|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Moscow...we have a problem.
On Nov 11, 2:34*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
On 11/11/2011 07:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: In article932c2f1a-167d-4973-873b- , says... Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for relaunch would be necessary. What was the smallest turn-around time for a shuttle? *My guess is that it was the Spacelab mission that was re-flown because the first attempt was cut short due to fuel cell problems. http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts83.htm http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts84.htm STS-83 returned on April 8. STS-84 launched on May 17. That's more than a month, and this was definitely a special case since it was essentially a reflight of an aborted mission. *Typical turn- around times were quite a bit longer than this. Sorry, but the shuttle was not a fast turn-around vehicle. *In a situation like this, where there is a "need" to launch in only a few days, the shuttle simply could not accommodate this requirement. *LEASAT F3 rescue mission took several months to plan and fly. *In this case, the Russians don't have months to spare, they have only a few days. Jeff, you're missing Mike's point by a country mile: he explicitly conditioned the rescue mission on Russia being able to gain enough control of the spacecraft to boost it into an orbit that would last long enough that a fast turnaround shuttle mission would *not* be required. You spent several paragraphs going down the fast-turnaround rabbit hole without even reading what he wrote. I trimmed his response down to the relevant paragraph so you can read it (perhaps for the first time). My point stands, though: NASA would not agree to take the risk of this mission even if the shuttle were still flying, and even if Phobos-Grunt were boosted to an altitude where fast turnaround were not required.- Hide quoted text - Thank you, Jorge. At least someone actually reads what a post actually says. Sadly, you're probably right about the pussified post-Challenger/ Columbia NASA. STS-49 was the last time NASA would do something awesome like that. -Mike |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Moscow...we have a problem.
Jeff, you're missing Mike's point by a country mile: he explicitly
conditioned the rescue mission on Russia being able to gain enough control of the spacecraft to boost it into an orbit that would last long enough that a fast turnaround shuttle mission would *not* be required. Long Forgotten - but in the days when Shuttle was first being developed and the cost was still projected in the $10M per launch range, NASA was planning a program called Space Tug. The Tug would ride in the bay with a primary payload and loft that payload to final orbit. Depending on how much fuel was left the tug would return to the Shuttle for capture and reuse, or would dock with a second dedicated tug and be returned. One of the requirements was for the Tug to capture a tumbling, out of control satellite and retrieve it for repair in space or return to Earth. At least 4 study sets were funded covering hypergolic and cryogenic propulsion systems - JSC and MSFC both managed studies. We actually had a prototype capture device on a Peter Pan type rig. Unfortunatley the Tug died as Shuttle Overruns consumed the NASA budget. The concept would have allowed a Tug to capture a failed satellite - loft it to a safe orbit and await a return shuttle mission. The original dream of shuttle capabilities was greatly trimmed as the reality of the design became clear. Val Kraut |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Moscow...we have a problem.
On 11/12/2011 04:10 AM, Mike DiCenso wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:34 pm, "Jorge R. wrote: On 11/11/2011 07:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: In article932c2f1a-167d-4973-873b- , says... Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for relaunch would be necessary. What was the smallest turn-around time for a shuttle? My guess is that it was the Spacelab mission that was re-flown because the first attempt was cut short due to fuel cell problems. http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts83.htm http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts84.htm STS-83 returned on April 8. STS-84 launched on May 17. That's more than a month, and this was definitely a special case since it was essentially a reflight of an aborted mission. Typical turn- around times were quite a bit longer than this. Sorry, but the shuttle was not a fast turn-around vehicle. In a situation like this, where there is a "need" to launch in only a few days, the shuttle simply could not accommodate this requirement. LEASAT F3 rescue mission took several months to plan and fly. In this case, the Russians don't have months to spare, they have only a few days. Jeff, you're missing Mike's point by a country mile: he explicitly conditioned the rescue mission on Russia being able to gain enough control of the spacecraft to boost it into an orbit that would last long enough that a fast turnaround shuttle mission would *not* be required. You spent several paragraphs going down the fast-turnaround rabbit hole without even reading what he wrote. I trimmed his response down to the relevant paragraph so you can read it (perhaps for the first time). My point stands, though: NASA would not agree to take the risk of this mission even if the shuttle were still flying, and even if Phobos-Grunt were boosted to an altitude where fast turnaround were not required.- Hide quoted text - Thank you, Jorge. At least someone actually reads what a post actually says. Sadly, you're probably right about the pussified post-Challenger/ Columbia NASA. STS-49 was the last time NASA would do something awesome like that. Even if NASA wasn't "pussified" (your words), they wouldn't do it. NASA was using "funny" accounting to make the previous Palapa, Westar, Syncom, Intelsat, etc rescues look economical. After Congress imposed full-cost accounting on such proposals, a proposed rescue of Orion III was disapproved since it wasn't worth the cost. Same thing here. No matter how you do cost accounting of the price of a shuttle mission, there is no way it will become cheaper than building and launching another Phobos-Grunt, no way the Russians would pay for a shuttle rescue mission in any case, and no way the US government would pay to rescue a foreign unmanned spacecraft in any case. Even disregarding the (considerable) risk, this isn't an "awesome" idea, it's just plain stupid. And that's from the biggest shuttle-hugger left on this group. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Moscow...we have a problem.
On Nov 12, 2:27 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
On 11/12/2011 04:10 AM, Mike DiCenso wrote: On Nov 11, 2:34 pm, "Jorge R. wrote: On 11/11/2011 07:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: In article932c2f1a-167d-4973-873b- , says... Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for relaunch would be necessary. What was the smallest turn-around time for a shuttle? My guess is that it was the Spacelab mission that was re-flown because the first attempt was cut short due to fuel cell problems. http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts83.htm http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts84.htm STS-83 returned on April 8. STS-84 launched on May 17. That's more than a month, and this was definitely a special case since it was essentially a reflight of an aborted mission. Typical turn- around times were quite a bit longer than this. Sorry, but the shuttle was not a fast turn-around vehicle. In a situation like this, where there is a "need" to launch in only a few days, the shuttle simply could not accommodate this requirement. LEASAT F3 rescue mission took several months to plan and fly. In this case, the Russians don't have months to spare, they have only a few days. Jeff, you're missing Mike's point by a country mile: he explicitly conditioned the rescue mission on Russia being able to gain enough control of the spacecraft to boost it into an orbit that would last long enough that a fast turnaround shuttle mission would *not* be required. You spent several paragraphs going down the fast-turnaround rabbit hole without even reading what he wrote. I trimmed his response down to the relevant paragraph so you can read it (perhaps for the first time). My point stands, though: NASA would not agree to take the risk of this mission even if the shuttle were still flying, and even if Phobos-Grunt were boosted to an altitude where fast turnaround were not required.- Hide quoted text - Thank you, Jorge. At least someone actually reads what a post actually says. Sadly, you're probably right about the pussified post-Challenger/ Columbia NASA. STS-49 was the last time NASA would do something awesome like that. Even if NASA wasn't "pussified" (your words), they wouldn't do it. NASA was using "funny" accounting to make the previous Palapa, Westar, Syncom, Intelsat, etc rescues look economical. After Congress imposed full-cost accounting on such proposals, a proposed rescue of Orion III was disapproved since it wasn't worth the cost. Same thing here. No matter how you do cost accounting of the price of a shuttle mission, there is no way it will become cheaper than building and launching another Phobos-Grunt, no way the Russians would pay for a shuttle rescue mission in any case, and no way the US government would pay to rescue a foreign unmanned spacecraft in any case. Even disregarding the (considerable) risk, this isn't an "awesome" idea, it's just plain stupid. And that's from the biggest shuttle-hugger left on this group. Agreed, (we've attended a shuttle launch). Back to topical, check out this... http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...782/story.html A space is NOT s 'turn key' operation, it takes years to get it running again. Ken. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Moscow...we have a problem.
In article ,
Mike DiCenso wrote: Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for relaunch would be necessary. No, they would have to regain enough control to get the Phobos-Grunt apogee down from its current ~10,000 km altitude to ~500 km. A rescue mission doesn't just have to match altitudes; it has to match velocities. There never was any way a shuttle could get itself into Phobos-Grunt's current orbit. -- Kathy Rages |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Moscow...we have a problem.
On Nov 12, 3:27*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
On 11/12/2011 04:10 AM, Mike DiCenso wrote: On Nov 11, 2:34 pm, "Jorge R. *wrote: On 11/11/2011 07:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: In article932c2f1a-167d-4973-873b- , says.... Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for relaunch would be necessary. What was the smallest turn-around time for a shuttle? *My guess is that it was the Spacelab mission that was re-flown because the first attempt was cut short due to fuel cell problems. http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts83.htm http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts84.htm STS-83 returned on April 8. STS-84 launched on May 17. That's more than a month, and this was definitely a special case since it was essentially a reflight of an aborted mission. *Typical turn- around times were quite a bit longer than this. Sorry, but the shuttle was not a fast turn-around vehicle. *In a situation like this, where there is a "need" to launch in only a few days, the shuttle simply could not accommodate this requirement. *LEASAT F3 rescue mission took several months to plan and fly. *In this case, the Russians don't have months to spare, they have only a few days. Jeff, you're missing Mike's point by a country mile: he explicitly conditioned the rescue mission on Russia being able to gain enough control of the spacecraft to boost it into an orbit that would last long enough that a fast turnaround shuttle mission would *not* be required. You spent several paragraphs going down the fast-turnaround rabbit hole without even reading what he wrote. I trimmed his response down to the relevant paragraph so you can read it (perhaps for the first time). My point stands, though: NASA would not agree to take the risk of this mission even if the shuttle were still flying, and even if Phobos-Grunt were boosted to an altitude where fast turnaround were not required.- Hide quoted text - Thank you, Jorge. At least someone actually reads what a post actually says. Sadly, you're probably right about the pussified post-Challenger/ Columbia NASA. STS-49 was the last time NASA would do something awesome like that. Even if NASA wasn't "pussified" (your words), they wouldn't do it. NASA was using "funny" accounting to make the previous Palapa, Westar, Syncom, Intelsat, etc rescues look economical. After Congress imposed full-cost accounting on such proposals, a proposed rescue of Orion III was disapproved since it wasn't worth the cost. Same thing here. No matter how you do cost accounting of the price of a shuttle mission, there is no way it will become cheaper than building and launching another Phobos-Grunt, no way the Russians would pay for a shuttle rescue mission in any case, and no way the US government would pay to rescue a foreign unmanned spacecraft in any case. Even disregarding the (considerable) risk, this isn't an "awesome" idea, it's just plain stupid. And that's from the biggest shuttle-hugger left on this group. Oh please, it has nothing to do with economics. With the Intelsat VI rescue everyone went in there knowing that the 120 or so million that Intelsat paid NASA wouldn't cover anything but the most basic marginal costs for the mission. But thank goodness that we did fly that mission, because it helped uncover some serious deficiencies with the EVA program training that paid off huge dividends in upcoming first Hubble Space Telescope repair mission, and eventually much later the ISS' construction. So while going to fix a stranded comsat, like Orion III, might not be worth approval, taking a risk and repairing or retrieving a big science mission like Phobos-Grunt is worth it, just like we risked a lot on each HST repair. It's also always something that ****ed me off that the DoD never offically asked NASA to send a shuttle flight to rescue the third Milstar that was stranded in a useless low orbit by a malfunctioning Centuar upper stage in April 1999. That was not only a multi-billion dollar mission wasted, but critical lost military capability as well. Those are the kind of missions that are worth a Shuttle rescue. -Mike |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Moscow...we have a problem.
On Nov 13, 5:01*pm, (Kathy Rages) wrote:
In article , Mike DiCenso wrote: Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for relaunch would be necessary. No, they would have to regain enough control to get the Phobos-Grunt apogee down from its current ~10,000 km altitude to ~500 km. *A rescue mission doesn't just have to match altitudes; it has to match velocities. *There never was any way a shuttle could get itself into Phobos-Grunt's current orbit. Where do you get that, Kathy? Phobos-Grunt is in a 207 × 347 km (129 × 216 miles) altitude orbit, not 10,000 km (6,000 miles). If only it were in the higher orbit, there wouldn't be any concern over it falling back to Earth in about 1 to 2 months. -Mike |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Moscow...we have a problem.
all of these issues could be elminated by a universal docking adapter
and space tug....... for out of control sats tumbling perhaps a catcher of some type so docking could be accomplished. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Moscow...we have a problem.
On Nov 14, 4:06 am, bob haller wrote:
all of these issues could be elminated by a universal docking adapter and space tug....... for out of control sats tumbling perhaps a catcher of some type so docking could be accomplished. Like a orbiting Taxeco station with a space tow truck...ok as long as the washrooms are clean. Ken |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Moscow...we have a problem.
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:06:54 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote: all of these issues could be elminated by a universal docking adapter and space tug....... And some way to launch one very quickly. Phobos-Grunt will deorbit by the beginning of January. That's going to be the idea-killer. All satellites and launch vehicles are planned and booked years in advance and there is not really a practical way to have one on standby 24/7 (rockets just don't behave the same way airliners do.) And if we did invent some practical high launch rate, short-notice launch system, that would probably make your requirement moot anyway. Since there are multitudes of different orbits and even phasing incompatibilites in the same orbits, you won't be able to station a tug in orbit, either... it would takes years or a generous supply of unobtanium fuel to get the tug to the right orbit, far too long to save a renegade satellite. The only place such a scheme would work would be in GEO, but there the risk to life below is about nil, so it isn't worth the trouble. Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT - Moscow Metro | Pat Flannery | History | 31 | October 4th 08 04:13 AM |
OT - Moscow Metro | Pat Flannery | History | 4 | October 1st 08 06:38 AM |
Moscow vs. Houston Time | Danny Deger | Space Station | 1 | August 18th 07 11:20 PM |
Moscow confirms proposal for 12-month Exp-10 | JimO | Space Station | 10 | March 27th 04 11:57 PM |
Welcome to Moscow Astronomy Club! | Denis V. Denissenko | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | July 22nd 03 07:42 PM |