|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Getting our astronauts into and out of space
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Getting our astronauts into and out of space
"David Spain" wrote in message
... On 4/3/2014 2:49 AM, wrote: Well, I guess that would be no threat. We could blow it out of the sky if necessary. I mean if they were so stupid as to try and weaponize it. Hopefully all this crap blows over. Agree with what's already be written about "blowing it out of the sky". Not a good idea, really not.... Neither is a "controlled re-entry" option a good one. We have had little experience (none) in bringing such a large object down in one piece as the ISS. Worst case, break it into smaller pieces in orbit and de-orbit those. However, not only is that unnecessary, it's probably counter productive as now you need to figure out the dynamics for each piece. Our (US) previous experience was Skylab and there were fairly significant risks that even under "controlled" re-entry parts of the station would come down intact to reach land. There was really nothing "controlled" about the Skylab re-entry. The best we could do was re-orient it for maximum drag. It had no thrusters. Mir and the previous Salyut stations are a much better example. (Lead-lined film vault for starters). The debris field for the ISS will be enormous. It certainly will not come down as a single fragment. Aerodynamic forces on the structural elements that are not streamlined will also cause fragments to follow non-ballistic pathways that I am not convinced are 100% determinable. Actually, apparently the software used to find pieces of Columbia did a fairly good job and then the data from that was fed back into the software to make it even better. That said, the Pacific is a damn big place. Besides, why go to all the trouble of destroying hardware that was very expensive to get up there in the first place? I'm still not convinced that the proper end-of-life procedure for the ISS is not to put it unoccupied into L4 or L5 for salvage later. Cost is the single biggest reason. Figure cost for getting it to L4 or L5 vs the bottom of the Pacific. If countries INSIST on doing it the 'hard way', how easy would it be to partially disassemble in situ before a de-orbit? You know the more I think about this the more I am convinced its far easier and safer to just 'keep it there' via occasional rocket boost or send it to L4/L5. You paying? And keep in mind, the longer you keep it in LEO, the greater the risk of additional impacts and the like which increases the problem of debris in LEO. While it's crewed, there's a good reason to take that risk. As a museum to be opened later, not so much. Dave -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Getting our astronauts into and out of space
On 4/8/2014 12:53 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
You paying? As a matter of fact I am and if you are a US Federal taxpayer so are you. And keep in mind, the longer you keep it in LEO, the greater the risk of additional impacts and the like which increases the problem of debris in LEO. While it's crewed, there's a good reason to take that risk. As a museum to be opened later, not so much. Yes for LEO I'll grant you that. But if I'm doing a re-boost I think I can manage a high enough orbit for it (unoccupied) I think we can avoid most LEO debris. Even if that means it might spend some part of its time in a lower Van Allen belt. I would not think of it as a museum piece so much as assembled parts for something else. Not everything sent into space needs to be built from scratch. If I had this item hanging out in L4/L5 already maybe I could take advantage of that fact in my project development plans. I should run the cost numbers to see what it would cost to give the ISS the necessary robotic delta-V to get it to L4/L5 vs sinking it in the Pacific. Note that might not require chemical means, if I can rewire the solar arrays to an ion propulsion unit. However, chemical might still be the cheaper way to go since nothing off-the-self in the ion propulsion world is likely capable of moving the ISS. But it would be an interesting study to fund. Space Studies Institute? Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Getting our astronauts into and out of space
it would be far better for history to park ISS in a high stable orbit or possibly sending it heliospheric. assuming humans survive for awhile it woud be a space arcealogist favorite......
I also believe hubble should get the same treatment.... espically if it wouldnt cost a lot. its too bad skylab couldnt of been saved, or apollo 11s LM upper stage |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Getting our astronauts into and out of space
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Getting our astronauts into and out of space
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Getting our astronauts into and out of space
"bob haller" wrote in message ... Well then why hasnt indenpendnce hall in philadephia been torn down and the libery bell scrapped to be melted into new products in china? For a number of reasons: 1) People can actually visit them. 2) It also cost nothing to let them sit around if people wanted. (no one proposed moving Independence Hall to the top of a mountain for example). And you realize you're only seeing the stuff that is still preserved. There's a lot of historical stuff that's long gone (first Liberty ship, first steam locomotive, etc.) Theres lots of irreplaceable stuff maintained at great costs in museums so it can be seen in the future Besides moving ISS, and hubble could be demos for new booster technology What did the smithsonia air and space museumn cost to build and maintain since inception? Millions. But then again, the NASM is also one of the most visited museums on Earth. I can guarantee that ISS in heliocentric orbit would be the least visited. Look, Bob, if you want to raise awareness, and try to save them. Go ahead. I think you're facing an uphill battle. (pun intended.) It would be a crime to intentionally send things like this to a firery end to sink in the ocean.... -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Getting our astronauts into and out of space
On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:24:22 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message ... Well then why hasnt indenpendnce hall in philadephia been torn down and the libery bell scrapped to be melted into new products in china? For a number of reasons: 1) People can actually visit them. 2) It also cost nothing to let them sit around if people wanted. (no one proposed moving Independence Hall to the top of a mountain for example). And you realize you're only seeing the stuff that is still preserved. There's a lot of historical stuff that's long gone (first Liberty ship, first steam locomotive, etc.) Theres lots of irreplaceable stuff maintained at great costs in museums so it can be seen in the future Besides moving ISS, and hubble could be demos for new booster technology What did the smithsonia air and space museumn cost to build and maintain since inception? Millions. But then again, the NASM is also one of the most visited museums on Earth. I can guarantee that ISS in heliocentric orbit would be the least visited. Look, Bob, if you want to raise awareness, and try to save them. Go ahead. I think you're facing an uphill battle. (pun intended.) It would be a crime to intentionally send things like this to a firery end to sink in the ocean.... -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net once ISS or hubble were actually relocated and shut down with perhaps a beacon attached for tracking purposes, what costs will be incured? 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.. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Getting our astronauts into and out of space
On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:24:22 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message ... Well then why hasnt indenpendnce hall in philadephia been torn down and the libery bell scrapped to be melted into new products in china? For a number of reasons: 1) People can actually visit them. 2) It also cost nothing to let them sit around if people wanted. (no one proposed moving Independence Hall to the top of a mountain for example). And you realize you're only seeing the stuff that is still preserved. There's a lot of historical stuff that's long gone (first Liberty ship, first steam locomotive, etc.) Theres lots of irreplaceable stuff maintained at great costs in museums so it can be seen in the future Besides moving ISS, and hubble could be demos for new booster technology What did the smithsonia air and space museumn cost to build and maintain since inception? Millions. But then again, the NASM is also one of the most visited museums on Earth. I can guarantee that ISS in heliocentric orbit would be the least visited. Look, Bob, if you want to raise awareness, and try to save them. Go ahead. I think you're facing an uphill battle. (pun intended.) It would be a crime to intentionally send things like this to a firery end to sink in the ocean.... -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net I guess you didnt know indenpendence hall and most other historic buildings get continious maintence. Signs say renovation is preservation or some such. 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 besides were close to space tourism becoming viable. with low cost launch vehicles people could go visit or even flyby some of these vehicles/ one day it might be possible to return hubble and at least some ISS modules to earth and put them on display at KSC |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Getting our astronauts into and out of space | Dr J R Stockton[_194_] | Space Shuttle | 3 | April 7th 14 08:32 PM |
Gay Astronauts for Deep Space | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 6 | March 29th 07 08:12 PM |
Do Astronauts have Internet in Space? | Raddion | Space Shuttle | 14 | September 20th 06 03:45 PM |
X-15 Space Pioneers Now Honored as Astronauts | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | August 24th 05 10:45 AM |
Foreskins In Space was Question about the astronauts | OM | History | 0 | August 1st 05 08:03 AM |