|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
"Maarten" 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 ? Too low an orbit and there is too much air drag on the spacecraft, so that its orbit decays too rapidly. Too high, and it gets into the lower fringes of the van Allen radiation belt, which is not healthy for either the crews or the electronics. Finally, 90 minutes divides evenly into 24 hrs, and it might be operationally convienient for there to be roughly an integer number of orbits per workday... -- Gordon D. Pusch perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;' |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
"Maarten" wrote in message li.nl...
So my question is, why this preference for 400 km and why isn't it an orbit of 250km or 600km or even more ? 250km would see a lot of atmospheric drag and require considerably more rocket boosts to keep the station in orbit. 600km would make it somewhat more costly (in terms of fuel) to lift components and supplies to the station. The shuttle has been pushed to near its limit to reach 400km with some of the larger station components, particularly because of the high inclination of the station's orbit. Even higher orbits start getting into the radiation belts. So, 400km is a happy balance. Mike Miller, Materials Engineer |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
"Maarten" 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 If the orbit is too low, there would be more atmospheric drag on the station, causing the orbit to decay faster (and necessitating more frequent reboosts). If it's too high, you run into the problem of performance--the vehicles you're flying to the station (Shuttle and Soyuz and Progress) can't get that high with a reasonable payload. And past that, you would start to run into radiation problems (Van Allen belts). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations
"Maarten" 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 ? I answered this already but somehow the message got lost. Anywho, short answer: it's the Russians. The Soyuz and Progress spacecraft have a maximum altitude of somewhere around 425 km, so the station can't stay above there. Even though higher altitudes and fewer reboosts would be preferable. |
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 |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
basic question on orbits of space ships/stations | Maarten | Space Station | 7 | April 24th 04 03:48 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |