The link is saying that if the shuttle used all of its onboard propellant normally used for orbital operations (the SRBs are gone and the big orange tank has been jettisoned) - there would only be enough propellant to change the inclination by one degree (you can assume one continuous burn). Alternatively, this same amount of propellant could raise the orbit by 250 km. Just illustrating how inefficient out of plane burns are.
The velocity vector perpendicular to the original orbital plane is, in fact, still there. But that is with respect to the original orbital plane. By introducing a perpendicular component, you have defined a new orbital plane (which has zero out of plane velocity). It's not an instantaneous snap, it's gradual. Think of a ball rolling down the road with a cross wind. The ball will trace a curved path while the wind is present, as the perpendicular velocity increases. The wind in this case is just like firing an out of plane burn. The orbital inclination gradually changes as the engines are fired. If you look at the instantaneous orbit, you will never have an out of plane velocity component. But if you compare the new orbit to the original, then yes, there is an out of plane velocity difference.
found a good link that helps to put plane changes in perspective:
If you took all the fuel that the Shuttle has on board to adjust its flight orientation (attitude) plus all of the fuel it has to do adjustments to its orbit for a whole mission and used it for one plane change burn you would only get about a one degree change! If that same amount of fuel were used to increase the altitude of the Shuttle over the Earth the altitude could be raised by about 250 kilometers.
Keep in mind that the ISS and Shuttle planes were not 1 degree apart, but 12.6 deg. These numbers are for shuttle, but you would experience the same type of dramatic difference for Soyuz.
I understand. But I think people in general have been lulled into thinking that space flight is routine. We are just now developing a method for an on-orbit tile repair, so even that wasn't really possible at the time.
In my opinion, best case scenario, you use spy satellites to take images of the left wing leading edge and belly on flight day 2. Upon finding damage, you decide the next day to attempt to scramble a shuttle with a crew of 2 (we can bring 9 back). I believe the estimation was that we could get a shuttle up in 10 days, but you're running a huge risk by forgoing the normal safety checks required before flight. Mission control would have the extra stress of flying simultaneous shuttle missions - never been done before. You have the added risk of multiple space walks required to transfer crews (don't be lead to believe that these are a walk in the park either). And to top it all off, you run the risk of losing your rescue vehicle to boot. Would it be the right thing to do? Probably. Gotta wonder what the outcry would be if you lost 2 vehicles and 9 people!!
You mention that Soyuz was at a higher orbit, which means more energy. But that doesn't mean we can "coast" to a lower orbit at a different inclination - any change in your orbital geometry would have to come from a burn of some sort.
Future shuttle flights will probably be restricted to ISS inclinations, even if it's strictly a science mission as opposed to an ISS assembly mission, to save the possibility to dock and hang out if an emergency is encountered.
Yep, you're exactly right on how to change inclination. If you imagine your orbit as a plane, an out-of-plane burn causes your inclination to change. However, these burns are not efficient since you're also fighting angular momentum. Getting a little bit back on topic, in order to reduce heating loads and/or move the center of mass for re-entry, the space shuttle often will dump extra propellant. The best way to do this with minimum effect on the orbit geometry: you guessed it - an out-of-plane burn.
Soyuz rescue isn't a bad idea, but you'd be better off launching a fresh one as opposed to trying to undock from the station (which, on top of the propellant problem, you're also violating a flight rule for the station by leaving that crew without an escape vehicle). But the problem with launching a fresh Soyuz, assuming one could be scrambled quick enough, is that the Cosmodrome is at 51.6 deg N latitude. Due to that physical location, your orbital inclinations are restricted to 51.6 deg or higher (unless you waste fuel flying to 39 deg N then east) -- so you can't reach the 39 deg orbit that the shuttle is currently parked in. Did that make sense?
Changing orbital inclination requires an assload of propellant. The Soyuz does not have the reqd amount of prop to change the inclination from 51.6 deg (station inclination) to 39 deg (sts-107 inclination).
Also, Soyuz seats a maximum of 3, and it's a tight fit at that.
I guarantee there's more. I spent a couple weeks near Corsicana stomping through the woods looking for debris. Simply put: there are some places that were just too thick to be searched. Thorns, some 4 or 5 inches long, snakes, swamp land, and thicket. It seemed like an episode of candid camera - just amazing how everything had a thorn on it.
actually, i think the answer from the flight dynamics officers (FDO) was that yes, it would have been possible for the shuttle to reach the station...as long as they had about 125,000 lbs of propellant to do it!!! (i'm not sure of the exact mass properties, but i believe the amt of onboard propellant is much less than 10k lbs)
the best way to visualize this is to hold a bike tire by the axle and spin it. it's easy to translate up/down left/right, but when you attempt to change the direction that the axle points, there's a resistance, ie, angular momentum. same thing here. the axis of rotation for ISS points differently than what the shuttle was flying.
what are the odds some guy is getting hammered with his buddies right now, exchanging war stories, and jimbo shoots beer through his nose when he hears the story.
JB3 doesn't predate iPod which was release 2000/2001. i've got the JB3 as well, i'm not real crazy about its scrolling and latency. 'course i'm quite a few firmware releases old (1.20.06), and i know they've addressed some scrolling issues.
but when it comes down to it - it's on shuffle and the only time i touch it is to crank up the volume or skip that lame song that i keep forgetting to delete.
then again, for some people a car is more than just something that takes you from A to B.
They can easily (well, easy for me to say) work on it during their visits to the space station.
i could find a thousand physicists to disagree with you...it's all about orbital inclination. the hubble is at 39 deg inclination to the equator. the station is at 51.6. it would take MASSIVE amounts of propellant to make your idea feasible.
why? remember spinning that bike tire as a kid? translating the axis was easy. changing it's direction, huh, there's some kind of weird force opposing that...same thing with orbital mechanics.
the same argument holds true (but to a larger extent) for the challenger...they couldn't go to the space station because of different inclinations.
for the lazy - lower inclinations are the same as smaller amplitudes on the sinusoidal ground tracks that are visible in mission control...
nice twist. but he mentioned nothing about NASA inventing these things - improving upon them can make all the difference in the world. as a fellow nerd, you should realize the importance of space, and the industry that orbits above us. communication satellites, gps, dish tv, the stinkin' internet as we know it. you use this crap everyday. sure, nasa didn't launch most of these satellites. but do you suppose any technology was gleaned from them? say like, oh i don't know, rocket technology? radiation hardening? maintaining stable orbits?
i feel like i'm trolling, but damn. get a f'n clue. to dismiss what nasa has done as "minor improvements on existing ideas" is ludicrous.
I'd say its pretty damn obvious he has no interest in the space program itself.
And with that, you've lost your credibility. NASA has a large presence in Houston, which is located in Texas, in case you didn't know. Oh, and W is from Texas. In fact, I believe his dad lives here in town.
As for the rest of your post, it's typical liberal Bush bashing drivel. Stop pushing your political agenda and attempt to stay on topic.
huh. that doesn't sound dead to me. phasing out? sure, but that's what today's announcement was - a declaration of direction. shuttle will be used for assembly, resupply, reboost, and crew swapping for the iss. probably no flights other than to iss, especially due to the caib's recommendations that will include images of the shuttle - most easily taken from the station (the arm just can 'see' every inch of the shuttle's belly).
it's easy to point out the flaws of the shuttle program, but it's a great tool that has no equal.
there will be more than 10 shuttle flights - your safer bet is nothing in 2004.
So you did have the builders remove all the windows from the blueprints of your new house, right? I mean, that's more secure. Sure, having daylight in your house is convenient and all, but not if you have to sacrifice security.
Slashdot Mirror
here's a quick pic of them outside building 30...
The link is saying that if the shuttle used all of its onboard propellant normally used for orbital operations (the SRBs are gone and the big orange tank has been jettisoned) - there would only be enough propellant to change the inclination by one degree (you can assume one continuous burn). Alternatively, this same amount of propellant could raise the orbit by 250 km. Just illustrating how inefficient out of plane burns are.
The velocity vector perpendicular to the original orbital plane is, in fact, still there. But that is with respect to the original orbital plane. By introducing a perpendicular component, you have defined a new orbital plane (which has zero out of plane velocity). It's not an instantaneous snap, it's gradual. Think of a ball rolling down the road with a cross wind. The ball will trace a curved path while the wind is present, as the perpendicular velocity increases. The wind in this case is just like firing an out of plane burn. The orbital inclination gradually changes as the engines are fired. If you look at the instantaneous orbit, you will never have an out of plane velocity component. But if you compare the new orbit to the original, then yes, there is an out of plane velocity difference.
found a good link that helps to put plane changes in perspective:
If you took all the fuel that the Shuttle has on board to adjust its flight orientation (attitude) plus all of the fuel it has to do adjustments to its orbit for a whole mission and used it for one plane change burn you would only get about a one degree change! If that same amount of fuel were used to increase the altitude of the Shuttle over the Earth the altitude could be raised by about 250 kilometers.
Keep in mind that the ISS and Shuttle planes were not 1 degree apart, but 12.6 deg. These numbers are for shuttle, but you would experience the same type of dramatic difference for Soyuz.
I understand. But I think people in general have been lulled into thinking that space flight is routine. We are just now developing a method for an on-orbit tile repair, so even that wasn't really possible at the time.
In my opinion, best case scenario, you use spy satellites to take images of the left wing leading edge and belly on flight day 2. Upon finding damage, you decide the next day to attempt to scramble a shuttle with a crew of 2 (we can bring 9 back). I believe the estimation was that we could get a shuttle up in 10 days, but you're running a huge risk by forgoing the normal safety checks required before flight. Mission control would have the extra stress of flying simultaneous shuttle missions - never been done before. You have the added risk of multiple space walks required to transfer crews (don't be lead to believe that these are a walk in the park either). And to top it all off, you run the risk of losing your rescue vehicle to boot. Would it be the right thing to do? Probably. Gotta wonder what the outcry would be if you lost 2 vehicles and 9 people!!
You mention that Soyuz was at a higher orbit, which means more energy. But that doesn't mean we can "coast" to a lower orbit at a different inclination - any change in your orbital geometry would have to come from a burn of some sort.
Future shuttle flights will probably be restricted to ISS inclinations, even if it's strictly a science mission as opposed to an ISS assembly mission, to save the possibility to dock and hang out if an emergency is encountered.
Yep, you're exactly right on how to change inclination. If you imagine your orbit as a plane, an out-of-plane burn causes your inclination to change. However, these burns are not efficient since you're also fighting angular momentum. Getting a little bit back on topic, in order to reduce heating loads and/or move the center of mass for re-entry, the space shuttle often will dump extra propellant. The best way to do this with minimum effect on the orbit geometry: you guessed it - an out-of-plane burn.
Soyuz rescue isn't a bad idea, but you'd be better off launching a fresh one as opposed to trying to undock from the station (which, on top of the propellant problem, you're also violating a flight rule for the station by leaving that crew without an escape vehicle). But the problem with launching a fresh Soyuz, assuming one could be scrambled quick enough, is that the Cosmodrome is at 51.6 deg N latitude. Due to that physical location, your orbital inclinations are restricted to 51.6 deg or higher (unless you waste fuel flying to 39 deg N then east) -- so you can't reach the 39 deg orbit that the shuttle is currently parked in. Did that make sense?
Changing orbital inclination requires an assload of propellant. The Soyuz does not have the reqd amount of prop to change the inclination from 51.6 deg (station inclination) to 39 deg (sts-107 inclination).
Also, Soyuz seats a maximum of 3, and it's a tight fit at that.
It was simply not possible.
This is precisely the kind of "anything can be done" assumption that are used by critics after the fact.
Riddle me this Batman - how much prop does a Soyuz have on board? Answer: NOT ENOUGH!
Reading assignment: Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, Bates, Mueller, & White
I guarantee there's more. I spent a couple weeks near Corsicana stomping through the woods looking for debris. Simply put: there are some places that were just too thick to be searched. Thorns, some 4 or 5 inches long, snakes, swamp land, and thicket. It seemed like an episode of candid camera - just amazing how everything had a thorn on it.
actually, i think the answer from the flight dynamics officers (FDO) was that yes, it would have been possible for the shuttle to reach the station...as long as they had about 125,000 lbs of propellant to do it!!! (i'm not sure of the exact mass properties, but i believe the amt of onboard propellant is much less than 10k lbs)
the best way to visualize this is to hold a bike tire by the axle and spin it. it's easy to translate up/down left/right, but when you attempt to change the direction that the axle points, there's a resistance, ie, angular momentum. same thing here. the axis of rotation for ISS points differently than what the shuttle was flying.
No kidding. MBNA is willing to tell people to have Firebird to identify itself as IE...why don't they just NOT DENY a Mozilla browser?!
what are the odds some guy is getting hammered with his buddies right now, exchanging war stories, and jimbo shoots beer through his nose when he hears the story.
"you realized what happened and you just left?!"
A simple no would have sufficed...
JB3 doesn't predate iPod which was release 2000/2001. i've got the JB3 as well, i'm not real crazy about its scrolling and latency. 'course i'm quite a few firmware releases old (1.20.06), and i know they've addressed some scrolling issues.
but when it comes down to it - it's on shuffle and the only time i touch it is to crank up the volume or skip that lame song that i keep forgetting to delete.
then again, for some people a car is more than just something that takes you from A to B.
They can easily (well, easy for me to say) work on it during their visits to the space station.
i could find a thousand physicists to disagree with you...it's all about orbital inclination. the hubble is at 39 deg inclination to the equator. the station is at 51.6. it would take MASSIVE amounts of propellant to make your idea feasible.
why? remember spinning that bike tire as a kid? translating the axis was easy. changing it's direction, huh, there's some kind of weird force opposing that...same thing with orbital mechanics.
the same argument holds true (but to a larger extent) for the challenger...they couldn't go to the space station because of different inclinations.
for the lazy - lower inclinations are the same as smaller amplitudes on the sinusoidal ground tracks that are visible in mission control...
[whispering] Tommy, I wouldn't mess with him ... he plays video games!
BS - Bull $hit
MS - More $hit
PhD - Pile it High and Deep
That's odd....you mean I didn't see him at JSC last Feb? Then what was with all the metal detectors, secret service, etc?
awesome point!!
nice twist. but he mentioned nothing about NASA inventing these things - improving upon them can make all the difference in the world. as a fellow nerd, you should realize the importance of space, and the industry that orbits above us. communication satellites, gps, dish tv, the stinkin' internet as we know it. you use this crap everyday. sure, nasa didn't launch most of these satellites. but do you suppose any technology was gleaned from them? say like, oh i don't know, rocket technology? radiation hardening? maintaining stable orbits?
i feel like i'm trolling, but damn. get a f'n clue. to dismiss what nasa has done as "minor improvements on existing ideas" is ludicrous.
I'd say its pretty damn obvious he has no interest in the space program itself.
And with that, you've lost your credibility. NASA has a large presence in Houston, which is located in Texas, in case you didn't know. Oh, and W is from Texas. In fact, I believe his dad lives here in town.
As for the rest of your post, it's typical liberal Bush bashing drivel. Stop pushing your political agenda and attempt to stay on topic.
wow, for some people, it's always half empty.
have you taken a look at job listings lately? there actually are some.
huh. that doesn't sound dead to me. phasing out? sure, but that's what today's announcement was - a declaration of direction. shuttle will be used for assembly, resupply, reboost, and crew swapping for the iss. probably no flights other than to iss, especially due to the caib's recommendations that will include images of the shuttle - most easily taken from the station (the arm just can 'see' every inch of the shuttle's belly).
it's easy to point out the flaws of the shuttle program, but it's a great tool that has no equal.
there will be more than 10 shuttle flights - your safer bet is nothing in 2004.
So you did have the builders remove all the windows from the blueprints of your new house, right? I mean, that's more secure. Sure, having daylight in your house is convenient and all, but not if you have to sacrifice security.
Especially since the zip of all the pdf's is 44.6 MB. Anyone wanna post text of the interesting ones, or perhaps a summary?
Call me crazy, but
Alright. Crazy Butt. *ducks*