Terse Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Pauld must be right because he's read it on - and quoted from - Wiki! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 paul already knew dickhead, he just cited an easy link cos he couldnt be arsed argueing with a proven knobhead about it, but thanks for the support. They could leave it up there for-ever more if they wanted. how do you think satelites stay up there with no decay in orbit, when you have googled that, then tell us why they could not do the same with the iss. the only reason i can see stated for bringing it back down is the future debri problem of it breaking up. Thats all about future accidental satellite collision damage mainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 See this Xkcd cartoon to see how low in Earth's gravity well the ISS is. Interesting. Liked the little "your mom" sketch too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 is that right, so how much percentage wise is the gravitational pull on the space station now, i will tell you, virtually zero, the station only needs repositioned once every 2 months maximum.. Sorry Paul, but that's nonsense. The ISS orbits at about 250 miles above the surface of the Earth. The Earth's gravity at that height is roughly 90% as strong as on the surface of the Earth (the reason that inhabitants of the shuttle appear to experience weightlessness is because they're in free fall). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 i know its speed vinny ffs, they are always falling. orbiting at 17.5mph, or close enough from memory. as you say the space station is about 100 miles higher up than normal shuttle missions, most satellites are in the lower orbit. the only reason they could not sling shot the station out into space i can see is stresses, and they dont want the debri off it breaking up if they try. vinny do you not think they could automate it, only having to top it up with fuel every 20 years or so, they would have lots of storage capacity on an empty station, plus they could add as much as they wanted. as it is it only has to be re-positioned 5 times a year, a higher orbit is less repositioning. its cost 130 billion pounds as it is so far, best average i can give as theres many estimates of cost. there must be a reason they do not want it as a future platform in space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Paul, the point is that you said that they could just leave the ISS up their indefinitely and that the gravitational pull on it is virtually zero. Both are false statements. the only reason they could not sling shot the station out into space i can see is stresses, and they dont want the debri off it breaking up if they try. Apart from all the extra fuel and effort required to maneuver it to the moon, and all the work needed to calculate and plan out the 'slingshot' - dead easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 paul already knew dickhead, he just cited an easy link cos he couldnt be arsed argueing with a proven knobhead about it, but thanks for the support. They could leave it up there for-ever more if they wanted. how do you think satelites stay up there with no decay in orbit, when you have googled that, then tell us why they could not do the same with the iss. the only reason i can see stated for bringing it back down is the future debri problem of it breaking up. Thats all about future accidental satellite collision damage mainly. I find it difficult to make much sense of your posts, Pauld. They couldn't "leave it up there forever" because as you said in your earlier post " As the ISS constantly loses altitude because of a slight atmospheric drag, it needs to be boosted to a higher altitude several times each year.". In other words, to keep it up there, they would have to re-supply it with fuel, maintain it and control it forever. If your argument is that it could be boosted into a very high orbit, beyond any drag created by the atmosphere of the Earth, then that too would require the necessary components to do that to be launched into the orbit the ISS currently occupies. The manufacture of the components and their launch would have an environmental impact, and they would cost money. Returning it to Earth, where most of it would burn up on re-entry and what remains be sunk in the Pacific ocean is surely a sensible solution. That is what happens to many satellites. The ISS came from the Earth, and the best ultimate resting place for it is back on the Earth. We have to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 paul already knew dickhead, he just cited an easy link cos he couldnt be arsed argueing with a proven knobhead about it, but thanks for the support. They could leave it up there for-ever more if they wanted. how do you think satelites stay up there with no decay in orbit, when you have googled that, then tell us why they could not do the same with the iss. the only reason i can see stated for bringing it back down is the future debri problem of it breaking up. Thats all about future accidental satellite collision damage mainly. I find it difficult to make much sense of your posts, Pauld. They couldn't "leave it up there forever" because as you said in your earlier post " As the ISS constantly loses altitude because of a slight atmospheric drag, it needs to be boosted to a higher altitude several times each year.". In other words, to keep it up there, they would have to re-supply it with fuel, maintain it and control it forever. If your argument is that it could be boosted into a very high orbit, beyond any drag created by the atmosphere of the Earth, then that too would require the necessary components to do that to be launched into the orbit the ISS currently occupies. The manufacture of the components and their launch would have an environmental impact, and they would cost money. Returning it to Earth, where most of it would burn up on re-entry and what remains be sunk in the Pacific ocean is surely a sensible solution. That is what happens to many satellites. The ISS came from the Earth, and the best ultimate resting place for it is back on the Earth. We have to you should educate yourself on all the different kind of orbits there is, heres a hint, "the poles" even the shuttles orbit is elliptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Paul, please feel free to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 i know its speed vinny ffs, they are always falling. orbiting at 17.5mph, or close enough from memory. I can run that fast :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 aye im going to get an engineer in to fix this K, its a iller not woring properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 you should educate yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 feel; free to explain to him how satelites stay in orbit for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 aye im going to get an engineer in to fix this K, its a iller not woring properly. I don't think it's 17.5kmph either when you're in a hole, stop digging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 dont ya, 17.5 [k]thousand mph was my estimate as of my memory for the shuttles, it may be 17.5 kilometres per hour, but i think its miles per hour. i will check and edit in the exact speeds. edit aye nowt wrong with my memory. The shuttle orbiter and external tank continued to ascend on an increasingly horizontal flight path under power from its main engines. Upon reaching 17,500 mph (7.8 km/s), necessary for low Earth orbit, the main engines are shut down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.