ISS Discussion Thread

[Jeb_Needs_A_Parachute]

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?

[kerbiloid]

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

[jost]

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

[farmerben]

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.

[kerbiloid]

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.

[farmerben]

If ISS were crashed into the Moon, would all the debris land back on the lunar surface?

[cubinator]

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.

[StrandedonEarth]

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…

[magnemoe]

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. 

[RCgothic]

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

[kerbiloid]

Convair.

Spoiler

 

[Terwin]

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

[darthgently]

 

 

[tater]

 

[PakledHostage]

Is that someone's photo of the ISS through a telescope?

[tater]

16 minutes ago, PakledHostage said:

Is that someone's photo of the ISS through a telescope?

Yes!

[cubinator]

1 hour ago, tater said:

 

Mine is not so good, lol!  Still proud of it.

[darthgently]

48 minutes ago, tater said:

Yes!

Is that your photograph, tater?  Excellent photo whoever's it is

[tater]

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.

[PakledHostage]

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

[kerbiloid]

Wow! It's caught right in the full sun phase. The sun is almost round!

[PakledHostage]

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

[magnemoe]

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.