| |
VK5ATN > MIR 05.04.01 21:06l 35 Lines 1484 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 460284VK5ATN
Read: GUEST OE7FMI
Subj: Re: Why not up instead of down?
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<F6KFG<DB0GE<LX0PAC<LX0HST<HA3PG<WB0TAX<VK3BBS<
VK3DSE<VK3EDK<VK3BVP<VK5HB<VK5SPG
Sent: 010330/1055Z @:VK5SPG.#ADL.#SA.AUS.OC #:54971 [Adelaide] $:460284VK5ATN
From: VK5ATN@VK5SPG.#ADL.#SA.AUS.OC
To : MIR@WW
I'm no expert on the physics of orbital science. However, amidst the
plethora of media hype in the last hours surrounding the destruction of
MIR, I heard the question asked by a radio presenter of some seemingly
knowledgable person about why MIR couldn't be pushed out into
geostationary orbit, or something approaching it, instead of the
compulsory fireball option being implemented.
As I recall the answer was that the energy (and therefore fuel) needed to
push a 140 tonne object into such an orbit was still very high. It would
have cost many $M to get the propellent up to the space station, and there
were other complications with such an option.
By contrast, the amount of energy needed to slow it down to an ever
dimishing orbit and let gravity and the very outer atmosphere exert an
ever increasing influence was somewhat modest and able to be done by
existing equipment and technology.
With cost pressures being the prime reason why MIR was being abandoned the
ecconomics were (apparently) fairly obvious. In the end, ecconomic
rationalism won out as it so often does these days.
I was saddened to follow the reports of the execution of an old friend. I
had spoken to several of the cosmonauts on board MIR at different times,
most notably Musa and Andy, and many's the evening when I watched in
wonder and awe as it zoomed across the sky. No more alas.
'Tis sad, but that's life.
73
Terry
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
