The forward direction is correct if one wishes to maximize semi-major axis (and likewise, altitude).

Throwing the suit vertically will just create higher eccentricity without any additional semi-major axis -- i.e., perigee will be lower than the ISS and apogee would be higher.

They deliberately throw the suits in the rearward direction so they will have a slightly lower altitiude to reduce the collision hazard and have it burn in more quickly. If you throw the suit forward, it will have a higher semi-major axis with perigee altitude at the release point. (Assuming the ISS's orbit were perfectly circular, which it naturally is not.)

The increased collision hazard is because the suit would be crossing the ISS's orbital path occasionally for a variety of reasons. The orbital crossings are reduced, if not eliminated, by throwing the suit rearward.

I hope this helps.

73, Ken N2WWD

-----Original Message-----

From: g0mrf@aol.com Sent: Jul 8, 2009 2:20 PM To: rogerkola@aol.com, amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ANS-189 AMSAT News Service Special Bulletin - SuitSat-2Transforms Into a Satellite

Now, that is an intriguing thought Roger !

I think to get maximum altitude you would need to 'throw' the satellite forward. i.e. in the direction of movement of the ISS. This would give you an elliptical orbit with the lowest point at the starting altitude and the apogee or highest point determined by the amount of delta V applied when the satellite was thrown.

So.....1) What orbit do you get if the original direction of travel is "vertical" or 90 degrees to the direction of travel? ???????? 2) How to convert the ability to throw a 1kg brick 25 feet into the air on earth, into a figure of Newton seconds to calculate thrust and delta V for orbital change.

Thanks

David

Just for grins...with the reduced gravity at 200 miles up..how much force would need to be applied "vertically" (in reality 'away from the earth") for a cubesat to arrive in an orbit which would last significantly longer without additional propulsion?

Background...I was a business major so such calculations ARE rocket science to me...

Roger WA1KAT

-----Original Message----- From: Roger Kolakowski rogerkola@aol.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:50 Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ANS-189 AMSAT News Service Special Bulletin - SuitSat-2Transforms Into a Satellite

Just for grins...with the reduced gravity at 200 miles up..how much force would need to be applied "vertically" (in reality 'away from the earth") for a cubesat to arrive in an orbit which would last significantly longer without additional propulsion?

Background...I was a business major so such calculations ARE rocket science to me...

Roger WA1KAT ----- Original Message ----- From: "JoAnne Maenpaa" k9jkm@comcast.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:08 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] ANS-189 AMSAT News Service Special Bulletin - SuitSat-2Transforms Into a Satellite

...

SB SAT @ AMSAT $ANS-189.01 SuitSat-2 Transforms Into a Satellite

AMSAT News Service Bulletin 189.01

...

From AMSAT HQ SILVER SPRING, MD.

July 8, 2009 To All RADIO AMATEURS BID: $ANS-189.01

Due to storage considerations on the International Space Station, the two surplus Orlan space suits in storage on the International Space Station were discarded via the Progress Cargo Vessel. One of these suits was to be used to house the electronics for the upcoming SuitSat-2 mission ... ;-(

---

Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb

---

AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb