End Of Life ISS Question / Comment

It is expected at some point the ISS will reach it's end of life, due either
to funding limitations or an accident. At the moment the ISS is reaching
it's final configuration and power levels and habitablity are reaching the
best they are going to be.

If they plan to de-orbit the ISS at some future date, why not build a hefty
Ion propulsion system and attach it to the ISS. Instead of de-orbiting the
lab why not slowly increase orbital altitude using the ion engine and send
it into a lunar trajectory or to a Lagrangian point.

It would seem that even at end of life the solar arrays would be generating
sufficient power to run an Ion engine at a reasonable power level to
accelerate the ISS and gain altitude over a year or 2 of thrusting.

I am sure an orbital dynamicist can tell me the error of my ways but it
seems a waste to let the ISS drop into the Pacific at the end of it's life
rather than keeping it somewhere near earth so future generations might be
able to "refurbish it and use it.

"Bernard Isker" wrote in message
...
It is expected at some point the ISS will reach it's end of life, due
either to funding limitations or an accident. At the moment the ISS is
reaching it's final configuration and power levels and habitablity are
reaching the best they are going to be.

If they plan to de-orbit the ISS at some future date, why not build a
hefty Ion propulsion system and attach it to the ISS. Instead of
de-orbiting the lab why not slowly increase orbital altitude using the ion
engine and send it into a lunar trajectory or to a Lagrangian point.

It would seem that even at end of life the solar arrays would be
generating sufficient power to run an Ion engine at a reasonable power
level to accelerate the ISS and gain altitude over a year or 2 of
thrusting.

I am sure an orbital dynamicist can tell me the error of my ways but it
seems a waste to let the ISS drop into the Pacific at the end of it's life
rather than keeping it somewhere near earth so future generations might be
able to "refurbish it and use it.
Steam locomotives and old aircraft get refurbished by enthusiasts,
but have no commercial viability. The cost of doing what you say
and then getting to it would exceed the value of scrapping it, and its
only value is nostalgia. That fades with time or we'd be refurbishing
the pyramids.

"Bernard Isker" wrote in message
...
It is expected at some point the ISS will reach it's end of life, due
either to funding limitations or an accident. At the moment the ISS is
reaching it's final configuration and power levels and habitablity are
reaching the best they are going to be.

If they plan to de-orbit the ISS at some future date, why not build a
hefty Ion propulsion system and attach it to the ISS. Instead of
de-orbiting the lab why not slowly increase orbital altitude using the ion
engine and send it into a lunar trajectory or to a Lagrangian point.

It would seem that even at end of life the solar arrays would be
generating sufficient power to run an Ion engine at a reasonable power
level to accelerate the ISS and gain altitude over a year or 2 of
thrusting.

I am sure an orbital dynamicist can tell me the error of my ways but it
seems a waste to let the ISS drop into the Pacific at the end of it's life
rather than keeping it somewhere near earth so future generations might be
able to "refurbish it and use it.


Such a decision is a long way off.

The ISS is in a high inclination orbit which is of no use as a way station
for lunar flights, for example. Its life might be worth prolonging in an
era of frequent lunar travel provided the orbit could be changed from around
52 deg inclination to around 28 deg. That would also take a lot of
delta-vee.

The ISS was built primarily as a means to deflect and defuse Cold War
antagonism between the USA and USSR, and remains active to continue as a
peaceful project to defuse tensions between heavily armed nuclear powers by
forcing them to cooperate closely. It's great that we have it, but as a
scientific exercise, it does relatively little.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

"Bernard Isker" wrote in message
...
It is expected at some point the ISS will reach it's end of life, due
either to funding limitations or an accident. At the moment the ISS is
reaching it's final configuration and power levels and habitablity are
reaching the best they are going to be.

If they plan to de-orbit the ISS at some future date, why not build a
hefty Ion propulsion system and attach it to the ISS. Instead of
de-orbiting the lab why not slowly increase orbital altitude using the ion
engine and send it into a lunar trajectory or to a Lagrangian point.

It would seem that even at end of life the solar arrays would be
generating sufficient power to run an Ion engine at a reasonable power
level to accelerate the ISS and gain altitude over a year or 2 of
thrusting.

I am sure an orbital dynamicist can tell me the error of my ways but it
seems a waste to let the ISS drop into the Pacific at the end of it's life
rather than keeping it somewhere near earth so future generations might be
able to "refurbish it and use it.


In fact, routine orbit altitude adjustments are made using propulsion
systems from Russian or ESA modules attached to the station docking ports.
And there is a plan, apparently, to add something not far from what you
suggest, using a VASIMIR engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...titude_control

At this time there is no plan to de-orbit the ISS.

Whether these rockets could be used to change the inclination, as I suggest
elsewhere in another post, yes I suppose they could, but it would require
the Russians to agree to it (doubtful).

If you don't like Wikipedia as a source of information several other web
sites carry similar information.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...

"Bernard Isker" wrote in message
...
It is expected at some point the ISS will reach it's end of life, due
either to funding limitations or an accident. At the moment the ISS is
reaching it's final configuration and power levels and habitablity are
reaching the best they are going to be.

If they plan to de-orbit the ISS at some future date, why not build a
hefty Ion propulsion system and attach it to the ISS. Instead of
de-orbiting the lab why not slowly increase orbital altitude using the
ion engine and send it into a lunar trajectory or to a Lagrangian point.

It would seem that even at end of life the solar arrays would be
generating sufficient power to run an Ion engine at a reasonable power
level to accelerate the ISS and gain altitude over a year or 2 of
thrusting.

I am sure an orbital dynamicist can tell me the error of my ways but it
seems a waste to let the ISS drop into the Pacific at the end of it's
life rather than keeping it somewhere near earth so future generations
might be able to "refurbish it and use it.


In fact, routine orbit altitude adjustments are made using propulsion
systems from Russian or ESA modules attached to the station docking ports.
And there is a plan, apparently, to add something not far from what you
suggest, using a VASIMIR engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...titude_control

At this time there is no plan to de-orbit the ISS.


Sorry, actually there is, as I discovered after posting. There are plans to
de-orbit the ISS some time in or after 2016.

The basic problem is that as components age, various problems accumulate in
space such as micrometeorite impacts and material deterioration due to the
space environment (vacuum, hard UV radiation, particle flux, etc). At some
point it is no longer economic to patch up old spacecraft and something new
is needed if space station activities are to continue.

Whether these rockets could be used to change the inclination, as I
suggest elsewhere in another post, yes I suppose they could, but it would
require the Russians to agree to it (doubtful).

If you don't like Wikipedia as a source of information several other web
sites carry similar information.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)


--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

It has taken about 10 years to build a manned space station that may
finally give us some science return. I am suggesting we look ahead to when
it is decommissioned. If we planned now for the eventual abandonment and
designed an Ion Engine with sufficient thrust we could move the ISS away
from earth to safe storage point instead of the irrevocable destruction.

Who knows what spacecraft we may have in 100 years. The ISS has access to a
lot of power and if it was unmanned the power could be diverted to the ion
engines for the orbit changes. The other thing the ISS has is a lot of
interior volume designed for Human habitability.

Buzz Aldrin has designed a trajectory that continually shuttles between Mars
and Earth. The ISS would seem like the ideal Mars transit spacecraft if we
don't let it fall into the sea at the end of it's life...


"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...

"Bernard Isker" wrote in message
...
It is expected at some point the ISS will reach it's end of life, due
either to funding limitations or an accident. At the moment the ISS is
reaching it's final configuration and power levels and habitablity are
reaching the best they are going to be.

If they plan to de-orbit the ISS at some future date, why not build a
hefty Ion propulsion system and attach it to the ISS. Instead of
de-orbiting the lab why not slowly increase orbital altitude using the
ion engine and send it into a lunar trajectory or to a Lagrangian point.

It would seem that even at end of life the solar arrays would be
generating sufficient power to run an Ion engine at a reasonable power
level to accelerate the ISS and gain altitude over a year or 2 of
thrusting.

I am sure an orbital dynamicist can tell me the error of my ways but it
seems a waste to let the ISS drop into the Pacific at the end of it's
life rather than keeping it somewhere near earth so future generations
might be able to "refurbish it and use it.


In fact, routine orbit altitude adjustments are made using propulsion
systems from Russian or ESA modules attached to the station docking ports.
And there is a plan, apparently, to add something not far from what you
suggest, using a VASIMIR engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...titude_control

At this time there is no plan to de-orbit the ISS.

Whether these rockets could be used to change the inclination, as I
suggest elsewhere in another post, yes I suppose they could, but it would
require the Russians to agree to it (doubtful).

If you don't like Wikipedia as a source of information several other web
sites carry similar information.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Dear Bernard Isker:

"Bernard Isker" wrote in message
...
It has taken about 10 years to build a manned space
station that may finally give us some science return.
I am suggesting we look ahead to when it is
decommissioned.

And you *know* others have done this.

If we planned now for the eventual abandonment and designed an
Ion Engine with sufficient thrust we could
move the ISS away from earth to safe storage point
instead of the irrevocable destruction.

Storing what, though? It will become more and more pierced,
insulation embrittled and failing, slightly more radioactive each
day, subsystems failed...

Yes, it is good raw materials, and it is a shame to drop it once
it is up there...

Who knows what spacecraft we may have in 100
years.

.... or even what civilzation ...

The ISS has access to a lot of power and if it was
unmanned the power could be diverted to the ion engines for the
orbit changes. The other thing the
ISS has is a lot of interior volume designed for
Human habitability.

But it will be unsuitable for this purpose.

Buzz Aldrin has designed a trajectory that
continually shuttles between Mars and Earth.
The ISS would seem like the ideal Mars transit
spacecraft if we don't let it fall into the sea at the
end of it's life...

It will be entirely unsuitable for this purpose. Communications
will be especially affected. It is also configured to present
the maximum surface area to impactors, when its solar sails are
towards the Sun. And of course, it loses power as it moves away
form the Sun...

They were going to use the Space Shuttles external tanks for
habitaiton spaces too, since they make the entire trip to
space...

David A. Smith

David A. Smith

In article ,
"Mike Dworetsky" writes:
The ISS is in a high inclination orbit which is of no use as a way station
for lunar flights,

Sorry, Mike, I don't follow you here. What's the problem with a
high-inclination orbit? A space station may or may not be of value
for lunar flights, but orbit inclination doesn't matter that I can
see. (Except that payload from low-latitude launch sites is slightly
reduced.) Plane changes are cheap at high altitudes, which any lunar
flight reaches.

--
Please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Dworetsky" writes:
The ISS is in a high inclination orbit which is of no use as a way station
for lunar flights,

Sorry, Mike, I don't follow you here. What's the problem with a
high-inclination orbit? A space station may or may not be of value
for lunar flights, but orbit inclination doesn't matter that I can
see. (Except that payload from low-latitude launch sites is slightly
reduced.) Plane changes are cheap at high altitudes, which any lunar
flight reaches.

To reach an highly inclinated orbit, you have to waste fuel.
Then to convert that orbit to one aiming for the moon,
you waste more fuel.

In sci.astro message , Wed, 22
Jul 2009 22:56:15, Sjouke Burry
posted:
Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Dworetsky" writes:
The ISS is in a high inclination orbit which is of no use as a way
station for lunar flights,
Sorry, Mike, I don't follow you here. What's the problem with a
high-inclination orbit? A space station may or may not be of value
for lunar flights, but orbit inclination doesn't matter that I can
see. (Except that payload from low-latitude launch sites is slightly
reduced.) Plane changes are cheap at high altitudes, which any lunar
flight reaches.

To reach an highly inclinated orbit, you have to waste fuel.
Then to convert that orbit to one aiming for the moon,
you waste more fuel.


From an LEO co-planar with the Moon's orbit, there is a launch window
for a Hohmann orbit to the Moon every hour-and-a-half.

From an LEO perpendicular to the Moon's orbit, the same delta-vee will
get you to the Moon's orbit, and there is a launch window to the Moon's
orbit every three-quarters of an hour. But, to reach the Moon's orbit
at approximately the same place as the Moon, those windows occur only
once a fortnight.

For an LOR-type mission, one wants to deposit the main return engine in
an orbit which will cross the landing site not only for the outward trip
but also for the return one - which, under present plans, will not be
nearly as soon as it was for Apollo.

For a robust architecture, there needs to be a spare lunar ascent stage
waiting *somewhere*; and there needs to be a spare Earth Return stage in
Lunar orbit.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.