r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Busy_Yesterday9455 • 3d ago
NASA Selects SpaceX To Destroy The International Space Station In 2030s (Credit: NASA) Image
2.7k
u/kujasgoldmine 3d ago
What are they going to replace ISS with?
3.6k
u/Kuandtity 3d ago
Lunar gateway, basically the space station but orbiting the moon https://www.nasa.gov/mission/gateway/
1.2k
u/Emitex 3d ago
Holyy
594
u/PmMeYourTitsAndToes 3d ago
Coww
→ More replies (3)406
u/Adorable_Heretic 3d ago
New bovine just dropped
127
u/KevinFromIT6625 3d ago
Holyy M00n Cowws™
→ More replies (7)34
u/Laughing_Orange 3d ago
Moo response just dropped
11
→ More replies (2)20
→ More replies (4)24
338
u/Overwatcher_Leo 3d ago
I feel like there should still be a station in LEO. Getting to lunar orbit every time is a bit expensive.
276
u/emergency_poncho 3d ago
There are a bunch of commercial space stations in LEO being planned / under development
→ More replies (1)116
u/NagsUkulele 3d ago
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
→ More replies (4)47
u/pnwinec 3d ago
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. 🐵 🔪 😴 😠
→ More replies (2)21
u/A_wild_so-and-so 3d ago
It was a poor man's Heart of Darkness, but it was mostly watchable.
→ More replies (2)12
u/pnwinec 3d ago
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.
14
u/NagsUkulele 3d ago
The monkey and the moon sounds like a graphic novel I'd read in seventh grade
4
58
u/UltimateStratter 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (2)12
47
u/SiBloGaming 3d ago
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
→ More replies (1)15
u/Drunky_McStumble 3d ago
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.
6
u/SiBloGaming 3d ago
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…
6
u/Shredding_Airguitar 3d ago
They really serve different missions, Lunar Gateway is part of Artemis. It's really moreso a stepping stone for both moon and eventually Mars.
→ More replies (4)14
u/Pazzeh 3d ago
Everything is going to be much cheaper than it currently is soon
→ More replies (4)17
u/Throwaway56138 3d ago
Except cost of living... On the bright side, might get a 30¢ raise this year!!!
→ More replies (2)78
u/neuromancertr 3d ago
We are one step closer to find big black rectangular monoliths
→ More replies (3)16
54
u/HolyFreakingXmasCake 3d ago
I wonder if there will be any difference in their internet speed.
44
15
u/Either-Pizza5302 3d ago
In a way, but the main difference should be latency.
12
u/SiBloGaming 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)5
24
u/Tuckertcs 3d ago
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?
48
u/Glittering_Airport_3 3d ago
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
→ More replies (1)4
u/Darkwing270 3d ago
Less regression, staging for moon landings, not worried about taking it apart when done…. There are tons of reasons why it’s better.
→ More replies (2)3
55
u/dixontide23 3d ago
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.
39
u/P4ndamonium 3d ago
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.
6
u/StaticGuarded 3d ago
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.
5
u/Alarming_Panic665 3d ago
you could say it will be the gateway to future long term human habitation on other celestial bodies
→ More replies (1)13
12
u/Fu1gan 3d ago
Why not keep both?
17
u/PriorWriter3041 3d ago
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.
16
u/Fine_Peace_7936 3d ago
Kinda like asking the same question when you get a new car.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (62)6
u/historic_acuracy 3d ago
Is this with or without russia?
16
u/mike9874 Interested 3d ago
The video in the link shows a selection of partner agencies, Russia isn't one of them
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)4
u/Mariohgrum 3d ago
Early plans took russia into consideration but becuese of war and roskosmos completely destroying its reputation russia was ultimately left out of project
61
u/SquashInevitable8127 3d ago
With a Starlab. Gateway and a few other private space stations will play a secondary role
67
u/enzo32ferrari Interested 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (3)6
9
u/Studentloangambler 3d ago
Check out Axiom Space, really cool “start up” that has hundreds of millions of dollars just doing cool shit
→ More replies (8)2
4.1k
u/gold_fish_in_hell 3d ago
I think Boeing can do that better
1.0k
u/nikdsc5 3d ago
Careful, your user name maybe the last words you ever hear in your hotel room.
135
u/Gismo1337 3d ago
Happy to hear he not a gold fish. They never gonna get him/her/whatever
→ More replies (3)20
u/Squeal_like_a_piggy 3d ago edited 3d ago
I wouldnt want to hear my username from someone standing behind me.
→ More replies (1)32
u/Habbersett-Scrapple 3d ago
They'll rob themselves at gunpoint, shoot themselves in the head, then jump off the balcony.
19
u/-bassassin- 3d ago
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.
5
→ More replies (4)6
u/DonnyDonster 3d ago
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.
74
u/OopsAllLegs 3d ago
Boeing could have this accomplished by next week Friday. Lol
23
u/Wil420b 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)18
28
u/copingcabana 3d ago
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.
6
→ More replies (17)8
u/sibeliusfan 3d ago
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.
10
u/Professional_Job_307 3d ago
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.
7
→ More replies (18)2
u/flintlock0 2d ago
“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?”
737
u/Busy_Yesterday9455 3d ago
Link to a short video
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.
306
u/pabloescobarsnephew 3d ago
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?
495
u/ninj4geek 3d ago edited 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (16)147
u/Krondelo 3d ago
Thank you for what should be an obvious answer but i was thinking in different terms.
41
u/ejr204 3d ago
Why not just push it out into space, sounds a lot easier
162
u/EsotericHappenstance 3d ago
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
61
u/snooty_snoot 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (3)46
u/cheetahwhisperer 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (1)11
u/ionoftrebzon 3d ago
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.
6
u/Affectionate_Elk_272 3d ago
it takes way more energy and cost to move something out of orbit than to just push it back in
7
→ More replies (2)6
u/Krondelo 3d ago
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.
133
u/serephath 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (3)37
u/Smash_3001 3d ago
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.
27
u/SquashInevitable8127 3d ago edited 3d ago
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.
6
u/PriorWriter3041 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (1)9
3
→ More replies (27)3
u/MooselamProphet 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (1)6
u/nn123654 3d ago edited 3d ago
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.
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.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)7
u/elwood2711 3d ago
I hope they it doesn't completely burn up and that they can recover something and create some kind of monument.
11
372
u/Magister5 3d ago
I could do it for half the price with a couple of dudes and some sledge hammers.
55
23
u/DigNitty Interested 3d ago
“Wouldn’t it be easier to train astronauts to drill instead of training drill men everything about being an astronaut?”
→ More replies (1)
80
u/yes11321 3d ago
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
125
u/Launch_box 3d ago
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.
43
u/jacowab 3d 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.
→ More replies (2)17
u/Professional_Job_307 3d ago
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.
4
u/ConferenceLow2915 3d ago
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.
3
u/JustAnother4848 3d ago
It's an old machine that's wearing out basically. We also know how to build a better one now.
3
→ More replies (8)11
u/RedexSvK 3d ago
Monument to human cooperation is gonna die because one of the cooperating parties refuses to cooperate, but rather wage war
20
u/Designer_Version1449 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (1)6
467
u/drillpress42 3d ago
I really thought Boeing would have gotten the contract. /s
105
→ More replies (1)17
u/DigNitty Interested 3d ago
They would mess up and put the ISS into a higher orbit somewhere it would get in the way.
74
178
u/sarsnavy05 3d ago
Destroy it? But they just added a lovely new Starliner module! 🥺
79
u/nn123654 3d ago
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.
29
u/miniprokris2 2d ago
ISS was set to be decommed years before the war in Ukraine.
23
u/nn123654 2d ago edited 2d ago
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, then to 2020, to 2022, 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, which then got extended to 2025, and now 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.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Emperor_of_His_Room 3d ago
It’s always Russians mucking something up isn’t it?
→ More replies (1)8
u/pizza5001 2d ago
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.
11
20
u/Fit-Boomer 3d ago
RemindMe! 10 years
12
→ More replies (10)5
u/LeeryRoundedness 3d ago
Bold of you to think 10 years into the future. 🤣 Stay safe my friend. I know everything will turn out okay in the end. 🩷
23
u/Atman6886 3d ago
They better have cameras everywhere when they do it!
→ More replies (1)3
u/FUEGO40 3d ago
I hope I can go to an observatory or something to see it burn up in orbit
→ More replies (1)
33
34
u/PornoPaul 3d ago
If we aren't keeping it, why not have a little fun with it and push it farther out into space?
35
u/defeated_engineer 3d ago
Pushing something further out in orbit is pretty expensive, but in general I agree that I think we should keep it instead of destroying.
23
u/dReDone 3d ago
This is like keeping a pool you no longer use. Eventually it's gonna be a huge issue.
→ More replies (8)5
u/access153 3d ago
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…
→ More replies (5)3
u/archer_X11 3d ago
Russia also wants it deorbited and there’s no way to uncouple their section so even if NASA didn’t their hands are tied.
23
u/codesnik 3d ago
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
→ More replies (3)10
6
159
u/SemiProDolphin 3d ago
They needed someone with experience wrecking shit, saw what Elmo was doing with Tesla and Twitter, and knew they had their guy.
→ More replies (8)
24
u/Narrow-Height9477 3d ago
Seems like a missed usaf (space force?) training opportunity.
28
u/SiBloGaming 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (6)11
u/Flagrath 3d ago
What? Leaving a fully functional space station in space and keeping it maintained seems rather costly when swimming pools exist.
4
u/TanaerSG 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/HockeyHero53 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (1)3
4
u/ginga__ 3d ago
Boing - "Not fair! We been practicing breaking aircraft much more, most of them while still in the air. We attach more qualified than SpaceX"
3
u/Anon31780 3d ago
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.
3
u/Tormz1569 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/jcamm195 3d ago
To be fair Boeing seems more fit for making objects in the sky fall down.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/pipmpip 3d ago
Is there a plan for a replacement?
→ More replies (4)6
u/_Hexagon__ 3d ago
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.
3
u/Trackmaniac 3d ago
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!
3
u/DweeblesX 3d ago
Wouldn’t it be way cooler to have 2 space stations running at the same time?
→ More replies (3)
3
u/thievesguildbard 3d ago
Shouldn't we be crash landing this and other sat junk on the moon and allow materials to be salvaged in the future?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/FalseLad 3d ago
Are they gonna decommission it piece by piece or like just leave it unoccupied and floating in space?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/catfishman 2d ago
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
→ More replies (5)
6
9
u/NW-M-1945 3d ago
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.
23
u/KilowogTrout 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)13
u/nutstobutts 3d ago
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.
→ More replies (4)
3
2
2
u/Mr-Fister-the-3rd 3d ago
God I want a piece of that when they deorbit let me guess it's going down at nemo?
2
2
u/Billthepony123 3d ago
It was made by many countries including russia not just the USA, don’t they get a say in this
→ More replies (1)
2
u/FortunateInsanity 3d ago
That’s an odd way to say NASA has contracted SpaceX to manage the ISS operations and maintenance program.
2
u/SirFeetSniffer 3d ago
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
3
u/Harry_the_space_man 3d ago
The plan is to deorbit the station over the pacific. The whole thing will burn and crash into the pacific
→ More replies (1)
2
u/NotUndercoverReddit 3d ago
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?
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/No_Button_305 2d ago
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
→ More replies (1)
2.5k
u/elmachow 3d ago
The most expensive man made object in history. Good trivia question there