged somehow and the crew
returned to earth during a emergency condition.

so the station wasnt prepared in advance for unmanned operations.

exactly what would nasa do? especially if it couldn't be intentionally
deorbited in the pacific........


This scenario has already happened. And the only response was
to start a rush to buy a pair of goggles, and wear them with a
international orange...'Skylab Protective Helmet'.

It's bright color, it was thought, would help the falling object see
what not to crash into. A sort of paranormal deflector system.
Why not? After all, it was obvious that Skylab had a guidance
system that behaved rather mystically.

They sold like pet-rocks for a couple of months. It was the 70's!


s

On Sep 1, 11:22*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

well by reducing drag till the very last moment, then ordering sklab
into a high drag tumble they were able to aim to to a largely
uninhabitible part of our world....

Named AUSTRALIA.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

actually most of skylab burned up on re entry. went to a watery grave.

mostly lighter weight stuff made it to australia.

aiming wasnt perfect but at least it didnt come down over european or
US citys......