Jeb_Needs_A_Parachute Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 The plan was originally to deorbit in multiple segments. Some components such as the solar panels are still usable for a long time, but the pressurised components need to be deorbited for safety. Maybe leave the useful components up for further use with a tug module but deorbit the others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 (edited) The main problem with any used stuff reusage is that the cost of space crafts is overpriced by orders of magnitude. Any rocket, any spaceship, any space station module is just a big alumagnium/alulithium cistern with not-a-rocket-science common-use equipment inside, and several expensive single-use components, like main engines for the rockets, dedicated experiment tools for the modules (which usually becomes a bulky and heavy scrap after several months of usage for that exact experiment). The most part of the cost is not the hardware cost itself, but the salary and other payments of all involved personnel besides the engineers and workers, who put their signs, discuss, guard, control, and service the former ones. All those bureucratic rituals result into years of development of every space object instance, and thus years of monthly payments for all these bureaucracy games. Thus, there is no sense in saving or reusing of most part of the space hardware. Its own cost is nothing, compared to the human budget games. Just compare a spaceship to a passenger plane, or a bomber, or a cruise ship. Both small Orion and oceanic cruise liner cost about a billion. The same with everything other everywhere in the world. It's a pure nonsense, having nothing common with technical efficiency and efficacy. Edited July 19 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jost Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, kerbiloid said: The main problem with any used stuff reusage is that the cost of space crafts is overpriced by orders of magnitude. Any rocket, any spaceship, any space station module is just a big alumagnium/alulithium cistern with not-a-rocket-science common-use equipment inside, and several expensive single-use components, like main engines for the rockets, dedicated experiment tools for the modules (which usually becomes a bulky and heavy scrap after several months of usage for that exact experiment). The most part of the cost is not the hardware cost itself, but the salary and other payments of all involved personnel, who put their signs, discuss, guard, control, and service the former ones. All those bureucratic rituals result into years of development of every space object instance, and thus years of onthly payments for all these bureaucracy games. Thus, there is no sense in saving or reusing of most part of the space hardware. Its own cost is nothing, compared to the human budget games. Just compare a spaceship to a passenger plane, or a bomber, or a cruise ship. Both small Orion and oceanic cruise liner cost about a billion. The same with everything other everywhere in the world. It's a pure nonsense, having nothing common with technical efficiency and efficacy. I wouldn‘t call regulation nonsense, without it you end in a death trap like Oceangates Titan sub. Apart from this you are spot on: Stuff is expensive due to the needed staff and regulation thus reusing isn‘t the good idea people think it is Edited July 19 by jost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmerben Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 Too bad the solar panels cannot be recycled. Even in lunar orbit there is some air resistance, it would decay and crash over several decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 2 hours ago, jost said: I wouldn‘t call regulation nonsense, without it you end in a death trap like Oceangates Titan sub. Apart from this you are spot on: Stuff is expensive due to the needed staff and regulation thus reusing isn‘t the good idea people think it is It's more effective to use LES even every second flight than to make the rocketship cost like a hundred of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmerben Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 If ISS were crashed into the Moon, would all the debris land back on the lunar surface? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 21 minutes ago, farmerben said: If ISS were crashed into the Moon, would all the debris land back on the lunar surface? Hard to be sure. Better crash it into Jupiter instead, just to be safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 19 hours ago, cubinator said: Hard to be sure. Better crash it into Jupiter instead, just to be safe. I dunno. Only way to be sure is drop it into the Sun. Or a black hole… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 20 hours ago, farmerben said: If ISS were crashed into the Moon, would all the debris land back on the lunar surface? Yes as Pe is negative, now if you ram something into the moon at an flat highland at an shallow angle some parts might enter en very low Pe orbit. I once crashed an stack of rovers in KSP into the Mun as landing stage was faulty, deorbit at an Mun sea, some parts ended up on the other side of the Mun, but I did not plan for an touch and go impact. Could be an fun KSP challenge, yes solution is to have an long ship and have lower part impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) On 7/19/2024 at 10:11 AM, jost said: reusing isn‘t the good idea people think it is And yet the only company that regularly reuses anything has a profit margin so large it can simultaneously deploy a mega constellation, develop a rocket three times as powerful as Saturn V, and crush the only other bidder for the ISS de-orbit vehicle so absolutely that it sparked an article that gist of which is: "Wow. How can anyone else compete?" Edited July 25 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Convair. Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) 2 hours ago, RCgothic said: And yet the only company that regularly reuses anything has a profit margin so large it can simultaneously deploy a mega constellation, develop a rocket three times as powerful as Saturn V, and crush the only other bidder for the ISS de-orbit vehicle so absolutely that it sparked an article that gist of which is: "Wow. How can anyone else compete?" There is a huge difference between reusable by design and ad-hoc reuse I would put the shuttle half way between at 'designed for cost-plus refurbishing' Designed for reuse is great at reducing costs, as opposed to ad-hoc reuse which is often reminiscent of the 'red-neck' culture which uses it extensively, often under ridicule from other cultures. (Although in space flight, 'kerbal' may be a more appropriate term, considering the number of parts supplied by 'jebs junkyard ' ) Yes it feels wasteful to destroy 'almost new' equipment in orbit, but the cost of refurbishment may well be higher than the cost of sending up new, purpose -built and tightly secured equipment. Both getting to space and operating in space are very expensive. As such, things that are a no-brainer in your back-yard are just wasteful in space. Edit: consider the costs of multiple EVAs vs a custom designed, single use robot vs making new panels and launching them attached to the vessel that needs them Edited July 25 by Terwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Is that someone's photo of the ISS through a telescope? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 16 minutes ago, PakledHostage said: Is that someone's photo of the ISS through a telescope? Yes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 hour ago, tater said: Mine is not so good, lol! Still proud of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 48 minutes ago, tater said: Yes! Is that your photograph, tater? Excellent photo whoever's it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 hour ago, darthgently said: Is that your photograph, tater? Excellent photo whoever's it is No, credit is on the image. Saw it on X, but easier on here to paste a jpg than an X link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 (edited) On 7/31/2024 at 5:53 PM, cubinator said: On 7/31/2024 at 5:53 PM, cubinator said: Mine is not so good, lol! Still proud of it. Here's a composite one I did a few years ago of the ISS transiting the Sun: I should add that I used transit-finder.com to predict the transit, and a GPS for the timing of the exposure. (Typical transits last on the order of 1 second.) Edited August 6 by PakledHostage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 Wow! It's caught right in the full sun phase. The sun is almost round! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 (edited) I would love to see what someone could do with a hydrogen alpha filter on a telescope, for one of these transits. I just used a 600 mm lens (on a camera with a 1.6 crop factor sensor size, for an effective focal length of 960 mm), and a regular solar filter. Edited August 6 by PakledHostage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 On 8/1/2024 at 1:37 AM, tater said: That is impressive, I was sure it was shot from an capsule approaching but they would made an color image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.