3 ms·

Better move quickly because we plan to de-orbit the ISS soon… Personally I think we should just tug the ISS up a decent bit higher (50 to 100 year decay?) on t

Better move quickly because we plan to de-orbit the ISS soon… Personally I think we should just tug the ISS up a decent bit higher (50 to 100 year decay?) on the final crewed mission, and then mothball it. So we have enough time to build a big enough, actually permanent, space station that the ISS can be put inside that as a museum exhibit. I also think Hubble deserves a robot tug boost too because that’s another priceless artefact with a retirement plan of “burn up over the South Pacific”

rbanffy 5y ago
> I think we should just tug the ISS up a decent bit higher Both are really bad ideas. Every time something hits the ISS there will be some high-speed fragment coming off on a weird trajectory. The higher the ISS is, the higher the chance those fragments will not deorbit themselves. Everything parked in orbit is a potential source of high-velocity impactors for everything else parked at a similar altitude. It'd be nice if we could deorbit it whole inside the cargo compartment of a "Galaxy class SpaceX Starship", much bigger than the current one and going to space on top of a Ultraheavy, composed of 3 attached Superheavy boosters. We could also surround it with lots (and LOTS) of inflatable heat shields to slow it down and then parachute it to a sensible landing site. If we get Starship functional before the ISS's demise, we can even think of doing that kind of stunt. Imagine it whole hanging from the ceiling of a museum. Or, if a propulsive landing is possible, imagine it hanging from the ceiling of a museum in Shackleton City. ---------- The Hubble would also need a visit to upgrade and replace some components too. Maybe sending a Starship to bring it back, then relaunch it after an upgrade on land. It's crazy how the economics of Starship make even ludicrous ideas like these look perfectly doable.
- techdragon 5y ago
  As neat as the various intact de-orbit scenarios for the ISS are, the majority fail to take into account its design as a zero G structure. The totality of the ISS was never designed for gravity loading, or major loads at all really. The only way to get it back down to Earth (or even somewhere on the moon) would be in pieces. Disassemble the non essential modules of the station using the arm and ferry them off with Starship flights and then once it’s small enough start folding back up the solar arrays (they were all designed to retract), break down the truss segments, bring them back, bring the arrays back, then finally the core modules, pretty much the reverse of how they assembled it in the first place. Though the political logistics would be a nightmare as technically each country owns their modules and would have to agree to all this in the first place. The fate of smaller space heritage items however looks less dire, as the starship could in theory be setup to retrieve Hubble, the Apollo 11 ascent stage, and a number of other interesting historical space objects that have yet to de-orbit. It just becomes a matter of money. Personally I’ve always thought it would be neat to build a high delta-v largeish cubesat size mission to retrieve Telstar 1 would be a neat salvage demonstration since the satellite is small enough to be brought inside the ISS airlock meaning you could in theory bring it back to earth aboard a pressurised Dragon cargo flight. The obvious buyer being Intesat, until their bankruptcy last year that is.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Oh yes. Even on Shackleton, the ISS would need a lot of support for it to hang from any conceivable ceiling. Maybe Ceres ;-) I always thought Telstar 1 was larger.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  > Every time something hits the ISS there will be some high-speed fragment coming off on a weird trajectory. Is this true? My KSP intuition tells me that a single impulse occurring in LEO always results in a an object that passes into LEO and thus will deorbit relatively quickly.
euroderf 5y ago
Both ideas are great! So how much rocket billionaire cash would these plans require ? Tell Bezos and Musk they can have nameplates attached, and merch revenues.

rbanffy 5y ago

> I think we should just tug the ISS up a decent bit higher Both are really bad ideas. Every time something hits the ISS there will be some high-speed fragment coming off on a weird trajectory. The higher the ISS is, the higher the chance those fragments will not deorbit themselves. Everything parked in orbit is a potential source of high-velocity impactors for everything else parked at a similar altitude. It'd be nice if we could deorbit it whole inside the cargo compartment of a "Galaxy class SpaceX Starship", much bigger than the current one and going to space on top of a Ultraheavy, composed of 3 attached Superheavy boosters. We could also surround it with lots (and LOTS) of inflatable heat shields to slow it down and then parachute it to a sensible landing site. If we get Starship functional before the ISS's demise, we can even think of doing that kind of stunt. Imagine it whole hanging from the ceiling of a museum. Or, if a propulsive landing is possible, imagine it hanging from the ceiling of a museum in Shackleton City. ---------- The Hubble would also need a visit to upgrade and replace some components too. Maybe sending a Starship to bring it back, then relaunch it after an upgrade on land. It's crazy how the economics of Starship make even ludicrous ideas like these look perfectly doable.

techdragon 5y ago
As neat as the various intact de-orbit scenarios for the ISS are, the majority fail to take into account its design as a zero G structure. The totality of the ISS was never designed for gravity loading, or major loads at all really. The only way to get it back down to Earth (or even somewhere on the moon) would be in pieces. Disassemble the non essential modules of the station using the arm and ferry them off with Starship flights and then once it’s small enough start folding back up the solar arrays (they were all designed to retract), break down the truss segments, bring them back, bring the arrays back, then finally the core modules, pretty much the reverse of how they assembled it in the first place. Though the political logistics would be a nightmare as technically each country owns their modules and would have to agree to all this in the first place. The fate of smaller space heritage items however looks less dire, as the starship could in theory be setup to retrieve Hubble, the Apollo 11 ascent stage, and a number of other interesting historical space objects that have yet to de-orbit. It just becomes a matter of money. Personally I’ve always thought it would be neat to build a high delta-v largeish cubesat size mission to retrieve Telstar 1 would be a neat salvage demonstration since the satellite is small enough to be brought inside the ISS airlock meaning you could in theory bring it back to earth aboard a pressurised Dragon cargo flight. The obvious buyer being Intesat, until their bankruptcy last year that is.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Oh yes. Even on Shackleton, the ISS would need a lot of support for it to hang from any conceivable ceiling. Maybe Ceres ;-) I always thought Telstar 1 was larger.
Buttons840 5y ago
> Every time something hits the ISS there will be some high-speed fragment coming off on a weird trajectory. Is this true? My KSP intuition tells me that a single impulse occurring in LEO always results in a an object that passes into LEO and thus will deorbit relatively quickly.

euroderf 5y ago

Both ideas are great! So how much rocket billionaire cash would these plans require ? Tell Bezos and Musk they can have nameplates attached, and merch revenues.