From Russia, Without Love

Am Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:01:19 -0800 (PST) schrieb "Rand Simberg":

Explain. Bit for bit. Please!

Go back and read the column again.

I did - and I cannot see the point.

I'm sorry you have trouble comprehending English. Perhaps I can
explain it better. What part of it didn't you understand?

There's no problem with my English. The problem is, that I can only
see pseudo-arguments in your article. There is not any "killer
argument" - that WOULD change everything. But I see, that your
"arguments" are very US-centered, as if there was nothing around that
counts. But there are some countries besides US, that paid and
continue to pay considerable amounts of money for ISS. Their interests
CANNOT be unconsidered.

[...]

"If", "propably", "would", "might", "alternative"...
How about INCREASING the inclination?

That would be insane. Why in the world would anyone want to do that?

Simply _try_ to think about it, too, if you want to talk about any
changes in station's orbital plane. If you begin with that, you will
maybe become able to find even arguments for inclination increase that
are neither better nor worse than arguments for decreasing ISS'
inclination. And in a discussion about a possible plane change of ISS
(NOT 'ASS') every argument counts the same.

I suppose You don't see the point...

I certainly don't see yours.

I would say, that is the point of view. Inability to view things from
"outside" occurs. But sometimes one simply has to learn, that such a
view _exists_. IMHO you have a significant deficit in your viewpoint
options. Sorry for the obvious necessity to write that to you -
normally I enjoy your comments and very often can agree with them
without any pita - but this time I simply have to disagree.


cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
http://zili.de X No HTML in
/ \ email & news

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:23:35 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Jorge R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Buy them from the Russians. It could be done with a few dozen Progess
M1s.

For large values of "a few", perhaps. If Ed's figure of 322 tons is
accurate (it should actually be a little low, since the Progress reboost
engine has an Isp of only 302 s), that's in the neighborhood of 150
Progress M1s.

I think it's 305, but who's counting?

Right, close enough.

I'm not actually proposing that it come all the way down to
twenty-eight degrees. Even forty would be a vast improvement, and
that would be half of whatever cost it is.

Ed will have to show us his calcs to determine whether or not they're
right.

It's in the ballpark, using the rocket equation. Unfortunately, it's
optimistic due to some operational limitations of Progress that Ed might
not have been aware of. (Namely, the Resupply System can't be crossfed to
the 302 s Isp OME, only the 285 s Isp ACS jets. And those jets are canted
20 degrees, so you've got some cosine losses on top of the reduced Isp).
OTOH, it's also pessimistic since the rocket equation assumes you're
burning all the propellant in one burn, whereas in reality each Progress
goes up one at a time, so the Mo for each burn is (ISS+1 Progress), not
(ISS+All the Progresses).

So, for an inclination of 28.8 degrees, you're looking at a delta-V of 3.03
km/s at an altitude of 410 km (the Progress rendezvous ceiling), which
works out to 148 Progresses. Going to 40 degrees cuts the requirement to 82
Progresses.

That will cost well over your $1 billion figure. Close to ten
times that, actually, if the Russians' quote to NASA of $65 million per
Progress is still good.

I'll bet that bulk buys would drop the price. Of course, the problem
is that 1) they'll be unwilling to do it if it cuts them out of the
loop in the future, which could be obviated by them closing the deal
and getting serious about Kourou and 2) the fact that once the station
starts to move downward, they wouldn't be able to get to it any more
from Baikonur to complete the job...

It's really a package. I was being a little tongue in cheek when I
talked about a divorce. It's contingent on them developing Kourou
capability, so they can participate as well in a sensible station
location, and help get it there.

They would also need to reactivate their tracking ships so that they can
have comm coverage during docking. That is one issue the Russians are
*really* hard-over about.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:43:57 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Jorge R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So, for an inclination of 28.8 degrees, you're looking at a delta-V of 3.03
km/s at an altitude of 410 km (the Progress rendezvous ceiling), which
works out to 148 Progresses. Going to 40 degrees cuts the requirement to 82
Progresses.

If you were serious about this, you'd develop one with more propellant
capacity (I think there are some on the drawing boards).

It's really a package. I was being a little tongue in cheek when I
talked about a divorce. It's contingent on them developing Kourou
capability, so they can participate as well in a sensible station
location, and help get it there.

They would also need to reactivate their tracking ships so that they can
have comm coverage during docking. That is one issue the Russians are
*really* hard-over about.

It would be interesting to get a cost estimate on that.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:49:01 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Explain. Bit for bit. Please!

Go back and read the column again.

I did - and I cannot see the point.

I'm sorry you have trouble comprehending English. Perhaps I can
explain it better. What part of it didn't you understand?

There's no problem with my English. The problem is, that I can only
see pseudo-arguments in your article.

Until you actually respond to them specifically, I don't know how to
argue with you. You simply say it's "not useful" to decrease
radiation dose, make it easier to get to station (for everyone but
Russia currently), make it more practical for deep space mission
support, etc. You don't offer any arguments as to why that's the
case--you simply say that I haven't offered any benefits, when I
clearly have.

I don't know what you consider "useful."

There is not any "killer
argument" - that WOULD change everything.

There doesn't need to be a "killer" argument. There only need to be
sufficient benefits to make it worth the money.

But there are some countries besides US, that paid and
continue to pay considerable amounts of money for ISS. Their interests
CANNOT be unconsidered.

Why would the Europeans and Japanese be upset about making the station
cheaper to get to for them? They've got no love for 51.6 degrees.

"If", "propably", "would", "might", "alternative"...
How about INCREASING the inclination?

That would be insane. Why in the world would anyone want to do that?

Simply _try_ to think about it, too, if you want to talk about any
changes in station's orbital plane. If you begin with that, you will
maybe become able to find even arguments for inclination increase that
are neither better nor worse than arguments for decreasing ISS'
inclination. And in a discussion about a possible plane change of ISS
(NOT 'ASS') every argument counts the same.

I have thought about it. A higher inclination makes all the current
problems worse (and probably makes it uninhabitable from a radiation
standpoint). The only benefit is the ability to see more of the
earth. How much more should I think about it, and why? Where's the
pot at the end of *that* rainbow?

I suppose You don't see the point...

I certainly don't see yours.

I would say, that is the point of view. Inability to view things from
"outside" occurs. But sometimes one simply has to learn, that such a
view _exists_. IMHO you have a significant deficit in your viewpoint
options. Sorry for the obvious necessity to write that to you -
normally I enjoy your comments and very often can agree with them
without any pita - but this time I simply have to disagree.

Yes, I know that you disagree, but you haven't offered any actual
arguments.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:43:57 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Jorge R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So, for an inclination of 28.8 degrees, you're looking at a delta-V of
3.03 km/s at an altitude of 410 km (the Progress rendezvous ceiling),
which works out to 148 Progresses. Going to 40 degrees cuts the
requirement to 82 Progresses.

If you were serious about this, you'd develop one with more propellant
capacity (I think there are some on the drawing boards).

Right, one M1 variant, and another called "Progress X" that would have been
launched on a Zenit.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

h (Rand Simberg) writes:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:08:30 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Chris Jones made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Why is that worse that stealing your money to pay for the current
scheme?

No, but given that the money is going to continue to be stolen;

Stealing something means taking contrary to law.

No, it means taking something that doesn't belong to you without
consent. There are many forms of legalized theft.

Ahem. Sez you. Sez the dictionary, "without right or permission",
which means permission isn't needed if you have the right. Stealing is
synonymous with theft, which is the felonious taking and removing, and
felonious means contrary to law. You may think stealing means something
else, but you would be wrong.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:03:42 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Chris Jones made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Stealing something means taking contrary to law.

No, it means taking something that doesn't belong to you without
consent. There are many forms of legalized theft.

Ahem. Sez you. Sez the dictionary, "without right or permission",
which means permission isn't needed if you have the right.

Ever hear of "inalienable rights"?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message ...
...is the title of this week's Fox News column, in which I discuss the
difference between the Russian and American space programs, and
propose moving ISS into a useful orbit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102931,00.html

Good idea to move it into a useful orbit. This project would also give
us electrical propulsion:

1. Don't underplay the Russians. They're the only ones who can
reliably get humans to the ISS.
2. Why stop at 28 degrees. Why not move it into an equatorial orbit,
which is surely best for reaching the moon.

"Alex Terrell" wrote ...
Good idea to move it into a useful orbit. This project would also give
us electrical propulsion:

I thought the difficulties involved in getting confused between a technology
programme and actual usage was made clear in X-38 / 'VentureStar'

Testing & developing electro-tether propulsion technology = Good idea.
Basing ISS policy now on its full scale implementation and use = Bad idea.

1. Don't underplay the Russians. They're the only ones who can
reliably get humans to the ISS.
.... for the next N months.

2. Why stop at 28 degrees. Why not move it into an equatorial orbit,
which is surely best for reaching the moon.

The ISS isn't designed as a stop-over for Moon trips.
If human missions to the Moon are on the cards then _if required_ a
station designed for that job would be better than making do on ISS.
Personally I'm not convinced that it would be required.

(Alex Terrell) wrote:
1. Don't underplay the Russians. They're the only ones who can
reliably get humans to the ISS.

A single booster explosion or major failure of the orbiter could
change that. The Russian program's reliability and safety record is
not better than the Shuttles, and in some ways it's worse.

2. Why stop at 28 degrees. Why not move it into an equatorial orbit,
which is surely best for reaching the moon.

One would be better to build a seperate station for that purpose (IIS
Beta) and reserve Alpha for orbital science. (The science does need
to be done, Alpha is just not the best platform as currently planned
and operated.)

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.