A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Orbiting utility vehicle



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 24th 04, 04:05 AM
EAC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 24th 04, 04:10 PM
Chuck Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?"

  #14  
Old July 25th 04, 06:31 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 25th 04, 06:35 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!
  #18  
Old July 26th 04, 03:58 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 29th 04, 01:29 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orbiting utility vehicle

(bob haller) wrote in
:

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?


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


It's not that simple, Bob. In order to "dive into the atmosphere", as you
put it, the craft must perform a partial deorbit burn to drop its perigee
into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, the craft must use lift to
change its orbital plane, then perform a second burn to get back to orbital
speed in its new orbital plane.

Trouble is, lift is inevitably accompanied by drag - in fact, lift is
proportional to drag over a wide range (that's why an aircraft's L/D ratio
is often spoken of as a constant) which will slow the craft down even
further. And at high hypersonic speeds, high L/D is very hard to achieve.
About the best you can do at Mach 25 is in the 5-6.5 range, and even that
requires exotic shapes like waveriders. So for a 3 km/s plane change,
you're talking a 500-600 m/s speed loss that will have to be made up to get
the craft back into orbit. And 3 km/s is the *minimum* for an HST-ISS plane
change - it can be as high as 9.75 km/s, which means that speed losses due
to drag will be a significant fraction of orbital speed.

So you're not just talking about a simple heat shield and/or deployable
wings here. You're talking about exotic airframes and a substantial
propulsion system. This is *not* going to be simple or cheap to develop.


--
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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.