Space Transportation - mmmt_transportation.pdf - Moon Society

The M IR Station World Space Monument
A Better Option for Decommissioning
By Peter Kokh
How many times have we heard “if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail!” NASA is
committed to seeing the MiR Station removed from service. But need removal from service necessarily mean removal
from orbit?
To be sure, MIR will not stay in orbit by itself. At its altitude range, there is still enough wisps of atmosphere
to continually drag down Mir’s orbit to the point where it will eventually, controlled or not controlled, partially
incinerate in the atmosphere, its remnants crashing into the ocean -- or onto land. It takes money to keep boosting
up Mir’s orbit periodically. So it would seem that to decommission Mir must mean either to allow its orbit to decay in
uncontrolled fashion, or to deliberately accelerate the process in a way we can control it.
A “controlled de-orbit” has two costs:
• a Progress freighter bringing the fuel for the de-orbit burn
• the impossible to estimate costs of the crash landing in inhabited areas of the many fragments too heavy and
dense to burn up in the atmosphere
This second cost is the sleeper, as no one can estimate it in advance. If we take a median of optimistic and
pessimistic assessments of the damage to property and citizens, and add it to the costs of the Progress freightor deorbit
refueling mission, we come up with a higher dollar figure which should send us looking for alternatives.
We propose instead, that a more expensive refueling mission boost Mir’s orbit up to an altitude where it would
remain safe for generations. It can then be given the status of a World Space Historical Site, or Monument. At some
future date -- no need to determine that now -- an orbiting Visitor’s Center could be built for students of space
history and tourists to visit under careful guidance.
Mir should be seen as a priceless treasure of technology and achievement. That as long as it remains in
service, it will be a thorn in NASA’s side should not leave a destructive solution as the only option. It is not to the
credit of NASA, or the agency’s leash holders, let alone to the Russian authorities, not to seriously pursue this other
option.
Those Russians who object to scuttling Mir are being dismissed as ultra-nationalists and communists. Alas,
having lived through McCarthyism once, it is distressing to see it arise anew this way.
We call on all parties to take the time to look at this new option. Especially considering the potentially high
cost of the inevitable rain of Mir-debris on property and people, we owe it to ourselves and future generations to take
another look. PK
Could we have reused the Apollo Capsules, or any part of them?
(As in theory, reusing something is cheaper than replacing it. So the following discussion is very interesting)
An exchange on artemis-list@asi.org November 22, 2000
Gregory R. Bennett
We did not reuse the Apollo capsules, or any part of them. But, could we have?
I was just wondering if there were anything inherent in the design of the Apollo capsule that precluded reusing
it. It was a tiny part of the spacecraft, but it did contain a lot of expensive equipment.
I often wonder whether flying a whole new spacecraft is really more safe than using one that has been proven
in flight. Perhaps the fact that each capsule went through extensive testing made up for lack of operational experience
with the spacecraft, Apollo 13 notwithstanding.
Wallace A. McClure
“The short answer is yes to part of them, or at least some of them could have been refurbished to fly again.
I also assume you are using a new Service Module with them. In particular, those used for Earth orbital missions could
probably have been reused for Earth orbital missions.
• Structure -- Could have been reused, but you would have to inspect to ensure no sea water intrusion or corrosion
(e.g. don’t get salt water in the structure, particularly inside the pressure vessel.)
55