|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
Rand Simberg wrote:
As for changing the inclination, it is an interesting idea. Chemical rockets obviously wouldn't do it for anything close to $1 billion. I think they would actually, as long as you purchased from the Russians. Of course, after the first few, you'd have to launch them from Kourou, but as I understand, that deal only costs about three hundred million or so. I don't think this is a very good idea, as it still doesn't solve the basic problem of the ISS not being much use for anything (except in my "artificial reef near Pago-Pago" plan); but if you were going to do this, then I would suggest that ion engines be used. You save a lot of weight in propellants, while getting more test time for ion motors which can be used in regard to future space missions- as well as giving the ISS a on-board ability to boost its own orbit without the need for other spacecraft to give it a nudge due to orbital decay. Pat |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:29:04 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Pat Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I don't think this is a very good idea, as it still doesn't solve the basic problem of the ISS not being much use for anything (except in my "artificial reef near Pago-Pago" plan); It renders it slightly useful, rather than almost totally unuseful. but if you were going to do this, then I would suggest that ion engines be used. You save a lot of weight in propellants, while getting more test time for ion motors which can be used in regard to future space missions- as well as giving the ISS a on-board ability to boost its own orbit without the need for other spacecraft to give it a nudge due to orbital decay. I've no objection to that, though you can only use them for a fraction of the orbit. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
Am Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:29:06 -0800 (PST) schrieb "Rand Simberg":
I don't think this is a very good idea, as it still doesn't solve the basic problem of the ISS not being much use for anything (except in my "artificial reef near Pago-Pago" plan); It renders it slightly useful, rather than almost totally unuseful. Sorry. I don't see the point. Which "slightly usefulness" do you want to achieve with that? Is it really an increase in usefulness? Is that worth its cost and negative side effects? cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / http://zili.de X No HTML in / \ email & news |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker wrote:
It renders it slightly useful, rather than almost totally unuseful. Sorry. I don't see the point. Which "slightly usefulness" do you want to achieve with that? Is it really an increase in usefulness? Is that worth its cost and negative side effects? I'm still trying to figure out the meaning of the term "totally unuseful"; wouldn't a more straightforward way of saying this be "totally useless"? (hell, "unuseful" isn't even in spellcheck.) Off to The Columbia School Of Journalism's remedial summer school courses with you, Mr. Simberg! And take off that fedora- it looks silly on Mr. Drudge, and it looks silly on you. :-) Mr. Cronkite, Guidance Counselor |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message ... ...is the title of this week's Fox News column, in which I discuss the difference between the Russian and American space programs, and propose moving ISS into a useful orbit. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102931,00.html By my figuring, it would take 322 tonnes of storable propellant (OMS-type, ISP=316 sec) to impose the suggested 3,100 meter per second plane change on the 187 tonne ISS. It would take 14 EELV Heavy or 17 STS launches just to haul up the propellant! A bit more than $1 billion for that. Probably cheaper to put a completely new space station into the 28 degree orbit. Yes, or a dozen Shuttle-Cs...just another use for heavier lift. --Chris Vancil |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
LooseChanj ) wrote:
: On or about Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:53:08 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko : made the sensational claim that: : Excuse me, but what is a "recovering aerospace engineer"? : I expect it's a lot like a recovering alcoholic. So is this forum in effect his 12 step program? Eric : -- : This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent : It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you : No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:58:10 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Am Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:29:06 -0800 (PST) schrieb "Rand Simberg": I don't think this is a very good idea, as it still doesn't solve the basic problem of the ISS not being much use for anything (except in my "artificial reef near Pago-Pago" plan); It renders it slightly useful, rather than almost totally unuseful. Sorry. I don't see the point. Which "slightly usefulness" do you want to achieve with that? Is it really an increase in usefulness? Yes. Is that worth its cost and negative side effects? Probably, since there are no negative side effects other than reduced earth viewing, if the Russians launch from Kourou. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
Rand:
"Dozens" of Progress M1s? Launching Soyuzes out of Kourou? Wow! I hope you don't expect the Russians to pay to move ISS out of 51.6 degrees. Oh, no! You want to steal *my* money to pay for your scheme! This one is worthy of Gosplan. h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. . On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:37:40 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away, (Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Even if the Russkis could launch Soyuz out of Kourou to an ISS at 28 degrees, Why in the world could they not? there's no way they could dock with ISS without visibility to Russian ground stations, which all are at 51.6 degrees or higher latitude. Really? Besides, in a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, the idea of sending multi-ton propellant tanks to dock with ISS is ludricrous. Buy them from the Russians. It could be done with a few dozen Progess M1s. Well, I guess there must be some way to get ISS away from the grubby hands of those capitalist Russians, so they can't pull any more Dennis Tito stunts. laughing |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
From Russia, Without Love
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 07:54:00 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand: "Dozens" of Progress M1s? Launching Soyuzes out of Kourou? Wow! I hope you don't expect the Russians to pay to move ISS out of 51.6 degrees. Of course not. Oh, no! You want to steal *my* money to pay for your scheme! This one is worthy of Gosplan. Why is that worse that stealing your money to pay for the current scheme? -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|