Getting our astronauts into and out of space

In article ,
says...
once ISS or hubble were actually relocated and shut down with perhaps
a beacon attached for tracking purposes, what costs will be incured?

Why would it need a "beacon"? It's quite visible by other means.

Once its moved to a safe long term secure high orbit then they can be
largely ignored till a future generation decide to take a close look..

But you ignore the cost of moving it. The delta-V to do this is surely
much more than to deorbit it.

Right now ISS has some ion thrusters on it....

Hubble could be moved slowly and gently over a period of years at low
thrust till it reaches its graveyard orbit. High thrust wouldnt really
be necessary


You ignore the risk inherent in such a large piece of space junk. Hit
it with another decent sized piece of space junk (or natural space
debris) and it might break into a lot of pieces, compounding the space
junk problem.

The bottom line is that the cost/risk ratio means both ISS and Hubble
are likely to end up at the bottom of the ocean once their useful life
is over.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

hubble at a graveyard orbit will need no maintence at all.
neither will ISS

Bull****. ISS is routinely maneuvered away from potentially dangerous
"space junk" in orbit. How do you propose to keep doing this if it is
unmanned and unmaintained? That's right, you can't, and keeping it
working is expensive. Who's going to pay for that?

besides were close to space tourism becoming viable. with low cost
launch vehicles people could go visit or even flyby some of these
vehicles/

Who would pay to maintain it in order to insure it is safe? The
international partners might not want the liability involved in having
tourists visiting an aging structure which may not be safe.

one day it might be possible to return hubble and at least some ISS
modules to earth and put them on display at KSC

Some day, under the rainbow... Oops, sorry, I thought we were
daydreaming, but you're serious. It will never happen Bob. Maybe it
could have happened if the shuttle were still flying, but it's not, so
it won't.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Saturday, May 3, 2014 8:30:27 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



hubble at a graveyard orbit will need no maintence at all.

neither will ISS



Bull****. ISS is routinely maneuvered away from potentially dangerous

"space junk" in orbit. How do you propose to keep doing this if it is

unmanned and unmaintained? That's right, you can't, and keeping it

working is expensive. Who's going to pay for that?



besides were close to space tourism becoming viable. with low cost

launch vehicles people could go visit or even flyby some of these

vehicles/



Who would pay to maintain it in order to insure it is safe? The

international partners might not want the liability involved in having

tourists visiting an aging structure which may not be safe.



one day it might be possible to return hubble and at least some ISS

modules to earth and put them on display at KSC



Some day, under the rainbow... Oops, sorry, I thought we were

daydreaming, but you're serious. It will never happen Bob. Maybe it

could have happened if the shuttle were still flying, but it's not, so

it won't.



Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

ISS is in a low orbit 200 some miles, theres lots of space to put a no longer needed ISS in a high orbit thats stable and has little in it. GEO SYNC sats are routinely moved at end of life to orbits stable for 5000 years.

the power stage or booster for lack of a better term could be a space tug, move hubble, move sats in wrong orbits using a universal grapple, rescue astronauts when they have a bad day. no doubt the military would like one for spy uses.

a space tug would be reusable and very useful

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


I guess you didnt know indenpendence hall and most other historic buildings
get continious maintence. Signs say renovation is preservation or some
such.


I guess I do know that. I also know the cost of that maintenance is
millions less for similar maintenance for ISS.

You want someone to fix a leaky radiator, it's probably $150/hour plus parts
at Independence Hall.
You have the same problem on ISS (and you will) it's more like
$1million/hour.

Buildings with constant visitors need constant work, not only for damage by
visitors but routine maintence...

hubble at a graveyard orbit will need no maintence at all. neither will ISS


Really? We miraculously found a way to make ISS need no maintenance? I'm
sure NASA would love to know about this. Tell me how did they solve this
problem?

And before you say, "but it won't be manned" I'll point out stuff STILL
breaks due to thermal cycling, micrometeoroid damage, UV and more. If you
suddenly flood your empty ISS with fluids, it won't be much use when you can
magically turn it into a museum for visitors.

besides were close to space tourism becoming viable. with low cost launch
vehicles people could go visit or even flyby some of these vehicles/

Umm right. I can hope on a train and take it to downtown Philly for $87.30.
And get a nap in on the way.

Tell me when I can get to LEO (which is technically closer) for even 100x
that price. Then I'll believe we'll have any number of visitors worth
counting.


one day it might be possible to return hubble and at least some ISS modules
to earth and put them on display at KSC

Maybe.

So, I challenge YOU Bob, to start a non-profit dedicated to raising
awareness and funds to do this. If you think it's so important, do
something about it because I can assure you that it's not going to happen
otherwise.





--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


ISS is in a low orbit 200 some miles, theres lots of space to put a no
longer needed ISS in a high orbit thats stable and has little in it. GEO
SYNC sats are routinely moved at end of life to orbits stable for 5000
years.


That's because it's cheaper than de-orbiting them and the owners really
don't care what happens afterwards. If they suffer damage, no one cares.


the power stage or booster for lack of a better term could be a space tug,
move hubble, move sats in wrong orbits using a universal grapple, rescue
astronauts when they have a bad day. no doubt the military would like one
for spy uses.

a space tug would be reusable and very useful

So would warp drive and a transporter.

Again Bob, orbital mechanics, learn some.

And economics.





--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...
ISS is in a low orbit 200 some miles, theres lots of space to put
a no longer needed ISS in a high orbit thats stable and has little
in it. GEO SYNC sats are routinely moved at end of life to orbits
stable for 5000 years.

The delta-V to move a geosync satellite into a graveyard orbit is rather
small. The delta-V to move ISS into the same graveyard orbit is
excessive. It will take far less delta-V to move ISS into the Pacific.
On top of that, there is less risk (ISS is huge compared to a comsat).

the power stage or booster for lack of a better term could be a
space tug, move hubble, move sats in wrong orbits using a
universal grapple, rescue astronauts when they have a bad day.
no doubt the military would like one for spy uses.

This is b.s. and you know it.

a space tug would be reusable and very useful

And who will pay for its development?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer