| I wonder if the ISS could instead be scrapped to the moon. Let's get this space station to the moon. Can a [Falcon 9 [Heavy] or similar] rocket shove the ISS from its current attitude into an Earth-Moon orbit with or without orbital refuelling? The ISS weighs 900,000 lbs on Earth. Have we yet altered the orbital trajectory of anything that heavy in space? Can any existing rocket program rendezvous and boost sideways to alter the trajectory of NEOs (Near-Earth Objects) or aging, heirloom, defunct space stations? Which of the things of ISS that we have internationally paid to loft into orbit would be useful for future robot, human, and emergency operations on the Moon? |
About boosting to a higher orbit, they wrote:
"Space station operations require a full-time crew to operate, and as such, an inability to keep crews onboard would rule out operating at higher altitudes. The cargo and crew vehicles that service the space station are designed and optimized for its current 257 mile (415km) altitude and, while the ability of these vehicles varies, NASA’s ability to maintain crew on the space station at significantly higher altitudes would be severely impacted or even impossible with the current fleet. This includes the International crew and cargo fleet, as Russian assets providing propulsion and attitude control need to remain operational through the boost phase.
"Ignoring the requirement of keeping crew onboard, NASA evaluated orbits above the present orbital regime that could extend just the orbital lifetime of the space station. [...]
"However, ascending to these orbits would require the development of new propulsive and tanker vehicles that do not currently exist. While still currently in development, vehicles such as the SpaceX Starship are being designed to deliver significant amounts of cargo to these orbits; however, there are prohibitive engineering challenges with docking such a large vehicle to the space station and being able to use its thrusters while remaining within space station structural margins. Other vehicles would require both new certifications to fly at higher altitudes and multiple flights to deliver propellant.
"The other major consideration when going to a higher altitude is the orbital debris regime at each specified locale. The risk of a penetrating or catastrophic impact to space station (i.e., that could fragment the vehicle) increases drastically above 257miles (415km). While higher altitudes provide a longer theoretical orbital life, the mean time between an impact event decreases from ~51 years at the current operational altitude to less than four years at a 497 mile (800km), ~700-year orbit. This means that the likelihood of an impact leaving station unable to maneuver or react to future threats, or even a significant impact resulting in complete fragmentation, is unacceptably high. NASA has estimated that such an impact could permanently degrade or even eliminate access to LEO for centuries."