Space Station To Be Deorbited After 2020 572
astroengine writes "Russia and its partners plan to plunge the International Space Station (ISS) into the ocean at the end of its life cycle after 2020 so as not to leave space junk, the space agency said on Wednesday. 'After it completes its existence, we will be forced to sink the ISS. It cannot be left in orbit, it's too complex, too heavy an object, it can leave behind lots of rubbish,' said deputy head of Roskosmos space agency Vitaly Davydov."
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
It would take a large amount of energy for it to reach escape velocity.
Re:Real or just political maneuvering? (Score:4, Informative)
It is in a harsh environment. It was not built to last forever. It needs periodic boosting to stay in orbit.
It's really only a question of whether or not it's (Score:5, Informative)
exactly. uncontrolled deorbit leads to debris.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
The Space Station is in a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and will fall to the Earth without its regular altitude boosts
Getting the Space Station in a Geo synchronous orbit, let alone deep space (that means outside of the solar system), is a totally different league in terms of needed energy to overcome the gravity well called Earth and mainly the Sun. I can't be bothered to do the calculations but the amount of energy needed for a massive object as the ISS will be staggering.
Also question is for what? Most of the ISS is build for local gravity experiments maintained by manned personel. It has communications optimized for a LEO, etcetera. It won't be able to do much which can't be done by much cheaper ways with a new space probe.
It's like saying you can reach your local California supermarket with your bike, so hey you should be able to go to Hawaii with it as well!
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
If we really had wanted to move forward, we should have set-out to create a permanent presence on the moon, not in LEO.
I disagree.
The ISS is intended to do zero gravity research. The moon doesn't have zero G, and is completely unsuitable for the job the ISS is built for.
You're just dreaming about traveling to the stars. The ISS however is conducting ordinary research. Some of that research can later be used if we travel to the stars, btw.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
The idea is that eventaully we will want a station in Geo synchronous orbit and that its cheaper to move this station from LEO to GSO than luanching parts up from earth. Not sure if this is true though. You would still have to launch the fuel up from Earth.
You'd also have to launch up a full machine shop and foundry, as none of the parts will work at geo. Not the comm systems, not the non-existent radiation shielding, not the cooling system, not... uh... pretty much everything but the cheap light empty shell, where nothing new will fit anyway.
Oh and the solar panels are probably only radiation rated for LEO not GEO which is a bit harsher; or maybe they are hardened to GEO levels.
Its kind of like taking the wright flyer and turning it into a B-17 by replacing all the parts one at a time.. it would be a heck of a lot easier and cheaper just to build the B-17 outright. Even the times in my example are about right, a bit more than 30 years separates each design.
Re:"Russia and its partners"?! (Score:4, Informative)
Many of the modules were designed for short term use, and simply were never intended to operate for well past 2020. One of the first Russian modules is actually planned to be detached and de-orbited later this year, replaced by a newer module. The solar panels are very expensive, very high efficiency arrays, however the same lack of atmosphere which gives them a boost versus ground based plants, also causes them to degrade from radiation faster.
The station is not going to be scrapped entirely. This new Russian module being installed later this year, and a few others, will be detached from the ISS before the ISS gets scuttled, and will be used as the basis of a new space station called the OPSEK. It is to be the first orbital dockyard in support of extra-planetary missions, where deep space craft will be sent up in individual modules, and then assembled on site, rather than being sent up in one big shot.
Re:Substation? (Score:5, Informative)
*A* Dragon? More like several thousand Dragons. The ISS is big and heavy and will take an enormous amount of energy both to put into a translunar trajectory and then to brake in into lunar orbit.
Um, no. While an object in motion tends to stay in motion - it only does so until subjected to an opposing force. In this case, that opposing force is Earth's gravity, and all a "little propellant" buys you is a slightly higher orbit.
But obtaining the required energy to put it on a translunar trajectory is just the beginning of your problems. Once it gets high enough, it'll encounter the high radiation of the Van Allen belts - and since it's electronics are not shielded against that radiation (being built for the far lower levels of LEO), they'll be fried if they spend more than a few hours there.
Oh, and did I mention that the ISS isn't structurally strong enough to take the thrust needed to ensure a quick passage of the Belt?
Nor does the fun stop there! The ISS' thermal control systems are based around having a nice warm Earth filling almost half it's "sky". They won't be able to handle the load of being in a translunar trajectory or in lunar orbit.
Not to mention stopping in Lunar orbit on your way to or from other destinations is like driving from Atlanta to LA via Seattle. Sure, you can do it if you want to... But it eats a lot of fuel getting into and out of Lunar orbit for no particular gain. On top of that, ensuring the Moon is in the right position for arrival or departure places huge constraints on when you can do so. I haven't worked it out, but I wouldn't be surprised if an Earth/Moon/Mars trajectory window only opened every ten or twelve years - as opposed to the every nineteen months or so for Earth/Mars trajectories.