 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2008Is the ISS forever?
Will the ISS circle the Earth in its present orbit indefinitely, even if someday it becomes an unmaned hulk? I cannot see it being deorbited for both political reasons (pride, money, time, lives lost) and the obvious hazard of bringing it back to Earth without danger to the population or property. Alternatively, I suppose it could be boosted to a perpetual high orbit by means of a robot ship or if it had to be destructed safely, a nuclear explosive could vaporize it without creating a Saturn-like ring of space debris around the planet. Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it > Will the ISS circle the Earth in its present orbit indefinitely, even if > someday it becomes an unmaned hulk? I cannot see it being deorbited for > both political reasons (pride, money, time, lives lost) and the obvious > hazard of bringing it back to Earth without danger to the population or > property. Who is going to spend the money, and risk crew, to keep reboosting it, after its mission is completed and it is no longer used? They'll de-orbit it and have it crash into a lonely stretch of ocean. like the area just north of Antarctica. > Will the ISS circle the Earth in its present orbit indefinitely, even if > someday it becomes an unmaned hulk? I cannot see it being deorbited for > both political reasons (pride, money, time, lives lost) and the obvious > hazard of bringing it back to Earth without danger to the population or > property. It will be deorbited. That is the plan and there is no way around it. and it can be done without danger to the population or property. (see MIR) > Alternatively, I suppose it could be boosted to a perpetual high orbit by > means of a robot ship or if it had to be destructed safely, a nuclear > explosive could vaporize it without creating a Saturn-like ring of space > debris around the planet. No and No. Too much energy to take it higher and a nuke would make more of a mess and would endanger lives and property > Too much energy to take it higher and a nuke would make more of a mess > and would endanger lives and property You could probably attach some small ion-engines to it and (provided the solar arrays are still operating then) raise its orbit gradually... But still, even if it's in a stable orbit then, it will shed debris over time and become a long-term nuisance. Moving it into a solar orbit might suffice, but I don't exactly see that happening. Jochem  Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery Others have answered this in the most obvious way, but I'd like to say that assuming no accidents that damage the system, I imagine it will be manned for longer than the basic life now envisaged. However, who can say what politicians might decide to do. It could have a fate like the Apollo program where everyone got bored and decided to spend the money elsewhere. With the typical short term ism we humans are famous for, it could be trashed a lot sooner than one would imagine. I personally feel this would be wrong, but how do you sell something you cannot turn a profit on to the bean counters of this world who seem to have no imagination or need to know about science. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Will the ISS circle the Earth in its present orbit indefinitely, even if > someday it becomes an unmaned hulk? I cannot see it being deorbited for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Per maggiori informazioni |For more info > https://www.mixmaster.it Depending on when we go to Mars, the ISS *might* be used as a staging area to assemble the mars expedition ship. (some say its inclimation is bad, but if russia and china are to participate in a mars expedition ship, their launch capabilities might make it worth to sacrifice payload from KSC.) If a mars expedition ship is assembled at lower inclination, it is likely the ISS will be abandonned at about the same time as the mars expedition ship assembly begins. Another option would be for Ricky Branson to buy the ISS for $1 from each of the member nations, and operate it as a hotel with his Virgin Galactic providing transportation. (But again, this wouldn't happen until nations pool all their resources to build a mars expedition ship. Werent abandoned russian stations before MIR put into storage orbits? with a historical view wouldnt it have been wonderful if apollo 11s lunar module had been saved from crashing on the moon? we should look not just at costs but at the history........... and try to save at least some of it. my favoorite is ddont deorbit hubble, put it in a high storage orbit good for at least a couple hundred years On Feb 19, 12:42 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote: > my favoorite is ddont deorbit hubble, put it in a high storage orbit > good for at least a couple hundred years Maybe as an LDEF 2. Take additional time to carefully document its condition on the next mission to HST. Boost it at the end of its service life to a higher storage orbit and it will be waiting for us, sort of like a rarely used book on the library shelf. Sometime in the future, when we have the capability, we go back and examine it to determine the effects of longer term space exposure. Questions would be: cost, value (a far different thing) and the realism that it would stay where we needed it to. A similar thought was on mind of folks for Skylab, but delays in STS development didn''t allow things to work out. take care . . . John > Werent abandoned russian stations before MIR put into storage orbits? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > my favoorite is ddont deorbit hubble, put it in a high storage orbit > good for at least a couple hundred years I often wondered, did the Apollo CSM have the fuel to return both the command module and lunar acsent module to earth? I know that the lunar ascent module would burn up upon re-entry, but it it could have served as extra volumn and perhaps a life boat (if outfitted before hand) in case of another Apollo 13 type mishap on the return. Imagine what would have happened if the Apollo 13 accident had happened on the return to earth. > > Werent abandoned russian stations before MIR put into storage orbits? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > another Apollo 13 type mishap on the return. Imagine what would have > happened if the Apollo 13 accident had happened on the return to earth. The lunar acsent module would have had no power or oxygen. It only carried enough for the short ascent from the moon with some margin. Apollo 13 used the resources in the descent stage which support the lunar stay. > Depending on when we go to Mars, the ISS *might* be used as a staging > area to assemble the mars expedition ship. (some say its inclimation is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > likely the ISS will be abandonned at about the same time as the mars > expedition ship assembly begins. I'd guess that ISS will be deorbited long before any manned Mars missions would begin. > Another option would be for Ricky Branson to buy the ISS for $1 from > each of the member nations, and operate it as a hotel with his Virgin > Galactic providing transportation. (But again, this wouldn't happen > until nations pool all their resources to build a mars expedition ship. Again, I'd doubt this. The liability would be too large (eventually ISS will come down, and if it does so uncontrollably, the results might not be good). I'd think that he'd rather fly people to Bigelow's brand spanking new inflatable space stations and let Bigelow worry about the liability. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >....................... Another option would be for Ricky Branson to buy >the ISS for $1 from > each of the member nations, and operate it as a hotel with his Virgin > Galactic providing transportation. (But again, this wouldn't happen > until nations pool all their resources to build a mars expedition ship. Yes John Cleese (Basil Fawlty) could run it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.