Mir Shall Be Avenged!

At least that is how Pat Flannery might spin the following news item:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...e115a20f82.841

where Russia, rather than the United States, somehow ends up being the
first to announce the eventual watery grave of the ISS in 2020.

Although presumably it will burn up to tiny fragments on the way in.

John Savard

On Jul 27, 12:49*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
At least that is how Pat Flannery might spin the following news item:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...Vtj_n_MG8_1UfG...

where Russia, rather than the United States, somehow ends up being the
first to announce the eventual watery grave of the ISS in 2020.

Although presumably it will burn up to tiny fragments on the way in.

John Savard

it would be far better to send ISS into a heliospheric orbit left for
history......

In article
,
bob haller wrote:

On Jul 27, 12:49*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
At least that is how Pat Flannery might spin the following news item:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...Vtj_n_MG8_1UfG...

where Russia, rather than the United States, somehow ends up being the
first to announce the eventual watery grave of the ISS in 2020.

Although presumably it will burn up to tiny fragments on the way in.

John Savard

it would be far better to send ISS into a heliospheric orbit left for
history......

If you mean "heliocentric" orbit, it takes a lot of delta-V to get it
there, plus, I don't think the ISS could take the acceleration without
breaking up.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
At least that is how Pat Flannery might spin the following news item:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...e115a20f82.841

where Russia, rather than the United States, somehow ends up being the
first to announce the eventual watery grave of the ISS in 2020.

Although presumably it will burn up to tiny fragments on the way in.


The ruskies have an inferiority complex.



John Savard

"Jonathan" wrote in message

The ruskies have an inferiority complex.


They also have a manned space capability.

Orval Fairbairn scribbled something like ...

If you mean "heliocentric" orbit, it takes a lot of delta-V to get it
there, plus, I don't think the ISS could take the acceleration without
breaking up.

To do with chemical rockets would be difficult for that reason, but if you
have the time to use on ion drive, they've got the solar panels to power
it.

/dps

Jeff Findley scribbled something like ...

says...

Orval Fairbairn scribbled something like
...

If you mean "heliocentric" orbit, it takes a lot of delta-V to get
it there, plus, I don't think the ISS could take the acceleration
without breaking up.

To do with chemical rockets would be difficult for that reason, but
if you have the time to use on ion drive, they've got the solar
panels to power it.

Except for the pesky radiation belts around Earth (which are very hard
on electronics and on solar panels), this might work. Still, I'm sure
it would take a lot of propellant and would not be cheap. No one
would want to pay for this sort of disposal since the costs are much
higher and the benefits are nebulous at best.

PV's and control systems might be able to handle the radiation belts well
enough to get through while still controlled. Did SMART transit the
belts under ion power on its way to the moon?

I agree, though, that it is not a project likely to be funded.

/dps

On Jul 28, 12:22*pm, Snidely wrote:
Jeff Findley scribbled something like ...





says...

Orval Fairbairn scribbled something like
...

If you mean "heliocentric" orbit, it takes a lot of delta-V to get
it there, plus, I don't think the ISS could take the acceleration
without breaking up.

To do with chemical rockets would be difficult for that reason, but
if you have the time to use on ion drive, they've got the solar
panels to power it.

Except for the pesky radiation belts around Earth (which are very hard
on electronics and on solar panels), this might work. *Still, I'm sure
it would take a lot of propellant and would not be cheap. *No one
would want to pay for this sort of disposal since the costs are much
higher and the benefits are nebulous at best.

PV's and control systems might be able to handle the radiation belts well
enough to get through while still controlled. *Did SMART transit the
belts under ion power on its way to the moon? *

I agree, though, that it is not a project likely to be funded.

/dps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ISS and other space articles shouldnt just be deorbited since a few
hundred years from now space arceaologists would love to have them to
examine.

hey the real estate indenpendence hall is on could of been re used,
and maintaing the area costs bucks too....

Ion drive would be the way to go who cares if moving it to a good long
term storage location takes 5 or even 10 years.

imagine it as a future tourist attraction

In article 77681d59-ee20-4ef1-bea6-
, says...

On Jul 28, 12:22*pm, Snidely wrote:
Jeff Findley scribbled something like ...





says...

Orval Fairbairn scribbled something like
...

If you mean "heliocentric" orbit, it takes a lot of delta-V to get
it there, plus, I don't think the ISS could take the acceleration
without breaking up.

To do with chemical rockets would be difficult for that reason, but
if you have the time to use on ion drive, they've got the solar
panels to power it.

Except for the pesky radiation belts around Earth (which are very hard
on electronics and on solar panels), this might work. *Still, I'm sure
it would take a lot of propellant and would not be cheap. *No one
would want to pay for this sort of disposal since the costs are much
higher and the benefits are nebulous at best.

PV's and control systems might be able to handle the radiation belts well
enough to get through while still controlled. *Did SMART transit the
belts under ion power on its way to the moon? *

I agree, though, that it is not a project likely to be funded.

/dps- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ISS and other space articles shouldnt just be deorbited since a few
hundred years from now space arceaologists would love to have them to
examine.

hey the real estate indenpendence hall is on could of been re used,
and maintaing the area costs bucks too....

Ion drive would be the way to go who cares if moving it to a good long
term storage location takes 5 or even 10 years.

imagine it as a future tourist attraction

This is still a dumb idea. Even with an ion engine, it's going to take
*a lot* of fuel, and in case you hadn't noticed, typical fuel for ion
engines isn't cheap.

Besides, there is nothing "off the shelf" that is sized this big. It
would likely cost NASA billions just to develop the capability to do
what you propose. And the mission itself would still take several
"heavy" launches to get the ion engine and it's huge tanks up to ISS.

This also assumes ISS will continue to operate via remote control
through the radidation belts. If it breaks on the way through, a manned
mission to fix it would be pretty much impossible, due to the radiation.

Remember radidation Bob? It's that thing you're so afraid of on Earth,
but seem to have zero fear of it in space.

This is an all around DUMB idea, especially when proposing ion engines
to do it. You might as well propose using warp drive to move it. It's
just a bit harder than what you're proposing.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

Ion drive would be the way to go who cares if moving it to a good long
term storage location takes 5 or even 10 years.

imagine it as a future tourist attraction\

and park ISS with hubble for a great display.......