Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: No more Americans in Space?
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology
Google
Kept_from_Rights
I have seen a recent news paper article that had said it was being considered to discontinue manned U.S. space flight.

ARE THESE PEOPLE SERIOUS?!

Who do they suppose we will have to deal with to maintain our modern communications systems?

If some one owns the access to our satelites, they basically own our communications and media.....

Which menas that they basically own us....... NO?
Google
Aquilla
Most communications satellites are in geo-stationary orbits, far out of the reach of any manned space vehicle currently in production. Personally, I'd like to see the development of a "space truck" that could be based at the ISS and venture out to those satellites and beyond, but I haven't heard of any such plans, nor have I heard of any plans to terminate the manned space program.
GoAmerica
QUOTE(Kept_from_Rights @ May 12 2003, 03:02 PM)
I have seen a recent news paper article that had said it was being considered to discontinue manned U.S. space flight.

ARE THESE PEOPLE SERIOUS?!

Who do they suppose we will have to deal with to maintain our modern communications systems?

If some one owns the access to our satelites, they basically own our communications and media.....

Which menas that they basically own us....... NO?

I don't think that will happen. The shuttles are old & need to be re-built with modern material. The shuttle Columbia was the oldest in NASA's fleet (30 yrs old i believe).
unabomber
welcome to americas debate KFR.

now, do you believe everything you read in the papers? I HIGHLY doubt that we will discontinue manned flights. we didn't after apollo 1, nor after challenger. though I suspect columbia may lead to changes at NASA (such as having actual scientist running it instead of "suits"* or a new launch vehicle) in about 40 years of manned space flight only 17 people have died (three in apollo 1, seven in each shuttle accident.)

(*on a side note, both the challenger and columbia disasters were the results of suits not listening to scientists)

and as GA points out, columbia was the oldest shuttle. it was actually the first shuttle to be used. (back when they still painted the central tank white)

we won't have to worry about acessing these sattelites, as I don't see americans giving up on space flight (even if nasa were to end all manned flights, a private company would do it, space, as they say, is the final frontier)
Juber3
Fortunatley i believe that man should go into space. We need to seek out new civilizations and to bodly go where no man has gone before-Kirk Star Trek
Greenring7
Back in the day, weren't there plans for lunar colonization?

Seriously. Why build a space station, which will eventually fall to earth, if not supplied enough fuel, as opposed to a lunar station, which will never fall to earth, and, if placed properly, could bask in perpetual sunlight?

-Robert (Real estate is real expensive up there. Something about the extra heavy bricks.)
Aquilla
QUOTE(Greenring7 @ Jun 15 2003, 07:58 PM)
Seriously. Why build a space station, which will eventually fall to earth, if not supplied enough fuel, as opposed to a lunar station, which will never fall to earth, and, if placed properly, could bask in perpetual sunlight?

Well, for one thing, keeping it supplied would be enormously expensive and require the development and production of a whole new fleet of space vehicles. That would be something I would personally like to see, but that's kind of my line of work so I'm hardly objective.

Another thing to keep in mind is that much of the scientific exploration being conducted on the Space Station deals with zero-gravity (or near-zero for the purists out there) and you don't have that on the Moon. Besides, the last time I talked to Neil Armstrong (yeah, I'm name-dropping, but when's the last time you chatted with a historical figure?) tongue.gif , he told me that the moon was a nice place to visit, but he wouldn't want to live there.
moif
Aquilla

QUOTE
Most communications satellites are in geo-stationary orbits, far out of the reach of any manned space vehicle currently in production. 


This is not true. A lot of satelites are in orbit, but in fact very few are in geo sync. Nearly all communications satelites are in low orbit.

If you don't believe me, then follow the link below and chose the option marked J-Track 3 D, accept the down load and you can see the position of every operational satelite in Earth orbit in 3D.

The geo sync satelites are the ones in medium orbit range. If you click on one of them you can get a name and an orbital track from it. They are mostly GPS satelites.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/temp/StationLoc.html


QUOTE
I have seen a recent news paper article that had said it was being considered to discontinue manned U.S. space flight.
ARE THESE PEOPLE SERIOUS?!
Who do they suppose we will have to deal with to maintain our modern communications systems?
If some one owns the access to our satelites, they basically own our communications and media.....
Which menas that they basically own us....... NO?


I don't believe this is true for a moment. The USA is the worlds leader in space flight and there is no way that it will simply step away from that position.

Also, you don't need manned missions to replace communications satelites. As it is today they are simply launched into low orbit with the clear understand that they will only live for a few years. Telecommunications is a very fast moving business and new generation satelites are being put up all the time.

Once they break down, they are simply replaced. Being in low orbit means their remains do not hang about for very long but are burned up in the atmosphere.
Aquilla
QUOTE(moif @ Jun 23 2003, 11:04 PM)
Aquilla

QUOTE
Most communications satellites are in geo-stationary orbits, far out of the reach of any manned space vehicle currently in production. 


This is not true. A lot of satelites are in orbit, but in fact very few are in geo sync. Nearly all communications satelites are in low orbit.

If you don't believe me, then follow the link below and chose the option marked J-Track 3 D, accept the down load and you can see the position of every operational satelite in Earth orbit in 3D.

The geo sync satelites are the ones in medium orbit range. If you click on one of them you can get a name and an orbital track from it. They are mostly GPS satelites.


Sorry, Moif, much as I hate to disagree with you.... smile.gif You are wrong.

There is a difference between a geo-synchronous and a geo-stationary orbit. All Geo-stationary orbits are geo-sync orbits, but not all geo-sync orbits are geo-stationary. Geo-sync orbits are orbits that have a period of 24 hours. Geo-stationary orbits are circular orbits that stay over the same place on earth all the time. That means they are on the equator at a distance of around 25,000 miles, I can calculate the exact distance if you wish, but it's about 25,000 miles.

It is true that there are lots of satellites of a variety of types, but what I think of as "communications satellites" are all geo-stationary satellites. They are the ones used for television broadcasting. GPS satellites are in polar orbits meaning they go around the earth from pole to pole as do most weather satellites and earth mapping satellites. Spy satellites go wherever they are needed and if I told you their orbital parameters, I'd have to kill you. smile.gif

However, communications satellites are a very special breed and they only have one kind of orbit and there are a limited number of slots available for them. I think it's every 3 degrees or so. I know this because in one of my former "lives" I used to talk to them from a satellite truck.

A complete list and more than you'd ever want to know is available at the following link......

The BIBLE for Sat engineers

LOL!!! During the 9/11 stuff I was working for an independant Satellite truck company as their operations guy and ABC hired us to do Sat shots from LAX. I was doing a Nightline and a security guy came up to me and asked me how I knew where to find the satellite we were using to transmit. I told him you had to look really hard at the sky and you could see it up there, then you point the dish at it. He stood there for a few minutes and said, "I can't see it". I told him, 'That's why I'm sitting in the truck and eating the chicken dinner ABC brought in and you aren't". biggrin.gif
moif
Aquilla.

I'm not sure which part of what I wrote you disagree with. All of it?

My contention is that most communications satelites are low orbit. Is that what you disagree about?

blink.gif


Actually to be honest, I was not thinking about TV satelites at all. That never registered in my head as communications, although I suppose it is. I was thinking about telephone systems and stuff like that...
Google
Aquilla
QUOTE(moif @ Jun 24 2003, 01:12 AM)
Actually to be honest, I was not thinking about TV satelites at all. That never registered in my head as communications, although I suppose it is. I was thinking about telephone systems and stuff like that...

Hmmm... Not sure about what telephone sats are up there or where they are, I know there are some shortwave radio repeater satellites that are reasonably low orbit. They are pretty cheap though compared to a television satellite and not nearly so useful. My comments were based strictly on the television satellites which include by the way, Direct TV which does offer Internet access over their birds.

The thing I really loved about being a sat engineer was the realization that I was sending a signal that was traveling some 25,000 miles out and 25,000 miles back, then being re-transmitted around the world. I once did a motorcycle race from Sonoma, California that we sent directly to the UK via PAS-9 and that was totally cool! Something magical about knowing that people in London were seeing something sent from my truck thousands of miles away.
lucky13mre
I think at this point in time it's becoming obvious the space program is sending up shuttles/rockets/whatever they can just to maintain their funding priorities (suits/egos/outrageous salaries). I say it's obvious because although there are definite needs(media/communications/surveillance) to be maintained, these manned missions don't really meet the needs of the world as we are living it. Yes, there are technologies that can be refined through experimentation in space, but really... imagine the solutions we could fund on Earth for bettering the Earth-bound population with the billions being spent on space exploration... just a thought.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.