SpaceX plans to send two people around the Moon in late 2018

[derg]

My fear wouldn't be an explosion, it would be flying off into space and starving to death or suffocating because I went off course.

Wouldn't be THAT long, but imagine the data set for future missions?

 

[///AMG]

Most of the shuttle program was built on a polar orbit launch to either grab a quick selfie over kaputsin yar or grab one of the soviet satellites in orbit and take it back to earth. Those are the objectives we spent billions of development dollars on, wrong or right. Aint nobody was talking about bringing back *our* satellites.

 

[killbilly]

Honestly, if anything the shuttle could have used a hell of a lot more dv. The OMS only had about 300m/s of delta v - which isn't really that much. Hell, the Soyuz "lifeboat" at the ISS has 390m/s when it lets go, yeah, I know it's a lot smaller...but damn, dv is important - can you imagine how different things would have been if Columbia could have "aborted on orbit" and gone back to the ISS?

Obviously, inclination changes are different, but a bi-elliptic transfer to an inclination change is a lot easier with an extra 1000m/s or so... If you add delta-v you're more worried about how long your life-support lasts than whether or not you can go where you want to.

Please tell me you've read "SevenEves."

Linky: https://www.amazon.com/Seveneves-Ne...UTF8&qid=1488887540&sr=8-1&keywords=seveneves

 

[NovemberEcho]

Please tell me you've read "SevenEves."

Linky: https://www.amazon.com/Seveneves-Ne...UTF8&qid=1488887540&sr=8-1&keywords=seveneves

Nope but just ordered it. And I initially read that as Summer's Eve

 

[hook_dupin]

Which...honestly, I always thought was dumb - or at very least a "relic of a former era." Sure I could see how that could be useful when the satellites were developing film ON the vehicle...but honestly, the second it was apparent that we could do that (which looking at the shuttle would be obvious immediately), the Soviets would start building spy satellites that could "deny" an adversary the ability to capture them (i.e. explode when approached).

Part of this is strategery: forcing an adversary to add counter measures increases weight which has a dramatic effect on launch cost. Forcing the adversary to change orbit incurs a fuel penalty, thereby reducing the life of the SV.

We didn't win the Cold War on might... we won it on spending.

 

[killbilly]

Nope but just ordered it. And I initially read that as Summer's Eve

It could arguably be re-titled "Orbital Mechanics for the Layman."

 

[BlueMoon]

Which...honestly, I always thought was dumb - or at very least a "relic of a former era." Sure I could see how that could be useful when the satellites were developing film ON the vehicle...but honestly, the second it was apparent that we could do that (which looking at the shuttle would be obvious immediately), the Soviets would start building spy satellites that could "deny" an adversary the ability to capture them (i.e. explode when approached). Also, launches are super high profile, it's not like you're going to get away with launching, replacing a satellite with a duplicate, then coming back without the Russians knowing about it.

Honestly, if anything the shuttle could have used a hell of a lot more dv. The OMS only had about 300m/s of delta v - which isn't really that much. Hell, the Soyuz "lifeboat" at the ISS has 390m/s when it lets go, yeah, I know it's a lot smaller...but damn, dv is important - can you imagine how different things would have been if Columbia could have "aborted on orbit" and gone back to the ISS?

Obviously, inclination changes are different, but a bi-elliptic transfer to an inclination change is a lot easier with an extra 1000m/s or so... If you add delta-v you're more worried about how long your life-support lasts than whether or not you can go where you want to.

Columbia didn't go to the ISS and was in different orbital plane and would have needed somewhere around 4000 m/s of abbility to reach it.

"Columbia's 39 degree orbital inclination could not have been altered to the ISS 51.6 degree inclination without approximately 12,600 ft/sec of translational capability. Columbia had 448 ft/sec of propellant available."

Source appendix d.13 of the Caib report

 

[av8tr1]

Columbia didn't go to the ISS and was in different orbital plane and would have needed somewhere around 4000 m/s of abbility to reach it.

"Columbia's 39 degree orbital inclination could not have been altered to the ISS 51.6 degree inclination without approximately 12,600 ft/sec of translational capability. Columbia had 448 ft/sec of propellant available."

Source appendix d.13 of the Caib report

I'd heard at one point they could have used the available propellant to achieve a higher parking orbit. Then use the Soyuz to get the crew and put them on ISS temporarily. It would have taxed the resources on the ISS but it would have been temporarily.

 

[BlueMoon]

The report pretty much said there best bet was early recognition, conserve resources (they actually had an extended duration package on board) and then fast tracking Atlantis to come and rescue (it was ahead of schedule). Though any one of million things could have gone wrong with another shuttle launch.


The in flight options part of the appendix seems to be down. (https://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/html/VOL2.html)

It is summarized in this article.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...at-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/2/

 

[av8tr1]

I wonder how hard it would be to simulate this in Kerbal space program and if it would be even remotely accurate?

 

[Dugie8]

I wonder how hard it would be to simulate this in Kerbal space program and if it would be even remotely accurate?

KSP is awesome. The physics are the same but the planetary densities are exaggerated to give faster orbital periods and shorter launch times.


I'm wanted on Kerbin for genocide and just general engineering negligence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[trafficinsight]

KSP is awesome. The physics are the same but the planetary densities are exaggerated to give faster orbital periods and shorter launch times.


I'm wanted on Kerbin for genocide and just general engineering negligence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like you need more struts

 

[ppragman]

Columbia didn't go to the ISS and was in different orbital plane and would have needed somewhere around 4000 m/s of abbility to reach it.

"Columbia's 39 degree orbital inclination could not have been altered to the ISS 51.6 degree inclination without approximately 12,600 ft/sec of translational capability. Columbia had 448 ft/sec of propellant available."

Source appendix d.13 of the Caib report

Well, 4km/sec is unreasonable sure - and yeah, inclination changes are expensive - but more dv is better.

But honestly, worst case scenario they could have parked the shuttle in a higher orbit and sent Atlantis to go get the crew if life support wasn't an issue - regardless, I'd much rather have more dv in my space vehicles than 1000nm cross range capability.

 

[ppragman]

I'd heard at one point they could have used the available propellant to achieve a higher parking orbit. Then use the Soyuz to get the crew and put them on ISS temporarily. It would have taxed the resources on the ISS but it would have been temporarily.

Not if they were that inclined - I didn't realize how inclined they were relative to the ISS - inclination changes are basically the most expensive thing you can do in space.

The 390m/s of dv on the Soyuz certainly isn't enough to make multiple trips (or honestly even one) to and from Comlumbia.

 

[ppragman]

Please tell me you've read "SevenEves."

Linky: https://www.amazon.com/Seveneves-Ne...UTF8&qid=1488887540&sr=8-1&keywords=seveneves

It was alright - really liked it until the far future part of the book.