Has anyone ever asked the Apollo astronauts what altitude was best for viewing the Earth? I imagine sitting in a lounger with a drink in my hand, looking out the picture window view port at the Earth. What hotel should I choose? The one located at LEO, half-synchronous, GEO, or high orbit?
Probably more like 50 feet MSL.
Has anyone ever asked the Apollo astronauts what altitude was best for viewing the Earth? I imagine sitting in a lounger with a drink in my hand, looking out the picture window view port at the Earth. What hotel should I choose? The one located at LEO, half-synchronous, GEO, or high orbit?
According to Heppenheimer,
Colonies in Space, Chapter 8: The Highest Home, the best orbit is a 2:1 resonant orbit. In
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/colonies_chap08.html he says,
"Such an orbit is the preferred one for the colony, since it can be reached from L2 with very low velocity and also reduces the velocity required to reach the colony from Earth."
The colony varies in distance from Earth from 100,000 to 200,000 miles.
Has anyone ever asked the Apollo astronauts what altitude was best for viewing the Earth? I imagine sitting in a lounger with a drink in my hand, looking out the picture window view port at the Earth. What hotel should I choose? The one located at LEO, half-synchronous, GEO, or high orbit?
LEO or high orbit.
Half-synchronous - within the Van Allen belts.
GEO - always looking at the same side of Earth.
View probably not a deciding factor,
You could fake a really hi-def view for a fraction of the cost. Stick with LEO, cheaper and safer, (and IMO best view anyway)
Actually, a full both-hemisphere panoramic view planetarium/cinema would be a cool feature of a zero-g space hotel. You could float in the middle of really high def views from flybys of mars, the moon, jupiter etc.
You just couldn't get that view on earth, not without hanging from a cable or something. It would be just like being there with the robotic craft.
I bet James Cameron or someone would love to put their name on that sort of technology.
I vaguely recall Bigelow was going to go with a 41 degree sun synchronous orbit. It gave you multiple launches each day from several US sites and gave you frequent overviews of some of the most populated (hence most potential customers homes) areas of earth during day light.
Didn't someone right a blog about it? Aaah my google foo is strong this morning:
http://selenianboondocks.com/2007/01/sundancer-orbital-trajectory-implications-part-one/
I vaguely recall Bigelow was going to go with a 41 degree sun synchronous orbit. It gave you multiple launches each day from several US sites and gave you frequent overviews of some of the most populated (hence most potential customers homes) areas of earth during day light.
Didn't someone right a blog about it? Aaah my google foo is strong this morning: http://selenianboondocks.com/2007/01/sundancer-orbital-trajectory-implications-part-one/
That's not sun-synchronous, it's repeat-groundtrack.
That's not sun-synchronous, it's repeat-groundtrack.
I claim by using the "vaguely recall" modifier I get a pass
You are right though...
That's not sun-synchronous, it's repeat-groundtrack.
I claim by using the "vaguely recall" modifier I get a pass You are right though...
Pass granted
... just didn't want anyone thinking a 41-degree sun-synch orbit was even possible.
From the article linked above:
So, the main reasons Bigelow and Lockheed are pursuing a 41 degree orbit for Sundancer are:
- Providing a good view for customers, and tracking from US mainland sites
- Avoiding unsafe abort locations during launches to it from Cape Canaveral
- Allowing for daily launch opportunities from Cape Canaveral, and multiple daily landing opportunities at US sites, even with low-cross range capsules
You are right though...
... just didn't want anyone thinking a 41-degree sun-synch orbit was even possible.