Keeping The ISS In Orbit

[Bhodi Li]

So to the best of my knowledge the USS uses thrusters to keep it in orbit which means it must constantly expend fuel to stay in orbit. What Im wondering about is how much of a problem atmospheric drag is when you're up that high. You would never be able to maintain orbital velocity at sea level without thrusters because the atmosphere is way too thick there and it would cause tremendous drag, (also if you tried to put an object into orbital velocity at sea level it would hit something but that's beside the point) but at the altitude of the ISS I believe the atmosphere is very thin.

The ISS is up in the thermosphere which is higher than what an airplane can fly. An airplane needs a certain thickness in the atmosphere in order to properly function and so that's why you can only fly so high in an airplane, when the atmosphere gets too thin the airplane won't fly properly, so the highest a conventional airplane can fly is the stratosphere I believe, in the mesosphere the atmosphere is too thin for the plane to fly. The thermosphere which is even higher than the mesosphere and thinner than the mesosphere, therefore, at that height, how much of a problem is atmospheric drag?

 

[Classical Motion]

When you measure it, it appears faint. But the faintness is always working against you. It's continuously accumulated against your velocity. A drag. Any at all is a drag.

 

[Bhodi Li]

When you measure it, it appears faint. But the faintness is always working against you. It's continuously accumulated against your velocity. A drag. Any at all is a drag.

And yet the moon experiences atmospheric drag because yes the moon is in the Earth's atmosphere even if just barely. The geocorona extends out past the moon's orbit so the moon does experience drag no matter how slight, and as you said any drag is a drag, and the moon doesn't need thrusters to stay in orbit.

 

[Classical Motion]

The drag particles for the moon, probably has the same velocity as the moon.

 

[Rob77]

And yet the moon experiences atmospheric drag because yes the moon is in the Earth's atmosphere even if just barely. The geocorona extends out past the moon's orbit so the moon does experience drag no matter how slight, and as you said any drag is a drag, and the moon doesn't need thrusters to stay in orbit.

Interestingly, the moons orbit is continually increasing so any drag seems negligible due to other forces at work.

 

[Tundatech]

Would it be somehow possible to boost ISS station to lunar altitude? Or possibly to lunar orbit. Maybe equip ISS with additional thrusters for moon landing. Whatever the condition of the station after touchdown. it would become a valuable salvage resource for future base construction. What would be the cost comparison to launching that much material from earth to the moon in the future? Or with a successful soft landing would give us a huge jumpstart for a long term presence in a viable shelter. Overcoming earth gravity is a huge part of every space mission leaving earth. Weight goes hand in hand with the fuel to lift it. Yes the ISS has a lot of mass. We can all agree with that. Most of the lifting has already been done. We just need to push it a little more.

 

[Tundatech]

Extending the ISS for lunar purposes would sit well with the conservation community and may bode well for the endeavor politically. It's kind of outside the box. But it's something I haven't seen any discussion on. We could extend this to the salvage of satellites as well. But as far as what it's going to take to firmly beat China in the race for a lunar presence. It seems to me that some out of the box ideas might be worth consideration.

 

[Rob77]

Extending the ISS for lunar purposes would sit well with the conservation community and may bode well for the endeavor politically. It's kind of outside the box. But it's something I haven't seen any discussion on. We could extend this to the salvage of satellites as well. But as far as what it's going to take to firmly beat China in the race for a lunar presence. It seems to me that some out of the box ideas might be worth consideration.

I'm sure the think tanks at NASA would have explored all possibilities. Basically the ISS is old and leaks like a sieve. Its like buying a used car and keep pouring money into it to keep it running, but the technology is still the same and hard to integrate newer tech into it. Plus replacing parts in space isn't so easy. Eventually it will end up not fit for purpose.

 

[billslugg]

It takes 9256 m/s of delta V to put something into a 250 km LEO. This is where ISS is. Figure another 2440 m/s to geostationary orbit, then 1500 to orbit the Moon and then 1721 to land on the Moon. In order to send ISS to the Moon, we would need to imbue it with 5661 m/s of delta V. This is 61% of the delta V we gave it so far. There would be no interest in doing this.

 

[Bhodi Li]

Would it be somehow possible to boost ISS station to lunar altitude? Or possibly to lunar orbit. Maybe equip ISS with additional thrusters for moon landing. Whatever the condition of the station after touchdown. it would become a valuable salvage resource for future base construction. What would be the cost comparison to launching that much material from earth to the moon in the future? Or with a successful soft landing would give us a huge jumpstart for a long term presence in a viable shelter. Overcoming earth gravity is a huge part of every space mission leaving earth. Weight goes hand in hand with the fuel to lift it. Yes the ISS has a lot of mass. We can all agree with that. Most of the lifting has already been done. We just need to push it a little more.

The problem with raising the ISS to a higher orbital altitude is that it means more exposure to radiation from the sun for those staying on the ISS which can be very harmful especially considering the fact that people spend months there. Also, it would make the ISS much harder to get to from the Earth. It took the Saturn V rocket to get people to the moon so that's what we would need, or something like it, if we put the ISS at the same altitude as the moon.

 

[MRJones]

The ISS was originally designed more than 40 years ago to serve as the seed for a permanent city in space, conceivably the first of many as the decades snd centuries go by. I really cannot understand how we can it wise to trash the whole thing just as the facility is beginning to prove the veracity of those original plans. Let’s modernize it, swap out old modules and add new one. Vast and other contenders are full free to place their own stations in orbit but please don’t throw 30 years of space colonization down the drain.

 

[billslugg]

ISS was not designed to be permanent. It had a 30 year lifetime and is past its due date. The wiring is degrading, the hulls are cracking. No one wants the responsibility of causing a mega disaster because they tried to save some money.

 

[Bhodi Li]

ISS was not designed to be permanent. It had a 30 year lifetime and is past its due date. The wiring is degrading, the hulls are cracking. No one wants the responsibility of causing a mega disaster because they tried to save some money.

Well they've kept the Hubble Space Telescope in orbit and in operation way past the time at which it was anticipated they would retire it, and it remains in operation today despite there being much more advanced telescopes such as the James Webb in use.

 

[billslugg]

Correct, but if Hubble fails, a bunch of people don't die.

 

[L5 Vision]

Are there other alternatives to throwing away 500k kilograms of perfectly good human habitat? What would you do with it if you owned the International Space Station ISS for $1 and had $800 million in the bank to do it? #savetheISS

 

[Rob77]

Are there other alternatives to throwing away 500k kilograms of perfectly good human habitat? What would you do with it if you owned the International Space Station ISS for $1 and had $800 million in the bank to do it? #savetheISS

The way I look at it is the way im looking at my car now - it has 310,000km on the clock. Every service theres something that needs replacing from wear and tear (usually each service adding up to around $1k now). It leaks oil (its a Subi thing), but rather than spending $5k to open it up and replace gaskets, I just top up the oil regularly.
Now I can keep this car as I can't afford a new one, but I know i'm just pouring several $$k a year to keep it running. The bluetooth has stopped connecting to my new iphone as the technology is too old now. The seals are worn, and the paints degrading. Also the areas that are hard to inspect may have micro damage that potentially can cause catasrophic failures down the road.

Or I can get a new car, for a bit more money up front but it will give me piece of mind that this will be good for 10 years or so & keep my family safe, pluse will reduce service costs.

 

[L5 Vision]

I had an old 1974 Lincoln so I feel your pain, the ISS is closer to a B52 though and those are expended to be in good service for 100 years. Mass produced ISS is not so there’s incredible value in this out of this world wonder that even all the old Honda’s though well loved can never match

 

[L5 Vision]

Just a guess your old car is a Honda

 

[billslugg]

The B-52 was not designed to last 100 years. Since we have no alternative, we take them completely apart here on Earth in a hangar and re-certify each part for another 30 years.

 

[Bhodi Li]

I had an old 1974 Lincoln so I feel your pain, the ISS is closer to a B52 though and those are expended to be in good service for 100 years. Mass produced ISS is not so there’s incredible value in this out of this world wonder that even all the old Honda’s though well loved can never match

Too bad they don't make cars that last like guns. A good car might last you ten years or so but guns can last many lifetimes. There's guns that've been in families for many generations, passed down from father to son to grandson and so forth and you will find muskets from the American Revolutionary War that are still functional today.

Too bad they don't make cars like that, or the ISS like that.