Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

#31

Post by jqpabc123 »

bgun wrote: post #10
jqpabc123 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we need the ISS so we can use taxpayer money to fund billionaires to develop rockets to launch to the ISS? See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning Where would we be without SpaceX? Pretty much where we are now --- struggling to find enough chips to build cars and Raspberry PIs.

While HN complains that we want cars without chips to begin with.

HN is just a web site where people can post opinions. "HN" doesn't complain --- you can't reasonably attribute one post to "HN".

Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

#32

Post by dgrin91 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #13

I never understood why a free-fall from space with a parachute would not work. (I bring this up because I would propose bringing down sections of ISS with extremely large parachutes.) I get there is no air in space, and how thin it is as you approach the Earth's surface. But it is a gradient after all. If a falling body begins to heat up, that suggests it has entered a region with some atmosphere — and so some parach…

The idea has some theoretical merit to it, but the math doesn't add up at all when you run the numbers. The size and strength of the parachutes you would need would be massive. Much bigger than anything today. Don't forget you also need to bring up the parachutes and somehow attach them to the iss in a way where the stress of the deceleration won't snap the iss in half (hint: not possible).

I think this is better demonstrated as a smaller scale thought experiment. Consider the various space capsules over time, from Mercury & Apollo all the way through to dragon. They all use parachutes, but not until late in the landing process. That's because they all use the upper atmosphere as a method of slowing down, and they can't use a parachute up there because, again, the numbers don't work.

Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

#33

Post by londons_explore »

hakko wrote: post #26

The ISS takes over 10% of NASA's budget at over $3b/year in maintenance, so they won't be able to take care of it and sustain their proposed moon mission at the same time. Plus the low-hanging fruit for research has already been performed. My unpopular opinion is that manned spaceflight is an expensive national vanity project for modest research gains, and the projects that have been most successfull from a science p…

> modest research gains

You also have to add in the PR benefits of each. If children aren't interested in space today, there won't be any government funding for space missions when those children become voters.

In that light, dropping manned missions entirely will probably reduce interest in space quite a bit. Probably moreso than a rover on mars that figures out the composition of some rock.

Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

#34

Post by bob1029 »

pc86 wrote: post #7
tedchs wrote: post #6

Crazy idea: are there enough space nerds who would pay for a small momento piece of ISS that it might be worthwhile to disassemble it in space and bring parts back to Earth?

Even if you broke it into thousands of pieces and brought it back I think the cost would be astronomical. You've got to launch a craft up to take it apart and bring pieces back, potentially multiple times, compared to the cost of just blasting it into the water.

> the cost would be astronomical

Absolutely. But, I think we may be also be underestimating the size of the market for things like this... Just search for Enron coffee mugs or pokemon cards on Ebay.

Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

#35

Post by gameswithgo »

fernandopj wrote: post #28
_Microft wrote: post #12

Idea: gently boost it into a much higher orbit, leave it there and designate it as (one of) the first Space Heritage Site(s).

I don't think it can just be a "gentle" nudge, it is a massive body and must need a rocket-level thrust to do so, but really, I agree with the idea. Why not? Dock a custom Dragon with thrust capabilities, put in a higher, more stable orbit. Doesn't even has to be circular, just so we can visit it in the near future.

Pretty sure you can ion thruster it if you are patient

Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

#36

Post by gameswithgo »

0xFFFE wrote: post #25
_Microft wrote: post #12

Idea: gently boost it into a much higher orbit, leave it there and designate it as (one of) the first Space Heritage Site(s).

You need to keep it fueled for it to maintain whatever orbit it gets pushed into. Orbital decay and everything.

If the orbit is higher it can last for thousands or millions of years

Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

#37

Post by Nbox9 »

Someone wrote: post #22
_Microft wrote: post #12

Idea: gently boost it into a much higher orbit, leave it there and designate it as (one of) the first Space Heritage Site(s).

First? Neil Armstrong’s footprints on the moon already are somewhat protected ( https://astronomy.com/news/2021/01/neil-armstrongs-bootprint... )

Wouldn’t that be a _lunar_ heritage site, not a _space_ heritage site?

Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

#38

Post by _Microft »

fernandopj wrote: post #28
_Microft wrote: post #12

Idea: gently boost it into a much higher orbit, leave it there and designate it as (one of) the first Space Heritage Site(s).

I don't think it can just be a "gentle" nudge, it is a massive body and must need a rocket-level thrust to do so, but really, I agree with the idea. Why not? Dock a custom Dragon with thrust capabilities, put in a higher, more stable orbit. Doesn't even has to be circular, just so we can visit it in the near future.

If I remember correctly, a constant thrust of only 5 Newton (for comparison that’s the weight of a mass of 0.5kg on Earth) would be enough to counteract drag of the atmosphere on the ISS. That’s in the range of an electric propulsion systems like VASIMR that is under active development. Any higher thrust than that would automatically lead to orbit raising.

Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean

#39

Post by gameswithgo »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #13

I never understood why a free-fall from space with a parachute would not work. (I bring this up because I would propose bringing down sections of ISS with extremely large parachutes.) I get there is no air in space, and how thin it is as you approach the Earth's surface. But it is a gradient after all. If a falling body begins to heat up, that suggests it has entered a region with some atmosphere — and so some parach…

The problem is you are moving on the order of 20,000 mph laterally, you are not just falling straight down. You could make this work with something sufficiently large and light though. Like if the ISS were made of only carbon fiber and emptied of everything, maybe.
Post reply on HN