A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

ISS reboost



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 2nd 04, 01:43 AM
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 2nd 04, 04:31 AM
Greg Kuperberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 2nd 04, 11:20 AM
Ian Woollard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 5th 04, 06:25 AM
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 5th 04, 04:34 PM
Explorer8939
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #7  
Old April 5th 04, 07:10 PM
jeff findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #9  
Old April 5th 04, 09:46 PM
jeff findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 5th 04, 11:11 PM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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
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 07:24 PM
ISS reboost? Brian Hoover Space Station 1 October 5th 03 11:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 PM.


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.