[meteorite-list] Why did they not use the leftover propellantto heighten the orbit and push the rogue satellite into space?

From: Dennis Cox <dragon-hunter_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:56:28 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT135-ds148AACE7651D92E4B491FD8F050_at_phx.gbl>

You're second guessing your self Doug.

You said:

>oops:
>
> "Slow it down 600 mph (to 16,400 mph) and burn up vs. speed it up 600
> mph (to 17,600 mph) and get to an orbit 300 miles higher in altitude "
>
> should read:
>
> "Speed it up 600 mph (to 17,600 mph) and burn up vs. slow it down 600
> mph (to 16,400 mph) and get to an orbit 300 miles higher in altitude "
>
> ****


No, you got it right the first time.

You have to Decelerate the satellite to get it to fall out of orbit and burn
up. And accelerate it to get it to climb up into a higher orbit.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "MexicoDoug" <mexicodoug at aim.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:39 AM
To: <mexicodoug at aim.com>; <jim_brady611 at o2.co.uk>;
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Why did they not use the leftover propellantto
heighten the orbit and push the rogue satellite into space?

> oops:
>
> "Slow it down 600 mph (to 16,400 mph) and burn up vs. speed it up 600
> mph (to 17,600 mph) and get to an orbit 300 miles higher in altitude "
>
> should read:
>
> "Speed it up 600 mph (to 17,600 mph) and burn up vs. slow it down 600
> mph (to 16,400 mph) and get to an orbit 300 miles higher in altitude "
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug at aim.com>
> To: jim_brady611 <jim_brady611 at o2.co.uk>; meteorite-list
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Mon, Sep 12, 2011 12:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Why did they not use the leftover propellant
> to heighten the orbit and push the rogue satellite into space?
>
>
> Its going a bit under 17,000 mph.
>
> Slow it down 600 mph (to 16,400 mph) and burn up vs. speed it up 600
> mph (to 17,600 mph) and get to an orbit 300 miles higher in altitude
> where gravity is still 75% what it is on earth's surface, and
> completely lost control of what happens after that since there is no
> fuel.
>
> Move it down 300 miles and you've burnt up already in the atmosphere,
> problem solved.
>
> It was a 340 miles altitude. The gravity is about 85% the value it is
> on earth there, or about 8.31 m/s2 (at sea level g=9.8 m/s2). They
> wouldn't have blasted it out very far considering it weighs 12,500
> pounds. Just because you have cleared the atmosphere with a heavy duty
> launch vehicle doesn't mean you can just kick a little out of orbit
> with the limited onboard fuel tank.
>
> It is a misconception that there is no gravity in lower earth orbits.
> This is because of the weightlessness. The weightlessness is caused by
> the orbit being a continuous free fall where roughly no energy is
> required to maintain the orbit... just like being on a ride at an
> amusement park you feel reduced gravity:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_YycEG4IkA&feature=related.
>
> If the satellite tried to stand still, it would burn its fuel out
> maintaining its altitude almost immediately.
>
> Of course, they could have done as you said and used it to raise the
> orbit until the fuel ran out. Then there would be no risk from fuel
> since it would be all gone. But it would still be there as space junk,
> intelligence information, and depending on how much propellant maybe
> decaying sooner rather than later anyway.
>
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim_brady611 <jim_brady611 at o2.co.uk>
> To: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Mon, Sep 12, 2011 10:31 am
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Why did they not use the leftover propellant
> to heighten the orbit and push the rogue satellite into space?
>
>
> from Rons original posting
>
> "...When NASA
> decommissioned the 12,500-pound satellite in 2005, controllers used
> leftover propellant to lower its orbit from 340 miles to expedite its
> re-entry. "
>
> Surely if they are already in orbit it would only take a tiny amount
> of fuel to push it completely out of orbit?
>
>
> can someone enlighten me please? The only thing I can guess is that it
> would endanger other satellites or possibly the ISS if they had
> propelled it away instead of towards the Earth.
>
> 2424
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
>
Received on Tue 13 Sep 2011 04:56:28 PM PDT