Re: ISS as Mars vehicle
From: Bill the Cat (bill_at_the.cat.retro.com)
Date: 12/16/04
- Next message: Roger Stokes: "Re: Thoughts on alternative launch methods"
- Previous message: Zeefor: "Pulse High Symbol"
- In reply to: Matthew Montchalin: "Re: ISS as Mars vehicle"
- Next in thread: Matthew Montchalin: "Re: ISS as Mars vehicle"
- Reply: Matthew Montchalin: "Re: ISS as Mars vehicle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:52:51 -0600 To: sci-space-tech@moderators.isc.org
Matthew Montchalin <chalin@aracnet.com> wrote in
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412140239580.10965-100000@onyx.spiritone.com:
> Bill the Cat wrote:
>|> But, is it strong enough to survive being shoved?
>
> <snip>
>
>|On the other hand, with low-thrust propulsion, ISS would have to spend
>|a long time spiraling out through the Van Allen belts, which would
>|certainly fry the electronics (not to mention the crew, if you're fool
>|enough to leave one onboard during the boost).
>
> All we really need is something that can still hold air, and be
> deployed in a high orbit around Mars.
Once ISS' electronics are fried by the Van Allen belts, it will be a dead
hulk, unable to perform midcourse corrections or insert into Mars orbit.
If you just want something in Mars orbit that can hold air, better to have
one purpose-built. It will be far, far cheaper than jury-rigging ISS.
- Next message: Roger Stokes: "Re: Thoughts on alternative launch methods"
- Previous message: Zeefor: "Pulse High Symbol"
- In reply to: Matthew Montchalin: "Re: ISS as Mars vehicle"
- Next in thread: Matthew Montchalin: "Re: ISS as Mars vehicle"
- Reply: Matthew Montchalin: "Re: ISS as Mars vehicle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|