On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 13:14:52 -0800, "Tony Fredericks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Non-sequitor. If they were taking a module up to the Space Station, they >had the fuel to dock. They weren't taking a module up to ISS. Columbia, the first orbiter in the fleet, was too heavy to well support ISS. Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavour support ISS; Columbia was given the EDO (Extended Duration Orbiter) retrofit, and used as a recoverable space station. The modules aboard STS-107 were two Spacehab modules, used to run experiments. I saw the Time.com article on the disaster (not Easterbrook's article, which is flamebait), and was amazed and appalled at the innumeracy displayed on the subject of Columbia docking at ISS. The reasons they gave were lack of training and lack of a docking adapter. Like those are good reasons if lives are at stake. The reason they couldn't rendezvous with ISS was that it's hugely expensive to change orbital planes, and Columbia was in a 41 degree orbit (ISS orbits at 57 degrees). -R _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
