Re: That would take an awful lot of fuel

Space/Science » in reply to That would take an awful lot of fuel

Delbert — 2/3/2003 12:59:12 PM (archived)

When you think about it aerodynamic braking is the only solution that makes sense. It takes 2 SRBs and all the fuel in ET to get it into orbit, and would take an equivalent amount to bring it down without aerodynamic braking.

The whole thread (20 posts)

tiles? future inspection - Brian Gyles - 2/3/2003 8:12:54 PM
- Re: Sure -- but it won't stop FOD . . . - D. Spires - 2/3/2003 8:36:06 PM
  - Re: Could've been hit by a meteorite - SM - 2/3/2003 8:57:52 PM
    - I think this has happened in the past... - Scott - 2/3/2003 9:39:18 AM
  - Re: Sure -- but it won't stop FOD . . . - Brian Gyles - 2/3/2003 9:00:39 AM
- Just about all missions in the same orbit as the station? - Scott - 2/3/2003 9:30:37 AM
  - Re: AerCam - Raoul Lannoy - 2/3/2003 9:42:17 AM
    - Wow! - Tom Brosz - 2/3/2003 11:40:54 AM
    - an excellent point. - et - 2/3/2003 9:53:51 AM
  - Re: If time and supplies allow . . . - D. Spires - 2/3/2003 9:33:53 AM
    - That would take an awful lot of fuel - Larry J - 2/3/2003 11:03:56 AM
      - Re: That would take an awful lot of fuel - Delbert - 2/3/2003 12:59:12 PM
        
        Not exactly - Splinx - 2/3/2003 1:17:42 PM
        
        Re: Not exactly - Delbert - 2/3/2003 3:54:27 PM
        
        Re: Not exactly - Splinx - 2/4/2003 6:04:16 PM
        
        True except that you have two factors in your favor on the way back vs. launch - Scott - 2/4/2003 4:09:45 PM
        
        Re: Not exactly - Larry J - 2/3/2003 1:48:42 PM
        
        Re: Not exactly - Splinx - 2/4/2003 6:07:02 PM
      - Re: Yes, it would . . . - D. Spires - 2/3/2003 11:44:19 AM
        
        I think it would be easer to redesign the heat sheilding. - Scott - 2/3/2003 12:56:16 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (20 posts)