Are there any novels that talk about what would happen to the ISS inhabitants if, say, there was a world ending event? Seems like the better place to ask than Veeky Forums because I'm not opposed to reading any sort of official document on what they're supposed to do in the event there is total loss of communication either.
How long would the ISS potentially last if all maintenance and stuff ceased? Not just food, I mean regular orbit corrections and things of that nature. There's a small possibility it would be the only thing left of human civilization for awhile if something truly catastrophic happened.
The STARSHINE-1 satellite took about nine months to decay from a bit under 400 km. STARSHINE-1 was a sphere about the size of a large beach ball, so I'd expect the drag on the ISS to be larger and the decay quicker.
ISS uses something like 7,000 kg annually for obit maintenance. Assuming all the modules were fully fueled before resupply stopped, you're looking at about 17,000 kg of fuel distributed through PM, Progress M, Progress M1, and ATV, enough for two and a half years of stationkeeping. That's assuming the fuel is fully transferable and has equivalent thrust capacity, I didn't dive that deep into the figures.
So just from a stationkeeping perspective, you're looking at maybe three to three and a half years before the station hits rock after resupply ends.
Brayden Reed
So the astronauts, assuming food and water last as long (it probably won't, even with severe rationing) could be up there for 4-5 years potentially.
Carson Jenkins
might be a touch less than that but it's in the ballpark, assuming nothing mechanical goes wrong
Carson Phillips
What took the picture of this?
Also, where are the thousands of satellites orbiting earth?
Noah Moore
Not sure how long they would last but there's an emergency soyuz lander parked in the back. Dunno how many could fit or what the weight constraints for landing are though.
Ryder Gutierrez
Seveneves is as close as you're going to get OP.
Brody Moore
If you're within visual range of an orbiter, you've got serious collision risk. The ISS is on an orbit that avoids as many satellites as possible
Elijah Rivera
probably one of the vessels coming in to dock with it
Carson Brown
But why can't we see any of these satellites?
Which vessel?
Leo Sanders
could have been one of the shuttles
Kevin Campbell
Gonna need more proof than that.
Elijah Davis
Those are thousands or hundreds of miles apart. That's like asking why I can't see Charlotte from Raleigh.
Ryder Edwards
why do you need proof?
Jose Miller
How?
Leo Sanders
But aren't you supposed to be able to see satellites from earth with the naked eye?
Because I'm a scientist.
Nicholas Ortiz
so you should be more than capable of simple googling
so? plenty of animals look ridiculous too. should i assume they're not real either?
Xavier Powell
>So just from a stationkeeping perspective, you're looking at maybe three to three and a half years before the station hits rock after resupply ends. That's assuming they use that fuel for stationkeeping. I suspect they could last a lot longer if they used it all immediately to raise their orbit as high as possible.
Henry Cruz
See "Sora wo kakeru shoujo".
Though depends on the level of technology when it happens. If it happens now, it will be just an eccentric coffin.
Jack Adams
It's much easier to prove an animal is real.
Jaxon Johnson
you never asked about proof, you asked about belief.
Nolan Gonzalez
They'd run out of food and starve to death if they didn't ride a soyuz back to the surface. They probably wouldn't last more than a year. No way the ISS carries 4-5 years worth of food.
David Brown
satellites are small objects and are very, very far apart not even the best telescopes can physically see one because of that
Cameron Ward
OP wanted considerations besides food.
Liam Jones
this. the first part of the book addresses your interest, but the last part after a 5000 year timeskip is completely different.
Tyler Thomas
Dr. Bloodmoney has an astronaut stuck in his station playing radio host for the survivors for a while, while waiting for his supplies to run out.
You can see some of them with the naked eye if you have good vision and don't live too near a city or other light pollution. Back in the early 1980s I watched satellites all the time during meteor showers with just my eyes. Now, I can't due to both light pollution, from this area growing up, and poorer vision, which sucks beyond measure.
You can also see satellites while in orbit in the ISS. However, in photography, getting to see them properly is much more difficult due to exposure problems. When you take a photo of the moon or part of Earth from the ISS, you end up washing out the less reflective stuff in the black areas. This happens in your house when you have all the lights turned out and you try to take a photo of someone standing with a window behind them during the daytime without using a flash. You end up with dark shadows hiding everything inside and only being able to see outside or you can't see outside because it is washed out with white light, but you can see everything inside.
With exposure bracketing you can compile several images with different exposures into a single image where you can see everything. This just isn't done on the ISS and people rarely do it for the moon photos. Hence no stars around the moon normally in photos.
Here's some vid I took of the moon. I don't have anything of the ISS yet, due to weather and severe tracking problems. It moves pretty fast for my shitty setup to keep up with it. You can see how fast the moon moves across the sky in this vid.
Henry Sanders
Without reboosting, the ISS would reenter the atmosphere within 6-8 years, depending on its altitude when reboosts were halted.
The longest lasting of our space junk would probably be rocket bodies or probes that were retired in a solar orbit, or maybe things that were landed on an airless body like the moon.
Liam Wilson
if belief is based on something then it's not belief
Nolan Wilson
>But aren't you supposed to be able to see satellites from earth with the naked eye? In certain conditions, yes. There's some videos on youtube of them.
Are you retarded?
Kevin Bailey
How is the exact same shadow being cast on the moon when the earth is orbiting the sun as well as spinning over 1000mph, you'd expect to see the shadow move or distort.
How are you able to see something that is smaller than a house and hundreds of miles up with the naked eye?
Nolan Brown
>you'd expect to see the shadow move or distort. no you wouldn't, there's nothing in space that would distort the light's path
>How are you able to see something that is smaller than a house and hundreds of miles up with the naked eye? because it's reflecting sunlight against a pitch black background
Dylan Gonzalez
>no you wouldn't, there's nothing in space that would distort the light's path
Not the light's path, rather the light itself. Earth is not a perfect sphere, nor is it stationary. It's orbiting the sun and rotating, and the moon is also orbiting the earth.
With all of these factors in mind, how can the shadow act entirely opposite to how shadows work?
>because it's reflecting sunlight against a pitch black background
>because it's reflecting sunlight against a pitch black background
So why can't you see them in pictures of the ISS where they're much closer and surrounded by a pitch black background?
Christopher Brooks
>Veeky Forums: the post.
Xavier Campbell
>So why can't you see them in pictures of the ISS where they're much closer and surrounded by a pitch black background? because the pictures of the ISS are almost always adjusted so that you can actually see the ISS. If the light settings were set so that you could see background objects the Earth and the ISS would be blown way the fuck out and unviewable. This is exactly the exposure problem was talking about, that you've ignored.
>With all of these factors in mind, how can the shadow act entirely opposite to how shadows work? That's just how shadows work in space, user.
Mason Howard
>act entirely opposite to how shadows work How is that, exactly? The earth rotating has nothing to do with its shadow. It is slightly off from being a sphere, but so is the shadow. I'm not the user you've been arguing with but I don't understand what you're getting at.
>So why can't you see them in puctures of the ISS The level of light collected in the exposure. When you look up at night and see a satellite go by, you can only see it if your eyes have adjusted well to the darkness because it is a very small amount of light reaching your eye. For the camera in that picture, they were photographing a bright object near them, so the camera adjusts accordingly and wouldn't capture small pinpricks of light coming from hundreds of miles away. It's the same reason there aren't any stars visible.
Connor Young
They would all shit their pants and begin the long process of running out of life-support supplies and dying. It would make a great soap opera or made-for-television melodrama. "Will they be rescued against all odds!" "Who will go for a walk without a space suit first?"
Camden Thomas
>there's an emergency soyuz lander parked in the back It's out of gas and the battery's dead...
David Johnson
Other satellites don't need different light settings to be picked up, they require the same settings used to photograph the ISS.
>That's just how shadows work in space, user.
Uh huh. Haven't the moon missions shown us how shadows work in space? Pretty similar...
>How is that, exactly? The earth rotating has nothing to do with its shadow. It is slightly off from being a sphere, but so is the shadow. I'm not the user you've been arguing with but I don't understand what you're getting at.
Is the sun, Earth and moon in a perfectly stationary position, or are they moving? Do shadows move when they are being cast by something moving? Do shadows move when cast by something that isn't moving?
Owen Martin
Wasn't the ISS on that fairly low orbit to avoid the higher levels of radiation there are on higher altitudes?
Christian Hernandez
You really don't understand what you read in either or and are just repeating the same questions.
Jackson Powell
Give it a push start.
Which is better? A low orbit with less shielding or a high orbit with lots of shielding?
Asher Morales
Seeing how death is guaranteed either way, and seeing how starvation would probably be a bigger problem way before than deorbit or radiation poisoning I think I'd just monitor what the fuck is going on on Earth and then jump on the nearest Soyuz capsule, get down to Earth and try my luck I see your point tho
Leo Bell
>Other satellites don't need different light settings to be picked up, they require the same settings used to photograph the ISS. Not when they're hundreds or thousands of miles away. Try taking a picture of one candle three feet away and an identical candle three miles away. They are the same thing, but do not get exposed the same way. This honestly seems like intentional ignorance. >Uh huh. Haven't the moon missions shown us how shadows work in space? Pretty similar... Vague notions of "shadows don't work that way" without explaining yourself are meaningless, user. >Is the sun, Earth and moon in a perfectly stationary position, or are they moving? Yeah, they're moving. >Do shadows move when they are being cast by something moving? Yes. >Do shadows move when cast by something that isn't moving? They can, if the source of light or the object that the shadow is being cast onto moves. If you could actually articulate your point it'd be a lot easier to clear this up, but you're intentionally trying not to. You seem to be implying that earth's shadow should distort or move differently. If so, tell us what you personally think it should look like and why.
Chase Ross
no its low because thats as high as the shuttle could go
Alexander Powell
The microgravity would eventually cause their capillaries to burst, and they'd die of aneurysms well before then.
The longest consecutive time anyone has spent in microgravity is 437 days, and between the internal bleeding and the bone loss, that guy was a wreck afterwards.
