|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
After browsing the internet for some time, I still haven't found an answer
to the following question. As a novice in this area, I wonder why there is such a specific preference for having e.g. ISS, Space Shuttle in an orbit of about 400km. (This I make up from the testimonials from space ships' crew that all tell about the sun coming up and going down every 1.5 hours). So my question is, why this preference for 400 km and why isn't it an orbit of 250km or 600km or even more ? Maarten |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
"Maarten" no_one@nowhere wrote in
i.nl: After browsing the internet for some time, I still haven't found an answer to the following question. As a novice in this area, I wonder why there is such a specific preference for having e.g. ISS, Space Shuttle in an orbit of about 400km. (This I make up from the testimonials from space ships' crew that all tell about the sun coming up and going down every 1.5 hours). So my question is, why this preference for 400 km and why isn't it an orbit of 250km or 600km or even more ? In the altitude bands you give, the orbit period ranges from 89-96 minutes. That's close enough that most astronauts just round it to 1.5 hours when giving interviews. That number should therefore not be taken literally for computing orbital altitude. There *are* spacecraft that have orbited at 250 or 600 km (the Hubble Space Telescope is near 600 km, as one example), but most spaceflights in the last three decades have visited a space station - either the Salyuts, Skylab, Mir, or ISS - and those stations have, for the most part, been placed in orbits around 400 km. Decisions on space station altitude are a tradeoff between radiation levels, orbit decay lifetime, and rendezvous performance by visiting vehicles. The Earth is surrounded by the Van Allen radiation belts. The inner belt extends from about 650-6300 km in altitude, peaking between 2000-5000 km. The lower altitude is not uniform over the Earth's surface, because the belts are created by the Earth's magnetic field and the field is not centered quite at the Earth's center. So there is a region called the South Atlantic Anomaly where the belt dips even closer to the Earth's surface. Space stations have always orbited within the inner belt so that visiting crews don't have to fly through the belts to get there, so the maximum altitude would be 650 km - the lower the better, as far as radiation dose is concerned. The Earth's atmosphere doesn't just abruptly end at some altitude above the surface; its density decays exponentially with altitude. So there is still a measurable atmosphere in low Earth orbit that causes drag on a spacecraft and will eventually cause it to fall out of orbit if not reboosted. The higher the orbit, the lower the drag, and the less reboost required. So the higher the better. A visiting vehicle must expend more propellant to reach a space station in a higher orbit, which reduces the amount of payload it can carry. The Russian Soyuz/Progress spacecraft, for example, have a "rendezvous ceiling" of about 410 km. So the lower the better. On the other hand, the spacecraft generally launches into a lower orbit than the station and uses the shorter orbit period to "catch up" to the station. The difference in period is roughly proportional to the difference in height, so a space station in a higher orbit gives a visiting spacecraft more room to "catch up" to it, therefore widening the rendezvous launch window. So, to summarize: The lower the better: radiation dose, visiting vehicle payload performance The higher the better: drag/decay lifetime, visiting vehicle launch window 400 km seems to be a pretty good compromise between all these factors, so that's why most space stations to date have been assembled there. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
After browsing the internet for some time, I still haven't found an answer to the following question. As a novice in this area, I wonder why there is such a specific preference for having e.g. ISS, Space Shuttle in an orbit of about 400km. (This I make up from the testimonials from space ships' crew that all tell about the sun coming up and going down every 1.5 hours). So my question is, why this preference for 400 km and why isn't it an orbit of 250km or 600km or even more ? Maarten Its about the highest the shuttle can go with much useful payload, and the crew is protected from the radiation belts too. Actually ISS would be easier to maintain in orbit if it were higher, but then we would have no way to get a crew to the station so it doesnt matter. : : : My opinion is right |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
"Maarten" no_one@nowhere writes:
After browsing the internet for some time, I still haven't found an answer to the following question. As a novice in this area, I wonder why there is such a specific preference for having e.g. ISS, Space Shuttle in an orbit of about 400km. (This I make up from the testimonials from space ships' crew that all tell about the sun coming up and going down every 1.5 hours). So my question is, why this preference for 400 km and why isn't it an orbit of 250km or 600km or even more ? The higher you go, the more fuel it takes to get there, and the closer you get to the van Allen radiation belts. The lower you go, the faster your orbit decays due to the increasing density of air molecules. For a space station, the primary consideration is fuel to get to the orbit and orbital decay (which requires more fuel for reboost). Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
"Maarten" no_one@nowhere wrote
So my question is, why this preference for 400 km For a long-duration space station, 400 km is kind of the "Goldilocks" altitude between atmospheric drag and radiation exposure from protons in the inner Van Allen belt. and why isn't it an orbit of 250km Too much air. or 600km or even more ? Too many protons. Also, present transport vehicles are limited in their ability to carry masses of the desired size to such altitudes. http://www.estec.esa.nl/wmwww/wma/Ba...d/rad_env.html http://www.windows.ucar.edu/spaceweather/sat_drag.html http://www.heavens-above.com/ssorbitdecay.asp shows rather graphically, so to speak, why 250 km is too low. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
"Maarten" no_one@nowhere wrote in message li.nl...
After browsing the internet for some time, I still haven't found an answer to the following question. As a novice in this area, I wonder why there is such a specific preference for having e.g. ISS, Space Shuttle in an orbit of about 400km. (This I make up from the testimonials from space ships' crew that all tell about the sun coming up and going down every 1.5 hours). So my question is, why this preference for 400 km and why isn't it an orbit of 250km or 600km or even more ? Maarten I believe that the highest of those orbits would be in or near the Van Allen belts. Lower orbits would be difficult to maintain due to increased atmospheric drag on the spacecraft. Others more knowledgable here will probably chime in with other possible reasons. Hope this helps. Bob Bernatchez |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
Dear all,
I am amazed by the response and its content: very informative, very useful. Thank you all a lot, no restless nights anymore! Maarten "Bob Bernatchez" schreef in bericht om... "Maarten" no_one@nowhere wrote in message li.nl... After browsing the internet for some time, I still haven't found an answer to the following question. As a novice in this area, I wonder why there is such a specific preference for having e.g. ISS, Space Shuttle in an orbit of about 400km. (This I make up from the testimonials from space ships' crew that all tell about the sun coming up and going down every 1.5 hours). So my question is, why this preference for 400 km and why isn't it an orbit of 250km or 600km or even more ? Maarten I believe that the highest of those orbits would be in or near the Van Allen belts. Lower orbits would be difficult to maintain due to increased atmospheric drag on the spacecraft. Others more knowledgable here will probably chime in with other possible reasons. Hope this helps. Bob Bernatchez |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
Maarten no_one@nowhere wrote:
After browsing the internet for some time, I still haven't found an answer to the following question. As a novice in this area, I wonder why there is such a specific preference for having e.g. ISS, Space Shuttle in an orbit of about 400km. (This I make up from the testimonials from space ships' crew that all tell about the sun coming up and going down every 1.5 hours). So my question is, why this preference for 400 km and why isn't it an orbit of 250km or 600km or even more ? At 250Km, the drag is much, much more, and ISS would reenter much sooner. Much above 400Km, and the radiation from the Van Allen belts tends to be a problem. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 04:28 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 04:33 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 02:32 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |