->The Russians alreay have Mir up in space, why not used it to build a
->American/US space station, or build a wing onto Mirt that is for US use..
->I know Mir is far from ideal, but what is.. Why reinvent the wheel when the
->wheel is already in Orbit??
-Because if you just keep using the same wheel, you never develop better
-wheels. Sure, we can do as some people have suggested and rent Mir and
-buy Soyuzes and use Energia and save lots of money, but the end result would
-be the complete stasis of the space arm of the U.S. aerospace industry,
-coupled with Russian dominance of space down the line.
-The short of the matter is that if all you are concerned with is the
-almighty dollar, what you suggest is a good idea. If you are interested
-in a strong U.S. space program, however, it's a losing deal.
-Matthew DeLuca
-Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
One thing building SSF by the current plan might help us to learn which is
of questionable value is building a large structure in orbit "from scratch",
i.e. with no construction shack. If we play our cards right, that particular
situation won't come up again. So using Mir as a construction shack for
SSF wouldn't hurt our learning curve significantly. And it could save
significantly on the effort and the contingency requirements for the first
several launches before SSF is habitable.
Unfortunately, it may be too close to scheduled launch for switching to that
plan to bring any significant savings in time or money. It still might be
worth at least considering the tradeoffs.
(As I've mentioned before, it is possible to start construction at Mir's
orbit, then change the orbit to 28.5 degree inclination if that's what we
want.)
John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
------------------------------
Date: 1 Feb 93 15:06:31 GMT
From: David Toland <det@sw.stratus.com>
Subject: Riding Comets
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <C1oq0M.I1F.1@cs.cmu.edu>, aa429@freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Ford) writes:
[
What is the possibility of creating a craft that could land on either a near
earth asteroid, or a comet, and hitch a ride? From what I have heard, comets
and the likes travel at impressive speeds, which would be a great way to conserve energy on a deep space mission. Landing on a comet that is passing through the solar
sytem, on its way into deep space would be a great way to get out, without
having to use all the energy for propulsion. Another idea would be
to place a spacecraft on Halleys comet, or somethign else that flies by
the earth frequently. That way, on its voyage out, it could take many many
observations, without warrying about propulsion, OR sending data back to earth.
Once the comet comes close to the earth, optical communications could take
place, and all data collected could be transmitted to earth, AND any power
the probe/spacecraft had lost could be transmitted to the probe.
..getting to the comet/asteroid is another problem..
]
Sorry, this doesn't help you. To land on the body, you have to match its
velocity, so at that point, why land. Indeed, it would take far more fuel
than simply injecting into an orbit that would take you directly where
you wish to go.
The only advantage would be if you were to utilize the substance of
the body somehow (fuel, air, etc.) so you didn't have to carry them
