Timeline for Why does the ISS have to be destroyed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 16 at 16:19 | comment | added | Cadence | A long, slow trip to higher-than-synchronous orbit would be... interesting... from a debris avoidance perspective. You'd need to spend years carefully shepherding your ability to perform avoidance maneuvers (which are not the easiest things to do now) with decreasing ability to resupply the station if something went wrong. | |
| Aug 16 at 14:22 | comment | added | geoffc | @Mark Sure and SpaceX has an assembly line making Krypton thrusters for Starlink, so just like they have proposed a Dragon with extra Dracos to de-orbit, why not a custom Dragon with huge Krypton tanks and a huge array of thrusters. Would probably be cheapest option. | |
| Aug 16 at 4:44 | comment | added | Mark | @geoffc A Progress spacecraft can deliver 2400 kg to the ISS. Assuming that's xenon tanks with an appallingly bad mass ratio of 0.5, an array of NEXT ion thrusters will have about 110 m/s of delta-V -- enough to boost the ISS by about 200 km. | |
| Jan 11, 2018 at 21:42 | comment | added | geoffc | @Acccumulation Ok. What is the total deltaV that the ISS can store? How much can a Progress bring to the station. Can it achieve the proposed (Which are not, actually proposed in the question) orbit? | |
| Jan 11, 2018 at 21:39 | comment | added | Acccumulation | Fuel needed is a function of energy imparted, not time. | |
| Jan 11, 2018 at 21:37 | history | edited | geoffc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 120 characters in body
|
| Jan 11, 2018 at 21:36 | comment | added | geoffc | @Acccumulation Roger - so how do you plan to deliver thrust at a level it can handle for the time period required? Using existing equipment, not an option. Cannot store enough fuel to run existing engines long enough. A never ending series of Progresses boosting it? I guess I could see that. Like turtles all the way down! | |
| Jan 11, 2018 at 21:35 | comment | added | Acccumulation | "Nor is it designed to sustain the kind of thrust that would be needed to get to escape velocity." The amount of thrust needed is inversely proportional to the time. If it we moved over several years, the thrust would be very small. | |
| Jan 11, 2018 at 6:27 | vote | accept | Adriano Repetti | ||
| Jan 10, 2018 at 22:28 | comment | added | UTF-8 | "Nor is it designed to sustain the kind of thrust that would be needed to get to escape velocity." I don't see how this is true. It's already in orbit so you can push on it however slowly you want to grow its orbit and then push on it however slowly you want to increase its eccentricity. | |
| Jan 10, 2018 at 21:27 | comment | added | Hobbes | yes, it's 1 person-day/day. | |
| Jan 10, 2018 at 21:17 | comment | added | Eric Duminil |
get a single person-day of science work completed. Isn't some unit missing? Like 8 person.h/day?
|
|
| S Jan 10, 2018 at 19:50 | history | edited | marked-down | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improve grammar and wording
|
| S Jan 10, 2018 at 19:50 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improve grammar and wording
|
| Jan 10, 2018 at 16:49 | comment | added | peterh | @OrganicMarble It was not, the NASA stepped back after Ad Astra had a full working prototype ready to launch. The Ad Astra still works for the NASA, although I doubt what useful can they do. Most probably they are waiting for some new project (maybe for a Mars probe). Currently there are no plans to use VASIMR anywhere. My impression is that something in the NASA/USA top management simply doesn't want a breakthrough in the space exploration and so is it. | |
| Jan 10, 2018 at 16:48 | comment | added | Organic Marble | @peterh I don't believe VASIMR was ever actually tested on the ISS. | |
| Jan 10, 2018 at 16:47 | comment | added | peterh | @OrganicMarble The VASIMR test proposal had used an additional battery buffer and it had operated only on the sunny side. It had caused also a rotation of the ISS, on this reason two VASIMR engines had been utilized in mirror configuration. On this way, it had worked, despite that the NASA put the project on ice. (But not the cooperation with the ad astra). I think with it they fulfilled Benjamin Franklin's well known quote about liberty and safety. I think there was no essential reason to not put VASIMR to the ISS. They had only fear that it will be too risky. | |
| Jan 10, 2018 at 15:40 | comment | added | Organic Marble | @peterh VASIMR requires enormous amounts of electrical power, far more than the ISS can provide. (I am not talking about the proposals to test VASIMR at the ISS, although I think those have been abandoned) And the ISS's only purpose is to house humans. There is no reason to continue to operate it unmanned. | |
| Jan 10, 2018 at 15:32 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 10, 2018 at 19:50 | |||||
| Jan 10, 2018 at 14:35 | history | edited | geoffc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Moved questions around to clean up.
|
| Jan 10, 2018 at 14:33 | comment | added | Adriano Repetti | I wrongly thought that its orbit wasn't that low to require a huge boosting to be pushed out. If that's required then structural integrity, fuel and engines become an halting problem. What a pity! | |
| Jan 10, 2018 at 14:29 | comment | added | peterh | I think it could be done by VASIMR drives. And I think, all the systems could be operated remotely, without humans. | |
| Jan 10, 2018 at 14:16 | history | answered | geoffc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |