• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why don't they leave space stations in orbit permanently?

M

MournSanity

Diamond Member
I've always wondered this. All of the space stations we have put up in space have limited lifespans. Skylab and Mir were both directed down to earth after their usefulness had ended. But why did they have to coordinate such complicated procedures to get the stations to crash safely on earth when they could just leave them up there? It wouldn't cost them a thing to neglect it up in orbit, would it? Is there any explanation for this?

Just curious, that's all.
 
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/space_junk.html

Some of the objects, baseball-sized and bigger, could threaten the lives of astronauts in a space shuttle or the International Space Station. As an example of the hazard, a tiny speck of paint from a satellite once dug a pit in a space shuttle window nearly a quarter-inch wide.
Click to expand...

If you google it you can find the picture, it's incredibly scary, that paint chip was moving at a very high speed and nearly went through the window and it was just a paint chip.

The simple answer is that anything that isn't de-orbited become a major hazzard. The apollo boosters are still circling the earth and present a massive threat to future space missions. Imagine trying to drive through a junk yard at 20,000mph.
 
All satellite orbits decay. It was better to direct their fall from orbit. For example the Atlantic Ocean or Asia. Also there is a lot of space junk already floating around causing problems for the other satellites.
 
Originally posted by: MournSanity
I've always wondered this. All of the space stations we have put up in space have limited lifespans. Skylab and Mir were both directed down to earth after their usefulness had ended. But why did they have to coordinate such complicated procedures to get the stations to crash safely on earth when they could just leave them up there? It wouldn't cost them a thing to neglect it up in orbit, would it? Is there any explanation for this?
Click to expand...

The are not at an orbit that is 100% free of atmospheric particles, this causes enough eventual drag that the orbits are not sustainable. Part of the shuttles job is to boost the Alpha's orbit occasionally.

Bill
 
Can't we push the stations farther out into space (to a lagrange point) and keep them there for all time? Wouldn't it be wise to save our current space exploration technology for future generations to marvel at and enjoy?
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/space_junk.html

Some of the objects, baseball-sized and bigger, could threaten the lives of astronauts in a space shuttle or the International Space Station. As an example of the hazard, a tiny speck of paint from a satellite once dug a pit in a space shuttle window nearly a quarter-inch wide.
Click to expand...

If you google it you can find the picture, it's incredibly scary, that paint chip was moving at a very high speed and nearly went through the window and it was just a paint chip.

The simple answer is that anything that isn't de-orbited become a major hazzard. The apollo boosters are still circling the earth and present a massive threat to future space missions. Imagine trying to drive through a junk yard at 20,000mph.
Click to expand...

link?
 
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: rahvin
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/space_junk.html

Some of the objects, baseball-sized and bigger, could threaten the lives of astronauts in a space shuttle or the International Space Station. As an example of the hazard, a tiny speck of paint from a satellite once dug a pit in a space shuttle window nearly a quarter-inch wide.
Click to expand...

If you google it you can find the picture, it's incredibly scary, that paint chip was moving at a very high speed and nearly went through the window and it was just a paint chip.

The simple answer is that anything that isn't de-orbited become a major hazzard. The apollo boosters are still circling the earth and present a massive threat to future space missions. Imagine trying to drive through a junk yard at 20,000mph.
Click to expand...

link?
Click to expand...

http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_articlea.php?id=01-074

Viper GTS
 
I imagine they could readjust the orbit and keep them up longer, but after a while they would become old, outdated and unsafe. Think of an old car - it would require a lot of maintenance and occasional breakdowns woudl be inevitable.

 
Originally posted by: MournSanity
Can't we push the stations farther out into space (to a lagrange point) and keep them there for all time? Wouldn't it be wise to save our current space exploration technology for future generations to marvel at and enjoy?
Click to expand...

You *could* but it would cost a lottta cash. You'd need to develop a booster to take it there. Then, you'd need to develop a new delivery system to get parts/supplies to it. The costs would be utterly massive.

A lagrange point would be ideal, but then again it would also be ideal to have a base on the far side of the moon and Mars... but nothing is free or easy.

Or, you could keep it in low earth orbit and use our existing infrastructure.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: MournSanity
I've always wondered this. All of the space stations we have put up in space have limited lifespans. Skylab and Mir were both directed down to earth after their usefulness had ended. But why did they have to coordinate such complicated procedures to get the stations to crash safely on earth when they could just leave them up there? It wouldn't cost them a thing to neglect it up in orbit, would it? Is there any explanation for this?
Click to expand...

The are not at an orbit that is 100% free of atmospheric particles, this causes enough eventual drag that the orbits are not sustainable. Part of the shuttles job is to boost the Alpha's orbit occasionally.

Bill
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Low earth orbits - and the space station is pretty low as this stuff goes - are subject to atmospheric drag which will eventually cause them to reenter the atmosphere. When you have something as big as MIR, CGO, HST, SkyLab, etc., big chuncks of it will survive reentry and hit the ground. Rather then risk an uncontrolled reentry and drop this stuff over a populated area, they now intentionally command a de-orbit so they have more control over where it comes down. This depends on still having command & control, attitude control, and fuel, so you will see these things done while the satellite still has some nominal "life" left.

That's one thing people don't understand about the Hubble situation. Why bring down the spacecraft while it's still performing its mission? Because if the gyros fail, etc. you won't be able to perform a controlled reentry. You will also see geosyncronous satellites boosted up to a higher "graveyard" orbit while they still have some life left as well. At that altitude, they will never reenter, but geo is valuable real estate - you don't want it cluttered up with dead satellites.

Finally, and the issue of boosting to a higher orbit/lagrange point. That takes ALOT of gas - much more then these vehicles carry. So you would need to perform a special rendevous mission, either with the shuttle, or some future edition of the recent DART mission (hopefully one that works!) to attach additional boosters, etc. Lots of $$$ that is better spent on new missions rather then preserving museum exhibits.
 
I guess they cleaned all that space junk up in star trek. Space is so neat for them 🙂

We suck, junking up our orbit like that. Same for garbage on the moon right?
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/space_junk.html

Some of the objects, baseball-sized and bigger, could threaten the lives of astronauts in a space shuttle or the International Space Station. As an example of the hazard, a tiny speck of paint from a satellite once dug a pit in a space shuttle window nearly a quarter-inch wide.
Click to expand...

If you google it you can find the picture, it's incredibly scary, that paint chip was moving at a very high speed and nearly went through the window and it was just a paint chip.

The simple answer is that anything that isn't de-orbited become a major hazzard. The apollo boosters are still circling the earth and present a massive threat to future space missions. Imagine trying to drive through a junk yard at 20,000mph.
Click to expand...

Actually, a head-on in low earth orbit could be as fast as 81,000 MPH! If you toss a highly eccentric orbit at perigee into the mix it can get even higher.

We really don't even have a good feel for what happens in a collision at these kinds of speeds. I think the fastest collision we've ever created above the subatomic level is somewhere on the order of 7-8 Km/s = 40,000 MPH
 
Originally posted by: MournSanity
I've always wondered this. All of the space stations we have put up in space have limited lifespans. Skylab and Mir were both directed down to earth after their usefulness had ended. But why did they have to coordinate such complicated procedures to get the stations to crash safely on earth when they could just leave them up there? It wouldn't cost them a thing to neglect it up in orbit, would it? Is there any explanation for this?

Just curious, that's all.
Click to expand...

More junk up there for NASA to track?
 
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: MournSanity
I've always wondered this. All of the space stations we have put up in space have limited lifespans. Skylab and Mir were both directed down to earth after their usefulness had ended. But why did they have to coordinate such complicated procedures to get the stations to crash safely on earth when they could just leave them up there? It wouldn't cost them a thing to neglect it up in orbit, would it? Is there any explanation for this?

Just curious, that's all.
Click to expand...

More junk up there for NASA to track?
Click to expand...

NASA doesn't track it, the Air Force does.
 
Originally posted by: Armitage
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: MournSanity
I've always wondered this. All of the space stations we have put up in space have limited lifespans. Skylab and Mir were both directed down to earth after their usefulness had ended. But why did they have to coordinate such complicated procedures to get the stations to crash safely on earth when they could just leave them up there? It wouldn't cost them a thing to neglect it up in orbit, would it? Is there any explanation for this?

Just curious, that's all.
Click to expand...

More junk up there for NASA to track?
Click to expand...

NASA doesn't track it, the Air Force does.
Click to expand...

Whatever.
 
Originally posted by: MournSanity
Can't we push the stations farther out into space (to a lagrange point) and keep them there for all time? Wouldn't it be wise to save our current space exploration technology for future generations to marvel at and enjoy?
Click to expand...

Do you leave your 486 lying around for people to "marvel at and enjoy?" 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top