This is what I’ve been thinking. I assume it hasn’t been on the table because it would be hugely expensive and difficult (due to the station not being designed for the kind of burns needed to substantially boost its orbit). But honestly, I’d much rather see funds and research devoted to preserving such a significant piece of space flight history over manned trips to the moon and mars.

[–] Dead_or_Alive 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But honestly, I’d much rather see funds and research devoted to preserving such a significant piece of space flight history over manned trips to the moon and mars

What?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As cool as those missions would be, we can go to the moon or Mars anytime. We only have until the end of the ISS' life to park it into a safe orbit, and doing so means one of the most significant pieces of early spaceflight technology is preserved for future generations to put into a museum. In 3000 years, future generations will care more about being able to see the earliest preserved space station than the first mission to Mars being in 2043 instead of 2037

[–] Dead_or_Alive 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I respectfully disagree, no one outside of the space flight community remembers the names of the Astronauts on Apollo 10. Everyone knows who Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are, few have seen or care to see the Apollo 11 capsule . Most of the public knows who Christopher Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Sir Frances Drake, Ferdinand Magellan. No one outside of a few historians and history buffs care about the Vasa.

I’d rather invest money in expanding the human experience rather than sacrifice it for an altar full of relics.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re welcome to your opinion, though I think it’s extremely shortsighted. It also strips down the value of historic artifacts to merely their tourist appeal. You say “altar full of relics” seemingly to dismiss the notion, but literal relics are a crucial reason why we know anything about our history at all. I’d like to think that historians of the future, at a minimum, would appreciate it if the ISS was boosted to a stable orbit instead of burning up.

[–] Dead_or_Alive 1 points 1 year ago

Historian: Looks at dusty broken space station through a telescope as he listens to the radio carrying the words of the first Chinese man to walk on mars.

Yeah we made the right call saving that station.

[–] Pipoca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would an ion thruster be suitable for something like this? It's not like you need to instantly yeet it up to a higher orbit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Not an expert, aside from countless hours in kerbal space program, but I would guess the problem is more about the total mass and structural strength. The station has some kind of thrusters to counteract orbital decay, but they wouldn’t have nearly enough fuel to boost to a higher orbit. So another craft with lots of fuel would be needed to push the station.

Something low thrust like ion thrusters would probably take a very long time for something the mass of the ISS. And you can’t just burn continuously. Raising an orbit is a two step process: burn to raise one side of the orbit, then burn again to raise the other. These burns are most efficient when done at the lowest and highest points of the orbit, respectively. Too long of a single burn would waste precious fuel from being too far away from the optimal points. I would guess that it would take many, many orbits to raise the station into a permanent orbit.

A higher thrust engine pushing the station would solve that problem, but since it wasn’t designed to be pushed, I could see it being unable to withstand the stress. Plus, it might be difficult to thrust along the center of mass, causing it to tumble during the burn.

That’s just my layman explanation, anyway. I imagine it won’t be easy no matter what, and it may ultimately not be feasible at all. But I’d like to see more public discussion of preserving the station.