Why is it better to destroy the ISS than to elevate it to a graveyard orbit?

[cubinator]

1 hour ago, Hi_123 said:

While we're being unreasonable you could just strap parachutes and heatshields to it and see what happens.

They can construct the exhibit hall at the National Air & Space Museum with an open top, then land it directly there before building the roof.

[kerbiloid]

The problem is how to walk in the modules, attached radially (thus, vertically).

[CBase]

Is this reddit or a KSP forum ? Discussing graveyard orbits is okay, but if a safe destruction costs ~$1bn should we really consider recovering anything ? I mean we probably all watched IFT-3 tumbling and explode that was designed to reenter

Edited July 2 by CBase

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, CBase said:

Is this reddit or a KSP forum ? Discussing graveyard orbits is okay, but if a safe destruction costs ~$1bn should we really consider recovering anything ? I mean we probably all watched IFT-3 tumbling and explode that was designed to reenter

We are playing.  Because it is fun.  

[ColdJ]

Personally I reckon we take up a deconstruction crew and solar powered furnace. Strip out as much as possible from the interior. Melt down metal parts into ingots that you can use as raw materials. Remove the solar panels and deconsruct them down to a compact package. Then calculate and push the remaining station so that it eventually ends up in orbit of the moon. Then as we progress with future construction on the moon, dismantle, recycle materials for construction. It is already outside the main gravity well so it requires far less energy to move. We should be now be in the age of recycling, rather than push it at the earth and hope it doesn't go horribly wrong or just throw it away in space.

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, ColdJ said:

Personally I reckon we take up a deconstruction crew and solar powered furnace. Strip out as much as possible from the interior. Melt down metal parts into ingots that you can use as raw materials. Remove the solar panels and deconsruct them down to a compact package. Then calculate and push the remaining station so that it eventually ends up in orbit of the moon. Then as we progress with future construction on the moon, dismantle, recycle materials for construction. It is already outside the main gravity well so it requires far less energy to move. We should be now be in the age of recycling, rather than push it at the earth and hope it doesn't go horribly wrong or just throw it away in space.

Agreed.  It is known that the Moon is very carbon poor and nearly all carbon we need there will have to be shipped from Earth.  The ISS has a lot of carbon and is halfway there.

And, dang, some of those 40% efficient high tax dollar panels are only a few years old!  At least leave them bundled by the curb in a parking orbit for someone to freecycle at minimum.

[farmerben]

3 hours ago, ColdJ said:

Personally I reckon we take up a deconstruction crew and solar powered furnace. Strip out as much as possible from the interior. Melt down metal parts into ingots that you can use as raw materials. Remove the solar panels and deconsruct them down to a compact package. Then calculate and push the remaining station so that it eventually ends up in orbit of the moon. Then as we progress with future construction on the moon, dismantle, recycle materials for construction. It is already outside the main gravity well so it requires far less energy to move. We should be now be in the age of recycling, rather than push it at the earth and hope it doesn't go horribly wrong or just throw it away in space.

That's way more practical than any asteroid mining mission I've heard.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, CBase said:

safe destruction costs ~$1bn

They are trying to make you think so.

Actually, it costs a tonne of fuel before the cargo ship undocking.

5 hours ago, darthgently said:

We are playing.

Are we?

O...kay...

3 hours ago, ColdJ said:

we take up a deconstruction crew and solar powered furnace.

Next stations must be equipped with ropes, attached to the distant points of the station, and being winded on a drum.

On deorbiting, press a button, the electric motor starts rotating the drum, and pulling the ropes.

A minute later the station is compressed into a compact metal scrap ball.

Also, I still insist that the Life Support System must be renamed into Life Support & Self-Destruction System.

Before the station or the interplanetary ship comes into air, the (LS&DS)S must start electrolyzing all water supplies and fill the interior with oxyhydrogen.
On heating, it must make sparkles around the interior, and the fuel-air xplosion turns the heavy object into pieces which aerobrake and burn better.

1 hour ago, farmerben said:

That's way more practical than any asteroid mining mission I've heard.

They can start bombing the Moon with brass barrels of cyanic acid right now.

Cu, Zn, C, N, H - all in one.

[farmerben]

How many tons of fuel would it require to move the ISS into a lunar orbit?

[kerbiloid]

58 minutes ago, farmerben said:

How many tons of fuel would it require to move the ISS into a lunar orbit?

About three-four its masses.

And ten-twenty times more to lift this fuel to LEO.

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

About three-four its masses.

And ten-twenty times more to lift this fuel to LEO.

It has all of those panels.  If we aren't in a hurry could use ion.  Might need some petro to capture at Moon 

[Piscator]

Not in a hurry, indeed.

The ISS's solar panels have a power output of about 240 kW in direct sunlight. 50 Starlink Gen 2 ion thrusters (you can of course choose any brand you like, but I thought I go with something you might have 50 spares lying around somewhere) need about 210 kW and have a combined thrust of 6.5N (according to Wikipedia). For a mass of 450 metric tons, this translates to an acceleration of whopping 14.4 µm/s² or 1.25 m/s per day (so no worries about structural integrity, yay!). Since a trip to the moon requires a delta-V budget of about 4000 m/s you'd arrive in somewhat less than 9 years. This obviously ignores the mass of the required fuel and the fact that you would only get about half of the power output while still being in earth's shadow periodically. So better assume a decade, I guess.

Speaking of fuel, with a mass-specific impulse of about 25000m/s for the engine of choice, we get a wet to dry mass ratio of ~1.17 for this trip, by the way. This translates to 78 metric tons of - in this case - argon, which doesn't sound that bad actually.

Edited July 3 by Piscator
wrong units

[Qwotty]

Because moving it to a higher orbit risks collisions with space debris, potentially causing catastrophic Kessler Syndrome, while safe deorbiting prevents space junk and ensures a controlled, minimal-impact disposal.

The choice to deorbit the ISS rather than elevate it to a graveyard orbit primarily revolves around practicality and safety considerations, and to try to be contrarian about that by asking to elevate the ISS to a graveyard orbit instead (for reasons like "because it sounds cool") is like asking NASA to give you a free ride to the Moon on a space unicorn.  

In June 2024, NASA awarded a contract worth up to $843 million to SpaceX to build the deorbit vehicle as it works to secure funding, and, unless somebody's got a counter to that worth more money, then those that are in charge of the fate of the International Space Station are going sticking to the plan.

The ISS weighs around 420,000 kilograms—that's nearly half a million kilos of space station we're talking about moving up. Think multiple rocket launches, tons of propellant, and precision maneuvers that make landing on a comet seem like a cakewalk. There's a reason why space agencies plan missions meticulously and stick to the tried-and-tested methods of getting things done in space. You can't just slap on some boosters to give it enough delta-v to get to a higher orbit, do that burn, and call it a day, like you can in KSP. Leave the impractically fantastic maneuvers to the Kerbal Space Program cosmos instead. Moving the ISS to a higher orbit wouldn't be that simple.  It would involve complex calculations, massive amounts of fuel, and the coordinated efforts of international space agencies

And that's not even delving into the darker side of what could happen if the ISS was moved to a higher orbit without a care.

If we were to go ahead and boost the ISS to a higher orbit just because it sounds cool, we might as well hand-deliver it to cosmic chaos.
Higher orbits mean more exposure to space junk—tiny fragments, old satellites, and bits of asteroid debris that pepper our celestial playground. 
The ISS, with its sprawling solar panels and delicate modules, becomes a prime man-made spacecraft target for these space rocks to smash into.

One tiny collision, and we've got a chain reaction on our hands. Debris shattering into more debris, creating an entropic snowball effect that could turn our cozy corner of the cosmos into a junkyard nightmare. This is the type of butterfly effect people who are serious about mitigating/stopping Kessler Syndrome stay vigilantly wary of. 

We're not just talking about losing a space station here; we're talking about endangering every satellite, probe, and future mission in Earth's orbit. It's like playing cosmic Jenga with high-stakes consequences, where one wrong move could collapse the entire tower of space exploration.

So, before we get carried away with the notion of using motion to start moving the ISS to a higher orbit for the sheer thrill of it, let's remember that space isn't just a playground; it's a delicate frigid ecosystem in a partial vacuum where every action has a reaction, and nobody can hear you scream... unless it's over comms, or you're in a pressurized chamber.

As cool as I may think that it would be to be able to keep the ISS in space, I get why the choice has been made to stick to the plan to deorbit the ISS safely when its time comes, and hence keep our cosmic backyard clean and navigable for future generations of space pioneers. Because — in space, one tiny rock can rock the entire foundation of our interstellar ambitions.

 

[kerbiloid]

Because if leave it in any orbit, a century later the junk cleaners will be cursing those who left flying the unstable piece of toxic derelict garbage, so they have to risk for its disassembling and deorbiting.

It won't be a memorial station, it will be a heap of metal scrap without decayed organic part, bending and moving here and there, where you have to crawl inside every former module.

Spoiler

 

 

[ColdJ]

Here is a thought. Break it down and turn it into raw materials in orbit where it is. Then using new plans, use the raw materials to build a new station in the same place, infact also put in to place programs to catch and capture space junk and turn them into raw materials too.

A solar furnace is a structure that uses concentrated solar power to produce high temperatures, usually for industry. Parabolic mirrors or heliostats concentrate light (Insolation) onto a focal point. The temperature at the focal point may reach 3,500 °C (6,330 °F), and this heat can be used to generate electricity, melt steel, make hydrogen fuel or nanomaterials.

Melted metals are new and raw and lose the ageing they had devloped when they were parts. Toxic materials can be vapourised.

Even with new computers the basic structures still use the same materials. So you could create something new and lasting for a fraction of the cost, it would require far less than ferrying new materials up out of the gravity well.

The current sealed tube structures could be converted to workers habitats and construction could be done by remote controlled building drones to minimise the need for space walks.

They aready talk about turning regolith on the Moon into building materials, this would be easier.

This could even start the begining of a spacedock for ship construction in orbit.

[farmerben]

According to wikipedia the altitude of ISS decays by 2km per month.  There is still some air up there at 420km.   So we have 13 years to wait before it de-orbits itself.  Supposing we want it over the pacific ocean, we could wait till the last minute and do it on the cheap.

[darthgently]

35 minutes ago, ColdJ said:

Here is a thought. Break it down and turn it into raw materials in orbit where it is. Then using new plans, use the raw materials to build a new station in the same place, infact also put in to place programs to catch and capture space junk and turn them into raw materials too.

A solar furnace is a structure that uses concentrated solar power to produce high temperatures, usually for industry. Parabolic mirrors or heliostats concentrate light (Insolation) onto a focal point. The temperature at the focal point may reach 3,500 °C (6,330 °F), and this heat can be used to generate electricity, melt steel, make hydrogen fuel or nanomaterials.

Melted metals are new and raw and lose the ageing they had devloped when they were parts. Toxic materials can be vapourised.

Even with new computers the basic structures still use the same materials. So you could create something new and lasting for a fraction of the cost, it would require far less than ferrying new materials up out of the gravity well.

The current sealed tube structures could be converted to workers habitats and construction could be done by remote controlled building drones to minimise the need for space walks.

They aready talk about turning regolith on the Moon into building materials, this would be easier.

This could even start the begining of a spacedock for ship construction in orbit.

I can't stop thinking about the astronomical taxpayer costs (advanced materials, arcane manufacturing, horizontal and vertical transportation, and ground and astronaut labor) for those huge next-gen multi-layer Galium Arsenide PVs that were recently installed.  A lot of items should simply be reused as is, not smelted or deorbited.

Those panels would be fine on an ISS replacement or a commercial station.  Once the ISS is uncrewed, give permission to qualified operations to scavenge what they can via a bidding process. Heck, let the Chinese come and get the panels.  Just don't trash them, dammt

Or how about making uninstalling and securing the panels and other useful hardware and materials a testbed for robotic space operations?  A great way to further development of bots from Boston Dynamics, Tesla, etc.  If all this talk about roboticly building ISRU, landing pads, bases, orbitals, cities, etc has any thing to it then dismantling the ISS should be doable and a great learning opportunity

[kerbiloid]

A conspirological version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balneotherapy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

If the biotech experiments onboard of previously Mir and now ISS include the production of some mysterious goo, used for the world tops therapy, making them feel good in their 100 (and if it's the real reason of the NASA and Roscosmos pairing since far past, and that's why the perfomance with the destroyed Tselina sat didn't break it, but vice versa, strengthened, resulting into the counterpart's overseer, flying on every regular spaceship of both parties, and that's why the Raduga capsules had been replaced with Space Shuttles , then with Soyuzes, then with Dragons and Soyuzes, providng unbreakable international overnational chain of delivery from orbit to ground, and that's why the Shuttles started visiting Mir after the Priroda biotech module had started its doing, and that's why the Roerikhs' banner had been put in Priroda first short-term from operational start, then long-term until the Mir dismission), then it looks reasonable that the fancy hotel of Axiom is going to be launched asap, and start from the ISS extension, and the billionaires are expected to willingly risk their lives for a stupid entertainment.

In this case, the Axiom may be actually not a hotel, but a therapeutical spa, requiring for some reasons the zero-g surrounding and/or something else (say, UV bath in that silly looking transparent cylinder); right next to the biotechnological mystery goo source.
Of course, when you are 70+, the risk of 1:100 for such prize looks funny.

In this case, nobody will deorbit the ISS, but it can be turned into the orbital object for the world elites, living and curing inside the Axiom modules.

Also in this case the future ISS elimination is not a question, but a logical event, the covering of any traces. And thus no plans of its museumification are viable.

This version btw gives to the ISS its unclear purpose of still lasting in the age of robots, and would also explain the NASA funding of the 1990s Russian space program. (The Russkies had a station with Priroda and mystery goo, the 'Muricans were having just shuttles, while mystery goo maybe needs months to grow.)

Edited July 3 by kerbiloid

[farmerben]

30 years and what do we have to show for it?  We can't even breed mice in zero-G.  Has there been any great discovery from this program?

[PakledHostage]

5 minutes ago, farmerben said:

 Has there been any great discovery from this program?

Arguably,  the biggest advances are learning how to live and stay healthy in zero G. A trip to Mars is a 3+ year long mission, round trip. That's longer than anyone's stay aboard the ISS. Simply saying "Hold my beer" and going for it probably isn't the best way to ensure a successful extended mission like that. When it finally happens, the ISS program will have contributed to the success of the first manned mission to Mars.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

A conspirological version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balneotherapy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

If the biotech experiments onboard of previously Mir and now ISS include the production of some mysterious goo, used for the world tops therapy, making them feel good in their 100 (and if it's the real reason of the NASA and Roscosmos pairing since far past, and that's why the perfomance with the destroyed Tselina sat didn't break it, but vice versa, strengthened, resulting into the counterpart's overseer, flying on every regular spaceship of both parties, and that's why the Raduga capsules had been replaced with Space Shuttles , then with Soyuzes, then with Dragons and Soyuzes, providng unbreakable international overnational chain of delivery from orbit to ground, and that's why the Shuttles started visiting Mir after the Priroda biotech module had started its doing, and that's why the Roerikhs' banner had been put in Priroda first short-term from operational start, then long-term until the Mir dismission), then it looks reasonable that the fancy hotel of Axiom is going to be launched asap, and start from the ISS extension, and the billionaires are expected to willingly risk their lives for a stupid entertainment.

In this case, the Axiom may be actually not a hotel, but a therapeutical spa, requiring for some reasons the zero-g surrounding and/or something else (say, UV bath in that silly looking transparent cylinder); right next to the biotechnological mystery goo source.
Of course, when you are 70+, the risk of 1:100 for such prize looks funny.

In this case, nobody will deorbit the ISS, but it can be turned into the orbital object for the world elites, living and curing inside the Axiom modules.

Also in this case the future ISS elimination is not a question, but a logical event, the covering of any traces. And thus no plans of its museumification are viable.

This version btw gives to the ISS its unclear purpose of still lasting in the age of robots, and would also explain the NASA funding of the 1990s Russian space program. (The Russkies had a station with Priroda and mystery goo, the 'Muricans were having just shuttles, while mystery goo maybe needs months to grow.)

If so as in you could get radical life extension in space I would expect we already had lots more old space tourists to the IIS. And much more focus on commercial manned spaceflight and probably an private station larger than IIS only for this.
Add huge effort to replicate this on the ground, $ 100 billion is cheap for an patent for an more affordable patent of this. 

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

If so as in you could get radical life extension in space I would expect we already had lots more old space tourists to the IIS. And much more focus on commercial manned spaceflight and probably an private station larger than IIS only for this.

The hypothetic mystery goo is rare, and the club is private.

Not every billionaire deserves the old aristocracy club membership.

1 hour ago, farmerben said:

We can't even breed mice in zero-G.

The quails have been born at least twice (not healthy, of course), but the mystery goo doesn't need gravity, like any other microbiological culture. Maybe the space station conditions are what it actually needs. Microgravity, zerogravity, hydro zero-g.

***

Also we know that the human organism is affected by zero-g very much, maybe it helps with goo therapy.

And it would undoubtly require all those long-term orbital health studies for both patients and the personnel.

Also, it would deserve the SpaceX zerg rush much better than Mars.

***

In this case we are discussing the best way to make the potential elite spa unworkable by putting it into worse orbit , lol.

Actually, this is why I'm watching the Axiom project with interest.

Edited July 3 by kerbiloid

[kerbiloid]

_multipost

Edited July 3 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

On 7/3/2024 at 4:33 PM, darthgently said:

I can't stop thinking about the astronomical taxpayer costs (advanced materials, arcane manufacturing, horizontal and vertical transportation, and ground and astronaut labor) for those huge next-gen multi-layer Galium Arsenide PVs that were recently installed.  A lot of items should simply be reused as is, not smelted or deorbited.

Those panels would be fine on an ISS replacement or a commercial station.  Once the ISS is uncrewed, give permission to qualified operations to scavenge what they can via a bidding process. Heck, let the Chinese come and get the panels.  Just don't trash them, dammt

Or how about making uninstalling and securing the panels and other useful hardware and materials a testbed for robotic space operations?  A great way to further development of bots from Boston Dynamics, Tesla, etc.  If all this talk about roboticly building ISRU, landing pads, bases, orbitals, cities, etc has any thing to it then dismantling the ISS should be doable and a great learning opportunity

Think problem is the inclination who is much higher than an new US station who only need to reach Florida, EU launch at equator. Russia might be interested in parts for their own future station and think they are the only interested. 
China next station will probably also have an lower inclination as they are moving to the south coast for new rockets. 

[Kekkie]

On 7/1/2024 at 4:53 PM, Lisias said:

I would strap some deployable lifting surfaces on it, and then glide her into a nice and smooth splashdown...

  Reveal hidden contents

(yeah, right )

Oukey, who will start the Thread for this Challenge?

Done!