I wonder if there is a way to ditch the ISS without contributing to oceanic pollution. I get that this is likely a low-cost solution (disassembling it and transporting it wouldn't be cheap) but it would be nice to not contribute to the trash already floating around.
NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean
51–60 of 63 posts
Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean
#52I 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…
Launching isn't the only thing you need to do to build a replacement, there's building it twice: once on Earth and again in space. The ISS was assembled largely by hand by astronauts working out of the Space Shuttle which has an airlock that none of the current capsules have so they'll have to work out of a seed station launched in a single go or we'll have to wait for a crew Starship. That's a long ways off even if you don't account for Musk's habit of promising things are coming soon.
Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean
#53I 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…
The cost of the ISS was not just the launches. The modules themselves were massively expensive to design, build, and test before they ever made it into a payload bay. For example, the Tranquility + Cupola modules together cost $400M just to build. This wouldn’t change that much just because the launch costs go down, even with newer tech (Bigelow modules would still cost on the order of $100M a pop). If you want to put humans in space for long periods of time without killing them, the things you put them into are going to be complex and expensive.
To me it would make a lot more sense to boost the ISS to a higher orbit so future industry can repurpose the materials on it, rather than throw the entire thing away because it’s old.
Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Yes lots of diseases manifest as malformed proteins, to understand them you need to know the structure of the protein which is commonly done using x-ray crystallography which requires growing a crystal made of the thing you're studying. It's the way we learned the shape of DNA and a fundamental process for studying a lot of biological systems. Growing those crystals is tough on Earth because of gravity so they grew some on ISS they'd never managed to grow on Earth.
Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean
#55I wonder if there is a way to ditch the ISS without contributing to oceanic pollution. I get that this is likely a low-cost solution (disassembling it and transporting it wouldn't be cheap) but it would be nice to not contribute to the trash already floating around.
As long as you remove any toxic stuff ahead of time, dumping the metal isn't so bad. It will become a thriving ecosystem on the ocean floor.
Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean
#56Idea: 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.
Orbital decay comes from something. At some distance from Earth, you run out of somethings (most critically: atmosphere) decaying an orbit.
So past a certain distance, orbits are effectively "forever" ones.
It just takes more energy to get there, which is why the ISS is where it is.
Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Well, the moon _is_ in space...
;)
Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's been a while --- but most scientists consider a significant asteroid strike to be a near certainty --- they just can't say when. Based on *known* asteroids, the probability by 2300 has been calculated at about 1 in 2000.
But don't relax just yet, we find previously unknown asteroids all the time. Just last year, one (2021 UA1) flew by Antarctica undetected until after it has passed at a distance of about 1400 miles.
But even if we detect one, there is no real working plan in place to try and deflect it. Thanks NASA --- this is why we give you the big bucks!
Physicist Stephen Hawking, in his final book, Brief Answers to the Big Questions, considered an asteroid collision to be the single biggest threat to the planet.
Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
So there is a "protein crystal disease"? How many people suffer from this?
Yes lots of diseases manifest as malformed proteins, to understand them you need to know the structure of the protein which is commonly done using x-ray crystallography which requires growing a crystal made of the thing you're studying. It's the way we learned the shape of DNA and a fundamental process for studying a lot of biological systems. Growing those crystals is tough on Earth because of gravity so they grew s…
...they grew some on ISS they'd never managed to grow on Earth.
It's nice they were able to grow some crystals that never occur on earth because of --- gravity.
But is this valuable in any way back on earth? Highly doubtful. Probably about as productive as funding for an anti-gravity device on earth --- which the military is doing by the way.
Re: NASA plans to retire the ISS by 2031 by crashing it into the Pacific Ocean
#60I 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 ISS was years from being finished two decades ago. It was still getting new modules in the 2010s. Your timeline is way off, so you might want to double check whatever your basis is for thinking this is a recurring call over two decades.
For historical context: the first module didn't launch until November 1998. The Cupola everyone loves to see in photos was 2010. The current tech boom is older than the finished ISS.