|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Orbiting utility vehicle
Jeff Findley wrote:
If what you want is a vehicle that is based at ISS and would be capable of changing its orbit to match Hubble, then change its orbit to match ISS, what you're proposing is science fiction. John Doe wrote in message ... Horse manure. The technology for such already exists and has been fully documented already. One source of documentation contains the schematics and general principles for such an engine. It is the NCC 1701-A technical manual. There have already been experiments with anti-matter. It's interesting on how well documented Sci-Fi materials are. It's as if what are needed are some things to fill in the blanks. Anyway. Below is a picture of a concept Energia being prepared to launch: http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/vabfrau.gif All that is needed now is for Bill Gates to take his money and actually build the thing according to the plans already laid out in that technical manual. Actually, it wouldn't be William Henry Gates III, instead it would be the ones who made William or Bill as some would called him into a more rich person. Probably the same people that told Paul Allen told give money to Rutan to build SpaceShip One. And also the same people who told the mass media to keep repeating that SpaceShip One is a 'non-government' vehicle. Betcha that after the world is under One World Government, we would be seeing lots of those 'Sci-Fi' things come into life. And as far asn a real orbiting utility vehicle, it is called "Soyuz". What is needed is to have a Soyuz compatible docking port at the forward end of the station so that in an emergency, one soyuz at the aft end could travel to the forward end to pickup stranded occupants and bring them back to the russian side of the station. It's interesting that in the end, the Soyuz type vehicle is bound to be prefered way to reach L.E.O. , I mean that there's already the Chinese Soyuz. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Orbiting utility vehicle
What you all are missing is the "utility vehicle" emphasis on the singular. Is this not the famed NASA problem of a "one vehicle solution for all problems?" A true utility vehicle would be referred to in multiples. One hanging around the ISS... a couple hanging around an LEO pitstop orbiting in a more standard inclination... THAT'S a utility vehicle for you... more than one -- Chuck Stewart "Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Orbiting utility vehicle
On 2004-07-24, Brian Thorn wrote:
On 23 Jul 2004 11:22:54 GMT, (bob haller) wrote: osters here will dismiss it, like they did to my pre columbia question of a shuttle getting stuck at station, impossible, never happen, dont worry, bobs a chicken little What Bob doesn't say is that he has "warned" of impending disaster from a wide variety of potential failure points. Most recently, it was the inevitible death of spacewalking astronauts at ISS because of US/Russian suit/airlock incompatibilities. Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day. Just you wait, y'know. Just you wait. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...psoc.dur.ac.uk -- -Andrew Gray |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Orbiting utility vehicle
What Bob doesn't say is that he has "warned" of impending disaster from a wide variety of potential failure points. What I wared was the lack of planning. what should happen is all sorts of possible failure situations are projected, then plans made to mitigate them. take for instance ISS. lets imagine a soyuz just arrived at station and progress next launch is 2 months out . a week later a debris impact damages soyuz and the station. Soyuz cant return to earth and the oxygen loss of a punctured tank means the crew has a best a 30 day supply. Correct me if I am wrong but the crew would die....?? All becuse we dont keep a soyuz and progress available for fast launch if needed? Now ask yourself WHY we dont? The US cant pay russia because of arms sales. its TOTALLY wrong to run a profgram like this. lives of crew come after diplomacy. height of stupidity. besides after the crew dies the out of control station might come down uncontrolled posing a secondary danger. HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Orbiting utility vehicle
But if we had such a truck with "dive in the atmosphere heat shielding", why go to ISS and not simply re-enter and land? And if we had *that* sort of truck, why bother sending the Shuttle to Hubble in the first place? Brian You dont need heavy heat shieldiong for bounce to change orbit. Heck it might be possible to have depoyable wings not meant for full reentry to use for the operation. deploy, bounce, then jettisone HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Orbiting utility vehicle
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Orbiting utility vehicle
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Orbiting utility vehicle
"bob haller" wrote in message ... take for instance ISS. lets imagine a soyuz just arrived at station and progress next launch is 2 months out . a week later a debris impact damages soyuz and the station. Soyuz cant return to earth and the oxygen loss of a punctured tank means the crew has a best a 30 day supply. Correct me if I am wrong but the crew would die....?? All becuse we dont keep a soyuz and progress available for fast launch if needed? Now ask yourself WHY we dont? Because real men have the balls to accept the (very low) risk of such a scenario actually happening. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Orbiting utility vehicle
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Orbiting utility vehicle
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Launch of transport cargo vehicle Progress M-49 | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 26th 04 03:20 PM |
Landing of Soyuz TMA-3 descent vehicle | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 5th 04 11:23 PM |
Launch vehicle books for sale | Martin Bayer | Space Shuttle | 1 | May 2nd 04 09:32 AM |
Spirit has a mind of its own? | Jon Berndt | Space Shuttle | 33 | January 28th 04 05:48 AM |
Sad turn | Charleston | Space Shuttle | 93 | August 12th 03 02:31 AM |