Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 13, 2024 at 19:03 history edited geoffc CC BY-SA 4.0
added 107 characters in body
Nov 13, 2024 at 18:56 history edited geoffc CC BY-SA 4.0
added 107 characters in body
Nov 13, 2024 at 5:18 comment added user71659 This answer missed the mark because it's centered on a flawed assumption "These have a thrust of 90 lbs. [400 N] That is just too little to make much of a difference." The ATV reboosted with 4x 490 N. Proposed electric propulsion for the ISS was 0.5-1 N. The impulse and specific impulse are important, not the force.
Oct 7, 2014 at 9:55 comment added pepoluan Personally, I don't think NASA made a mistake not requiring station-boost ability. The geometry of the station means only the Zvezda module is suitable for boosting. Boost any other place, and you risk adding angular momentum and/or shear stress on module couplings. Besides, now that the Russians are no longer receiving the 'taxi fare' for cargo (and soon with Dragon 2, passenger) deliveries, we don't want them to also lose income from boost missions, right? :)
Oct 5, 2014 at 18:25 comment added geoffc Super Dracos are NOT used for in space manuevering. They are used for launch abort, and if not used to abort, for powered landing. Regular Draco's are meant for use in space.
Oct 5, 2014 at 16:34 comment added LocalFluff But if the service module is in the way for the Super Draco engines, how could it maneuver in space? The sidewall angle where the engines are built in, is 15 degrees. Wouldn't that be enough to stay clear of the service module? And maybe it explains why they skip the extendable solar panels. It would seem to be a strange mistake for NASA to not require the ability to boost the station.
Oct 5, 2014 at 14:37 history answered geoffc CC BY-SA 3.0