A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old December 29th 12, 05:14 AM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

On Dec 28, 9:17*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 27, 3:46*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 79c8cd29-02da-4198-94e2-
, says...


On Dec 27, 11:27*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:


Still all irrelevant to your prior claims about 'tumbling' and 'out of
control'. *It took it YEARS to come down after it was abandoned, so an
'urgent emergency launch' system that could launch in a year or so
would have been more than adequate to the task.


So why do we need your proposed 'urgent launch' system, again?


a non controlled ISS will tumble because of varying drag largely from
solar panels...... but also from its general shape


You've certainly not "done the math" to prove this assertion. *Do you
have a cite from someone who has "done the math"? *Also, just how long
would it take to build up a Salyut 7 sort of "tumble"?


And do note that in the case of Salyut 7, a Soyuz was still able to
successfully dock to the powerless, tumbling, station almost a full *3
months* after ground control lost contact with it. *Also note that it
didn't "fall out of the sky" during that time, even though it was
without power and could not re-boost itself! *Cite:


* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_7


Again, history does *not* support your "quick launch" argument in the
least.


station needs regular re boosts because of atmosphere drag at it
realtively low orbit.... choosen so both russia and US can reach it.
the orbit selected was a compromise that really constrained shuttle,
most modules were lofted empty because of weight, later missions took
the racks


Even if all re-boost capability were lost, ISS would take quite a long
time to reenter. *Cite:


* *http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/WeekAK.pdf


Worst case scenario (high solar activity year like the year 2000) would
still take ISS *over a year* for its orbit to decay.


In the real world, "quick launch" is simply *not* needed for this,
highly unlikely, scenario.


once the tumble is bad enough it will be impossible to dock with ISS,
the large structure could hit the vehicle aattempting to dock, plus if
the tumble gets bad enough parts will rip off the station, think
modules.


Go do the math on just how bad that tumble would have to be before
'parts will rip off the station' and calculate how many YEARS you have
before that happens.



now i hope nothing bad ever occurs, but if and when it does we can
discuss this again..


personally given russias recent record i think a soyuz failure should
be expected..... now wether fast launch will help who knows but it
sure cant hurt.......


Of course it can hurt! *You can waste so much money doing it that
missions just don't happen.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn


a few years ago florida and nasa were looking at fast launch to orbit
for communication sats, in case of a failure. at the time the idea was
to keep some sats in long term storage,ready for launch within
days....

currently they try to have some extra sats in orbit in case of
emergency, however often the sats are near end of life and have
problems
  #152  
Old December 29th 12, 03:32 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

well looks like nasa wants to move a asteroid, like I posted about
recently. in this case they want to use it as a new station or
base....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml
 




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
Military Space Plane = Space life boat? David E. Powell Space Shuttle 247 December 9th 09 07:20 AM
Around the world, organized military forces of governments have manydifferent types of military uniforms that they wear. Clearly being one of thefounding fathers of the uniform, the militaries of countries have contributedgreatly towards what constit [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 April 20th 08 06:44 PM
A New Military Space Age Rand Simberg Policy 6 January 23rd 07 04:17 PM
A New Military Space Age Rand Simberg History 6 January 23rd 07 04:17 PM
Predicted space progress Kevin McCarthy Policy 4 January 9th 04 06:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 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.