|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS?
OM wrote:
...Has anyone done any estimates of roughly how long ISS could remain in orbit without any boosts from the Shuttle, Soyuz or Progress resupply missions? The issue has come up over on a BSG group, and I actually haven't been able to find anything on the NASA sites about this. Depends on where the station is within the reboost cycle, but IIRC it's a minimum of 180 days. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS?
Jorge R. Frank wrote: Depends on where the station is within the reboost cycle, but IIRC it's a minimum of 180 days. Once all eight solar panels are on it (there are six on it now), its drag goes up, and it takes more reboosts to maintain altitude. Mass also increases with the new modules that are being added to it, and that doesn't help either with the reboost energy needed to maintain it in orbit. It was designed to use the Shuttle OMS burns to lift its orbit on fairly frequent visits to it, and without further Shuttle missions to the ISS after its retirement, it's going to be a bit hard-pressed to keep it from reentering, as Progress cargo loads will need to be cut to give them enough reboost fuel. ESA's Jules Verne may be the only thing that keeps it viable in this regard after Shuttle retirement. Pat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS?
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
one... Jorge R. Frank wrote: Depends on where the station is within the reboost cycle, but IIRC it's a minimum of 180 days. Once all eight solar panels are on it (there are six on it now), its drag goes up, and it takes more reboosts to maintain altitude. Mass also increases with the new modules that are being added to it, and that doesn't help either with the reboost energy needed to maintain it in orbit. True, but higher density helps reduce the decay rate. It was designed to use the Shuttle OMS burns to lift its orbit on fairly frequent visits to it, and without further Shuttle missions to the ISS after its retirement, it's going to be a bit hard-pressed to keep it from reentering, as Progress cargo loads will need to be cut to give them enough reboost fuel. ESA's Jules Verne may be the only thing that keeps it viable in this regard after Shuttle retirement. Pat -- Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS?
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:43:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Jorge R. Frank wrote: Depends on where the station is within the reboost cycle, but IIRC it's a minimum of 180 days. Once all eight solar panels are on it (there are six on it now), its drag goes up, and it takes more reboosts to maintain altitude. Mass also increases with the new modules that are being added to it, and that doesn't help either with the reboost energy needed to maintain it in orbit. No, but more mass reduces the number of reboosts needed. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS?
On Jun 18, 3:43*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Jorge R. Frank wrote: It was designed to use the Shuttle OMS burns to lift its orbit on fairly frequent visits to it, and without further Shuttle missions to the ISS after its retirement, it's going to be a bit hard-pressed to keep it from reentering, as Progress cargo loads will need to be cut to give them enough reboost fuel. ESA's Jules Verne may be the only thing that keeps it viable in this regard after Shuttle retirement. Pat Incorrect. The shuttle OMS has never been used to reboost the ISS, nor was the ISS designed for it. The shuttle SOMETIMES does an RCS reboost when it has surplus propellant. The ISS was designed to be reboosted by Progress provided propellant from the beginning with the Progress or the SM engines being used. The ATV flights are a bonus, they do reduce the number of progress flights but the ISS could survive without them BTW, ATV is the ESA's resupply vehicle, Jules Verne is just the name of the first one. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS?
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Depends on where the station is within the reboost cycle, but IIRC it's a minimum of 180 days. Does this mean that in worse case scenario, the ISS would burn up 180 days after the last reboost ? Or is this more of a case that with more than 180 days between reboosts, the amount of delta V needed to bring it back to a normal orbit would exceed a single Progress/Shuttle's reboost capability ? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS?
On Jun 18, 5:28 pm, John Doe wrote:
Does this mean that in worse case scenario, the ISS would burn up 180 days after the last reboost ? You can get an idea of ISS orbital decay between reboosts by looking at the "Height of the ISS - how does it vary with time" graph in http://www.heavens-above.com/ See also http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/pr...ons/Image2.gif for a longer-term picture. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS?
On Jun 19, 10:28 am, John Doe wrote:
I assume that the rate of decay would increase as the altitude goes down. So dropping from 334 to 324 would take less than 3.5 months. Yes, but as you say, the decay rate goes up as the altitude decreases. There's a strong dependency on the solar cycle, but in general altitudes in the 250-300 km range are getting parlously low. See http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/1/3/8 and http://www.seva.net/reg/satellite/no...y/image001.gif |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS?
wrote: It was designed to use the Shuttle OMS burns to lift its orbit on fairly frequent visits to it, and without further Shuttle missions to the ISS after its retirement, it's going to be a bit hard-pressed to keep it from reentering, as Progress cargo loads will need to be cut to give them enough reboost fuel. ESA's Jules Verne may be the only thing that keeps it viable in this regard after Shuttle retirement. Pat Incorrect. The shuttle OMS has never been used to reboost the ISS, nor was the ISS designed for it. The shuttle SOMETIMES does an RCS reboost when it has surplus propellant. The ISS was designed to be reboosted by Progress provided propellant from the beginning with the Progress or the SM engines being used. The ATV flights are a bonus, they do reduce the number of progress flights but the ISS could survive without them My bad. I should have thought about the OMS engines - they would be too powerful given the way the Shuttle is docked to the station. Are the front or rear (or both) thruster groups used when the orbit is boosted? There is a updated ISS orbital height graph he http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeig...alt=0&t z=CET It doesn't appear to have gotten a boost from the last Shuttle mission. That website has a lot of info for satellite trackers: http://www.heavens-above.com/ Although I still think that the NASA real-time J-Track 3D is the most fun, as it turns your monitor into something like Space Command would have: http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/jtr.../JTrack3d.html FEDSAT is getting ready to pass overhead. BTW, ATV is the ESA's resupply vehicle, Jules Verne is just the name of the first one. What will the next ones be named? Any list out there? If they are all science fiction related, I imagine Cyrano de Bergerac and H.G. Wells can't be far behind. Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS? | OM[_6_] | Space Shuttle | 46 | July 24th 08 09:36 PM |
RFI: Calculated orbital decay rate of an unbooster ISS? | OM[_6_] | History | 26 | July 4th 08 02:22 AM |
Rate of change in orbital orientation | oriel36 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | October 14th 07 12:17 PM |
calculations of orbital decay for the Nebular Dust Cloud theory why has no astronomer or physicist calculated | Archimedes Plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 6 | January 13th 04 07:42 PM |