ISS to the moon baby

[ascan1984]

I remember reading a long time ago something which seems crazy and not very possible or realistic. The author said after the ISS has done its job here in low earth orbit it could be placed in a lunar orbit for use by the return to the moon crews. <br /><br />Not that is just a crazy idea but could it actually be done. I think not but what do i know.

 

[spacefire]

oh yeah, and the Shuttle can also be converted to land on the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

I suppose it COULD be done, but I don't see how it could possibly justify the expense. The ISS orbits, I don't know of hand, a couple of hundred miles up? The moon is a quarter of a million miles up. In essence you have to apply enough energy to raise the ISS's altitude from a couple of hundred miles to a quarter of a million miles--and the ISS ain't small! There is a tendency to think that once you are "in space" you can just kinda drift around and go any where you want with just a small push but this is false. To move something out to the distance of the moon takes energy. Getting the (relatively tiny) Apollo command module/service module/lunar module stack to a lunar orbit required that the Saturn 3rd stage thrust for 346 seconds for a total change in velocity ("delta v" in math speak) of around 10,000 ft/s. Maybe someone can calculate what it would take to put the ISS into lunar orbit. Suffice to say NASA is already pulling their hair out trying to get their 4 man "Apollo on steroids" lander to the moon with the budget they have allocated!

 

[llivinglarge]

Zevzda + Zarya + Kliper + Shuttle + CEV = Insufficient thrust

 

[josh_simonson]

We don't really need something like the ISS near the moon. The ISS is a microgravity research station, and it's in the closest available microgravity. There is no reason to house people in lunar orbit for long periods, rather folks should go down to the surface and stay there where the science and exploration takes place. A logistical supply station near the moon would be nice, but it doesn't need to be manned or particularly large.

 

[jschaef5]

I think i remember seeing this brought up before but was ruled out because the ISS could never take the stresses needed to change its orbit that drastically. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ascan1984]

I completely agree with everyone. I thought and believd it was pointless and would never happen. it would cost atleast 100 billion i predict but hey. The stupid ideas are the ones that sometimes become reality.

 

[newtons_laws]

Just for theoretical purposes, whilst the ISS structure isn't strong enough to withstand a single delta V burn to reach the vicinity of the Moon, it might in principle be possible to use an ion drive attached to it (giving a long duration gentle thrust) to gradually raise the orbit apogee over many orbits until it was captured by the Moon (as was done for the European SMART-1 probe).<br /><br />Of course whether it would be sensible to do this is another matter! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I think there was some discussion about whether or not the ion drive's thrust would be sufficient to overcome the natural decay of the orbit through drag. If the thrust is less than the natural decay of the orbit, then it won't work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Consider also that it's not designed for that radiation environment, cannot be resupplied as required if not in LEO, and probably has numerous systems (attitude control, comm, etc.) that are designed for a specific range of orientations and a specific altitude range.

 

[qso1]

In short, it may be possible, and thats questionable. Its simply not practical in any sense of the word. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vgorelik]

At some point ISS would have to be deorbited. Why not to attach a Progress load of Xe, use ISS’ solar panels and slowly elevate its orbit while no crew is present on board? I don’t think this maneuver will be overly expensive and we will get two benefits – 1) eliminate the risk (small one though) that debris may fall on someone’s head and 2) get an assembly of pressurized modules around the Moon. It will require some refitting, but it is better then nothing.

 

[qso1]

You still have to have a purpose for it and it still would be expensive. How long before the ISS modules would be put to practical use? How do you resupply them? Soyuz would not be able to do it unless you put a boost stage on it. Raising the cost of resupply missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

I could envision using an ion engine to move the solar panels to another station since they're fairly valuable and will still be good in the future. As for the modules though, major systems will start failing after 10+ years.

 

[vgorelik]

I am just speculating... It may make sense from logistic point of view: the assembly may be placed on a polar orbit to offer communication, storage, resupply and emergency capability for multiple Luna outposts. Most of the time the assembly will be on an autopilot. And lastly, if ever large amount of materials (He3 for example, large volume low mass if not liquefied) are to be moved from Moon to Earth, then it may (just may) be economical to use smaller Lunar surface to low-Moon orbit modules then fly all the way to Earth. Maybe such scenario contradicts with the polar orbit, but I don’t think that equatorial launch on the Moon has much advantage over the polar.

 

[barrykirk]

One question might be, what altitude orbit would be stable without touching it for say 100 years and how much would it cost to get it to that orbit?<br /><br />The idea being that in 100 years, the cost of access to space might drop to the point that the ISS could be salvaged for use as a museum.<br /><br />I've also suggested something similar a year or two ago for hubble. Now hubble is a lot lot smaller, but considering the amount we've learned from it. Isn't it worth putting it in a museum?

 

[vt_hokie]

Surely you don't mean a museum that would actually be habitable. The many components and subsystems simply will not last that long. It might be something to look at, but nothing on it will be usable.

 

[josh_simonson]

It could be used as ballast for an electrodynamic tether. That's about it once it's all moldy and broken.<br /><br />Mir had one module that leaked and had to be closed off and abandoned. Eventually that'll happen to iss modules as well, wether it's due to a collision, like on MIR, or space junk poking holes in it.

 

[brandbll]

Hey, what would happen if a tiny ass rock hit the window of one of the ISS modules? Would it be curtains for the astronaughts on board? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

As long as they can get to the Soyuz they would be fine. But if a module decompressed between them and the Soyuz they might be out of luck, you can't get into a Soyuz by EVA can you?<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As long as they can get to the Soyuz they would be fine. But if a module decompressed between them and the Soyuz they might be out of luck, you can't get into a Soyuz by EVA can you? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If the Soyuz was at one end and they were at the other when a module in the middle decompressed, assuming they had spacesuits in their end, they could do an Intra-Vehicular Activity -- an internal spacewalk. It's been done before, most notably on the Mir following the disastrous impact of a Progress with the Spektr module, which decompressed. (They were hoping to find and patch the hole, but they were unable to find it.)<br /><br />Otherwise, they should be able to squeeze in through the descent module, which has a hatch in its side. It would require depressurizing the Soyuz descent module, but it has actually been done -- that's how the first Soyuz-Soyuz crew transfer was performed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[ragnorak]

I'm a bit disappointed that no one has worked it out. How much energy would be needed to move a 184t station from its current 7,700m per second speed at 352km orbit to 380,000km from Earth in orbit around the Moon? <br />I guess you could do it over several months. Dock Progress vehicles, which are loaded with extra fuel tanks, to all the docking ports and just reorientate the station to fire the engines in the right direction.<br />Has to be better than deorbiting it into the Pacific.

 

[josh_simonson]

Progress has lousy ISP, it'd take more weight in propellant than the ISS weighs to get it to cis-lunar space. Also lunar orbits are inherantly unstable, so the ISS would need a continuous supply of propellant for station keeping, just like it does now in LEO.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

In addition to what Josh said, to give you a sense of a number of Progress-transporters needed to do this job (if we assume 2.5ton propellant per Progress) - that would be around 100 Progress launches to do get it to a highly eliptical lunar orbit.<br /><br />However this ignores:<br />1. atmospheric drag lowering the ISS over time<br />2. that each Progress will have to climb to a higher orbit to reach the ISS after a couple of orbit raising maneuvers - you would actually have to launch Progress on a Proton rocket later on in order to get it to the ISS <br />3. as Josh already said, lunar orbits are highly unstable, you have to do a lot of corrections once there - which means that you probably gonna loose the station rather quickly unless you have a constant fleet of "Progresses" going there to make orbit adjustments around the moon.

 

[tomnackid]

I wonder how large a light sail it would take to do it?