From: snidely.too@gmail.com   
      
   JF Mezei presented the following explanation :   
   > I am not advocating de-orbiting ISS. But curious on technique.   
   >   
   > Assuming a still fully functioning ISS with CMGs , functioning solar   
   > panels and Zvezda's engines (are they still theoretically operational,   
   > or formally disabled?)   
   >   
   > I assume the first step would be using engines to lower its orbit to an   
   > elliptocal with as low a perigee as possiuble , right?   
   >   
   > Would the solar arrays then be used as a sail to slow it down further?   
   > Or is it expected the de-orbit burn would bring it down low enopuigh   
   > that the solar wings would detach within one or two perigees?   
   >   
   > In terms of solar wings, would they be used to "steer" the station   
   > further down, use then as wings to create lift to slow descent (but also   
   > slow speed), or just have the solar wings perpenduciular to movement to   
   > create the most air resistance?   
   >   
   > or would engines be relied on for the full de-orbit in order to get   
   > better control of where it re-enters and burn up?   
   >   
   >   
   > From a burn up point of view, would a re-entry as whole better ebsure   
   > full burn-up?  I assume that by having a single item of mass X, it is   
   > easier to predict where survivig pieces might  reach ground?   
   >   
   >   
   > Breaking up before re-entry interface would result in different   
   > behaviours depending on density of piece re-entering and its shielding,   
   > rig? Would this be significant, or still non brainer to ensure they all   
   > fall into pacific?   
   >   
   >   
   > Or owuld the goal be to focus on targeting the Pacific and having it   
   > stay whole as long as possible to minimize possible footprint of any   
   > remaining pieces falling in water?   
   >   
   >   
   > In the case of Mir, the station had minimal control, abandonned and fell   
   > down as a whole station. (and some reached the Pacific).  But curious on   
   > how a planned re-entry would be assuming it were still functional and   
   > you could send flights up.   
   >   
   > (Lets assume a real estate company buys the orbinal place (land) and   
   > wants to demolish the ISS in order to build space condos).   
   >   
   > Realistically though, is the fate of ISS same as that of Mir? Will be   
   > abandonned, left unmanned and by the time its re-entry is imminent, too   
   > late to do anything about it?   
      
   Has Scott Manley answered any of your questions?   
      
      
      
   /dps   
      
   --   
   Ieri, oggi, domani   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)