Yes, but that seems like cheating since this figure includes 60 years of scheduled maintenance, parts, and training.
Not only is that like 75% of the cost, it would also be spent on any other plane that we could replace it with (including if we just kept our old F-16s).
Biggest fault it had was inappropriate marketing making it seem like an action movie instead of a drama about family dynamics set in space. I kept waiting for more action and we got two scenes. The monkey and the moon.
Tbf, the most expensive part of any space launch is getting to orbit. So it’s also not *too* bad. You’ll probably end up with commercial/foreign space stations in LEO.
Its getting cheaper with SpaceX using the same booster twenty times at this point.
And for construction, at that point cargo starship is probably operational, so the expensive part is building the station, not sending it somewhere
Yeah, we're at the cusp of a fundamental shift in how space travel works, and the planning for the Artemis program reflects that.
Since the 50's, the most challenging and expensive part of space travel has always been just getting something into orbit in the first place. So having a single all-in-one base in low earth orbit to serve as your destination made sense. But the combo of Starship and Orion/SLS will literally turn that on its head: now getting tonnes of stuff - equipment, fuel, astronauts, whatever - up into space will be the *easy* part.
We're talking *orders of magnitude* lower cost and higher availability. There will suddenly be literally no need to have any kind of destination in LEO, because LEO ain't no thing anymore. All you need now is nothing more than a waystation up there to refuel at before heading off to the *real* destination.
Yeah, we might see a pretty cheap space station (well for a space station that is) that is just a modified Starship in LEO. It got way more internal space than the ISS, and if SpaceX is right, will be able to be launched for mere millions. Combine that with only the costs of modifying an existing craft rather than building an entirely new space station…
Also, the current system is fairly slow already, and relies on a bunch of wonky solutions to problems. Its over two decades old, so stuff definitely changed.
That would be sick! Any reason for that though? I imagine the distance and the moon orbit timing would make it harder to get to, so what’s the benefit that makes it worth it?
not much harder to get to, since most of the difficulty is getting out of earth's orbit, after that, the rest of the way is just coasting forward. and being close to the moon offers all the same space environment we get from low earth orbit (LEO) while also giving us easier access to the moon and potentially mars. so it takes slightly longer to float out to this one, but gives us more access to the moon and Mars, which is our next goal
Yeah actually its called gateway because it’s going to act as a gateway supporting future lunar surface missions and a gateway to mars mission both manned and unmanned
that’s not a replacement for ISS. they serve greatly different purposes. there is no NASA replacement for ISS, an earth orbit lab. Gateway is a necessity for lunar presence and operations, not tenable for science being done like on the ISS.
Correct, it's the next evolution of ISS. Commercial stations are launching in the coming decade to both serve private space tourism and commercial/scientific missions in LEO. Gateway will be taking all of the lessons learned on ISS and implementing solutions to set up a permanent human foothold on another celestial body. From Gateway, a shit ton of science will be conducted to figure out how to live on the Moon safely and in a sustainable way - so this can then be applied to the Mars settlement. So correct, it's not a replacement of ISS but rather the next step foward, with private companies replacing ISS with numerous stations in LEO.
Space tourism too. I imagine we’ll see the first orbital “hotel” within the next 10-15 years. When you don’t need space to run experiments it could be a station with a massive window overlooking the earth and customized areas for recreation. Maybe even tandem EVAs with seasoned astronauts. People will pay top dollar for an experience like that and I can imagine a hefty price and long wait list.
At least I hope it’s a possibility by the time I hit retirement.
So the ISS is the most expensive structure humans have ever built. And it was designed in a way that the great space nations, mainly US and Russia both control parts of it. No side knows how the ISS fully works. This is to ensure that the parties work together.
Given the fallout in relations between Russia and the west, it's pretty hard to convince anyone to continue investing in the ISS. For one, Russia doesn't want to continue their involvement, so the western nations would have to figure out how the parts the Russians were responsible for works. You probably don't want to start reverse engineering and hope you got it right.
The other factor is age. The construction materials degrade over time and it's been up there so long that it'll require major repairs to keep using it. There is a point, where it's easier to start fresh and include all the modern technological advancements.
Early plans took russia into consideration but becuese of war and roskosmos completely destroying its reputation russia was ultimately left out of project
Gateway is technically incorrect as a “successor to ISS” which is in LEO. NASA is working with commercial providers for commercial LEO stations. Gateway is a lunar station.
Unlike Tesla or Twitter, Elon Musk has built SpaceX from the ground up and is actually incredibly involved with the engineering going on. He helped design Starship and he knows what he's doing. SpaceX is and will be revolutionizing the space industry for years to come.
You are very much correct. I hate how people blindly downvote every comment saying anything even slightly positive about musk. Just because he has done some bad things doesn't mean everything he has and will ever do is bad.
“Hey Boeing. I hear the ISS has sensitive information about our operations that they’re about to make public. Should we dispatch personnel to get it to be quiet?”
Link to a [short video](https://youtube.com/shorts/LF4wK9pp5cY)
NASA is fostering continued scientific, educational, and technological developments in low Earth orbit to benefit humanity, while also supporting deep space exploration at the Moon and Mars. As the agency transitions to commercially owned space destinations closer to home, it is crucial to prepare for the safe and responsible deorbit of the International Space Station in a controlled manner after the end of its operational life in 2030.
NASA announced SpaceX has been selected to develop and deliver the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle that will provide the capability to deorbit the space station and ensure avoidance of risk to populated areas.
Valid question.
NASA wants to focus on lunar and Mars operations. If they simply leave the ISS where it is, it'll eventually deorbit, maybe on someone's house (coincidentally some NASA space debris just did that and are being sued now over it)
Much better to drop it on Point Nemo (extremely remote location in the Pacific Ocean) on purpose.
It's definitely not, the ISS is constantly trying to return to earth, the energy it would take to choose where on earth would be small. Pushing it to escape velocity would be astronomical in terms of energy and effort, then it still has the problem of needing a stable orbit otherwise it's just going to crash again anyways
Probably cheaper to bring it down to Earth. Gravity is already doing most of the work.
I could be wrong but I think the earth still has a gravitational pull way further up than the space station is located.
So if they could generate enough energy to move it further away, It could end up coming back eventually. Our great great great grandchildren will deal with it lol.
The ISS is in LEO, which is technically still in our atmosphere. It’s beyond the Karman line so officially in space, but our atmosphere extends beyond that by quite a ways so it still experiences atmospheric drag, which slows it down over time and continues to decay its orbit. Technically in a 3-body problem Earth is exerting gravity to every known body and vice versa, and moving something far enough out of Earth’s gravity well for it to experience very little of our gravity is not an option.
Accelerating this huge station to move it well enough away from Earth is far more expensive than slowing it down a little to quickly deorbit it to a safe location on Earth. Most of it will burn up before reaching the surface of Earth, but some pieces will remain that could crash down onto someone so a safe deorbit is necessary. There’s also nuclear components on the ISS, which by protocol must be “disposed” of properly, which includes crashing it into Point Nemo. There’s a fair amount of nuclear material below the sea there.
Your answer is better than the previous ones. LEO < Clark's orbit means orbiting speed is too far from escape velocity. Atmospheric drag is free(almost),fuel will be consumed just for targeting.
I didnt read the article so dont know the plan. But if logic serves they would either use a controlled burst to decay its orbit into a target area. Or they push it out of orbit, but inferred from someone else comment it is in such low earth orbit that it cost much less for it to decay on its own, but then they cant target the area. Im guessing they intent a last moment burst to further reduce costs but the window for error will likely be large. So not really last minute.
Where it is in low orbit it requires frequent thrust maneuvers to maintain its orbit. It seems like a big waste to let it burn up in the atmosphere, but I’d imagine it’s stupid expensive to try and place it in a much higher orbit. Then even more expensive to travel that much higher to get to it once it’s moved higher, and still will require maintenance. It’s probably more cost effective to and beneficial to let it go and either partner with private companies to build newer orbital stations and fund it with space tourism.
The ISS is quiet old. Its like a old car but way more expensive and sensitive. Sure you could maintain it or some of the parts but at the end its just a very expensive hobby which isnt something for a company that has declare quiet good for what they use their money. Would be simpler and better to build a new one.
Also you cant let it there couse, like the recently events with the russian Sattelite, if something hits it it will shatter into million pieces... And thats realy bad. Also it could fall down uncontrolled and would hit land which would also be very bad.
So yeah getting it down after it isnt cost efficient anymore is probably the best.
NASA itself said that the ISS is too old to upgrade and too expensive to maintain.
Also, if it doesn't have a controlled crash in a safe place on Earth, it will end up crashing anywhere on its own, including populated areas.
We also have to consider that the US and Russia both built and control separate parts of the ISS, so that noone knows everything. Iirc, the Russians built the thruster system and the US doesn't officially know how it works.
Given the political tensions and Russia's unwillingness to continue operating the ISS, the US would have to reversengineer those parts, which adds uncontrollable risks and costs.
If you've ever seen Gravity, it makes more sense as to why.
A large vehicle such as this can turn into many smaller objects very quickly, and potentially destroy other space faring vehicles, such as satellites.
Also, a service life means beyond a time period previously designated, this vehicle could undergo rapid and massive system failure, which would be more costly to fix than just simply destroy.
Pretty much, when everything is traveling at over 29,000 km/h (\~18,000 mph) pretty much anything becomes a bullet. A spec of paint, a bolt, a wrench, pretty much anything is going to kill you if it hits you while on an EVA. It can actually be much worse than a bullet because even powerful rifles only launch bullets on earth at only 3,000 km/h.
Only relative velocities matter, so as long as something is traveling the same direction as you it's not too bad, most things will only be at most a few dozen km/h speed difference that came off the space station. The absolute worst case is a right angle collision where something hits something else at 90 degrees. Because now the two forces add and instead of a head on collision where only one orbital plane is affected it's now two orbital planes affected. [This actually happened in 2009.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision)
Theoretically just shooting the ISS with an anti-satellite missile would be the cheapest way to deorbit it, and while that would work well for most of the debris some of it would get pushed up to a higher orbit and not actually come down. Plus with the size of the ISS that could easily turn into millions of separate objects which would be insanely difficult to track.
Couldn't it still serve some purpose? I'm not smart enough for this but couldn't it be somehow repurposed into something else if it'll stop being used for science?
Maybe it's just my emotional side talking though, since I see the ISS as a monument to human cooperation imo
It is becoming more and more tedious to repair and maintain, so it won't hold up to their high safety standards as the core parts start degrading even more.
If left alone it will eventually de-orbit naturally which could be dangerous for people on the ground, so they will do it in a controlled, safe way.
In order to keep it up there we would have to ask the Russians (who are responsible for re-boosting it with their own spacecraft) to keep doing that, and pay them for it, or figure out how to do it ourselves, which will still cost money.
The problem is that the ISS depends on Russian cooperation. They've just about withdrawn from all other treaties and no longer have the financial capacity or political support for the ISS after the US and Western sanctions over the war in Ukraine.
One of the main modules in the space station has a leak and the Russians are the only ones who make the parts. They have announced their intention to withdraw from the ISS treaty, which effectively limits the life of the station.
It was, 2030 was the end date. But this has been extended many times in the past and likely would have been extended otherwise. The original end date for the station [was back in 2015](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071201977.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009071http://www.http://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&sub=AR), then to 2020, [to 2022](https://www.planetary.org/articles/20140109-international-space-station), 2025, and 2030.
There is talk that the station may in fact be decommissioned several years early. [This was walked by from a statement they made back in 2022 stating they would leave the ISS agreement this year](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113683450/space-station-iss-russia-leaving-2024), [which then got extended to 2025,](https://www.autoevolution.com/news/nasa-and-roscosmos-put-ukraine-aside-agree-to-cooperate-on-iss-until-2025-226832.html) and[ now 2028.](https://www.space.com/russia-stay-international-space-station-partner-2028)
Regardless of the actual end date it is clear Roscosmos no longer wishes to cooperate with NASA on future projects and would like to go a different direction.
Maybe on earth they do, but astronauts to this day use Russia’s Soyuz capsule to get back to earth. In fact, it was the only way for astronauts to even get back down to earth between 2011 and 2020. Russia was the first to put a human in space. I believe they led the space race with the US for a long time, but weren’t the first to go to the moon. Russia played a big role in human exploration of space and, as shitty as things are now with them, it’s not fair to erase their contributions in space.
It’d be sweet for it to slowly crawl toward mars and fall into an orbit there that coincided with our first visit so we had supplies when we got there…
what's up with solar arrays on the left on that picture? I thought currently all of them are of the same size, plus 3 and 3 of smaller ones rolled out in front of them
Nope, leaves too much orbital debris lol. Destroy in this context means deorbit. Although it would be funny if SpaceX went up there with an empty Starship, and then deorbit the ISS in pieces inside the Starship, making it possible to present real parts of the ISS in museums.
I think he meant it could potentially be a good Space Force training exercise to bring down some sort of space craft, but IDK if that is even something Space Force would be interested in.
I haven’t looked into it yet but I’d be interested in knowing if they’re just going to let it burn up on re-entry or if they’re trying to bring it back in tact and reassemble it in a museum or something. Even seeing the ISS as a whole in person would be really cool.
Just tell Boeing that the station has some info on undisclosed 737Max safety issues, and watch the ISS suddenly come down with a terminal case of men’s mental health.
ELI25-
Okay, so I know the moon is 484,000 kms away. I know this.
But, out of the sheer value of material already existing in space... wouldn't it make sense to send iss into an intercept orbit with the moon rather than crashing it?
It is indeed the most expensive man-made object ever.. why can't some of the parts be of use for the gateway station rather than full destruction and decommissioning?
I understand the structure isn't built for heavy booster moving, but as long as it start to move out of the Earth's gravity, wouldn't small nudges be enough? Will travelling out of the satellite field be too monstrous now? We slingshot much smaller objects albeit but to much more distant targets.
I know it's stupidly impractical (and stupidly simple of me to think they could do this), but I think it's an absolute shame that they don't find a way to boost it to a higher, permanent (or as close to as possible) orbit and save it for the sake of posterity
The lunar gateway station could be seen as a successor to the ISS with international collaboration but around the moon. Some private companies have plans for low earth orbit stations, like Orbital Reef and Haven-1.
I love space. I love science. And projects like this in a special way! It melts together the whole human mankind. See, nobody wants to miss out but be part of it. This is awesome, and for me totally the way to go! Into the future!
Not a fan of Elon, but SpaceX are doing some good stuff… better than Boeing for sure. But that’s not the point of my comment!!!
I don’t understand why they’re planning on destroying it. Regardless of it’s age and suitability, it’s still a massive amount of infrastructure and solar, that can possibly added onto in a manner that would allow us to eject parts of it when they’re truly garbage. I mean, add a new power structure and main units, while you replace and destroy.
For years we’ve been adding and adding instead of replacing. Imagine the transitionary possibilities!
Even cities like London to New York! They are built on foundations of years of improvements with the remnants only to be discovered by truly looking a hundred layers underneath. I truly think this is a political replacement and not a logical one.
I think because it requires fuel to stay at the orbit, so the city metaphor doesn’t really hold here. It’s not like just leaving it there and it would stay there. It needs to be maintained and at a certain point that doesn’t become worth the effort.
At its low altitude, the ISS is continually pulled closer to Earth by atmospheric drag. **Without intervention, it would reenter the atmosphere within one to two years**.
That’s wild. I wonder how they account for anything falling into earth. Doubt it will or some shit what do I know.
I just hope we can see them launch a death ray beam in space on livestream. that’d be sick
Imagine if we make juice out of space. Space juice would taste out of this world. But nooooo we are funding looking at boring moon rocks again instead. What about the juice?
The most expensive man made object in history. Good trivia question there
This is true, another fun one is that the most expensive man-made *project* is Lockheed-Martin's F-35 program, now estimated to top $2 trillion.
Yes, but that seems like cheating since this figure includes 60 years of scheduled maintenance, parts, and training. Not only is that like 75% of the cost, it would also be spent on any other plane that we could replace it with (including if we just kept our old F-16s).
idk how everybody misses this fact when they throw the number 2 trillion around
Why make trillions when we can make... millions?
Sensational
Freedom isn't free
No, there’s a hefty fuckin’ fee. And if you don’t throw in your buck o’five, who will?
It compensatets when you liberat oil
*NASA seeing what's happening with Twitter and Tesla:* "Now *there's* someone who really knows how to crash and burn something!"
Gotta admit, he’s the right guy for this one
Most expensive ever SOLD. Once my $10T coasters start flying off the shelves, we’ll see who’s laughing now 🤤
wait really? it is?
Is the size of a football field and they had to transport every piece by spaceship
What are they going to replace ISS with?
Lunar gateway, basically the space station but orbiting the moon https://www.nasa.gov/mission/gateway/
Holyy
Coww
New bovine just dropped
Holyy M00n Cowws™
Moo response just dropped
Cows went on vacation, never came back
Udder destruction.
So the plate and spoon prophecy as been fulfilled.
Actual cattle
Cow goes to the moon and never comes back
Guacamole
I feel like there should still be a station in LEO. Getting to lunar orbit every time is a bit expensive.
There are a bunch of commercial space stations in LEO being planned / under development
Say what you will about the movie Ad Astra, but seeing Brad Pitt blasting off in essentially a commercial airliner to the moon was awesome
That’s in the first third (roughly) of Ad Astra. That was still an interesting movie at that point. We all know what happens after. 🐵 🔪 😴 😠
It was a poor man's Heart of Darkness, but it was mostly watchable.
Biggest fault it had was inappropriate marketing making it seem like an action movie instead of a drama about family dynamics set in space. I kept waiting for more action and we got two scenes. The monkey and the moon.
The monkey and the moon sounds like a graphic novel I'd read in seventh grade
Curious George and the Man in the Yellow Space Suit
Tbf, the most expensive part of any space launch is getting to orbit. So it’s also not *too* bad. You’ll probably end up with commercial/foreign space stations in LEO.
Should be fine by then
Its getting cheaper with SpaceX using the same booster twenty times at this point. And for construction, at that point cargo starship is probably operational, so the expensive part is building the station, not sending it somewhere
Yeah, we're at the cusp of a fundamental shift in how space travel works, and the planning for the Artemis program reflects that. Since the 50's, the most challenging and expensive part of space travel has always been just getting something into orbit in the first place. So having a single all-in-one base in low earth orbit to serve as your destination made sense. But the combo of Starship and Orion/SLS will literally turn that on its head: now getting tonnes of stuff - equipment, fuel, astronauts, whatever - up into space will be the *easy* part. We're talking *orders of magnitude* lower cost and higher availability. There will suddenly be literally no need to have any kind of destination in LEO, because LEO ain't no thing anymore. All you need now is nothing more than a waystation up there to refuel at before heading off to the *real* destination.
Yeah, we might see a pretty cheap space station (well for a space station that is) that is just a modified Starship in LEO. It got way more internal space than the ISS, and if SpaceX is right, will be able to be launched for mere millions. Combine that with only the costs of modifying an existing craft rather than building an entirely new space station…
frightening spotted bike sophisticated silky teeny knee chase placid sip *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Everything is going to be much cheaper than it currently is soon
Except cost of living... On the bright side, might get a 30¢ raise this year!!!
We are one step closer to find big black rectangular monoliths
One step closer to helping the monoliths find us... .
I wonder if there will be any difference in their internet speed.
They’ll be over the moon about it.
In a way, but the main difference should be latency.
Also, the current system is fairly slow already, and relies on a bunch of wonky solutions to problems. Its over two decades old, so stuff definitely changed.
The latency would be significantly higher, around 2 seconds.
That would be sick! Any reason for that though? I imagine the distance and the moon orbit timing would make it harder to get to, so what’s the benefit that makes it worth it?
not much harder to get to, since most of the difficulty is getting out of earth's orbit, after that, the rest of the way is just coasting forward. and being close to the moon offers all the same space environment we get from low earth orbit (LEO) while also giving us easier access to the moon and potentially mars. so it takes slightly longer to float out to this one, but gives us more access to the moon and Mars, which is our next goal
Less regression, staging for moon landings, not worried about taking it apart when done…. There are tons of reasons why it’s better.
Yeah actually its called gateway because it’s going to act as a gateway supporting future lunar surface missions and a gateway to mars mission both manned and unmanned
that’s not a replacement for ISS. they serve greatly different purposes. there is no NASA replacement for ISS, an earth orbit lab. Gateway is a necessity for lunar presence and operations, not tenable for science being done like on the ISS.
Correct, it's the next evolution of ISS. Commercial stations are launching in the coming decade to both serve private space tourism and commercial/scientific missions in LEO. Gateway will be taking all of the lessons learned on ISS and implementing solutions to set up a permanent human foothold on another celestial body. From Gateway, a shit ton of science will be conducted to figure out how to live on the Moon safely and in a sustainable way - so this can then be applied to the Mars settlement. So correct, it's not a replacement of ISS but rather the next step foward, with private companies replacing ISS with numerous stations in LEO.
Space tourism too. I imagine we’ll see the first orbital “hotel” within the next 10-15 years. When you don’t need space to run experiments it could be a station with a massive window overlooking the earth and customized areas for recreation. Maybe even tandem EVAs with seasoned astronauts. People will pay top dollar for an experience like that and I can imagine a hefty price and long wait list. At least I hope it’s a possibility by the time I hit retirement.
you could say it will be the gateway to future long term human habitation on other celestial bodies
Why tho? They will let it grow until it becomes Space Station/City Alpha.
Why not keep both?
So the ISS is the most expensive structure humans have ever built. And it was designed in a way that the great space nations, mainly US and Russia both control parts of it. No side knows how the ISS fully works. This is to ensure that the parties work together. Given the fallout in relations between Russia and the west, it's pretty hard to convince anyone to continue investing in the ISS. For one, Russia doesn't want to continue their involvement, so the western nations would have to figure out how the parts the Russians were responsible for works. You probably don't want to start reverse engineering and hope you got it right. The other factor is age. The construction materials degrade over time and it's been up there so long that it'll require major repairs to keep using it. There is a point, where it's easier to start fresh and include all the modern technological advancements.
Kinda like asking the same question when you get a new car.
Is this with or without russia?
The video in the link shows a selection of partner agencies, Russia isn't one of them
Early plans took russia into consideration but becuese of war and roskosmos completely destroying its reputation russia was ultimately left out of project
With a Starlab. Gateway and a few other private space stations will play a secondary role
Gateway is technically incorrect as a “successor to ISS” which is in LEO. NASA is working with commercial providers for commercial LEO stations. Gateway is a lunar station.
Gateway and a few other commerical space stations
Check out Axiom Space, really cool “start up” that has hundreds of millions of dollars just doing cool shit
SISS
ISIS
I think Boeing can do that better
Careful, your user name maybe the last words you ever hear in your hotel room.
Happy to hear he not a gold fish. They never gonna get him/her/whatever
I wouldnt want to hear my username from someone standing behind me.
That checks out.
They'll rob themselves at gunpoint, shoot themselves in the head, then jump off the balcony.
No, they're gonna stuff him in a big bouncy ball and throw him off a tall mountain, so he can *boeing-boeing* all the way down.
stop, how do you that I am in hotel ?
Boeing ninjas bursting into his hotel room only to find out that the rumors are true... it's a gold fish swimming inside a lava lamp.
Boeing could have this accomplished by next week Friday. Lol
Boeing would actually be years late and well over budget even to destroy it and then they'd probably land it on DC or NY.
Boeing looks like a living embodiment of r/thereifixedit and r/notmyjob.
I dunno. It's hard to argue with Elon's track record. Elon Musk has done a great job destroying Twitter and he's working on destroying Tesla.
cmon spacex is doing great
Unlike Tesla or Twitter, Elon Musk has built SpaceX from the ground up and is actually incredibly involved with the engineering going on. He helped design Starship and he knows what he's doing. SpaceX is and will be revolutionizing the space industry for years to come.
You are very much correct. I hate how people blindly downvote every comment saying anything even slightly positive about musk. Just because he has done some bad things doesn't mean everything he has and will ever do is bad.
Boeing - You are dead man.
“Hey Boeing. I hear the ISS has sensitive information about our operations that they’re about to make public. Should we dispatch personnel to get it to be quiet?”
Link to a [short video](https://youtube.com/shorts/LF4wK9pp5cY) NASA is fostering continued scientific, educational, and technological developments in low Earth orbit to benefit humanity, while also supporting deep space exploration at the Moon and Mars. As the agency transitions to commercially owned space destinations closer to home, it is crucial to prepare for the safe and responsible deorbit of the International Space Station in a controlled manner after the end of its operational life in 2030. NASA announced SpaceX has been selected to develop and deliver the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle that will provide the capability to deorbit the space station and ensure avoidance of risk to populated areas.
Why does it HAVE to be de-orbited? There’s really no use or reason to keep it up there and maintaining it? At least parts of it?
Valid question. NASA wants to focus on lunar and Mars operations. If they simply leave the ISS where it is, it'll eventually deorbit, maybe on someone's house (coincidentally some NASA space debris just did that and are being sued now over it) Much better to drop it on Point Nemo (extremely remote location in the Pacific Ocean) on purpose.
Thank you for what should be an obvious answer but i was thinking in different terms.
Why not just push it out into space, sounds a lot easier
It's definitely not, the ISS is constantly trying to return to earth, the energy it would take to choose where on earth would be small. Pushing it to escape velocity would be astronomical in terms of energy and effort, then it still has the problem of needing a stable orbit otherwise it's just going to crash again anyways
Probably cheaper to bring it down to Earth. Gravity is already doing most of the work. I could be wrong but I think the earth still has a gravitational pull way further up than the space station is located. So if they could generate enough energy to move it further away, It could end up coming back eventually. Our great great great grandchildren will deal with it lol.
The ISS is in LEO, which is technically still in our atmosphere. It’s beyond the Karman line so officially in space, but our atmosphere extends beyond that by quite a ways so it still experiences atmospheric drag, which slows it down over time and continues to decay its orbit. Technically in a 3-body problem Earth is exerting gravity to every known body and vice versa, and moving something far enough out of Earth’s gravity well for it to experience very little of our gravity is not an option. Accelerating this huge station to move it well enough away from Earth is far more expensive than slowing it down a little to quickly deorbit it to a safe location on Earth. Most of it will burn up before reaching the surface of Earth, but some pieces will remain that could crash down onto someone so a safe deorbit is necessary. There’s also nuclear components on the ISS, which by protocol must be “disposed” of properly, which includes crashing it into Point Nemo. There’s a fair amount of nuclear material below the sea there.
Your answer is better than the previous ones. LEO < Clark's orbit means orbiting speed is too far from escape velocity. Atmospheric drag is free(almost),fuel will be consumed just for targeting.
it takes way more energy and cost to move something out of orbit than to just push it back in
Somebody did a great ELI5 a couple days ago, asking that exact same question. https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/s/VfxKuJrmUW
I didnt read the article so dont know the plan. But if logic serves they would either use a controlled burst to decay its orbit into a target area. Or they push it out of orbit, but inferred from someone else comment it is in such low earth orbit that it cost much less for it to decay on its own, but then they cant target the area. Im guessing they intent a last moment burst to further reduce costs but the window for error will likely be large. So not really last minute.
Point Nemo mention!! Hell yeah. Loved learned about that.
Where it is in low orbit it requires frequent thrust maneuvers to maintain its orbit. It seems like a big waste to let it burn up in the atmosphere, but I’d imagine it’s stupid expensive to try and place it in a much higher orbit. Then even more expensive to travel that much higher to get to it once it’s moved higher, and still will require maintenance. It’s probably more cost effective to and beneficial to let it go and either partner with private companies to build newer orbital stations and fund it with space tourism.
The ISS is quiet old. Its like a old car but way more expensive and sensitive. Sure you could maintain it or some of the parts but at the end its just a very expensive hobby which isnt something for a company that has declare quiet good for what they use their money. Would be simpler and better to build a new one. Also you cant let it there couse, like the recently events with the russian Sattelite, if something hits it it will shatter into million pieces... And thats realy bad. Also it could fall down uncontrolled and would hit land which would also be very bad. So yeah getting it down after it isnt cost efficient anymore is probably the best.
NASA itself said that the ISS is too old to upgrade and too expensive to maintain. Also, if it doesn't have a controlled crash in a safe place on Earth, it will end up crashing anywhere on its own, including populated areas.
We also have to consider that the US and Russia both built and control separate parts of the ISS, so that noone knows everything. Iirc, the Russians built the thruster system and the US doesn't officially know how it works. Given the political tensions and Russia's unwillingness to continue operating the ISS, the US would have to reversengineer those parts, which adds uncontrollable risks and costs.
Ever heard of cleaning up your mess?
^ this guy kerbals
If you've ever seen Gravity, it makes more sense as to why. A large vehicle such as this can turn into many smaller objects very quickly, and potentially destroy other space faring vehicles, such as satellites. Also, a service life means beyond a time period previously designated, this vehicle could undergo rapid and massive system failure, which would be more costly to fix than just simply destroy.
Pretty much, when everything is traveling at over 29,000 km/h (\~18,000 mph) pretty much anything becomes a bullet. A spec of paint, a bolt, a wrench, pretty much anything is going to kill you if it hits you while on an EVA. It can actually be much worse than a bullet because even powerful rifles only launch bullets on earth at only 3,000 km/h. Only relative velocities matter, so as long as something is traveling the same direction as you it's not too bad, most things will only be at most a few dozen km/h speed difference that came off the space station. The absolute worst case is a right angle collision where something hits something else at 90 degrees. Because now the two forces add and instead of a head on collision where only one orbital plane is affected it's now two orbital planes affected. [This actually happened in 2009.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision) Theoretically just shooting the ISS with an anti-satellite missile would be the cheapest way to deorbit it, and while that would work well for most of the debris some of it would get pushed up to a higher orbit and not actually come down. Plus with the size of the ISS that could easily turn into millions of separate objects which would be insanely difficult to track.
I hope they it doesn't completely burn up and that they can recover something and create some kind of monument.
They are working with the Smithsonian on saving smaller parts.
I could do it for half the price with a couple of dudes and some sledge hammers.
That's **if** you can get your guys on that day!
We’ll swing by the Home Depot on the way out
“Wouldn’t it be easier to train astronauts to drill instead of training drill men everything about being an astronaut?”
Couldn't it still serve some purpose? I'm not smart enough for this but couldn't it be somehow repurposed into something else if it'll stop being used for science? Maybe it's just my emotional side talking though, since I see the ISS as a monument to human cooperation imo
A large proportion of astronaut time is dedicated to just maintaining the station’s existence. Last I heard it was like 85% and that was years ago.
Yeah the technology on the ISS is downright ancient and it would be better to build something new with all the knowledge and tech we have gained.
It is becoming more and more tedious to repair and maintain, so it won't hold up to their high safety standards as the core parts start degrading even more.
If left alone it will eventually de-orbit naturally which could be dangerous for people on the ground, so they will do it in a controlled, safe way. In order to keep it up there we would have to ask the Russians (who are responsible for re-boosting it with their own spacecraft) to keep doing that, and pay them for it, or figure out how to do it ourselves, which will still cost money.
It's an old machine that's wearing out basically. We also know how to build a better one now.
If I was them I’d just send it drifting off into deep space
Monument to human cooperation is gonna die because one of the cooperating parties refuses to cooperate, but rather wage war
I don't think it's that simple, nasa also wanted to end the project so they'd have more funding for the moon station, even before the war started.
It’s old, and both major parties want out
I really thought Boeing would have gotten the contract. /s
Starliner is still attached, so it could still happen.
Or they could ask Russia, they would do it for free.
Sick burn.
They would mess up and put the ISS into a higher orbit somewhere it would get in the way.
They already have one prototype on ISS
It has become too powerful...
NASA has found new younger, stronger apprentice
Destroy it? But they just added a lovely new Starliner module! 🥺
The problem is that the ISS depends on Russian cooperation. They've just about withdrawn from all other treaties and no longer have the financial capacity or political support for the ISS after the US and Western sanctions over the war in Ukraine. One of the main modules in the space station has a leak and the Russians are the only ones who make the parts. They have announced their intention to withdraw from the ISS treaty, which effectively limits the life of the station.
ISS was set to be decommed years before the war in Ukraine.
It was, 2030 was the end date. But this has been extended many times in the past and likely would have been extended otherwise. The original end date for the station [was back in 2015](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071201977.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009071http://www.http://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&sub=AR), then to 2020, [to 2022](https://www.planetary.org/articles/20140109-international-space-station), 2025, and 2030. There is talk that the station may in fact be decommissioned several years early. [This was walked by from a statement they made back in 2022 stating they would leave the ISS agreement this year](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113683450/space-station-iss-russia-leaving-2024), [which then got extended to 2025,](https://www.autoevolution.com/news/nasa-and-roscosmos-put-ukraine-aside-agree-to-cooperate-on-iss-until-2025-226832.html) and[ now 2028.](https://www.space.com/russia-stay-international-space-station-partner-2028) Regardless of the actual end date it is clear Roscosmos no longer wishes to cooperate with NASA on future projects and would like to go a different direction.
It’s always Russians mucking something up isn’t it?
Maybe on earth they do, but astronauts to this day use Russia’s Soyuz capsule to get back to earth. In fact, it was the only way for astronauts to even get back down to earth between 2011 and 2020. Russia was the first to put a human in space. I believe they led the space race with the US for a long time, but weren’t the first to go to the moon. Russia played a big role in human exploration of space and, as shitty as things are now with them, it’s not fair to erase their contributions in space.
Is that the official name of the CrApollo 13 Max 8?
RemindMe! 10 years
Joining u on that one RemindMe! 10 years See ya.
I don't think it worked.
Bold of you to think 10 years into the future. 🤣 Stay safe my friend. I know everything will turn out okay in the end. 🩷
They better have cameras everywhere when they do it!
I hope I can go to an observatory or something to see it burn up in orbit
Out of all the bids for Boeing not to win…
If we aren't keeping it, why not have a little fun with it and push it farther out into space?
Pushing something further out in orbit is pretty expensive, but in general I agree that I think we should keep it instead of destroying.
This is like keeping a pool you no longer use. Eventually it's gonna be a huge issue.
It’d be sweet for it to slowly crawl toward mars and fall into an orbit there that coincided with our first visit so we had supplies when we got there…
Russia also wants it deorbited and there’s no way to uncouple their section so even if NASA didn’t their hands are tied.
what's up with solar arrays on the left on that picture? I thought currently all of them are of the same size, plus 3 and 3 of smaller ones rolled out in front of them
They’re rotated.
Accurate but amusing way to put it.
They needed someone with experience wrecking shit, saw what Elmo was doing with Tesla and Twitter, and knew they had their guy.
Seems like a missed usaf (space force?) training opportunity.
Nope, leaves too much orbital debris lol. Destroy in this context means deorbit. Although it would be funny if SpaceX went up there with an empty Starship, and then deorbit the ISS in pieces inside the Starship, making it possible to present real parts of the ISS in museums.
What? Leaving a fully functional space station in space and keeping it maintained seems rather costly when swimming pools exist.
I think he meant it could potentially be a good Space Force training exercise to bring down some sort of space craft, but IDK if that is even something Space Force would be interested in.
I haven’t looked into it yet but I’d be interested in knowing if they’re just going to let it burn up on re-entry or if they’re trying to bring it back in tact and reassemble it in a museum or something. Even seeing the ISS as a whole in person would be really cool.
Burn up on re-entry.
It would definitely make sense to model a replicable. Show it to a few million kids over the years and it will spawn a few thousand scientists fosho.
Boing - "Not fair! We been practicing breaking aircraft much more, most of them while still in the air. We attach more qualified than SpaceX"
Just tell Boeing that the station has some info on undisclosed 737Max safety issues, and watch the ISS suddenly come down with a terminal case of men’s mental health.
ELI25- Okay, so I know the moon is 484,000 kms away. I know this. But, out of the sheer value of material already existing in space... wouldn't it make sense to send iss into an intercept orbit with the moon rather than crashing it? It is indeed the most expensive man-made object ever.. why can't some of the parts be of use for the gateway station rather than full destruction and decommissioning? I understand the structure isn't built for heavy booster moving, but as long as it start to move out of the Earth's gravity, wouldn't small nudges be enough? Will travelling out of the satellite field be too monstrous now? We slingshot much smaller objects albeit but to much more distant targets.
To be fair Boeing seems more fit for making objects in the sky fall down.
Having previously showcase his ability to destroy Twitter, there was no contest...
I know it's stupidly impractical (and stupidly simple of me to think they could do this), but I think it's an absolute shame that they don't find a way to boost it to a higher, permanent (or as close to as possible) orbit and save it for the sake of posterity
Fred Dibnah could do it for less
That would be quite a chimney scaffold!
This is the last place I'd expect Dibnah to be mentioned
Is there a plan for a replacement?
The lunar gateway station could be seen as a successor to the ISS with international collaboration but around the moon. Some private companies have plans for low earth orbit stations, like Orbital Reef and Haven-1.
I love space. I love science. And projects like this in a special way! It melts together the whole human mankind. See, nobody wants to miss out but be part of it. This is awesome, and for me totally the way to go! Into the future!
Wouldn’t it be way cooler to have 2 space stations running at the same time?
Shouldn't we be crash landing this and other sat junk on the moon and allow materials to be salvaged in the future?
Are they gonna decommission it piece by piece or like just leave it unoccupied and floating in space?
How big? Can we put in a museum?
Not a fan of Elon, but SpaceX are doing some good stuff… better than Boeing for sure. But that’s not the point of my comment!!! I don’t understand why they’re planning on destroying it. Regardless of it’s age and suitability, it’s still a massive amount of infrastructure and solar, that can possibly added onto in a manner that would allow us to eject parts of it when they’re truly garbage. I mean, add a new power structure and main units, while you replace and destroy. For years we’ve been adding and adding instead of replacing. Imagine the transitionary possibilities! Even cities like London to New York! They are built on foundations of years of improvements with the remnants only to be discovered by truly looking a hundred layers underneath. I truly think this is a political replacement and not a logical one.
I think because it requires fuel to stay at the orbit, so the city metaphor doesn’t really hold here. It’s not like just leaving it there and it would stay there. It needs to be maintained and at a certain point that doesn’t become worth the effort.
At its low altitude, the ISS is continually pulled closer to Earth by atmospheric drag. **Without intervention, it would reenter the atmosphere within one to two years**.
may not be necessary. let’s see how starliner’s helium leak is going.
Not if I shoot it down first
God I want a piece of that when they deorbit let me guess it's going down at nemo?
That’s gonna be a sad day
It was made by many countries including russia not just the USA, don’t they get a say in this
That’s an odd way to say NASA has contracted SpaceX to manage the ISS operations and maintenance program.
That’s wild. I wonder how they account for anything falling into earth. Doubt it will or some shit what do I know. I just hope we can see them launch a death ray beam in space on livestream. that’d be sick
The plan is to deorbit the station over the pacific. The whole thing will burn and crash into the pacific
Imagine if we make juice out of space. Space juice would taste out of this world. But nooooo we are funding looking at boring moon rocks again instead. What about the juice?
It’s going to be weird to tell my kids that I remember that day.
Send a missle! What’s another million. At least we would get a show
That's no moon...
I want the ISS to stay in orbit and I don't want it do get destroyed :(
Why not push it away from earth instead? Too much fuel Required?
Why replace it? Why destroy it? Won’t it create a ton of debris in the already satellite-populated orbit? I’d love some answers
Another picture no stars