ISS moon base

[mastronaut]

I know this is pretty far fetched, but if there were a crisis that would endanger ISS,

How much thrust would it take to put her on a course for the moon (with landing modifications)

if possible? It would make for some great science fiction even if it couldn't be done.

Don't ask me why I thought of it in the first place...

[Jason Davies]

Errrrrm, been on the beer? While it is impossible, why would you want to send it to the moon in the case of an emergancy?

[cpcjr]

In theory you could use an ion rocket to slowly spiral out to the moon and in to lunar orbit, but that is the best you could do. It's just not designed for landing otr operating on a planetary surface.

[Jorge]

cpcjr - 24/11/2007  5:05 PM

In theory you could use an ion rocket to slowly spiral out to the moon and in to lunar orbit, but that is the best you could do.

In practice you can't even do that. An ion rocket would result in a long slow passage through the Van Allen belts, which ISS avionics cannot survive. The ISS thermal control system is also designed for a LEO environment; it would not perform well once the Earth no longer fills half the sky. ISS also requires a fairly consistent supply/logistics chain from the ground, which would be difficult to maintain once the station is out of LEO.

[cpcjr]

Jorge - 24/11/2007  6:12 PM

cpcjr - 24/11/2007  5:05 PM

In theory you could use an ion rocket to slowly spiral out to the moon and in to lunar orbit, but that is the best you could do.

In practice you can't even do that. An ion rocket would result in a long slow passage through the Van Allen belts, which ISS avionics cannot survive. The ISS thermal control system is also designed for a LEO environment; it would not perform well once the Earth no longer fills half the sky. ISS also requires a fairly consistent supply/logistics chain from the ground, which would be difficult to maintain once the station is out of LEO.

True, ISS would never survie the trip in a fuctional state. That's why I said "in theory."  

[mastronaut]

That's what I was looking for! Theories, possibilities, God, Country and good ol' American ingenuity! Oh and Jason, (emergency).  

[Andrewwski]

"Space Cowboys", anyone?

[Squid.erau]

Why not put the empire state building into service as an airliner?  

[Ronsmytheiii]

Well, in L2 there is a concept for reusing components developed for ISS on a lunar architecture, however it is not the current station in any way.

Edit, not in L2, so I am sharing the link and a teaser image

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2925&start=1

[Lampyridae]

You would have an interesting time with plumbing. I'm not sure if the ISS zero gee plumbing can handle lunar gravity. Not to mention power storage for the long lunar night. Or the problem of dust contamination, which the ISS is not designed for.

Transporting and landing the station as is would pose serious load problems to the structure. ISS is built for zero G only, and could snap at the docking ports. It would be best to disassemble the station into its smallest components and land each individually, and then utilise them in a more outpost-like configuration. Fortunately most parts have attachment points for the payload pallets in the shuttle bay so you could attach those to them. The Russian modules would probably have to be landed vertically. A lot of stuff you could simply abandon in orbit - the truss, the arm

[ananamuss]

While reading an article about the day the space station will burn in the atmosphere just like MIR (http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/news.asp?id=48696)

I got a really crazy idea : Would it be possible/interesting, instead to attach a few thrusters (ion i guess, rockets would put too much strain on the structure) and slowly put the ISS on a growing orbit with the aim to send it into the moon's orbit? I suppose there would be a radiation problem since earth's shielding does not extend all the way there and the amount of fuel/solar energy needed would be frightening but surely it would be less expensive than building a new station and without atmosphere we wouldn't have to worry about air friction.

[Shuttle Man]

Not the first person to ask, as there's been about 10 threads on this, but short answer is no, not possible.

[Jim]

I got a really crazy idea : Would it be possible/interesting, instead to attach a few thrusters (ion i guess, rockets would put too much strain on the structure) and slowly put the ISS on a growing orbit with the aim to send it into the moon's orbit? I suppose there would be a radiation problem since earth's shielding does not extend all the way there and the amount of fuel/solar energy needed would be frightening but surely it would be less expensive than building a new station and without atmosphere we wouldn't have to worry about air friction.

Duplicate thread

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10963.0

[publiusr]

Related links

Mir-based Loop?

Compare
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.html

With
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10963.0;attach=36593


http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz_acts.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ard.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/russia_2000_2010.html#sovbez

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz_acts.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ard.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/russia_2000_2010.html#sovbez
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10963.0;attach=36593

[Norm Hartnett]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394.html

Someone at the Post got the same idea.

[Jorge]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394.html

Someone at the Post got the same idea.

Same dumb idea. Didn't even address the most important issues (radiation, thermal control), glossed over some very important ones (length of the logistics "tail"), and pre-emptively exercised the "critics of this idea are stuck inside the box" attack.

Why the WaPo would give column inches to this is beyond me. Don't they have a Britney article they could have run instead?

[Orbiter]

Well, Theres a Laugh oh the Day. Space Station going to the moon, LOL. I would bet that the General Public would believe that.

[jmjawors]

Jorge, what are you talking about?  Didn't you see where he wrote that it would be "fairly easy?" 

[Jorge]

Jorge, what are you talking about?  Didn't you see where he wrote that it would be "fairly easy?" 

Hmm, right you are - how could I have possibly missed that the first time? Color me convinced now - I'm out of the box and proud!

[Oersted]

What I DO wish they'd do, and what they should have done for MIR, is/was to slowly push it up into a "museum" orbit after the end of its useful life. Maybe a lagrange point, where stationkeeping is easy. Those magnificent, historical structures deserve more than a fiery de-orbit demise. To me they are of equal importance to the pyramids, they should be preserved, and what better place than space to preserve them?

The slow push can be seen as a real-life test for new propulsion technologies.

If the push imparted to MIR had been towards a higher orbit rather than towards de-orbiting, how high up would it have gone? - Would it maybe have reached an orbit that would remain steady for a couple of hundred years?