Not feasible. Too much propellant would be required (millions of pounds). Also, the ISS can't be just left at any point in space. It takes propellant and power to keep it stable. Also, it is not designed to operate outside of LEO.
Just to clarify since I did not get the "operate outside of LEO" part. The intention was NOT to keep it running but to keep it left inactive, marooned, even evacuated. I defer to your knowledge as it not being feasible, but enlighten me if you please: I was under the impression that once an object is placed on any of the Lagrangian Points it would keep there without further need of energy for position keeping. Have I been mistaken in this assumption?
The biggest issue is that if a rocket were attached to the ISS to launch it up to a high orbit, lunar orbit, or Lagrange point, the ISS would simply break apart. It's not designed to handle the loads it would impart. So "why not do it slowly, like they do to boost the orbit?" surely you'd say. Well that means it's traveling through the Van Allen belts for a long period of time. That would wreck all the electronics in the ISS. Oh. I suppose if its functionality doesn't matter, if it's just for a "space museum" display that will just be looked at from the outside, that'd be fine. If you can rustle up the money to do it before the ISS is deorbited, go ahead. I don't think you'll be able to, though.
It needs to be kept stable or else it would start spinning and parts would come off.
You got the idea right. Don't ask me for the money because sure I would not have Going the slow way you proposed, would something like the much promised VASIMIR test engine that once was supposed to be tested on the station with some hack to have as much argon as it would need do the trick?
I looked briefly around and did not found anything of this sort so will put it here. MODs, as usual, are free to dispose as seen fit.I've been wondering lately that with the End Of Life for ISS approaching, and the most likely scenario is for it to be dumped in the big pond, that this would be a massive loss for history. So I ask: being it the greatest human enterprise to date, would it be feasible to push it to a Lagrangian Point so that it would be hanging there forever and future generations would be able to visit it someday as if it was a giant shipwreck, just this one in space? You know we all hope that eventually we will have the technology to make leisure space travels. It wold be very cool.Being on the subject, if you found it feasible, what sort of kick stage would need to be developed to push it there?
Quote from: ValmirGP on 09/13/2018 02:50 pmI looked briefly around and did not found anything of this sort so will put it here. MODs, as usual, are free to dispose as seen fit.I've been wondering lately that with the End Of Life for ISS approaching, and the most likely scenario is for it to be dumped in the big pond, that this would be a massive loss for history. So I ask: being it the greatest human enterprise to date, would it be feasible to push it to a Lagrangian Point so that it would be hanging there forever and future generations would be able to visit it someday as if it was a giant shipwreck, just this one in space? You know we all hope that eventually we will have the technology to make leisure space travels. It wold be very cool.Being on the subject, if you found it feasible, what sort of kick stage would need to be developed to push it there?Don't the Russians plan to use their modules in a new station?
Somewhat in jest. There is already a sort of giant orbital adjustment module in development. Simply attached a BFS tanker to the ISS and use the BFS's RCS to nudge the ISS to a different orbit. IIRC the RCS is operating with MethoLOX as propellants. Replace the BFS tanker with another when it runs short of propellants.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 09/13/2018 08:53 pm Somewhat in jest. There is already a sort of giant orbital adjustment module in development. Simply attached a BFS tanker to the ISS and use the BFS's RCS to nudge the ISS to a different orbit. IIRC the RCS is operating with MethoLOX as propellants. Replace the BFS tanker with another when it runs short of propellants.Although it's a fun thought, as Jim and Whitelancer64 have kindly put up-thread, ISS would not cope with this level of stress. <snip>
Don't the Russians plan to use their modules in a new station?
So I ask: being it the greatest human enterprise to date, would it be feasible to push it to a Lagrangian Point so that it would be hanging there forever and future generations would be able to visit it someday as if it was a giant shipwreck, just this one in space? You know we all hope that eventually we will have the technology to make leisure space travels. It wold be very cool.Being on the subject, if you found it feasible, what sort of kick stage would need to be developed to push it there?
Quote from: ValmirGP on 09/13/2018 02:50 pmSo I ask: being it the greatest human enterprise to date, would it be feasible to push it to a Lagrangian Point so that it would be hanging there forever and future generations would be able to visit it someday as if it was a giant shipwreck, just this one in space? You know we all hope that eventually we will have the technology to make leisure space travels. It wold be very cool.Being on the subject, if you found it feasible, what sort of kick stage would need to be developed to push it there?In principle, a refilled BFS (IAC2017) can do this, slowly, refilled once.It needs around 1100 tons of propellant, and may need an additional tanker flight in order to get 440 tons to boost to a Lagrangian point, for around 7 or 8 total launches.The typical reboost acceleration of 4cm/s^2 means that it would naively take around a day. However, thrusting only during a small fraction of the orbit only is required for reasonable efficiency so the effective acceleration is 1cm/s for some time.You'd be at L1 around three weeks after initiating the manoever. ISS is obviously not designed for the situation it will find itself in, and may require solar shades or reflectors of some form.Keeping it operating medium term, even if lift to it was free would take moderate investment. The other 'but why' questions raised above are reasonable, but it's not going to explode or fall apart with appropriate acceleration.
After three decades of service, the International Space Station is due to be retired in 2031 on a final journey in which it will burn fiercely in the atmosphere before plunging into the sea.However, leaders in the space industry have proposed a way to save a collaboration that has received more than $100 billion (£80 billion) in funding.Instead of a “death sentence”, the station should be preserved as a beacon of human inventiveness, according to Greg Autry, a senior space strategy adviser to President Trump and then the White House liaison for Nasa.