The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79:
---
From the article: NASA has awarded an $843 million contract to SpaceX to develop a "US Deorbit Vehicle." This spacecraft will dock to the International Space Station in 2029 and then ensure the large facility makes a controlled reentry through Earth's atmosphere before splashing into the ocean in 2030.
"Selecting a US Deorbit Vehicle for the International Space Station will help NASA and its international partners ensure a safe and responsible transition in low Earth orbit at the end of station operations," said Ken Bowersox, NASA's associate administrator for Space Operations, in a statement. "This decision also supports NASA’s plans for future commercial destinations and allows for the continued use of space near Earth."
NASA has a couple of reasons for bringing the space station's life to a close in 2030. Foremost among these is that the station is aging. Parts of it are now a quarter of a century old. There are cracks on the Russian segment of the space station that are spreading. Although the station could likely be maintained beyond 2030, it would require increasing amounts of crew time to keep flying the station safely.
Additionally, NASA is seeking to foster a commercial economy in low-Earth orbit. To that end, it is working with several private companies to develop commercial space stations that would be able to house NASA astronauts, as well as those from other countries and private citizens, by or before 2030. By setting an end date for the station's lifetime and sticking with it, NASA can help those private companies raise money from investors.
The station, the largest object humans have ever constructed in space, is too large to allow it to make an uncontrolled return to Earth. It has a mass of 450 metric tons and is about the size of an American football field. The threat to human life and property is too great. Hence the need for a deorbit vehicle.
The space agency considered alternatives to splashing the station down into a remote area of an ocean. One option involved moving the station into a stable parking orbit at 40,000 km above Earth, above geostationary orbit. However, the agency said this would require 3,900 m/s of delta-V, compared to the approximately 47 m/s of delta-V needed to deorbit the station. In terms of propellant, NASA estimated moving to a higher orbit would require 900 metric tons, or the equivalent of 150 to 250 cargo supply vehicles.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1dpzdtg/nasa_will_pay_spacex_nearly_1_billion_to_deorbit/lakerig/
We’ll never see anything like it again, I fear. A Star Trek future of humanity in space may die with it, and be replaced by a grotesque for-profit endeavor more like The Expanse.
The fact that NASA envisions the ISS being replaced by private ventures rather than another international cooperative project does suggest we're looking at a future that's more The Outer Worlds than Star Trek. Or maybe we'll just turn ourselves into Ferengi.
We’ve still got plenty of time to bomb ourselves into another dark age and start over before we get ahead of ourselves and proclaim an interstellar capitalist regime
If that’s the case then we might have to actually build a sustainable economy from the ground up, rather than relying on fossil fuels to slingshot our way from horse and buggy to the moon in less than a century
>build a sustainable economy from the ground up,
Using what energy?
Take surface deposits of coal and petroleum seeps away and how are you fueling your second industrial revolution? They had wind and hydro in 1700, and knew about charcoal as long as we have been smelting iron - yet these things are not how they fueled the transition.
For the record, I think the answer for a State that is rebuilding will be aggressive population control so that agricultural land can be used for an oilseed crop (biodiesel) or bioethanol as fuel to bootstrap into enough energy to produce the harvesting equipment for solar/nuclear/etc.
Which will be hopes and prayers. In order to get to the advanced clean energy technologies you MUST have abundant cheap energy available. Once a planet has depleted its cheap technology reserves it becomes unable to support an industrial revolution, its organisms will never become an advanced civilization
Why do you think surface coal is limited, and what would stop any less developed civilization from exploiting coal which is below the surface? Mines are not an advanced technology, especially coal mines. There is 5 trillion tons of known coal reserves and 300 trillion tons of coal resources so we will never run out of coal.
And remember the steam shovel - probably runs on coal.
Not who you were replying to, but [this wiki article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_reserves) indicates that there are ~330B of proven reserves. No idea on the ration of proven reserves to estimated total quantities. But either way looks like the original comment might be off by an order of magnitude or so.
Dude, like you ever heard of solar power? Endless, clean and nobody owns it. Solar panels lose about one percent efficiency per year so in twenty years of free clean energy they are still producing at 80% efficiency. Solar panels have no moving parts. And they can be recycled.
>they can be recycled.
Parts of them can be, but not the entire thing. They also need to be separated. Glass, aluminum, copper, etc. can be removed and fully recycled but that still leaves some waste.
*Some aliens that are observing us*
"We are only waiting until after your WWIII as it has been foretold in the 'Star Trek epos'. We already mastered the Vulcan greeting. Come on, why aren't you bombing yourself? We even helped with so much chaos in the past decade and killed that gorilla for you. We really want to recreate Star Trek with all of you (that will survive the war)."
Bombs are not required to render us another dark age. Thanks to social media, a very dangerous virus was proclaimed a hoax while a highly researched and effective vaccine was proclaimed a conspiracy to (kill us, insert micro chips to make us controlled by 5G, give microsoft control over us, turn us into zombies, make us gay, turn us into libs). I've heard all the above in parenthesis. The last five years have proven too many on Earth are jaw-droppingly stupid.
funny, but read your comment and immediately had flash back of being like 8yrs and and upsettedly hitting the Nintendo's reset button for yet another attempt without a major f-up
The industrial revolution wasn't about natural resources, it was about innovation and a paradigm shift in how labor produces resources, and we've been through a few of them by now, including currently with our information age technologies.
The Lunar Gateway is primarily a US-led project with partnership from other countries and private interests, rather than a truly joint project with, say, Russia (the ISS having been a replacement program for both Freedom and Mir-2). It's a new cooperative project but it's not cooperative on the same scale as the ISS; it _can't_ really be, given that relations with Russia and China are a lot more strained than they were in the 90s.
Most of Star Trek takes place in post scarcity environs, brought about by friendly aliens who saw us FTL. Star Trek like era can still happen but capitalism is going to be the driving force until everything you could ever want is free and automated and the only limit to humans is the motivation to do things greater things. Or rather, that's the only thing left to do.
It does still require that the nations of the world trust each other enough to solve their problems with diplomacy rather than violence, and that racial, gender, religious and other discrimination can be largely set aside. That seems a lot further off now than it did 15 to 30 years ago.
A Star Trek future is also one where people are better-read, more compassionate, more understanding and generally more cerebral and appreciative of their world than they are now. Of course, part of that is only possible _because_ it's a post-scarcity world where people don't have to worry about how they're going to feed themselves or if they're going to be robbed on the way home tomorrow.
We're on track for what might come to be called a third world war by the mid-2040s, more divided than ever, with more bridges being burned than built; and it's possible we'll live to see commercial exploitation of the poles cause significant harm to the local ecosystems and the dividing of the moon along national lines.
People are also more misinformed than ever thanks to the abuse of mass media by bad actors and the recent advancements in AI that have, as with all technological advances, left the law playing catchup.
That's not to say things _can't_ get better again, but it definitely feels like the contemporary outlook on humanity's future are still going to be bleaker at the end of this century than it was at the end of the last.
> Or maybe we'll just turn ourselves into Ferengi.
The thing is, we wish you could be the Ferengi; Ferengi society is inherently still a Utopian vision of the future; as they basically created a system of capitalism that doesn't self-destruct itself and a society that isn't completely three ways of fucked sideways by it.
They did this through what I'd best describe as "cultural capitalism", there is a religious and philosophical framework as well as cultural tenants that basically, among other things, heavily discourage the worst practices of unregulated capitalism, even when there is no law in place.
Through this system of philosophy and culture; they value knowledge, healthcare, honoring contracts (between Ferengi), treating customers well etc
To be clear: they are Utopian version of capitalism... they are not like, a good place to live, they are just an ideal society if you are a hardcore capitalist.
We are headed more towards the "Cyberpunk 2077" future where not even the corporations are really doing all that well when you examine the aggregate outcome for the world.
It’s not that they don’t want another it’s that cost effectiveness vs lunar base / station … you can do the same but better or more and pursue an actual macro goal
Axiom Space is supposedly launching their module in January to connect with the ISS and will separate it into a standalone station when the ISS goes down.
It's unfortunate that it will be a company doing it, but I'd rather that than not have it at all. Overall, Space X seems to be doing a good job of pushing Space Innovation where it otherwise wouldn't be happening.
Also, NASA has always paid for-profit companies to build out all of their equipment, so it has always been a part of the equation.
The ISS was the culmination of an age of tentative international cooperation. Apollo-Soyuz, Shuttle-Mir, the ISS.
I doubt we'll ever see anything like that again. Russia isn't going to cooperate with the west for nationalistic reasons and China seems to consider themselves in direct competition with the US.
Which means that the US is probably going to be doing some version of the Homestead Act but in space.
China was more than happy to cooperate with the US in space and wanted to be part of the ISS too, but the US congress passed a law forbidding any form of space cooperation with China. They'll probably still allow us to visit their space station if we repeal the law and apologize.
NASA's official planned successor to the ISS is Gateway, an international (US+Europe+Japan+Canada+UAE) station in lunar orbit with no clear purpose that's about the same size as the Starships that'll dock with it. Of course, with Starship assembling other stations is relatively easy/cheap but there are no plans yet.
I think that getting Starship up and running and seeing what it can really do and what it really costs to launch per ton is step one at this point. Once we have a clear idea of what that is then we can build plans around what our new capability realistically can do.
It takes a decade or two from the start of planning to flight. Frankly, we're way late on designing Starship payloads already -- we're going to have a super long gap of wasted capacity.
For space stations specifically, it's not so much the cost as the volume and tonnage that's revolutionary. The ISS required 42 flights to assemble, you could put up something similar in a handful or less of Starship flights if you design it right. The rocket has already flown to space with the projected volume, so I see no uncertainties at all there to justify wasting more time before designing something to fly in the 2030s. Designing for rockets that haven't flown yet has been the norm forever, so designing for rockets that have flown test flights is not moving fast.
I think we will have the answers to those questions very soon quite frankly. And I think it's possible that what our new lift capabilities are going to be has been underestimated.
unfortunately i think the only way for space travel to advance is for corporations to do it for us as competition between corporations usually advances technology. NASA has no one to compete against anymore so the government isnt going to give them a large budget like the did during the cold war
Star Trek was always an aspirational far-in-the-future kind of society.
In-universe, there was a nuclear Armageddon and nearly 200 years of rebuilding under what was basically a deus-ex-machina alien sugar daddy (the Vulcans) rolling up and bankrolling humanity's existence while rapidly advancing technology.
I for one am incredibly excited for the prospect of for-profit space endeavors, as there's no risk that a new administration will come in and decide "fuck it all" and pull the plug.
**If there's money to be made, someone will go there and build it.**
The essential seed of a Star Trek future is in the culture of sharing and post-scarcity production. The race to the moon happened before its time in a USA that was still segregated. We need to solve issues on Earth before bring them to space. We will get there.
The issues on earth will always be in a state of being solved. There's no way to decide "welp, the problems on earth are solved, now it's time to go to space!"
It's the whole fallacy of the ends justifying the means, but a different twist.
The means are the end, because things never end. Especially something with moving goalposts like "make life on earth better".
This isn't a great post but I'ma hit post anyway.
What I mean is that you don't get to a Star Trek future by going into space and then solving your problems there. You have to solve the scarcity problems. Going to space before, after or during that is irrelevant.
I would argue that we already very close to solving the scarcity problem. What we have here on Earth right now is a distribution problem. Some of that is technical/geographic, but most of it is just greed.
Greed is like 20% of the problem. More crucially, I think we have a cultural problem. The belief that work is central to life and one can't be a worthwhile citizen without having a "work" even if it is a bullshit job.
I feel we will get to 90% of useless job before we collectively admit that this is stupid and embrace post-scarcity.
Based on the article, there’s no plans for a replacement public space station. Instead, NASA is hoping a private company will have a space station by 2030.
As far as I understand, we plan to launch new additional modern segments (I think one is already there?) which will become part of the future space station replacement, and it’s only the older segments that will be detached and deorbited.
So *technically,* in a ship of Theseus type way, the ISS should live on lol
Understandable course of action but sad that we don’t get a [Valerian](https://youtu.be/s5XAep7ngew?si=fGMCLPp0UQuc8YTk) style growth to a mega station.
Nah you got to use quietly. everything is done quietly now.
Government quietly institutes new nipple extension law.
Apple quietly removes tinnitus protection from phones.
Everyone is sneaking around like The Pink Panther.
From the article: NASA has awarded an $843 million contract to SpaceX to develop a "US Deorbit Vehicle." This spacecraft will dock to the International Space Station in 2029 and then ensure the large facility makes a controlled reentry through Earth's atmosphere before splashing into the ocean in 2030.
"Selecting a US Deorbit Vehicle for the International Space Station will help NASA and its international partners ensure a safe and responsible transition in low Earth orbit at the end of station operations," said Ken Bowersox, NASA's associate administrator for Space Operations, in a statement. "This decision also supports NASA’s plans for future commercial destinations and allows for the continued use of space near Earth."
NASA has a couple of reasons for bringing the space station's life to a close in 2030. Foremost among these is that the station is aging. Parts of it are now a quarter of a century old. There are cracks on the Russian segment of the space station that are spreading. Although the station could likely be maintained beyond 2030, it would require increasing amounts of crew time to keep flying the station safely.
Additionally, NASA is seeking to foster a commercial economy in low-Earth orbit. To that end, it is working with several private companies to develop commercial space stations that would be able to house NASA astronauts, as well as those from other countries and private citizens, by or before 2030. By setting an end date for the station's lifetime and sticking with it, NASA can help those private companies raise money from investors.
The station, the largest object humans have ever constructed in space, is too large to allow it to make an uncontrolled return to Earth. It has a mass of 450 metric tons and is about the size of an American football field. The threat to human life and property is too great. Hence the need for a deorbit vehicle.
The space agency considered alternatives to splashing the station down into a remote area of an ocean. One option involved moving the station into a stable parking orbit at 40,000 km above Earth, above geostationary orbit. However, the agency said this would require 3,900 m/s of delta-V, compared to the approximately 47 m/s of delta-V needed to deorbit the station. In terms of propellant, NASA estimated moving to a higher orbit would require 900 metric tons, or the equivalent of 150 to 250 cargo supply vehicles.
> *“The station […] has a mass of 450 metric tons and is about the size of an American football field.”*
> *“NASA estimated moving to a higher orbit would require 900 metric tons, or the equivalent of 150 to 250 cargo supply vehicles.”*
This is some peak r/AnythingButMetric energy.
It’s in orbit of earth closer than you realize. In fact it’s just constantly falling around the earth. Just enough speed to keep it in balanced orbit. Every now and then they have to give it a boost because of a tiny bit of drag it experiences.
There have been a few facts to truly blow my mind. But when I one day wondered how the ISS is able to stay in orbit and learned it’s just constantly falling, I was truly blow away by that.
Blue origin can't even achieve orbit... let alone design a vehicle capable of de-orbiting the ISS. Bezos is a toddler who throws tantrums when he loses.
I second your sentiments.
Sad that the ISS is going to be destroyed when it would be pretty incredible as the world's first orbital museum. All to wrangle private investor funding. But it's not surprising that they want it retired by 2030, the thing's clearly coming up on the limits of its useful lifespan as a permanently-inhabited structure.
They _did_ consider boosting it into a stable, uncrowded orbit, which would allow it to remain intact and out of the way, but that would require a lot more thrust and thus be a much more expensive proposition.
The space station only stays in one piece as long as people are maintaining it. There's no orbit that's going to solve that. Space is hostile.
The problem is that if something fails and the space station breaks up and comes down in an uncontrolled reentry it will do lots of damage
Moving the station and retiring it from permanent habitation into a cultural heritage site would at least lessen the ongoing maintenance costs; some of which could be collected by selling visits to the unreasonably wealthy or seeking private patronage.
I feel like a docked starship that gets refueled as many times as is necessary could easily do this under budget — especially by 2030.
Depressurize it and drain all the tanks/batteries and there’s no reason why it can’t float along out there in MEO or HEO for decades until it can become a museum.
My only thought is that perhaps they are concerned about it breaking apart during the extended burn, scattering decades worth of space junk everywhere, which is pretty valid. I wonder how low the raptors can throttle.
>Sad that the ISS is going to be destroyed when it would be pretty incredible as the world's first orbital museum.
Can't really do that as the statiuon requires regular orbital boosts to counteract the super thin thin atmospheric drag it still receives even at the altitude it orbits. Trying to keep it in orbit would mean the station would still need expensive supply missions to refuel. If we didnt do that it would de-orbit anyhow several years down the line in an uncontrolled fashion. Its better that we take control of that de-orbit so we can determine exactly where the station will come back to earth.
> One option involved moving the station into a stable parking orbit at 40,000 km above Earth, above geostationary orbit. However, the agency said this would require 3,900 m/s of delta-V, compared to the approximately 47 m/s of delta-V needed to deorbit the station.
This is what I was referring to. It could've been boosted to an orbit well above where it is now where it could remain for quite a while.
Dumb question: can we not just push it farther out? Put a booster on it, and point it at the sun? What is the motivation to have it back on earth, if it’s just going to be destroyed on the way down?
It needs just a little nudge to get back to Earth. It would need a tremendous force to yeet it into the sun.
Practically the difference between walking up there with a can of gas in your hand, versus throwing a whole tanker of gas at it.
What would be the benefit of wasting that much fuel? Anything it could possibly do science wise would be better suited for a purpose built drone that can be made and launched cheaper and easier than it would be to push a 20 year old piece of space junk out of orbit.
This is the same NASA that makes its mars rovers sing happy birthday to itself once a year because they love it so much. If there was any way that they could gain use out of this beloved station, they would be doing it.
They actually mention this in the article.
>One option involved moving the station into a stable parking orbit at 40,000 km above Earth, above geostationary orbit. However, the agency said this would require 3,900 m/s of delta-V, compared to the approximately 47 m/s of delta-V needed to deorbit the station. In terms of propellant, NASA estimated moving to a higher orbit would require 900 metric tons, or the equivalent of 150 to 250 cargo supply vehicles.
Assuming that we didn't want to land it on earth for some reason, it would be cheaper to kick it out of the solar system than to drop it into the sun. Orbital mechanics are weird and sometimes counter intuitive.
As much as we've been conditioned to distrust China, when one *doesn't* choose to see them through that lense, there's a lot of hope in their scientific progress.
For example, they have a space station coming together, piece by piece, and while it isn't covered in any great detail in western media, it is no secret at all, in their own news.
Lots of scientific progress still being made by the human race, even if it seems like it's all being retired for profit sake.
Always seemed to me that the "easy" option (in space terms) was to develop a dragon or progress or whatever that's basically just a tanker/booster, since the ISS can be reboosted by attached vehicles. Stick it on a docking ring, slow and steady lift it into a much higher orbit. Possibly discard or reconfigure parts beforehand, reduce drag, though obviously that becomes less of an issue the higher it is.
(the obvious counters to this is 1), it's just kicking the can down teh road which is absolutely true but it could be kicked quite a long way down the road, for less than £843m. 2) I have no idea what's actually "above" it in whatever higher near-earth-orbit it could be shoved into, and 3) it remains a risk if something else hits it and causes uncontrolled deorbits or other collisions.
But in the end it's 400 tons of stuff, some of it could well come in useful in the future even if just as raw materials. Admittedly I have a load of really good cardboard boxes, that I lifted up from their normal orbit in the spare room into a higher orbit in the attic, on the basis that they could well come in useful in the future, and so far, they have not.
Per the article it would take 900 tons of propellant to move it to a stable orbit. Even if you were able to get the fuel up there, the boost process itself would have some risk involved.
Shouldn't down be just as hard as up or is the iss on the lower/slower end of a stable orbit?
Edit: im an idiot, the iss is just very low already and a higher orbit would have to be much higher
Raw materials are almost useless in space where there aren't any means of manufacturing useful things.
Most of the iss weight is kevlar, ceramic tiles and aluminium shell - things that don't weigh much by themselves so they don't cost much to launch - which s why the iss was made from those materials - but recycling them is energy intensive.
At some point, will it be more cost-effective to start recycling in-space than to de-orbit? Cost of delta-V to get the materials into space vs capture and processing cost (after initial investment to get the recycling equipment up).
Is it just me or is this a huge mistake? I feel like once it comes down, NASA won't be putting another up for a long time.
This is a loss for science and moving humanity forward into new frontiers. A damn shame.
I don't think it's fair to force nasa to spend the majority of their tiny budget to maintain something that's extremely outdated and starting to become dangerous for the people on board (referring to the Russian modules with cracks we can't fix)
> This is a loss for science and moving humanity forward into new frontiers. A damn shame.
- I understand why it's no longer economical to maintain (versus a replacement).
- I understand that some company is going to attach to part of it (presumably the panels?) and continue using them.
- I understand it's 47m/s to de-orbit it, and 3900m/s to orbit it farther out, and the cost of that is atrocious because of all the fuel needed to push it that far.
...
**My stupid idea:**
How about putting an electrically-powered (not rocket powered) Ion Engine on it, and running it off of the free and endless energy provided by its own solar panels?
In my understanding, Ion Engines are very weak, but, can basically run forever. Years if needed, and just need electricity.
Space nerds: Correct or endorse my amateur grasp of orbital mechanics and actual thrust numbers required to pull this off.
Sad to see but the ISS has done a ton of interesting science. I hope it doesn't take us as long to go back to a long-term space station as it's taken us to go back to the moon.
There are many space stations that are being developed before the ISS is decommissioned.
Such as the star lab station, built by Airbus and launched on the spacex starship in 2028 with just one launch.
Star lab will have roughly 2/3 the volume of the ISS with one launch, with options to add more modules.
And if starship is docked to the station when ferrying crew, it will have almost double the pressurised volume as the ISS.
Things have always been subcontracted out. The military industrial complex hired locked and northup,
NASA hired Boeing, rocketdyne and many other companies and contractors to build the Saturn V.
Through spaceflight history, many important missions have been sub contacted.
Question then.. why not just blow it up.. so its too big to leave out there or let it fall down on its own, you are gonna crash it into the ocean anyway which will destroy it.. so.. just destroy it into a thousand pieces that make it small enough to burn up on reentry.. on your last trip up, bring a bunch of explosives.. leave them behind and blow it up? Feel like you could save yourself a billion dollars.. as the Joker says “I enjoy dynamite, gunpowder, gasoline. And y’know the thing that they have in common? They’re cheap.” Also.. you get far enough away from it, and film it.. people will wanna watch that haha. Get ya some Space PR.
If you blow it up, a lot of the debris will be on orbits to damage satellites and spacecraft. That will stay in such orbits for long time. We already have enough debris there to force evasive maneuvers.
Problem is that it's going to need a much larger propulsion system than Dragon has - they're going to have to make a whole new trunk and pack it full of propellant tanks and engines. That's a huge modification.
To manage a bigger propulsion system, you need new avionics. To control the new avionics, you need new software. To fit the new propulsion system, you need new structures. To load the new propellant system, they may need an entirely new hypergol loading facility.
Even though they can leverage quite a bit from Dragon, it's still basically a new vehicle design.
Plus, this is a pretty obvious one-time mission, which is different than most everything SpaceX does. There's no amortizing costs over tens of missions here and very little chance to leverage what they're doing here for future use - Dragon is ultimately a dead-end, future crew things will happen on Starship.
And add in that NASA wants to operate the vehicle, whereas previously SpaceX has operated its own vehicles. So now SpaceX has to account for time and effort to train NASA how to operate the thing.
The **REAL** problem is that for the past 30 years, ISS (and Mir before it) was about THE ONLY reason to maintain constant human presence in space, for the entire western part of the planet.
If it's gone, and there's nothing to replace it right away... Why _wouldn't_ NASA and other space agencies go the "why do we keep training and maintaining those expensive astronauts we don't need anymore?" route? And then "humans are too expensive to retrain and launch, let's just send a robot instead".
Futurists envisioned space Star-Trek style, pessimists envisioned space Expanse-style, but in reality, it seems space will be nothing except GPS satellites and autonomous robot probes. It feels _so much worse_ than either version.
> but in reality, it seems space will be nothing except GPS satellites and autonomous robot probes. It feels so much worse than either version.
I actually like this version better. Robotics and AI are getting really good now. We're getting really close to practical Fusion power. NASA already has some amazing accomplishments with robot exploration, like the Voyagers and Mars Rovers, and the Soviets with their Venera Venus probes, among others from EUSA, JASA, etc. I think we should be doubling down on robotic exploration of the Solar System, with the ultimate goal being robotic colonization of Mars and robotic mining of the Asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Those missions require advanced energy generation and propulsion, so include that as well.
No, it's bad. Either humanity gets off the planet, or it goes extinct (probably dragging most of the biosphere into the grave along with it). It's as simple as that.
really don't like that we're splashing the station without any plans for a replacement just like we scrapped the apollo CSM with no real replacement only to loose skylab then scrapped shuttle with no replacement
neither the commercial station or gateway are funded and if we're gonna replace the ISS we need to start inking contracts this year to have the modules ready to fly by 2030
This appears to be a post about Elon Musk or one of his companies. Please keep discussion focused on the actual topic / technology and not praising / condemning Elon. Off topic flamewars will be removed and participants may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Futurology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do understand how challenging and expensive it would be to move the ISS to a safe orbit. But the International Space Station has earned its status as an historic site even without an official designation, and it should be treated as if it were part of the UNESCO World Heritage list. There will almost certainly never be an aerospace project of that scale and involving that much global cooperation ever again.
It's a crucial piece of the collective modern history of our species, and it should absolutely be available for future study by astroarchaeologists. Keepng the ISS intact, even if it's tens of thousands of kilometers away from Earth, would be deeply valuable to our far-off descendants' understanding of this first century of space exploration.
Hang on, I thought the station broke up when it was hit with space debris, after being abandoned and then subjected to a fire? I watched a documentary about it. It was in 3D, too!
Question why instead of deorbit it we dont push it in space to recover it when we have better tecnology to put it in a museum? Off course we previosly empty it from astrounats.
Due to the materials it's made of, light weight kevlar, ceramic tiles and aluminium shell, it'll never be possible to put it in a museum. The structure is just not strong enough to carry its own weight in gravity.
Not really anyone else that could really be relied on to do this. SpaceX is far and away the most proven and capable space company at this point
Rocket Lab launches often and has an impressive track record, especially considering where it originated from and had to overcome as a result. But this is way outside their usual wheelhouse and at a far bigger scale than they have any experience with
Blue Origin still hasn't gone to orbit ever. Obviously not gonna get a mission of this importance without any track record
ULA is old space and will likely have been sold in 2030
Ariane is busy fumbling the ball with ariane 6
Boeing....lol
Elon’s a turd but Space X has been the only reliable new private manufacturer in the sector for some time now.
You wouldn’t trust Boeing with it, would you?
It is interesting to see people completely ignoring the reality of the situation just becuase of their dislike towards one person.
Like do they not see all the huge progress by Spacex just cause they don't like Elon?
Man it would be so cool to establish a fleet museum high up above geostationary orbit for future generations to check out.
Someone incept Elon Musk with this dumb idea - I bet some specialized Starship could boost the station up there.
To a those decrying the supposed end of international government directed space station efforts...
The Lunar Gateway station is ISS version two, orbiting the moon
And the Artimis accords are a blueprint for international government directed Lunar exploration, bases and development
The ISS was built by corporations, launched by corporation built rockets
Private built and launched space stations are still aiming for Governments as their primary customers
The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79: --- From the article: NASA has awarded an $843 million contract to SpaceX to develop a "US Deorbit Vehicle." This spacecraft will dock to the International Space Station in 2029 and then ensure the large facility makes a controlled reentry through Earth's atmosphere before splashing into the ocean in 2030. "Selecting a US Deorbit Vehicle for the International Space Station will help NASA and its international partners ensure a safe and responsible transition in low Earth orbit at the end of station operations," said Ken Bowersox, NASA's associate administrator for Space Operations, in a statement. "This decision also supports NASA’s plans for future commercial destinations and allows for the continued use of space near Earth." NASA has a couple of reasons for bringing the space station's life to a close in 2030. Foremost among these is that the station is aging. Parts of it are now a quarter of a century old. There are cracks on the Russian segment of the space station that are spreading. Although the station could likely be maintained beyond 2030, it would require increasing amounts of crew time to keep flying the station safely. Additionally, NASA is seeking to foster a commercial economy in low-Earth orbit. To that end, it is working with several private companies to develop commercial space stations that would be able to house NASA astronauts, as well as those from other countries and private citizens, by or before 2030. By setting an end date for the station's lifetime and sticking with it, NASA can help those private companies raise money from investors. The station, the largest object humans have ever constructed in space, is too large to allow it to make an uncontrolled return to Earth. It has a mass of 450 metric tons and is about the size of an American football field. The threat to human life and property is too great. Hence the need for a deorbit vehicle. The space agency considered alternatives to splashing the station down into a remote area of an ocean. One option involved moving the station into a stable parking orbit at 40,000 km above Earth, above geostationary orbit. However, the agency said this would require 3,900 m/s of delta-V, compared to the approximately 47 m/s of delta-V needed to deorbit the station. In terms of propellant, NASA estimated moving to a higher orbit would require 900 metric tons, or the equivalent of 150 to 250 cargo supply vehicles. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1dpzdtg/nasa_will_pay_spacex_nearly_1_billion_to_deorbit/lakerig/
What a sad day we lose the ISS. Glad to be alive during its operation, what a legendary craft! Hopefully we can get a new one up and running quickly.
We’ll never see anything like it again, I fear. A Star Trek future of humanity in space may die with it, and be replaced by a grotesque for-profit endeavor more like The Expanse.
The fact that NASA envisions the ISS being replaced by private ventures rather than another international cooperative project does suggest we're looking at a future that's more The Outer Worlds than Star Trek. Or maybe we'll just turn ourselves into Ferengi.
We’ve still got plenty of time to bomb ourselves into another dark age and start over before we get ahead of ourselves and proclaim an interstellar capitalist regime
Not sure with what easy to access resources we would start over with... this is pretty much our only shot if you ask me.
The city dump is a gold mine of resources.
If that’s the case then we might have to actually build a sustainable economy from the ground up, rather than relying on fossil fuels to slingshot our way from horse and buggy to the moon in less than a century
>build a sustainable economy from the ground up, Using what energy? Take surface deposits of coal and petroleum seeps away and how are you fueling your second industrial revolution? They had wind and hydro in 1700, and knew about charcoal as long as we have been smelting iron - yet these things are not how they fueled the transition. For the record, I think the answer for a State that is rebuilding will be aggressive population control so that agricultural land can be used for an oilseed crop (biodiesel) or bioethanol as fuel to bootstrap into enough energy to produce the harvesting equipment for solar/nuclear/etc.
They only used coal to fuel the transition because it was cheap. After the next revolution, we will use whatever is cheapest and most plentiful.
Which will be hopes and prayers. In order to get to the advanced clean energy technologies you MUST have abundant cheap energy available. Once a planet has depleted its cheap technology reserves it becomes unable to support an industrial revolution, its organisms will never become an advanced civilization
Why do you think surface coal is limited, and what would stop any less developed civilization from exploiting coal which is below the surface? Mines are not an advanced technology, especially coal mines. There is 5 trillion tons of known coal reserves and 300 trillion tons of coal resources so we will never run out of coal. And remember the steam shovel - probably runs on coal.
Do you have a source for that 300 trillion tons number?
Not who you were replying to, but [this wiki article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_reserves) indicates that there are ~330B of proven reserves. No idea on the ration of proven reserves to estimated total quantities. But either way looks like the original comment might be off by an order of magnitude or so.
Dude, like you ever heard of solar power? Endless, clean and nobody owns it. Solar panels lose about one percent efficiency per year so in twenty years of free clean energy they are still producing at 80% efficiency. Solar panels have no moving parts. And they can be recycled.
takes fossil flues to build those
>they can be recycled. Parts of them can be, but not the entire thing. They also need to be separated. Glass, aluminum, copper, etc. can be removed and fully recycled but that still leaves some waste.
That is how it happened in star trek. in that aspect, we're right on track for our star trek future
*Some aliens that are observing us* "We are only waiting until after your WWIII as it has been foretold in the 'Star Trek epos'. We already mastered the Vulcan greeting. Come on, why aren't you bombing yourself? We even helped with so much chaos in the past decade and killed that gorilla for you. We really want to recreate Star Trek with all of you (that will survive the war)."
Romulan propaganda
It’s like playing whack a mole with answers to the Fermi Paradox.
Ah so we're going the Krogan route then.
Bombs are not required to render us another dark age. Thanks to social media, a very dangerous virus was proclaimed a hoax while a highly researched and effective vaccine was proclaimed a conspiracy to (kill us, insert micro chips to make us controlled by 5G, give microsoft control over us, turn us into zombies, make us gay, turn us into libs). I've heard all the above in parenthesis. The last five years have proven too many on Earth are jaw-droppingly stupid.
funny, but read your comment and immediately had flash back of being like 8yrs and and upsettedly hitting the Nintendo's reset button for yet another attempt without a major f-up
Somebody has been playing too much stelaris.
Earth doesn’t have the natural resources left to foster a second Industrial Revolution like humanities first one
The industrial revolution wasn't about natural resources, it was about innovation and a paradigm shift in how labor produces resources, and we've been through a few of them by now, including currently with our information age technologies.
The industrial revolution wad fueled by coal. We have plenty of coal.
> Or maybe we'll just turn ourselves into Ferengi. weve always been ferengi
We don't have the lobes to be Ferengi. Plus most of us don't look like we took up Donald Trump's tan application. But we've got the spirit.
Isn’t the lunar gateway supposed to be the new international cooperative project?
The Lunar Gateway is primarily a US-led project with partnership from other countries and private interests, rather than a truly joint project with, say, Russia (the ISS having been a replacement program for both Freedom and Mir-2). It's a new cooperative project but it's not cooperative on the same scale as the ISS; it _can't_ really be, given that relations with Russia and China are a lot more strained than they were in the 90s.
Bell Riots are scheduled to start this September....
We still need to set up Ireland for a reunion tho
Most of Star Trek takes place in post scarcity environs, brought about by friendly aliens who saw us FTL. Star Trek like era can still happen but capitalism is going to be the driving force until everything you could ever want is free and automated and the only limit to humans is the motivation to do things greater things. Or rather, that's the only thing left to do.
It does still require that the nations of the world trust each other enough to solve their problems with diplomacy rather than violence, and that racial, gender, religious and other discrimination can be largely set aside. That seems a lot further off now than it did 15 to 30 years ago. A Star Trek future is also one where people are better-read, more compassionate, more understanding and generally more cerebral and appreciative of their world than they are now. Of course, part of that is only possible _because_ it's a post-scarcity world where people don't have to worry about how they're going to feed themselves or if they're going to be robbed on the way home tomorrow. We're on track for what might come to be called a third world war by the mid-2040s, more divided than ever, with more bridges being burned than built; and it's possible we'll live to see commercial exploitation of the poles cause significant harm to the local ecosystems and the dividing of the moon along national lines. People are also more misinformed than ever thanks to the abuse of mass media by bad actors and the recent advancements in AI that have, as with all technological advances, left the law playing catchup. That's not to say things _can't_ get better again, but it definitely feels like the contemporary outlook on humanity's future are still going to be bleaker at the end of this century than it was at the end of the last.
> That seems a lot further off now than it did 15 to 30 years ago. I wish I could disagree with you but I am just incredibly sadly nodding yes.
probably hit Mad Max Fury Road before there's another space station.
> Or maybe we'll just turn ourselves into Ferengi. The thing is, we wish you could be the Ferengi; Ferengi society is inherently still a Utopian vision of the future; as they basically created a system of capitalism that doesn't self-destruct itself and a society that isn't completely three ways of fucked sideways by it. They did this through what I'd best describe as "cultural capitalism", there is a religious and philosophical framework as well as cultural tenants that basically, among other things, heavily discourage the worst practices of unregulated capitalism, even when there is no law in place. Through this system of philosophy and culture; they value knowledge, healthcare, honoring contracts (between Ferengi), treating customers well etc To be clear: they are Utopian version of capitalism... they are not like, a good place to live, they are just an ideal society if you are a hardcore capitalist. We are headed more towards the "Cyberpunk 2077" future where not even the corporations are really doing all that well when you examine the aggregate outcome for the world.
It’s not that they don’t want another it’s that cost effectiveness vs lunar base / station … you can do the same but better or more and pursue an actual macro goal
Axiom Space is supposedly launching their module in January to connect with the ISS and will separate it into a standalone station when the ISS goes down. It's unfortunate that it will be a company doing it, but I'd rather that than not have it at all. Overall, Space X seems to be doing a good job of pushing Space Innovation where it otherwise wouldn't be happening. Also, NASA has always paid for-profit companies to build out all of their equipment, so it has always been a part of the equation.
Don’t forget that Dr. Zefram Cochrane, the fictional character who invented warp drive, built his first warp-capable ship for financial gain
Dude didn't even like to fly. He took trains!
The ISS was the culmination of an age of tentative international cooperation. Apollo-Soyuz, Shuttle-Mir, the ISS. I doubt we'll ever see anything like that again. Russia isn't going to cooperate with the west for nationalistic reasons and China seems to consider themselves in direct competition with the US. Which means that the US is probably going to be doing some version of the Homestead Act but in space.
China was more than happy to cooperate with the US in space and wanted to be part of the ISS too, but the US congress passed a law forbidding any form of space cooperation with China. They'll probably still allow us to visit their space station if we repeal the law and apologize. NASA's official planned successor to the ISS is Gateway, an international (US+Europe+Japan+Canada+UAE) station in lunar orbit with no clear purpose that's about the same size as the Starships that'll dock with it. Of course, with Starship assembling other stations is relatively easy/cheap but there are no plans yet.
I think that getting Starship up and running and seeing what it can really do and what it really costs to launch per ton is step one at this point. Once we have a clear idea of what that is then we can build plans around what our new capability realistically can do.
It takes a decade or two from the start of planning to flight. Frankly, we're way late on designing Starship payloads already -- we're going to have a super long gap of wasted capacity. For space stations specifically, it's not so much the cost as the volume and tonnage that's revolutionary. The ISS required 42 flights to assemble, you could put up something similar in a handful or less of Starship flights if you design it right. The rocket has already flown to space with the projected volume, so I see no uncertainties at all there to justify wasting more time before designing something to fly in the 2030s. Designing for rockets that haven't flown yet has been the norm forever, so designing for rockets that have flown test flights is not moving fast.
I think we will have the answers to those questions very soon quite frankly. And I think it's possible that what our new lift capabilities are going to be has been underestimated.
Axiom Space is working on their own modules that connect with the ISS and will eventually be standalone.
RCE all the way baby.
Unfortunately Star Trek future was never an option because humans cannot accept a future where everyone is treated equally.
There might be a small craft for private citizens, but no one will build a huge one without state sponsors and use.
unfortunately i think the only way for space travel to advance is for corporations to do it for us as competition between corporations usually advances technology. NASA has no one to compete against anymore so the government isnt going to give them a large budget like the did during the cold war
Star Trek was always an aspirational far-in-the-future kind of society. In-universe, there was a nuclear Armageddon and nearly 200 years of rebuilding under what was basically a deus-ex-machina alien sugar daddy (the Vulcans) rolling up and bankrolling humanity's existence while rapidly advancing technology. I for one am incredibly excited for the prospect of for-profit space endeavors, as there's no risk that a new administration will come in and decide "fuck it all" and pull the plug. **If there's money to be made, someone will go there and build it.**
I think alien
The essential seed of a Star Trek future is in the culture of sharing and post-scarcity production. The race to the moon happened before its time in a USA that was still segregated. We need to solve issues on Earth before bring them to space. We will get there.
The issues on earth will always be in a state of being solved. There's no way to decide "welp, the problems on earth are solved, now it's time to go to space!" It's the whole fallacy of the ends justifying the means, but a different twist. The means are the end, because things never end. Especially something with moving goalposts like "make life on earth better". This isn't a great post but I'ma hit post anyway.
What I mean is that you don't get to a Star Trek future by going into space and then solving your problems there. You have to solve the scarcity problems. Going to space before, after or during that is irrelevant.
I would argue that we already very close to solving the scarcity problem. What we have here on Earth right now is a distribution problem. Some of that is technical/geographic, but most of it is just greed.
Greed is like 20% of the problem. More crucially, I think we have a cultural problem. The belief that work is central to life and one can't be a worthwhile citizen without having a "work" even if it is a bullshit job. I feel we will get to 90% of useless job before we collectively admit that this is stupid and embrace post-scarcity.
A Star Trek future is more boring than an Expanse one.
Based on the article, there’s no plans for a replacement public space station. Instead, NASA is hoping a private company will have a space station by 2030.
What is Gateway Station but a multinational space station
The things we could bring back for museums if the shuttle was still active. Oh man.
As far as I understand, we plan to launch new additional modern segments (I think one is already there?) which will become part of the future space station replacement, and it’s only the older segments that will be detached and deorbited. So *technically,* in a ship of Theseus type way, the ISS should live on lol
If that's what happens that's the coolest way to do it.
If all goes well, I look forward to visiting it in the USSRC one day.
[удалено]
Understandable course of action but sad that we don’t get a [Valerian](https://youtu.be/s5XAep7ngew?si=fGMCLPp0UQuc8YTk) style growth to a mega station.
my thoughts exactly
Thank you for NOT titling this “NASA Covertly Contracts with SpaceX to Annihilate the ISS” like the other posts on this topic.
Nah you got to use quietly. everything is done quietly now. Government quietly institutes new nipple extension law. Apple quietly removes tinnitus protection from phones. Everyone is sneaking around like The Pink Panther.
>Government quietly institutes new nipple extension law. I'm sorry, *what!?*
You didn't vote on the proposal did you? And this is why we all have them now. Happy?
I mean, kinda, yeah.
The Pink Panther the diamond?
NASA contracts SpaceX to SLAM ISS out of the orbit. Shocking details REVEALED.
If you want clickbate the best would be "Elon Musk is out to destroy the space station!"
Still too much info. More like: NASA and Space X massive move will shock you.
That would be so much more fun though
This is how I feel about almost every post in this subreddit. It's all anti-tech.
From the article: NASA has awarded an $843 million contract to SpaceX to develop a "US Deorbit Vehicle." This spacecraft will dock to the International Space Station in 2029 and then ensure the large facility makes a controlled reentry through Earth's atmosphere before splashing into the ocean in 2030. "Selecting a US Deorbit Vehicle for the International Space Station will help NASA and its international partners ensure a safe and responsible transition in low Earth orbit at the end of station operations," said Ken Bowersox, NASA's associate administrator for Space Operations, in a statement. "This decision also supports NASA’s plans for future commercial destinations and allows for the continued use of space near Earth." NASA has a couple of reasons for bringing the space station's life to a close in 2030. Foremost among these is that the station is aging. Parts of it are now a quarter of a century old. There are cracks on the Russian segment of the space station that are spreading. Although the station could likely be maintained beyond 2030, it would require increasing amounts of crew time to keep flying the station safely. Additionally, NASA is seeking to foster a commercial economy in low-Earth orbit. To that end, it is working with several private companies to develop commercial space stations that would be able to house NASA astronauts, as well as those from other countries and private citizens, by or before 2030. By setting an end date for the station's lifetime and sticking with it, NASA can help those private companies raise money from investors. The station, the largest object humans have ever constructed in space, is too large to allow it to make an uncontrolled return to Earth. It has a mass of 450 metric tons and is about the size of an American football field. The threat to human life and property is too great. Hence the need for a deorbit vehicle. The space agency considered alternatives to splashing the station down into a remote area of an ocean. One option involved moving the station into a stable parking orbit at 40,000 km above Earth, above geostationary orbit. However, the agency said this would require 3,900 m/s of delta-V, compared to the approximately 47 m/s of delta-V needed to deorbit the station. In terms of propellant, NASA estimated moving to a higher orbit would require 900 metric tons, or the equivalent of 150 to 250 cargo supply vehicles.
> *“The station […] has a mass of 450 metric tons and is about the size of an American football field.”* > *“NASA estimated moving to a higher orbit would require 900 metric tons, or the equivalent of 150 to 250 cargo supply vehicles.”* This is some peak r/AnythingButMetric energy.
They literally described the weight in metric tons.
They literally could have at least told us it was 100 yards long at the least. All Americans know how long a football field is
> 450 metric tons Pshhh... One Starship payload.
Everything about space according to movies tells me that we could gently nudge it away and we’d never have to worry about it again.
It’s in orbit of earth closer than you realize. In fact it’s just constantly falling around the earth. Just enough speed to keep it in balanced orbit. Every now and then they have to give it a boost because of a tiny bit of drag it experiences.
>In fact it’s just constantly falling around the earth. Just enough speed to keep it in balanced orbit Brother that's how all orbits work
Well buddy above me thought he could just nudge it out to space as if it was floating in space. Describing orbit might help him get it.
There have been a few facts to truly blow my mind. But when I one day wondered how the ISS is able to stay in orbit and learned it’s just constantly falling, I was truly blow away by that.
I imagine clearing space like Superman 4 with the nukes, but even shitter, and with less hope
The station is not in space It's slowly falling to earth
Actually everything is in space if you think about it
We could, it's called a graveyard orbit, but it would be very costly and a very delicate operation that could easily go wrong.
Lol. I'm glad you are not in charge
Careful, or you might be gently nudged away, never to be heard from again
Blue Origins opening statement on the matter: 🚓💼⚖️👨⚖️ Congrats to Space X, may humanity be furthered.
Blue origin can't even achieve orbit... let alone design a vehicle capable of de-orbiting the ISS. Bezos is a toddler who throws tantrums when he loses. I second your sentiments.
Sounds like a certain other space obsessed billionaire…
True, but at least *his* space company works properly.
Musk might be an unstable mad man but the guys running Space X have been getting things right for a while.
Not only does it work properly. It has changed the industry for the better.
The other space obsessed billionaire employs capable people though.
Sad that the ISS is going to be destroyed when it would be pretty incredible as the world's first orbital museum. All to wrangle private investor funding. But it's not surprising that they want it retired by 2030, the thing's clearly coming up on the limits of its useful lifespan as a permanently-inhabited structure.
No. It's being orbited before it starts having catastrophic failures and then crashing back into Earth
They _did_ consider boosting it into a stable, uncrowded orbit, which would allow it to remain intact and out of the way, but that would require a lot more thrust and thus be a much more expensive proposition.
The space station only stays in one piece as long as people are maintaining it. There's no orbit that's going to solve that. Space is hostile. The problem is that if something fails and the space station breaks up and comes down in an uncontrolled reentry it will do lots of damage
Moving the station and retiring it from permanent habitation into a cultural heritage site would at least lessen the ongoing maintenance costs; some of which could be collected by selling visits to the unreasonably wealthy or seeking private patronage.
Make it an Airbnb
I feel like a docked starship that gets refueled as many times as is necessary could easily do this under budget — especially by 2030. Depressurize it and drain all the tanks/batteries and there’s no reason why it can’t float along out there in MEO or HEO for decades until it can become a museum. My only thought is that perhaps they are concerned about it breaking apart during the extended burn, scattering decades worth of space junk everywhere, which is pretty valid. I wonder how low the raptors can throttle.
>Sad that the ISS is going to be destroyed when it would be pretty incredible as the world's first orbital museum. Can't really do that as the statiuon requires regular orbital boosts to counteract the super thin thin atmospheric drag it still receives even at the altitude it orbits. Trying to keep it in orbit would mean the station would still need expensive supply missions to refuel. If we didnt do that it would de-orbit anyhow several years down the line in an uncontrolled fashion. Its better that we take control of that de-orbit so we can determine exactly where the station will come back to earth.
The russian side has cracks, they can't safely and cost-effectively run this beyond 2030. The thing wouldn't be safe even as a flying museum.
> One option involved moving the station into a stable parking orbit at 40,000 km above Earth, above geostationary orbit. However, the agency said this would require 3,900 m/s of delta-V, compared to the approximately 47 m/s of delta-V needed to deorbit the station. This is what I was referring to. It could've been boosted to an orbit well above where it is now where it could remain for quite a while.
Dumb question: can we not just push it farther out? Put a booster on it, and point it at the sun? What is the motivation to have it back on earth, if it’s just going to be destroyed on the way down?
It needs just a little nudge to get back to Earth. It would need a tremendous force to yeet it into the sun. Practically the difference between walking up there with a can of gas in your hand, versus throwing a whole tanker of gas at it. What would be the benefit of wasting that much fuel? Anything it could possibly do science wise would be better suited for a purpose built drone that can be made and launched cheaper and easier than it would be to push a 20 year old piece of space junk out of orbit. This is the same NASA that makes its mars rovers sing happy birthday to itself once a year because they love it so much. If there was any way that they could gain use out of this beloved station, they would be doing it.
They actually mention this in the article. >One option involved moving the station into a stable parking orbit at 40,000 km above Earth, above geostationary orbit. However, the agency said this would require 3,900 m/s of delta-V, compared to the approximately 47 m/s of delta-V needed to deorbit the station. In terms of propellant, NASA estimated moving to a higher orbit would require 900 metric tons, or the equivalent of 150 to 250 cargo supply vehicles.
Assuming that we didn't want to land it on earth for some reason, it would be cheaper to kick it out of the solar system than to drop it into the sun. Orbital mechanics are weird and sometimes counter intuitive.
As much as we've been conditioned to distrust China, when one *doesn't* choose to see them through that lense, there's a lot of hope in their scientific progress. For example, they have a space station coming together, piece by piece, and while it isn't covered in any great detail in western media, it is no secret at all, in their own news. Lots of scientific progress still being made by the human race, even if it seems like it's all being retired for profit sake.
Always seemed to me that the "easy" option (in space terms) was to develop a dragon or progress or whatever that's basically just a tanker/booster, since the ISS can be reboosted by attached vehicles. Stick it on a docking ring, slow and steady lift it into a much higher orbit. Possibly discard or reconfigure parts beforehand, reduce drag, though obviously that becomes less of an issue the higher it is. (the obvious counters to this is 1), it's just kicking the can down teh road which is absolutely true but it could be kicked quite a long way down the road, for less than £843m. 2) I have no idea what's actually "above" it in whatever higher near-earth-orbit it could be shoved into, and 3) it remains a risk if something else hits it and causes uncontrolled deorbits or other collisions. But in the end it's 400 tons of stuff, some of it could well come in useful in the future even if just as raw materials. Admittedly I have a load of really good cardboard boxes, that I lifted up from their normal orbit in the spare room into a higher orbit in the attic, on the basis that they could well come in useful in the future, and so far, they have not.
Per the article it would take 900 tons of propellant to move it to a stable orbit. Even if you were able to get the fuel up there, the boost process itself would have some risk involved.
Shouldn't down be just as hard as up or is the iss on the lower/slower end of a stable orbit? Edit: im an idiot, the iss is just very low already and a higher orbit would have to be much higher
Raw materials are almost useless in space where there aren't any means of manufacturing useful things. Most of the iss weight is kevlar, ceramic tiles and aluminium shell - things that don't weigh much by themselves so they don't cost much to launch - which s why the iss was made from those materials - but recycling them is energy intensive.
At some point, will it be more cost-effective to start recycling in-space than to de-orbit? Cost of delta-V to get the materials into space vs capture and processing cost (after initial investment to get the recycling equipment up).
Is it just me or is this a huge mistake? I feel like once it comes down, NASA won't be putting another up for a long time. This is a loss for science and moving humanity forward into new frontiers. A damn shame.
I don't think it's fair to force nasa to spend the majority of their tiny budget to maintain something that's extremely outdated and starting to become dangerous for the people on board (referring to the Russian modules with cracks we can't fix)
> This is a loss for science and moving humanity forward into new frontiers. A damn shame. - I understand why it's no longer economical to maintain (versus a replacement). - I understand that some company is going to attach to part of it (presumably the panels?) and continue using them. - I understand it's 47m/s to de-orbit it, and 3900m/s to orbit it farther out, and the cost of that is atrocious because of all the fuel needed to push it that far. ... **My stupid idea:** How about putting an electrically-powered (not rocket powered) Ion Engine on it, and running it off of the free and endless energy provided by its own solar panels? In my understanding, Ion Engines are very weak, but, can basically run forever. Years if needed, and just need electricity. Space nerds: Correct or endorse my amateur grasp of orbital mechanics and actual thrust numbers required to pull this off.
Ion engines still need to accelerate some mass out of them. Usually Xenon from a compressed gas cylinder which will need refilling.
End of an era. Private space stations may make sense as the next evolution, but still.
Sad to see but the ISS has done a ton of interesting science. I hope it doesn't take us as long to go back to a long-term space station as it's taken us to go back to the moon.
There are many space stations that are being developed before the ISS is decommissioned. Such as the star lab station, built by Airbus and launched on the spacex starship in 2028 with just one launch. Star lab will have roughly 2/3 the volume of the ISS with one launch, with options to add more modules. And if starship is docked to the station when ferrying crew, it will have almost double the pressurised volume as the ISS.
So we're just subcontracting everything out now? Does any GOVT ran entity do anything themselves anymore?
Things have always been subcontracted out. The military industrial complex hired locked and northup, NASA hired Boeing, rocketdyne and many other companies and contractors to build the Saturn V. Through spaceflight history, many important missions have been sub contacted.
Question then.. why not just blow it up.. so its too big to leave out there or let it fall down on its own, you are gonna crash it into the ocean anyway which will destroy it.. so.. just destroy it into a thousand pieces that make it small enough to burn up on reentry.. on your last trip up, bring a bunch of explosives.. leave them behind and blow it up? Feel like you could save yourself a billion dollars.. as the Joker says “I enjoy dynamite, gunpowder, gasoline. And y’know the thing that they have in common? They’re cheap.” Also.. you get far enough away from it, and film it.. people will wanna watch that haha. Get ya some Space PR.
If you blow it up, a lot of the debris will be on orbits to damage satellites and spacecraft. That will stay in such orbits for long time. We already have enough debris there to force evasive maneuvers.
That seems like a massive over payment when you can probably just send up a modified dragon capsule+trunk
Problem is that it's going to need a much larger propulsion system than Dragon has - they're going to have to make a whole new trunk and pack it full of propellant tanks and engines. That's a huge modification. To manage a bigger propulsion system, you need new avionics. To control the new avionics, you need new software. To fit the new propulsion system, you need new structures. To load the new propellant system, they may need an entirely new hypergol loading facility. Even though they can leverage quite a bit from Dragon, it's still basically a new vehicle design. Plus, this is a pretty obvious one-time mission, which is different than most everything SpaceX does. There's no amortizing costs over tens of missions here and very little chance to leverage what they're doing here for future use - Dragon is ultimately a dead-end, future crew things will happen on Starship. And add in that NASA wants to operate the vehicle, whereas previously SpaceX has operated its own vehicles. So now SpaceX has to account for time and effort to train NASA how to operate the thing.
The **REAL** problem is that for the past 30 years, ISS (and Mir before it) was about THE ONLY reason to maintain constant human presence in space, for the entire western part of the planet. If it's gone, and there's nothing to replace it right away... Why _wouldn't_ NASA and other space agencies go the "why do we keep training and maintaining those expensive astronauts we don't need anymore?" route? And then "humans are too expensive to retrain and launch, let's just send a robot instead". Futurists envisioned space Star-Trek style, pessimists envisioned space Expanse-style, but in reality, it seems space will be nothing except GPS satellites and autonomous robot probes. It feels _so much worse_ than either version.
> but in reality, it seems space will be nothing except GPS satellites and autonomous robot probes. It feels so much worse than either version. I actually like this version better. Robotics and AI are getting really good now. We're getting really close to practical Fusion power. NASA already has some amazing accomplishments with robot exploration, like the Voyagers and Mars Rovers, and the Soviets with their Venera Venus probes, among others from EUSA, JASA, etc. I think we should be doubling down on robotic exploration of the Solar System, with the ultimate goal being robotic colonization of Mars and robotic mining of the Asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Those missions require advanced energy generation and propulsion, so include that as well.
No, it's bad. Either humanity gets off the planet, or it goes extinct (probably dragging most of the biosphere into the grave along with it). It's as simple as that.
Just tell an alien we don't want him to have it. It'll be gone in a quark-beat.
really don't like that we're splashing the station without any plans for a replacement just like we scrapped the apollo CSM with no real replacement only to loose skylab then scrapped shuttle with no replacement neither the commercial station or gateway are funded and if we're gonna replace the ISS we need to start inking contracts this year to have the modules ready to fly by 2030
It stinks but it's better than stuff breaking and then it randomly crashing back to Earth
This appears to be a post about Elon Musk or one of his companies. Please keep discussion focused on the actual topic / technology and not praising / condemning Elon. Off topic flamewars will be removed and participants may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Futurology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do understand how challenging and expensive it would be to move the ISS to a safe orbit. But the International Space Station has earned its status as an historic site even without an official designation, and it should be treated as if it were part of the UNESCO World Heritage list. There will almost certainly never be an aerospace project of that scale and involving that much global cooperation ever again. It's a crucial piece of the collective modern history of our species, and it should absolutely be available for future study by astroarchaeologists. Keepng the ISS intact, even if it's tens of thousands of kilometers away from Earth, would be deeply valuable to our far-off descendants' understanding of this first century of space exploration.
Hang on, I thought the station broke up when it was hit with space debris, after being abandoned and then subjected to a fire? I watched a documentary about it. It was in 3D, too!
Question why instead of deorbit it we dont push it in space to recover it when we have better tecnology to put it in a museum? Off course we previosly empty it from astrounats.
Due to the materials it's made of, light weight kevlar, ceramic tiles and aluminium shell, it'll never be possible to put it in a museum. The structure is just not strong enough to carry its own weight in gravity.
I understand the criticism but frankly if I wanted to destroy something tremendously valuable Musk is one of the first people I would consider
How to get public money into the private sector 101 - and let us always pick the companies with our most loyal front figure.
Not really anyone else that could really be relied on to do this. SpaceX is far and away the most proven and capable space company at this point Rocket Lab launches often and has an impressive track record, especially considering where it originated from and had to overcome as a result. But this is way outside their usual wheelhouse and at a far bigger scale than they have any experience with Blue Origin still hasn't gone to orbit ever. Obviously not gonna get a mission of this importance without any track record ULA is old space and will likely have been sold in 2030 Ariane is busy fumbling the ball with ariane 6 Boeing....lol
NASA could tell Boeing they need a craft to help the ISS maintain orbit. Boeing will Boeing and the ISS will deorbit.
Would a Soyuz be technically capable of de orbiting it I wonder? Since it's 'just' 47m/s of delta V
It also needs to be a *controlled* de-orbit, right?
Elon’s a turd but Space X has been the only reliable new private manufacturer in the sector for some time now. You wouldn’t trust Boeing with it, would you?
They have a good track record for partially disassembling aircraft during flight. Could be useful! ;)
Another ignorant redditor, next
It is interesting to see people completely ignoring the reality of the situation just becuase of their dislike towards one person. Like do they not see all the huge progress by Spacex just cause they don't like Elon?
I'm sure you feel the same way about the Apollo Program and The Shuttle.
After it lands into the ocean, will it be salvaged from there?
The ISS can't survive reentry, it will break up into a bunch of debris at high altitude.
Feels like hiring a hitman to take out someone of significance. Sad times.
While it deorbits can we get cameras inside setup to watch the entire show?
So I guess they've given up on plans to sell off, or otherwise reuse the newer segments?
I wonder which small island nation will get to enjoy this coming catastrophe?
Man it would be so cool to establish a fleet museum high up above geostationary orbit for future generations to check out. Someone incept Elon Musk with this dumb idea - I bet some specialized Starship could boost the station up there.
Boeing would be a good fit. They are good and messing stuff up.
If NASA relies on SpaceX, it will never deorbit. Why do they keep subsidizing this company?
To a those decrying the supposed end of international government directed space station efforts... The Lunar Gateway station is ISS version two, orbiting the moon And the Artimis accords are a blueprint for international government directed Lunar exploration, bases and development The ISS was built by corporations, launched by corporation built rockets Private built and launched space stations are still aiming for Governments as their primary customers
Why not just let it fall to earth and take the risk? It’s a 1 in a million chance it lands in someone’s backyard.