Letting the ISS burn up......Why?

[Vaporized Steel]

So NASA states that the ISS should atleast be operational until 2020, possibly up to 2028. The station itself is ofcourse not further funded, and will become EOL at some point as onboard hardware will start to decay. I understand all that, including that many of the scientific experiments have already been done in LEO, so at some point theres little use for having a orbital science station in LEO.

Luckily theres still SpaceX, russian, japanese and european missions intended to go to the ISS before the stations demise, so theres still time for plenty of experiments.
I know these decisions are based on political and economic reasons, and at any point theres little use in discussing the science behind these decisions as it's not always scientific reasoning that determines decisions.

The STS is EOL and theres no transport system, or rocket to further supply the ISS with heavy hardware.

Still I'm annoyed by the attitude that is "Something is no longer usefull, oh dammit, let's just take the sucker out of the sky"

The ISS, ladies and gentlemen is a artificial monument, and at some point in the future will be regarded as a museum piece. A sample of one of the first megastructures ever assembled into space, a stepping stone off artificial creation that contributed scientific progression to future manned pressence in the solar system.

But the attitude that is represented by political and economical decision making is that of barbarian goths, that set flame to the collosseum.

Yes, the ISS is on a decaying orbit, and yes theres little use for it at some point. But I would like mankind, or more specifically the people in charge of the spaceprograms to show a little more respect for their own achievements. Instead of letting the ISS decay or be de-orbitted, launch 1 or 2 rockets up their, be it american, european or whatever.

These rockets could have ION thrusters on them, and put the ISS in a higher more stable orbit so people can still admire the ISS in the next few thousand years.
Just like I can still admire the Collosseum when I take a trip to Rome.

I kinda wished the Mir space station would have had the same fate, but the fall off the soviet union was mostly responsible for that. Maybe current economic mayhem in all countries across the world are causing the same decisions to be made by which the Mir suffered a ocean splash down.

Still I think you could atleast put a few more billion in the project so this project can endure as a monument for atleast a few more millenia.
I like seeing the ISS zip through the sky, and I expect to still see it by the year 2030.
The pressence of the ISS still reminds people that there really is a pressence in Earths orbit, especially a contribution to the people ignorant and usually in denial about human pressence in space.

A few weeks ago, I had one of those guys that didn't believe in spaceflight and debunked the apollo missions.
I always have real issues to maintain my nerves in the presence of these people, atleast it wasn't a bad person.

So I invited him for drinks and dinner and the ISS was about to fly over my region during sunset. I gave him my binoculars and told him where to look.
Since then his views one human pressence in space changed for the good.

I still expect to evolve peoples consciousness about spaceflight just for this reason.

What is your opinion about the fate of the ISS?
And would you like to see the ISS be brought into a higher orbit, and how and by whom would you like to see it done?

Or you don't want to see the ISS remain in orbit, perhaps for very valid reasons besides politics and economics?, please share.
 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2016 by Vaporized Steel

[SargeRho]

So that it doesn't create a debris field. Eventually it is going to fail, and when it does, it's going to break up, and shotgun LEO.

[Vaporized Steel]

Valid point, but what is eventually? A hundred years, a thousand years? Longer... While I have no data about the likelyhood of collisions with objects in LEO I can't imagine it would breakup within less then a 1000 years. Atleast not in a way where the ISS would have broken up beyond recognition. Especially if we decide to get it into a higher orbit.

but I might be totally wrong about that. My expectation is that by then we would have methods to easily clear debris fields anywhere we want.

I find the reason of a debris field kinda inconsistent with the method we used to get it there. We deorbit the final product, but the waste that got it there, so what!?

 

Edited January 16, 2016 by Vaporized Steel

[Rdivine]

I believe that several companies are interested in salvaging parts or modules of the space station to use on their own projects. However, this idea isn't very feasible since the ISS is not built for disassembly. That is, planned disassembly.

I have no issue with the ISS burning up. Many countries and SpaceX are now trying very hard to make exploration class vehicles, and that would definitely guarantee a continuous human presence in a few years after ISS. The ISS isn't everything. It's just an orbital lab that houses astronauts and is a precursor to all the amazing stuff that will come later this century  

[Kerbart]

27 minutes ago, Vaporized Steel said:

Valid point, but what is eventually? A hundred years, a thousand years? Longer... While I have no data about the likelyhood of collisions with objects in LEO I can't imagine it would breakup within less then a 1000 years. Atleast not in a way where the ISS would have broken up beyond recognition. Especially if we decide to get it into a higher orbit.

It doesn't float that high, and those large radiators and solar panels create enough atmospheric drag. From what I understand its orbit is reboosted on a monthly basis, so I don't think it would take that long to re-enter by itself. If that happens it'll be a long shallow path, creating a large debris field, and without any control where it is going to impact.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Kerbart

[Vaporized Steel]

Your right, but the main reason that sparked me to start this thread is because of my situation that I portrayed in the OP, whereby a disbeliever has his own reality turned upside down when he first saw the ISS zip through the sky.

At the right time and place the ISS is a monument reminding every silly twirp that there is something artificial up there. To me, I find the ISS a visible tool reminding everyone what we've done up there.

These exploration class vehicles are intended for moon, asteroids, mars. I do hope that they replace the ISS with another big station for whatever purpose. So there will always be a clear visible object in the sky reminding everyone young and old that there is a up there.

Ofcourse that's no debate for people on this site, but it is a dillemma across more masses then you might think. And if there is a reason why we don't yet have exploration class vehicles then it's because many rich people don't see value in space, imho because of the lack of visible artificial sattelites in LEO.

Take away the ISS, and for many naked eyes, spaceflight is nothing more then the videos they see at NatGeo, Cinema and the books they read.

Anyway, considering the uselessness and eventual debris fields I definitely agree the reasoning of deorbiting the ISS. Even more so then when I started the thread.
But I still see posibility of maintaining the ISS throughout time with a proper maintainence program, especially if we assume that the future of spaceflight is going to be cheaper and easier. In any case, I hope another object is going to replace the ISS in the sky, soon after it burns up.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Vaporized Steel

[Temstar]

Even if money is not a problem you can't just shoot the ISS into a high orbit and leave it there and think everything will be okay. ISS have to be actively steered in LEO to avoid debris fields. Suppose you fire this 413 ton spacecraft higher up and 50 years later it gets smashed Gravity style by a large space junk. You will create an enormous debris field that will make orbit extremely dangerous to all spacecraft.

When China did its anti-satillite test in 2007 they destroyed a 1.4 ton spacecraft and that created about 150,000 pieces of debris. You leave the ISS up there without active avoidance and you basically put up a giant, 413 ton target in orbit. If it gets destroyed the resulting debris might keep mankind out of orbit entirely.

[Nibb31]

50 minutes ago, Vaporized Steel said:

Still I'm annoyed by the attitude that is "Something is no longer usefull, oh dammit, let's just take the sucker out of the sky"

That is not the reason. We deorbit dead hardware so that it doesn't become a hazard for future spaceflight. 

The ISS has a shelf life which is determined by: solar panels, structural fatigue, seals, filters, fluids, insulation, paint, etc... and also obsolescence. It needs to be actively controlled, which costs money. If you turn off the environmental control, bacteria, fungus, and mold will take over, rendering it uninhabitable. If you turn off MMOD avoidance, it will eventually get hit and break up. If you turn off attitutude control, it will start tumbling. It might settle down into a gravity gradient, but drag and gravity will pull and push it around, causing stress on the structure. If you power it down, it will be only a matter of time before it vents its atmosphere, leaks, and breaks up up. Without maintenance, paint and insulation will flake off a create a cloud of debris around it. 

Basically, once it's turned off, there will be no fixing it or bringing it back to life. It's dead.

[Vaporized Steel]

@Kerbart

My assumption on a longer stay in orbit was under the assumption that we would get it into a higher orbit. Assuming we would get a Ion/plasma rocket to the iss, and assuming we could get it into a 1000km orbit. Whether thats worth the cost, probably not for many people for valid reasons, but thats one of my reasons for opening this thread, sorry if I wasn't totally clear about that from the start.

I have honestly no idea how long the ISS could stay in orbit at a height of 1000km. Even with it's low mass/large volume/large surface area. Honestly, I didn't even consider the atmosphere to be dense enough at 400km to decay it's orbit within such a short time.

[Vaporized Steel]

@Nibb31

I didn't fully consider the consequences in all areas, but if that's the amount of consequences we have to consider then I do fully understand the reasoning behind it and I step back from the idea of maintaning the pressence of the station.

Like I said however, for the reasoning of wanting the ISS to stay, I hope something will replace it, without to much of a timegap after it burns up.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Vaporized Steel

[A35K]

I don't have a problem with it burning up as long they send something to film it.

But really, when it stops being useful I don't see the point of spending money and missions to maintain it.

Edited January 16, 2016 by A35K

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, Vaporized Steel said:

Your right, but the main reason that sparked me to start this thread is because of my situation that I portrayed in the OP, whereby a disbeliever has his own reality turned upside down when he first saw the ISS zip through the sky.

At the right time and place the ISS is a monument reminding every silly twirp that there is something artificial up there. To me, I find the ISS a visible tool reminding everyone what we've done up there.

These exploration class vehicles are intended for moon, asteroids, mars. I do hope that they replace the ISS with another big station for whatever purpose. So there will always be a clear visible object in the sky reminding everyone young and old that there is a up there.

Ofcourse that's no debate for people on this site, but it is a dillemma across more masses then you might think. And if there is a reason why we don't yet have exploration class vehicles then it's because many rich people don't see value in space, imho because of the lack of visible artificial sattelites in LEO.

Take away the ISS, and for many naked eyes, spaceflight is nothing more then the videos they see at NatGeo, Cinema and the books they read.

Anyway, considering the uselessness and eventual debris fields I definitely agree the reasoning of deorbiting the ISS. Even more so then when I started the thread.
But I still see posibility of maintaining the ISS throughout time with a proper maintainence program, especially if we assume that the future of spaceflight is going to be cheaper and easier. In any case, I hope another object is going to replace the ISS in the sky, soon after it burns up.

ISS is intended for use for commercial companies after 2024-2028, at least that's what NASA hope to do (who also controls most of the station).

But everything must eventually die. And flat earthers won't be convinced either way. They think the ISS is fake too.

[Slam_Jones]

I was under the impression that the chances of getting hit by space debris were astronomical.  From what I've read in this thread, it seems to be dodging stuff all the time.

I agree with the idea of keeping it around as a monument to human achievement, assuming that it can be boosted to a safe orbit where debris becomes less of an issue.

[worir4]

I hope they look to sell it to some one like a private company. I agree it is a shame to have to let it de-orbit but I also don't think it's worth the resources just to keep it there to look at.

[softweir]

Just to add to what has been said...

The ISS is a large, very complex, highly experimental machine. While a lot of the technologies are well understood, using them in a space-station is not so well understood. Like all complex machines, the older it gets, the more it breaks down. Many parts were custom-made and are irreplaceable, such as the reaction wheels of which they now have no spares working. (IIRC, if one more fails then the ISS will be dependant on reaction thrusters for some of its attitude control and will start to use excessive amounts of fuel.) At some point it is going to become unfeasible to keep it working. Another example is the solar sails: These were over-specified when they were fitted (quite a lot of the time some are "parked" not facing the sun) but are slowly losing generating capacity due to micro-meteor strikes and radiation damage to semiconductors.Eventually they will cease to generate enough power to run the station.

There are also some political problems. The ISS was created by an international agreement with Russia for it to use some of their modules. This agreement is NOT open-ended, and the Russians have already expressed an interest in separating their modules once the agreement ends and using them as the core of their own space-station. At that point NASA has to provide a new thrust system or decommission the ISS.

As I mentioned at the beginning, the ISS is an experiment. It, like previous space-stations, is a testbed for technologies and techniques. At some point our skills at building orbital hardware will exceed it, and it's job will be done - and we will build something better, that will last longer and be more useful.

[Mitchz95]

I'd rather preserve the Hubble, personally. Boost it into a higher orbit so that we can retrieve it in a few decades and display it at the Smithsonian.

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, Slam_Jones said:

I was under the impression that the chances of getting hit by space debris were astronomical.  From what I've read in this thread, it seems to be dodging stuff all the time.

I agree with the idea of keeping it around as a monument to human achievement, assuming that it can be boosted to a safe orbit where debris becomes less of an issue.

That's because the move the ISS a lot.

2 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

I'd rather preserve the Hubble, personally. Boost it into a higher orbit so that we can retrieve it in a few decades and display it at the Smithsonian.

Assuming anything is able to return that thing in the near future. Chances are, no, unless we somehow revive the Shuttle itself. Even Skylon has too small of a bay for Hubble.

3 hours ago, worir4 said:

I hope they look to sell it to some one like a private company. I agree it is a shame to have to let it de-orbit but I also don't think it's worth the resources just to keep it there to look at.

But they will have to kill it eventually...

[Mitchz95]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

Assuming anything is able to return that thing in the near future. Chances are, no, unless we somehow revive the Shuttle itself. Even Skylon has too small of a bay for Hubble.

A lot can happen in 50+ years. If we don't have something capable of recovering Hubble by the end of the century I would be very disappointed in humanity.

[RainDreamer]

Well, everything eventually meets its end. NASA is leaving the space station business to the private sector now, so maybe we will see new space stations up there soon.

[Nibb31]

12 hours ago, worir4 said:

I hope they look to sell it to some one like a private company. I agree it is a shame to have to let it de-orbit but I also don't think it's worth the resources just to keep it there to look at.

It's not NASA's to sell. The ISS is a joint international project where components are owned by different countries with different laws regarding transfer of government-owned assets to the private sector. The Colombus module alone belongs to ESA, which would require all ESA member countries to agree, which would cause endless debates in each country. The paperwork to transfer the ISS to a private company would be impossible.

[Andersenman]

12 hours ago, Slam_Jones said:

I was under the impression that the chances of getting hit by space debris were astronomical.  From what I've read in this thread, it seems to be dodging stuff all the time.

Stuff like this, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

[Zefrik]

On 1/16/2016 at 2:52 AM, Andersenman said:

Stuff like this, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

Reading the wikipedia article and read this,  " The Federal Aviation Administration also released a notice warning pilots of the re-entering debris." How in the world is a pilot supposed to identify and avoid debris reentering the atmosphere?

[HebaruSan]

5 minutes ago, Zefrik said:

Reading the wikipedia article and read this,  " The Federal Aviation Administration also released a notice warning pilots of the re-entering debris." How in the world is a pilot supposed to identify and avoid debris reentering the atmosphere?

The article linked as a citation suggests they weren't expected to dodge so much as report:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0902/15debris/

Quote

"We had put out, the FAA had put out a notice to airmen, called a NOTAM, yesterday morning for pilots, for air crews to be on the lookout for space debris re-entering and and if they see anything to let the FAA know the location, the direction of travel, anything else they could about that. The notice to airmen says we suspect, we don't know, that this debris is from the two satellites that collided last week."

 

[Tex]

I would agree with the ISS remaining in a stable orbit as a museum piece, as the first example of a true global endeavor of space construction. However, the problem is that the people with the money and authority don't feel the same way. Allocating the money to do such a thing would obviously be better spent in the military, or domestic agendas. Hopefully the sarcasm was obvious as well.

[max_creative]

I think it should stay. And plus, it's big. And it would leave a lot of debris.