Shuttle launch tonight at 7:43 EDT

I'm curious, do they have explosive bolts and small motors on this
thing to break it apart before it would ever deorbit? I can see the US
not being able to support it in a few years, and considering what
happened with MIR and that Russian RORSAT, it seems likely that ISS
would dump enough junk when it burns up to be real hazard. In other
words, are there built in provisions for taking out the trash a decade
or so from now?

Steve

wrote in message
...
I'm curious, do they have explosive bolts and small motors on this
thing to break it apart before it would ever deorbit?

No. It will be de-orbited the same way that Mir was. Its orbit will be
allowed to decay. Before it becomes completely unmanagable, an attached
Progress will further lower its orbit until it breaks up and re-enters over
the Pacific.

I can see the US
not being able to support it in a few years, and considering what
happened with MIR and that Russian RORSAT, it seems likely that ISS
would dump enough junk when it burns up to be real hazard. In other
words, are there built in provisions for taking out the trash a decade
or so from now?

Steve



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

wrote in message
...
I'm curious, do they have explosive bolts and small motors on this
thing to break it apart before it would ever deorbit? I can see the US
not being able to support it in a few years, and considering what
happened with MIR and that Russian RORSAT, it seems likely that ISS
would dump enough junk when it burns up to be real hazard. In other
words, are there built in provisions for taking out the trash a decade
or so from now?

Steve
How many burn ups have been a real hazard in the past?
If you want to say any flying object is a real hazard, all aircraft are
real hazards. Crossing the road is a real hazard. House fires are a
real hazard. Sinking ferries are a real hazard. Train wrecks are a real
hazard. 70% of the Earth's surface is water, 1.5% is the USA and
most of that is woodland, farmed prairie or desert. I'll take my
chances with the ISS if it serves as a platform to research and
forecast tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural phenomena
that are real hazards, the benefits outweigh the risk.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
wrote in message
...
I'm curious, do they have explosive bolts and small motors on this
thing to break it apart before it would ever deorbit?

No. It will be de-orbited the same way that Mir was. Its orbit will be
allowed to decay. Before it becomes completely unmanagable, an attached
Progress will further lower its orbit until it breaks up and re-enters
over the Pacific.

ISS will use an ATV rather than a Progress due to its greater mass.

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
I'm curious, do they have explosive bolts and small motors on this
thing to break it apart before it would ever deorbit? I can see the US
not being able to support it in a few years, and considering what
happened with MIR and that Russian RORSAT, it seems likely that ISS
would dump enough junk when it burns up to be real hazard. In other
words, are there built in provisions for taking out the trash a decade
or so from now?

Steve
How many burn ups have been a real hazard in the past?
If you want to say any flying object is a real hazard, all aircraft are
real hazards. Crossing the road is a real hazard. House fires are a
real hazard. Sinking ferries are a real hazard. Train wrecks are a real
hazard. 70% of the Earth's surface is water, 1.5% is the USA and
most of that is woodland, farmed prairie or desert. I'll take my
chances with the ISS if it serves as a platform to research and
forecast tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural phenomena
that are real hazards, the benefits outweigh the risk.



Skylab dropped some really heavy pieces on Australia but nobody was hurt.
That and the Cosmos that dropped radioactive debris on northern Canada are
the only ones I can recall that dropped any really hazardous debris, and
neither one hurt anyone.

Dave

Dave Holford wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
I'm curious, do they have explosive bolts and small motors on this
thing to break it apart before it would ever deorbit? I can see the US
not being able to support it in a few years, and considering what
happened with MIR and that Russian RORSAT, it seems likely that ISS
would dump enough junk when it burns up to be real hazard. In other
words, are there built in provisions for taking out the trash a decade
or so from now?

Steve
How many burn ups have been a real hazard in the past?
If you want to say any flying object is a real hazard, all aircraft are
real hazards. Crossing the road is a real hazard. House fires are a
real hazard. Sinking ferries are a real hazard. Train wrecks are a real
hazard. 70% of the Earth's surface is water, 1.5% is the USA and
most of that is woodland, farmed prairie or desert. I'll take my
chances with the ISS if it serves as a platform to research and
forecast tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural phenomena
that are real hazards, the benefits outweigh the risk.



Skylab dropped some really heavy pieces on Australia but nobody was hurt.
That and the Cosmos that dropped radioactive debris on northern Canada are
the only ones I can recall that dropped any really hazardous debris, and
neither one hurt anyone.

You are forgetting a shuttle.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
wrote in message
...
I'm curious, do they have explosive bolts and small motors on this
thing to break it apart before it would ever deorbit?

No. It will be de-orbited the same way that Mir was. Its orbit will be
allowed to decay. Before it becomes completely unmanagable, an attached
Progress will further lower its orbit until it breaks up and re-enters
over the Pacific.

ISS will use an ATV rather than a Progress due to its greater mass.

Last I heard that hadn't completely solved the problem of maintaining
controllability - the ISS starts to break up earlier than thought
ideal because of stress on the solar arrays.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Androcles" wrote:

I'll take my
chances with the ISS if it serves as a platform to research and
forecast tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural phenomena
that are real hazards, the benefits outweigh the risk.

Well, you're already screwed then as the ISS isn't now, nor planned to
be in the future, involved in any significant investigations of such
things.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Androcles" wrote:

I'll take my
chances with the ISS if it serves as a platform to research and
forecast tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural phenomena
that are real hazards, the benefits outweigh the risk.

Well, you're already screwed then as the ISS isn't now, nor planned to
be in the future, involved in any significant investigations of such
things.

You must be an American. The ISS is INTERNATIONAL, read the small print.
As a multinational project, the legal and financial aspects of the ISS are
complex. Issues of concern include the ownership of modules, station
utilisation by participating nations, and responsibilities for station
resupply.

The main legal document establishing obligations and rights between the ISS
partners is the Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). This
international treaty was signed on 28 January 1998 by the primary nations
involved in the Space Station project: the United States, Russia, Japan,
Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,
Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. This set the stage for a second layer of
agreements, called Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), between NASA and
Roskosmos, ESA, CSA and JAXA. These agreements are then further split, such
as for the contractual obligations between nations, and trading of partners
rights and obligations. Use of the Russian Orbital Segment is also
negotiated at this level. Hardware allocation within the other sections of
the station has been assigned as follows:

1.. Columbus: 51% for ESA, 49% for NASA and CSA (CSA has agreed with NASA
to use 2.3% of all non-Russian ISS structure)
2.. Kibo: 51% for JAXA, 49% for NASA and CSA (2.3%)
3.. Destiny: 100% for NASA and CSA (2.3%) as well as 100% of the truss
payload accommodation
The time spent running experiments by the crew, power from the solar panel
structure, and rights to purchase supporting services (such as data upload &
download and communications) are divided at 76.6% for NASA, 12.8% for JAXA,
8.3% for ESA, and 2.3% for CSA.

In addition to these main intergovernmental agreements, Brazil has a
contract with NASA to supply hardware. In return, NASA will fly one
Brazilian to the station during the ISS programme.[8] Italy also has a
separate contract with NASA to provide similar services, although Italy also
takes part in the programme directly via its membership in the ESA.[9]

The most cited figure of an overall cost estimate for the ISS ranges from 35
billion to 100 billion USD.[32] The ESA, the only agency actually stating
potential overall costs, estimates ?100 billion for the entire station over
a period of 30 years.[33] Giving a precise cost estimate for the ISS is not
straightforward, as it is difficult to determine which costs should actually
be attributed to the ISS programme, or how the Russian contribution should
be measured.

wrote:
I'm curious, do they have explosive bolts and small motors on this
thing to break it apart before it would ever deorbit? I can see the US
not being able to support it in a few years, and considering what
happened with MIR and that Russian RORSAT, it seems likely that ISS
would dump enough junk when it burns up to be real hazard. In other
words, are there built in provisions for taking out the trash a decade
or so from now?


I assume they will use a unmanned Progress supply ship to deorbit it and
drop it into the South Pacific when the time comes.

Pat