4 ms·
In case anyone wonders how long ISS could survive completely unattended - it averaged 1 debris avoidance manouver per year before 2011 and 4 in 2012. Its orbit
by fridek 9y ago
In case anyone wonders how long ISS could survive completely unattended - it averaged 1 debris avoidance manouver per year before 2011 and 4 in 2012. Its orbit is around 400km which is low enough do decay slowly, but boost burns happen only every few years. Both of those events are planned months or years ahead.
NASA must have decided there was no real danger to the operators apart from some longer shifts and sleeping in the office. Otherwise, even without the backup ground control, ISS wouldn't be in any significant danger if disconnected for a few days.
- lucb1e 9y agoNow this is the kind of information that should have been in the article. Thanks for sharing!
- zimmund 9y agoAgreed. The Verge articles' are quite bland lately... The HN discussions around them are more informative.
- mirashii 9y agoBoost burns happen significantly more frequently than every few years. At 400km and a drag profile as large as the ISS, decay would take around a year or less, depending on attitude. A little bit more reading: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9087/how-often-does-iss-require-re-boosting-to-higher-orbit https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9087/how-often-doe...
- fridek 9y agoWow, the height chart there is excellent. I was looking at a 2013 post where someone mentioned the next burn is scheduled for 2015. Clearly it was inaccurate.
- TorKlingberg 9y agoI imagine the Russians have flight control too. Only the Russian segment of ISS have boosters.
- NegativeLatency 9y agoThe ATV's from the ESA have boosters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle#Use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle#Use
- orbital-decay 9y ago*had They've been retired some time ago.
- TomK32 9y ago"Retired" as in burned up over the Pacific.
- avar 9y agoWhen they're avoiding debris that's not something that would have directly struck the station, rather they're aiming to keep debris from entering a 1.5 x 50 x 50 kilometer imaginary box with the station placed in the center[1]. So the inability to avoid debris realistically just increases the risk of running the station, it doesn't mean that if they'd skip the next maneuver that there's anything but a trivial chance of the station being struck. 1. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debr...