|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born?
Pat Flannery wrote in
: Herb Schaltegger wrote: Interestingly, at the tail end of Space Station Freedom, as it was morphing through Space Station Alpha on it's way to ISS, the final "restructure/rephase" was to consider the option of using a Lockheed-designed "service module" to perform the task later given to FGB. It was not divulged how and why Lockheed had designed such a module nor were we encouraged to ask; it was enough that we were told: "It works and this is what it can do . . ." Obviously (moreso now than in the summer of 1993), this was a core vehicle used for various classified NRO payloads that NASA was essentially begging for permission to use for early attitude and orbital control. This probably gives the recon satellites the ability to change their orbital parameters on-station; both to evade interception and to make their time of passage over interesting photo targets less predictable. More the latter than the former; neither superpower actually deployed ASAT capability. But photorecon birds are generally in sun-synchronous orbits, so that their passage over a given target is near the same local time every day. That makes photo analysis easier but also makes overflights predictable. As you say, periodic maneuvers will change the overflight times. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It WasBorn?
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Should be an interesting story why NASA preferred to deal with NRL vice Lockheed. A story that you will likely never hear. Brett |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born?
Brett Buck wrote in :
Jorge R. Frank wrote: Should be an interesting story why NASA preferred to deal with NRL vice Lockheed. A story that you will likely never hear. It depends on how long I live. The stories behind Corona and Discoverer have been declassified after 40 years; if this story comes out after the same interval, I'll be in my 70's. I figure I have a decent shot. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born?
In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote: Interestingly, in 1997, when NASA was looking for backup options in the event the Russians failed to launch the ISS service module, rather than going back to Lockheed/Bus-1, they went to the Naval Research Laboratory and their Interim Control Module (ICM). Like Bus-1, ICM is a propulsion module used on some top-secret NRO birds, and was designed to be compatible with both the Space Shuttle and Titan launch vehicles. And TLD (Titan Launch Dispenser -- it was built to deploy multi-bird ocean-surveillance satellite constellations) was a particularly strange choice for the ICM application, because TLD was spin-stabilized! It would have needed some serious changes to become ICM. NASA *really* didn't want to deal with Lockheed and/or NRO for some reason. -- MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born?
In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote: This probably gives the recon satellites the ability to change their orbital parameters on-station; both to evade interception and to make their time of passage over interesting photo targets less predictable. More the latter than the former; neither superpower actually deployed ASAT capability. Actually, both superpowers had some limited ASAT capability (the US via the nuclear-tipped Thors on Johnston Island) deployed at times. But it never became a big factor in military satellite design. -- MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born?
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Does this refer to Polyus? Yes indeed -- artwork at Khrunichev showed soyuz docking missions, and options for man-tended operations. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It WasBorn?
Jorge R. Frank wrote: More the latter than the former; neither superpower actually deployed ASAT capability. We deployed one under Program 437; it was based on Thor missiles and was deployed at Johnston Atoll from 1963-1975; there is a PDF on it he http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aup...F_Bin/chun.pdf The Pentagon sure thought that the Soviet system was operational, if "Soviet Military Power-1986" is anything to go by: http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_86_ch3.htm ....their drawing in the book shows five ready-to-go ASATs being housed in a hanger at Tyuratam: http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/86_48.jpg Pat |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born?
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... It's fascinating to speculate what would have happened it Polyus got successfully into orbit, rather than malfunctioning and heading into the ocean- I get the impression that the militarization of space would have started pronto. Agreed, it might have set off all the wrong sort of 'space race'. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born?
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... I don't think they were *forced* to do it, so much as they found it a more attractive alternative. The FGB module had in-orbit refueling capability, had rather more ACS authority than the Lockheed bus (which was marginal in this area and might have needed upgrading), and looked cheaper. Moreover, NASA historically has been very reluctant to get involved with highly classified stuff, just because it is so much hassle. The cheaper option was to launch SM first, or use Mir as the assembly 'construction shack'. Neither would have passed congress, or public opinion. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born?
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Should be an interesting story why NASA preferred to deal with NRL vice Lockheed. Might have had something to do with the fact that the NRL is a govermental organization, and Lockheed isn't. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born? | JimO | Space Station | 24 | November 29th 03 12:37 AM |
International Space Station Crews Mark Three Years Aboard | James Oberg | Policy | 22 | November 19th 03 02:06 PM |
NASA's International Space Station Science control center updates information technology while cutting costs | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | October 3rd 03 06:42 PM |
NASA Selects International Space Station Program Scientis | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 0 | August 20th 03 06:38 AM |