Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Just hold on a second. Are you honestly telling me that launching military-purpose satellites from the shuttle is in anyway correlated with performing incredible "aerobatics" in space in complete stealth, undetected, and expending tremendous amounts of energy all the while?

I consider it entirely possible that there have been secret satellites launched from the shuttle, sure. I don't recall that I mentioned anything about the shuttle performing "aerobatics" while in orbit. Perhaps, while the shuttle takes 44 hours to dock, it has time to launch a secret satellite into orbit?

What you are saying is equivalent to this: "urinary infections can be treated with antibiotics, hence they are probably effective against AIDS". They are not.

You really need to learn a better form of argumentative technique to support your opinions. The above paragraph is totally off-topic and useless when discussing the possible secret uses for the space shuttle. This is another poor analogy on your part that does not make sense to the topic being discussed.

My "android test" yielded just right amount of information about your way of thinking.

Your 'android test' was another example of your poor analogies that you use to try and take the thread off-topic. It was as useless as the discussion of AIDS and urinary infections. Clearly, John Lear is not an android, so ANYTHING you type that uses John being an android for a premise, is garbage.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Just hold on a second. Are you honestly telling me that launching military-purpose satellites from the shuttle is in anyway correlated with performing incredible "aerobatics" in space in complete stealth, undetected, and expending tremendous amounts of energy all the while?

I consider it entirely possible that there have been secret satellites launched from the shuttle, sure.

Wait, did you bother to read the paragraph you are "replying" to? I mean, if you elect not to read, it's more honorable not to "reply".

You've been on this thread for a while. From page one, what is "debated" here is not whether the Shuttle ever launched military satellites (it did) or whether it's capable of doing so (it is), but if it runs a bizzarely impossible missions of resupplying multiple Secret Space Stations (TM).

I don't recall that I mentioned anything about the shuttle performing "aerobatics" while in orbit. Perhaps, while the shuttle takes 44 hours to dock, it has time to launch a secret satellite into orbit?

It takes significantly less than 44 hrs to open the doors and spin a satellite out. Again, please do not pretend that the discussion of satellite launch was the thrust of this thread. Rather, it was a last-ditch attempt by Zorgon to save face in view of the ultimate absurdity of the claim that Shuttle performs fully cloaked ultra-high-energy maneuvers to a very different orbital plane, comes back to the original one and lives to have an orange juice next morning.

What you are saying is equivalent to this: "urinary infections can be treated with antibiotics, hence they are probably effective against AIDS". They are not.

You really need to learn a better form of argumentative technique to support your opinions. The above paragraph is totally off-topic

And so is your "secret satellite" assertion in relation to the alleged secret delivery to a military platform. My statement in quotes was made absurd purposely to align it with the absurdity of your logic.

Clearly, John Lear is not an android

::

Oh, I'm enjoying this so much. So it's clear to you, without any facts, that the shuttle runs missions impossible to a "secret military platform", and then you confidently conclude, with zero evidence this way or another, that John IS NOT an android? After all, you just told me that I don't know what the shuttle does in orbit. But you, Sir, have not checked John's vital signs and his magnetic field, so you are in no position to deny that he is in fact an android from the galaxy.

Like I said, once more you exhibit how you submit to a perceived authority in forming your opinions, free of logic or fact base.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait, did you bother to read the paragraph you are "replying" to? I mean, if you elect not to read, it's more honorable not to "reply".

Wait, did you bother to read the thread you are "replying" to? I mean, if you elect not to read, it's more honorable not to "reply".

The thread is about the shuttle taking 44 hours to dock with the ISS. There have been some people speculate that it might be secretly docking with other space stations. Recently, other people have speculated that it might be launching secret satellites.

You've been trying to insist that John Lear is an android, while stating something about urinary infections and AIDS??? Are you certain that YOU are on the right thread, buddhasystem???

You've been on this thread for a while. From page one, what is "debated" here is not whether the Shuttle ever launched military satellites (it did) or whether it's capable of doing so (it is)

But has it launched satellites in secret that the public knows nothing about? Of course we ALL know that it has launched classified satellites before, so there's no secret there.

and then you confidently conclude, with zero evidence this way or another, that John IS NOT an android?

Yes, I confidently conclude that John is not an android. What is your purpose in this thread again? If you are trying to deliberately push a fake agenda by stating that John is an android, then you should be mindful of the T&C of this forum, as proven hoaxes will not be tolerated.

After all, you just told me that I don't know what the shuttle does in orbit. But you, Sir, have not checked John's vital signs and his magnetic field, so you are in no position to deny that he is in fact an android from the galaxy.

I can speculate on what the shuttle might do and remain open minded. However, your insistance to push a fake agenda that John is an android is intellectually disturbing, if that's the best debating technique that you have.

What are you doing in this thread if all you wish to discuss is AIDS and John being an android?

Ummm,

I'm not as smart as some here, I admit I'm just learning as I go...

This thread is about a 44 hour transit time for the Discovery, a few months ago...I think it was STS-121?

Was watching a NASA feed on Dish Network Satellite regarding the ISS. The Russians regularly launch supplies to the ISS using a converted old Soyuz vehicle now dubbed 'Progress'. Unmanned, of course. Yet, fully able to be controlled first from the ground, and then (I assume) from the crew of the ISS...I really do not know how the docking is accomplished with an unmanned vehicle -(I'm guessing, very carefully!).

Point is...could someone look up the 'Progress' vehicle launch time and rendezvous docking data and determine what time frame is involved?

Further, we have to understand the orbital inclination of the ISS as it relates to the Cape in Florida and to the Russian site...Bailkunur (sp?).

Perhaps space scientists here can give us landlubbers a primer on the simple orbital mechanics needed for launches from either site to intersect the orbital plane of the ISS, at a point in its orbit where it is possible to rendezvous without too much muss or fuss. (I know...limited fuel for in-orbit maneuvering/jockeying, making sure the closure rate between the ISS and the approaching vehicle is not too excessive...).

I mean, the ISS is the 'target'. It doesn't maneuver. Right? So, launch in a window that will fall 'behind' the ISS, then play 'catch-up'. Sounds painstaking to me, without Star Trek technology to help out.

Thanks for your interest, and as always, for your responses.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the title of this thread is "Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!"

I don't see anything in that description about the shuttle doing back-flips, hand stands, cart-wheels, pirouettes and pliés and then dancing off to parts unknown and returning to dock with the ISS, all while cloaking this behavior from ground based observers.

Insofar as some would like to suggest, in their very specific protestations to the possibility that the STS program could be used in some way to support a *secret* military space-based endeavor.

Perhaps the thread for that would be:

Did the Space Shuttle dock at the Secret Space Station tonight?

Since the title of that thread actually asks the question, did it?

Even then, without the assistance of an unknown-to-the-general-public, highly advanced propulsion/maneuvering system, such as so-called gravity shielding, to achieve such LEO acrobatics, I would be compelled to assert that the answer to the question posed by the title of the latter thread would be a qualified, probably not.

Probably, because, IMHO, it would not be necessary to perform such LEO maneuvers to support said operations if the *secret* space stations were, in turn, supported by so-called "space tugs" powered by the ample and abundant energy resources resulting as an offshoot of lunar mining activities.

As I've suggested before, on this or the other thread, I forget which.

With a "space tug" to transfer resources from near or about the orbital plane of the shuttle's approach to the ISS, there would be no need for a *secret* docking procedure to occur.

Quite to the contrary, in fact.

The shuttle would only need to, upon opening the cargo bay doors and at the proper time, toss the *secret* supplies out into the void, to be intercepted by the "space tug' which would, in turn, transfer the *secret* cargo to it's intended destination; one of the multiple *secret* space stations.

Would any one of our verbose and persistent skeptics care to point out the flaws in this scenario?

Originally posted by tezzajw
The thread is about the shuttle taking 44 hours to dock with the ISS. There have been some people speculate that it might be secretly docking with other space stations. Recently, other people have speculated that it might be launching secret satellites.

Well yes, because the "secret space station" theory has more holes than swiss cheese in a rat cage (sorry for plagiarism). So, Dr.Z and others conveniently switched the topic.

You've been trying to insist that John Lear is an android, while stating something about urinary infections and AIDS???

Yes, sometimes it takes drastic measures to get an idea across, my friend. And I think this worked for you, in the end. Do not pretend, for pete's sakes, that you don't understand that John Lear being an android from the galaxy was a very, very tongue in cheek comment. If you really don't, I'm honestly scared.

You've been on this thread for a while. From page one, what is "debated" here is not whether the Shuttle ever launched military satellites (it did) or whether it's capable of doing so (it is)

But has it launched satellites in secret that the public knows nothing about? Of course we ALL know that it has launched classified satellites before, so there's no secret there.

Guess what, if they deployed a classified satellite in this particular mission, I'll give it a huge yawn and turn the page. All the jousting between JL, Z, myself and others was NOT about whether it is possible that the shuttle spins out an intel sat at some point. It was about a much more ominous (and frankly, infinitely more interesting) suggestion that the shuttle is in fact re-supplying ultra-secret military platforms in space. Well, it ain't happening. But turning the ultra-secret space station in a diffirently inclined orbit issue into a medium size telescope at 51 degrees is a non sequitur.

and then you confidently conclude, with zero evidence this way or another, that John IS NOT an android?

Yes, I confidently conclude that John is not an android.

Then your logic is fraught with inconsistency. Which, frankly, was my point in bringing up the bogus issue of whether John indeed is an android or not.

If you are trying to deliberately push a fake agenda by stating that John is an android, then you should be mindful of the T&C of this forum, as proven hoaxes will not be tolerated.

Sheesh. It's not a hoax already. It's patently bogus (such as the shuttle secret resupply missions) and yet a simple and effective instrument to show that your logic is broken beyond repair and that you are susceptible to suggestions from your perceived authority figures (paternal figures a la John, whatever). It reminds me a little of the Heaven's Gate, but not as severe.

I also find it specious that you keep reminding me of T&C. You know full well that I respect the T&C. I never attacked you personally, or was trying to push an agenda about John being an android from the galaxy. Anybody who read my posts and followed my sterling reputation as Uber Skeptic From the Center of Universe will conclude that I cannot possibly insist that John is an android, this is just crazy; therefore, your incantations about the T&C are nothing else but a feeble attempt at intimidation, I'm sorry to say.

Originally posted by goosdawg
At the risk of stating the obvious, the title of this thread is "Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!"

I don't see anything in that description about the shuttle doing back-flips, hand stands, cart-wheels, pirouettes and pliés and then dancing off to parts unknown and returning to dock with the ISS, all while cloaking this behavior from ground based observers.

Well, the bulk of the discussion in this thread was about the implications of a rendevouz with a secret station, and it involves most of the items you listed.

Even then, without the assistance of an unknown-to-the-general-public, highly advanced propulsion/maneuvering system, such as so-called gravity shielding, to achieve such LEO acrobatics, I would be compelled to assert that the answer to the question posed by the title of the latter thread would be a qualified, probably not.

Thank you.

The shuttle would only need to, upon opening the cargo bay doors and at the proper time, toss the *secret* supplies out into the void, to be intercepted by the "space tug' which would, in turn, transfer the *secret* cargo to it's intended destination; one of the multiple *secret* space stations.

Would any one of our verbose and persistent skeptics care to point out the flaws in this scenario?

My pleasure. The shuttle leaves the cargo in it's orbital plane at approx. same velocity as self. Now, this leaves two possibilities:

a) the tug does the same "aerobatics" as the shuttle would have, in order to change the orbital plane from one angle to a very different other, and you admit yourself this is Uber Tough and in other words, not plausible w/o alien tech

b) the tug stays in the plane of the secret station. But in this case, the relative velocity of the cargo container left in a different orbit turns that container into a kinetic energy weapon that will shred the tug to micro meteorites upon the attempted capture. The Russians almost sank Mir when a collision with the tug happened at mere 30 mph. Think about it for a second.

reply to post by goosdawg


goosdawg,

Very interesting points.

Your vision of what could be happening in LEO could be supported by:

Possible other launch sites besides Florida and Russia --

Those sites being outside the purview of established human civilazation (i.e.) very remote--

And the knowledge and clandestine use of advanced technology.

Of course, this could all be impossible hogwash...not IMPLAUSIBLE, mind you...well, not impossible...actually, could be probable...which implies possible...so NOT impossible. Those are just semantics. Let's just leave it at---ET tech probably exists, and is in the hands of certain 'powers'.

It's possible...and mountains of evidence point to the plausible. Proof is being withheld, which is likely (plausible).

Did not mean to write riddles...my opinion I was dancing around is, while keeping a healthy skepticism I feel there is much going on that we are not aware of. It's like telling young kids there's a Santa Clause. When they learn the truth, it can be wrenching...

reply to post by weedwhacker


There's a splendid site that presents a wealth of information concerning the Soviet/Russian space program called russianspaceweb.com.

Here's a specific link to information concerning the "Progress" supply ships.

russianspaceweb.com | Spacecraft: Manned: Progress

In all the instances where it specifies the time frame involved, it appears the Progress supply ships generally take about two days to reach and dock with the ISS.

Hope that helps, ww.

Insofar as orbital plane data, I'm an interested bystander along with you.

I'll join you as we await our resident experts in orbital mechanics to grace us with an explanation that we can digest without an undo amount of head scratching and stressful consternation.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well yes, because the "secret space station" theory has more holes than swiss cheese in a rat cage (sorry for plagiarism). So, Dr.Z and others conveniently switched the topic.

It seems to me that goosdawg has something that could work. You may think that the idea has holes in it - however, if the secret space stations are in orbit, then obviously it took great thought to work out how to do it.

Yes, sometimes it takes drastic measures to get an idea across, my friend. And I think this worked for you, in the end.

Huh? All of your off-topic posts about John being an android were DISMISSED by me. Don't even bother to try and explain how you think that they 'worked' for me when I did not consider them remotely related to this thread.

Guess what, if they deployed a classified satellite in this particular mission, I'll give it a huge yawn and turn the page.

Which is exactly the reaction that they hope for. They could have another secret module ready to be attached to a secret space station and you will yawn it off, never knowing... It makes NASA.mil's job so much easier when the majority of the population just don't care to try and find out what they really get up to.

It was about a much more ominous (and frankly, infinitely more interesting) suggestion that the shuttle is in fact re-supplying ultra-secret military platforms in space. Well, it ain't happening.

So, in your mind, you've closed off the suggestion that it is not possible? goosdawg proposed that the shuttle could open the cargo doors, eject some supplies, for which the secret space stations could collect when they catch them in orbit.

Then your logic is fraught with inconsistency. Which, frankly, was my point in bringing up the bogus issue of whether John indeed is an android or not.

I still don't know why you tried to claim that John is an android. It defies logic. My best guess would be that you might have a secret agenda to push, by trying to go so far off-topic from the shuttle's activities and derailing the thread to AIDS and John being an android.

and that you are susceptible to suggestions from your perceived authority figures (paternal figures a la John, whatever). It reminds me a little of the Heaven's Gate, but not as severe.

I never attacked you personally... therefore, your incantations about the T&C are nothing else but a feeble attempt at intimidation, I'm sorry to say.

The first part of your above quote attacks me by calling me 'susceptible to suggestions' from my 'perceived authority figures'. Then, you allude that it is behaviour similar to mindless worship, as witnessed in Heaven's Gate. A dangerous implication to make, as you assume possible negative traits about my mindset. You don't know who, what or why I worship or who I consider to be an authorative figure. When you presume that you do and you state it in a negative light, that's bordering on what some people may consider to be a personal attack.

The second part of your above quote contradicts the first part, as you claim that you never personally attack me, even after calling me 'susceptible to suggestions'. I'm not here to intimidate you, buddhasystem. I have pointed out where you potentially could be violating the T&Cs of this website by your choice of words to describe my character.

Please stay on topic and debate my opinions without appearing to judge my character.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by goosdawg
The shuttle would only need to, upon opening the cargo bay doors and at the proper time, toss the *secret* supplies out into the void, to be intercepted by the "space tug' which would, in turn, transfer the *secret* cargo to it's intended destination; one of the multiple *secret* space stations.

Would any one of our verbose and persistent skeptics care to point out the flaws in this scenario?

My pleasure. The shuttle leaves the cargo in it's orbital plane at approx. same velocity as self. Now, this leaves two possibilities:

a) the tug does the same "aerobatics" as the shuttle would have, in order to change the orbital plane from one angle to a very different other, and you admit yourself this is Uber Tough and in other words, not plausible w/o alien tech

b) the tug stays in the plane of the secret station. But in this case, the relative velocity of the cargo container left in a different orbit turns that container into a kinetic energy weapon that will shred the tug to micro meteorites upon the attempted capture. The Russians almost sank Mir when a collision with the tug happened at mere 30 mph. Think about it for a second.

Thank you.

A second was all I needed, thanks.

But it takes a bit more time for me to peck out my reply, so thanks for bearing with me.

Even though I believe there's more than two possibilities for this scenario, lets, for the sake of argument, go with "b" for the moment, since "a" would require the *secret* space station to be located in a different orbital plane, a design feature that would be counter to allowing resupply by a shuttle transported "package."

There are no time constraints for the tug to match the orbital velocity of supplies, other than the anticipated and eagerly awaited delivery of it's contents to the intended target.

I mean, who doesn't like fresh fruit?

Is there any reason the tug could not approach the "package" from behind in such a way as to match it's velocity/orbit, lock on, give a boost and then traverse the distance required to ascend to the somewhat higher orbit of the *secret* space station?

Keeping in mind there is an ample supply of fuel on board to accomplish such a feat, having been a parameter of it's initial design specs?

Thanks for your post in reply to my query.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Really? What tactics? Call your bluff and point out inconsistency? I think I'm doing that pretty well, thank you.

No what your doing is burying every post with pages of rhetoric about what is relevant to the topic. I have no intentions of starting a new thread for every bit of material that I think is relevant to the thread... Shuttle carrying secret missions fits in this thread... If you and weedwacker have a problem with that to bad..

You talk about pointing out inconsistencies... I have always said I don't have all the answers so what's your point? I am here to find the answers. And finding MISTY was quite a boon really

Despite your cluttering the threads with post after post of the same nonsense... the message is getting out... It is just a shame that people feel they have to respond via U2U rather than add to the thread...

So you go ahead and play your games... I have work to do

Now then back to MISTY...

United Space Alliance...

RICHARD COVEY TO SUCCEED MCCULLEY AS USA PRESIDENT & CEO
Shuttle Veteran Daniel Brandenstein Named Chief Operating Officer

HOUSTON, Texas (August 30, 2007) - Richard O. Covey has been named to succeed Michael J. McCulley as President and Chief Executive Officer of United Space Alliance, effective September 28, 2007. McCulley has announced his retirement following a distinguished career spanning 38 years as a Naval aviator, NASA astronaut and a highly respected space industry executive. Daniel C. Brandenstein of Lockheed Martin Mission Services has been named to replace Covey as USA’s Chief Operating Officer.

United Space Alliance I like the sound of that

A former NASA astronaut, Covey piloted STS 51-I, a spacecraft repair mission in 1985 and STS-26, the first flight of Discovery after the Challenger accident in 1988. He then commanded STS-38, a classified Department of Defense mission in 1990, and the flight of Endeavour on STS-61 in 1993 to service and repair the Hubble Space Telescope.

Now here is news for those wondering about India's Moon launch... Yeah its off topic but its connected and there is no India Moon thread yet

HYDERABAD, India (September 24, 2007) -- United Space Alliance (USA) has established a wholly owned subsidiary, Space Flight Operations, LLC (SFO), to provide space operations products and services to commercial and international customers.

Best known for its success in helping NASA consolidate and streamline operations for the Space Shuttle program, United Space Alliance has acquired and developed a unique range of capabilities and experience in space operations that have direct application to market sectors beyond the U.S. civil space program

SOURCE

Now remember we mentioned Robert Bigelow and his inflatable Hotels in Space? Seems he has been up to other things as well... something about using those same modules for secret stations...

Stealth satellites
Cold War myth or operational reality?
By John Croft
October 04, 2006

A patent recently issued to an upstart space entrepreneur could be another sign that stealth satellites are real — not vestiges of the previous millennium’s battles.

In late 2004, right about the time that some U.S. lawmakers publicly unveiled a previously classified $9.5 billion program to build satellites that orbit the Earth undetected from the ground, Robert Bigelow, hotel entrepreneur and founder of Bigelow Aerospace, submitted a patent application for a satellite that proposed to do just that.

Bigelow’s patent, filed in November 2004 and approved a year later, follows a dozen or so previously filed inventions back to the early 1960s. Each outlined methods that could reduce or eliminate the optical and radar signatures that could be used to track, identify and determine the orbital parameters of a satellite from the ground.

If the essentials of an orbit are obtained — potentially by low-cost, easily obtainable methods and equipment — an opponent can either hide above-ground activities during the reconnaissance satellite’s pass or possibly target the space vehicle with anti-satellite weapons. By all indications, the U.S. has launched and operated at least two such satellites in the post-Cold War era for photo reconnaissance or signal intelligence, one in 1990 and the other in 1999.

Bigelow’s invention, called an inflatable satellite bus, appears to be identical in construction to the company’s Genesis I spacecraft, which was launched July 12 by an ISC Kosmotras Dnepr rocket into a 550-kilometer near-circular orbit with 64-degree inclination.

The patent reveals that the shell, or outer surface of the inflatable portion of the vehicle, “can have radar stealth capabilities. This could include using radar absorbing materials and/or geometrics to reflect radar waves at angles that make detection of the craft difficult.” The patent goes on to say that shell could be “colored as to make visual detection more difficult.”

SOURCE

9.5 BILLION That's a lot of space junque

reply to post by buddhasystem

My pleasure. The shuttle leaves the cargo in it's orbital plane at approx. same velocity as self. Now, this leaves two possibilities:

a) the tug does the same "aerobatics" as the shuttle would have, in order to change the orbital plane from one angle to a very different other, and you admit yourself this is Uber Tough and in other words, not plausible w/o alien tech

b) the tug stays in the plane of the secret station. But in this case, the relative velocity of the cargo container left in a different orbit turns that container into a kinetic energy weapon that will shred the tug to micro meteorites upon the attempted capture. The Russians almost sank Mir when a collision with the tug happened at mere 30 mph. Think about it for a second.

The ability to maneuver autonomously seems to have been worked out! (If they – DOD - admit/publicize it, it generally means they have had the tech for some time!)

ANGELS builds on the success of the Air Force's XSS-11 satellite, which launched in April 2005. XSS-11 demonstrated the ability to navigate autonomously around other spacecraft in low-Earth orbit, at altitudes hundreds of kilometres above Earth, to perform inspections. But unlike XSS-11, ANGELS is designed for use much farther from Earth, in geosynchronous orbits at altitudes of about 36,000 km

.

Source: space.newscientist.com...

Have a nice holiday!
H

Originally posted by Havalon
The ability to maneuver autonomously seems to have been worked out! (If they – DOD - admit/publicize it, it generally means they have had the tech for some time!)

Sure, there is a coolness factor in having a small satellite orbiting a larger one, as is described in the link, I think that's great. But I think it'a hardly an earth-shattering development of any sort. It's a commendable system integration/software effort. These engineers are great. But all of it is beside the point.

It's not just some maneuver that is required for a tug to pick up cargo in one orbital plane and somehow carry it into the other. If you know a little vector algebra, you'll quickly figure out that the momentum differential that the tug will need to acquire will be comparable to the momentum it already has, which is tremendous. Seriously, picture a shuttle launch, with all the requisite blast, heat, and million gallons of fuel. Well, you would need to repeat all of that while in orbit in order to change the inclination. And then do it again to be ready for the next pick up. I mean, cleaning a football stadium with a toothbrush is not as masochistic as that. And sure as hell more doable.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's not just some maneuver that is required for a tug to pick up cargo in one orbital plane and somehow carry it into the other.

I find it curious as to why you continue to insist that the transit of a craft from a lower altitude to one that is higher, and vice versa, must be defined in terms of a change in orbital inclination.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I find this repeated effort on your part to frame the discussion under these terms to be disingenuous at best, and perhaps downright deliberately deceptive.

I should think you would know the difference.

And I suspect that you do.

With that said, if we can dispense with the semantic gamesmanship, lets proceed, shall we?

Now then, perhaps you could explain why the utilization of a fuel efficient technique, such as an Hohmann transfer, is invalid for the scenario I mentioned earlier, to wit: a "space tug" to intercept and transfer to a different altitudinal orbit, a resupply package launched from a shuttle in transit to the ISS?

While your earlier posts indicate to me that you'll have no need for further illumination as to the definition of a "Hohmann transfer," do bear with me for a moment as I present my googled research into the subject, for the benefit of our fellow thread followers who, perhaps, don't have the time to look it up for themselves.

Changing Altitude
A Hohmann transfer is a fuel efficient way to transfer from one circular orbit to another circular orbit that is in the same plane (same inclination), but a different altitude.

To change from a lower orbit (A) to a higher orbit (C), an engine is first fired in the opposite direction from the direction the vehicle is traveling. This will add velocity to the vehicle causing its trajectory to become an elliptic orbit (B). This elliptic orbit is carefully designed to reach the desired final altitude of the higher orbit (C). In this way the elliptic orbit or transfer orbit is tangent to both the original orbit (A) and the final orbit (C). This is why a Hohmann transfer is fuel efficient. When the target altitude is reached the engine is fired in the same manner as before but this time the added velocity is planned such that the elliptic transfer orbit is circularized at the new altitude of orbit (C).

Source | Hohmann Transfer & Plane Changes

I look forward to your reply, thank you.

In addition, while this should not be construed as suggesting the shuttle performs such a maneuver, I found this bit of information to be quite interesting as well:

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.

Source | Fuel Required for Shuttle Plane Change





[edit on 20-12-2007 by goosdawg]

reply to post by buddhasystem


If they can nano it, then the nav/guidance system could be used on much larger (unmanned)craft.

The (unmanned) Russian re-supply vessels seem to do okay, without tearing the ISS to shreds.

Originally posted by goosdawg
I find it curious as to why you continue to insist that the transit of a craft from a lower altitude to one that is higher, and vice versa, must be defined in terms of a change in orbital inclination.

I, on my part, find it curious that you don't follow the crucial characteristics related to the alleged launches of the alleged secret space stations. Location of the launch pad dictates, to a large degree, the inclination of the orbit. You must know that. The many locations of launches listed by Z and others were, in large part, corresponding to inclinations very different from whar the Shuttle has. You missed out on this.

There can be always a difference in altitudes, of course, but I skipped that for simplicity's sake.

Originally posted by Havalon
The (unmanned) Russian re-supply vessels seem to do okay, without tearing the ISS to shreds.

Well, that's because the inclinations match so well. Is this clear now?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Well, that's because the inclinations match so well. Is this clear now?

Thanks for the post BS. Its apparent that you are really stuck on this inclination thing.

I am not convinced that we haven't developed the technology to change inclination in orbit without using a lot of rocket power.

I think all that noise and commotion on takeoff is just for show.

I think that when we get up into orbit it's a whole different ballgame.

Also, do you have a copy of your PhD? You can blank out the name and personal information. I just want to see this 'degree' that you talk so much about. Also what was your dissertation on?

Thanks.