#1
|
|||
|
|||
ISS reboost
This doesn't look too great:
http://www.heavens-above.com/issheig...afbocliiklbpbl To my eye, it looks as they've got about a year, give or take, maybe more take than give, before things get really exciting with respect to reboost. Is there a more detailed analysis of the ISS orbit-raising requirements? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ISS reboost
In article ,
Allen Thomson wrote: http://www.heavens-above.com/issheig...afbocliiklbpbl To my eye, it looks as they've got about a year, give or take, maybe more take than give, before things get really exciting with respect to reboost. That's a pretty dramatic graph! Here is another graph that gives a bit more context: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/station/viewing/issvis.html It's just possible that fate and physics will conspire to do what Congress doesn't have the courage to do: kill the space station. They came within one vote of it in 1993, but they've been ever more addicted to its patronage ever since. -- /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis) / \ \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print * |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ISS reboost
Greg Kuperberg wrote:
It's just possible that fate and physics will conspire to do what Congress doesn't have the courage to do: kill the space station. Congress? Oh no, not congress. Looks like the Shuttle is going to kill another space station :-) hint: skylab |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ISS reboost
Ian Woollard a écrit dans le message : ... Greg Kuperberg wrote: It's just possible that fate and physics will conspire to do what Congress doesn't have the courage to do: kill the space station. Congress? Oh no, not congress. Looks like the Shuttle is going to kill another space station :-) hint: skylab Progress couldn't be used to reboost skylab. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ISS reboost
Actually, with some planning, Progress COULD have been used to reboost
Skylab. However, Progress cannot be used to reboost HST. "HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa" wrote in message ... Ian Woollard a écrit dans le message : ... Greg Kuperberg wrote: It's just possible that fate and physics will conspire to do what Congress doesn't have the courage to do: kill the space station. Congress? Oh no, not congress. Looks like the Shuttle is going to kill another space station :-) hint: skylab Progress couldn't be used to reboost skylab. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ISS reboost
On 5 Apr 2004 08:34:04 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Actually, with some planning, Progress COULD have been used to reboost Skylab. However, Progress cannot be used to reboost HST. It possibly could if the Russians start launching out of Kourou, though as has been pointed out, it wasn't designed to be operated on without Shuttle. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ISS reboost
"HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa" writes:
Ian Woollard a écrit dans le message : ... Congress? Oh no, not congress. Looks like the Shuttle is going to kill another space station :-) hint: skylab Progress couldn't be used to reboost skylab. No, but an Apollo CSM, with a few modifications, certainly could. There was at least two of those available after the last manned Skylab mission (the one used for ASTP and its backup). Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ISS reboost
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ISS reboost
"HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa" writes:
Explorer8939 a écrit dans le message : ... Actually, with some planning, Progress COULD have been used to reboost Skylab. However, Progress cannot be used to reboost HST. If it could have reboosted skylab, why not? Again, I see problem of lack of docking port and of orbit compatibility, but is it worse for HST than for skylab? ( yes, I know HST is higher than skylab, but it is also much ligther, so less force needed. If you have to adjust orbit anyway you're going to loose capability ) Or is it something else? HST was never designed for docking. As has been pointed out in other posts, it was specifically designed to be grappled by the RMS, "piloted" by an astronaut, then the RMS moves HST onto a fixture which secures HST in the shuttle's payload bay. Skylab was designed for docking. Surely the Russians couldn't have docked a progress to Skylab without US help, but it shouldn't be much harder than when the Russians sold APAS to the US so the US shuttle could dock with Mir. The hardest part would likely be getting the Russian automated rendezvous and docking software to work since Skylab no doubt lacked the docking target(s) that the Russian systems expected. For example, Skylab lacked a Kurs antenna (and supporting hardware). If you dig around, you can find interesting papers about automated rendezvous and docking: http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/course...s/tp208528.pdf http://www.nasda.go.jp/pr/event/app/...ack2/2m021.pdf Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ISS reboost
jeff findley wrote in
: The hardest part would likely be getting the Russian automated rendezvous and docking software to work since Skylab no doubt lacked the docking target(s) that the Russian systems expected. For example, Skylab lacked a Kurs antenna (and supporting hardware). Minor nit: Kurs hadn't been invented yet; the Soviets were using an older system called Igla then. But your main point remains true: both Igla and Kurs require the target vehicle to be equipped with a passive system to complement the active system on the chaser vehicle, and Skylab didn't have that. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Station reboost by shuttle | Steve Derry | Space Shuttle | 5 | July 20th 04 12:48 AM |
Hubble to be abandoned | Michael Gallagher | Policy | 319 | February 22nd 04 06:24 PM |
ISS reboost? | Brian Hoover | Space Station | 1 | October 5th 03 11:54 AM |