A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Getting our astronauts into and out of space



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 8th 14, 02:09 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Getting our astronauts into and out of space

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. 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. (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.

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.

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.

Dave

  #2  
Old April 8th 14, 05:53 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default 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  
Old April 12th 14, 08:25 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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  
Old May 2nd 14, 01:49 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default 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
  #6  
Old May 2nd 14, 08:33 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Getting our astronauts into and out of space

On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:28:51 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



it would be far better for history to park ISS in a high stable


orbit or possibly sending it heliospheric.




Same b.s. from Bob. You can't do this because the delta-V needed to

send ISS into a *heliocentric* orbit is huge, so the cost would be huge.



assuming humans survive for awhile it woud be a space arcealogist


favorite......




This would be a very expensive time capsule. Good luck finding enough

money to pay for this insanity.



I also believe hubble should get the same treatment....




Preserving space junk for nostalgic reasons is extremely costly and

stupid.



espically if it wouldnt cost a lot. its too bad skylab couldnt of been


saved, or apollo 11s LM upper stage




But it *would* cost a lot you ignorant git! You've floated this stupid

idea many times and it's still a bad idea for the same reasons it's

always been a bad idea.



Jeff



Well then why hasnt indenpendnce hall in philadephia been torn down and the libery bell scrapped to be melted into new products in china?

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?

It would be a crime to intentionally send things like this to a firery end to sink in the ocean....

  #7  
Old May 2nd 14, 09:41 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default Getting our astronauts into and out of space

In article ,
says...

But it *would* cost a lot you ignorant git! You've floated this stupid

idea many times and it's still a bad idea for the same reasons it's

always been a bad idea.




Well then why hasnt indenpendnce hall in philadephia been torn down and
the libery bell scrapped to be melted into new products in china?


Because it's not in orbit you ignorant git!

Theres lots of irreplaceable stuff maintained at great costs in
museums so it can be seen in the future


Costs aren't great, especially when people pay admission fees or provide
donations for admission.

Besides moving ISS, and hubble could be demos for new booster
technology


Bull****.

What did the smithsonia air and space museumn cost to build and
maintain since inception?


Irrelevant. Note that on display there is the *unflown* backup Skylab,
not the flown Skylab.

It would be a crime to intentionally send things like this to a
firery end to sink in the ocean....


No, it would be a crime to let "things like this" fall to earth
uncontrolled, which is precisely why "things like this" are directed
into the ocean.

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
  #8  
Old May 3rd 14, 01:24 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default 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  
Old May 3rd 14, 03:27 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default 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  
Old May 3rd 14, 03:34 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.