 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2008Saving 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 > 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.  Signature-- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ >> Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any >> shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html On Feb 19, 12:28�pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: > >> Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any > >> shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 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. On Feb 19, 12:28?pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: > "Todd H." <t...@toddh.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > 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 Mark Kelep was zeer hard aan het denken : > On Feb 19, 12:28?pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > 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 > 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). Not quite. It was to bring up a module that would have remotely docked with Skylab. The shuttle itself would not have docked with Skylab. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/skyodule.htm >><snip/snap> > > André > 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 Yes, I think its high time to design some form of space tug, but the stumbling block always has been access to the fuel to allow change of orbit inclination and heights so it could get to anywhere to make it worthwhile. No filling stations in orbit (yet) Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ On Feb 19, 12:28?pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: > "Todd H." <t...@toddh.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > 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. >>> Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any >>> shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. > 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 ? > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > up second time, shuttle would ditch in pacific), or would it be > considered feasable by the crews ? Not viable the thrusting would make the satellite sling around and hit the orbiter > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from each other. Since ISS is a 24/7 operation with international partners > involved, that would be problematic for security. Hadn't even thought about that. All good points. (Reminds me of a buddy in college who wasn't told what he was working on, but knew all the mass properties of the satellite. :-) > Returning it might be dangerous. It's unlikely to have grapple fixtures or > trunnion pins. True, but this wouldn't be the first such satellite we've done that for. > 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. Less "impressive" though perhaps good practice for the Hubble mission. >> However, the more fundamental reason is orbital mechanics. The satellite >> as I recall is in such a high inclination orbit that it would be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > carries a payload penalty, but the upmass for such a mission would likely > be pretty light anyway. Hmm, my bad, for some reason I thought it was closer to a polar orbit. I'd agree 58.5 isn't that bad from KSC for a light payload. (Not like you'd need much mass for this mission.) Thanks for correcting me Jorge. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html > 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 SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > 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. Atlantis is in an orbit that is nearly 8 degrees lower in inclination than the NROL-21 satellite, and it would be impossible due to the fuel requirements for the orbiter to effect such a signficant plane change in order to reach the satellite (also dropping in altitude signficantly from ISS' 183 nautical mile one). Atlantis could have been launched to either NROL-21 or to ISS, but not both. Other folks, like Jorge, have already mentioned other practical reasons why it cannot be done, but the plane change issue is essentially the one big insurmountable one. -Mike Well, I think it would not fit in the cargo bay due to its dimensions. The orbit is a bit odd for a Shuttle as well as I recall. Also, nobody knows why it died, it might itself already be mechanically damaged, and thus dangerous. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Pardon my ignorance, but why exactly couldnt the shuttle Atlantis (or any > shuttle for that matter) collect the 'dead' satelite and return it to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mark Now that I think of it, the satellite cost about $500 million, and Shuttle launch is $500 million, so it is more economical to build another one. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.