I am not advocating de-orbiting ISS. But curious on technique.
Assuming a still fully functioning ISS with CMGs , functioning solar
panels and Zvezda's engines (are they still theoretically operational,
or formally disabled?)
I assume the first step would be using engines to lower its orbit to an elliptocal with as low a perigee as possiuble , right?
Would the solar arrays then be used as a sail to slow it down further?
Or is it expected the de-orbit burn would bring it down low enopuigh
that the solar wings would detach within one or two perigees?
In terms of solar wings, would they be used to "steer" the station
further down, use then as wings to create lift to slow descent (but also
slow speed), or just have the solar wings perpenduciular to movement to create the most air resistance?
or would engines be relied on for the full de-orbit in order to get
better control of where it re-enters and burn up?
From a burn up point of view, would a re-entry as whole better ebsure
full burn-up? I assume that by having a single item of mass X, it is
easier to predict where survivig pieces might reach ground?
Breaking up before re-entry interface would result in different
behaviours depending on density of piece re-entering and its shielding,
rig? Would this be significant, or still non brainer to ensure they all
fall into pacific?
Or owuld the goal be to focus on targeting the Pacific and having it
stay whole as long as possible to minimize possible footprint of any remaining pieces falling in water?
In the case of Mir, the station had minimal control, abandonned and fell
down as a whole station. (and some reached the Pacific). But curious on
how a planned re-entry would be assuming it were still functional and
you could send flights up.
(Lets assume a real estate company buys the orbinal place (land) and
wants to demolish the ISS in order to build space condos).
Realistically though, is the fate of ISS same as that of Mir? Will be abandonned, left unmanned and by the time its re-entry is imminent, too
late to do anything about it?
Has Scott Manley answered any of your questions?
<URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5lidnLtO7c>
On 2021-11-24 18:43, Snidely wrote:
Has Scott Manley answered any of your questions?
<URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5lidnLtO7c>
It's why I asked my question here to have better understanding of
options (in partculat how much the solar wings could be used either as
air brakes or to direct station to lower altitude until they get blown
up by denser atmosphere).
Note to other poster: I don't want ISS to come down. And even the old
Russian modules, if separated, can act as early station modules that
provide early ECLSS and orbit keeping, docking port, airlock. Once rest
of station is built, then the old modules can be ditched.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 293 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 238:54:56 |
Calls: | 6,624 |
Files: | 12,172 |
Messages: | 5,319,946 |