5 ms·

NASA, Axiom Space Change Assembly Order of Commercial Space Station

94 points by mzs 2y ago

zeristor 2y ago
I am guessing that: Space Station AMS-02 Instrument Works on the Mystery of Dark Matter https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/space-station-ams-02-instrument-works-on-the-mystery-of-dark-matter/ https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/space-station-ams-02-inst... Is coming to its end of life too As a CERN experiment it seems to have produced a lot of science: https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/space-station-ams-02-instrument-works-on-the-mystery-of-dark-matter/ https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/space-station-ams-02-inst...
unit149 2y ago
[flagged]
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  AI bot?
  - theoreticalmal 2y ago
    That or schizophrenia
FriedPickles 2y ago
I wonder if there's any useful heavy equipment aboard the ISS that could be transferred to the Axiom prior to separation and thus salvaged. It'd have to be stuff the ISS could do without for the remaining couple years of its life.
- westurner 2y ago
  I wonder if the ISS could instead be scrapped to the moon. Let's get this space station to the moon. Can a [Falcon 9 [Heavy] or similar] rocket shove the ISS from its current attitude into an Earth-Moon orbit with or without orbital refuelling? The ISS weighs 900,000 lbs on Earth. Have we yet altered the orbital trajectory of anything that heavy in space? Can any existing rocket program rendezvous and boost sideways to alter the trajectory of NEOs (Near-Earth Objects) or aging, heirloom, defunct space stations? Which of the things of ISS that we have internationally paid to loft into orbit would be useful for future robot, human, and emergency operations on the Moon?
  - dpifke 2y ago
    NASA evaluated a bunch of options before deciding to de-orbit ISS. You can read a summary here: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-analysis-summary.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-... (PDF) About boosting to a higher orbit, they wrote: "Space station operations require a full-time crew to operate, and as such, an inability to keep crews onboard would rule out operating at higher altitudes. The cargo and crew vehicles that service the space station are designed and optimized for its current 257 mile (415km) altitude and, while the ability of these vehicles varies, NASA’s ability to maintain crew on the space station at significantly higher altitudes would be severely impacted or even impossible with the current fleet. This includes the International crew and cargo fleet, as Russian assets providing propulsion and attitude control need to remain operational through the boost phase. "Ignoring the requirement of keeping crew onboard, NASA evaluated orbits above the present orbital regime that could extend just the orbital lifetime of the space station. [...] "However, ascending to these orbits would require the development of new propulsive and tanker vehicles that do not currently exist. While still currently in development, vehicles such as the SpaceX Starship are being designed to deliver significant amounts of cargo to these orbits; however, there are prohibitive engineering challenges with docking such a large vehicle to the space station and being able to use its thrusters while remaining within space station structural margins. Other vehicles would require both new certifications to fly at higher altitudes and multiple flights to deliver propellant. "The other major consideration when going to a higher altitude is the orbital debris regime at each specified locale. The risk of a penetrating or catastrophic impact to space station (i.e., that could fragment the vehicle) increases drastically above 257miles (415km). While higher altitudes provide a longer theoretical orbital life, the mean time between an impact event decreases from ~51 years at the current operational altitude to less than four years at a 497 mile (800km), ~700-year orbit. This means that the likelihood of an impact leaving station unable to maneuver or react to future threats, or even a significant impact resulting in complete fragmentation, is unacceptably high. NASA has estimated that such an impact could permanently degrade or even eliminate access to LEO for centuries."
    - westurner 2y ago
      Thanks for the research. How are any lunar orbital trajectories relatively safe given the same risks to all crafts at such altitudes? Is it mass or thrust, or failure to plan something better than inconsiderately decommissioning into the atmosphere and ocean. If there are escape windows to the moon for other programs, how are there no escape windows to the moon for the ISS? Given the standing risks of existing orbital debris and higher-altitude orbits' lack of shielding, are NEO impact collisions with e.g. hypersonic glide delivery vehicles advisable methods for NEO avoidance? The NEO avoidance need is still to safely rendezvous and shove things headed for earth orbit into a different trajectory; Is there a better plan than blowing a NEO up into fragments still headed for earth, like rendezvousing and shoving to the side?
- nine_k 2y ago
  Something like Canadarm? I suppose ISS is being decommissioned in a big part because the big hardware there is approaching / has approached the end of its practical life. The metal has accumulated fatigue here and there. The solar panels are heavy and inefficient, compared to more modern developments, except for the newest array mounted in 2021. Maybe some of the newest hardware could be transferred to a lower orbit for cheaper than bringing up brand new hardware from Earth. The thing is that the newest ISS modules, barely 4 years old, are Russian (Nauka + Prichal); the newest module before that is the Japanese science module from 2008. It could probably be still reused, it's barely 16 years old %)
  - prox 2y ago
    Or just ship of Theseus it? Replace what needs replacement into he new format?
    - nine_k 2y ago
      Likely the only things that would remain then would be the interfaces and standards. On one hand, these are time-tested standards. OTOH perpetuating them would miss an opportunity to evolve and upgrade, fixing some of the known issues.
      - zardo 2y ago
        Isn't that happening anyway? New stations will be designed to interface with current spacecraft, that are designed to interface with current space stations.
  - psd1 2y ago
    Buugbbbbvh vbox
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  Maybe but to be honest Starship cost-per-pound to LEO will make re-use of 20 year old technology, in questionable states of maintenance, less appealing than starting from a clean slate in most cases.
  - MPSimmons 2y ago
    Agreed. When it comes to flying people, the volume of a habitable starship is approximately equivalent to the entirety of the habitable volume of the ISS. I really look forward to the heavy-lift future where full reusability means actual cheap spaceflight.
mmooss 2y ago
NASA's next space station will be in lunar orbit: https://www.nasa.gov/mission/gateway/ https://www.nasa.gov/mission/gateway/
- glzone1 2y ago
  This isn’t a normal useful orbit in terms of supporting astronauts on the moon or being available for recovery etc. and was definitely not used to support earlier moon landings. I think it only has a lunar revisit once every 7 days. Imagine your abort / recovery to orbit option is only available for this one tiny window. SLS probably can’t get Orion to Lunar orbit unfortunately so they have created this insanely costly / complex / lower utility approach.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    About orbits: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42538057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42538057 It's surprising to see that every comment's angle is spreading Musk's stories, trashing his competition, etc.
- mlindner 2y ago
  It's worth mentioning that Gateway is on the cutting block if the likely SLS cancellation happens during this incoming administration. As the entire reason for Gateway existing and being where it is is to act as a destination for SLS before the moon landing program was announced. It is where it is because of the relatively weak performance specifications of the SLS rocket preventing it from launching the Orion spacecraft into a low lunar orbit. SLS was also destined to launch several of the Gateway modules which would be impossible if its canceled.
  - ericcumbee 2y ago
    One of the goals of gateway is to act as a test bed for long term manned operations outside of low earth orbit. I.e. start developing and proving the technology in flight that we are going to need for a mars mission.
  - 2y ago
echelon 2y ago
Why is the ISS not being privatized or boosted into a higher orbit for possible later use?
- Anon1096 2y ago
  There's also a political factor for why it's not being boosted, in that as long as the ISS exists governments and the public would want to see it maintained and used. Just boosting it and letting it rot would make space agencies look really bad in the eyes of the public. It's better to just decommission it and have no chance of a future salvage effort. (this doesn't touch on why not do privatization of the ISS, other comments have responded)
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  It is slowly becoming unsafe, and fixing it in orbit is likely too expensive. Space is a very punishing environment - enormous differences in temperature, vacuum, aggressive radiation. 25 years of such conditions will have consequences. It could probably be dragged onto a higher orbit as a museum in situ, but keeping actual living people in there is going to become too risky soon.
- mlindner 2y ago
  It's not being privatized because it's extremely expensive to maintain and also it's politically impossible as several modules are Japanese or European owned and half the station is Russian and there's no propulsion on the USOS side. As to not boosting it to a higher orbit, firstly that would require a tremendous amount of energy, more than any craft currently visiting it. So you'd need to custom build something for that purpose. They're already custom building something to deorbit it with less thrust requirements than you'd need to boost it upward. Secondly the station is slowly experiencing cracking and eventually will suffer a catastrophic debris strike or depressurization. This massive object would create a massive debris cloud and putting it in a high orbit would ensure it would last for thousands of years.
- wmf 2y ago
  ISS is being replaced by one or more semi-privatized stations. ISS is rapidly approaching the point where maintaining it costs more than simply building a new station.
lerp-io 2y ago
reminds me of the space liner from walle - they should add a mcdonalds module to it that is fully automated. just as a marketing campaign to be first autonomous fast food chain in space on the axiom… also for good meme content

94 points by mzs 2y ago

I am guessing that: Space Station AMS-02 Instrument Works on the Mystery of Dark Matter https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/space-station-ams-02-instrument-works-on-the-mystery-of-dark-matter/ https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/space-station-ams-02-inst... Is coming to its end of life too As a CERN experiment it seems to have produced a lot of science: https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/space-station-ams-02-instrument-works-on-the-mystery-of-dark-matter/ https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/space-station-ams-02-inst...

unit149 2y ago

[flagged]

whimsicalism 2y ago
AI bot?
- theoreticalmal 2y ago
  That or schizophrenia

FriedPickles 2y ago

I wonder if there's any useful heavy equipment aboard the ISS that could be transferred to the Axiom prior to separation and thus salvaged. It'd have to be stuff the ISS could do without for the remaining couple years of its life.

westurner 2y ago
I wonder if the ISS could instead be scrapped to the moon. Let's get this space station to the moon. Can a [Falcon 9 [Heavy] or similar] rocket shove the ISS from its current attitude into an Earth-Moon orbit with or without orbital refuelling? The ISS weighs 900,000 lbs on Earth. Have we yet altered the orbital trajectory of anything that heavy in space? Can any existing rocket program rendezvous and boost sideways to alter the trajectory of NEOs (Near-Earth Objects) or aging, heirloom, defunct space stations? Which of the things of ISS that we have internationally paid to loft into orbit would be useful for future robot, human, and emergency operations on the Moon?
- dpifke 2y ago
  NASA evaluated a bunch of options before deciding to de-orbit ISS. You can read a summary here: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-analysis-summary.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-... (PDF) About boosting to a higher orbit, they wrote: "Space station operations require a full-time crew to operate, and as such, an inability to keep crews onboard would rule out operating at higher altitudes. The cargo and crew vehicles that service the space station are designed and optimized for its current 257 mile (415km) altitude and, while the ability of these vehicles varies, NASA’s ability to maintain crew on the space station at significantly higher altitudes would be severely impacted or even impossible with the current fleet. This includes the International crew and cargo fleet, as Russian assets providing propulsion and attitude control need to remain operational through the boost phase. "Ignoring the requirement of keeping crew onboard, NASA evaluated orbits above the present orbital regime that could extend just the orbital lifetime of the space station. [...] "However, ascending to these orbits would require the development of new propulsive and tanker vehicles that do not currently exist. While still currently in development, vehicles such as the SpaceX Starship are being designed to deliver significant amounts of cargo to these orbits; however, there are prohibitive engineering challenges with docking such a large vehicle to the space station and being able to use its thrusters while remaining within space station structural margins. Other vehicles would require both new certifications to fly at higher altitudes and multiple flights to deliver propellant. "The other major consideration when going to a higher altitude is the orbital debris regime at each specified locale. The risk of a penetrating or catastrophic impact to space station (i.e., that could fragment the vehicle) increases drastically above 257miles (415km). While higher altitudes provide a longer theoretical orbital life, the mean time between an impact event decreases from ~51 years at the current operational altitude to less than four years at a 497 mile (800km), ~700-year orbit. This means that the likelihood of an impact leaving station unable to maneuver or react to future threats, or even a significant impact resulting in complete fragmentation, is unacceptably high. NASA has estimated that such an impact could permanently degrade or even eliminate access to LEO for centuries."
  - westurner 2y ago
    Thanks for the research. How are any lunar orbital trajectories relatively safe given the same risks to all crafts at such altitudes? Is it mass or thrust, or failure to plan something better than inconsiderately decommissioning into the atmosphere and ocean. If there are escape windows to the moon for other programs, how are there no escape windows to the moon for the ISS? Given the standing risks of existing orbital debris and higher-altitude orbits' lack of shielding, are NEO impact collisions with e.g. hypersonic glide delivery vehicles advisable methods for NEO avoidance? The NEO avoidance need is still to safely rendezvous and shove things headed for earth orbit into a different trajectory; Is there a better plan than blowing a NEO up into fragments still headed for earth, like rendezvousing and shoving to the side?
nine_k 2y ago
Something like Canadarm? I suppose ISS is being decommissioned in a big part because the big hardware there is approaching / has approached the end of its practical life. The metal has accumulated fatigue here and there. The solar panels are heavy and inefficient, compared to more modern developments, except for the newest array mounted in 2021. Maybe some of the newest hardware could be transferred to a lower orbit for cheaper than bringing up brand new hardware from Earth. The thing is that the newest ISS modules, barely 4 years old, are Russian (Nauka + Prichal); the newest module before that is the Japanese science module from 2008. It could probably be still reused, it's barely 16 years old %)
- prox 2y ago
  Or just ship of Theseus it? Replace what needs replacement into he new format?
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Likely the only things that would remain then would be the interfaces and standards. On one hand, these are time-tested standards. OTOH perpetuating them would miss an opportunity to evolve and upgrade, fixing some of the known issues.
    - zardo 2y ago
      Isn't that happening anyway? New stations will be designed to interface with current spacecraft, that are designed to interface with current space stations.
- psd1 2y ago
  Buugbbbbvh vbox
bpodgursky 2y ago
Maybe but to be honest Starship cost-per-pound to LEO will make re-use of 20 year old technology, in questionable states of maintenance, less appealing than starting from a clean slate in most cases.
- MPSimmons 2y ago
  Agreed. When it comes to flying people, the volume of a habitable starship is approximately equivalent to the entirety of the habitable volume of the ISS. I really look forward to the heavy-lift future where full reusability means actual cheap spaceflight.

mmooss 2y ago

NASA's next space station will be in lunar orbit: https://www.nasa.gov/mission/gateway/ https://www.nasa.gov/mission/gateway/

glzone1 2y ago
This isn’t a normal useful orbit in terms of supporting astronauts on the moon or being available for recovery etc. and was definitely not used to support earlier moon landings. I think it only has a lunar revisit once every 7 days. Imagine your abort / recovery to orbit option is only available for this one tiny window. SLS probably can’t get Orion to Lunar orbit unfortunately so they have created this insanely costly / complex / lower utility approach.
- mmooss 2y ago
  About orbits: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42538057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42538057 It's surprising to see that every comment's angle is spreading Musk's stories, trashing his competition, etc.
mlindner 2y ago
It's worth mentioning that Gateway is on the cutting block if the likely SLS cancellation happens during this incoming administration. As the entire reason for Gateway existing and being where it is is to act as a destination for SLS before the moon landing program was announced. It is where it is because of the relatively weak performance specifications of the SLS rocket preventing it from launching the Orion spacecraft into a low lunar orbit. SLS was also destined to launch several of the Gateway modules which would be impossible if its canceled.
- ericcumbee 2y ago
  One of the goals of gateway is to act as a test bed for long term manned operations outside of low earth orbit. I.e. start developing and proving the technology in flight that we are going to need for a mars mission.
- 2y ago

echelon 2y ago

Why is the ISS not being privatized or boosted into a higher orbit for possible later use?

Anon1096 2y ago
There's also a political factor for why it's not being boosted, in that as long as the ISS exists governments and the public would want to see it maintained and used. Just boosting it and letting it rot would make space agencies look really bad in the eyes of the public. It's better to just decommission it and have no chance of a future salvage effort. (this doesn't touch on why not do privatization of the ISS, other comments have responded)
inglor_cz 2y ago
It is slowly becoming unsafe, and fixing it in orbit is likely too expensive. Space is a very punishing environment - enormous differences in temperature, vacuum, aggressive radiation. 25 years of such conditions will have consequences. It could probably be dragged onto a higher orbit as a museum in situ, but keeping actual living people in there is going to become too risky soon.
mlindner 2y ago
It's not being privatized because it's extremely expensive to maintain and also it's politically impossible as several modules are Japanese or European owned and half the station is Russian and there's no propulsion on the USOS side. As to not boosting it to a higher orbit, firstly that would require a tremendous amount of energy, more than any craft currently visiting it. So you'd need to custom build something for that purpose. They're already custom building something to deorbit it with less thrust requirements than you'd need to boost it upward. Secondly the station is slowly experiencing cracking and eventually will suffer a catastrophic debris strike or depressurization. This massive object would create a massive debris cloud and putting it in a high orbit would ensure it would last for thousands of years.
wmf 2y ago
ISS is being replaced by one or more semi-privatized stations. ISS is rapidly approaching the point where maintaining it costs more than simply building a new station.

lerp-io 2y ago

reminds me of the space liner from walle - they should add a mcdonalds module to it that is fully automated. just as a marketing campaign to be first autonomous fast food chain in space on the axiom… also for good meme content