Washington Post: ISS end of mission 2016

[Danzi]

To me, de-orbiting it seems the most pointless thing to do.

what else could they do?
1) Tourist attraction
2) Commercial usage
3) Push it to a further orbit, (is there a distance where it would maintain its own orbit without crashing to the planet, much like the moon even if it meant gradually getting further away)
4) Letting other nations and space agency's take over the usage of it
5) If no one is willing to take on the costs, then we should push it out, send it off into space, let it live on. Attach a plaque to the outside saying who made it and where it comes from. Let its legacy live on forever, have it drifting silently away.

Number 5 is my favourite if worst comes to the worst.

 

[aphh]

5) If no one is willing to take on the costs, then we should push it out, send it off into space, let it live on. Attach a plaque to the outside saying who made it and where it comes from. Let its legacy live on forever, have it drifting silently away.

Number 5 is my favourite if worst comes to the worst.

Currently there is no way to boost the ISS even to a stable orbit, let alone accelerate it to escape velocity. It will come down one of these days, but before that happens, there is a lot that can be done with it.

 

[Danzi]

5) If no one is willing to take on the costs, then we should push it out, send it off into space, let it live on. Attach a plaque to the outside saying who made it and where it comes from. Let its legacy live on forever, have it drifting silently away.

Number 5 is my favourite if worst comes to the worst.

Currently there is no way to boost the ISS even to a stable orbit, let alone accelerate it to escape velocity. It will come down one of these days, but before that happens, there is a lot that can be done with it.

Why could it not be done? I mean, the shuttles will be out of use soon, why can they use their rockets? ( i am going to get a lot of harsh comments for that)
I would personally prefer to see it be sent of into space rather than destroyed as it impacts the ocean! Is there no way they could get to escape velocity, even if it continuously fired its thrusters away from Earth?

 

[MeteorWayne]

How do you get the propellant to it so it can fire it's thrusters continuously?

 

[Booban]

Its that hard to boost out of reach of earths gravitational field when its already in space?

So say an Astronaut space walking decided to jump from the ISS. He wouldn't just float forever out to space?

 

[Danzi]

Take enough propellant there on a space shuttle, refuel it, then come home, and when the shuttle is at a safe distance wave goodbye to the international space station. They could even put a tracker thing on it, so we can see its progress.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Its that hard to boost out of reach of earths gravitational field when its already in space?

Yes

So say an Astronaut space walking decided to jump from the ISS. He wouldn't just float forever out to space?

No, he would become a meteor within a year or so.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I don't know the economics of it, although I'm sure it would be very expensive, but I like the idea that ThereIwas threw out there. Boost the station to a higher, stable orbit and recycle the materials at a future date to make a new, geosynchronous station.

The general idea sounds efficient and sensible to me. Surely, it would cost more to boost the same weight of materials from the Earth from scratch rather than to spend the money in 2016 to boost the mass further out and use it later.

No? Maybe? Stupid idea? It seems to me that recycling(everything) is going to be one of our primary tasks as we venture out from cushy, water-rich, oxygenated Mother Earth and into hostile space.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Hey, I'm not opposed to the idea, in fact I would hope that the Hubble would be boosted into a long term orbit at some time for future recovery as well. That's a much lighter spacecraft in an already much higher orbit.

Just being a pragmatist here. Who will pay for it? How will we develop the new engines or find a way to carry that much propellant up in the next 7 years? Who will pay for it? (oops, I think I said that before ) What missions will we sacrifice to pay for it? IS saving the Hubble and the ISS worth giving up everything else we do in space?

Wayne

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Agreed. The 'who's gonna pay for it' thought is always on everybody's mind.

But I would hope we could boost the station AND the Hubble for later use-whether upgraded or completely recycled- and do the other things we need to be doing.

Perhaps- hopefully when and not if- the world economy gets pumping along in the next couple of years, all players will be more enthusiastic and supportive on the collective goals we all need to be reaching for. The Russians come immediately to mind.

I believe that thinking Russians want Russia to be as much a part of the human space endeavor as do thinking Americans want the US to maintain some kind of momentum with her own program. I think space exploration is one important venture that the Americans and Russians can really shake hands on and let by-gones be by-gones.

Of course this fraternal concept in no way excludes ESA, JAXA, India and the Chinese. We should do it overall as an international cooperative effort, but also with a streak of respective national independence that will foster a certain level of competition for different aspects of common goals. (Just tossing ideas around. )

 

[radarredux]

But I would hope we could boost the station AND the Hubble for later use-whether upgraded or completely recycled- and do the other things we need to be doing.

I think one problem is that you cannot just leave these things -- especially things of this size that can cause tremendous damage when they re-enter -- to their own devices. I've read several quotes where, with 3 crew members on the ISS the amount of science that got down was about a half person per week -- so roughly 2.5 people are needed full time just to maintain the station. Large and complex systems, and especially the ISS, need constant care and feeding to keep things even minimally operational, and if that operational ability is lost, then they can become a danger. Imagine ISS losing communication, or power, or thrusting and orientation stabilization. It starts tumbling. Then trying to dock and restart things might be impossible. At that point it become a giant hazard.

There is an obligation to bring it down in a controlled situation. And the cost to maintain it is huge. I don't think any commercial organization would want to take on that financial burden.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

If we place an object in L-5 orbit halfway between the center of mass of the Earth/Moon system, then it will stay there as long as the Earth/Moon system exists, IIRC.

And for future orbiting stations, I don't see anything wrong with placing a station that far away. After all, if we're going back to the Moon to build permanent bases, then it makes sense to have a weigh station in L-5, as well as LEO. An L-5 base could well serve as a life raft in any future accidents or near-disasters.

And it just makes sense to have a 'Mama' station out there in the hostile void.

 

[Skibo1219]

If we place an object in L-5 orbit halfway between the center of mass of the Earth/Moon system, then it will stay there as long as the Earth/Moon system exists, IIRC.

And for future orbiting stations, I don't see anything wrong with placing a station that far away. After all, if we're going back to the Moon to build permanent bases, then it makes sense to have a weigh station in L-5, as well as LEO. An L-5 base could well serve as a life raft in any future accidents or near-disasters.

And it just makes sense to have a 'Mama' station out there in the hostile void.

Best idea yet.

 

[davcbow]

It just seems to me that for the cost of putting it up there, the cost of the thing itself, all the time and effort put into it, that something constructive not destructive could be done with it. Its already there, that part of any future space station idea is there. It seems to me like such a big waste fof money for all the costs to have been paid only to burn it up in reentry back to the Earth.
I like the idea of putting it in orbit half way between the Earth and the Moon as a life raft type thing. It could be used as a staging area for missions to the moon, its uses arent that limited.... The contributing countries all paid all that money to put it there, why cant they include India, China and every other country wanting a space program to help pay to keep it up there including businesses for tourism or whatever else they may want to use it for. Like I said in another post they could make those inflatable rooms that were designed by NASA and turn it into a space hotel. There are many uses the thing could be used for.... Im ranting I know but thats one heck of alot of money just to let burn up in reentry and as a American tax payer its pisses me off to no end to think thats what they will do with it.....

 

[Booban]

I heard the Russians have said that if the ISS is to be thrown away, they will undock their core and build a new station with it.

 

[Mars_Unit]

Afraid it's true! Ha! The Mir Space Station was 16 years old when it was trashed. It was full of obsolete and broken equipment. The Mir had been crashed into by Soyuz. After this one is finished they will have to build a better one.

Your fist computer wasnt the only computer you will ever own.

 

[stevekk]

I heard the Russians have said that if the ISS is to be thrown away, they will undock their core and build a new station with it.

Actually, the FGB is the oldest module up there, and the one with the least amount of sheilding from what I recall.

If the ISS is to live long term, you need to look at replacing some of the older modules. It's probably impossible to replace the FGB or Node 1 at this point.

 

[10_stone_5]

If we place an object in L-5 orbit halfway between the center of mass of the Earth/Moon system, then it will stay there as long as the Earth/Moon system exists, IIRC.

And for future orbiting stations, I don't see anything wrong with placing a station that far away. After all, if we're going back to the Moon to build permanent bases, then it makes sense to have a weigh station in L-5, as well as LEO. An L-5 base could well serve as a life raft in any future accidents or near-disasters.

And it just makes sense to have a 'Mama' station out there in the hostile void.

Best idea yet.

re-post for emphasis !!

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I heard the Russians have said that if the ISS is to be thrown away, they will undock their core and build a new station with it.

'Waste not, want not', that's what my mother always told me! So maybe 'Mother Russia' has the right attitude!

And we have to admit, for former communists, the Russians are some serious space-workhorse sons-a-bitches! :lol:

 

[radarredux]

I heard the Russians have said that if the ISS is to be thrown away, they will undock their core and build a new station with it.

The Russians have a long history of strong commitment to their space stations. The Russians also don't seem to have a serious plan for manned missions to the Moon or Mars, so I would not be surprised that they would want to continue their space station commitment going forward.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

If we place an object in L-5 orbit halfway between the center of mass of the Earth/Moon system, then it will stay there as long as the Earth/Moon system exists, IIRC.

And for future orbiting stations, I don't see anything wrong with placing a station that far away. After all, if we're going back to the Moon to build permanent bases, then it makes sense to have a weigh station in L-5, as well as LEO. An L-5 base could well serve as a life raft in any future accidents or near-disasters.

And it just makes sense to have a 'Mama' station out there in the hostile void.

Best idea yet.

re-post for emphasis !!

re-posting for emphasis again2. Not trying to be egocentric, it's just that so many people write sooooo much body of text that I wonder if anyone reads anybody's posts anymore!

 

[davcbow]

I heard the Russians have said that if the ISS is to be thrown away, they will undock their core and build a new station with it.

Actually, the FGB is the oldest module up there, and the one with the least amount of sheilding from what I recall.

If the ISS is to live long term, you need to look at replacing some of the older modules. It's probably impossible to replace the FGB or Node 1 at this point.

It could be retro fitted with new shielding and equipment...