simonbp - 27/12/2006 10:04 PMQuoteBill White - 27/12/2006 9:26 PMIf your target is EML-1 or EML-2, I recall reading somewhere that the LEO inclination is not a significant issue. True?That makes sense geometrically, even for Earth-Sun L2, as the trajectory is the same either way.The question, though, is if you are sending something (like a giant telescope) out into deep space, why you would even stop at LEO, even if you are using electric propulsion? The only reason that I can think of is to assemble the spacecraft, before attaching an ion drive to it and sending it off. Being in LEO, you could use astronauts to simplify assembly, but what real benefit (performance issues aside) is there to assembling something at ISS, as opposed to free-flying? Wouldn't it even be safer for ISS if the assembly is done far away from it (less risk of collisions, debris)?Again, I can see the benefits of LEO assembly, but I don't understand why ISS is good place to do it...Simon
Bill White - 27/12/2006 9:26 PMIf your target is EML-1 or EML-2, I recall reading somewhere that the LEO inclination is not a significant issue. True?
publiusr - 5/1/2007 12:21 PMISS is already aging. It is in an orbit that robs exploration craft of extra velocity and that amounts to tons of payload lost. Ares V/DIRECT are perfect for a space station replacement with a better inclination. It allows fewer assmbly missions and allows assmbled items to grow much faster than those made with this insipid "no-more-than-20-tons-to-LEO-per-launch" people are fixated upon.Five Ares Vs (Energiya) launches and ISS would have been done---and most of its life span would have been given over to actual research and not tedious assembly missions. Why is that so hard to understand?
wingod - 6/1/2007 12:36 AMI repeat ISS IS PAID FOR, what part of this escapes the attention of anyone who looks at the upcoming NASA budget?
simonbp - 6/1/2007 10:52 AMQuotewingod - 6/1/2007 12:36 AMI repeat ISS IS PAID FOR, what part of this escapes the attention of anyone who looks at the upcoming NASA budget?But again, I understand why you would assemble something in LEO - it's a very convient place - but why ISS specifically? If you lob piece A of your uber-telescope into a nice, stable orbit, and then fly up with piece B, C, etc, and slap them on, how is that less convieniet than doing exactly the same thing at ISS? Would it not be safer to do assembly away from ISS, just in case something goes wrong? I mean isn't this how ISS was built in the first place?Simon
meiza - 6/1/2007 7:17 PMThe problem with shuttle is that since it's a very heavy vehicle, the 6% eats into the top section, the payload, a lot more than with an EELV...
wingod - 7/1/2007 1:06 AMYou could not launch ISS elements with an EELV either.
nisse - 7/1/2007 12:45 PMQuotewingod - 7/1/2007 1:06 AMYou could not launch ISS elements with an EELV either.But it is possible to do so with a Proton.
simonbp - 6/1/2007 10:52 AMBut again, I understand why you would assemble something in LEO - it's a very convient place - but why ISS specifically?
Nyarlathotep - 10/1/2007 1:36 AMI would have thought a small bigelow module at ~29 degrees would be ideal.
publiusr - 2/2/2007 3:17 PMThe very large space based radars discussed in the Late Jan 07 issues of Space News would also be perfect for Ares V. But the anti-space folks are sure to nix (or shrink) those in favor of more planes for the air-force's pilot's union.
publiusr - 2/2/2007 4:13 PM"Little-use" to find mobile WMDs? Sure Jim, anything you say.
publiusr - 3/2/2007 1:38 PMThis article was written by Ben Iannotta after an interview with Michael Zatman, DARPA's ISAT program manager. "Calculations showed that the radar antennas would need to be 300 metres long and up to 10 metres wide."Jim, this would be **perfect** for Ares V. "The stowing and deployment concepts showed promise..."This may or may not have fit on Delta IV. Something similar for Ares V may also be good for space based solar satellite deployment.The same kind of folks who made Pete Worden's life miserable.
Jim - 3/2/2007 5:47 PMQuotepubliusr - 3/2/2007 1:38 PMThis article was written by Ben Iannotta after an interview with Michael Zatman, DARPA's ISAT program manager. "Calculations showed that the radar antennas would need to be 300 metres long and up to 10 metres wide."Jim, this would be **perfect** for Ares V. "The stowing and deployment concepts showed promise..."This may or may not have fit on Delta IV. Something similar for Ares V may also be good for space based solar satellite deployment.The same kind of folks who made Pete Worden's life miserable.No it wouldn't *perfect* for Ares V. Ares V costs too much. Anyways, that could fit on an EELV, no need for the overkill ARES VPete Worden is the not the person you think he is. He wasn't even in the "in crowd" of USAF Space. NRO crowd is who rules the roost and always had. That's where the great USAF space leaders work
wingod - 3/2/2007 11:53 PMlafI guess that is why Pete Worden's former deputy is the head of technology at NRO now.I guess that is why Pete is the head of the independent review team of Orbital Express.Funny how that works.