18 ms·

Why not re-orbit? If $2B could be used to keep it going another decade, would we do that instead?

rbanffy 2y ago
Operation costs should increase as more and more parts start breaking down. It’s an old station by now. That considered, it feels wrong to not extend its life until it actually is cheaper to replace it and, then, do so module by module.
- Buttons840 2y ago
  The spacecraft equivalent of refactoring vs rewriting from scratch.
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  I'm wondering how hard it would be to boost it to a long-term stable orbit and then empty it of it's atmosphere and just preserve it as some kind of a museum piece basically. Of course, for the near-to-medium future, such a museum piece is completely useless to anyone. But hopefully that won't always be the case.
  - robocat 2y ago
    The hoarding instinct because space is big!
    - SllX 2y ago
      Like a space landmark. A spacemark? The San Francisco Cable Car museum makes a big deal about the Cable Cars being the only moving designated landmark (dunno if that’s still true, but it was when I was a kid), but in terms of speed the ISS has those rickety little boxes beat.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    Not sure it’s a good idea to just boost it. It would be impacted more frequently and release more material from the impacts, furthering the problem.
bdamm 2y ago
Probably because structural materials are reaching their age limit, and things like preventing mold are just going to keep getting harder and harder. Sure, the station could be re-orbited, but maybe it is better to spend that money on something new instead of just refurbishing the old station.
- lallysingh 2y ago
  https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/dust-on-the-international-space-station-is-more-toxic-than-the-average-american-home/ https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/dust-on-the-inte... It's also pretty gross up there.
- tomatotomato37 2y ago
  The thin aluminum pressure compartments are the biggest issue I'd imagine; they can only handle so many heat/cool cycles orbiting the earth before the material fatigues and fails. You'd have to replace them all if you want the station to continue, at which point you're essentially building another station.
asadotzler 2y ago
Because another decade would cost another $35B and NASA's got other places it wants to spend that money.
AngryData 2y ago
If we are going to continue to use it at all I think it would be better as a platform from which to build a completely new space station/platform. From what I understand it is pretty fragile at this point and retrofitting it is always going to involve compromises and likely cost more in the end.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
It would be an interesting challenge to try to re-orbit and recycle it. I really want to hope some day we get up to space (or moon) manufacturing, so we can build amazing things in space. Having such a large set of raw materials already in place, to pick apart melt down & reuse would be a neat way to jumpstart space recycling sustainability. Ideally we could leave it derelict & decide in 10, 20, 100 years, hey, yeah there is plenty of raw material here we want to go after. Trying to do anything now with it sounds expensive, yes. But if we could leave the option open, like a landfill we can latter go reprocess if the economics change.
- duskwuff 2y ago
  > Ideally we could leave it derelict Not possible. The ISS is in a low enough orbit that it experiences atmospheric drag and requires periodic reboosts to keep it where it is. Left alone, it'll deorbit on its own, potentially over a populated area.

Operation costs should increase as more and more parts start breaking down. It’s an old station by now. That considered, it feels wrong to not extend its life until it actually is cheaper to replace it and, then, do so module by module.

Buttons840 2y ago
The spacecraft equivalent of refactoring vs rewriting from scratch.
MostlyStable 2y ago
I'm wondering how hard it would be to boost it to a long-term stable orbit and then empty it of it's atmosphere and just preserve it as some kind of a museum piece basically. Of course, for the near-to-medium future, such a museum piece is completely useless to anyone. But hopefully that won't always be the case.
- robocat 2y ago
  The hoarding instinct because space is big!
  - SllX 2y ago
    Like a space landmark. A spacemark? The San Francisco Cable Car museum makes a big deal about the Cable Cars being the only moving designated landmark (dunno if that’s still true, but it was when I was a kid), but in terms of speed the ISS has those rickety little boxes beat.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  Not sure it’s a good idea to just boost it. It would be impacted more frequently and release more material from the impacts, furthering the problem.

bdamm 2y ago

Probably because structural materials are reaching their age limit, and things like preventing mold are just going to keep getting harder and harder. Sure, the station could be re-orbited, but maybe it is better to spend that money on something new instead of just refurbishing the old station.

lallysingh 2y ago
https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/dust-on-the-international-space-station-is-more-toxic-than-the-average-american-home/ https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/dust-on-the-inte... It's also pretty gross up there.
tomatotomato37 2y ago
The thin aluminum pressure compartments are the biggest issue I'd imagine; they can only handle so many heat/cool cycles orbiting the earth before the material fatigues and fails. You'd have to replace them all if you want the station to continue, at which point you're essentially building another station.

asadotzler 2y ago

Because another decade would cost another $35B and NASA's got other places it wants to spend that money.

AngryData 2y ago

If we are going to continue to use it at all I think it would be better as a platform from which to build a completely new space station/platform. From what I understand it is pretty fragile at this point and retrofitting it is always going to involve compromises and likely cost more in the end.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

It would be an interesting challenge to try to re-orbit and recycle it. I really want to hope some day we get up to space (or moon) manufacturing, so we can build amazing things in space. Having such a large set of raw materials already in place, to pick apart melt down & reuse would be a neat way to jumpstart space recycling sustainability. Ideally we could leave it derelict & decide in 10, 20, 100 years, hey, yeah there is plenty of raw material here we want to go after. Trying to do anything now with it sounds expensive, yes. But if we could leave the option open, like a landfill we can latter go reprocess if the economics change.

duskwuff 2y ago
> Ideally we could leave it derelict Not possible. The ISS is in a low enough orbit that it experiences atmospheric drag and requires periodic reboosts to keep it where it is. Left alone, it'll deorbit on its own, potentially over a populated area.