On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Randall Clague wrote:
> You missed the discussion last night. Assume the mission is a flyby
> of the rock coming through on the 18th, and the trajectory from
> hereabouts is nearly straight up: the rock is going to pass near Vega,
> which is almost overhead in the evening this
On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 15:24:11 -0700, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was speaking specifically about the asteroid flyby mission under
>discussion. That's at least a 13 km/s delta-V, which will require at least
>two stages with current tech and a realistic budget.
One of my
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> << If you're talking about a flyby as the asteroid passes -- so the probe
> just needs to be in the right near-Earth place at the right time -- then a
> reasonable rule of thumb is to take an orbital delta-V and add 3km/s.
>
> Ditto for close ones.
<< If you're talking about a flyby as the asteroid passes -- so the probe
just needs to be in the right near-Earth place at the right time -- then a
reasonable rule of thumb is to take an orbital delta-V and add 3km/s.
Henry Spencer >>
D
Pierce Nichols wrote:
>
> At 12:10 PM 8/1/02 -0700, Randall Clague wrote:
> >On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:02:21 -0700, Pierce Nichols
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > It's not really possible to say a priori whether the staging event
> > >should be orbital or suborbital. That's a determi
At 12:10 PM 8/1/02 -0700, Randall Clague wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:02:21 -0700, Pierce Nichols
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It's not really possible to say a priori whether the staging event
> >should be orbital or suborbital. That's a determination that must be made
> >as part o
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> >Better yet, a reusable *orbital* booster with a single-use upper stage.
> >(To quote Max Hunter: "I like staging, but I want to do it in orbit.")
>
> It's not really possible to say a priori whether the staging event
> should be orbital or s
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, David Weinshenker wrote:
> > reasonable rule of thumb is to take an orbital delta-V and add 3km/s.
>
> Hmmm... so total of just under 13 km/s (assuming that it takes almost 10
> to get to orbit)... I remain agnostic on the question of whether it's
> practical to build a useful
On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:02:21 -0700, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not really possible to say a priori whether the staging event
>should be orbital or suborbital. That's a determination that must be made
>as part of the trajectory optimization, and it depends heavily o
At 01:17 PM 8/1/02 -0400, Henry Spencer wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, David Weinshenker wrote:
> > for a "hybrid" reusable/expendable profile... if you're not doing
> > a sample return, but just trying to radio back some high-resolution
> > images of the item against the star field, then it might be
Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, David Weinshenker wrote:
> > for a "hybrid" reusable/expendable profile... if you're not doing
> > a sample return, but just trying to radio back some high-resolution
> > images of the item against the star field, then it might be reasonable
> > to use
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, David Weinshenker wrote:
> for a "hybrid" reusable/expendable profile... if you're not doing
> a sample return, but just trying to radio back some high-resolution
> images of the item against the star field, then it might be reasonable
> to use a reusable suborbital booster wit
So the notion of an asteroid encounter mission has been raised...
it occurs to me that in such a situation, a case could be made
for a "hybrid" reusable/expendable profile... if you're not doing
a sample return, but just trying to radio back some high-resolution
images of the item against the star
13 matches
Mail list logo
