It is a braking maneuver, opposite the direction of flight, to lower the perigee of the orbit. The de-orbit burn is made approximately a half orbit from the re-entry point.
Space-X receives contract to ‘decommission’ ISS?
- Thread starter David_Stack
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Tony Stark...err...Musk needs to also invent the Tractor Beam
Things like the solar wings can be fold in and make the flight path more controllable and predictable. It might take a number of control burns to get it into an orbit that will take the best advantage of the "hole in the Pacific" and then create a de-orbiting burn, probably something the size of an attached Falcon Heavy 2nd stage. The idea that some parts can be reused for commercial projects is far fetched - Artemis was supposed to reuse as much Shuttle components as possible and we all know now that that decision was a very expensive mistake (a clean sheet design could have been cheaper).
NTP could be used on a deorbit tug, with a big enough engine. It would probably need to detach at the right point in time (to head to the next job) as NTP has a not very predictable shutdown tail.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 1,938
- Reaction score
- 951
So, straight into the direction of travel... got it.
I didn't know if it was angled to some extent so some thrust pushed 'downward'.
I didn't know if it was angled to some extent so some thrust pushed 'downward'.
Charles_McG
Ciderwright
Larry Niven’s ‘The Integral Trees’ has a nice rundown on orbital mechanics.
I find orbital action/reaction to be moderately intuitive if you think about what’s happening to the apogee and perigee, and much less so if you think about what’s happening in the moment.
Yup, I recommend getting KSP and playing for a while, you’ll pick it up really quickly.
NTP will not be used in Earth orbit, because after the thing fires up the first time, it becomes highly radioactive. Can’t risk it coming back down.
The tug will be going down with the ship... err.. Station. It will crash too so no way will an NTP be used.
Not to mention there aren't tried-and-true designs that are ready for space flight. Anyone that has an interest in space flight knows that optimistic timelines for engineering are often subject to delays from funding, politics, and mismanagement. Even if the exhaust and components were not alarmingly radioactive, I'd find it unlikely they would go this route just to deorbit ISS because there is a lot more work to be done whereas you already have conventional fuel rocket engines built, tested, improved upon, and ready for launch.
I vote we launch @NTP2 out of a cannon at the ISS so we can officially say we used NTP to deorbit the ISS. I'm sure he won't mind the expedient trip to space and being the last ISS visitor lol (jk, poking fun lol)
and in deorbiting the station they will use a longer burn, lower thrust rocket. If you used a high thrust motor you stand a chance of ripping the station apart.
Another good one is juno new origins. You can even get it as an app for your phone and they have an index of existing rockets (everything from sounding rockets to the Saturn V). I find the flow-chart style scripting they built in is really annoying and tedious (I'm too used to just typing sh*t in VIM lol) but it actually works way better than the mods you can get for scripting in KSP. It's great if you want to tinker with making your own flight computer logic (albeit it's idealized because it's a simple simulator with nothing like wind currents, sensor noise, and telemetry interference).
Can I have a space suit? if yes then I'd like to be able to time it, so I fly to the Chinese space station and get to live...
if it's a tug then I don't see a reason it has to come down, refueling would be possible, decommission it in a super high graveyard orbit with all the old GPS and weather sats.
Sorry... space suits are expensive... best I can do is a trashbag full of air. lol
I wasn't suggesting that be used this time just in the near future.
ohh come on you shipped me and a canon, I guess I'll do a go fund me.
Yeahhhh... but a space suit has to go through a bunch of testing and regulatory stuff, and that just adds up. A canno is pretty much just a tube stuffed with explosives... which as it turns out is cheaper than a space suit lol (or so I guess for the joke lmao)
Last edited:
Actually a nuclear warehead costs in the order of 10s to 100s of millions; a space suit costs a billion
https://www.brookings.edu/what-nuclear-weapons-delivery-systems-really-cost/
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does... to,temperatures, radiation, and microgravity.
So not only is cheaper to send you to space with a cannon than to buy a space suit, we can actually do it with a nuke!! lol (if my napkin math and haphazardly researched info is right)
https://www.brookings.edu/what-nuclear-weapons-delivery-systems-really-cost/
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does... to,temperatures, radiation, and microgravity.
So not only is cheaper to send you to space with a cannon than to buy a space suit, we can actually do it with a nuke!! lol (if my napkin math and haphazardly researched info is right)
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 1,938
- Reaction score
- 951
Hey if we're gonna send one of or own up let's not be cheap about it!
(And remember travel rule #1: There's no such thing as bringing too many road snacks)
(And remember travel rule #1: There's no such thing as bringing too many road snacks)
thank you!
Great book. Well worth a read if you can get it.
I said it was possible, not necessarily a good idea. A radioactive rocket engine on reentry is not good for anyone. NTP engines are not good anyway for when accurate orbital parameters are required due to the long and unpredictable tail of the thrust, as mentioned in my previous post. The reactor needs to be cooled down once the core is shut down, hence gas flow is still needed for that phase of operation.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 3,494
- Reaction score
- 1,443
They need to fill it with nukes and save it for when they need to destroy a killer asteroid heading for Earth 
Similar threads
