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

[YumonStudios]

On 4/8/2016 at 2:11 PM, Perry Apsis said:

An abandoned ISS would be what is legally known as an "attractive nuisance." Kids would start having parties there, someone would suffer from alcohol poisoning or explosive decompression, and you've got a liability nightmare. Let's keep the museums here on the ground, where if you fall out a window you've got at least a small chance of surviving.

Only thing it that an abandoned ISS would quickly depressurize and become unusable at all, and that it's impossible to send large pieces of it to a museum nowadays.

[marcushouse]

Keep in mind, the station routinely makes adjustments to dodge the many thousands of debris objects. It takes constant funding to keep it out of harms way. Even if boosting to a hight orbit, it will still at some point get hit by something, then it will turn into a much less useful debris field. I wonder however whether large components could be moved to the moon and landed in some way. We could probably land the entire set of solar arrays for a future moon base :).

[YumonStudios]

1 hour ago, marcushouse said:

Keep in mind, the station routinely makes adjustments to dodge the many thousands of debris objects. It takes constant funding to keep it out of harms way. Even if boosting to a hight orbit, it will still at some point get hit by something, then it will turn into a much less useful debris field. I wonder however whether large components could be moved to the moon and landed in some way. We could probably land the entire set of solar arrays for a future moon base :).

Good luck with that. The Solar panels are one of the primary reasons the ISS gets too old, they gather up insane amounts of debris.

Also, the ISS is not intended for disassembly, and the ISS as a whole will begetting too old by 2028.

Just let it die. We're not even going to have a moon base up by 2028 anyways.

[sevenperforce]

3 hours ago, YumonStudios said:

Good luck with that. The Solar panels are one of the primary reasons the ISS gets too old, they gather up insane amounts of debris.

Also, the ISS is not intended for disassembly, and the ISS as a whole will begetting too old by 2028.

Just let it die. We're not even going to have a moon base up by 2028 anyways.

But a clickbait article headline told me that Blue Origin was going to take me to the moon in four years!

[More Boosters]

Because some men want to see space stations burn.

No seriously. I was too young for Mir and I believe that's the most recent space station that was de-orbited.

[NFUN]

I'd think somebody with your handle would like to see that. Apologies if this joke has already been made.

[Nibb31]

On 4/10/2016 at 0:25 AM, More Boosters said:

Because some men want to see space stations burn.

No seriously. I was too young for Mir and I believe that's the most recent space station that was de-orbited.

It's likely that you'll see Tiangong-1 pretty soon.

[Kertech]

How is russia planning on removing its parts, I thought they were pretty well plumbed in, so any disassembly would require Days of spacewalks (which are not taken lightly for hours)

[Kryten]

2 hours ago, Kertech said:

How is russia planning on removing its parts, I thought they were pretty well plumbed in, so any disassembly would require Days of spacewalks (which are not taken lightly for hours)

Currently the plan is to remove the parts that aren't currently up there (MLM, NEP, Node Module), so presumably it's been factored into their design. The russian modules generally have less plumbing than the american ones anyway, they were designed to make most connections autonomously through the docking ports.

[asmi]

ISS modules and parts were designed for zero-G, the station doesn't have the structural integrity to stay in one piece under 1G, so ~8Gs of re-entry would crush it for certain even if we somehow manage to fire-proof it from the re-entry heating.

Boosting it to higher orbit is also risky, as the higher you go the higher chances are it will be hit by something. Case in point - when ISS orbit was raised from Shuttle-era lower orbit (~320 km if I remember correctly) into current higher one(~410 km), amount of DAMs (debris avoidance manoeuvres) doubled. That's because low orbits are "self-cleaning" meaning stuff doesn't stay there for long, while in high orbits debris can stay for years with only the minimal orbital decay. Leaving it under control (to track debris and perform DAMs as neccessary) would require to keep MCC up and running, which cost money.

[Nightshift83]

One of the best things I've seen about ISS: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/space-station-tour/

I wish more films like this would be out ther not just about the ISS, nothing unnecessary, short but to the point, and it gives you such a great feel of immersion.

Maybe a giant monolith could be launched into space, should be some really sturdy material though. It could then serve religious purposes as well if we descent into some planet-of-the-apes-like-post-apocalyptic-society. All jokes aside, I totally agree that it's a nice testimony but all of the above posts seem pretty convincing about it's inevitable doom.

 

Oh and does anyone remember this japanese anime show about a private debris cleanup company in space ? Had a few really stupid episodes but in general lots of things that made it worth watching..

[Motokid600]

6 minutes ago, Nightshift83 said:

 

Oh and does anyone remember this japanese anime show about a private debris cleanup company in space ? Had a few really stupid episodes but in general lots of things that made it worth watching..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

[Nightshift83]

Great, thx alot!

[Wallygator]

There is no way to keep the ISS in orbit forever without an economic reason to do -> it will rapidly become a is fully sweated asset.

It will ultimately burn up and crash into something important, and then human space travel will be doomed forever due to a fear of falling stuff.

 

[CattyNebulart]

On 1/15/2016 at 6:48 AM, Vaporized Steel said:

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.

The ISS orbit is so low that it needs fuel to maintain station, so short term it's not viable to leave it abandoned in orbit and long term if it gets into a collision with some debris it will kessler LEO something fierce. 

Shifting it to a higher orbit is also not viable it is in a low orbit and designed for that it allows them to skimp on heavy radiation shielding and simplifies the electronics. Shift it to a higher orbit and it runs smack dab into the Van Allen belts which will fry its systems and anyone onboard in short order. Even if you get through them the materials of the ISS will have trouble long term with the higher radiation environment found in a higher orbit.

So you can't raise it, if you can't keep it with the effort and cost of the constant resupply missions the only option is to lower it, which means it burns up as there is now way for it to survive re-entry.

[Rocketthrust]

I agree totally

 

[Kronos1174]

yes it does go along with it

[AaronLS]

On 4/19/2016 at 9:56 AM, asmi said:

ISS modules and parts were designed for zero-G, the station doesn't have the structural integrity to stay in one piece under 1G, so ~8Gs of re-entry would crush it for certain even if we somehow manage to fire-proof it from the re-entry heating.

Boosting it to higher orbit is also risky, as the higher you go the higher chances are it will be hit by something. Case in point - when ISS orbit was raised from Shuttle-era lower orbit (~320 km if I remember correctly) into current higher one(~410 km), amount of DAMs (debris avoidance manoeuvres) doubled. That's because low orbits are "self-cleaning" meaning stuff doesn't stay there for long, while in high orbits debris can stay for years with only the minimal orbital decay. Leaving it under control (to track debris and perform DAMs as neccessary) would require to keep MCC up and running, which cost money.

I just read about that higher altitude change and some of the factors considered: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition26/iss_altitude.html

It's interesting that higher solar activity raises the altitude/density of the atmosphere.  I wonder at what altitude you would start seeing a significant increase in radiation.

Enlightening point about self cleaning debris altitudes.  I wonder what altitudes most of the current debri orbits at.  I'm sure all of it slowly changes to a more elliptical orbit due to irregularities in Earth's density and would eventually starts hitting thicker atmosphere, but might be so slow that it's negligible.

Perhaps they could put boost it to a grave yard orbit and operate it remotely.  No human crew, only a remotely operated robot.  They could even put a monorail of some sort through the ISS to allow the robot straightforward movement.  It would cost more to send resupply missions to the higher orbit, but hopefully that would be offset by how rarely you'd send a resupply.  You wouldn't need to send food or drinking water.  Assuming you are now outside of the atmosphere completely, not more need for propellant (8,000 lbs of propellant a year is what I believe is currently needed for reboosts!)  Probably there are certain things needed to keep the station operational.  It leaks air, and you'd probably want to maintain a certain amount of atmosphere inside the cabin to support cooling electronics, but you could probably have a lower pressure and thus decrease the leak rate.

I'm sure there's lots of other issues at a higher orbit.  I wonder what the average lifespan of a geosynchronous satellite is, and what typical failure scenarios are.

 

On 4/26/2016 at 4:43 PM, CattyNebulart said:

Shift it to a higher orbit and it runs smack dab into the Van Allen belts which will fry its systems and anyone onboard in short order. 

We're not speaking in concrete altitudes, so hard to say at what point these issues become actual issues.

Without human crew, I'd wonder if there's a higher orbit that significantly reduces drag, but has radiation levels still tolerable for systems.

 

[CattyNebulart]

18 hours ago, AaronLS said:

I just read about that higher altitude change and some of the factors considered: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition26/iss_altitude.html

It's interesting that higher solar activity raises the altitude/density of the atmosphere.  I wonder at what altitude you would start seeing a significant increase in radiation.

Enlightening point about self cleaning debris altitudes.  I wonder what altitudes most of the current debri orbits at.  I'm sure all of it slowly changes to a more elliptical orbit due to irregularities in Earth's density and would eventually starts hitting thicker atmosphere, but might be so slow that it's negligible.

Perhaps they could put boost it to a grave yard orbit and operate it remotely.  No human crew, only a remotely operated robot.  They could even put a monorail of some sort through the ISS to allow the robot straightforward movement.  It would cost more to send resupply missions to the higher orbit, but hopefully that would be offset by how rarely you'd send a resupply.  You wouldn't need to send food or drinking water.  Assuming you are now outside of the atmosphere completely, not more need for propellant (8,000 lbs of propellant a year is what I believe is currently needed for reboosts!)  Probably there are certain things needed to keep the station operational.  It leaks air, and you'd probably want to maintain a certain amount of atmosphere inside the cabin to support cooling electronics, but you could probably have a lower pressure and thus decrease the leak rate.

I'm sure there's lots of other issues at a higher orbit.  I wonder what the average lifespan of a geosynchronous satellite is, and what typical failure scenarios are.

 

We're not speaking in concrete altitudes, so hard to say at what point these issues become actual issues.

Without human crew, I'd wonder if there's a higher orbit that significantly reduces drag, but has radiation levels still tolerable for systems.

 

There is not that much room, the densest part of the van allen belts is a bit over 000km up. the current ISS orbiit is at 400some km, and current radiation levels are around 1mSv per day, but during solar storms the van allen belts can be pushed down to 200km... in those cases the astronauts and some sensitive equipment have to be in a special shelter to reduce the impact.

So one of these red boxes each day, more during a solar storm. 

https://xkcd.com/radiation/

That is what the equipment is built to survive, it can't go higher as the flux ramps up by orders of magnitude, and the ISS's inclination is such that it would have to pass through the belts unlike say appolo which had an inclination that skirted through the outer edges and was going very very fast. That is not possible with the ISS unless you do an inclination change and add more boosters. The ISS can't handle interplanetary radiation levels, and the van allen belt is 3 orders of magnitude more intense. And just look at how sharply the van alen belts ramp up, the blue is orders of magnitude less than the red;

(First image is outer belts only)

Higher orbit also means more debris, and a longer lasing impact if the ISS is hit and fragments. It also means more fuel would need to be used for avoidance maneuvers negating some of the gains from needing less boosts.

[DDE]

On ‎18‎.‎04‎.‎2016 at 3:24 PM, Kryten said:

Currently the plan is to remove the parts that aren't currently up there (MLM, NEP, Node Module), so presumably it's been factored into their design. The russian modules generally have less plumbing than the american ones anyway, they were designed to make most connections autonomously through the docking ports.

An important factor is that most of these modules have TKS or Salyut heritage, so they are quite capable of autonomous flight and docking. Which is why the Russian Segment is simply expected to secede from the ISS if the 'mericans cut the funding.

The Russians also seem to be planning a new station in a high-inclination orbit - more fit for looking down on Russia.

[Kerbinchaser]

On March 22, 2016 at 10:43 PM, max_creative said:

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

Yeah. Besides, some parts may make it through the atmosphere. Where will those land? 

[Dfthu]

14 minutes ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

Yeah. Besides, some parts may make it through the atmosphere. Where will those land? 

We could try to re-enter it in a desert with recovery people nearby for recovery. Nice and safe and easy to recover.

[Nibb31]

4 hours ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

Yeah. Besides, some parts may make it through the atmosphere. Where will those land? 

The whole point of a controlled deorbit is to choose where and when it reenters. They will crash it into the Pacific or Indian Ocean.

[Wjolcz]

7 hours ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

Yeah. Besides, some parts may make it through the atmosphere. Where will those land? 

In the Pacific probably. Where most of US spacecraft land (and sink).

7 hours ago, Dfthu said:

We could try to re-enter it in a desert with recovery people nearby for recovery. Nice and safe and easy to recover.

Good luck with that. I can't imagine what kind of equipment could survive reentry and high-velocity impact with the ground and still be any useful/not look like a pancake.

[DDE]

Guys, they deorbited Mir in the Pacific. Case on controlled scuttling closed.

As to uncontrolled, see Skylab. NASA owed the Shire of Esperance A$400 for littering until 2009, and just one kid found 24 fragments around his home; air tanks seemed to have proven particularly durable.

 

Edited June 11, 2016 by DDE