Space station impact shielding.

Does anyone know about what kind of impact the space station can survive? Surely this has been analyzed. I would imagine
that it can withstand a fleck of paint hitting at 5 km/s but not a 1 kg piece of metal hitting at the same speed. What
is the probability of the space station being severely damaged by a collision of space debris or meteorite?


Alain Fournier

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message
...

Does anyone know about what kind of impact the space station can survive?
Surely this has been analyzed. I would imagine that it can withstand a
fleck of paint hitting at 5 km/s but not a 1 kg piece of metal hitting at
the same speed. What is the probability of the space station being
severely damaged by a collision of space debris or meteorite?

I don't know the full answer but, but I do know the Russian segment's
protection is in theory not as good as the American segment.

Also look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message ...
"Alain Fournier" wrote in message
...

Does anyone know about what kind of impact the space station can
survive? Surely this has been analyzed. I would imagine that it can
withstand a fleck of paint hitting at 5 km/s but not a 1 kg piece of
metal hitting at the same speed. What is the probability of the space
station being severely damaged by a collision of space debris or
meteorite?

I don't know the full answer but, but I do know the Russian segment's
protection is in theory not as good as the American segment.

Also look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield --
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

================================================== ======

This isn't a question that has an answer, because so many different
possible impacts can happen to so many different parts of the ISS.
Imagine the speck of paint I see mentioned; vs a several-inches piece of
bell nozzle or even (since the recent major collision) a piece of
satellite mainframe. Imagine it nicks a solar cells wing vs it impacts
a wings frame central joint, etc etc. I think that in a space orbital
environment with no quick access to atmosphere, the topic calls for
thinking about a range of more-likely extremes, and when you get down to
basics, I believe the question isn't all about impacts anyhow.

It is rather, how to get that orbiting junk out of there, and not add to
it. Looking ahead, we can see off-Terra settlements and traffic out and
return to Terra. How do you think business people will feel about their
people and their cargos running a gamble/gauntlet for each passage thru
near-Terra space? So I believe we are looking at the problem of how to
clear practically all of that stuff out of near-Terra space. And while
we're naturally concerned about the ISS and the people aboard it, the
ISS concern disappears when we face the orbiting junk problem and how to
fix it.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.tech 2009 Mar 26]

Alain Fournier wrote:

Does anyone know about what kind of impact the space station can
survive? Surely this has been analyzed. I would imagine that it can
withstand a fleck of paint hitting at 5 km/s but not a 1 kg piece of
metal hitting at the same speed.

Approximately 1 cm is the upper limit.

"Martha Adams" wrote:
:
:It is rather, how to get that orbiting junk out of there, and not add to
:it. Looking ahead, we can see off-Terra settlements and traffic out and
:return to Terra. How do you think business people will feel about their
eople and their cargos running a gamble/gauntlet for each passage thru
:near-Terra space? So I believe we are looking at the problem of how to
:clear practically all of that stuff out of near-Terra space. And while
:we're naturally concerned about the ISS and the people aboard it, the
:ISS concern disappears when we face the orbiting junk problem and how to
:fix it.
:

In reality it will clean itself up over time. The real issue, of
course, is that every time you send something up you are creating some
additional small amount of debris, so it never actually cleans up.

Since we can't eliminate debris from launches and vehicles (we can
only minimize it), trying to go up and clean up debris is rather like
trying to fix a hole in a garment with a pair of scissors.

The answer, of course, is to avoid the big stuff and 'armor' against
the small stuff.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

:Alain Fournier wrote:
:
: Does anyone know about what kind of impact the space station can
: survive? Surely this has been analyzed. I would imagine that it can
: withstand a fleck of paint hitting at 5 km/s but not a 1 kg piece of
: metal hitting at the same speed.
:
:Approximately 1 cm is the upper limit.
:

But 1 cm moving at what relative speed with what mass? Presumably a 1
cm piece of polystyrene in a closely aligned orbit is a much smaller
problem than a 1 cm piece of tungsten in a radically different (but
intersecting) orbit.

As has also been noted, it makes a lot of difference just what gets
hit...

Whipple has gotten his name on the shielding principle, but it's
really just the same sort of scheme that has been used on armored
vehicles for decades. It leaves me wondering whether application of
other techniques from armored vehicles could be adapted somehow.

Blazer armor for space vehicles, anyone?

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

:Alain Fournier wrote:
:
: Does anyone know about what kind of impact the space station can
: survive? Surely this has been analyzed. I would imagine that it can
: withstand a fleck of paint hitting at 5 km/s but not a 1 kg piece of
: metal hitting at the same speed.
:
:Approximately 1 cm is the upper limit.
:

But 1 cm moving at what relative speed with what mass?

1 cm aluminum sphere hitting at a right angle (~11 km/s), IIRC.

Whipple has gotten his name on the shielding principle, but it's
really just the same sort of scheme that has been used on armored
vehicles for decades. It leaves me wondering whether application of
other techniques from armored vehicles could be adapted somehow.

Blazer armor for space vehicles, anyone?

Possibly, but armored vehicle applications are a lot less
weight-sensitive...

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message
...


Does anyone know about what kind of impact the space station can
survive? Surely this has been analyzed. I would imagine that it can
withstand a fleck of paint hitting at 5 km/s but not a 1 kg piece of
metal hitting at the same speed. What is the probability of the space
station being severely damaged by a collision of space debris or
meteorite?


I don't know the full answer but, but I do know the Russian segment's
protection is in theory not as good as the American segment.

Do you have a cite for that? I guest you need to know something about the level of protection on both segments to state
that one is better than the other.

There has been interesting responses in this thread but no one really answered my question. Does anyone know if at least
that was considered in the specifications of the modules. When they were built, did NASA ask that the modules have a
minimum level of impact survivability?


Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier wrote:
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message
...


Does anyone know about what kind of impact the space station can
survive? Surely this has been analyzed. I would imagine that it can
withstand a fleck of paint hitting at 5 km/s but not a 1 kg piece of
metal hitting at the same speed. What is the probability of the space
station being severely damaged by a collision of space debris or
meteorite?


I don't know the full answer but, but I do know the Russian segment's
protection is in theory not as good as the American segment.

Do you have a cite for that? I guest you need to know something about
the level of protection on both segments to state that one is better
than the other.

Google any of the articles over the past two years about ISS crews
performing EVAs to install improved MMOD shields on the Russian modules.

There has been interesting responses in this thread but no one really
answered my question. Does anyone know if at least that was considered
in the specifications of the modules. When they were built, did NASA ask
that the modules have a minimum level of impact survivability?

Yes, I did.

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:52:01 EDT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

When they were built, did NASA ask
that the modules have a minimum level of impact survivability?

Yes, I did.

....Have you had your shielding upgraded, Jorge?

:-) :-)

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

==================================================

Where is our moderator? This appears to be a personal attack by "OM"
upon the writer of a previous message.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.tech 2009 Mar 28]