<<I'm not sure how long it would take to swap "payload" on an ICBM, but it's not designed or programmed for orbital delivery. It's likely not a reasonable option.>>
One of the most frequent errors I encountered in space operations was the knee-jerk reaction that something wasn't practical or couldn't be done because the equipment "wasn't designed for that." The people making those kinds of objections cost many valuable hours spent in meetings with higher ups; eventually, when the need got great enough and enough physicists and real engineers were called on, we got the go-ahead and did it. Equipment can do what it can do; what it is designed to do is generally the minimum of what it can do. On the DSCS II (defense comsat) program, we added years to satellite lifetime by using a trickle charge mode to avoid a pulse overcharge regime that was damaging battery cells. We also used attitude control thrusters to make inclination changes. Galileo made do with a low gain antenna from Jupiter. Mariner 10 used its solar panels as sails for attitude control. A solar wind observatory was turned into a comet probe--on orbit. And of course there was Apollo 13. Specifically, guidance equations can be changed in a matter of days, if not hours. (this has been looked at with respect to asteroid intercept, among other things). ICBM's use onboard accelerometers to fly to a state vector. The payload mass is a parameter. What you do is load a new state vector in a simulator, run the simulation, iterate on mass, and when it works, load it into the missile. It's not all that different from a "normal" retargeting. Designing the new payloads would be the driver. There wouldn't have been time for a lot of the normal payload integration stuff, so it would have had to been made much more robust than usual space stuff. Anyway, it's not up to us to do the engineering. The important point in the investigation will be that such things weren't even considered. We've been launching satellites with reprogrammed ICBMs for a long time. Project Score in 1958 was our first one, done with an Atlas, rather quickly--about six months from go, with the driver being the comsat payload. <<"Moving" a Russian launch complex? How? Where? It's just not practical in the time available. >> The standard Soyuz base is an old ICBM and moves on a rail transporter/erector (pulled by a locomotive). Most of the stuff they use is descended from stuff designed to be relocatable. I feel confident that, given funds, a Soyuz could have been launched from 39 deg lat within 90 days. (Of course, more than one would have been needed). I suspect that, depending on how much commonality remains with the ICBM predecessor, it might even have been doable in less than a week (but that capability is probably a Russian state secret). I think the drivers on this would probably have been payload design/availability and the time it takes concrete to harden sufficiently. As to where, my first guess would be India (another possible player in an emergency resupply effort). <<Their only rescue option was turning Atlantis in time to rendezvous.>> I STRONGLY disagree. <<It might have been possible. It might have caused another accident that cost both shuttles. >> I'd hate to have to try to quantify that with lives at stake. But I suspect the physical capability is there to do turnarounds in a few weeks--that was what the system was designed for. The current tempo is a result of stringent economizing. Given a tank and solid boosters available (don't know), I suspect the drivers here would be personnel availability and a decision on whether or not to implement a fix on tank insulation separation before the rescue effort. With respect to bringing Columbia back. First the orbit would be raised. Then the damage would have been repaired. Then someone would have volunteered to fly it back. (But given a few months to do the engineering, a fully automated or teleoperated landing would probably have been tried, over objections). p.s. Can a Shuttle cary eight people? --Best, Gerald _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
