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

41–50 of 63 posts

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

#41

Post by oceanplexian »

rtkwe wrote: post #14

I believe it when there's a replacement launched, it's been about to be decommissioned for the last 2 decades with the same idea that there will be a commercial station to replace it and it always gets pushed back because space is still too damn expensive for anyone other than a government to put people up there. Maybe NASA's hand will be forced by the slow degradation of the structure from heat cycling causing leaks…

The entire ISS could be launched in 3, maybe 4 SpaceX Starship launches assuming Elon is correct about his claims for the payload.

To put in in perspective, the ISS required 36 Space Shuttle launches at a cost of $1.5B per launch ($54B). For that cost, assuming a pessimistic cost for Starship of $10M per launch (5,400/4 launches), you could launch 1,350 International Space Stations for the same price as the ISS cost to launch flying on the shuttle. To me it sounds not only realistic that we would launch a replacement but surpass it by 100x or 1000x.

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

#42

Post by jqpabc123 »

rtkwe wrote: post #16
jqpabc123 wrote: post #2

But what happens if the Chinese recover pieces of it from the ocean and figure out how to waste trillions of dollars to no good effect too? /sarcasm Wouldn't we have been much better served using all that money to figure out how to manufacture more/better microchips? The StarTrek fantasy will still be there in a century or two.

There's research that can only be done in space because the microgravity allows smaller forces to be isolated and studied in ways they can't be on Earth. For one example they can grow protein crystals better up there which allow studying their structure and finding medical interventions to treat the diseases associated with them. https://www.issnationallab.org/iss360/probing-proteins-lever...

So there is a "protein crystal disease"? How many people suffer from this?

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

#43

Post by iso1210 »

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.

Progress can boost because it docks on Zvezda. Dragon doesn't, so you'd need a new docking method.

There was a proposal to use a VASIMR ion engine as an experiment to boost ISS, but that proposal was dropped a few years back. Had it been kept and worked then perhaps it could have worked, but it used a lot of electricity to do so

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

#44

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

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.

That was 2 days ago?

Please make a dumb car (techcrunch.com)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30144101

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

#45

Post by JKCalhoun »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #27
JKCalhoun wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be nice if we could do both.

Yes. But unfortunately, the one being addressed won't have any real impact for generations while more immediate needs are being ignored. NASA has spent trillions studying the effects of weightlessness on people. In comparison, they have spent virtually nothing on protecting the plant from an asteroid strike or mitigating the effects of global warming --- both of which are way more pressing concerns. Studying people i…

Global warming, I agree, should be everyone's highest priority.

Asteroid strike ... hasn't it been a while since the Earth has seen one on a scale that would rival global warming? Worrying about an asteroid strike seems like something that has stirred the public imagination but has a crazy low likelihood.

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

#46

Post by throwaway0a5e »

londons_explore wrote: post #33
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.

> Probably moreso than a rover on mars that figures out the composition of some rock.

Over the past 20yr hose rovers had gone from "testing the composition of probably dead rocks" to "actively looking for signs of current or former microbial life". Even the landings have gone from "shoot the thing at the planet and wait to hear back from it" to a live-streamed helicopter drop. I think they've excliped the ISS in terms of excitement for the junior-high and above crowd. Skyping someone in a blue jumpsuit who's floating around in a tube doesn't have the cool factor that "literally on another planet" gets you.

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

#47

Post by WarChortle »

oceanplexian wrote: post #41
rtkwe wrote: post #14

I believe it when there's a replacement launched, it's been about to be decommissioned for the last 2 decades with the same idea that there will be a commercial station to replace it and it always gets pushed back because space is still too damn expensive for anyone other than a government to put people up there. Maybe NASA's hand will be forced by the slow degradation of the structure from heat cycling causing leaks…

The entire ISS could be launched in 3, maybe 4 SpaceX Starship launches assuming Elon is correct about his claims for the payload. To put in in perspective, the ISS required 36 Space Shuttle launches at a cost of $1.5B per launch ($54B). For that cost, assuming a pessimistic cost for Starship of $10M per launch (5,400/4 launches), you could launch 1,350 International Space Stations for the same price as the ISS cost…

We have come a long way from the late 90s and early 2000s when ISS was built. If NASA was properly funded I'm sure it would also be able to build a competing station cheaper/easier as well. ISS and NASA paved the way for SpaceX. So them being to do it cheaper isn't as impressive as it was bound to happen.

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

#49

Post by CookiesOnMyDesk »

oceanplexian wrote: post #41
rtkwe wrote: post #14

I believe it when there's a replacement launched, it's been about to be decommissioned for the last 2 decades with the same idea that there will be a commercial station to replace it and it always gets pushed back because space is still too damn expensive for anyone other than a government to put people up there. Maybe NASA's hand will be forced by the slow degradation of the structure from heat cycling causing leaks…

The entire ISS could be launched in 3, maybe 4 SpaceX Starship launches assuming Elon is correct about his claims for the payload. To put in in perspective, the ISS required 36 Space Shuttle launches at a cost of $1.5B per launch ($54B). For that cost, assuming a pessimistic cost for Starship of $10M per launch (5,400/4 launches), you could launch 1,350 International Space Stations for the same price as the ISS cost…

That would also be the first time Elon is correct about his claims, then.

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

#50

Post by iso1210 »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #40

Why not leave it and add more and more modules over time, until it is a giant space city?

Because it keeps falling down to earth due to the (very thin) atmosphere at that altitude slowing it down. To counteract that periodically it's boosted by a visiting Russian spacecraft, however that won't last forever. American spacecraft don't dock in the right location to allow the boost.

On top of that, old things require constant and increasing costs in maintenance. At some point it becomes more economical to build a new one than keep an old one running.

And in any case the value of keeping it running has to outstrip the cost of keeping it running, with the cost increasing, and the value not (It claims it's international, but China isn't involved, they have their own space station. With blackjack and hookers), and Russia can't afford it.

By 2031 SpaceX will hopefully have an orbiting Starship, that craft alone has an internal volume around the same as the entire Space Station's pressurised volume. If Starship is successful, a new station based on launching and docking skills built through the starship program, will be far better value for money.

Post reply on HN