From Russia, Without Love

....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

--
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:

...is the title of this week's Fox News column, in which I discuss the
difference between the Russian and American space programs,

A meaningless discussion since it compares a Russian self-evaluation
with a critical external review of the American program. Apples and
oranges.

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.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

...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.

Thanks for the ad.


Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

Even if the Russkis could launch Soyuz out of Kourou to an ISS at 28
degrees, there's no way they could dock with ISS without visibility to
Russian ground stations, which all are at 51.6 degrees or higher
latitude.

Besides, in a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, the
idea of sending multi-ton propellant tanks to dock with ISS is
ludricrous.

Well, I guess there must be some way to get ISS away from the grubby
hands of those capitalist Russians, so they can't pull any more Dennis
Tito stunts.



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

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

I liked the discussion of the Russian vs. NASA culture.

As for changing the inclination, it is an interesting idea. Chemical
rockets obviously wouldn't do it for anything close to $1 billion.
But something like an ion engine, or the tether suggested in
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/58/1 might be doable for a
budget more in the $1 billion range.

According to my Isakowitz, Japan's H II can launch to inclinations of
28.5 to 100 degrees, and launches from a latitude of about 30 degrees,
so they could presumably make the change with no decrease in payload.
Likewise for Europe who launches from near the equator.

And then the Russians. There's the question of whether the Kourou
launches will really happen, and if so what would be involved in doing
crewed launches too. And the financial/political questions. For the
moment, it would seem that NASA needs the Russians as much as vice
versa, although of course whether that will change remains to be seen.

But back to the inclination: the next question is whether earth
observation is a viable mission for ISS. At first glance, it would
seem absurd: we have various earth observing satellites, and ISS isn't
a particularly good place to mount a remotely operated instrument
(because of attitude control, vibration, etc). The flip side,
however, is that ISS astronauts have apparently sometimes been the
first to discover volcanic eruptions and the like (e.g.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/images/eol/2003/anatahan.html ). Whether this
is really a reason to be doing these ISS observation missions isn't
clear, but then again that problem also exists for the competing ISS
missions (microgravity research, staging area for moon base, develop
technology for human spaceflight, etc).

Excuse me, but what is a "recovering aerospace engineer"?
That was in your bio at the bottom of the article.

Eric


Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: ...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

: --
: 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

By my figuring, it would take 322 tonnes of storable
propellant (OMS-type, ISP=316 sec) to impose the
suggested 3,100 meter per second plane change on the
187 tonne ISS. It would take 14 EELV Heavy or 17 STS
launches just to haul up the propellant! A bit more
than $1 billion for that. Probably cheaper to put a
completely new space station into the 28 degree orbit.

- Ed Kyle

On or about Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:53:08 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
made the sensational claim that:
Excuse me, but what is a "recovering aerospace engineer"?

I expect it's a lot like a recovering alcoholic.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:37:40 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Even if the Russkis could launch Soyuz out of Kourou to an ISS at 28
degrees,

Why in the world could they not?

there's no way they could dock with ISS without visibility to
Russian ground stations, which all are at 51.6 degrees or higher
latitude.

Really?

Besides, in a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, the
idea of sending multi-ton propellant tanks to dock with ISS is
ludricrous.

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

Well, I guess there must be some way to get ISS away from the grubby
hands of those capitalist Russians, so they can't pull any more Dennis
Tito stunts.

laughing

--
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 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:25:02 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Jim Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

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

I liked the discussion of the Russian vs. NASA culture.

As for changing the inclination, it is an interesting idea. Chemical
rockets obviously wouldn't do it for anything close to $1 billion.

I think they would actually, as long as you purchased from the
Russians. Of course, after the first few, you'd have to launch them
from Kourou, but as I understand, that deal only costs about three
hundred million or so.

--
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: