Satallite Re-Entry

[4deck]

I usually visit the nasa page a few times a week. Lately daily just to see if theres any new news on the satallite re-entry. Looks like we wont even get a viz on any of it now.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/21/7879772-nasa-satellite-wont-fall-on-us?ocid=ansmsnbc11

Heres another link more about the space station. Eventually it too will become obsolete, and when that comes down, I hope Im around. Still very sad to even think about it though.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/27/7182599-sink-the-space-station-not-so-fast

[F22RaptorDude]

2020, I hear that Nasa was planning to have bases on the moon by 2030, with that there wouldn't be a need for a space station

[Tyrannis]

2020, I hear that Nasa was planning to have bases on the moon by 2030, with that there wouldn't be a need for a space station

I heard the goal was putting a man on mars by 2030.

[cpxxx]

It may not hit you guys but judging by this graphic, we on this side of the pond might be right in the firing line. At the very least we might get a nice light show in the sky!

For clarity, ground track plot is limited to ± 6 hours

Legend
Yellow Icon - location of object at predicted reentry time
Orange Line - area of visibility at the predicted reentry time for a ground observer
 Blue Line - ground track uncertainty prior to predicted reentry time (ticks at 5-minute intervals)
 Yellow Line - ground track uncertainty after predicted reentry time (ticks at 5-minute intervals)
 White Line - day/night divider at predicted reentry time (Sun location shown by White Icon)
Note: Possible reentry locations lie anywhere along the blue and yellow ground track.

[Dichotomy]

[Big Rat]

I got it! will post pics later

 
BigRat

[Reschke]

Instead of de-orbiting something like the space station or even some of these larger satellites I have often wondered what the fuel requirements would be to put these puppies on a trajectory for the sun instead of contributing to the space debris problem. I don't know for sure but I would imagine that the cost that would be needed to de-orbit a space station that weighs about 500 tons is pretty significant. However I don't think it would be that bad to send up a couple of rocket pods to attach to the station and get it moving out of earth orbit.

[curry1]

Instead of de-orbiting something like the space station or even some of these larger satellites I have often wondered what the fuel requirements would be to put these puppies on a trajectory for the sun instead of contributing to the space debris problem. I don't know for sure but I would imagine that the cost that would be needed to de-orbit a space station that weighs about 500 tons is pretty significant. However I don't think it would be that bad to send up a couple of rocket pods to attach to the station and get it moving out of earth orbit.

The fuel requirements would be similar to going to the moon and that would be on an extremely slow velocity towards the sun.  Basically Way, way ,way more fuel than any satellite has ever had on board by a long shot.  Anyway when the satellite re-enters as the word implys all of the satellite enters the earth gravity or burns up it doesn't create space debris.

De-Orbiting the space station or any other satellite is free if you wait long enough they do come back down.  Give a satellite a little push in the right direction and it wont take very long relatively for it to start to re-enter.  Sending rocket pods up would be extremely expensive as it costs about $10,000 to get a single pound into orbit and much much more to get something out of earths gravity.  Not only would the pods have to be sent up there but it would have to be designed to attach autonomously or somehow get attached by astronauts which is also expensive.  i don't think the ISS as a whole would even be able to take adding large rockets to it because it is relatively fragile compared to an actual rocket designed for the vibrations and acceleration of rocket flight it probably would vibrate itself to pieces.

[curry1]

oops double post 

[Raptor]

See Rule #4

[dedalos]

See Rule #4

[Tordon22]

I've narrowed the crash sight to several locations in my area. I've also just happened to relocate some of my property in need of replacing to these areas. Now I'm playing the waiting game, come on new car!

[curry1]

See Rule #4

[F22RaptorDude]

I heard the goal was putting a man on mars by 2030.

hmm moon might be 2020, I get things like that mixed up

[4deck]

I love when people who don't know what they are talking about tell professionals how to do their job

@Raptor Im glad u know what your talking about. I can see the professionlism at work here.

for Reschke on the other hand, curry1 has basically stated why we dont do that kind of a thing.

The biggest issue of also trying to send an object out into space, is if it fails, then your looking at another piece of debris basically that could cause harm to existing space objects. Which in turn could potentially be harmful to a manned space mission. Existing, or Planned. That is not a good thing to try to predict.

Anyway, Reschke if your into learning more there are several free space simulators (not really great on graphix) that I can post so you can actually plan an orbit just you get a feel. Heres a descent one.

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/