Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Kind of launch from space station

Kind of launch from space station

Posted by: Ekkehard Augustin - Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:59 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 42 posts ] 
Kind of launch from space station 
Author Message
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:07 pm
I consciously used the word spiraling because that is just what happens in the special case of a satellite orbiting the Earth low enough to experience some small drag due to the thin upper atmosphere.

The first sentence of the introduction in this document
http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educatio ... ations.pdf
says,
"Low Earth orbiting satellites experience orbital decay and have physical lifetimes determined almost entirely by their interaction with the atmosphere."

Of course this does not happen in other cases, such as geosynchronous orbit, lunar orbit or solar orbit, because there is no atmosphere.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:55 pm
Dont go there. :!:

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:56 am
Peter: you are not allowed to use words like "spiral", "orbital", or "mechanics" anywhere in any of your posts, remember? :P :wink:

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:05 am
There is a german article published in the last few years by which a german Professor of Aeronautics explains that satellites would gather above the Himalaya because of the gravitational impact of the Himalaya. The professor explicitly say that ion engines are used to countertact that gravitational impact and that computers are used to keep the consumption of propellant as low as possible by measuring deviations and switching on the ion engines as once as a certain degree of deviation is detected.

As far as I remember - I am reporting what I remember - the staellites considered were TV-satellites.

This then should be valid for orbital spaceports, space stations, orbital assembly yrds etc. too.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:04 pm
spacecowboy wrote:
Peter: you are not allowed to use words like "spiral", "orbital", or "mechanics" anywhere in any of your posts, remember? :P :wink:

Censorship! Thought police! To you I say
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Image
:wink:


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:27 pm
LOL. Touché!

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:16 am
Posts: 322
Post    Posted on: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:05 pm
Oh not to be nitpicky, but there is no way a human could throw a nanosatellite into a retrograde orbit. A retrograde orbit circles the earth in the exact opposite direction of a "normal" orbit. There aren't many true retrograde orbits because they don't take advantage of the earth's spin.

Israel's lv is the only rocket I can think of that specifically launched into retrograde. The cosmonaut would have had to have thrown hard enough to arrest all velocity in the nanosatellite AND make it then achieve retrograde orbital velocity before it fell back into the atmosphere. THAT would be an interesting throw.


Back to top
Profile YIM
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:23 pm
So that's what, something like 34,000 mph? Hell, I'm sure we could get one of those Cuban baseball players up there and let 'em do it! :shock:

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:18 pm
The Astros heard this thread--see, Johnson Space Center called the 'stros and Clemens was trying to fast ball ISS orbit up a bit.

It's how he hurt his arm, or so my KGB contacts tell me. :o

Da Svidanya.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:16 am
Posts: 322
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:30 pm
and yet he will never be as famous as Superman's retrograde orbit which somehow reversed time on Earth.


Back to top
Profile YIM
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:42 pm
This issue of popular science has something similar--time travel without a wormhole!


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:25 pm
Bah, child's play!

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:14 pm
In this thread a space assembly yrad has been discussed in short - from my point of view the article "Robotic Space Spiders To Crawl Sub-Orbital Web" ( www.space.com/businesstechnology/techno ... 51221.html ) seems to fit into that discussion (but also into the Spacedocks-thread).

Close to its end it says that
Quote:
Large communications satellites and other structures could be built by ground control on an initial lattice structure.


Small robots would create a web to be used for building the satellites and other structures.

Are there obstacles for these other structures being vehicles?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:34 am
On Friday there was an interesting article under www.marssociety.de talking about confusion about the russian intents in space. The confusion is caused by Roskosmos talking differently than RKK Energija - the two seem to tend to contradict each other.

The german article is reporting details from RKK Energija and I think these are designs and concepts merely than contradiction to Roskosmo.

I will have to read the article several times because there is more in it than only soemthing interesting regarding this thread.

The interesting point for this thread is that according to the article RKK Energija has in mind to use the russion ISS-module as "Montageplatz" for a so-called "Interorbital-Complex" prior to a lunar flight.

"Montageplatz" I would translate as "assembly yard".

I seem to remeber that Any Hill talked about such a yard in this thread but that's not the major reason tompost this here. The major reason is that I can't but understand "Interorbital-Complex as a vehicle at present - and this vehicle will have to be launched from the ISS then since it would be assembled there.

...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:01 pm
I've also heard that when the US finally gives up on completing the ISS, the Russians intend to detach some of their modules, attach them to a propulsion module and use it as a Mars Crew transport.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use