3 ms·
"Step back a moment, and look at what we really need to bring back from orbit - it's the astronauts. Nothing else." By saying that you're wilfully ignoring the
by dingaling 13y ago
"Step back a moment, and look at what we really need to bring back from orbit - it's the astronauts. Nothing else."
By saying that you're wilfully ignoring the key reason the Shuttle was designed the way it was; not to bring astronauts back but to return DoD satellites to Earth for servicing. That was only done a few times in practice, but drove the whole design process ( including the cross-range manoeuvring capability that led to wings being added).
- WalterBright 13y agoThe article pretty much destroys the concept of bringing back satellites. The only other thing we actually need to bring back is information - and telemetry does that just fine.
- zb 13y agoNot really - it destroys the concept of bringing back commercial satellites, which are mostly in geosynchronous orbits (and which, as it correctly points out, nobody wants back anyway). This may have been the story they were selling the public at the time, but the driver of this requirement was the Air Force and what they really wanted it for was to bring back military satellites, which actually are in Low Earth Orbit. Of course, what they really really wanted was the capability to bring back Soviet military satellites (remember, SDI was just about to kick off). How they expected to pull this off without triggering Armageddon was never clear, but I guess a lot of people's budgets depended on them not pointing out the obvious insanity.
- Spooky23 13y agoRemember this was the Cold War. Things like space weapons platforms weren't out of scope.