|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Saving that Recon. Satelite
Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any
shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to earth to fix it? Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put simply, I really can't understand why it can't be done. Mark |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Saving that Recon. Satelite
"Mark Kelep" writes:
Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to earth to fix it? Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put simply, I really can't understand why it can't be done. Among other technical reasons perhaps, there's the adminsitrative one that I don't think the Shuttle does military missions (anymore? vague recollections that it once did). And satellite capture and repair I beleive has long been eschewed as too dangerous and/or not of sufficient cost/benefit to deploy a shuttle to do? I can't speak authoritatively to any of that, but these are pieces I can fit together as possible reaasons based on history. Others surely will know more. -- -- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Saving that Recon. Satelite
"Todd H." wrote in message
... "Mark Kelep" writes: Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to earth to fix it? Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put simply, I really can't understand why it can't be done. Among other technical reasons perhaps, there's the adminsitrative one that I don't think the Shuttle does military missions (anymore? vague recollections that it once did). It did once, no longer does. Could again. Finding a crew with the requisite clearance levels probably wouldn't be too hard. And satellite capture and repair I beleive has long been eschewed as too dangerous and/or not of sufficient cost/benefit to deploy a shuttle to do? It's difficult and has been done with essentially dead satellites (which are harder because they may be tumbling). No real reason it couldn't be done here. However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. The satellite as I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be impossible to reach with the Shuttle from KSC. I can't speak authoritatively to any of that, but these are pieces I can fit together as possible reaasons based on history. Others surely will know more. -- -- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ -- Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Saving that Recon. Satelite
On Feb 19, 12:28�pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote: "Todd H." wrote in message ... "Mark Kelep" writes: Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to earth to fix it? Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put simply, I really can't understand why it can't be done. Among other technical reasons perhaps, there's the adminsitrative one that I don't think the Shuttle does military missions (anymore? �vague recollections that it once did). It did once, no longer does. �Could again. �Finding a crew with the requisite �clearance levels probably wouldn't be too hard. And satellite capture and repair I beleive has long been eschewed as too dangerous and/or not of sufficient cost/benefit to deploy a shuttle to do? It's difficult and has been done with essentially dead satellites (which are harder because they may be tumbling). �No real reason it couldn't be done here. However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. �The satellite as I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be impossible to reach with the Shuttle from KSC. I can't speak authoritatively to any of that, but these are pieces I can fit together as possible reaasons based on history. � Others surely will know more. -- -- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ -- Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting � � � � � Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql �(at) �greenms.com � � � � �http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html too bad they never built that much talked about space tug, otherwise known as a tow truck. think of how many uses it could of had, begining with saving skylab for reuse, ending with either dropping this dead bird in the pacific or putting it into a long term staorage orbit. so many practical uses. build a enhanced version and go retrieve that apollo descent module snoopy, now theres a long term test. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Saving that Recon. Satelite
"bob haller safety advocate" wrote in message ... On Feb 19, 12:28?pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: "Todd H." wrote in message ... "Mark Kelep" writes: Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to earth to fix it? Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put simply, I really can't understand why it can't be done. Among other technical reasons perhaps, there's the adminsitrative one that I don't think the Shuttle does military missions (anymore? ?vague recollections that it once did). It did once, no longer does. ?Could again. ?Finding a crew with the requisite ?clearance levels probably wouldn't be too hard. And satellite capture and repair I beleive has long been eschewed as too dangerous and/or not of sufficient cost/benefit to deploy a shuttle to do? It's difficult and has been done with essentially dead satellites (which are harder because they may be tumbling). ?No real reason it couldn't be done here. However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. ?The satellite as I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be impossible to reach with the Shuttle from KSC. I can't speak authoritatively to any of that, but these are pieces I can fit together as possible reaasons based on history. ? Others surely will know more. -- -- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ -- Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting ? ? ? ? ? Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql ?(at) ?greenms.com ? ? ? ? ?http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html too bad they never built that much talked about space tug, otherwise known as a tow truck. think of how many uses it could of had, begining with saving skylab for reuse, ending with either dropping this dead bird in the pacific or putting it into a long term staorage orbit. so many practical uses. build a enhanced version and go retrieve that apollo descent module snoopy, now theres a long term test. I get it, it's just that this Sat. has deadly fuel and high tech image hardware and software that I would never believe that they wouldn't do it if they could, Military or not. Mark |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Saving that Recon. Satelite
"Mark Kelep" wrote in message ... Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to earth to fix it? Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put simply, I really can't understand why it can't be done. NASA doesn't have bungee cords strong enough to hold it in the payload bay. :-) Seriously though, I doubt if the failed satellite was designed for shuttle recovery (i.e. has an RMS grapple fixture on it and has the necessary hardware to securely latch in the shuttle's payload bay). Add that to the fact that since it's dead, it has a tank full of frozen hydrazine and would likely be a hazard even if it could easily be secured in the payload bay. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Saving that Recon. Satelite
Mark Kelep was zeer hard aan het denken :
"bob haller safety advocate" wrote in message ... On Feb 19, 12:28?pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: "Todd H." wrote in message ... any It did once, no longer does. ?Could again. ?Finding a crew with the requisite ?clearance levels probably wouldn't be too hard. It's difficult and has been done with essentially dead satellites (which are harder because they may be tumbling). ?No real reason it couldn't be done here. However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. ?The satellite as I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be impossible to reach with the Shuttle from KSC. http://toddh.net/ -- Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting ? ? ? ? ? Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql ?(at) ?greenms.com ? ? ? ? ?http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html too bad they never built that much talked about space tug, otherwise known as a tow truck. think of how many uses it could of had, begining with saving skylab for reuse, ending with either dropping this dead bird in the pacific or putting it into a long term staorage orbit. Originally, one of the first shuttle missions was to dock with SkyLab. This never happened because SkyLab burnt up over western Australia 2 years before the first shuttle launch was ever possible. Also the first shuttle launch was delayed a few years (technical and/or budgetary reasons). snip/snap André |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Saving that Recon. Satelite
"Mark Kelep" wrote in
: I get it, it's just that this Sat. has deadly fuel and high tech image hardware and software that I would never believe that they wouldn't do it if they could, Military or not. There's no real cost benefit in doing so, when the development cost of the tug and its logistics are considered. Eventually there may be a sufficient demand and market, and technological convergence to make such a service more cost-effective. It could be argued that a relatively simple de-orbit system for the big chunks IS desirable. --Damon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Saving that Recon. Satelite
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Todd H." wrote in message ... "Mark Kelep" writes: Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to earth to fix it? Yes, I am expecting a major attack from some of you people, but put simply, I really can't understand why it can't be done. Among other technical reasons perhaps, there's the adminsitrative one that I don't think the Shuttle does military missions (anymore? vague recollections that it once did). It did once, no longer does. Could again. Finding a crew with the requisite clearance levels probably wouldn't be too hard. Finding a flight control team with the requisite clearance levels would be. They'd have to be cleared at least Secret just to know the payload's envelope, appendages, and mass properties, things they would absolutely need to know to conduct the mission safely. Ditto the Mission Control Center. The old MCC used FCR-2 for DoD flights and it was on a separate floor from the other control rooms with its own card readers. The current MCC has all the control rooms on the same floor and there is no easy way to secure them (especially the MPSRs, which are now out on the open floor) from each other. Since ISS is a 24/7 operation with international partners involved, that would be problematic for security. And satellite capture and repair I beleive has long been eschewed as too dangerous and/or not of sufficient cost/benefit to deploy a shuttle to do? It's difficult and has been done with essentially dead satellites (which are harder because they may be tumbling). No real reason it couldn't be done here. Returning it might be dangerous. It's unlikely to have grapple fixtures or trunnion pins. A support cradle would likely need to be fabricated to support it, and there just isn't time to design, build, and qualify one. If you were going to send a shuttle regardless, it would be better to just have it attach a deorbit motor. However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. The satellite as I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be impossible to reach with the Shuttle from KSC. Not really. It's only 58.5. The operational limit from KSC is 57 but that can be exceeded using a dogleg, like STS-36 used to reach 62 degrees. That carries a payload penalty, but the upmass for such a mission would likely be pretty light anyway. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Saving that Recon. Satelite
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Returning it might be dangerous. It's unlikely to have grapple fixtures or trunnion pins. A support cradle would likely need to be fabricated to support it, and there just isn't time to design, build, and qualify one. If you were going to send a shuttle regardless, it would be better to just have it attach a deorbit motor. Say they tethered the satellite to the shuttle. Could they fire the OMS engines to cause satellite to begin de-orbit to target the pacific ocean and then once satellite is released, fire OMS engines again, this time to re-accelerate shuttle so its de-orbit would bring it to KSC ? After they would first fire the OMS engines, how long would the shuttle have to unhook the satellite and fire OMS again to delay its re-entry ? Would such a manoeuver be considered extremely risky (if OMS don't light up second time, shuttle would ditch in pacific), or would it be considered feasable by the crews ? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
shootin down that recon satellite | Todd H. | Space Shuttle | 40 | March 1st 08 12:37 PM |
Satelite eccentricity | Frank | Astronomy Misc | 11 | August 3rd 06 05:30 PM |
universal picture in satelite | Andrew Heseltine | Misc | 2 | July 9th 05 11:29 PM |
turn off your satelite nasa | |-|erc | Misc | 0 | July 31st 03 12:14 PM |
Which satelite did I see? | jj | Satellites | 2 | July 15th 03 07:36 PM |