RE: [amsat-bb] Leaking out the nozzle

[Duane Naugle <Duane.Naugle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The last maneuvering proposal I read was going to use the arcjet to 
raise the apogee and then use that energy to raise the perigee. Then
the bi-propellant motor would be used for modifying the inclination.

Of course it did not mention test firing of the bi-propellant motor.

Your mileage may vary.

Duane 
ko6bt@amsat.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward R. Cole [mailto:al7eb@ptialaska.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:13 AM
To: amsat-bb@AMSAT.Org
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Leaking out the nozzle 



>From: "Joseph B. Fitzgerald" <jfitzgerald@alum.WPI.EDU>
>> Keith wrote:
>
>>We have a lot more apogee altitude to spare than perigee...
>
>
>No doubt!  I just wanted to confirm my suspicions , expecially after
>watching a nice little film on the NASA channel last night,  a kind of 
>Orbital Mechanics 101 ... I wish I had taped it.
>
>I am also curious about what effect an in plane thrust normal to the 
>velocity vector has on the orbit ... like we are apparently seeing at MA 
>30 for example.

I'm no orbital mechanics expert, but I recall in the original orbit
maneuvering plans that they were to achieve the high apogee and use its
energy in some manner to obtain the necessary inclination...help, Ken? 

Ed

----
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org
----
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org